The Nick Foles era (2 Viewers)

[Hoosier16]

My view: Vick is the better QB and will start, unless Vick, or Foles in preseason shows me otherwise.

So, whoever is better will start.

 

[N Zone]

Listen to beat writers / reporters at your own peril.

I'll continue to evaluate, successfully, year after year, by watching players with my own eyes.

My view: Vick is the better QB and will start, unless Vick, or Foles in preseason shows me otherwise.

Draft either one at your own risk considering the beat writers and reporters are the only ones who have actually seen either one this year. Complete toss up at this point as to who will be the starter. Maybe it will become clearer when camp opens.

I already had a draft and took Vick. Foles wasn't drafted. Vick is my QB2 and I also have another QB2. If Vick starts he offers more upside than Foles starting.

 

[Insein]

Listen to beat writers / reporters at your own peril.

I'll continue to evaluate, successfully, year after year, by watching players with my own eyes.

My view: Vick is the better QB and will start, unless Vick, or Foles in preseason shows me otherwise.

Draft either one at your own risk considering the beat writers and reporters are the only ones who have actually seen either one this year. Complete toss up at this point as to who will be the starter. Maybe it will become clearer when camp opens.

I already had a draft and took Vick. Foles wasn't drafted. Vick is my QB2 and I also have another QB2. If Vick starts he offers more upside than Foles starting.

That is just complete babble. Vick is 33, turnover prone and learning a brand new offense. What upside does he offer that a 24 year old, 2nd year man wouldn't?

 

[N Zone]

Listen to beat writers / reporters at your own peril.

I'll continue to evaluate, successfully, year after year, by watching players with my own eyes.

My view: Vick is the better QB and will start, unless Vick, or Foles in preseason shows me otherwise.

Draft either one at your own risk considering the beat writers and reporters are the only ones who have actually seen either one this year. Complete toss up at this point as to who will be the starter. Maybe it will become clearer when camp opens.

I already had a draft and took Vick. Foles wasn't drafted. Vick is my QB2 and I also have another QB2. If Vick starts he offers more upside than Foles starting.

That is just complete babble. Vick is 33, turnover prone and learning a brand new offense. What upside does he offer that a 24 year old, 2nd year man wouldn't?

Well, in 2010 Vick was the highest scorer in fantasy football (points per game) and in my league it was by a large margin: 5 points per game compared to the QB2; and 13 points per game higher than the highest scoring non-QB. So he offers huge upside. This new offense offers more potential than any offense Vick has every played in. Vick's rushing yardage and rushing touchdowns are significant in fantasy football. 33 is young for a QB. It's a redraft.

 

[Insein]

Listen to beat writers / reporters at your own peril.

I'll continue to evaluate, successfully, year after year, by watching players with my own eyes.

My view: Vick is the better QB and will start, unless Vick, or Foles in preseason shows me otherwise.

Draft either one at your own risk considering the beat writers and reporters are the only ones who have actually seen either one this year. Complete toss up at this point as to who will be the starter. Maybe it will become clearer when camp opens.

I already had a draft and took Vick. Foles wasn't drafted. Vick is my QB2 and I also have another QB2. If Vick starts he offers more upside than Foles starting.

That is just complete babble. Vick is 33, turnover prone and learning a brand new offense. What upside does he offer that a 24 year old, 2nd year man wouldn't?

Well, in 2010 Vick was the highest scorer in fantasy football (points per game) and in my league it was by a large margin: 5 points per game compared to the QB2; and 13 points per game higher than the highest scoring non-QB. So he offers huge upside. This new offense offers more potential than any offense Vick has every played in. Vick's rushing yardage and rushing touchdowns are significant in fantasy football. 33 is young for a QB. It's a redraft.

What year is it? How many games did Vick actually play that year? What did he do after the Giants game? Exactly. That's been the last 2 years with Vick now. At some point, people are going to have to realize that those 10 games in 2010 were the exception, not the norm. Drafting Vick at all hoping for upside is a massive risk unless it's 12th round or later. Having him as a QB2 is a recipe for disaster.

 

[JetMaxx]

My view: Vick is the better QB

I disagree. At 33, Vick is now an injury prone turnover and sack machine who repeatedly makes poor decisions which makes him a complete waste of time for a rebuilding team. Foles showed enough last year to tell me he could be just as good as Vick right now with lots of room for growth.

 

[JetMaxx]

Listen to beat writers / reporters at your own peril.

I'll continue to evaluate, successfully, year after year, by watching players with my own eyes.

My view: Vick is the better QB and will start, unless Vick, or Foles in preseason shows me otherwise.

Draft either one at your own risk considering the beat writers and reporters are the only ones who have actually seen either one this year. Complete toss up at this point as to who will be the starter. Maybe it will become clearer when camp opens.

I already had a draft and took Vick. Foles wasn't drafted. Vick is my QB2 and I also have another QB2. If Vick starts he offers more upside than Foles starting.

That is just complete babble. Vick is 33, turnover prone and learning a brand new offense. What upside does he offer that a 24 year old, 2nd year man wouldn't?

Well, in 2010 Vick was the highest scorer in fantasy football (points per game) and in my league it was by a large margin: 5 points per game compared to the QB2; and 13 points per game higher than the highest scoring non-QB. So he offers huge upside. This new offense offers more potential than any offense Vick has every played in. Vick's rushing yardage and rushing touchdowns are significant in fantasy football. 33 is young for a QB. It's a redraft.

What year is it? How many games did Vick actually play that year? What did he do after the Giants game? Exactly. That's been the last 2 years with Vick now. At some point, people are going to have to realize that those 10 games in 2010 were the exception, not the norm. Drafting Vick at all hoping for upside is a massive risk unless it's 12th round or later. Having him as a QB2 is a recipe for disaster.

 

[renesauz]

Listen to beat writers / reporters at your own peril.

I'll continue to evaluate, successfully, year after year, by watching players with my own eyes.

My view: Vick is the better QB and will start, unless Vick, or Foles in preseason shows me otherwise.

Draft either one at your own risk considering the beat writers and reporters are the only ones who have actually seen either one this year. Complete toss up at this point as to who will be the starter. Maybe it will become clearer when camp opens.

I already had a draft and took Vick. Foles wasn't drafted. Vick is my QB2 and I also have another QB2. If Vick starts he offers more upside than Foles starting.

That is just complete babble. Vick is 33, turnover prone and learning a brand new offense. What upside does he offer that a 24 year old, 2nd year man wouldn't?

Well, in 2010 Vick was the highest scorer in fantasy football (points per game) and in my league it was by a large margin: 5 points per game compared to the QB2; and 13 points per game higher than the highest scoring non-QB. So he offers huge upside. This new offense offers more potential than any offense Vick has every played in. Vick's rushing yardage and rushing touchdowns are significant in fantasy football. 33 is young for a QB. It's a redraft.

What year is it? How many games did Vick actually play that year? What did he do after the Giants game? Exactly. That's been the last 2 years with Vick now. At some point, people are going to have to realize that those 10 games in 2010 were the exception, not the norm. Drafting Vick at all hoping for upside is a massive risk unless it's 12th round or later. Having him as a QB2 is a recipe for disaster.

I agree with your general opinion regarding Vick's potential, but the bolded is ridiculous. Having Vick as a QB2 is a great move as long as you are in a league where you can reasonably acquire an emergency QB should #1 get hurt and Vick fail. IN leagues where getting a QB on the fly is tougher.......you're closer

ETA: FTR, I own Foles in several leagues. I think Vick is done.

 

[Insein]

Listen to beat writers / reporters at your own peril.

I'll continue to evaluate, successfully, year after year, by watching players with my own eyes.

My view: Vick is the better QB and will start, unless Vick, or Foles in preseason shows me otherwise.

Draft either one at your own risk considering the beat writers and reporters are the only ones who have actually seen either one this year. Complete toss up at this point as to who will be the starter. Maybe it will become clearer when camp opens.

I already had a draft and took Vick. Foles wasn't drafted. Vick is my QB2 and I also have another QB2. If Vick starts he offers more upside than Foles starting.

That is just complete babble. Vick is 33, turnover prone and learning a brand new offense. What upside does he offer that a 24 year old, 2nd year man wouldn't?

Well, in 2010 Vick was the highest scorer in fantasy football (points per game) and in my league it was by a large margin: 5 points per game compared to the QB2; and 13 points per game higher than the highest scoring non-QB. So he offers huge upside. This new offense offers more potential than any offense Vick has every played in. Vick's rushing yardage and rushing touchdowns are significant in fantasy football. 33 is young for a QB. It's a redraft.

