« #8- The Emory and Henry Formation | Main | The Emory and Henry Philly Phlashback »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Not sure Mike is saying Foles limited the offense just that when you purely look at the running game he is very limited compared to even an Alex Smith


Yeah, as I mentioned, I am not calling out Mike. He just gave me a funny quote to build my original post on.

In the end, the question is, does he have the minimum level of athleticism to keep this offense moving and productive. Based on what he did in 2013, and based on how Chip is tweaking the offense, I would say yes.

I would love it if Foles were more mobile, but in general, the more athletic the QB gets, the less skilled and developed they are as a passer. I know that's a gross over-generalization and there are exceptions (Luck, Rodgers, etc.).

When you look at the mobile QBs with "elite" athleticism for a QB, I think the most of them are far less efficient as passers than Foles:

Russell Wilson
RGIII (debateable)

Cam Newton
Mike Vick
Alex Smith

I think several of these guys would contribute to a pretty dynamic Chip Kelly offense, however a lot of them would be diminished a little based on their shortcoming as passers.

And after going through several eras with exciting and athletic QBs who had limitations in the pass game, I am welcoming something new.

Dan in Philly

IMHO, Chip Kelly can make his offense work with a number of different QBs who possess a number of different skill sets. The whole "Franchise QB" dynamic more relevant only if all else is equal - that is to say if all QBs ran the same system with the same personnel, the best QB would run it the best and we could more easily tell them apart.

Chip Kelly seems to have a different mindset that most coaches. Most coaches want to run their offense and plug the most qualified QB into it. Since there is a lot of same old same old (copycat) in the NFL, this means most have a standard to look for in a top flight QB, and Foles does not have some of those qualities.

Chip has said over and over that he is not married to one kind of offense, but will tailor his offense to fit his personnel. This means if he has a running QB, he has an offense which maximizes that quality. If he has a tall slow QB, he designs an offense to make that QB succeed, rather than trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. I think Foles is plenty good enough to give Kelly something to work with to win, just as Vick did (when healthy) despite being pretty different kinds of QBs.

That's one reason why, despite the fact I'm pretty high on Foles, I think the Eagles O will be better than average if he goes down. Barkley entering his second year or Sanchez with a real genius to work with should be able to do enough damage.

At the end of the day, I'm a Chip Kelly fan.


when i'm dating someone i never think about how perfect life would be with someone else's girlfriend.


Anon: Yes you do.

To the general point, despite showing the ways in which Foles was effective at running, I don't think anything shown here or elsewhere negates the writers point that A. The Eagles including Foles were good at running the ball, and B. they would have been even better if Foles was a better runner. It's like saying my car would be faster if it were faster. This kind of article points out that it's a stupid thing to say, but you're not really proving him wrong.


I like the plays you monitored and displayed but , Foles is not limited as he has a great system around him to become a star and has a great feel for the game.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment