Skip to main content

Phil Sheridan Hearts Nick Foles

ESPN.com's Philadelphia Eagles writer - Phil Sheridan - may have a man-crush on second-year back-up quarterback Nick Foles. There's nothing wrong with that. I have discovered I may indeed have the same man-crush as Stephen Colbert - himself. So, I won't judge Mr. Sheridan on this crush. However, when he's attempting to write objective news on the Philadelphia Eagles football team, he may want to distance himself from Foles love-notes. He also seems to hate starting quarterback Michael Vick with a passion, which is understandable, since he's the main competition of his man-crush, Nick Foles.

In a recent writing of his, entitled, "QB Watch: Eagles' Foles, Vick, Barkley," Sheridan wrote these bits:

- "It would be premature to hail Vick as a savior, though. He completed just 6 of 14 passes for 105 yards against the Giants' defense in the game. Vick and coach Chip Kelly will have to find ways to get the passing game back on track."

Translation: "Vick sucks right now. Hopefully Coach Kelly will be able to boost his game up to average. We can only hope."


- "He (Barkley) completed 11 of 20 passes for 129 yards -- not bad for one quarter of play -- but all three of his drives ended with an interception."

Translation: "I won't bash this guy as much as Vick, because he's a rookie, but he was sub-par in the game, to be nice."


- "Nick Foles just never looked like himself in Sunday's 17-3 loss to the Dallas Cowboys. From the first series, on which he took a couple of hits, until he was knocked out of the game with a concussion at the end of the third quarter, Foles appeared indecisive, inaccurate, and uncertain of himself. Foles completed 11 of 29 passes for just 80 yards. A week after winning NFC offensive player of the week for his effort against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Foles had a passer rating of just 46.2. Even last season, when he was a rookie playing with an injury-ravaged offense, Foles never looked quite this off-kilter."

Translation: "Foles probably got the concussion in the locker room before the game. Sure, his numbers were lousy, but something just didn't look right about him at the start of the game. Perhaps he had the stomach flu or maybe he was up all night reading the poetry I sent him. I don't know what happened exactly. All I know is that's not the Nick Foles I began to admire and love. Come back soon, Nicky. We miss you."

Mr. Sheridan may need to get hypnotized so he can learn to write about the Eagles without showcasing just how much he loves Foles and how much he loathes Vick. Trust me, the Eagles have much bigger problems than at quarterback, where they have two fairly capable starters and a potential starter-in-the-making in Matt Barkley. The blocking up front has been inconsistent this season. There have been games when holes have opened up for LeSean McCoy, and Vick/Foles has/have received adequate time in the pocket. Then there have been other games when this hasn't been the case. The Eagles' receiving corps has been battered by injuries, and outside of the undersized DeSean Jackson, they don't have a receiver that can stretch the field vertically. The defense had been below average before the past couple of games, where it appears as if they've made some significant strides. The special teams units have been inconsistent as well, particularly in coverage. The playcalling has been lousy at times this season also.

Sure, the quarterback position is the easiest to either praise or scapegoat, but it's going to take a lot more than just solid quarterback play for the Eagles to make a run at winning the NFC East and making the playoffs. While I think a healthy Vick gives the team the best chance to do that this season, he's going to have to receive help from the line, the receivers, the defense, the special teams, and the coaching staff if the team wants to play past Week 17 of the NFL regular season.

http://espn.go.com/blog/philadelphia-eagles/post/_/id/1359/qb-watch-philadelphia-eagles-3?ex_cid=espnapi_public

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"