What year is it? How many games did Vick actually play that year? What did he do after the Giants game? Exactly. That's been the last 2 years with Vick now. At some point, people are going to have to realize that those 10 games in 2010 were the exception, not the norm. Drafting Vick at all hoping for upside is a massive risk unless it's 12th round or later. Having him as a QB2 is a recipe for disaster.

I agree with your general opinion regarding Vick's potential, but the bolded is ridiculous. Having Vick as a QB2 is a great move as long as you are in a league where you can reasonably acquire an emergency QB should #1 get hurt and Vick fail. IN leagues where getting a QB on the fly is tougher.......you're closerETA: FTR, I own Foles in several leagues. I think Vick is done.

What good is a QB2 when odds are above average that he'll be hurt when you need him for either a bye or replacement.

 

[Amused to Death]

Well, in 2010 Vick was the highest scorer in fantasy football (points per game) and in my league it was by a large margin: 5 points per game compared to the QB2; and 13 points per game higher than the highest scoring non-QB. So he offers huge upside. This new offense offers more potential than any offense Vick has every played in. Vick's rushing yardage and rushing touchdowns are significant in fantasy football. 33 is young for a QB. It's a redraft.

What year is it? How many games did Vick actually play that year? What did he do after the Giants game? Exactly. That's been the last 2 years with Vick now. At some point, people are going to have to realize that those 10 games in 2010 were the exception, not the norm. Drafting Vick at all hoping for upside is a massive risk unless it's 12th round or later. Having him as a QB2 is a recipe for disaster.

I agree with your general opinion regarding Vick's potential, but the bolded is ridiculous. Having Vick as a QB2 is a great move as long as you are in a league where you can reasonably acquire an emergency QB should #1 get hurt and Vick fail. IN leagues where getting a QB on the fly is tougher.......you're closer

ETA: FTR, I own Foles in several leagues. I think Vick is done.

Vick as your QB2 is good if you have a dependable QB1. IMO, if you drafted him you hope he wins the job out of preseason, hope he puts up good numbers in weeks 1 & 2, then get what you can in a trade. No one should be drafting him with the expectation he'll be there for a late season bye week plug in.

 

[MAC_32]

The value of a qb2 varies significantly depending on the type of league and what's available on waivers.

 

[bengalbuck]

Vick is a great value in dynasty and I have been snagging him whenever I am able to. In a startup dynasty draft last week, I took him at 25.12 as my QB3. I was already set at QB but he just falling and falling.

If he wins the job and Kelly runs an up tempo offense as expected, it is more plays offensive plays overall and thus easier or guys like Vick to accumulate stats. If he averages 50 rushing yards a game, which is not far fetched at all, he has a great chance to be a low level QB1 or at worst a solid bye week fill in.

 

[ShaHBucks]

Vick is a great value in dynasty and I have been snagging him whenever I am able to. In a startup dynasty draft last week, I took him at 25.12 as my QB3. I was already set at QB but he just falling and falling.

If he wins the job and Kelly runs an up tempo offense as expected, it is more plays offensive plays overall and thus easier or guys like Vick to accumulate stats. If he averages 50 rushing yards a game, which is not far fetched at all, he has a great chance to be a low level QB1 or at worst a solid bye week fill in.

At worse he gets cut

 

[Insein]

It just amazes me the risk people are ignoring with Vick. Foles has little risk because he can be had in any round you want right now or waivers. Gobble him up for cheap and take a flier. Vick is still being drafted around the 10th round which amazes me. It's not even the risk of him busting because of injury anymore. He now might not even be the starter for the team. How anyone sees that as a QB2 is beyond me. I want my QB2 to be a guy I know could start any given week if my QB1 goes down or if a favorable matchup comes up. Way too much risk that everyone else can take on as far as I'm concerned.

 

[MAC_32]

It just amazes me the risk people are ignoring with Vick. Foles has little risk because he can be had in any round you want right now or waivers. Gobble him up for cheap and take a flier. Vick is still being drafted around the 10th round which amazes me. It's not even the risk of him busting because of injury anymore. He now might not even be the starter for the team. How anyone sees that as a QB2 is beyond me. I want my QB2 to be a guy I know could start any given week if my QB1 goes down or if a favorable matchup comes up. Way too much risk that everyone else can take on as far as I'm concerned.

In a 10-12 team league with about 8-12 starters available any given week the risk on Vick as a QB2 makes more sense. If he predictably flops before October or doesn't even leave camp with a job drop him for another QB on waivers. In a league with little to nothing at QB on waivers it does not make sense though for the reasons you outlined. That said, in those leagues, given Vick and Foles' current prices, it may make sense to roster both. I won't, I don't like either one of them, but if you're buying into Philly QB's it does.

Again, it all depends on the league. Ignoring Vick's upside is just as foolish as ignoring his downside.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Listen to beat writers / reporters at your own peril.

I'll continue to evaluate, successfully, year after year, by watching players with my own eyes.

My view: Vick is the better QB and will start, unless Vick, or Foles in preseason shows me otherwise.

Draft either one at your own risk considering the beat writers and reporters are the only ones who have actually seen either one this year. Complete toss up at this point as to who will be the starter. Maybe it will become clearer when camp opens.

I already had a draft and took Vick. Foles wasn't drafted. Vick is my QB2 and I also have another QB2. If Vick starts he offers more upside than Foles starting.

That is just complete babble. Vick is 33, turnover prone and learning a brand new offense. What upside does he offer that a 24 year old, 2nd year man wouldn't?

Vick averages 47 rushing yards per game since earning the starting job in Philly. That's like an extra 1504 passing yards a season in leagues that give a point per 20 yards, or 1880 passing yards in leagues that give a point per 25, and it ignores his rushing touchdowns. Even last year's 33.2 yard per game average equates to an extra 1062-1328 yards. Foles might be a more productive passer than Vick, but how much more productive? 1062 yards more? 1880 yards more? Even in Vick's worst season (discounting seasons where he was a backup and his injury-shorted 2003 campaign), he averaged 154.2 passing yards per game, which would be 2467 over a full year. Will Foles pass for 3500 yards this year (best case scenario, assuming Vick sets a career low in both passing yards per game *AND* rushing yards per game, and also assuming one point per 20 yards passing)? Will he pass for 4500 yards (assumes Vick averages 200 yards a game passing despite never falling below 235 a game in Philly, as well as just 40 a game rushing, and again using one point per 20 passing)? Will Foles pass for 5600 yards (the equivalent to 230 yards a game passing and 50 yards a game rushing in one point per 25 yard passing leagues)?

I would say the chances of Vick averaging 230 passing and 50 rushing are much, much higher than the chances of Foles shattering the league record for single-season passing yardage, which suggests that Michael Vick offers much more achievable upside as a fantasy QB than Nick Foles.

Full disclosure: I own Foles in several leagues and Vick in none. I think Foles is a steal at his current prices in both redraft and dynasty leagues. I'm rooting for Foles to get the job, and think he's a smarter choice for Philly (who probably isn't winning it all this season, and probably shouldn't be committing too heavily to an injury-prone 33 year old on a short-term contract). I think it's entirely possible that Nick Foles will even prove to be the better and more valuable NFL quarterback this year. I'm just laying out the realities of the situation as they pertain to fantasy football; due to the relative value of rushing yardage vs. passing yardage, there is no universe where Nick Foles' upside (either realistic or otherwise) even approaches Michael Vick's.

 

[ShaHBucks]

Listen to beat writers / reporters at your own peril.

I'll continue to evaluate, successfully, year after year, by watching players with my own eyes.

My view: Vick is the better QB and will start, unless Vick, or Foles in preseason shows me otherwise.

Draft either one at your own risk considering the beat writers and reporters are the only ones who have actually seen either one this year. Complete toss up at this point as to who will be the starter. Maybe it will become clearer when camp opens.

I already had a draft and took Vick. Foles wasn't drafted. Vick is my QB2 and I also have another QB2. If Vick starts he offers more upside than Foles starting.

That is just complete babble. Vick is 33, turnover prone and learning a brand new offense. What upside does he offer that a 24 year old, 2nd year man wouldn't?

Vick averages 47 rushing yards per game since earning the starting job in Philly. That's like an extra 1504 passing yards a season in leagues that give a point per 20 yards, or 1880 passing yards in leagues that give a point per 25, and it ignores his rushing touchdowns. Even last year's 33.2 yard per game average equates to an extra 1062-1328 yards. Foles might be a more productive passer than Vick, but how much more productive? 1062 yards more? 1880 yards more? Even in Vick's worst season (discounting seasons where he was a backup and his injury-shorted 2003 campaign), he averaged 154.2 passing yards per game, which would be 2467 over a full year. Will Foles pass for 3500 yards this year (best case scenario, assuming Vick sets a career low in both passing yards per game *AND* rushing yards per game, and also assuming one point per 20 yards passing)? Will he pass for 4500 yards (assumes Vick averages 200 yards a game passing despite never falling below 235 a game in Philly, as well as just 40 a game rushing, and again using one point per 20 passing)? Will Foles pass for 5600 yards (the equivalent to 230 yards a game passing and 50 yards a game rushing in one point per 25 yard passing leagues)?

