Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Some things I heard on Jaws' show tonight
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Pages: 1, 2
nephillymike
He was on with DiCamera and B. Brooks on his hour show on 97.5.

He mentioned a few things I thought were interesting and concerning:

1. They said Maxwell wasn't a press CB that he was mostly a zone CB. Huh? Has anyone else heard this? This blindsided me. Is this Nammdi Part II?

2. Bradford threw the ball 52 times. Here is the breakdown by distance traveled in the air:
41 times less than 10 yards
10 times more than 10 less than 20
1 times over 20 yards.
With that type of distribution, teams can just let you do that and wait for tipped balls or fumbles in middle of field

3. The Eagles have now lost 4 of their last 5 games, and were favored in 4 of them. Not a good sign.

4. Maxwell was targeted 11 times and his stat line.............10-11 171 yards 2 TD's. They said this was the worst CB performance stat-wise of the Billy Davis era. That's saying a lot.


On a different note, did anyone see Maxwell laughing in the locker room when he asked what Jones numbers were and when told he said ____ Damn and then laughed. They also had footage of him walking off the field with his other position mates chuckling it up. Joyner is now on some of the sports shows and he said if he had a bad game, he wouldn't smile until after the next game when he made up for it. I loved that about Joyner. He looked like us when they lost. Angry.

As Belicheat would say "We're on to Dallas"


mcnabbulous
There were a number of positives to take away from the game too.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 17 2015, 02:16 AM) *
There were a number of positives to take away from the game too.

Sure. But none of them from Maxwell.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Sep 16 2015, 10:39 PM) *
Sure. But none of them from Maxwell.

Yeah, facing Julio wasn't the best intro to the guy. It's going to be hard for him to positively change the perception. Our fanbase definitely let's first impressions stick.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 16 2015, 10:43 PM) *
Yeah, facing Julio wasn't the best intro to the guy. It's going to be hard for him to positively change the perception. Our fanbase definitely let's first impressions stick.



Ricky Watters recovered from "For Who For What?" with no problem because he played hard and played well after that.

If Maxwell does the same, he'll be fine.

Give me the five most positive things you took from this game.
mcnabbulous
1) half time adjustments
2) Sam Bradford
3) safety play
4) Sproles looked uncoverable
5) Kiko was exactly the type of playmaker he had been hyped up as.
nd9kel
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 17 2015, 06:45 AM) *
1) half time adjustments
2) Sam Bradford
3) safety play
4) Sproles looked uncoverable
5) Kiko was exactly the type of playmaker he had been hyped up as.


Good review...Now if the guards can get it together we'll see why DeMarco was such a good addition.
mcnabbulous
I'll even add one more for fun.

6) Our ability to get off the field in the crucial last defensive stop. We have had plenty of failures in that regard in recent years.
xsv
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 17 2015, 07:45 AM) *
5) Kiko was exactly the type of playmaker he had been hyped up as.


I've heard from a couple of places now that Kiko had a poor game, outside of one play.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (xsv @ Sep 17 2015, 10:43 AM) *
I've heard from a couple of places now that Kiko had a poor game, outside of one play.

Regardless of how well a game he played (in literally his first meaningful action in well over a year), he proved himself to be a playmaker, which was his reputation in Buffalo.

The rest of it will come back with time.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 17 2015, 06:45 AM) *
1) half time adjustments
2) Sam Bradford
3) safety play
4) Sproles looked uncoverable
5) Kiko was exactly the type of playmaker he had been hyped up as.



Agree on #1 and especially #4.

Aside from that one play, Kiko had a poor game according to Jaws, Baldi, Brooks, Joyner and Diddy - the NFL film reviewers.

He was most responsible for them getting that long third down conversion later in the game that hurt and took other bad angles on plays.

I'll agree somewhat on #3. Thurmond was solid. Jenkins just OK but he dropped two INT's to continue that trend. According to Brooks, Maragos played so deep he was out of the field shot. When you have him playing so many plays, I don't know how that can be a good thing

#2 Sam Bradford 77 Passer rating, INT when pressured hurt, check down Charlie left some deep opportunities on the field, fragility concerns persist as he had to have his ankle xrayed after the game. I like the way he came back, but we need much much more, especially against that D. Not giving up hope, but I would not consider his play a positive.

A Dallas win heals many wounds.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 17 2015, 07:40 PM) *
#2 Sam Bradford 77 Passer rating, INT when pressured hurt, check down Charlie left some deep opportunities on the field, fragility concerns persist as he had to have his ankle xrayed after the game. I like the way he came back, but we need much much more, especially against that D. Not giving up hope, but I would not consider his play a positive.

A Dallas win heals many wounds.


Seriously?

Checkdown Charlie was getting hit almost every time he threw......Rarely did they give him time to allow something downfield to develop....and when he went deep to Ertz early Ertz turns into the defender.....

Sometimes you just can't win.....how you came out of that game with a concern for Bradford is mystifying...did he miss a snap? did not seem fragile at all......of everything in that game that was below par....Bradford was so far from below par it was not funny....he had a iffy first half....go figure.....but one hell of a 2nd half...

The Axis is back
mcnabbulous
Bradford was brilliant in the second half. The first half was his first meaningful action in two years. Look big picture.

He made a read, if it was available he took it. Checking down is going through your reads and relying on a dump off to a RB. That is absolutely not what Bradford did.

He averaged nearly 9ypa in the second half. That is fantastic.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 17 2015, 08:11 PM) *
Seriously?

Checkdown Charlie was getting hit almost every time he threw......Rarely did they give him time to allow something downfield to develop....and when he went deep to Ertz early Ertz turns into the defender.....

Sometimes you just can't win.....how you came out of that game with a concern for Bradford is mystifying...did he miss a snap? did not seem fragile at all......of everything in that game that was below par....Bradford was so far from below par it was not funny....he had a iffy first half....go figure.....but one hell of a 2nd half...

The Axis is back


The Axis Never Left!! devil03.gif

All kidding aside, you need to judge him on the entire game. I'm not in despair about his play, I'm not overly concerned. However, I am no where near listing him as a success for this game.

He threw one ball over 20 yards.

One.

Against one of the worst secondaries in the NFL last year. Maybe they've improved to just below average from bad, kind of the improvement we hoped to see for ours.

Do you really think there weren't a good deal of WR's open down the field during that game? You know the kind where the QB finds them when they stay with the play another split second? The one he did throw over 20, the Austin play, was half his fault half Austin's for not laying out. I know he had eight hits after he threw. They weren't pretty. But it wasn't like he was even sacked. Stay it there, man up and throw the ball down the field once in a while.

He needs to play a lot better.

On the list of those responsible for our loss this week, he's not near the top of the list.

But to put him as a positive?

Nah.

Maybe this week and I hope he plays better and I think he will. But not for last week. No way.
mcnabbulous
In the first half, he threw one really bad pass. Other than that, he had two guys run bad routes and one really bad drop by Matthews. In his first action in 2 years.

In the second half, he was basically perfection.

What makes you think Chip wants him going down the field? Chip is on the record saying he wants to run 80 plays a game. You don't get there by having big plays. If the first read is open, you throw it to that guy. That's exactly what was happening during our game.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 17 2015, 09:18 PM) *
The Axis Never Left!! devil03.gif

All kidding aside, you need to judge him on the entire game. I'm not in despair about his play, I'm not overly concerned. However, I am no where near listing him as a success for this game.

He threw one ball over 20 yards.

One.

Against one of the worst secondaries in the NFL last year. Maybe they've improved to just below average from bad, kind of the improvement we hoped to see for ours.

Do you really think there weren't a good deal of WR's open down the field during that game? You know the kind where the QB finds them when they stay with the play another split second? The one he did throw over 20, the Austin play, was half his fault half Austin's for not laying out. I know he had eight hits after he threw. They weren't pretty. But it wasn't like he was even sacked. Stay it there, man up and throw the ball down the field once in a while.

He needs to play a lot better.

On the list of those responsible for our loss this week, he's not near the top of the list.

But to put him as a positive?

Nah.

Maybe this week and I hope he plays better and I think he will. But not for last week. No way.


God...I am so tired of the "there were WRs open " bullshit.....where were they open in the progression? Do you know?

It does not matter if they break free after they are passed over....

He rarely had time to look downfield and he threw a perfect ball to Ertz that was downfield and to Miles that was a tad long but should have been caught.

For his first game back he looked terrific......and who were these speed merchants that were open downfield? Seems like Matthews caught a ton of balls so it wasn't him.....

Riley?....Josh Drops? There were only 5 WRs....and Nelson had a terrible game.......so who were these mystery WRs who kept breaking open deep?

He had a shaky first half but he had a great 2nd half and he was hit a hell of a lot more than 8 times after throwing. I watched the game and replayed most of it and was surprised at how tough he was after taking that beating.....

I was disappointed at how bad the guards played.......but watching Mathis play tonight I can't say he is any better right now.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 17 2015, 09:29 PM) *
In the first half, he threw one really bad pass. Other than that, he had two guys run bad routes and one really bad drop by Matthews. In his first action in 2 years.

In the second half, he was basically perfection.

What makes you think Chip wants him going down the field? Chip is on the record saying he wants to run 80 plays a game. You don't get there by having big plays. If the first read is open, you throw it to that guy. That's exactly what was happening during our game.


It is the same tired response........there are always WRs running wide open......and no Eagles QB ever sees them.....it must be the uniforms....or just maybe they were not open in the progression....or were running a clear out........if we lose it is always the QB did not see the WRs....


ughhh
mcnabbulous
Agreed, RF...I just think now (with Bradford and Chip) that's less the case than ever before.

I really think our offense is designed to pickup small chunks at a time. Incompletions are poison. Keep going forward, keep running plays, keep the defense tired. The plan worked to near perfection in the second half.

We need to clean up some mistakes, but I suspect that is what our offense will look like all year long.

People think we are a big play offense because that is what we were forced to be in recent years. Foles couldn't consistently make the quick read or deliver the short, accurate throws. Bradford can.
Reality Fan
It was a residual of the TO virus.....
Eyrie
I recall Freddie Mitchell being open on a regular basis.

Bradford's performance on Monday night was one of the few positives. Quick accurate passes that prevented the defence getting to him before the ball was gone. And that can only improve as he builds a better rapport under game conditions with his receivers.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Sep 18 2015, 04:09 AM) *
I recall Freddie Mitchell being open on a regular basis.

Bradford's performance on Monday night was one of the few positives. Quick accurate passes that prevented the defence getting to him before the ball was gone. And that can only improve as he builds a better rapport under game conditions with his receivers.



Nice......lol

I thought...considering that Bradford had not played a real game in nearly 2 years and only had 4 series in preseason, that he was good overall and terrific in the 2nd half. And that is just his first game......I agree completely that he can only improve on that as he and the WR get in sync.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 18 2015, 08:32 AM) *
Nice......lol

I thought...considering that Bradford had not played a real game in nearly 2 years and only had 4 series in preseason, that he was good overall and terrific in the 2nd half. And that is just his first game......I agree completely that he can only improve on that as he and the WR get in sync.

Agreed. The first half issues were nearly all timing and communication issues with receivers. His interception was bad, but there is one angle where you can see that the ref was standing right in front of the MLB, which I think contributed to the pick. Bradford should have identified him before that, but it didn't help.
nd9kel
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 17 2015, 08:23 PM) *
Bradford was brilliant in the second half. The first half was his first meaningful action in two years. Look big picture.

He made a read, if it was available he took it. Checking down is going through your reads and relying on a dump off to a RB. That is absolutely not what Bradford did.

He averaged nearly 9ypa in the second half. That is fantastic.


Wow. That statistic had escaped me. Thanks.
Pila
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 18 2015, 02:11 AM) *
Seriously?

Checkdown Charlie was getting hit almost every time he threw......Rarely did they give him time to allow something downfield to develop....and when he went deep to Ertz early Ertz turns into the defender.....

Sometimes you just can't win.....how you came out of that game with a concern for Bradford is mystifying...did he miss a snap? did not seem fragile at all......of everything in that game that was below par....Bradford was so far from below par it was not funny....he had a iffy first half....go figure.....but one hell of a 2nd half...

The Axis is back
There are those only know and think through numbers on a spreadsheet. The things flying around outside, the noises, are foreign things, distractions, until someone else can interpret it for them.

In this case, they aren't really sure what they see, until they get a few selective numbers, with a pre established narrative. Intuition is non-existent.

Some guys were born to count beans. Don't get frustrated over their inability to see the intangibles of a working farm, RF. Simply consult only when you need your beans counted.


nephillymike
QUOTE (Pila @ Sep 18 2015, 06:28 PM) *
There are those only know and think through numbers on a spreadsheet. The things flying around outside, the noises, are foreign things, distractions, until someone else can interpret it for them.

In this case, they aren't really sure what they see, until they get a few selective numbers, with a pre established narrative. Intuition is non-existent.

Some guys were born to count beans. Don't get frustrated over their inability to see the intangibles of a working farm, RF. Simply consult only when you need your beans counted.



You can stick that spreadsheet reference up your ass!

As if I didn't see what was happening and I only listened to the ex NFL players and a few select others with HOF credentials who spend hours reviewing the game film and if I take only their view of what happened and repeated that, it would be close to what I saw.

My pre established narrative was 11-5, I think the most selected narrative on this Eagle fan board.

Where my vantage point is different is I grade this team based on what a Super Bowl winning caliber team should look like in year three of a coaching regime. Others do not.

I'm glad so many are happy with our performance. It fits the pre established narrative so well.

D Rock
QUOTE (Pila @ Sep 19 2015, 12:28 AM) *
There are those only know and think through numbers on a spreadsheet. The things flying around outside, the noises, are foreign things, distractions, until someone else can interpret it for them.

In this case, they aren't really sure what they see, until they get a few selective numbers, with a pre established narrative. Intuition is non-existent.

Some guys were born to count beans. Don't get frustrated over their inability to see the intangibles of a working farm, RF. Simply consult only when you need your beans counted.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

truth

Numbers know no nuance.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 18 2015, 08:17 PM) *
I'm glad so many are happy with our performance. It fits the pre established narrative so well.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my view is that it's too early to either be crowning them or to be burying them.
Phits
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 18 2015, 08:17 PM) *
Where my vantage point is different is I grade this team based on what a Super Bowl winning caliber team should look like in year three of a coaching regime.

Who's the last SB champion to be crowned after Game 1?
nephillymike
I did not crown nor bury them.

It is an opinion of how the team looked in one game.

No SB teams are crowned after one game.

It's not the end of the world. They have time to make up for it.

However, to watch that game and not be truthful that many of our concerns for this team were front and centre is naive.
Pila
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 19 2015, 01:17 AM) *
You can stick that spreadsheet reference up your ass!

As if I didn't see what was happening and I only listened to the ex NFL players and a few select others with HOF credentials who spend hours reviewing the game film and if I take only their view of what happened and repeated that, it would be close to what I saw.

My pre established narrative was 11-5, I think the most selected narrative on this Eagle fan board.

Where my vantage point is different is I grade this team based on what a Super Bowl winning caliber team should look like in year three of a coaching regime. Others do not.

I'm glad so many are happy with our performance. It fits the pre established narrative so well.

I think most of us saw the team struggle early, then excel (sorry, I couldn't help it) in the second half. To belabor negatively on the team's performance in the second half, in particular Bradford's performance by reason of the numbers you provided, to me at least, reflects someone not particularly intuitive to the sport.

I'm no expert either, and saw some things published later that cleared up some initial, short perceptions. But the obvious ones, at this point, aren't going to be flipped upside down by a few selective numbers in a vacuum. You've been following the sport for a number of decades, before you buried your head in a few selective stats, what was your impression of Bradford's performance? Give your honest opinion, not Jaws', or the board's convention. What did you see?

Give yourself some credit, trust your knowledge - you don't have to relent to every cognitive statistician fallacy known to science.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Pila @ Sep 18 2015, 09:57 PM) *
I think most of us saw the team struggle early, then excel (sorry, I couldn't help it) in the second half. To belabor negatively on the team's performance in the second half, in particular Bradford's performance by reason of the numbers you provided, to me at least, reflects someone not particularly intuitive to the sport.

I'm no expert either, and saw some things published later that cleared up some initial, short perceptions. But the obvious ones, at this point, aren't going to be flipped upside down by a few selective numbers in a vacuum. You've been following the sport for a number of decades, before you buried your head in a few selective stats, what was your impression of Bradford's performance? Give your honest opinion, not Jaws', or the board's convention. What did you see?

