Super Bowl LII: NE vs. PHI

[kozlodoev]

Both quarterbacks played well, the big difference was the line play.  I think Foles is good, but I don't think he's as good as he looked last night.  A lot of QBs would have looked good against the Pats D.

Foles had a ~120 QBR and won 8 out of 10 games as a starter four years ago. The collective New England fandom somehow thought we'd be facing a scrub of Ryan Mallet/Jacoby Brissett proportions, which was simply never the case.

[Moranis]

Both quarterbacks played well, the big difference was the line play.  I think Foles is good, but I don't think he's as good as he looked last night.  A lot of QBs would have looked good against the Pats D.

Foles had a ~120 QBR and won 8 out of 10 games as a starter four years ago. The collective New England fandom somehow thought we'd be facing a scrub of Ryan Mallet/Jacoby Brissett proportions, which was simply never the case.

Yep and the Eagles staff is excellent.  The last two weeks they were implementing plays that worked for Foles the last time he was on the Eagles even though they never ran them at any time in the last two years.  So they completely changed stuff up to maximize his strengths.  Not many staffs would have the stones to do that in the two weeks before the Superbowl. 

[PhoSita]

Both quarterbacks played well, the big difference was the line play.  I think Foles is good, but I don't think he's as good as he looked last night.  A lot of QBs would have looked good against the Pats D.

Foles had a ~120 QBR and won 8 out of 10 games as a starter four years ago. The collective New England fandom somehow thought we'd be facing a scrub of Ryan Mallet/Jacoby Brissett proportions, which was simply never the case.

And yet much more recently this season he looked pretty bad.

So what that tells you is that Foles has shown the potential to play very well, but has been inconsistent.  Like most QBs, his performance is probably affected a great deal by the type of defense he's facing.

Again, most QBs will look awesome when the opposing defense hardly pressures them at all.

[PhoSita]

If Brady can soak in all the credit for victories, then he should also take some of the blame. Statistically, Brady played great. However part of a quarterbacks job is to change/control tempo and keep your defense off the field. I think Foles clearly outperformed Brady in that area. Philly lead the time of possession with basically 34 minutes, as compared to NE 26. Maybe that extra time off the field helped Philly's defense, which may have also impacted the stamina to get that strip sack.

Brady gave the team a chance to win.  He perhaps could have lead them on another game winning drive with two minutes left, but the pocket kept collapsing and he was stripped.

You could blame Brady partly for that; he's not very mobile.  But he's 40, so what do you expect?

Brady did everything you could ask him to do as a pocket passing QB.  He can't pass-block and throw the passes.


I suppose you could criticize him for not catching a wide open pass earlier in the game, but they don't pay him to catch passes, either.

[Moranis]

Both quarterbacks played well, the big difference was the line play.  I think Foles is good, but I don't think he's as good as he looked last night.  A lot of QBs would have looked good against the Pats D.

Foles had a ~120 QBR and won 8 out of 10 games as a starter four years ago. The collective New England fandom somehow thought we'd be facing a scrub of Ryan Mallet/Jacoby Brissett proportions, which was simply never the case.

And yet much more recently this season he looked pretty bad.

So what that tells you is that Foles has shown the potential to play very well, but has been inconsistent.  Like most QBs, his performance is probably affected a great deal by the type of defense he's facing.

Again, most QBs will look awesome when the opposing defense hardly pressures them at all.

He sucked while playing for Jeff Fisher.  You know what other QB's were crappy playing for Jeff Fisher, pretty much every QB that ever played for him except Steve McNair (and frankly who knows how good he might have been had he not been saddled with Jeff Fisher). 

[green_bballers13]

I still think Foles won that game more than anything else. Yes, the D gave up a ton of yards and plays, but so did the PHI defense.

Nick Foles won the game for PHI. I don't think it is a crazy challenging analysis.

[nickagneta]

Don't agree with that. Chung and McCourty are safeties not DBs. Harmon is pretty much a safety too though plays some nickelback. And I think Butler is better than Gilmore. So my opinion, Butler is their best DB, especially in coverage. Though others may think differently

Defensive Back is a term used to refer to the entire secondary. DBs consist of CBs and Safeties. That being said, the dropoff from Butler to Rowe, Bademosi, and Jordan Richards is so big that it's hard to rationalize not playing Butler one single snap.

And even if you thought you had better "packages", after it became clear that the plan wasn't working, it was time to change the plan. That's how you won the SB against Seattle.

Absolutely correct. In my scotch addled mind last night I meant to say best CB not DB. My bad.

[PhoSita]

Both quarterbacks played well, the big difference was the line play.  I think Foles is good, but I don't think he's as good as he looked last night.  A lot of QBs would have looked good against the Pats D.

