Tony Eason

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Thanksgiving Day, 1984. Pats at Cowboys. Eason sacked 10 times. Never stood in the face of a pass rush again after that. Too bad because when he was drafted out of Illinois, he showed a toughness in such situations that projected well for an NFL QB.

Regards,
Chris

 

[Brady-To-Branch]

Thanksgiving Day, 1984. Pats at Cowboys. Eason sacked 10 times. Never stood in the face of a pass rush again after that. Too bad because when he was drafted out of Illinois, he showed a toughness in such situations that projected well for an NFL QB.

Regards,
Chris

I don't understand your point. Eason played well in 3 road playoff games in 1985. Eason had a great season in 1986 leading the Pats to their 2nd AFC East title despite having one one of the league's worst rushing attacks. So he didn't win at Denver in the 1986 AFC DIV playoff game. Big deal, not many teams do. The Broncos were the better all around team and whether or not Eason or Grogan started in that game, Denver still would have won. Very few teams hav had success playing in Denver during the postseason.

To summarize, Eason is 3-0 playoff games without throwing a single INT, which is more important that throwing a couple of TDs. Grogan is 0-3 in all his playoff starts. Yet, in the minds of many Pats fans, Eason is a pansy and Grogan is a warrior.

So, Eason sucked against the '85 Bears? He can get in line with Phil Simms and Joe Montana.

As for handling the pass rush, the Pats O-line in the mid-1980s was very overrated.

Eason's longevity was shortened by two things: playing for a Patriots franchise that was in sharp decline in the late 1980s and having recurring throwing shoulder injuries that plagued him in 1985 and 1988. By the time he went to the Jets in 1990, another mediocre team, he had nothing left. I'm not saying Eason was a great QB, he wasn't. It's just that he deserves better from Pats fans in general and he was caught in an infamous QB controversy, which left him unfairly scapegoated after the embarrassing 46-10 loss to the Bears.

 

[italian pat patriot]

I don't understand your point. Eason played well in 3 road playoff games in 1985. Eason had a great season in 1986 leading the Pats to their 2nd AFC East title despite having one one of the league's worst rushing attacks. So he didn't win at Denver in the 1986 AFC DIV playoff game. Big deal, not many teams do. The Broncos were the better all around team and whether or not Eason or Grogan started in that game, Denver still would have won. Very few teams hav had success playing in Denver during the postseason.

To summarize, Eason is 3-0 playoff games without throwing a single INT, which is more important that throwing a couple of TDs. Grogan is 0-3 in all his playoff starts. Yet, in the minds of many Pats fans, Eason is a pansy and Grogan is a warrior.

So, Eason sucked against the '85 Bears? He can get in line with Phil Simms and Joe Montana.

As for handling the pass rush, the Pats O-line in the mid-1980s was very overrated.

Eason's longevity was shortened by two things: playing for a Patriots franchise that was in sharp decline in the late 1980s and having recurring throwing shoulder injuries that plagued him in 1985 and 1988. By the time he went to the Jets in 1990, another mediocre team, he had nothing left. I'm not saying Eason was a great QB, he wasn't. It's just that he deserves better from Pats fans in general and he was caught in an infamous QB controversy, which left him unfairly scapegoated after the embarrassing 46-10 loss to the Bears.

perfect post.

 

[shakadave]

I see so many parallels between Eason/Grogan and Brady/Bledsoe debates.

Grogan and Drew were all-or-nothing passers while Brady and Eason were low risk high percentage QBs.

Good point here! And I would add, "...low risk high percentage QBs, and we KNOW which kind wins more games."

I'd rather have Eason go down than stand up and either get injured or fumble. My list goes
1. Brady
2. Bledsoe-Eason (Bledsoe forced too many balls to take us as far as Eason did. But Bledsoe did make some plays for all his gambling.)
4. Grogan

Grogan had more heart --- and I loved the bombs to Morgan --- but not more smart, than Eason. Look who was the starter when they were both there in '85.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

I don't understand your point. Eason played well in 3 road playoff games in 1985. Eason had a great season in 1986 leading the Pats to their 2nd AFC East title despite having one one of the league's worst rushing attacks. So he didn't win at Denver in the 1986 AFC DIV playoff game. Big deal, not many teams do. The Broncos were the better all around team and whether or not Eason or Grogan started in that game, Denver still would have won. Very few teams hav had success playing in Denver during the postseason.

To summarize, Eason is 3-0 playoff games without throwing a single INT, which is more important that throwing a couple of TDs. Grogan is 0-3 in all his playoff starts. Yet, in the minds of many Pats fans, Eason is a pansy and Grogan is a warrior.

So, Eason sucked against the '85 Bears? He can get in line with Phil Simms and Joe Montana.

As for handling the pass rush, the Pats O-line in the mid-1980s was very overrated.

Eason's longevity was shortened by two things: playing for a Patriots franchise that was in sharp decline in the late 1980s and having recurring throwing shoulder injuries that plagued him in 1985 and 1988. By the time he went to the Jets in 1990, another mediocre team, he had nothing left. I'm not saying Eason was a great QB, he wasn't. It's just that he deserves better from Pats fans in general and he was caught in an infamous QB controversy, which left him unfairly scapegoated after the embarrassing 46-10 loss to the Bears.

Eason was like many average QBs out there. He would do well when given time, but could be rattled very easily. In 1985, the Pats rushing attack and defense carried the team, *especially* in the playoffs. Sure, Eason didn't throw a pick in January 1986, but he barely threw the ball at all as the Pats used their ground game and turnovers to beat the Jets (4 turnovers), Raiders (James over 100+ yds rushing and 6 LA turnovers) and especially the Dolphins (Eason threw 3 TDs that day...all play-action, from 4, 2 and 1 yards out with a Dolphins D biting hard each time thanks to the Pats rushing for 250+ yards on the day. Also, don't forget 6 Fish turnovers). He didn't have to break a sweat. I'll gladly admit he did well overall in 1986 with the bad rushing game, but that doesn't change the fact that he was quick to duck for cover when the rush was on. He had no pocket awareness.

Grogan sucked as a passer early in his career and had a bit of a renaissance in the mid-'80s and it's that brief stage of his career, which coincided with Eason's prime on the Pats where people make the comparisons. Grogan did well in his relief stints in both '85 and '86 and what separated the two was how they handled the rush. Grogan would stand back there and release the ball at the last moment while Eason would be looking to turtle on the turf.

Handling a good pass rush isn't something *all* QBs should handle with ease and *all* QBs will have trouble with it. What separates the great QBs (like Brady, Montana, Elway, Marino, etc.) from the mediocre and bad ones is how frequently the pass rush affects their game. With the great QBs, their bad games vs. a good pass rush are few and far between. With Eason, it was all too common to see him rattled. It's easy to forget this when the next week he could pad his stats vs. some creampuff like the mid-'80s Colts.

Regards,
Chris

 

[RayClay]

I don't understand your point. Eason played well in 3 road playoff games in 1985. Eason had a great season in 1986 leading the Pats to their 2nd AFC East title despite having one one of the league's worst rushing attacks. So he didn't win at Denver in the 1986 AFC DIV playoff game. Big deal, not many teams do. The Broncos were the better all around team and whether or not Eason or Grogan started in that game, Denver still would have won. Very few teams hav had success playing in Denver during the postseason.

To summarize, Eason is 3-0 playoff games without throwing a single INT, which is more important that throwing a couple of TDs. Grogan is 0-3 in all his playoff starts. Yet, in the minds of many Pats fans, Eason is a pansy and Grogan is a warrior.

So, Eason sucked against the '85 Bears? He can get in line with Phil Simms and Joe Montana.

As for handling the pass rush, the Pats O-line in the mid-1980s was very overrated.

Eason's longevity was shortened by two things: playing for a Patriots franchise that was in sharp decline in the late 1980s and having recurring throwing shoulder injuries that plagued him in 1985 and 1988. By the time he went to the Jets in 1990, another mediocre team, he had nothing left. I'm not saying Eason was a great QB, he wasn't. It's just that he deserves better from Pats fans in general and he was caught in an infamous QB controversy, which left him unfairly scapegoated after the embarrassing 46-10 loss to the Bears.

Who says he wasn't a potentially great quarterback? If he didn't quit hanging in the pocket because he was scared he might have gone to the hall of fame.

I mean take the three seasons before he folded and extrapolate that to 13 seasons.

Hall of Famer.

 

[RayClay]

perfect post.

Italianpat, you seem to disagree with what many posters saw, which was Eason falling down in a ball when rushed.

Can I ask how many times you saw him play?

Because I saw what I saw all too often

 

[italian pat patriot]

Italianpat, you seem to disagree with what many posters saw, which was Eason falling down in a ball when rushed.

i agree with the majority of the posts made on this thread (the fans that are recognizing 'more' Tony Eason)...that's all...i hv never said that he was the best possible qb but i think we should arrive to a conclusion that he should deserve more and that he was a good qb for us)

have a nice day my friend (anyway i like a lot yr posts and thks for it)

 

[RayClay]

i agree with the majority of the posts made on this thread (the fans that are recognizing 'more' Tony Eason)...that's all...i hv never said that he was the best possible qb but i think we should arrive to a conclusion that he should deserve more and that he was a good qb for us)

have a nice day my friend (anyway i like a lot yr posts and thks for it)

I always like your posts and I'll drop this now. I think Eason was very talented and a great quarterbck for 3 years.

Im my opinion, if he not for the problem he developed he would have been right behind Brady.

He was that talented. Ciao.

 

[italian pat patriot]

I always like your posts and I'll drop this now. I think Eason was very talented and a great quarterbck for 3 years.

Im my opinion, if he not for the problem he developed he would have been right behind Brady.

He was that talented. Ciao.

cin cin - salute !