Nick Foles is a tough quarterback. His gritty performance against the Washington Redskins in Week 3 last season is a reminder of this fact. But maybe his mental toughness doesn't match his physical toughness.

At least, that's what Jeff McLane of the Philadelphia Inquirer seemed to suggest during a radio appearance with Anthony Gargano and Jon Marks on 97.5 The Fanatic on Wednesday morning. Transcription via Crossing Broad, bold emphasis is mine:

"Nick wasn’t really comfortable in that [franchise QB] role. And I think there wasn’t much written about that and we’ve learned more about that since Nick has been gone ... It really got to him, some of the criticism here in Philadelphia about his play last year. I heard from a couple of players that he’d get down … I understood that he’d let it get to him. I think that had to do with the decision to part with him … they felt like Nick wasn’t the guy for this team and this city."

Interesting. I hardly think Foles being negatively impacted by criticism was the deciding factor why the Eagles moved on from him, but it could have contributed to the decision. The main reason Foles is gone, I'd argue, is because Chip Kelly felt he was a limited talent and Sam Bradford offers a bigger upside.

The concept of an athlete "not being able to handle Philadelphia because it's tough" definitely isn't new. There are plenty examples of this in the past. I remember people saying similar things about Flyers goalie Ilya Bryzgalov after he was ran out of town. There are other examples that don't immediately come to mind. Personally, I don't put a lot of stock into it. I think the real issue is a lack of talent more than anything.