I would say the chances of Vick averaging 230 passing and 50 rushing are much, much higher than the chances of Foles shattering the league record for single-season passing yardage, which suggests that Michael Vick offers much more achievable upside as a fantasy QB than Nick Foles.

Full disclosure: I own Foles in several leagues and Vick in none. I think Foles is a steal at his current prices in both redraft and dynasty leagues. I'm rooting for Foles to get the job, and think he's a smarter choice for Philly (who probably isn't winning it all this season, and probably shouldn't be committing too heavily to an injury-prone 33 year old on a short-term contract). I think it's entirely possible that Nick Foles will even prove to be the better and more valuable NFL quarterback this year. I'm just laying out the realities of the situation as they pertain to fantasy football; due to the relative value of rushing yardage vs. passing yardage, there is no universe where Nick Foles' upside (either realistic or otherwise) even approaches Michael Vick's.

I agree that Vick have the edge in fantasy because of his legs even thought that still equates to a mediocre at best backup. From a NFL perspective he's aging runner, and though he's never been a high level passer he's declining in that skill as well. Foles moves the offense a lot better than Vick. I have to side with Foles in a competition. He would have beat out Vick in the preaseason last year if there was a open competition as well.

 

[renesauz]

Listen to beat writers / reporters at your own peril.

I'll continue to evaluate, successfully, year after year, by watching players with my own eyes.

My view: Vick is the better QB and will start, unless Vick, or Foles in preseason shows me otherwise.

Draft either one at your own risk considering the beat writers and reporters are the only ones who have actually seen either one this year. Complete toss up at this point as to who will be the starter. Maybe it will become clearer when camp opens.

I already had a draft and took Vick. Foles wasn't drafted. Vick is my QB2 and I also have another QB2. If Vick starts he offers more upside than Foles starting.

That is just complete babble. Vick is 33, turnover prone and learning a brand new offense. What upside does he offer that a 24 year old, 2nd year man wouldn't?

Vick averages 47 rushing yards per game since earning the starting job in Philly. That's like an extra 1504 passing yards a season in leagues that give a point per 20 yards, or 1880 passing yards in leagues that give a point per 25, and it ignores his rushing touchdowns. Even last year's 33.2 yard per game average equates to an extra 1062-1328 yards. Foles might be a more productive passer than Vick, but how much more productive? 1062 yards more? 1880 yards more? Even in Vick's worst season (discounting seasons where he was a backup and his injury-shorted 2003 campaign), he averaged 154.2 passing yards per game, which would be 2467 over a full year. Will Foles pass for 3500 yards this year (best case scenario, assuming Vick sets a career low in both passing yards per game *AND* rushing yards per game, and also assuming one point per 20 yards passing)? Will he pass for 4500 yards (assumes Vick averages 200 yards a game passing despite never falling below 235 a game in Philly, as well as just 40 a game rushing, and again using one point per 20 passing)? Will Foles pass for 5600 yards (the equivalent to 230 yards a game passing and 50 yards a game rushing in one point per 25 yard passing leagues)?

I would say the chances of Vick averaging 230 passing and 50 rushing are much, much higher than the chances of Foles shattering the league record for single-season passing yardage, which suggests that Michael Vick offers much more achievable upside as a fantasy QB than Nick Foles.

Full disclosure: I own Foles in several leagues and Vick in none. I think Foles is a steal at his current prices in both redraft and dynasty leagues. I'm rooting for Foles to get the job, and think he's a smarter choice for Philly (who probably isn't winning it all this season, and probably shouldn't be committing too heavily to an injury-prone 33 year old on a short-term contract). I think it's entirely possible that Nick Foles will even prove to be the better and more valuable NFL quarterback this year. I'm just laying out the realities of the situation as they pertain to fantasy football; due to the relative value of rushing yardage vs. passing yardage, there is no universe where Nick Foles' upside (either realistic or otherwise) even approaches Michael Vick's.

Nice analysis, but you've ignored turnovers. Vick has not only thrown a lot of interceptions the last few years, but he's a fumbling machine as well.

I agree that Vick's absolute ceiling is MUCH higher than Foles' is, but Foles seems more likely to reach his, and the difference between the two is not nearly as large as you suggest.

 

[Eminence]

I've got my money on Vick.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Listen to beat writers / reporters at your own peril.

I'll continue to evaluate, successfully, year after year, by watching players with my own eyes.

My view: Vick is the better QB and will start, unless Vick, or Foles in preseason shows me otherwise.

Draft either one at your own risk considering the beat writers and reporters are the only ones who have actually seen either one this year. Complete toss up at this point as to who will be the starter. Maybe it will become clearer when camp opens.

I already had a draft and took Vick. Foles wasn't drafted. Vick is my QB2 and I also have another QB2. If Vick starts he offers more upside than Foles starting.

That is just complete babble. Vick is 33, turnover prone and learning a brand new offense. What upside does he offer that a 24 year old, 2nd year man wouldn't?

Vick averages 47 rushing yards per game since earning the starting job in Philly. That's like an extra 1504 passing yards a season in leagues that give a point per 20 yards, or 1880 passing yards in leagues that give a point per 25, and it ignores his rushing touchdowns. Even last year's 33.2 yard per game average equates to an extra 1062-1328 yards. Foles might be a more productive passer than Vick, but how much more productive? 1062 yards more? 1880 yards more? Even in Vick's worst season (discounting seasons where he was a backup and his injury-shorted 2003 campaign), he averaged 154.2 passing yards per game, which would be 2467 over a full year. Will Foles pass for 3500 yards this year (best case scenario, assuming Vick sets a career low in both passing yards per game *AND* rushing yards per game, and also assuming one point per 20 yards passing)? Will he pass for 4500 yards (assumes Vick averages 200 yards a game passing despite never falling below 235 a game in Philly, as well as just 40 a game rushing, and again using one point per 20 passing)? Will Foles pass for 5600 yards (the equivalent to 230 yards a game passing and 50 yards a game rushing in one point per 25 yard passing leagues)?

I would say the chances of Vick averaging 230 passing and 50 rushing are much, much higher than the chances of Foles shattering the league record for single-season passing yardage, which suggests that Michael Vick offers much more achievable upside as a fantasy QB than Nick Foles.

Full disclosure: I own Foles in several leagues and Vick in none. I think Foles is a steal at his current prices in both redraft and dynasty leagues. I'm rooting for Foles to get the job, and think he's a smarter choice for Philly (who probably isn't winning it all this season, and probably shouldn't be committing too heavily to an injury-prone 33 year old on a short-term contract). I think it's entirely possible that Nick Foles will even prove to be the better and more valuable NFL quarterback this year. I'm just laying out the realities of the situation as they pertain to fantasy football; due to the relative value of rushing yardage vs. passing yardage, there is no universe where Nick Foles' upside (either realistic or otherwise) even approaches Michael Vick's.

Nice analysis, but you've ignored turnovers. Vick has not only thrown a lot of interceptions the last few years, but he's a fumbling machine as well.

I agree that Vick's absolute ceiling is MUCH higher than Foles' is, but Foles seems more likely to reach his, and the difference between the two is not nearly as large as you suggest.

Yes, I ignored turnovers. Including them tilts the comparison towards Foles, but not by much. You mention that Vick was a fumbling machine, but Foles actually averaged more fumbles per game (1.14 vs. 1.10). Foles fumbled once ever 37 plays (plays = pass attempts + rush attempts + sacks), while Vick only fumbled once ever 40 plays. Vick was tackled 90 times, (tackles = rush attempts + sacks), meaning he averaged a fumble every 8.2 tackles. Foles averaged a fumble every 3.9 (!!!) tackles. Foles had a much bigger problem with fumbles last year than Vick did. Where Foles gets the edge is with interceptions, where Foles averaged fewer per game (0.71 vs. 1.0), and fewer per pass attempt (Foles threw a pick every 43 passes, Vick threw one every 35 passes).

If Vick continues averaging a ludicrous 1.43 turnovers per game (his average over the last two seasons), we're looking at 23 turnovers on the season. Nick Foles averaged 1.14 turnovers per game last year, which would work out to 18 over a full season. The average team in 2012 threw 14.6 interceptions and had the QB fumble the ball 8.3 times, so if we assume teams recover 60% of the time when the QB fumbles, we're looking at 17.9 turnovers on average from the QB position- or bang-on with Foles' 18 projected turnovers. So if Michael Vick continues his ridiculous turnover pace, and Nick Foles is roughly league average at turning the ball over, we'd expect a difference of 5 turnovers. Most scoring systems give either -1 or -2 points per turnover, so that's 5-10 points, or the equivalent of just 100-200 yards (in 20 yard per point leagues). In extreme performance-based leagues that give -4 points per turnover, that's the equivalent of 400 yards.

So far this is all fairly realistic, but let's go crazy and come up with a complete best-case scenario. Let's assign Vick his turnover pace from 2012 (1.5 turnovers per game) instead of his average turnover pace from 2011-2012. That gives him 24 turnovers over a full season. Let's also assume that Nick Foles becomes the best quarterback in the entire NFL at avoiding turnovers, and he only coughs the ball up 12 times. To give some context, here's a complete list of all franchises with 12 or fewer turnovers from the QB position last season: New England (11), San Francisco (11), Washington (10). San Francisco and Washington needed a lot of luck to make that list- they combined for 26 fumbles from their QBs, but only lost a total of 5 (three for San Fran, two for Washington). So in other words, let's assume that Nick Foles turns into Tom Brady or has ludicrous fumble luck. In this extreme scenario, we're looking at an extra 12 turnovers over the course of the season, which is the equivalent to 240 to 480 extra passing yards in 20 yards per point scoring.

Note that all of this turnover analysis so far assumes that Vick continues his ludicrous turnover pace. If he regresses even a little bit to the mean, Foles' advantage in this realm could wind up disappearing entirely. Again, we're talking about just 5 turnovers per 16 games separating Michael Vick from league average over the last two seasons.

In addition to turnovers, I also ignored rushing TDs, which would tilt the comparison back towards Vick. That comparison isn't as easy to make, because if Vick scores a touchdown rushing, that gives him one fewer opportunity to score a touchdown passing. As a result, increasing your rushing touchdowns by one will decrease your passing touchdowns by some value greater than zero but less than one. Worst case scenario, if we assume Vick gets 2 rushing touchdowns over the course of the year, and that the conversion rate is exactly 1:1 (i.e. in every instance, had Vick not scored a rushing TD, he would have scored a passing TD instead), then that's an extra 4 points in leagues that award 4 points per passing TD and 6 points per rushing TD. If Vick gets 4 rushing TDs and the conversion rate is 50%, then you're looking at an extra 16 points (about 320 yards in 20 yard per point leagues). Of course, none of this matters in leagues that award 6 points for all TDs.

So, summing this all up... in leagues that award a point per 10 yards rushing and 20 yards passing, 6 points for all TDs, and -4 points per turnover (i.e. the most "Foles friendly" scoring system we can gin up), Michael Vick's rushing prowess is worth the same as 1000-1500 passing yards (1000 representing Vick matching his career low in rushing yards per game, 1500 representing a 10% improvement over Vick's average per-game numbers in Philly), while Nick Foles's turnover advantage is worth anywhere from 0 passing yards (assuming Vick regresses to the mean), to 400 passing yards (assuming Vick does not regress and Foles remains average), to 960 passing yards (assuming Vick increases his turnover rate while Foles turns the ball over less than any other QB in the league). So even under the most unrealistic assumptions imaginable (Vick gets worse, Foles becomes Tom Brady), and in the most Foles-friendly scoring system (-4 per turnover, 20 yards per point passing, 6 points for passing TDs), Vick's rushing prowess still gives him an advantage worth anywhere from 40 to 540 yards, with a median of 290 yards. With realistic assumptions (i.e. assuming Foles is not Tom Brady), the Foles-friendly scoring system still leaves Vick with the equivalent of a 600-1100 passing yard advantage, with a median of 850 yards.

In leagues that award a point per 10 yards rushing and 25 yards passing, 6 points for rushing TDs vs. 4 points for passing TDs, and just -1 point per turnover (i.e. the most "Vick friendly" scoring system we can gin up), Vick's rushing yardage is worth the equivalent of 1250 to 1900 yards, his rushing TDs are worth another 100-400 yards (100 representing 2 TDs and 100% conversion rate, 400 representing 4 TDs and 50% conversion rate), and he loses the equivalent of 125-300 yards over the turnovers (125 yards represents Vick maintaining his rate and Foles being league average, 300 yards represents Vick increasing his turnover rate and Foles becoming Tom Brady). So, putting it all together, the Vick-friendly scoring system leaves Vick with the equivalent of a 1050-2000 passing yard advantage with a median of 1475 yards (using the crazy "Foles = Tom Brady" assumptions), or a 1225-2175 passing yard advantage with a median of 1700 yards (using our more realistic assumptions).

In a more balanced league (say, 20 yards per point passing, 4 points per passing TD, -2 points per turnover), Vick's rushing yards are worth the same as 1000-1500 passing yards, his rushing TDs are worth the same as 100-400 passing yards, and his turnovers cost him the equivalent of 200-480 passing yards (200 if Foles is average, 480 if Foles is Tom Brady). So, in a relatively typical league, we would assume Michael Vick to be sporting a fantasy advantage equivalent to an extra 650-1700 passing yards, with a median value of around 1200 passing yards.

Given all of this, of course Michael Vick's upside is much higher than Nick Foles'. Even if you account for turnovers, Vick's rushing prowess gives him the equivalent of a 1200 yard head start. Is it possible that Nick Foles is a good enough passer that he can be expected to throw for 1200 more yards than Michael Vick? I suppose it's possible, but it's a long shot. Vick averages 250 yards per game in Philly, with a low of 235 yards per game in 2012. Foles would basically need to throw for 5,000 yards to overcome Vick's rushing advantage. And this is using averages for Vick- by definition, the word "upside" means you're beating your average performance. If Vick improves on his per-game averages in Philly, he could very easily score at a pace equivalent to a 5600 yard season. And like I was saying, I just don't think Nick Foles has 5600-yard upside in him.

Nick Foles winning the fantasy job would be good news for me, since I own Foles and not Vick. It'd be good news for the Eagles, since Foles is (potentially) the future and Vick is not. But it would not be good news for fantasy owners in general, since Vick has substantially higher fantasy upside *AND* a substantially higher fantasy floor, to boot. Consider: last season, Vick was absolutely atrocious. He completely melted down, and took the entire Philly offense over the cliff with him. He also got injured and missed most of his week 9 contest against Dallas. He still ranked 13th in points per game in standard FBGs scoring. How many other quarterbacks can implode that catastrophically and score like a borderline fantasy QB1? Not many, and I wouldn't bet on Nick Foles being one of them. If I knew with 100% certainty that Vick was the starter in Philly, he'd be an easy top-12 quarterback for me. If I knew with 100% certainty that Foles was starting, he'd be closer to QB18.

 

[ShaHBucks]

Listen to beat writers / reporters at your own peril.

I'll continue to evaluate, successfully, year after year, by watching players with my own eyes.

My view: Vick is the better QB and will start, unless Vick, or Foles in preseason shows me otherwise.

Draft either one at your own risk considering the beat writers and reporters are the only ones who have actually seen either one this year. Complete toss up at this point as to who will be the starter. Maybe it will become clearer when camp opens.

I already had a draft and took Vick. Foles wasn't drafted. Vick is my QB2 and I also have another QB2. If Vick starts he offers more upside than Foles starting.

That is just complete babble. Vick is 33, turnover prone and learning a brand new offense. What upside does he offer that a 24 year old, 2nd year man wouldn't?

Vick averages 47 rushing yards per game since earning the starting job in Philly. That's like an extra 1504 passing yards a season in leagues that give a point per 20 yards, or 1880 passing yards in leagues that give a point per 25, and it ignores his rushing touchdowns. Even last year's 33.2 yard per game average equates to an extra 1062-1328 yards. Foles might be a more productive passer than Vick, but how much more productive? 1062 yards more? 1880 yards more? Even in Vick's worst season (discounting seasons where he was a backup and his injury-shorted 2003 campaign), he averaged 154.2 passing yards per game, which would be 2467 over a full year. Will Foles pass for 3500 yards this year (best case scenario, assuming Vick sets a career low in both passing yards per game *AND* rushing yards per game, and also assuming one point per 20 yards passing)? Will he pass for 4500 yards (assumes Vick averages 200 yards a game passing despite never falling below 235 a game in Philly, as well as just 40 a game rushing, and again using one point per 20 passing)? Will Foles pass for 5600 yards (the equivalent to 230 yards a game passing and 50 yards a game rushing in one point per 25 yard passing leagues)?

