Jump to content

Nick Foles Will Start/Jonathan Wood Analysis


soulman

Recommended Posts

 

Nick Foles Will Be the Starting Quarterback

5fb7dabcc9ddb6eb415d87bdfbe6736d?s=16&d= Johnathan Wood | June 1st, 2020

data-entry.jpg?resize=736%2C300


For the Bears, there is no more important issue looming than which man will be under center receive the shotgun snap when the Bears take the field against Detroit in Week One. Today I want to dig into the stats to see what we can learn about Foles vs. Trubisky, as well as what to expect from whoever wins that derby compared to other QBs around the NFL.

The table below shows basic efficiency statistics for Trubisky and Foles in the Reid offense (so Trubisky in 2018-19 in Chicago and Foles in 2016 in KC and 17-18 in Philadelphia), plus the other three notable recent Reid QBs (Smith 13-17, Mahomes 18-19, Wentz 16-19). I’ll note I included playoff stats for everybody because otherwise Foles’ sample size is just so small (less than 350 with just regular season, just over 500 with playoffs included). I also included the NFL average for 2018-19 as a frame of reference for what’s roughly normal around the league. I split up the data into short and long passes (targeted more than 15 yards past the line of scrimmage) using Pro Football Reference’s game play finder.

short-deep-stats-2.png?resize=1472%2C315

That’s a lot of information to digest, so let’s look at short and deep passes separately.


 

Deep Passes

We’ll start with deep passes (blue in the table), where neither Foles nor Trubisky shine.

Both have a very low completion percentage, but Foles is around league average in yards/attempt, while Trubisky is awful there. This suggests that Foles takes deeper “deep” shots, and thus gets a higher yards/completion mark to make up for his low completion percentage.

Foles has higher than normal rates of both touchdowns and interceptions, which leaves him around the league average in TD:INT ratio on deep shots. I don’t put too much stock in these numbers for Foles due to a small sample size; he only has 89 deep passes compared to over 200 for every other QB in the table, so we’re talking a total of 8 TD and 6 INT here. Still, the data at least suggests to me that Foles is aggressive in his deep passes, giving his guys a chance to make a play but also leaving himself prone to defenders making a play on the ball.

Trubisky, on the other hand, is awful at throwing deep TDs and throws a whole lot of deep INTs. He’s well below league average in every major deep passing category, and honestly might be one of the worst deep ball passers in the league (though Carson Wentz is up there with him in that respect, according to these stats). Given those struggles, it’s puzzling to see that Trubisky throws it deep so often. Foles is more conservative in that regard, though he still throws it deep more than Alex Smith, the poster boy for conservative QB play.

This isn’t really related to the Trubisky/Foles debate, but oh my goodness Patrick Mahomes.

When you look at the data as a whole, it’s pretty clear that Foles is the better deep passer of the two. He’s not a great deep ball passer, but he’s also not a terrible deep thrower, which Trubisky clearly is. Foles’ yards/attempt and TD:INT ratio are both around league average, which is probably the best the Bears can realistically expect from either QB this year.

Advantage: Nick Foles


Short Passes

Now let’s move to short passes (orange in the table), where again we see neither Foles nor Trubisky stand out from the other Reid QBs or NFL average passing statistics. Both Foles and Trubisky have a better than average completion percentage, a reverse from deep passes, but lower yards/attempt marks indicate they are completing shorter “short” passes than the league norm. Once again, however, Foles’ yards/attempt mark is around league average, while Trubisky’s is far lower.

Both Foles and Trubisky struggle to throw touchdowns on short passes, which aligns them with Alex Smith and suggests safe check downs. This is reinforced by very low interception numbers; notice, however, that this is very much a characteristic of QBs in the Reid offense, as all five in this table have short interception rates that are well below league average.

Trubisky is appreciably better than Foles at avoiding interceptions on short passes; which is pretty much his only statistical advantage in the entire table. Still, it’s not like Foles is bad in this area (he’s still better than average), and Trubisky’s comically low yards/attempt mark more than makes up for that. As we saw in 2019, avoiding interceptions doesn’t do any good if you can’t move the ball.

Advantage: Nick Foles


Conclusion

Nick Foles will be Chicago’s starter over Trubisky this year because he has proven to be a much better quarterback in this offense on both short and deep passes. This is not to say that Foles is a particularly good quarterback, but he’s not a terrible one, which puts him miles ahead of Trubisky.

Statistically speaking, Foles is a guy who should come close to league average production in this scheme. He doesn’t take a lot of deep shots, but when he does you should expect a lot of big plays for both teams. On the short stuff, he mostly plays it safe, which leads to few interceptions but also few touchdowns. Generally, his short passing work shows the ability to hit the layups and gain yardage at about a league average rate.

At least that’s what the data suggests. I always think it’s a good idea to try and match up data with film analysis, and by happy coincidence Robert Schmitz of Windy City Gridiron recently put out a film study on Foles that comes to many of these same conclusions. We each did our work independently and came to these conclusions separately, and it’s great to see the film and stats reinforce each other. I highly recommend you check out his video below.

Edited by soulman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based only on past performance I think we have to give Foles an edge both in stats and intangibles.  Right now he's the more matured QB but also about all he will ever be.

Is that bad?  Not the way I see it because despite his inconsistencies (that tends to happen when you move around a lot) the guy came off the bench late in a season and not only led his team to a SB but won it and also won an MVP for his performance.  So......you don't have to be a GOAT QB to be a good leader and a consistent winner when given the chance and it's quite possible that in Chicago he'll get that chance he failed to get with Philly due to their commitment to Wentz.  We aren't nearly as committed to Trubisky right now.

Foles presence isn't exactly a bad deal for Mitch either.  He finally has the kind of competition he hasn't seen since college and if he loses out to Foles this year he also finally gets that year to apprentice under a more experienced QB who knows the offense and can run it as designed.  Unless both QBs utterly fail I really don't see a loser in this deal and it could possibly save Mitch's career if he can respond to the challenge appropriately.  He's finally gonna have to prove he's a better NFL QB than a former SB MVP with a winning record of his own.

How could the Bears also benefit from this?  Losing out to Foles will knock Mitch's value down making him much more affordable if we do chose to bring him back.  He has all of the physical talent we want he's just lacked the confidence and the rest to go with it.  Nothing says he can't learn that even better while he's not under pressure to produce each week but still in every practice and every meeting discussing and evaluating game vids while watching how Foles handled the offense.  He could end up as a late bloomer and stick around.

IMHO this is where we're at now and also what we need to know about about these two QBs by seasons end.  We'll have our 1st round pick back this year albeit probably a mid to later round pick.  I believe we would be far better off if we could use that pick, or move up if needed, to draft a stud OT to replace Leno.  But to do that we'd need to be assured we have a #1 QB capable of continuing to win with and we do have two shots at that now.  If neither show that ability it practically forces Pace to redraft high for a rookie QB and we start all over again.

Just some food for thought.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2020 at 1:07 AM, soulman said:

Based only on past performance I think we have to give Foles an edge both in stats and intangibles.  Right now he's the more matured QB but also about all he will ever be. agree

Is that bad?  Not the way I see it because despite his inconsistencies (that tends to happen when you move around a lot) the guy came off the bench late in a season and not only led his team to a SB but won it and also won an MVP for his performance.  So......you don't have to be a GOAT QB to be a good leader and a consistent winner when given the chance and it's quite possible that in Chicago he'll get that chance he failed to get with Philly due to their commitment to Wentz.  We aren't nearly as committed to Trubisky right now.

Foles presence isn't exactly a bad deal for Mitch either.  He finally has the kind of competition he hasn't seen since college and if he loses out to Foles this year he also finally gets that year to apprentice under a more experienced QB who knows the offense and can run it as designed.  Unless both QBs utterly fail I really don't see a loser in this deal and it could possibly save Mitch's career if he can respond to the challenge appropriately.  He's finally gonna have to prove he's a better NFL QB than a former SB MVP with a winning record of his own. Mitch couldn't beat out a guy in college to start, which doesn't give me hope. I also don't see them bringing him back at all, I doubt he would even want to, especially cheaper.

How could the Bears also benefit from this?  Losing out to Foles will knock Mitch's value down making him much more affordable if we do chose to bring him back.  He has all of the physical talent we want he's just lacked the confidence and the rest to go with it.  Nothing says he can't learn that even better while he's not under pressure to produce each week but still in every practice and every meeting discussing and evaluating game vids while watching how Foles handled the offense.  He could end up as a late bloomer and stick around.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 6/8/2020 at 10:40 AM, The_Romen said:

 Mitch couldn't beat out a guy in college to start, which doesn't give me hope. I also don't see them bringing him back at all, I doubt he would even want to, especially cheaper.

I don't know that we can forecast this yet anymore than we can forecast who will eventually win this QB battle.

