Photo Credit: Kirby Lee-USA TODAY Sports
When a trade is made in any sport, there’s always the need of a fan base to believe they got the better end of it. No matter what. A fan’s mind will stretch so far to justify what the people they trust did, that they’ll come to accept (and even celebrate) someone’s flaws because they can’t accept that they got taken. [Kyle displayed this mindset last year when he wrote glowingly about Mark Sanchez being an “alpha male” celebrity quarterback… and then made a t-shirt about it.]
It’s still the preseason, but Eagles fans are on board after Sam Bradford’s 10-for-10 showing on Saturday night. That leaves Rams fans with Nick Foles, and trying to justify why the trade was good for them. The Rams SB Nation site, Turf Show Times, is trying so hard they’ve lost their grip on reality:
“Nick Foles isn’t the Nick Foles who ever took the field in Philadelphia; not in his rookie year, or in 2014. He’s better. Yes, I said BETTER! There’s something happening with Foles, and I think it has to do with the leadership light blinking to life in his soul. This guy is tougher than I ever thought, and the type of quarterback his teammates can believe in. I’m not bashing Sam Bradford here. I was – and still am – a fan of the lanky, injury scared former Oklahoma/St. Louis fan favorite. But while Bradford’s arm may be stronger than Foles, I don’t think he ever had what anyone would call amazing leadership qualities with his teammates. They all liked him, and what’s not to like, right? Foles is a different cat altogether. Soft spoken when he arrived, he now has a tenor to his voice I love hearing.
Foles throws passes with more faith; to receivers he believes in. In a way, the Rams receiver corp and Foles are a perfect fit. They both haven’t garnered much respect in the media, and are in the enviable position of benefiting from a lack of expectations. Every Rams receiver has the base talent to be in the NFL, but they’ve never been in a position to shine. Bradford relied on pin-point, “you-better-be-there”, passes. Small catch windows in tight coverage were the norm. If a pass was completed, everyone hailed Bradford’s accuracy. But life isn’t accurate at all, and relying on it is a fool’s errand at best. Foles reads coverage, then throws to an option filled zone for his receivers. His passes have just enough arc on them to help receiver gain the position they need. Bradford throws a flatter ball, and will flourish in Philly – sans injury – due to a system which depends on a ball be in an EXACT place in each of his reads and check-down options.”
You know what? It’s entirely possible Foles never felt comfortable here, on a bigger stage, and is now gaining some confidence in little ol’ St. Louis. But trying to argue that Foles is a better fit for Rams receivers because he’s a less accurate passer? That doesn’t even begin to touch on making sense. If making sense is the Lombardi trophy, that pro-Foles argument is Dan Snyder. Never the twain shall meet.
But even worse than the “Foles is better because he’s worse and that’s what we need” argument, is the next sentence, which attempts to preeminently strike against people who will say this is ridiculous:
“When the Rams sort out their offensive line issues, and get their ground attack moving, Foles will flourish in a way stats won’t explain…”
So Foles will be better because he’s a worse passer, but don’t try to prove me wrong, because he’ll be better in a way that defies statistics and logic. All hail King Foles, he without accuracy, who has no use for your puny statistics.