Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Nick Foles will start vs Colts


Recommended Posts

Based off of their career stats, it's hard to choose who I'd rather the Colts face.

 

Pass completions

Foles - 61.8%

Trubs - 63.1%

 

TD's/INT's

Foles - 74/36

Trubs - 54/32

 

Rating

Foles - 88.3

Trubs - 85.9

 

Win/loss

Foles - 26/22

Trubs - 26-18

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Myles said:

Based off of their career stats, it's hard to choose who I'd rather the Colts face.

 

Pass completions

Foles - 61.8%

Trubs - 63.1%

 

TD's/INT's

Foles - 74/36

Trubs - 54/32

 

Rating

Foles - 88.3

Trubs - 85.9

 

Win/loss

Foles - 226/22

Trubs - 26-18

 

 

 

I think Trubisky can move around much better in the pocket and having him out against Foles favors Indy

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Myles said:

Based off of their career stats, it's hard to choose who I'd rather the Colts face.

 

Pass completions

Foles - 61.8%

Trubs - 63.1%

 

TD's/INT's

Foles - 74/36

Trubs - 54/32

 

Rating

Foles - 88.3

Trubs - 85.9

 

Win/loss

Foles - 226/22

Trubs - 26-18

 

 

Damn... Foles is a freakin winner.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Myles said:

Based off of their career stats, it's hard to choose who I'd rather the Colts face.

 

Pass completions

Foles - 61.8%

Trubs - 63.1%

 

TD's/INT's

Foles - 74/36

Trubs - 54/32

 

Rating

Foles - 88.3

Trubs - 85.9

 

Win/loss

Foles - 226/22

Trubs - 26-18

 

 

The Win/Loss stat I see for Foles is 30/24 as a starter...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Myles said:

Based off of their career stats, it's hard to choose who I'd rather the Colts face.

 

Pass completions

Foles - 61.8%

Trubs - 63.1%

 

TD's/INT's

Foles - 74/36

Trubs - 54/32

 

Rating

Foles - 88.3

Trubs - 85.9

 

Win/loss

Foles - 226/22

Trubs - 26-18

 

 

I bet 150-180 of those wins are with him riding the pine 

Did Trubs get hurt or is this a performance type switch up?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I bet 150-180 of those wins are with him riding the pine 

Did Trubs get hurt or is this a performance type switch up?

It was to spark the team yesterday, but since it worked they are sticking with Foles for at least this week.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, shakedownstreet said:

 

I think Trubisky can move around much better in the pocket and having him out against Foles favors Indy

I found their sack % opposite of what I thought I would see:

Foles - 5.3%

Trubs - 6.8%

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lancer1 said:

Let's see if the defense can record a safety in the 3rd straight game!

 

 

 Could happen, but teams don't just score safeties 3 weeks straight. It was extremely exciting to see number one versus the Vikings. It was just flat out crazy to see it happen again this week.

 

I'll bet your bank account versus mine it doesn't happen again :goodluck:

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, shakedownstreet said:

Seeing a team get a safety 3 weeks consecutively is about as likely as a an NFL one point play (yes it's possible but has never happened) 

A little-noticed aspect of the NFL’s new extra point rule is that we could see, for the first time in league history, a one-point safety.

If the defense gets the ball in the field of play on a conversion attemp, and then a defensive player takes the ball into his own end zone and is tackled, the result will be a one-point safety: The offensive team will get one point. That has never happened before in NFL history.

It had never happened before because it was virtually impossible: In the past, any time the defense took possession of the ball on a point-after attempt (either a one-point kick or a two-point conversion), the play was blown dead. A one-point safety was theoretically possible before, but it would have happened only if the defensive team had illegally batted a fumbled ball in the end zone.

One-point safeties have happened in college football, most notably in the 2013 Fiesta Bowl, when Kansas State blocked an Oregon extra point and a Kansas State player picked up the ball and ran it into his own end zone. The college rule that gives the defense the opportunity to score two points by returning an interception, fumble or blocked kick to the opposite end zone means that defensive teams that take possession of the ball will try to run it back for a score, and sometimes those players end up getting tackled after backtracking into their own end zones.

With that rule now in place in the NFL, it will happen in the NFL eventually as well: Some defensive player is going to reverse field, get caught in his own end zone, and give up the first one-point safety in NFL history.

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/22/nfl-may-see-its-first-one-point-safety/#:~:text=If the defense gets the,happened before in NFL history.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Myles said:

A little-noticed aspect of the NFL’s new extra point rule is that we could see, for the first time in league history, a one-point safety.

If the defense gets the ball in the field of play on a conversion attemp, and then a defensive player takes the ball into his own end zone and is tackled, the result will be a one-point safety: The offensive team will get one point. That has never happened before in NFL history.

It had never happened before because it was virtually impossible: In the past, any time the defense took possession of the ball on a point-after attempt (either a one-point kick or a two-point conversion), the play was blown dead. A one-point safety was theoretically possible before, but it would have happened only if the defensive team had illegally batted a fumbled ball in the end zone.

One-point safeties have happened in college football, most notably in the 2013 Fiesta Bowl, when Kansas State blocked an Oregon extra point and a Kansas State player picked up the ball and ran it into his own end zone. The college rule that gives the defense the opportunity to score two points by returning an interception, fumble or blocked kick to the opposite end zone means that defensive teams that take possession of the ball will try to run it back for a score, and sometimes those players end up getting tackled after backtracking into their own end zones.

With that rule now in place in the NFL, it will happen in the NFL eventually as well: Some defensive player is going to reverse field, get caught in his own end zone, and give up the first one-point safety in NFL history.

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/22/nfl-may-see-its-first-one-point-safety/#:~:text=If the defense gets the,happened before in NFL history.

I'm still a bit confused by this.  It sounds like if there is a fumble on a 2 point conversion and the defense grabs it in the endzone and doesn't get out of the endzone it would be a 1 point safety.  Wouldn't it be a touchback?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Myles said:

I'm still a bit confused by this.  It sounds like if there is a fumble on a 2 point conversion and the defense grabs it in the endzone and doesn't get out of the endzone it would be a 1 point safety.  Wouldn't it be a touchback?

 

Yes but in that scenario it's only a one point play

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Myles said:

I'm still a bit confused by this.  It sounds like if there is a fumble on a 2 point conversion and the defense grabs it in the endzone and doesn't get out of the endzone it would be a 1 point safety.  Wouldn't it be a touchback?

Yes, that would be a touchback. What the article is stating is that if the defensive player picks up the ball in the Endzone goes into the field of play, then retreats back into the end zone and his tackled, that is considered a safety.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MB-ColtsFan said:

Yes, that would be a touchback. What the article is stating is that if the defensive player picks up the ball in the Endzone goes into the field of play, then retreats back into the end zone and his tackled, that is considered a safety.

That makes sense.  I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

From what I read Foles would of been in competition with Brissett. He wouldn’t of been handed the job like Rivers.

That would have stunk.  Rivers is who I wanted and am glad we went that direction.   Good bridge.   I don't really think he makes the team a Superbowl threat, but if we can get to the playoffs, anything can happen.  Best case is that he stays next season as well and we make sure the QB of the future is on the roster.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Myles said:

That would have stunk.  Rivers is who I wanted and am glad we went that direction.   Good bridge.   I don't really think he makes the team a Superbowl threat, but if we can get to the playoffs, anything can happen.  Best case is that he stays next season as well and we make sure the QB of the future is on the roster.  

**** that. Colts win the SB this season

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shakedownstreet said:

 

 

 Could happen, but teams don't just score safeties 3 weeks straight. It was extremely exciting to see number one versus the Vikings. It was just flat out crazy to see it happen again this week.

 

I'll bet your bank account versus mine it doesn't happen again :goodluck:

There is that small chance, mostly cuz of Rigo punting and the guys who get downfield to down it. It does make it more possible

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • IMO the point where you had to have that conversation was last year. And it's now too... and it will be the point until long-term QB is addressed. Just... the moment you don't have a long-term QB is the moment you should start looking for one and not stop until you do have one. Now that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be some room for executive decisions and that's why I have not criticized Ballard for not taking a QB high last year.  Agreed. Again... I give some leeway to Ballard about his QB decisions, he likes whoever he likes and I would rather him draft any other position player that he likes, rather than a QB he doesn't like. But, with every passing FA/trade/draft window, the QB question will continue to become bigger and bigger. If we don't get our long-term QB this off-season it will be 3 years and drafts since Luck's retirement that he will be have the chance to address it. This is not ideal. We are threading water in the meantime. At some point unwillingness to take a shot over a long period of time becomes indecision and inability rather than patience. 
    • Agreed....   at some point.    Where there will be wide disagreement is...   when the point is?    We have a prominent poster who complained back in late November-early December that Ballard had yet to address fixing the long-term QB situation.   And he was exasperated over that.   I noted that Luck had only been retired for roughly 15 months and Ballard has had exactly one free agent window and one draft. That’s it.   I’m re-telling this story not to give that poster a hard time, but simply to say to others here, just be patient.  Hasn’t Ballard earned a high level of trust here?   I think so.   I trust that when Ballard finds a QB he likes, he’ll pull the trigger. 
    • Yeah it is expensive and I'm generally against trading up in the draft, and I'm much more a fan of trading down, but as I've said before there is one exception for that rule. It's the QB. Like with many things QBs tilt the conversation on its head. Just the value if you hit is SO BIG, that you have to do it if you get the chance(and you love the QB sitting there of course). There is practically no bad trade value if you trade up for a QB and he hits.    Also, about the hit rates of QBs. my opinion is that it's not just about the QB and his talent/drive/determination/work ethic. The environment, teammates, coaching, etc. play a big role in whether they succeed or fail. There are very few Andrew Lucks who will succeed no matter what garbage you throw at them(and he was thrown into one of the biggest piles of garbage in the league when it comes to GM-coach combo + the talent around him). For most QBs, even highly drafted, their talent needs to be guided and nurtured in the right direction. And in this line of thoughts - I think some of those QBs could have been successful in another environment and/or with a bit more luck(Darnold/Wentz), while others were probably doomed from the start because of their own failings(Rosen, Trubisky). And here is where I think we actually have somewhat of an advantage. I like our GM and our FO. I like our coach generally(even if I have some playcalling beefs with him). I like our roster and the foundations of our OLine. I think this situation gives better than average chance to a young QB to succeed. It's still no guarantee, but again... at some point you will have to make a move of some sort. We cannot keep rethreading the Rivers' of the world.  At some point Ballard will have to trust his evaluation of a QB he loves and just do what it takes to get him. 
    • Sorry, but no, our window is not closing.   Almost all of Ballard's top players are still on their rookie contracts.   This team is EARLY in it's window.    There is still great opportunity for the Colts.   Your viewpoint is a fan's viewpoint.    It is not the view of how an NFL front office person thinks.   There is still time.   Patience can be your friend.  
  • Members

    • Behle

      Behle 46

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • HungarianColtsFan

      HungarianColtsFan 489

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NannyMcafee

      NannyMcafee 1,622

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • w87r

      w87r 3,942

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Smoke317

      Smoke317 1,136

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Patrick Miller

      Patrick Miller 245

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Fisticuffs111

      Fisticuffs111 1,952

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • JackOLantin

      JackOLantin 41

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • colts8718

      colts8718 125

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • cdgacoltsfan

      cdgacoltsfan 434

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...