Mitch's issues are largely between his ears and the question is can that ever be fixed or will it fix itself?  Otherwise he's a kid with Aaron Rodgers like physical skills with some poor mechanics that can be fixed.  At least for now we have two starting level NFL QBs one of whom has significant playoff experience and success.  Since they're gonna be pushing one another for that #1 spot with money on the line for both I see that as a good thing the results of which may surprise a whole lot of people.

If we finish with a respectable record and make the playoff with our arrow pointing up in all likelihood we won't get a shot at one of the top two or three rookie QBs unless Pace is willing to mortgage two more drafts to assemble enough booty to trade up for one.  We still need at least one highly rated OT as well and the 2021 draft is probably where we'll need to get him. It does us little good to draft a Trevor Lawrence level guy if we can't protect him or give him a successful run game to operate too.

So, I'm not gonna rule anything out just yet.  Not 'til I see how both QBs AND the new offensive staff respond to their challenges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, soulman said:

I don't know that we can forecast this yet anymore than we can forecast who will eventually win this QB battle.

Mitch's issues are largely between his ears and the question is can that ever be fixed or will it fix itself?  Otherwise he's a kid with Aaron Rodgers like physical skills with some poor mechanics that can be fixed.  At least for now we have two starting level NFL QBs one of whom has significant playoff experience and success.  Since they're gonna be pushing one another for that #1 spot with money on the line for both I see that as a good thing the results of which may surprise a whole lot of people.

If we finish with a respectable record and make the playoff with our arrow pointing up in all likelihood we won't get a shot at one of the top two or three rookie QBs unless Pace is willing to mortgage two more drafts to assemble enough booty to trade up for one.  We still need at least one highly rated OT as well and the 2021 draft is probably where we'll need to get him. It does us little good to draft a Trevor Lawrence level guy if we can't protect him or give him a successful run game to operate too.

So, I'm not gonna rule anything out just yet.  Not 'til I see how both QBs AND the new offensive staff respond to their challenges.

I agree, but if Lawrence pans out the way most think, he'll be the main guy in an offense. Of course it'd be great to have a nice OL and good run game, but his skill set will make up for that. I'm definitely taking him #1 over OL. I can figure out the OL eventually. Not having a QB is tragic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, beardown3231 said:

I agree, but if Lawrence pans out the way most think, he'll be the main guy in an offense. Of course it'd be great to have a nice OL and good run game, but his skill set will make up for that. I'm definitely taking him #1 over OL. I can figure out the OL eventually. Not having a QB is tragic.

Lawrence will be number 1 pick and going to worst team in the league unless worst team is Bengals and maybe even then.  He will be biggest, most hyped QB prospect since Luck and then since Elway.  

If Mack, Quinn,  Hicks, Jackson and Robinson are healthy in 2020 (and there is football) it doesn't matter if I am playing QB for Bears this year they will win at least 6 games.

6 wins isn't bad enough for number 1 pick.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

Lawrence will be number 1 pick and going to worst team in the league unless worst team is Bengals and maybe even then.  He will be biggest, most hyped QB prospect since Luck and then since Elway.  

If Mack, Quinn,  Hicks, Jackson and Robinson are healthy in 2020 (and there is football) it doesn't matter if I am playing QB for Bears this year they will win at least 6 games.

6 wins isn't bad enough for number 1 pick.  

 

Yup.  The chances of Chicago getting a shot a Trevor Lawrence are about equal to my odds winning a Powerball Lottery.  To believe otherwise is delusional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

Lawrence will be number 1 pick and going to worst team in the league unless worst team is Bengals and maybe even then.  He will be biggest, most hyped QB prospect since Luck and then since Elway.  

If Mack, Quinn,  Hicks, Jackson and Robinson are healthy in 2020 (and there is football) it doesn't matter if I am playing QB for Bears this year they will win at least 6 games.

6 wins isn't bad enough for number 1 pick.  

 

I wasn't saying the Bears will be picking #1. I'm saying "I'm picking him #1" saying if I'm the GM of the team picking 1st, he's my guy even if that team's OL and RB sucks

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2020 at 1:07 AM, soulman said:

How could the Bears also benefit from this?  Losing out to Foles will knock Mitch's value down making him much more affordable if we do chose to bring him back.  

Why on earth would the Bears decide to bring Mitch back if Foles clearly beats him out? There is virtually no way that happens.

On 6/24/2020 at 10:14 AM, dll2000 said:

Lawrence will be number 1 pick and going to worst team in the league unless worst team is Bengals and maybe even then.  He will be biggest, most hyped QB prospect since Luck and then since Elway.  

You think the Bengals would draft Lawrence next year, after drafting Burrow this year? Are you serious?

On 6/24/2020 at 10:22 AM, soulman said:

Yup.  The chances of Chicago getting a shot a Trevor Lawrence are about equal to my odds winning a Powerball Lottery.  To believe otherwise is delusional.

By normal draft slotting, no. They won't be in a position to draft Lawrence. But to think they have a shot at him is delusional?

Hardly.

What bad team won't "have" a quarterback in place?

Jacksonville? And maybe, at that? 

Carolina won't be giving up on Bridewater, and taking that cap hit to boot. Arizona will be sticking with Murray. The Jets most likely sticking with Darnold. The Giants DEFINITELY sticking with Daniel Jones.

See where I'm going with this? 

The Lions would never make a trade that gave the Bears Lawrence or Fields, but, hey, that frees up Bradford, anyway...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Heinz D. said:

Why on earth would the Bears decide to bring Mitch back if Foles clearly beats him out? There is virtually no way that happens.

You think the Bengals would draft Lawrence next year, after drafting Burrow this year? Are you serious?

By normal draft slotting, no. They won't be in a position to draft Lawrence. But to think they have a shot at him is delusional?

Hardly.

What bad team won't "have" a quarterback in place?

Jacksonville? And maybe, at that? 

Carolina won't be giving up on Bridewater, and taking that cap hit to boot. Arizona will be sticking with Murray. The Jets most likely sticking with Darnold. The Giants DEFINITELY sticking with Daniel Jones.

See where I'm going with this? 

The Lions would never make a trade that gave the Bears Lawrence or Fields, but, hey, that frees up Bradford, anyway...

100% agree on Cincy, but Carolina would certainly take Lawrence. They're only really tied to Bridgewater through 2021. If the Jets are drafting #1, they could be because Darnold got hurt... but if they're picking #1 because he underwhelms again, they would consider Lawrence. Arizona is going to win 6+ games unless Murray and Jones go down for the year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, beardown3231 said:

100% agree on Cincy, but Carolina would certainly take Lawrence. They're only really tied to Bridgewater through 2021. If the Jets are drafting #1, they could be because Darnold got hurt... but if they're picking #1 because he underwhelms again, they would consider Lawrence. Arizona is going to win 6+ games unless Murray and Jones go down for the year.

You do get what I'm saying, though.

I think if Carolina ends up with the worst record, it won't be because of Teddy, and they'll know that. 

I also think that Darnold would have to have his worst year yet for the Jets to give up on him--and I think that's highly unlikely.

Odds are that unless Minshew turns out to be crap, whoever ends up in the Lawrence hunt might be willing to listen to trade offers.

And, if not, the Bears will have an incredibly good shot at trading for Fields or Purdy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

Why on earth would the Bears decide to bring Mitch back if Foles clearly beats him out? There is virtually no way that happens.

You think the Bengals would draft Lawrence next year, after drafting Burrow this year? Are you serious?

By normal draft slotting, no. They won't be in a position to draft Lawrence. But to think they have a shot at him is delusional?

Hardly.

What bad team won't "have" a quarterback in place?

Jacksonville? And maybe, at that? 

Carolina won't be giving up on Bridewater, and taking that cap hit to boot. Arizona will be sticking with Murray. The Jets most likely sticking with Darnold. The Giants DEFINITELY sticking with Daniel Jones.

See where I'm going with this? 

The Lions would never make a trade that gave the Bears Lawrence or Fields, but, hey, that frees up Bradford, anyway...

It is a hypothetical where Bengals were so bad they got number 1 pick.  It mean Burrow would have played worse than Rosen.  In that situation they may do like Cardinals and take a QB they like even better and trade Burrow.

Do I think that will happen? No.  Not really.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dll2000 said:

It is a hypothetical where Bengals were so bad they got number 1 pick.  It mean Burrow would have played worse than Rosen.  In that situation they may do like Cardinals and take a QB they like even better and trade Burrow.

Do I think that will happen? No.  Not really.  

 

Hey,  if that happens then I think I'll have a lot of company on the ̶R̶o̶s̶e̶n̶ Burrow wagon. 

What do you think Rosen's up to right now? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, RunningVaccs said:

Hey,  if that happens then I think I'll have a lot of company on the ̶R̶o̶s̶e̶n̶ Burrow wagon. 

What do you think Rosen's up to right now? 

About 210-215 lbs. Still kinda looks like that one teen guy trying Zumba to get started in working out. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...