Give yourself some credit, trust your knowledge - you don't have to relent to every cognitive statistician fallacy known to science.



What I saw when I watched the game was a guy who was pretty accurate, who was under some pressure, especially early, who seemed to me to not have the confidence in (his OL, himself or his WR's or a mixture of all three) to throw the ball down field, which I believe was needed for us to win that game. Upon hearing that he only threw the ball once for over 20 yards, it was worse than I thought. You can look up my post game post and see it was indeed a flaw I saw before Jaws' confirmation. That's what I saw.

I also did not see him as a major reason for the loss.

However, I did not see him as a reason for praise.

Simple as that.

I'm OK with having a primarily short and intermediate passing game, but you need to open it up to win and the way it looks with our defensive secondary, more than his fair share will be needed for us to be a success this year.



Pila
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 19 2015, 04:10 AM) *
What I saw when I watched the game was a guy who was pretty accurate, who was under some pressure, especially early, who seemed to me to not have the confidence in (his OL, himself or his WR's or a mixture of all three) to throw the ball down field, which I believe was needed for us to win that game. Upon hearing that he only threw the ball once for over 20 yards, it was worse than I thought. You can look up my post game post and see it was indeed a flaw I saw before Jaws' confirmation. That's what I saw.

I also did not see him as a major reason for the loss.

However, I did not see him as a reason for praise.

Simple as that.

I'm OK with having a primarily short and intermediate passing game, but you need to open it up to win and the way it looks with our defensive secondary, more than his fair share will be needed for us to be a success this year.

He was getting hit and he was releasing the ball within 2 seconds on a regular basis.

Tell me how that reconciles with going long if it were on a spreadsheet.
Speed_Kills
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 17 2015, 08:40 PM) *
#2 Sam Bradford 77 Passer rating, INT when pressured hurt, check down Charlie left some deep opportunities on the field, fragility concerns persist as he had to have his ankle xrayed after the game. I like the way he came back, but we need much much more, especially against that D. Not giving up hope, but I would not consider his play a positive.

A Dallas win heals many wounds.


I realize you are a hater and nothing is going to change your mind but for the sake of the sane posters here I will say he led the team to 24 points on 4 consecutive 2nd half drives and had Chip not taken the ball out of his hands it would have needed up being 35.

Did you HEAR Gruden talk about the Falcons playing a 3 deep shell and NEEDING to stay patient? WHO GIVES A FUCK HOW LONG THE PASSES ARE IF YOU ARE SCORING AT WILL?
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 18 2015, 10:10 PM) *
What I saw when I watched the game was a guy who was pretty accurate, who was under some pressure, especially early, who seemed to me to not have the confidence in (his OL, himself or his WR's or a mixture of all three) to throw the ball down field, which I believe was needed for us to win that game. Upon hearing that he only threw the ball once for over 20 yards, it was worse than I thought. You can look up my post game post and see it was indeed a flaw I saw before Jaws' confirmation. That's what I saw.

I also did not see him as a major reason for the loss.

However, I did not see him as a reason for praise.

Simple as that.

I'm OK with having a primarily short and intermediate passing game, but you need to open it up to win and the way it looks with our defensive secondary, more than his fair share will be needed for us to be a success this year.


Ok...

To be fair and objective I went back and watched the game a 2nd time and only focused on the offense...every play....

To say we missed guys downfield is, in my opinion, idiotic and I don't care if it was Jaworski, Baldy or Ray Diddy....

When you watch the game, nearly every receiver ran short or intermediate routes, a fact pointed out by Gruden when he mentioned how the shallow cross was killing the Falcons in the 2nd half. Those WRs running free downfield?....never mentioned.......

Bradford was hit 11 times in the first half.......only 4 times in the 2nd half.....the short passes, quite a few of them were screen passes....kept the pass rush at bay...so yeah...he did not trust the line and for a very good reason....though they did get better...he was only hit 4 times in the 2nd half

While I thought they would win the game I was not surprised they lost..or at least played poorly early on.....it was expected that there would be growing pains...the penalties were horrendous.....even in the 2nd half and the drive for the 2nd TD was as bad in that respect as the drive for the 3rd TD.

But we played a team in their home opener, on the road, new coach and a good QB with a great WR and a pretty good WR...I am not ready to lower expectations...had Kelly gone for it we are likely not having this discussion...his call on 3rd down was terrible and his decision not to go for it was worse...the Falcons could not stop the short pass so he ran it once and then tried a long FG.....even had Parker made the kick the Falcons only needed a FG to win.

So lets review....you wanted them to go deep....I ask why? Why go for the lower % pass when the underneath is not only open but ridiculously successful? What is the point? I get it if they are shutting down the underneath stuff and you want to loosen up the coverage but they were chewing up the Falcons....why change? Just to say they did?
Eyrie
QUOTE (Pila @ Sep 19 2015, 12:28 AM) *
There are those only know and think through numbers on a spreadsheet. The things flying around outside, the noises, are foreign things, distractions, until someone else can interpret it for them.

In this case, they aren't really sure what they see, until they get a few selective numbers, with a pre established narrative. Intuition is non-existent.

Some guys were born to count beans. Don't get frustrated over their inability to see the intangibles of a working farm, RF. Simply consult only when you need your beans counted.



QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 19 2015, 01:17 AM) *
You can stick that spreadsheet reference up your ass!



QUOTE (D Rock @ Sep 19 2015, 01:27 AM) *
laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

truth

Numbers know no nuance.

What's wrong with spreadsheets? ohmy.gif

Eyrie (Bachelor of Accounting, Chartered Accountant)

On the eyeball test ....

- don't read too much into a player looking open
- do read enough into the way that Bradford played in the second half

So I'm not concerned about our offense if we can get the OL to gel and our running game going.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 18 2015, 10:10 PM) *
I'm OK with having a primarily short and intermediate passing game, but you need to open it up to win...

How do you reconcile this statement with the fact that we didn't need to open it up to win? What we needed to do to win was not miss a field goal and/or not let a very catchable pass slip through our hands to that of a defensive back.

Bradford was essentially unstoppable in the second half, as evidenced by the defense not stopping him. He picked them apart, making quick decisions and short, accurate throws. It's basically how Brady has been beating defenses for 14 years.
Zero
DKD question: Assume there are receivers consistently open down field but a QB keeps throwing short to open receivers, gaining 5 - 10 yds per completion. Could the scheme be designed to open the short, high percentage, clock-consuming plays by having the players going deep and taking defenders away from the middle of the field? In my head, this compliments the up-tempo, fast-paced, tire-the-defense strategy more than the DJax-gets-behind-everyone, quick-score offense that puts the defense back on the field quickly.

Is it possible that's what was happening? And, if the defense either lets the deep receivers go to cover the successful short game, or the DBs begin to tire with the continued wind sprints, does the scheme allow for the QB to take advantage and start hitting the intermediate to long routes like they were hitting the short routes?

My question is about whether this is Kelly breaking the norm or Bradford not seeing the open receivers? The NFLers who review the film are looking at things from their perspective of the game. If Kelly is trying to change the rules, would Jaws and Co. be looking at it that way or seeing it the way they understand the game? Just wondering.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (Zero @ Sep 19 2015, 12:04 PM) *
Could the scheme be designed to open the short, high percentage, clock-consuming plays by having the players going deep and
taking defenders away from the middle of the field? In my head, this compliments the up-tempo, fast-paced, tire-the-defense strategy
more than the DJax-gets-behind-everyone, quick-score offense that puts the defense back on the field quickly.



I agree completely and this is my hope. Drives that end in TDs and eat the clock. That keeps the opposing O off of the field and gives the Eagle
D a breather.
mcnabbulous
I don't think we will ever "eat clock" per se, but I do expect them to run tons of plays, which is Chip's equivalent.
Zero
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 19 2015, 09:57 AM) *
I don't think we will ever "eat clock" per se, but I do expect them to run tons of plays, which is Chip's equivalent.
Ok, but does my thought have validity?
Pila
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 19 2015, 11:25 AM) *
How do you reconcile this statement with the fact that we didn't need to open it up to win? What we needed to do to win was not miss a field goal and/or not let a very catchable pass slip through our hands to that of a defensive back.