I would say the chances of Vick averaging 230 passing and 50 rushing are much, much higher than the chances of Foles shattering the league record for single-season passing yardage, which suggests that Michael Vick offers much more achievable upside as a fantasy QB than Nick Foles.

Full disclosure: I own Foles in several leagues and Vick in none. I think Foles is a steal at his current prices in both redraft and dynasty leagues. I'm rooting for Foles to get the job, and think he's a smarter choice for Philly (who probably isn't winning it all this season, and probably shouldn't be committing too heavily to an injury-prone 33 year old on a short-term contract). I think it's entirely possible that Nick Foles will even prove to be the better and more valuable NFL quarterback this year. I'm just laying out the realities of the situation as they pertain to fantasy football; due to the relative value of rushing yardage vs. passing yardage, there is no universe where Nick Foles' upside (either realistic or otherwise) even approaches Michael Vick's.

Nice analysis, but you've ignored turnovers. Vick has not only thrown a lot of interceptions the last few years, but he's a fumbling machine as well.I agree that Vick's absolute ceiling is MUCH higher than Foles' is, but Foles seems more likely to reach his, and the difference between the two is not nearly as large as you suggest.

Yes, I ignored turnovers. Including them tilts the comparison towards Foles, but not by much. You mention that Vick was a fumbling machine, but Foles actually averaged more fumbles per game (1.14 vs. 1.10). Foles fumbled once ever 37 plays (plays = pass attempts + rush attempts + sacks), while Vick only fumbled once ever 40 plays. Vick was tackled 90 times, (tackles = rush attempts + sacks), meaning he averaged a fumble every 8.2 tackles. Foles averaged a fumble every 3.9 (!!!) tackles. Foles had a much bigger problem with fumbles last year than Vick did. Where Foles gets the edge is with interceptions, where Foles averaged fewer per game (0.71 vs. 1.0), and fewer per pass attempt (Foles threw a pick every 43 passes, Vick threw one every 35 passes).

If Vick continues averaging a ludicrous 1.43 turnovers per game (his average over the last two seasons), we're looking at 23 turnovers on the season. Nick Foles averaged 1.14 turnovers per game last year, which would work out to 18 over a full season. The average team in 2012 threw 14.6 interceptions and had the QB fumble the ball 8.3 times, so if we assume teams recover 60% of the time when the QB fumbles, we're looking at 17.9 turnovers on average from the QB position- or bang-on with Foles' 18 projected turnovers. So if Michael Vick continues his ridiculous turnover pace, and Nick Foles is roughly league average at turning the ball over, we'd expect a difference of 5 turnovers. Most scoring systems give either -1 or -2 points per turnover, so that's 5-10 points, or the equivalent of just 100-200 yards (in 20 yard per point leagues). In extreme performance-based leagues that give -4 points per turnover, that's the equivalent of 400 yards.

So far this is all fairly realistic, but let's go crazy and come up with a complete best-case scenario. Let's assign Vick his turnover pace from 2012 (1.5 turnovers per game) instead of his average turnover pace from 2011-2012. That gives him 24 turnovers over a full season. Let's also assume that Nick Foles becomes the best quarterback in the entire NFL at avoiding turnovers, and he only coughs the ball up 12 times. To give some context, here's a complete list of all franchises with 12 or fewer turnovers from the QB position last season: New England (11), San Francisco (11), Washington (10). San Francisco and Washington needed a lot of luck to make that list- they combined for 26 fumbles from their QBs, but only lost a total of 5 (three for San Fran, two for Washington). So in other words, let's assume that Nick Foles turns into Tom Brady or has ludicrous fumble luck. In this extreme scenario, we're looking at an extra 12 turnovers over the course of the season, which is the equivalent to 240 to 480 extra passing yards in 20 yards per point scoring.

Note that all of this turnover analysis so far assumes that Vick continues his ludicrous turnover pace. If he regresses even a little bit to the mean, Foles' advantage in this realm could wind up disappearing entirely. Again, we're talking about just 5 turnovers per 16 games separating Michael Vick from league average over the last two seasons.

In addition to turnovers, I also ignored rushing TDs, which would tilt the comparison back towards Vick. That comparison isn't as easy to make, because if Vick scores a touchdown rushing, that gives him one fewer opportunity to score a touchdown passing. As a result, increasing your rushing touchdowns by one will decrease your passing touchdowns by some value greater than zero but less than one. Worst case scenario, if we assume Vick gets 2 rushing touchdowns over the course of the year, and that the conversion rate is exactly 1:1 (i.e. in every instance, had Vick not scored a rushing TD, he would have scored a passing TD instead), then that's an extra 4 points in leagues that award 4 points per passing TD and 6 points per rushing TD. If Vick gets 4 rushing TDs and the conversion rate is 50%, then you're looking at an extra 16 points (about 320 yards in 20 yard per point leagues). Of course, none of this matters in leagues that award 6 points for all TDs.

So, summing this all up... in leagues that award a point per 10 yards rushing and 20 yards passing, 6 points for all TDs, and -4 points per turnover (i.e. the most "Foles friendly" scoring system we can gin up), Michael Vick's rushing prowess is worth the same as 1000-1500 passing yards (1000 representing Vick matching his career low in rushing yards per game, 1500 representing a 10% improvement over Vick's average per-game numbers in Philly), while Nick Foles's turnover advantage is worth anywhere from 0 passing yards (assuming Vick regresses to the mean), to 400 passing yards (assuming Vick does not regress and Foles remains average), to 960 passing yards (assuming Vick increases his turnover rate while Foles turns the ball over less than any other QB in the league). So even under the most unrealistic assumptions imaginable (Vick gets worse, Foles becomes Tom Brady), and in the most Foles-friendly scoring system (-4 per turnover, 20 yards per point passing, 6 points for passing TDs), Vick's rushing prowess still gives him an advantage worth anywhere from 40 to 540 yards, with a median of 290 yards. With realistic assumptions (i.e. assuming Foles is not Tom Brady), the Foles-friendly scoring system still leaves Vick with the equivalent of a 600-1100 passing yard advantage, with a median of 850 yards.

In leagues that award a point per 10 yards rushing and 25 yards passing, 6 points for rushing TDs vs. 4 points for passing TDs, and just -1 point per turnover (i.e. the most "Vick friendly" scoring system we can gin up), Vick's rushing yardage is worth the equivalent of 1250 to 1900 yards, his rushing TDs are worth another 100-400 yards (100 representing 2 TDs and 100% conversion rate, 400 representing 4 TDs and 50% conversion rate), and he loses the equivalent of 125-300 yards over the turnovers (125 yards represents Vick maintaining his rate and Foles being league average, 300 yards represents Vick increasing his turnover rate and Foles becoming Tom Brady). So, putting it all together, the Vick-friendly scoring system leaves Vick with the equivalent of a 1050-2000 passing yard advantage with a median of 1475 yards (using the crazy "Foles = Tom Brady" assumptions), or a 1225-2175 passing yard advantage with a median of 1700 yards (using our more realistic assumptions).

In a more balanced league (say, 20 yards per point passing, 4 points per passing TD, -2 points per turnover), Vick's rushing yards are worth the same as 1000-1500 passing yards, his rushing TDs are worth the same as 100-400 passing yards, and his turnovers cost him the equivalent of 200-480 passing yards (200 if Foles is average, 480 if Foles is Tom Brady). So, in a relatively typical league, we would assume Michael Vick to be sporting a fantasy advantage equivalent to an extra 650-1700 passing yards, with a median value of around 1200 passing yards.

Given all of this, of course Michael Vick's upside is much higher than Nick Foles'. Even if you account for turnovers, Vick's rushing prowess gives him the equivalent of a 1200 yard head start. Is it possible that Nick Foles is a good enough passer that he can be expected to throw for 1200 more yards than Michael Vick? I suppose it's possible, but it's a long shot. Vick averages 250 yards per game in Philly, with a low of 235 yards per game in 2012. Foles would basically need to throw for 5,000 yards to overcome Vick's rushing advantage. And this is using averages for Vick- by definition, the word "upside" means you're beating your average performance. If Vick improves on his per-game averages in Philly, he could very easily score at a pace equivalent to a 5600 yard season. And like I was saying, I just don't think Nick Foles has 5600-yard upside in him.

Nick Foles winning the fantasy job would be good news for me, since I own Foles and not Vick. It'd be good news for the Eagles, since Foles is (potentially) the future and Vick is not. But it would not be good news for fantasy owners in general, since Vick has substantially higher fantasy upside *AND* a substantially higher fantasy floor, to boot. Consider: last season, Vick was absolutely atrocious. He completely melted down, and took the entire Philly offense over the cliff with him. He also got injured and missed most of his week 9 contest against Dallas. He still ranked 13th in points per game in standard FBGs scoring. How many other quarterbacks can implode that catastrophically and score like a borderline fantasy QB1? Not many, and I wouldn't bet on Nick Foles being one of them. If I knew with 100% certainty that Vick was the starter in Philly, he'd be an easy top-12 quarterback for me. If I knew with 100% certainty that Foles was starting, he'd be closer to QB18.

Tom Brady has scored twice more TD's last year than Vick has the past two years. He hasn't really scored rushing TD's since his comeback season in 2010. Unless Chip has some magic elixir I'd expect him to continue to turn the ball over in the redzone.

 

[Warrior]

Listen to beat writers / reporters at your own peril.

I'll continue to evaluate, successfully, year after year, by watching players with my own eyes.

My view: Vick is the better QB and will start, unless Vick, or Foles in preseason shows me otherwise.

Draft either one at your own risk considering the beat writers and reporters are the only ones who have actually seen either one this year. Complete toss up at this point as to who will be the starter. Maybe it will become clearer when camp opens.

I already had a draft and took Vick. Foles wasn't drafted. Vick is my QB2 and I also have another QB2. If Vick starts he offers more upside than Foles starting.

That is just complete babble. Vick is 33, turnover prone and learning a brand new offense. What upside does he offer that a 24 year old, 2nd year man wouldn't?

Well, in 2010 Vick was the highest scorer in fantasy football (points per game) and in my league it was by a large margin: 5 points per game compared to the QB2; and 13 points per game higher than the highest scoring non-QB. So he offers huge upside. This new offense offers more potential than any offense Vick has every played in. Vick's rushing yardage and rushing touchdowns are significant in fantasy football. 33 is young for a QB. It's a redraft.

What year is it? How many games did Vick actually play that year? What did he do after the Giants game? Exactly. That's been the last 2 years with Vick now. At some point, people are going to have to realize that those 10 games in 2010 were the exception, not the norm. Drafting Vick at all hoping for upside is a massive risk unless it's 12th round or later. Having him as a QB2 is a recipe for disaster.

He was establishing upside, just like you asked for. Not sure what kind of personal vendetta you have against Michael Vick...are you a pittbull owner?

Nobody is 'hoping' for 2010 Mike Vick. If they were, he'd be drafted in the 1st/2nd round. They're 'hoping' for a flash of that talent here and there resulting in a solid QB2 with obvious upside. As stated before, that upside is very high, especially in a Chip Kelly offense. And it will only cost you a flier in the late-middle rounds at the very earliest.

As for the "massive risk" and "recipe for disaster", what planet are you living on? Since when does a bad performance from your backup QB immediately sink your entire squad? You're likely not even starting him unless he explodes or your QB1 suffers a fluky injury.

 

[Insein]

Listen to beat writers / reporters at your own peril.

I'll continue to evaluate, successfully, year after year, by watching players with my own eyes.

My view: Vick is the better QB and will start, unless Vick, or Foles in preseason shows me otherwise.

Draft either one at your own risk considering the beat writers and reporters are the only ones who have actually seen either one this year. Complete toss up at this point as to who will be the starter. Maybe it will become clearer when camp opens.

I already had a draft and took Vick. Foles wasn't drafted. Vick is my QB2 and I also have another QB2. If Vick starts he offers more upside than Foles starting.

That is just complete babble. Vick is 33, turnover prone and learning a brand new offense. What upside does he offer that a 24 year old, 2nd year man wouldn't?

Well, in 2010 Vick was the highest scorer in fantasy football (points per game) and in my league it was by a large margin: 5 points per game compared to the QB2; and 13 points per game higher than the highest scoring non-QB. So he offers huge upside. This new offense offers more potential than any offense Vick has every played in. Vick's rushing yardage and rushing touchdowns are significant in fantasy football. 33 is young for a QB. It's a redraft.

What year is it? How many games did Vick actually play that year? What did he do after the Giants game? Exactly. That's been the last 2 years with Vick now. At some point, people are going to have to realize that those 10 games in 2010 were the exception, not the norm. Drafting Vick at all hoping for upside is a massive risk unless it's 12th round or later. Having him as a QB2 is a recipe for disaster.

He was establishing upside, just like you asked for. Not sure what kind of personal vendetta you have against Michael Vick...are you a pittbull owner?

Nobody is 'hoping' for 2010 Mike Vick. If they were, he'd be drafted in the 1st/2nd round. They're 'hoping' for a flash of that talent here and there resulting in a solid QB2 with obvious upside. As stated before, that upside is very high, especially in a Chip Kelly offense. And it will only cost you a flier in the late-middle rounds at the very earliest.

As for the "massive risk" and "recipe for disaster", what planet are you living on? Since when does a bad performance from your backup QB immediately sink your entire squad? You're likely not even starting him unless he explodes or your QB1 suffers a fluky injury.

How many times has a major injury happened to a star player in your league? Having an injury prone turnover machine as your qb2 based in what he did for 10 games 3 seasons ago when there are plenty of alternatives seems like chasing past performance to me.I'm not a dog owner. I don't care about what he did. He paid his debt. I care about the fact that hes been playing terribly for my team for the past 2 years and I'm ready to move on. From everything I've read about Kelly so far, there's at least a 50/50 shot that he does too. So as a fantasy player theres no way id touch him. Its like grabbing Larry johnson 2 years ago. People were still hoping for the #1 rb when the writing was clear what he was at that point. I'm not grabbing foles either but he can be had off the waiver wire. People drafting Vick in the 10th are nuts IMO.

 

[Amused to Death]

I'm not a dog owner. I don't care about what he did. He paid his debt. I care about the fact that hes been playing terribly for my team for the past 2 years and I'm ready to move on. From everything I've read about Kelly so far, there's at least a 50/50 shot that he does too. So as a fantasy player theres no way id touch him. Its like grabbing Larry johnson 2 years ago. People were still hoping for the #1 rb when the writing was clear what he was at that point. I'm not grabbing foles either but he can be had off the waiver wire. People drafting Vick in the 10th are nuts IMO.

I agree about wanting to move on as an Eagles fan. I really have no desire to see Vick back with the team. I'd prefer to see what we have in Foles and Barkely as opposed to Vick. Build the team from the ground up and see where we are in a year or two. I don't want them to put together a team that contends for a wild card only to get bounced in the first round. I want a strong, long-term team.

From a fantasy perspective, I see the upside in drafting Vick but only as a QB 3 and certainly not till the later rounds. Some of the staff rankings really have me baffled. One has him ranked 13th with no mention of him being in a direct competition and can just as likely be on the street come opening day. Crazy. Of the staff members, I like Waldman's comment the best; "I'd run a lot too if Micheal Vick was my QB". And Wood's; "Vick never plays a full season even when he's not fighting for a job".

 

[kutta]

I'm not a dog owner. I don't care about what he did. He paid his debt. I care about the fact that hes been playing terribly for my team for the past 2 years and I'm ready to move on. From everything I've read about Kelly so far, there's at least a 50/50 shot that he does too. So as a fantasy player theres no way id touch him. Its like grabbing Larry johnson 2 years ago. People were still hoping for the #1 rb when the writing was clear what he was at that point. I'm not grabbing foles either but he can be had off the waiver wire. People drafting Vick in the 10th are nuts IMO.

I agree about wanting to move on as an Eagles fan. I really have no desire to see Vick back with the team. I'd prefer to see what we have in Foles and Barkely as opposed to Vick. Build the team from the ground up and see where we are in a year or two. I don't want them to put together a team that contends for a wild card only to get bounced in the first round. I want a strong, long-term team.

From a fantasy perspective, I see the upside in drafting Vick but only as a QB 3 and certainly not till the later rounds. Some of the staff rankings really have me baffled. One has him ranked 13th with no mention of him being in a direct competition and can just as likely be on the street come opening day. Crazy. Of the staff members, I like Waldman's comment the best; "I'd run a lot too if Micheal Vick was my QB". And Wood's; "Vick never plays a full season even when he's not fighting for a job".

You do realize that through the first 9 weeks of last year he was QB 10, right? In Kelly's new offense, his upside could be better than that. Of course there is risk, but putting Vick at QB 13 this year isn't nearly as ludicrous as you make it out to be.

