junc you constantly embarrass nobody but yourself with your driveling nonsense. I provided literal information you provided BS nonsense as usual....At least you're consistent and thank goodness you are ignorant, it's truly blissful it seems. You have developed an incredible knack for dancing around actual conversation so you can attempt to appear like an internet brutus....a super jets internwebz fan. Congrats sir...You've arrived.
people present stats w/o context such as that poster bringing up Sanchez's TOs against GB. Mark's first TO Philly was down 30-6, 2nd TO they were down 33-6, final down 46-13. Yep, his TOs cost them that game. That's what the stat sheet says! what is laughable are folks like you that just post stats w/o any context at all. all we do is give our opinions on this site, what kind of silly thing is this to say? I believe my opinion is more informed than the average fan and in turn the majority of this board but all of us just give our opinions. YOU are the one that has nothing, you just attack me rather than the arguments.
You provided garbage excuses which I tore apart. You may be able to get away w/. that w/ others but not me. Late in the year a bunch of guys went on IR after their season had been determined. When they still had a shot they had the same O that beat NE and Was doing absolutely nothing against NYJ, Dal and Miami but it was all the injuries. Keep hurling insults, it doesn't help your weak arguments.
Keep hurling insults? Stop acting like you know something because you obv don't...It's frankly impossible to even have a discussion with you bc your so dense headed and stubborn hence your "award" under your name. You may be able to argue aimlessly with others around here to fulfill some apparent void in your actual life, but not me. From here on out I'll just refrain from replying to you, bc in truth the convo goes nowhere but a delusional "I tore you apart, I am king, I know all, you know zilch" silly exchange that is a waste of my time, your time, and the boards time trying to sift through your babble.
it is impossible when you post nonsense and I post facts. The facts are when the season was alive the O was almost completely healthy and they put up 11 pts, 7 pts and 6 pts in the 3 most critical games but guys going on IR late in the year when they were done tells us everything. Pathetic. here we go again. You bash me, I bash back w/ actual facts and you run off like a little boy. Where have all the good posters gone? this board just sucks w/ pathetic, clueless posters that do nothing but bash and provide nothing to this board.
All the while, you don't even realize this all started because you claim Mark made the offense better. But they had a whopping 6 points against the stifling Green Bay D. They scored 13 points the whole game. Which leads me to... You mean like you did when you brought up how Sanchez made the Eagles offense better? Point proven, yet again. Well I guess if I had no way to logically respond to stats and facts presented to me in a clear, concise way, I'd call it an attack too.
oh the irony. the rest isn't even worth responding to bc as usual it's a fictitious reality invented in your head. irony aside if you feel that way, may I suggest you stop visiting TGG if you feel that way?
I didn't claim anything about Mark, I stated my opinion how if he was here we'd be a playoff lock. the talent now is similar to 2010 and he was really good in 2010. He did make the offense better. It may have been a coincidence as the OL got a little healthier but the O w/ Mark under C was better than w/ Foles under C. when will you discus the issues at hand rather than discussing me? yep, the irony. Do some research and understand what you are researching before you ever try to get into a discussion w/ me and we won't have these issues.
Didn't bother reading past there because: Like I said, sometimes you aren't worth a response. How many times do you have to be made a fool of before you just give it up? It's ok to be wrong on the internet.
I thought you were referring to Mark in NY making O better. My comment was about Philly and the Philly O was clearly better w/ Mark than w/ Foles. why do you do nothing but attack me? Just b/c I know more than you? this bothers you that much? I feel bad for you.
Now you're just clinging to straws. I made it perfectly clear I was talking about the Eagles in the post you quoted. I've never seen someone so insecure over a friggen internet message board. Like I said, it's ok to be wrong.
You do come up with some salient points. But c'mon...admit it...you do love being the house contrarian.
I replied to the part about making the Eagles O better w/in that post. I confused the initial comment about "Making the offense better" you are clinging to a meaningless point. The Eagle O got better w/ him, whether you think it was b/c of him or not they were better.
I do like it yes, I don't like being part of the majority. I like having unique opinions and I do see the game different than the average fan. is that good or bad? You guys can feel about me however you want to, I will always post my OPINIONS as we all post our opinions. Whether someone agrees or not doesn't mean a lot to me but I will present quality arguments for my side.
For a guy who whines about context, you sure don't provide much of it. You want to say the Eagles offense got better with Mark under center, ok, let's look at a few things here: With Sanchez at QB - 440 ypg total With Foles at QB - 409 ypg total With Sanchez at QB - 285 ypg passing With Foles at QB - 283 ypg passing With Sanchez at QB - 148 ypg rushing With Foles at QB - 115 ypg rushing 33% of the Eagles yards came via the ground with Sanchez at QB 28% of the Eagles yards came via the ground with Foles at QB So the ground game played more of a factor in the offense under Sanchez than it did under Foles. And it's not like the defense had to play scared of Sanchez, because the passing game was not that much more effective than it was under Foles. 2.6 TO per game by the Eagles offense under Foles, 1.3 TO per game by the D. 2.3 TO per game by the Eagles offense under Sanchez, 2.3 TO per game by the D. So much for the defense failing Mark, huh? Context!
Oh, I watched. He did nothing to help that team win, just helped the other team beat them worse. I also watched the Redskins game. It was hard to watch. The poor Eagles missed out on an opportunity at the playoffs because mark couldn't hit one of two wide open receivers to put them in Wash territory. Instead, Mark forced it to Maclin and was picked off. The kicker has nothing to do with that. They were TIED with a chance to WIN. Things we care about, not fantasy stats where we lose points for missed field goals. You think the TD more per game could have something to do with McCoy scoring 4 times over that course compared to once with Foles? That's nearly a half a TD more just on McCoy.
Passing TD to rushing TD ratio with Foles under center - 13:4 Passing TD to rushing TD ratio with Sanchez under center - 14:12 Context!
I never said Mark cost them the GB game. I just said he went 4-5 and mentioned how godawful he was in a couple of games. You really think he did anything to help win that game or at least make it respectable? No, he went and hid like he usually does when faced with early adversity.
440 yds is better than 409? 285 is better than 283? I noticed you didn't include PPG? why not? (I removed the Hou game) PPG w/ Mark: 26.5 PPG PPG w/ Foles: 22 PPG including Hou game prorating Mark's 3 qtrs. to 4 qtrs. Mark led O to 27.1 PPG D/STs pts scored: w/ Mark: 28 in 8 starts w/ Foles: 49 in 7 starts think that doesn't help an offense? avg. starting FP on scoring drives: w/ Mark: 34.7 w/ Foles: 38.4 D pts allowed per game: w/ Mark: 25.3 w/ Foles: 21.3 schedule: played 2 playoff teams w/ Foles as QB played 5 games against playoff teams w/ Mark to recap: More points scored by O under Mark More pts allowed by D while Mark was QB faced better competition w/ Mark but yeah Mark sucked and derailed the SB express. Context!
