Skip to content

You’ve got to start the reigning NFC offensive player of the week, right?

Oct 16, 2013, 10:55 AM EDT


Nick Foles was named the NFC offensive player of the week this morning after his impressive performance leading the Philadelphia Eagles to victory down in Tampa over the weekend.

Also impressive is the rate at which Foles has been throwing interceptions. Which is to say not very frequently. knockonwood

CSN’s Reuben Frank takes a look at Foles ability to keep the ball out of the hands of defenders and where it ranks among QBs throughout their first two seasons in the league.

Since making his NFL debut in relief of an injured Michael Vick against the Cowboys at the Linc last Nov. 11, Foles has just five interceptions in 326 attempts.

That’s one every 65.2 pass attempts. And that is exceptional.

Among quarterbacks with at least 250 pass attempts in their first two years, Robert Griffin III (one every 60.2 attempts), Mark Brunell (one every 53.3), Shane Matthews (one every 48.9) and Vick (one every 48.5) round out the five least interception-prone QBs through two seasons.

Pretty good from the young guy.

As for Sunday’s starter against Dallas? There’s no official word out of the NovaCare Complex but all signs seem to be pointing in Foles direction.

This is what Mike had to say yesterday:

  1. al - Oct 16, 2013 at 11:18 AM


  2. BenE. - Oct 16, 2013 at 11:21 AM

    Give Vick a chance. He’s repaid his debt to society.

    • DonnyD - Oct 16, 2013 at 11:48 AM

      Doesn’t mean he should be playing when he isn’t 100%. Why even bring this up?

      • willh888 - Oct 16, 2013 at 12:11 PM

        he’s being really sarcastic to pile onto the thread from a few days ago when people didnt get it that time either

      • sfsu - Oct 16, 2013 at 2:24 PM

        BenE with an unoriginal, unfunny joke? Nahhhh

      • BenE. - Oct 16, 2013 at 2:29 PM

        sfsu I’ll buy you a beer at the 700Level party and we can talk about any of the double switches Charlie made in 2011 that you still complain about

      • willh888 - Oct 16, 2013 at 3:20 PM

        guy still remembers who was hitting, who was on deck, who was warming up and who was pitching. Either he’s like Raymond Babbitt or he keeps a diary

  3. 2sentz - Oct 16, 2013 at 11:45 AM

    Chip just sent flower basket to NFL offices. Makes his decision sooo much easier.

  4. Andy Schreiber - Oct 16, 2013 at 12:24 PM

    Foles simply runs the offense more effectively.

    It is a no-brainer. Vick isn’t going to be 100% for a while. (Hamstring injuries don’t usually go away quickly.)

    And if Foles beats the Cowboys? He’ll be the starter after that.

    • Connor - Oct 16, 2013 at 1:00 PM

      Agree 100%. As someone who wants Foles to start, the only argument I can’t shove aside is the fact that he’s still, unbelievably, yet to play a team with a win. The Cowboys are a legitimate NFL team even though it pains me to say it. They’re 3-3 and looked good last week putting up points against Denver.

      At home against a (semi) banged up Cowboys team, Foles should be expected to win. If he looks good this week he should 100% be the starter. When’s the last time Mike Vick looked good three games in a row? How much longer will we put up with his injuries? His red zone turnovers? Foles is a more reliable quarterback who, albeit in a short time frame, has shown great maturity and oh ya DECISION MAKING. START FOLES!

  5. Hiccup - Oct 16, 2013 at 1:17 PM

    I am a Foles fan too for reasons of seeing what we need to do going forward.
    My worry is the inevitable loss that is yet to come which could very well happen against the Cowboys at home this Sunday. What would that do to the dynamics of this argument of Vick/Foles?

    • Andy Schreiber - Oct 16, 2013 at 1:31 PM

      Inevitable loss???

      Think about it this way – the Eagles SHOULD have won the Chargers game. And with any efficiency at all, would have won the Chiefs game (!). The more I see Foles play, the more I think he would have led the team to wins in both of those games. I know, woulda, coulda, shoulda, and all of that.

      If we lose to a banged-up Dallas team at home, the Foles bandwagon will lose steam. But if we win this game, he’s practically going to have won the starting gig, especially if he has another big game.

      The Eagles need to win games. And, maybe more importantly, they need to know what they have in Foles (and even Barkley) going into next year’s draft.

      • MJS - Oct 16, 2013 at 2:24 PM

        I don’t see how the Birds are 5-1 if Foles started the season. I think their record would be the exact same. Would they have been more competitive against the Chiefs? Maybe, at best. Chiefs are actually a good team with a great defense. Also, our defense lost us the game against the Chargers.

        (note: I’m not necessarily pro-Vick or pro-Foles, but to claim that the Eagles would miraculously have one of the best records in the NFL if they started Foles from the start is a very bold and, in my opinion, inaccurate statement and would lead me to believe that you do not think highly of Chip Kelly (I wouldn’t if i thought he made a decision that kept the Eagles from being one of the best teams in the NFL thru Week 6))

  6. Foles Doubter - Oct 16, 2013 at 1:36 PM

    So when Foles goes 23-49 for 340 yards, 2 TDs and 3 INTs and the Eagles ultimately lose to the Cowboys 44-28, will we say “should have started Vick?”

    • TJO - Oct 16, 2013 at 2:08 PM

      People will say that, even more so if Vick was actually healthy, but the reality the team is going to lose some time with Foles leading the way. Vick has a slightly above .500 winning % over his career and gets a pass from many so Foles should too.

  7. Lol - Oct 16, 2013 at 4:08 PM

    I’m praying for fantastic victory or crushing defeat so that this debate is silenced once and for all.

    • willh888 - Oct 16, 2013 at 8:31 PM

      Agreed… lets enjoy football especially Cowboys week. Direct all of our passion towards hating divisional opponents again and turn the Linc from awkwardly quiet to nutty and weird


(email will not be published)