Wonder how the Eagles would fare with a knucklehead like Hundley having to come in after the starter goes down with serious injury during the regular season.
The more I think about how the Packers didn't have a veteran back up to Rodgers, one who at least has been in the fire before, the more I''m convinced Thompson's dismissal was long overdue. He just didn't get it towards the end of his reign.
Also on notice is Stubby and his QB whisperer status. Underwhelming to say the least.
Eagles Defense >>> Packers Defense.Originally Posted by esoxx
Foles is better than Hundley but he's got a lot more starts under his belt and gets to play on the other side of a strong defense. Both of those factors change the equation for the quarterback just a smidge.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro ~Hunter S.
Yeah, D way better in Philly. Of course, the continued shit defense is still more of an indictment on Ted than anything else. Glad it's time for someone else to try and get that side of the ball on the upswing.
Foles wouldn't have to lead the Packers and that hideous D to the Super Bowl. Just need him to hold the fort down until the Great Arm of Butte heals, something The Hun failed miserably to do.
Believe it or not, there were 2-3 games this season in which that hideous D kept the Pack in the game only to see The Hun lose the game with uninspiring performances of Kizer proportions.
I'm not going to stop the wheel. I'm going to break the wheel.
What kind of special hell would it be to have to listen/watch two weeks of Super Bowl hype coming to your home stadium after losing in Championship game?
Two weeks of talking about the Eagles playing in your backyard after you just got rag dolled by them.
Purgatory.
Nah, no hell here. I’m old, a fucking football game is the least of my worries. I’m not one of those unbalanced motherfuckers who tie their self esteem to a football team who I have neither played on or work for. That said, I am a fan and these guys have certainly bummed me out, as you guys have also experienced the last 7 years as I have.....hope the big game is a good one.
Yeah, we got bitch-slapped in Atlanta last year. No fun at all.
Respect. Pack got routed last yr in NFCC after a great playoff victory. Win/lose -- we still booze.
Foles had better numbers his rookie year than Hundley did this year. Also in his second year had 27 tds and 2 ints and went to the pro bowl while playing behind the 29th ranked defense.
Hundley was a 3 year vet. Foles had one decent year and then dreck.
The unimaginable part is seeing Hundley in practice for 3 years and thinking he was going to be OK. That decision is SO bad, it almost makes me think getting Rodgers right in 2007 was a fluke.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
So, the miracle to Diggs just becomes a footnote in history. No real relevance.
We all still remember Antonio Freeman's back catch and Favre's Oakland game.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Didn't say remember, said relevance. If Vikings go to Super Bowl, that play is credited as the main element in the magical run.
Not so anymore.
Using the word decent to describe a 27-2 td int season with a pro bowl appearance, then using the word dreck to describe the rest of his career....truly shows the ridiculous bias and spin you use to promote your narratives.
Define 'dreck' and then apply it without bias. Foles had one very outstanding year, and then pretty much averaged about 80 Qb rating. Hundley is 10 points behind that. I'd say Hundley was dreck and Foles was above dreck (in the other seasons). But that one outstanding year tells you he can be so much more. Hundley - not so much. He has only the Pittsburgh game and a few odd throws here and there and some running plays to recommend him. If you're comparing the two. I didn't read the whole thread, but can only assume the debate was "why didn't TT bring in Foles?" It's a reasonable question, but as always, it's cherry picking.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
Signing replacement level talent isn't a strategy I am very fond of that is true.
Foles has worked out OK for an Eagles team playing great ball, but until today I did not see him win the games.
We'll see what the Patriots find in his now four weeks of film.
Signing Foles is just garden variety shuffling of dreck. Developing Hundley promised much more. The failure for the Packers was the latter, not the former. Though I'll admit losing your starting QB in Week 14 makes a veteran backup look more attractive than a young vet making his first start.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
I agree with most of this except for the fact that you did have evidence of Foles playing well in a collection of actual regular season NFL games. That of course you address by your critique of the Packer staff thinking that Hundley was ready (did they really believe this? Or were they just crossing fingers that Rodgers didn't get hurt/didn't want to put money and time into a vet QB).
Either way, you're kinda wasting time replying to Yeti. His first troll post was a strawman. People here who acknowledge TT's indisputable top 5 GM performance over his career don't dispute that there are other ways to build successful teams.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
I think the question about the backup QB is pretty fascinating. Packer writers might be obsessed about veteran depth at CB, which I find to be a red herring, but the QB spot is a different matter.
Developing a younger player has risks as we saw this year and in the other year of the collarbone. Having Rodgers and Flynn succeed while Harrell, Coleman and Hundey failed is about as good an illustration as you could have of the risk/reward.
But just as with any FA, the hit rate on vets is still going to be 50%. Keenum and Foles are working now (or were up until 7 PM on Sunday) but history suggests they will fall back to earth. I have no feel for Hundley's prospects.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Wolf used to sign "seasoned" vets of NFL wars to back up Favre (McMahon, Bono, Mirer, etc.). Sherman signed Akili Smith and Tim Couch, but for reasons beyond logic, those signings failed to blossom. Ideally, you want a Hostetler, a Reich, a Foles, and a Keenum backing up your star QB. But any seasoned vet worthy of an inspiration would do just fine.
The Hun showed some kung fus as a rookie. But they weren't actually kung fus, but instead, illusions. Bluntly put, Hundley can't play. In the last TC, Hundley was outplayed by a 27 year old rookie free agent. Todd should've signed a seasoned vet to backup A-Rod. Someone like Kap.
I'm not going to stop the wheel. I'm going to break the wheel.
Probably because they sucked.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote