EAGLES PLAYOFF FOOTBALL GAME 1 HERE: the sons of liberty

Postby Philly the Kid » Sun Jan 10, 2010 1:34 am

It's about realistic expectations. Dallass right now is simply a better team. Better schemes, better players, better execution. 9 skill players on their roster hurt us the last two weeks.

Donovan is Donovan. He's smarter and more experienced than when he was young, but he can't run like he used to. Would I prefer Rivers? Heck yeah. But that's not an option. Our options are Kolb and Vick. Kolb is not Rivers either. He doesn't have the arm strength and isn't as big and strong. Donovan has always been too muscular and bulky and has never thrown that beautiful spiral touch pass. He never has, he never will. The in the dirt, over the head, behind the hip - but you all know that if Brady, Rivers or Manning were behind center for the Birds tonight we still lose. And if Kolb were back there, he's sacked 12 times. Mcnabb was under seige all game and escaped many times.

Nic Cole, Max Jean Gilles, Macho Harris, Sean Jones, Will Witherspoon, Trotter, Abiamiri, Dmiti Patterson, Demps, Eldra, Mays -- those are not the names of a SB roster.

Andy Reid and Donovan Mcnabb are not the only coach and QB who could succeed in Philadelphia. But who is out there that would definitively do better? (that are available?) Cowher? Gruden? eh... maybe... how many coaches have won a SB with two teams? You might be able to trade Don for Cutler or Quinn or Jamarcus, and unless Cleveland would give up a #1 pick for Donovan? Forget it.

Fix the Oline. Committ to a running game. Let Don throw deep. If Westy is halfway there next year, and we retain Weaver we don't need a single new skill player. Keep the exact same WRs, TEs (Ingram too), RBs. Keep Donovan, and finally sign a Hutchinson or Faneca, some G who can really run block and committ to that. With a real running game, Donovan would be more than adequate and our deep threats with the young speedy WRs is still in play. You don't have to be stuck on the WCO to run the slant or screen from time to time.

The Eagles were 11-5 but lost all 5 games to playoff teams. We simply are not good enough to stop top QBs and really good coaches and we cannot score against good defenses with the 1-dimensional nonsense Reid have given us. Keep some of the good stuff that has worked on both sides of the ball, but its time to evolve. Modify the D, Modify the O. And get some better players. We need a LDE that can bull rush, we need a DT that can stuff a run and get a sack, we need a new young FS that can really make an impact. BDawk was too old, but look how much PItt and Ravens go down on D when Polamalu and Reed were out. Get a teller corner to match up against the tall WRs like Fitzgerlad and Austin and those SD dudes etc...

I'm ok with Red and even Don, if they are willing to make changes to the philosophy. And stop beating yourself with penalties and stupid mistakes by trying to be too slick. Power football works. Pitt won 2 SBs with it recently.

0-3 to hated Dallass and W hi-fiving Jerry has to be a low moment. It will be a long restless offseason and I can't wait to see Doc Halladay throw a 1 hitter at CBP to rid this taste. Flyer and Sixers blow.

I'm rooting for SD to win it all, hopefully against New Orleans who I don't like, but respect their coach and the city has never seen their team even in a SB. So go an lose. Rivers beats Brees. Norvelle gets the SB win.

This sucked badly. But we lost because we weren't good enough, the other team was simply better. It wasn't a fluke. It was reality.
User avatar
Philly the Kid
Space Cadet
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 19055
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:25 pm

Postby HillMD » Sun Jan 10, 2010 1:51 am

Philly the Kid wrote: but you all know that if Brady, Rivers or Manning were behind center for the Birds tonight we still lose.

I admittingly don't know enough about the Eagles to talk about much else, but that's tough to say. It's not a matter if they could have scored more than 34 points because if Manning was the QB they would have had a lot more time of possession and the Cowboys may not have had the great field position they had during their first three possessions either. The Eagles offense probably would have scored first since the defense held Dallas scoreless in the first quarter. Besides for all that, Manning would have had a much more efficient game and completed a lot more than 19/37 passes.
User avatar
HillMD
Dropped Anchor
Dropped Anchor
 
Posts: 6609
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 7:18 pm

Postby Philly the Kid » Sun Jan 10, 2010 1:55 am

HillMD wrote:
Philly the Kid wrote: but you all know that if Brady, Rivers or Manning were behind center for the Birds tonight we still lose.

I admittingly don't know enough about the Eagles to talk about much else, but that's tough to say. It's not a matter if they could have scored more than 34 points because if Manning was the QB they would have had a lot more time of possession and the Cowboys may not have had the great field position they had during their first three possessions either. The Eagles offense probably would have scored first since the defense held Dallas scoreless in the first. Besides for all that, Manning would have completed a lot more than 19/37 passes.


One of the reasons Manning has been so successful in Indy is that he is always on the low end totals for sacks-against. Manning is not as elusive as Donovan in terms of quickness. If Mannning was behind that line tongiht, with the coverage the girls had on our play-calling, he would have been sacked 8 times, turned it over or thrown INTs. At best, we score 21 instead of 14. I'm sorry, the Oline and lack of real running threat would have crippled any of the top QBs. Pick one? Rivers, Brees, Manning, Brady, you like Rodgers? Favre? Warner? And tell me if Kolb will ever be as good as any of those I just named? Unlikely. I don't see the same physical tools.
User avatar
Philly the Kid
Space Cadet
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 19055
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:25 pm

Postby Augustus » Sun Jan 10, 2010 2:03 am

Also, Ratliff owned us and Kosier-Gurode-Davis owned us.
Augustus
There's Our Old Friend
There's Our Old Friend
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:11 pm

Postby HillMD » Sun Jan 10, 2010 2:18 am

Philly the Kid wrote:
HillMD wrote:
Philly the Kid wrote: but you all know that if Brady, Rivers or Manning were behind center for the Birds tonight we still lose.

I admittingly don't know enough about the Eagles to talk about much else, but that's tough to say. It's not a matter if they could have scored more than 34 points because if Manning was the QB they would have had a lot more time of possession and the Cowboys may not have had the great field position they had during their first three possessions either. The Eagles offense probably would have scored first since the defense held Dallas scoreless in the first. Besides for all that, Manning would have completed a lot more than 19/37 passes.


One of the reasons Manning has been so successful in Indy is that he is always on the low end totals for sacks-against. Manning is not as elusive as Donovan in terms of quickness. If Mannning was behind that line tongiht, with the coverage the girls had on our play-calling, he would have been sacked 8 times, turned it over or thrown INTs. At best, we score 21 instead of 14. I'm sorry, the Oline and lack of real running threat would have crippled any of the top QBs. Pick one? Rivers, Brees, Manning, Brady, you like Rodgers? Favre? Warner? And tell me if Kolb will ever be as good as any of those I just named? Unlikely. I don't see the same physical tools.

Nah, the sacks-against isn't all about how elusive you are. Manning gets a ton of credit for those low totals. Manning is absurd in how good he is at getting rid of the ball and avoiding the sack. Sometimes he just throws the ball in the ground or at a linemen's back. He is truly a master at QB would never have taken 8 sacks tonight.
User avatar
HillMD
Dropped Anchor
Dropped Anchor
 
Posts: 6609
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 7:18 pm

Postby Philly the Kid » Sun Jan 10, 2010 2:27 am

HillMD wrote:
Philly the Kid wrote:
HillMD wrote:
Philly the Kid wrote: but you all know that if Brady, Rivers or Manning were behind center for the Birds tonight we still lose.

I admittingly don't know enough about the Eagles to talk about much else, but that's tough to say. It's not a matter if they could have scored more than 34 points because if Manning was the QB they would have had a lot more time of possession and the Cowboys may not have had the great field position they had during their first three possessions either. The Eagles offense probably would have scored first since the defense held Dallas scoreless in the first. Besides for all that, Manning would have completed a lot more than 19/37 passes.


One of the reasons Manning has been so successful in Indy is that he is always on the low end totals for sacks-against. Manning is not as elusive as Donovan in terms of quickness. If Mannning was behind that line tongiht, with the coverage the girls had on our play-calling, he would have been sacked 8 times, turned it over or thrown INTs. At best, we score 21 instead of 14. I'm sorry, the Oline and lack of real running threat would have crippled any of the top QBs. Pick one? Rivers, Brees, Manning, Brady, you like Rodgers? Favre? Warner? And tell me if Kolb will ever be as good as any of those I just named? Unlikely. I don't see the same physical tools.

Nah, the sacks-against isn't all about how elusive you are. Manning gets a ton of credit for those low totals. Manning is absurd in how good he is at getting rid of the ball and avoiding the sack. Sometimes he just throws the ball in the ground or at a linemen's back. He is truly a master at QB would never have taken 8 sacks tonight.


There is some truth in what you are indicating. But that doesn't mean he'd have found Maclin and Desen open when they weren't.

They needed to go more to Celek and Avant underneath when those guys were going deep. They needed to get Westy against LBs... they needed to run the ball with effetiveness. They just didn't have the oline and the scheme to do it.
User avatar
Philly the Kid
Space Cadet
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 19055
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:25 pm

Postby 702 » Sun Jan 10, 2010 2:37 am

Philly the Kid wrote:
HillMD wrote:
Philly the Kid wrote:
HillMD wrote:
Philly the Kid wrote: but you all know that if Brady, Rivers or Manning were behind center for the Birds tonight we still lose.

I admittingly don't know enough about the Eagles to talk about much else, but that's tough to say. It's not a matter if they could have scored more than 34 points because if Manning was the QB they would have had a lot more time of possession and the Cowboys may not have had the great field position they had during their first three possessions either. The Eagles offense probably would have scored first since the defense held Dallas scoreless in the first. Besides for all that, Manning would have completed a lot more than 19/37 passes.


One of the reasons Manning has been so successful in Indy is that he is always on the low end totals for sacks-against. Manning is not as elusive as Donovan in terms of quickness. If Mannning was behind that line tongiht, with the coverage the girls had on our play-calling, he would have been sacked 8 times, turned it over or thrown INTs. At best, we score 21 instead of 14. I'm sorry, the Oline and lack of real running threat would have crippled any of the top QBs. Pick one? Rivers, Brees, Manning, Brady, you like Rodgers? Favre? Warner? And tell me if Kolb will ever be as good as any of those I just named? Unlikely. I don't see the same physical tools.

Nah, the sacks-against isn't all about how elusive you are. Manning gets a ton of credit for those low totals. Manning is absurd in how good he is at getting rid of the ball and avoiding the sack. Sometimes he just throws the ball in the ground or at a linemen's back. He is truly a master at QB would never have taken 8 sacks tonight.


There is some truth in what you are indicating. But that doesn't mean he'd have found Maclin and Desen open when they weren't.

They needed to go more to Celek and Avant underneath when those guys were going deep. They needed to get Westy against LBs... they needed to run the ball with effetiveness. They just didn't have the oline and the scheme to do it.


See I like your theory, but Westbrook really just isn't the same player anymore in my eyes. If McCoy was a more polished receiver out of the backfield then you can exploit those matchups with him. With Westbrook, he isnt hacking it anymore.
User avatar
702
Plays the Game the Right Way
Plays the Game the Right Way
 
Posts: 25358
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:41 pm
Location: Vegas

Postby traderdave » Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:10 am

Augustus wrote:1. Defense takes away deep passing game by playing safeties over the top.
2. Quarterback cannot execute throws which exploit this particular scheme (hitches, crossing patterns, slants).
3. Disaster.

As for the defense, it was astonishing to watch an NFL team burned by the same three plays over and over-WR screen, draw, in-and-out/slants and flats.


You shouldn't have been. The Eagles had been burning teams with ONE play the five years or so before DJax arrived (screen to Westbrook).
User avatar
traderdave
Dropped Anchor
Dropped Anchor
 
Posts: 7298
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:44 pm
Location: Here

Postby Philly the Kid » Sun Jan 10, 2010 11:18 am

702 wrote:
Philly the Kid wrote:
HillMD wrote:
Philly the Kid wrote:
HillMD wrote:
Philly the Kid wrote: but you all know that if Brady, Rivers or Manning were behind center for the Birds tonight we still lose.

I admittingly don't know enough about the Eagles to talk about much else, but that's tough to say. It's not a matter if they could have scored more than 34 points because if Manning was the QB they would have had a lot more time of possession and the Cowboys may not have had the great field position they had during their first three possessions either. The Eagles offense probably would have scored first since the defense held Dallas scoreless in the first. Besides for all that, Manning would have completed a lot more than 19/37 passes.


One of the reasons Manning has been so successful in Indy is that he is always on the low end totals for sacks-against. Manning is not as elusive as Donovan in terms of quickness. If Mannning was behind that line tongiht, with the coverage the girls had on our play-calling, he would have been sacked 8 times, turned it over or thrown INTs. At best, we score 21 instead of 14. I'm sorry, the Oline and lack of real running threat would have crippled any of the top QBs. Pick one? Rivers, Brees, Manning, Brady, you like Rodgers? Favre? Warner? And tell me if Kolb will ever be as good as any of those I just named? Unlikely. I don't see the same physical tools.

Nah, the sacks-against isn't all about how elusive you are. Manning gets a ton of credit for those low totals. Manning is absurd in how good he is at getting rid of the ball and avoiding the sack. Sometimes he just throws the ball in the ground or at a linemen's back. He is truly a master at QB would never have taken 8 sacks tonight.


There is some truth in what you are indicating. But that doesn't mean he'd have found Maclin and Desen open when they weren't.

They needed to go more to Celek and Avant underneath when those guys were going deep. They needed to get Westy against LBs... they needed to run the ball with effetiveness. They just didn't have the oline and the scheme to do it.


See I like your theory, but Westbrook really just isn't the same player anymore in my eyes. If McCoy was a more polished receiver out of the backfield then you can exploit those matchups with him. With Westbrook, he isnt hacking it anymore.


I'm not sure what Westbrook is anymore?? He had the one nice burst last night. He hasn't gotten the snaps. He had ankle and knee issues. Then the concussion. Unless there is some super-needed great savings in releasing him, or some great opportunity in a trade, I'd keep him. He would get less overall snaps but he can still be used wisely if he has evern 85% of his old skill set, quicks, and speed. For one, he knows the offense well. He doesn't miss assignments, he can pick up the blitzer etc... Two, I suspect he can still catch a lot of balls and scamper. With the deep threats of Maclin and Desean, and Celek being for-real, surely there is room for a back to beat a LB and make some plays. If Westbrook isn't the star or feature guy, I think there's a chance he could still be a contributor. What if Shady and/or Weaver got hurt? I don't see any team giving high picks (1st or 2nd round for Donovan of Westbrook, so keep em for now)
User avatar
Philly the Kid
Space Cadet
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 19055
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:25 pm

Postby Swiggers » Sun Jan 10, 2010 11:21 am

These games vs. DAL reminded me of our three losses to NYG in 2000. Just a bad matchup, especially on the lines.

So maybe this means the Cowgirls will get blown out in the Super Bowl, too.
User avatar
Swiggers
Dropped Anchor
Dropped Anchor
 
Posts: 5650
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:03 pm
Location: Barrington, NJ

Postby Philly the Kid » Sun Jan 10, 2010 11:26 am

Swiggers wrote:
So maybe this means the Cowgirls will get blown out in the Super Bowl, too.


... or sooner
User avatar
Philly the Kid
Space Cadet
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 19055
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:25 pm

Postby Swiggers » Sun Jan 10, 2010 11:27 am

That would be fine.
User avatar
Swiggers
Dropped Anchor
Dropped Anchor
 
Posts: 5650
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:03 pm
Location: Barrington, NJ

Previous

Return to Eagles Game Threads 2009 - 2010 Season

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron