Foles before and after GB

Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › Foles before and after GB

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • December 2, 2015 at 8:54 am #35016
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    To me the real question with Foles is, can he return (after he sits) to his previous, mostly decent form. That is, he melted down. Can he re-solidify.

    Some claim, wrongly, that he was as bad in 2014 as he has been in the recent meltdown period. That’s not correct. He did not have a series of consecutive bad games in 2014. And in fact he was better before the meltdown, which as we know, started in the GB game.

    Is he one of those guys who loses it and doesn’t get it back, or can he get it back. BTW, to me, none of this precludes taking a qb in the draft.

    Either way, IMO no qb will play well for the Rams until Reynolds goes back to LOG and Hav goes back to ROT.

    NUMBERS were WRONG so edited & fixed:

    Weeks 1-4

    70/111 (63.1%), 5 TDs, 1 INT- 98 QB Rating

    Weeks 5-12

    105/191 (55.0%),2 TDs, 8 INTs- 63.9 QB Rating

    • This topic was modified 8 years, 11 months ago by Avatar photozn.
    December 2, 2015 at 9:03 am #35018
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    Yeah, I look at it the same way.

    I thought the GB gaame kilt him.
    And I dont thin Bradford would have
    survived it. Foles has a very
    tough body.

    But now that I’ve seen him in action a lot
    I want an upgrade at QB. I dont want them
    to settle on a Pre-GB-Level Foles.

    I hope they keep drafting QBs high,
    midde and low unti they find something
    better. Assuming Mannion is not ‘the guy’.

    I think our biggest disagreement is on Greg Robinson.
    You seem to think “he’ll be fine” and I seem to think
    “no, he wont”.
    w
    v

    December 2, 2015 at 9:12 am #35019
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator
    wv wrote:

    I think our biggest disagreement is on Greg Robinson.
    You seem to think “he’ll be fine” and I seem to think
    “no, he wont”.

    Well, the difference there is that I am just a normal objective Rams fan, and you are not, which means you approach the entire thing blinded by spite and malice.

    But of course I hasten to add, that’s your right. So don’t let people like me tell you you have to be right about things in order to post.

    .

    December 2, 2015 at 2:59 pm #35033
    Avatar photojoemad
    Participant

    Green Bay is not the turning point for Foles….

    Foles pre-GB…. his numbers vs Arizona and Seattle sku those pre-GB numbers, because Foles wasn’t very good vs Pittsburgh and in Washington ….

    Foles benefited from 3 turnovers vs Seattle and got 146 yards rushing from Gurley in Arizona..

    The Rams cannot put the game on Foles’ shoulders, because when they do, they lose. He had chances in Washington, Pittsburgh, and in Minnesota… he wasn’t even a “game manager” in those games…….

    December 2, 2015 at 3:27 pm #35034
    Avatar photowv
    Participant
    joemad wrote:

    Green Bay is not the turning point for Foles….

    Foles pre-GB…. his numbers vs Arizona and Seattle sku those pre-GB numbers, because Foles wasn’t very good vs Pittsburgh and in Washington ….

    Foles benefited from 3 turnovers vs Seattle and got 146 yards rushing from Gurley in Arizona..

    The Rams cannot put the game on Foles’ shoulders, because when they do, they lose. He had chances in Washington, Pittsburgh, and in Minnesota… he wasn’t even a “game manager” in those games…….

    Well, i agree the first four games were a mixed bag.

    But after the GB game the bag wasn’t even mixed anymore. Ya know.

    w
    v

    December 2, 2015 at 4:00 pm #35037
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator
    joemad wrote:

    Green Bay is not the turning point for Foles….

    Foles pre-GB…. his numbers vs Arizona and Seattle sku those pre-GB numbers, because Foles wasn’t very good vs Pittsburgh and in Washington ….

    Foles benefited from 3 turnovers vs Seattle and got 146 yards rushing from Gurley in Arizona..

    The Rams cannot put the game on Foles’ shoulders, because when they do, they lose. He had chances in Washington, Pittsburgh, and in Minnesota… he wasn’t even a “game manager” in those games…….

    First, there’s ups and downs within each patch. So for example he was statisically okay against SF and Cleveland. Minnesota was after Green Bay.

    As I recall no one was putting those games on Foles. For example, if Kendricks had held on to the ball against the Steelers, Rams would have won.

    But following your your response, let;s just isolate Wash and Pitt and compare just those to the GB-and-after games.

    NUMBERS were WRONG so edited and fixed:

    In terms of the 2 game v. 6 game comparison, with just Pitt and Washington v. the last 6 games, it’s

    Pitt/Wash

    26/60 (60%) 1 TD 1 INT, 74.7 QB Rating

    Weeks 5-12

    105/191 (55.0%),2 TDs, 8 INTs- 63.9 QB Rating

    I would rather have the 1st set of games. And of course the improvement for THAT Foles would come from the young OL eventually gelling.

    December 2, 2015 at 4:35 pm #35041
    Avatar photojoemad
    Participant

    As I recall no one was putting those games on Foles. For example, if Kendricks had held on to the ball against the Steelers, Rams would have won.

    Correct, penalties also a huge factor…… not many people pinned those on Foles, but Foles is not the guy go out to make a thrown to win a game or even manage a win…… he needs flawless execution from everyone for that to happen, as it did vs AZ and Sea… it also happened in GB and Minnesota but Foles did nothing to win those… he lost them…. but I can’t have it both ways, I feel if he played in Baltimore, or at least in the 4th quarter, the Rams win vs the Ravens……I was looking forward to see what Case had to offer in Baltimore, but after seeing him, I wanted Foles back….. Now I want Bradford back even more….

    December 2, 2015 at 5:27 pm #35046
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Right now, LMU’s numbers are different from mine.

    I will have to double check mine.

    ===================

    A couple of NUMBERS WRONG so edited, see next post for the fix

    ———–

    LMU93

    Foles: weeks 1-4 vs. weeks 5-12

    Astounding.

    Weeks 1-4
    70/111 (63.1%), 815 yards, 7.3 YPA, 5 TDs, 1 INT- 96.5 QB Rating

    Weeks 5-12

    105/191 (55.0%), 1,091 yards, 5.7 YPA, 2 TDs, 8 INTs- 57.7 QB Rating

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 11 months ago by Avatar photozn.
    December 2, 2015 at 5:43 pm #35047
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator
    zn wrote:

    Right now, LMU’s numbers are different from mine.

    I will have to double check mine.

    Numbers double-checked. LMU was wrong on a couple of things too. .

    I am going to edit the previous numbers posts.

    ……………..

    Weeks 1-4

    70/111 (63.1%), 5 TDs, 1 INT- 98 QB Rating

    Weeks 5-12

    105/191 (55.0%),2 TDs, 8 INTs- 63.9 QB Rating

    In terms of the 2 game v. 6 game comparison, with just Pitt and Washington v. the last 6 games, it’s

    Pitt/Wash

    36/60 (60%) 1 TD 1 INT, 74.7 QB Rating

    Weeks 5-12

    105/191 (55.0%),2 TDs, 8 INTs- 63.9 QB Rating

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.