Bradford was essentially unstoppable in the second half, as evidenced by the defense not stopping him. He picked them apart, making quick decisions and short, accurate throws. It's basically how Brady has been beating defenses for 14 years.

I think Mike has given up. Spreadsheet must have blew up.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 19 2015, 05:25 AM) *
How do you reconcile this statement with the fact that we didn't need to open it up to win? What we needed to do to win was not miss a field goal and/or not let a very catchable pass slip through our hands to that of a defensive back.

Bradford was essentially unstoppable in the second half, as evidenced by the defense not stopping him. He picked them apart, making quick decisions and short, accurate throws. It's basically how Brady has been beating defenses for 14 years.



Bwah, no Pila, I have not given up. Not so lucky.

Just got in from work.

One point of clarification. I have no problem with an emphasis on short and intermediate routes. None

But just like I harped for years of the injustice Andy did to McNabb by never arming him with a play action game and how he was denied the nice looks down field that would have provided him. Out of Andy's flaws, that was the biggest one to me.

You can't throw the ball over 20 yards only once out of 52 tries and give your offense the best chance to succeed. You just can't. And Nabby you can't say we didn't need to open it up to win. We lost. Maybe if we open it up, we have 4-7 more points on the board and that missed FG isn't that big of a deal.

I'm sure you guys know that the Eagles don't run those short slant routes just to get five yards per play. They run those routes so that their WR's, which are hand picked for their size, RAC skills and blocking ability, can catch a short pass and turn it into a long TD catch and run. In order to reap that benefit, you need to keep the deep safety honest and you need to do that by throwing deep on occasion. When you do that, the safety can't play five yards closer to the LOS, and is not in position to catch a tipped ball, or assist with help defense on a tackle to prevent a long catch and run. Throw it deep, keep the safety back, and reap the benefits of being able to do what you wanted to do; throw a quick slant, catch the ball and take it to the house. If you have long bomb TD catch on a fly pattern while setting the defense up, so be it.

So out of 52, maybe 7 or so deep throws make an honest man out of their S and allow us to reap the benefit. To only take one shot is counter productive to winning.
D Rock
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 19 2015, 09:06 PM) *
Bwah, no Pila, I have not given up. Not so lucky.

Just got in from work.

One point of clarification. I have no problem with an emphasis on short and intermediate routes. None

But just like I harped for years of the injustice Andy did to McNabb by never arming him with a play action game and how he was denied the nice looks down field that would have provided him. Out of Andy's flaws, that was the biggest one to me.

You can't throw the ball over 20 yards only once out of 52 tries and give your offense the best chance to succeed. You just can't. And Nabby you can't say we didn't need to open it up to win. We lost. Maybe if we open it up, we have 4-7 more points on the board and that missed FG isn't that big of a deal.

I'm sure you guys know that the Eagles don't run those short slant routes just to get five yards per play. They run those routes so that their WR's, which are hand picked for their size, RAC skills and blocking ability, can catch a short pass and turn it into a long TD catch and run. In order to reap that benefit, you need to keep the deep safety honest and you need to do that by throwing deep on occasion. When you do that, the safety can't play five yards closer to the LOS, and is not in position to catch a tipped ball, or assist with help defense on a tackle to prevent a long catch and run. Throw it deep, keep the safety back, and reap the benefits of being able to do what you wanted to do; throw a quick slant, catch the ball and take it to the house. If you have long bomb TD catch on a fly pattern while setting the defense up, so be it.

So out of 52, maybe 7 or so deep throws make an honest man out of their S and allow us to reap the benefit. To only take one shot is counter productive to winning.

Wow. Reach much?
nephillymike
QUOTE (D Rock @ Sep 19 2015, 03:23 PM) *
Wow. Reach much?

In what way?
mcnabbulous
Mikey - what type of QB rating would Sam have had to achieved for you to have been satisfied with his performance?
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 19 2015, 05:32 PM) *
Mikey - what type of QB rating would Sam have had to achieved for you to have been satisfied with his performance?



It's not really about the rating, although I don't think anyone expected that low for this game against that defense.

It's more about having the confidence to throw it down field. It's not like I was expecting the OAK Lamonica/Stabler bombs away. If he threw the ball down the field maybe 7 times or so, with his accuracy and our OK WR's, he probably would have went 3 for 7 or better, and we would have gained decent yards but more importantly it would have helped us in the intermediate game. Even on that tipped INT, maybe that DB would have been back a few yards and not been there to catch it and maybe we get a shot at a go ahead FG. Or on another slant play, maybe they wouldn't have been close enough to tackle us and we could have taken one to the house.

This one is not on Bradford. He is not on my blame list. However, if he plays at a top two tier level in this game, we win. There are plenty of others who had way worse games.

He can heal some wounds by kicking some Dallas Ass tomorrow. I'm always partial to those who play well against Dallas as I hate that fucking team with every fiber of my being!!
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 19 2015, 05:45 PM) *
It's more about having the confidence to throw it down field. It's not like I was expecting the OAK Lamonica/Stabler bombs away. If he threw the ball down the field maybe 7 times or so, with his accuracy and our OK WR's, he probably would have went 3 for 7 or better, and we would have gained decent yards but more importantly it would have helped us in the intermediate game. Even on that tipped INT, maybe that DB would have been back a few yards and not been there to catch it and maybe we get a shot at a go ahead FG.

It wasn't a tipped interception. It was a drop. Matthews dropped it and we lost as a result. That was, 100%, on Matthews.

You think going 3-7 and throwing deep just for the sake of doing so is better than 6 of 7, which is basically what Sam did all second half? That's crazy.

QUOTE
Or on another slant play, maybe they wouldn't have been close enough to tackle us and we could have taken one to the house.

In the second half, the only drives that stalled were the field goal miss and the drop that led to an interception.

On the field goal miss, the only reason we were in that position was because of a bad holding call on Kelce and Chip not putting the ball in Bradford's hands on second and third down. Literally, the only thing that even remotely stopped Sammy in the second half was our own mistakes.

QUOTE
This one is not on Bradford. He is not on my blame list. However, if he plays at a top two tier level in this game, we win. There are plenty of others who had way worse games.

Just to be clear, if they had given Matthews rightful credit for what should have been a TD (or Chip had rightfully challenged) and Matthews didn't cause that interception, Sam ends the day with a 91.5 rating. If you correct those stats for his second half performance, his rating would have been 129.1 in the half.

Take into consideration that it was his first real action in two years and it's even more impressive. Simply put, he was fantastic.

QUOTE
He can heal some wounds by kicking some Dallas Ass tomorrow. I'm always partial to those who play well against Dallas as I hate that fucking team with every fiber of my being!!

Count on it.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 19 2015, 06:35 PM) *
It wasn't a tipped interception. It was a drop. Matthews dropped it and we lost as a result. That was, 100%, on Matthews.

You think going 3-7 and throwing deep just for the sake of doing so is better than 6 of 7, which is basically what Sam did all second half? That's crazy.


In the second half, the only drives that stalled were the field goal miss and the drop that led to an interception.

On the field goal miss, the only reason we were in that position was because of a bad holding call on Kelce and Chip not putting the ball in Bradford's hands on second and third down. Literally, the only thing that even remotely stopped Sammy in the second half was our own mistakes.


Just to be clear, if they had given Matthews rightful credit for what should have been a TD (or Chip had rightfully challenged) and Matthews didn't cause that interception, Sam ends the day with a 91.5 rating. If you correct those stats for his second half performance, his rating would have been 129.1 in the half.

Take into consideration that it was his first real action in two years and it's even more impressive. Simply put, he was fantastic.


Count on it.



Fantastic?

Wow. I can't go there.

You keep on saying the 2nd half. The game is made of two halves. Hopefully he takes the 2nd half as a launching pad to this week.

And I wasn't insinuating that the INT was at all Bradford's fault. It was all on Matthews. I meant tipped up in the air, as in by Matthews himself.

That being the case and that guy may not have been there to catch it.
mcnabbulous
I meant in the second half. My main point is that overall he was good, in the second half he was great, regardless of the average distance his passes carried.
Eyrie
The first half saw Bradford working off the rust and working up a familiarity with his receivers in a real game as opposed to a pre-season game.

Looking forward to seeing what he can do this evening.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.