Where Does Nick Foles Go in 2019?

[TheKillerNacho]

17 minutes ago, Nabbs4u said:

Define big FA? If they clear $57M it puts them what the 45 range above the cap? How much is allotted to Rookies? Truly dont pay attention?

What FA could we not sign if stupid enough to sell the farm? We wouldn't  but ,who?

That wouldn't  be enough for LeVeon and his 15-20? If they so choose? Not going to but, enough?

If the Eagles release every player on your list, then yes, that puts them about $45M. Teams tend to expect to spend around $6-8M on rookies. That brings us to $37M. After losing Foles, Peters, Jernigan, Bennett, Long, MCLeod, Wisinewski, and Maragos, and adding 7 rookies, that leaves the Eagles with 46 players under contract for 2019. Meaning at minimum you have $37M to distribute among 7 remaining players while trying to replace the talent they just cast off. They will also want to extend a few players (Wentz, perhaps?), and resign some (Brandon Graham, Ronald Darby, and Jordan Hicks are all set to be a FA and won't be exactly inexpensive to resign).

Could they sign Bell to his 15-20M? Probably. Should/will they? No, it would strain their already dubious cap position (Paying any single player $20M would give them less than $3M per player just to fill out their roster). You seem to agree so what are you saying even?

Heck even the article you linked agrees with me:

Quote

Yes, the Eagles can easily get under the salary cap in 2019 by releasing players. Some of those losses won't hurt much. Some would. But they won't have much in the way of financial resources to attack the free agent market.

I'm not sure what you're trying to persuade me of at this point, we seem to be in agreement.

[Thelonebillsfan]

4 hours ago, Kiltman said:

Well he's shown he can win a game that matters unlike Dalton, so there is a bit of upside...I don't see it happening though...just trying to think outside the box where he could go.

I think he only leaves if he gets the keys for a year or two. And a lot of these other situations he's just gonna be one of the guys brought in.
I hope he goes to Jacksonville, solid team that just lacks a QB.

Clutch isn't a real thing.

[Kiltman]

1 hour ago, Thelonebillsfan said:

Clutch isn't a real thing.

Quite the take, definitely an overrated thing regardless 

But, is non-clutch a thing then?

[Thelonebillsfan]

10 minutes ago, Kiltman said:

Quite the take, is non-clutch a thing then?

No. There is no such thing as being "clutch" or "non-clutch" it's a stupid, meaningless platitude that can't be quantified and that we selectively apply based on random parameters and "do I like this dude or not". You can't take an insignificant sample size of games and make any sort of quantifiable claims about a player based on that sample size. Great, Nick Foles won 3 important games and Andy Dalton is 0-4 in the playoffs. That means nothing, because you can't just take any sample and make it mean whatever you want. The entire concept is trying to measure how much someone can play under pressure and another can't, when we don't even know what these individuals consider to be high pressure/high leverage situations or not. It's a narrative construct based on emotional connection, it's not a real thing.

The sample size, borne out over their careers, show that Dalton is overwhelmingly a better QB than Nick Foles. You don't throw away something that you have statistical bearing on it's success because a guy had a few good games interspersed with his terrible games. We see examples of this every single year when guys get signed because they had a few aberrations against their statistical history and profile, get paid, and revert back to the mean.

[RandyMossIsBoss]

2 minutes ago, Thelonebillsfan said:

No. There is no such thing as being "clutch" or "non-clutch" it's a stupid, meaningless platitude that can't be quantified and that we selectively apply based on random parameters and "do I like this dude or not". You can't take an insignificant sample size of games and make any sort of quantifiable claims about a player based on that sample size. Great, Nick Foles won 3 important games and Andy Dalton is 0-4 in the playoffs. That means nothing, because you can't just take any sample and make it mean whatever you want. The entire concept is trying to measure how much someone can play under pressure and another can't, when we don't even know what these individuals consider to be high pressure/high leverage situations or not. It's a narrative construct based on emotional connection, it's not a real thing.

The sample size, borne out over their careers, show that Dalton is overwhelmingly a better QB than Nick Foles. You don't throw away something that you have statistical bearing on it's success because a guy had a few good games interspersed with his terrible games. We see examples of this every single year when guys get signed because they had a few aberrations against their statistical history and profile, get paid, and revert back to the mean.

I don't disagree with the bulk of this post, but you really don't believe clutch/non-clutch exists? You think every human responds to pressure the same way? 

Just because we cannot quantify it statistically doesn't mean it doesn't exist, although you could argue it makes it a meaningless "attribute" if we cannot quantify it.

[Thelonebillsfan]

2 minutes ago, RandyMossIsBoss said:

I don't disagree with the bulk of this post, but you really don't believe clutch/non-clutch exists? You think every human responds to pressure the same way? 

Just because we cannot quantify it statistically doesn't mean it doesn't exist, although you could argue it makes it a meaningless "attribute" if we cannot quantify it.

Do I think people handle pressure differently? Of course I do, I was a US Marine I have countless examples of that. But that doesn't mean that we can attribute every success or failure under what we ascribe to be a high leverage situation to be "clutch" or not. Because it's gambling on feelings and personality winning out, it's ascribing undue importance to something that if you held it up to 20 different people and asked "describe this" you'd get 20 different answers. 

I think we can't ascribe some profound or meaningful importance to it because it's not representative of a comprehensive body of work, and the NFL is still a job and a business, and I need more than feelings and gumption to roll with it being an actual thing. 

[Nabbs4u]

14 minutes ago, Thelonebillsfan said:

I think we can't ascribe some profound or meaningful importance to it because it's not representative of a comprehensive body of work, and the NFL is still a job and a business, and I need more than feelings and gumption to roll with it being an actual thing. 

So how do you explain say 4th QT comebacks? 2 minute drive conversation rates. 3rd and 4th down conversion rates? RZ efficiency? Are they all not " a comprehensive  body of work" to base opinions off?

There are QB's who dont fold under pressure and those that do. It's easy to see and easy to quantify TBH. It's the eye test. Something that should  be used way before all of the analytics.

 

[Thelonebillsfan]

43 minutes ago, Nabbs4u said:

So how do you explain say 4th QT comebacks? 2 minute drive conversation rates. 3rd and 4th down conversion rates? RZ efficiency? Are they all not " a comprehensive  body of work" to base opinions off?

There are QB's who dont fold under pressure and those that do. It's easy to see and easy to quantify TBH. It's the eye test. Something that should  be used way before all of the analytics.

 

Only 4th QT comebacks and drive conversion rates could be considered under the nebulous "clutch" umbrella otherwise literally everything that has any challenge being converted is "clutch" and that's ridiculous. RZ efficiency has little correlation to your argument, especially since if you look at the #'s, QB's put up obscene redzone numbers in the modern NFL, the average TD/INT ratio for the top-16 redzone TD scorers is 21/1, the lowest completion percentage is a hair under 60%. RZ conversion rates are a team stat and are bulk oriented. It's why Arizona can be 7th in TD efficiency while dead last in average trips per game (65.38%, 1 score and 1.7 trips per game), you can quantify that easily without using "clutch" to define it. Same with 3rd and 4th down conversion rates which stretches the definition to be too broad again.

4th quarter comebacks and game winning drives, in descending order from 2012 through 2018 (or the time of their last comeback as listed), 1-40 out of 72.
 

1             Tom Brady   6-199 2012 2018              NWE     7
2            Drew Brees    2-32 2012 2018              NOR     7
3           Andy Dalton    2-35 2012 2018              CIN     7
4           Eli Manning     1-1 2012 2018              NYG     7
5         Aaron Rodgers    1-24 2012 2018              GNB     7
6    Ben Roethlisberger    1-11 2012 2018              PIT     7
7      Matthew Stafford     1-1 2012 2018              DET     7
8        Russell Wilson    3-75 2012 2018              SEA     7
9            Nick Foles    3-88 2012 2018          PHI/LAR     6
10          Andrew Luck     1-1 2012 2018              IND     6
11           Cam Newton     1-1 2012 2018              CAR     6
12        Philip Rivers     1-4 2013 2018              LAC     6
13            Matt Ryan     1-3 2012 2017              ATL     6
14       Ryan Tannehill     1-8 2012 2018              MIA     6
15        Blake Bortles     1-3 2014 2018              JAX     5
16         Sam Bradford     1-1 2012 2016      LAR/PHI/MIN     5
17           Derek Carr    2-36 2014 2018              OAK     5
18         Kirk Cousins   4-102 2012 2018          WAS/MIN     5
19           Joe Flacco    1-18 2012 2016              BAL     5
20                  Case Keenum 2012 2018 HOU//LAR/MIN/DEN     5
21           Alex Smith     1-1 2013 2017              KAN     5
22     Ryan Fitzpatrick   7-250 2012 2017  BUF/TEN/NYJ/TAM     4
23       Blaine Gabbert    1-10 2012 2018  JAX/SFO/ARI/TEN     4
24       Marcus Mariota     1-2 2015 2018              TEN     4
25          Josh McCown    3-81 2012 2017      CHI/CLE/NYJ     4
26         Tyrod Taylor   6-180 2015 2018          BUF/CLE     4
27       Jameis Winston     1-1 2015 2018              TAM     4
28          Matt Cassel   7-230 2012 2015         KAN/MIN/     3
29         Mike Glennon    3-73 2013 2017          TAM/CHI     3
30       Robert Griffin     1-2 2012 2014              WAS     3
31                  Brian Hoyer 2013 2015          CLE/HOU     3
32         Landry Jones   4-115 2014 2016              PIT     3       

33     EJ Manuel    1-16 2013 2015              BUF     3
34       Brock Osweiler    2-57 2015 2018      DEN/HOU/MIA     3
35         Dak Prescott   4-135 2016 2018              DAL     3
36          Matt Schaub    3-90 2012 2015          HOU/BAL     3
37         Drew Stanton    2-43 2012 2017          IND/ARI     3
38       Brandon Weeden    1-22 2012 2015             CLE/     3
39         Carson Wentz     1-2 2016 2018              PHI     3
40    Teddy Bridgewater    1-32 2014 2015              MIN     2

 

Notice how random the list is? Notice how several notable players whom aren't considered "clutch" are tied atop the boards top 20 in some fashion? Carson Wentz is now worse than Brandon Weeden and Matt Schaub?

You're ascribing individual acumen for a non-variable trait to a team sport. Andy Dalton is tied for the top spot on this list, the entire crux and starting point of this argument, is atop this list. Because it's bogus, it's all a load of nonsense that keeps thinking tethered to the past and doesn't allow for any free thought on the concepts as presented. It's nonsense. It doesn't exist in any statistically important, measurable way.

[jrry32]

@Thelonebillsfan, I have to agree with Nabbs that Dalton melts down under pressure and Foles does not. Kirk Cousins also has a tendency to melt in the big moments. Oddly enough, Joe Flacco has been a guy who has consistently played better in those moments. That all said, you don't grab a guy because of those moments. You have to actually be able to get to those moments. Foles hasn't been a guy who has shown the ability to get you to those moments during his career. IMO, he's fine as a stop gap, but you don't replace Andy Dalton with Foles. That's not going to solve your problems.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

1 hour ago, Thelonebillsfan said:

No. There is no such thing as being "clutch" or "non-clutch" it's a stupid, meaningless platitude that can't be quantified and that we selectively apply based on random parameters and "do I like this dude or not". You can't take an insignificant sample size of games and make any sort of quantifiable claims about a player based on that sample size. Great, Nick Foles won 3 important games and Andy Dalton is 0-4 in the playoffs. That means nothing, because you can't just take any sample and make it mean whatever you want. The entire concept is trying to measure how much someone can play under pressure and another can't, when we don't even know what these individuals consider to be high pressure/high leverage situations or not. It's a narrative construct based on emotional connection, it's not a real thing.

The sample size, borne out over their careers, show that Dalton is overwhelmingly a better QB than Nick Foles. You don't throw away something that you have statistical bearing on it's success because a guy had a few good games interspersed with his terrible games. We see examples of this every single year when guys get signed because they had a few aberrations against their statistical history and profile, get paid, and revert back to the mean.

I see your Fitzpatrick battle scars. 

[Thelonebillsfan]

1 minute ago, PapaShogun said:

I see your Fitzpatrick battle scars. 

They are many and they are deep.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

For as many big games that Montana helped the 49ers win, he also didn't play well in a lot of others ('85, '86, and '87 playoffs particularly). Overall he got more than his fair share of victories, because he was just a good player. As more time has passed, I've kind of written off "clutch" as something actually quantifiable. 

[Thelonebillsfan]

4 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

@Thelonebillsfan, I have to agree with Nabbs that Dalton melts down under pressure and Foles does not. Kirk Cousins also has a tendency to melt in the big moments. Oddly enough, Joe Flacco has been a guy who has consistently played better in those moments. That all said, you don't grab a guy because of those moments. You have to actually be able to get to those moments. Foles hasn't been a guy who has shown the ability to get you to those moments during his career. IMO, he's fine as a stop gap, but you don't replace Andy Dalton with Foles. That's not going to solve your problems.

I think if you give a guy enough bites at the apple eventually they'll get one. The playoffs in general in the NFL are almost impossible to predict. It's not like the other sports where it's a series and the better team usually bears out statistical favorability, there's one game, a lot of variance and random crap can happen in one game.

I'd also agree that Andy Dalton isn't going to lead the Bengals anywhere because I just don't think Dalton's skillset and tendencies lend themselves to playing certain teams. He plays a certain way and if you can take that away from him (neuter AJ and force them to work middle out) his arm isn't good enough to make those plays. Just like Cousins (who I've never liked and you can go back to the old forum and see my takes from 2014 on that) is too physically limited to ever win unless surrounded by a talented team that can compensate for that which I thought the Vikings were given that Case Keenum is even more limited and they made it work last year. 

Foles struggles with things that you can identify on film and take away if you have the defense for it. The Eagles don't have the matchup exploits this year against their opponents (that Pats defense was just dreadful and had and still has absolutely no lateral speed), I don't see it ending the same way.

However, my point still stands, ain't no such thing as "clutch".

[Thelonebillsfan]

1 minute ago, PapaShogun said:

For as many big games that Montana helped the 49ers win, he also didn't play well in a lot of others ('85, '86, and '87 playoffs particularly). Overall he got more than his fair share of victories, because he was just a good player. 

And that's ultimately it, talent will eventually equal out given a large enough sample size.

[N4L]

@Thelonebillsfan So do you believe in momentum? Its not a statistically quantifiable metric either, but you can't deny its affect on a particular game