 

[Amused to Death]

I'm not a dog owner. I don't care about what he did. He paid his debt. I care about the fact that hes been playing terribly for my team for the past 2 years and I'm ready to move on. From everything I've read about Kelly so far, there's at least a 50/50 shot that he does too. So as a fantasy player theres no way id touch him. Its like grabbing Larry johnson 2 years ago. People were still hoping for the #1 rb when the writing was clear what he was at that point. I'm not grabbing foles either but he can be had off the waiver wire. People drafting Vick in the 10th are nuts IMO.

I agree about wanting to move on as an Eagles fan. I really have no desire to see Vick back with the team. I'd prefer to see what we have in Foles and Barkely as opposed to Vick. Build the team from the ground up and see where we are in a year or two. I don't want them to put together a team that contends for a wild card only to get bounced in the first round. I want a strong, long-term team.

From a fantasy perspective, I see the upside in drafting Vick but only as a QB 3 and certainly not till the later rounds. Some of the staff rankings really have me baffled. One has him ranked 13th with no mention of him being in a direct competition and can just as likely be on the street come opening day. Crazy. Of the staff members, I like Waldman's comment the best; "I'd run a lot too if Micheal Vick was my QB". And Wood's; "Vick never plays a full season even when he's not fighting for a job".

You do realize that through the first 9 weeks of last year he was QB 10, right? In Kelly's new offense, his upside could be better than that. Of course there is risk, but putting Vick at QB 13 this year isn't nearly as ludicrous as you make it out to be.

Ranking him 13th without mentioning he only has a 50/50 chance of starting is crazy, imo. He's just as likely to be cut as he is to be the starter. That's high risk for QB13.

 

[Hoosier16]

Why do people automatically assume that the new offense will be more successful then the offense under Andy Reid? During the last 10 years, Philly ranked either 5th or 6th in total pass attempts, total yards, or total points for.

With Chip Kelly, Philly doesn't also get to play the PAC 10 defenses.

 

[ShaHBucks]

Why do people automatically assume that the new offense will be more successful then the offense under Andy Reid? During the last 10 years, Philly ranked either 5th or 6th in total pass attempts, total yards, or total points for.

With Chip Kelly, Philly doesn't also get to play the PAC 10 defenses.

This is exactly what I was going to say. All Chip Kelly's offense will do is give you 15-20 more plays of Vick stinking. Everybody's value isn't going to just double this year because of some magic plays. Ried's offense actually turned McNabb into a accurate passer, helped Vick become comeback POY and made a few other QB look intriguing to other teams.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Tom Brady has scored twice more TD's last year than Vick has the past two years. He hasn't really scored rushing TD's since his comeback season in 2010. Unless Chip has some magic elixir I'd expect him to continue to turn the ball over in the redzone.

Touchdowns are extremely volatile over small samples, but in the long run, they almost always follow the yards. As long as Vick is rushing for 33-50 yards per game, he'll have plenty of opportunities to score some rushing TDs along the way.

 

[kutta]

Why do people automatically assume that the new offense will be more successful then the offense under Andy Reid? During the last 10 years, Philly ranked either 5th or 6th in total pass attempts, total yards, or total points for.

With Chip Kelly, Philly doesn't also get to play the PAC 10 defenses.

This is exactly what I was going to say. All Chip Kelly's offense will do is give you 15-20 more plays of Vick stinking. Everybody's value isn't going to just double this year because of some magic plays. Ried's offense actually turned McNabb into a accurate passer, helped Vick become comeback POY and made a few other QB look intriguing to other teams.

People aren't assuming that. They are assuming that the offense will be different, which could result in better numbers for Vick, not that it will result in better numbers. We know he runs a high-powered offense, so that us usually good for the QB.

But of course, it could be worse too.

 

[Faust]

Rotoworld:

PhiladelphiaEagles.com's Adam Caplan believes Nick Foles' ability to get the ball out of his hands faster than Michael Vick could "go a long way" in the Eagles' quarterback competition.
That's if Foles can keep it up in minicamp and the preseason. New coach Chip Kelly preaches pace and mistake-free football, and Vick has never been particularly adept at either. Foles' lack of athleticism will be his biggest obstacle to beating out Vick in camp.

Related: Michael Vick

Source: Adam Caplan on Twitter

 

[Late225]

Rotoworld:

PhiladelphiaEagles.com's Adam Caplan believes Nick Foles' ability to get the ball out of his hands faster than Michael Vick could "go a long way" in the Eagles' quarterback competition.
That's if Foles can keep it up in minicamp and the preseason. New coach Chip Kelly preaches pace and mistake-free football, and Vick has never been particularly adept at either. Foles' lack of athleticism will be his biggest obstacle to beating out Vick in camp.

Related: Michael Vick

Source: Adam Caplan on Twitter

I still don't understand why everyone thinks Chip wants to run the ball with the quarterback.

He has said countless times that he wants to do what it takes to win in the NFL. Based on comments he has made, I think that means a lot of smash mouth football and 3 TE sets. Big people beat little people. If they play nickel or dime, jam it down their throats, and if they play with multiple linebackers, spread them out.

Also, I believe it means to pray Foles or Barkley can become great and then run a Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, or Tom Brady type of offense. I want to defend myself from bashing and say that I don't love the odds of either of these two guys becoming great like those guys, but having a guy like that is what it takes to win in the NFL and I think Chip knows that.

Edited to add:

"Yeah. You go like that (holds three fingers in the air) and three tight ends go in the game. We are going to go three tight ends in a game. Now, if they go three linebackers, we spread them out and if they go DB's, we smash you. So, pick your poison."

http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2013/4/26/4273072/chip-kelly-talks-3-te-sets-with-eagles-draft-pick-zach-ertz

 

[Hoosier16]

Why do people automatically assume that the new offense will be more successful then the offense under Andy Reid? During the last 10 years, Philly ranked either 5th or 6th in total pass attempts, total yards, or total points for.

With Chip Kelly, Philly doesn't also get to play the PAC 10 defenses.

This is exactly what I was going to say. All Chip Kelly's offense will do is give you 15-20 more plays of Vick stinking. Everybody's value isn't going to just double this year because of some magic plays. Ried's offense actually turned McNabb into a accurate passer, helped Vick become comeback POY and made a few other QB look intriguing to other teams.

People aren't assuming that. They are assuming that the offense will be different, which could result in better numbers for Vick, not that it will result in better numbers. We know he runs a high-powered offense, so that us usually good for the QB.But of course, it could be worse too.

So did Spurrier.

 

[Faust]

Why Foles will be the Eagles' starting quarterback

Reuben Frank

More accurate? Check.

Better at making quick decisions under duress? Check.

Tons of upside? Check.

The initial reaction when the Eagles re-signed Michael Vick back in February was that the new contract meant Vick would go into the 2013 season as the starting quarterback.

But right from the start, Chip Kelly promised this would be an open competition between Vick and Nick Foles. Contracts wouldn’t matter. Experience wouldn’t matter. Background wouldn’t matter. The number of Pro Bowls on your résumé wouldn’t matter.

No, what they do on the practice field and in the preseason games is all that would matter.

Simple. Best guy wins.

And the best guy -- for this team, for this system, for this offense -- is Nick Foles.

This isn’t a knock on Vick. Not at all. I’ve been a Vick guy since he got here four years ago. For that team and that coach and that offense, he was the best option once it was clear that Donovan McNabb was done and Kevin Kolb couldn’t stay healthy. For most of 2010, Vick played MVP football. It was great drama, great theater, great action.

And who knows how different things might have been had Vick not tried to squeeze that pass to Riley Cooper in the end zone on first-and-10 with 44 seconds left in the wild-card game. Tramon Williams picked him off, the Packers won the game and the Super Bowl, and the Eagles haven’t sniffed the postseason since.

But that’s all ancient history. Vick is 33, 10-15 in 25 starts since that baffling and devastating Vikings loss late in 2010 and nine years removed from his last playoff win.

If he’s going to win the Eagles’ QB job this summer, Vick is not only going to have to prove he can still play at a high level -- and he hasn’t exactly trended upward the last couple years -- he’s also going to have to prove he can produce in a system that demands quick decisions, requires accurate mid-range throws and places a premium on ball security.

And that’s just not his game. Never has been.

Foles, playing as a rookie without DeSean Jackson, without LeSean McCoy much of the time and behind a makeshift O-line featuring King Dunlap, Jake Scott, Dennis Kelly and Dallas Reynolds, still had a higher completion percentage last year than Vick has had in eight of his nine full NFL seasons.

He’s just more accurate. This isn’t an opinion. He was 61 percent last year with everything working against him, and Vick is 56 percent career.

Foles’ completion percentage last year was sixth best in NFL history by a rookie. Vick ranks 87th in accuracy among 111 quarterbacks over the past 25 years who’ve thrown 1,000 or more passes.

And quick decisions come naturally for Foles. The big reason he was able to deal with the ferocious pass rush he faced was his ability to drop back, read the defense and distribute the ball quickly.

Vick is at his best when he stands in the pocket till the last possible second -- and sometimes beyond -- and spins the ball 60 yards down the field on a line to a streaking wideout. And while the bomb has its place in a Kelly offense, it’s not the most important component. In Andy Reid’s offense, you looked deep first. In Kelly’s, you don’t.

Foles is nowhere nearly as gifted as Vick throwing deep, but in this offense, it doesn’t matter. Playing behind a truly awful offensive line, he still threw for 243 yards per game in about half a season, the fifth-highest figure ever for a rookie. So he can chuck it.

Then there’s the turnovers. The quarterback simply can’t afford to turn the ball over in Kelly’s offense. That’s true in any offense, but even more so in this one.

When you’re running a play every 15 seconds, a turnover could mean the defense has to come back on the field less than a minute after it left. Not in scoreboard time, in real time. This defense has enough issues as it is. It doesn’t need to get worn out, finally get off the field, only to be forced back out there just a few seconds later.

INTs? Foles’ interception percentage last year (1.9 per 100 attempts) was second-best in NFL history by a rookie throwing 250 or more passes (behind only RG3, also last year). He did commit eight fumbles, which is a lot considering how little he played, but behind a legit offensive line, that figure will drop.

Vick historically has been pretty good taking care of the ball, but his 1.82 turnovers per start over the past three years is third-highest in the league during that span, behind only Ryan Fitzpatrick (1.84) and Chad Henne (1.83).

Vick’s biggest advantage is his speed, his elusiveness, but he’s taken a beating over the past few seasons and doesn’t look nearly as fast as he used to be. His 5.4-yard rushing average last year, still good, was lowest of his career. After rushing for 33 touchdowns through 2011, he ran for just one last year, a one-yard dive. So even his greatest attribute, his biggest strength, isn’t quite what it used to be.

If this is a fair fight, if this is truly open competition, Foles will be the Eagles’ starting quarterback on opening day.

And the fact that Foles is still here when it would have been easy to trade him and the fact that he really did split the OTA and minicamp reps with Vick tells you it really will be a fair fight.

The wild card in all this is USC rookie Matt Barkley, who could ultimately be the perfect quarterback in this offense. And maybe that day isn’t too far off. But it’s an awful lot to ask a rookie fourth-round pick to step right in and start and play at a high level.

Don’t forget, only three quarterbacks in franchise history have survived 16 games as a starter: Ron Jaworski (five times), Donovan McNabb (four times) and Randall Cunningham (three times). That’s it.

The NFL went to a 16-game schedule in 1978, which means it’s happened 12 times in 35 years and only four times in the last 22 years.

So the odds are Foles and Vick will both play. But the opening-day starter? Foles is the clear choice. In the next six weeks, Foles will show coaches, teammates and fans that any way you look at it, any way you measure it, he’s the best fit.

 

[N Zone]

That writer states that the starting QB will be determined by the Eagles Chip Kelly based on what their QBs do going forward. Then he goes on to bash Vick for his last couple years and career, and praise Foles completion percentage of last year. So which is it?

The answer is he has an agenda and wants Foles to be the starter. Seems based soley on being disappointed with Vick, Vick's age, and Fole's age, and Foles promise for the future (because he's young).

So if Chip Kelly is going to start the best QB based on where these QBs are at now and in training camp and preseason, then what is the point of pointing out that Vick is 33? It's because the writer and most writers, sports talk radio, and fans in Philly want to start fresh and don't believe their team has a chance to win it all this year. Pretty bad reasons to choose a starting QB and the article is full of conflicting ideas.

 

[Tool]

That writer states that the starting QB will be determined by the Eagles Chip Kelly based on what their QBs do going forward. Then he goes on to bash Vick for his last couple years and career, and praise Foles completion percentage of last year. So which is it?

The answer is he has an agenda and wants Foles to be the starter. Seems based soley on being disappointed with Vick, Vick's age, and Fole's age, and Foles promise for the future (because he's young).

So if Chip Kelly is going to start the best QB based on where these QBs are at now and in training camp and preseason, then what is the point of pointing out that Vick is 33? It's because the writer and most writers, sports talk radio, and fans in Philly want to start fresh and don't believe their team has a chance to win it all this year. Pretty bad reasons to choose a starting QB and the article is full of conflicting ideas.

say what? he's predicting Foles will be better using recent performance as one factor to support that. seems like a pretty straightforward concept.

 

[N Zone]

Everyone always ignores Vick's rushing ability, which helps move the chains and get in the redzone and score too. Foles can't run at all.

 

[Amused to Death]

Everyone always ignores Vick's rushing ability, which helps move the chains and get in the redzone and score too. Foles can't run at all.

The Eagles' QB doesn't have to run. Kelly wants quick, accurate passes. Two things Vick has always struggled with.

 

[Insein]

Everyone always ignores Vick's rushing ability, which helps move the chains and get in the redzone and score too. Foles can't run at all.

I think that has been the biggest misconception about Kelly's offense by pundits. Kelly has stated many times that his qb doesn't need to run. Yet people keep insisting its important. Its no more important than any other offense.

 

[N Zone]

Everyone always ignores Vick's rushing ability, which helps move the chains and get in the redzone and score too. Foles can't run at all.

I think that has been the biggest misconception about Kelly's offense by pundits. Kelly has stated many times that his qb doesn't need to run. Yet people keep insisting its important. Its no more important than any other offense.

Doesn't matter who the coach is. Mobility for a QB is important at times in today's NFL, in my opinion. Can extend plays. Keeps pressure on the defense to guard against a QB run on passing plays.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Everyone always ignores Vick's rushing ability, which helps move the chains and get in the redzone and score too. Foles can't run at all.

I think that has been the biggest misconception about Kelly's offense by pundits. Kelly has stated many times that his qb doesn't need to run. Yet people keep insisting its important. Its no more important than any other offense.

Doesn't matter who the coach is. Mobility for a QB is important at times in today's NFL, in my opinion. Can extend plays. Keeps pressure on the defense to guard against a QB run on passing plays.

We should sign Tebow!

 

[ShaHBucks]

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/philadelphia-qb-controversy-nick-foles-better-than-michael-vick/23473/

 

[cstu]

Everyone always ignores Vick's rushing ability, which helps move the chains and get in the redzone and score too. Foles can't run at all.

I think that has been the biggest misconception about Kelly's offense by pundits. Kelly has stated many times that his qb doesn't need to run. Yet people keep insisting its important. Its no more important than any other offense.

Doesn't matter who the coach is. Mobility for a QB is important at times in today's NFL, in my opinion. Can extend plays. Keeps pressure on the defense to guard against a QB run on passing plays.

There is nothing special about Vick's mobility anymore.

 

[Late225]

Also, Nick Foles is athletic: http://philly.barstoolsports.com/around-barstool/eagles-basketball-video-nick-foles-is-a-beast/

 

[ShaHBucks]

Also, Nick Foles is athletic: http://philly.barstoolsports.com/around-barstool/eagles-basketball-video-nick-foles-is-a-beast/

He was recruited to play at g'town. He mobility/speed is reminds me of a big basketball player

 

[Sabertooth]

Also, Nick Foles is athletic: http://philly.barstoolsports.com/around-barstool/eagles-basketball-video-nick-foles-is-a-beast/

He was recruited to play at g'town. He mobility/speed is reminds me of a big basketball player

He's like a white Bill Laimbeer.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Also, Nick Foles is athletic: http://philly.barstoolsports.com/around-barstool/eagles-basketball-video-nick-foles-is-a-beast/

He was recruited to play at g'town. He mobility/speed is reminds me of a big basketball player

He's like a white Bill Laimbeer.

Except Laimbeer couldn't dunk.

 

[ShaHBucks]

Also, Nick Foles is athletic: http://philly.barstoolsports.com/around-barstool/eagles-basketball-video-nick-foles-is-a-beast/

He was recruited to play at g'town. He mobility/speed is reminds me of a big basketball player

He's like a white Bill Laimbeer.

Except Laimbeer couldn't dunk.

Before my time. But I was thinking someone not NBA worthy

 

[Sabertooth]

If you had Foles in your rookie draft pool this year, would he be the first QB taken? I tend to think yes. I can't see trading him straight up right now for Manuel or Geno.

 

[Nucker101]

If you had Foles in your rookie draft pool this year, would he be the first QB taken? I tend to think yes. I can't see trading him straight up right now for Manuel or Geno.

No doubt about it in my mind, but that's all personal preference. I was pumped as an Eagles fan to hear that he has the edge heading into training camp for the starting job.