Foles had a ~120 QBR and won 8 out of 10 games as a starter four years ago. The collective New England fandom somehow thought we'd be facing a scrub of Ryan Mallet/Jacoby Brissett proportions, which was simply never the case.

And yet much more recently this season he looked pretty bad.

So what that tells you is that Foles has shown the potential to play very well, but has been inconsistent.  Like most QBs, his performance is probably affected a great deal by the type of defense he's facing.

Again, most QBs will look awesome when the opposing defense hardly pressures them at all.

He sucked while playing for Jeff Fisher.  You know what other QB's were crappy playing for Jeff Fisher, pretty much every QB that ever played for him except Steve McNair (and frankly who knows how good he might have been had he not been saddled with Jeff Fisher).

I mean, sure.  But "great" QBs are gonna look good no matter who their coach is, in my opinion.

Look, I'm not saying Foles is trash or something.  I never said that, so don't conflate my argument with whatever people you're thinking of who felt that Foles was akin to Ryan Mallett.  He's a good QB, certainly better than a mere backup.  I don't think he's better than, for example, Matt Ryan, who the Pats were able to beat last year.

I don't think Foles would look like a HoFer if he were facing a halfway decent defense with the ability to get some pressure on him.  Last night, he played against an opponent that couldn't generate any pressure and had a great deal of trouble tackling players in the open field.  Obviously in that situation he's going to put up great numbers.  Many QBs would put up great numbers in that situation.

The Pats lucked out this year in that they didn't face an above average starting QB, or an above average head coach, until the Super Bowl.  Unfortunately, their major weaknesses were exposed once they did.

Still, Brady is good enough and the Pats are so well coached that they still had a chance to win in the 4th quarter.  Ultimately, though, the weakness of both lines was such that they fell short.

Hopefully this spring / summer the team invests in the key infrastructure of the team -- i.e. the lines -- instead of focusing on making splashy acquisitions at skill positions (e.g. wide receiver, DB).

[johnnygreen]

If Brady can soak in all the credit for victories, then he should also take some of the blame. Statistically, Brady played great. However part of a quarterbacks job is to change/control tempo and keep your defense off the field. I think Foles clearly outperformed Brady in that area. Philly lead the time of possession with basically 34 minutes, as compared to NE 26. Maybe that extra time off the field helped Philly's defense, which may have also impacted the stamina to get that strip sack.

Brady gave the team a chance to win.  He perhaps could have lead them on another game winning drive with two minutes left, but the pocket kept collapsing and he was stripped.

You could blame Brady partly for that; he's not very mobile.  But he's 40, so what do you expect?

Brady did everything you could ask him to do as a pocket passing QB.  He can't pass-block and throw the passes.


I suppose you could criticize him for not catching a wide open pass earlier in the game, but they don't pay him to catch passes, either.

I want to see Brady call running plays when the defense allows it. There is zero need to score every time in under 4 minutes or so. If your defense is struggling, then keep them off the field. You know, the type of quarterback clinics that Eli showcased in his two Super Bowl wins.

[PhoSita]

If Brady can soak in all the credit for victories, then he should also take some of the blame. Statistically, Brady played great. However part of a quarterbacks job is to change/control tempo and keep your defense off the field. I think Foles clearly outperformed Brady in that area. Philly lead the time of possession with basically 34 minutes, as compared to NE 26. Maybe that extra time off the field helped Philly's defense, which may have also impacted the stamina to get that strip sack.

Brady gave the team a chance to win.  He perhaps could have lead them on another game winning drive with two minutes left, but the pocket kept collapsing and he was stripped.

You could blame Brady partly for that; he's not very mobile.  But he's 40, so what do you expect?

Brady did everything you could ask him to do as a pocket passing QB.  He can't pass-block and throw the passes.


I suppose you could criticize him for not catching a wide open pass earlier in the game, but they don't pay him to catch passes, either.

I want to see Brady call running plays when the defense allows it. There is zero need to score every time in under 4 minutes or so. If your defense is struggling, then keep them off the field. You know, the type of quarterback clinics that Eli showcased in his two Super Bowl wins.

This highlights another weakness of the roster -- the lack of a power runner.  I didn't feel like the Pats could really afford to lean on the run against decent opponents, because all of their running backs were of the small / shifty variety.  Run plays and short / screen passes needed to be a part of a mixed attack.  They couldn't be the main focus.

In other words, they missed having a guy like Blount.  I guess Gillislee was supposed to be that guy this year, but he wasn't in the rotation by year's end.

[kozlodoev]

Both quarterbacks played well, the big difference was the line play.  I think Foles is good, but I don't think he's as good as he looked last night.  A lot of QBs would have looked good against the Pats D.

Foles had a ~120 QBR and won 8 out of 10 games as a starter four years ago. The collective New England fandom somehow thought we'd be facing a scrub of Ryan Mallet/Jacoby Brissett proportions, which was simply never the case.

And yet much more recently this season he looked pretty bad.

So what that tells you is that Foles has shown the potential to play very well, but has been inconsistent.  Like most QBs, his performance is probably affected a great deal by the type of defense he's facing.

Again, most QBs will look awesome when the opposing defense hardly pressures them at all.

If we exclude the game he subbed in for Wentz, and the season closer vs DAL (a throwaway game where he played ~30% of the snaps), Foles played 5 complete games this season (incl. yesterday) and looked great in 4 of them. Seems pretty consistent to me.

[PhoSita]

Both quarterbacks played well, the big difference was the line play.  I think Foles is good, but I don't think he's as good as he looked last night.  A lot of QBs would have looked good against the Pats D.

Foles had a ~120 QBR and won 8 out of 10 games as a starter four years ago. The collective New England fandom somehow thought we'd be facing a scrub of Ryan Mallet/Jacoby Brissett proportions, which was simply never the case.

And yet much more recently this season he looked pretty bad.

So what that tells you is that Foles has shown the potential to play very well, but has been inconsistent.  Like most QBs, his performance is probably affected a great deal by the type of defense he's facing.

Again, most QBs will look awesome when the opposing defense hardly pressures them at all.

If we exclude the game he subbed in for Wentz, and the season closer vs DAL (a throwaway game where he played ~30% of the snaps), Foles played 5 complete games this season (incl. yesterday) and looked great in 4 of them. Seems pretty consistent to me.

I would characterize his play against Oakland and Atlanta as mediocre.

He was great against the Vikings, though that game seemed to break open after the 1st quarter.

Against the Patriots he was unstoppable, but again ... you gotta look at the defense he was facing.

Anyway, I don't know why we're arguing about this.  We can give credit to the Eagles and Foles for playing a good game while also acknowledging that the Patriots defense was the weakest it's looked since 2010.

[footey]

I was disappointed with the final score, but after winning 5 Super Bowls by the skin of their teeth, the law of averages sort of plays out in the end.  The Eagles out played us, and out-coached us.  And Belichick is being a jerk not to even explain why he did not play Butler. His explanation is total garbage. 

[kozlodoev]

Both quarterbacks played well, the big difference was the line play.  I think Foles is good, but I don't think he's as good as he looked last night.  A lot of QBs would have looked good against the Pats D.

Foles had a ~120 QBR and won 8 out of 10 games as a starter four years ago. The collective New England fandom somehow thought we'd be facing a scrub of Ryan Mallet/Jacoby Brissett proportions, which was simply never the case.

And yet much more recently this season he looked pretty bad.

So what that tells you is that Foles has shown the potential to play very well, but has been inconsistent.  Like most QBs, his performance is probably affected a great deal by the type of defense he's facing.

Again, most QBs will look awesome when the opposing defense hardly pressures them at all.

If we exclude the game he subbed in for Wentz, and the season closer vs DAL (a throwaway game where he played ~30% of the snaps), Foles played 5 complete games this season (incl. yesterday) and looked great in 4 of them. Seems pretty consistent to me.

I would characterize his play against Oakland and Atlanta as mediocre.

He was great against the Vikings, though that game seemed to break open after the 1st quarter.

Against the Patriots he was unstoppable, but again ... you gotta look at the defense he was facing.

Anyway, I don't know why we're arguing about this.  We can give credit to the Eagles and Foles for playing a good game while also acknowledging that the Patriots defense was the weakest it's looked since 2010.

I was tuned into sports talk a lot last week and it rubbed me the wrong way when they spent a ton of time talking how Foles is a pushover. I had the sense it might come back to bite us.

Either way, I don't think we're doing much arguing. For the record, I think Foles was a lot better vs. Minn than in the SB... and he had a 75% completion rate vs. Atl so I don't know how you count that as mediocre; vs. Oakland he was just plain bad.

[Billz401]

I'm kind of hoping there's alot of change that happens to the roster this off-season, especially defensively. I think first and foremost the offensive and defensive lines absolutely need to be scrapped and rebuilt. Pass protection was suspect all season although they did a pretty good job in the SB up until late 4th and d line was mediocre at best all year. Pretty sad that 40 year old James Harrison was the only one to get any sort of pressure last night. Linebacker play needs to be rejuvenated, Hightower coming back will help but we need someone else too. And maybe a bigger running back too. Love Dion Lewis and James white but I absolutely hated how all year long McDaniels would constantly run right up the gut with a 5ft8 rb