Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Chip The GM
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
nephillymike
Just fucked Chip the coach and the Philly Fans real hard.

With all of the money tied up with the moves we've made and the moves needed to correct the situation, he just set us back a long way.

5 of 6 losses, and 5 as favorites.

Really hard to believe.

He hand picked this team to his liking.

If he has the balls to get snarky in his press conferences than the press should unload on his ass like the DL's and WR's will unload on ours all year long.

Unfuckingbelievable!
JeeQ
Chip The GM should be dragged out into an open field and shot

He gutted a team that was extremely fun to watch and full of homegrown talented Eagles players and gave us this garbage
Joegrane
Other than the O Line what position looked so much worse than last year?

You could say WR but Maclin wasn't going to choose Philly over an opportunity to be a home-town hero.

They were desperate for a CB so had to overpay for Maxwell. Part of his problems are the defensive scheme.

D. Murray was the best player on O today. Who had more fight in the 4th quarter? What was Shady going to do with defenders in the backfield?

Foles never looked good when playing behind a bad O line and with no help from the running game. Granted he had more fight in him than Bradford showed today. Foles also tended to avoid big turnovers late in the game.

Foles & his rams lost 24-10 to the Skins. Foles QB rating was 76 w/ 50% passing, horrible 3rd down efficiency but no TOs. Bradford had 62% compl and rating of 65.

If the Skins are going to run the ball like that, play good D and not turn the ball over, are the Eagles the worst team in the division?

QUOTE (JeeQ @ Sep 20 2015, 09:50 PM) *
Chip The GM should be dragged out into an open field and shot

He gutted a team that was extremely fun to watch and full of homegrown talented Eagles players and gave us this garbage
D Rock
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Sep 21 2015, 03:33 AM) *
Other than the O Line what position looked so much worse than last year?

QB
nephillymike
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Sep 20 2015, 10:33 PM) *
Other than the O Line what position looked so much worse than last year?

You could say WR but Maclin wasn't going to choose Philly over an opportunity to be a home-town hero.

They were desperate for a CB so had to overpay for Maxwell. Part of his problems are the defensive scheme.

D. Murray was the best player on O today. Who had more fight in the 4th quarter? What was Shady going to do with defenders in the backfield?

Foles never looked good when playing behind an bad O line and no help from the running game. Granted he had more fight in him than Bradford showed today. Foles also tended to avoid big turnovers late in the game. Foles & his rams lost 24-10 to the Skins. Foles QB rating was 76 w/ 50% passing, horrible 3rd down efficiency but no TOs.

If the Skins are going to run the ball like that, play good D and not turn the ball over, are the Eagles the worst team in the division?



LOG
ROG
WR
OLB
Slot CB
#1 CB
QB
RB

It's only two games for sure but Chip the GM is pitching a shutout.

That's really hard to do.

Maxx
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 20 2015, 08:45 PM) *
Just fucked Chip the coach and the Philly Fans real hard.

With all of the money tied up with the moves we've made and the moves needed to correct the situation, he just set us back a long way.

5 of 6 losses, and 5 as favorites.

Really hard to believe.

He hand picked this team to his liking.

If he has the balls to get snarky in his press conferences than the press should unload on his ass like the DL's and WR's will unload on ours all year long.

Unfuckingbelievable!

I once made a thread criticizing Chip the Gm before the season and i said i felt like he was terrible at it so i guess i was right.
Zero
QUOTE (D Rock @ Sep 20 2015, 11:37 PM) *
QB

No doubt, Bradford looked dismal but that was aided greatly by an OL that couldn't pass block or run block. Somebody figured out what Kelly's line does and found the way to decimate it. Even bad guards shouldn't have looked that bad. RBs were hit five yards deep consistently.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 20 2015, 11:40 PM) *
LOG
ROG
WR
OLB
Slot CB
#1 CB
QB
RB

C'mon, mike. The OL was far and away the culprit yesterday. Sure, Bradford looked timid had no accuracy, and that's on him but if the line had done an average job maybe the RBs could have helped out a bit.

IMO, this game was on Kelly the coach more than anything else other than those guards. Who said that guards aren't important?
Eyrie
QUOTE (Zero @ Sep 21 2015, 10:45 AM) *
C'mon, mike. The OL was far and away the culprit yesterday. Sure, Bradford looked timid had no accuracy, and that's on him but if the line had done an average job maybe the RBs could have helped out a bit.

IMO, this game was on Kelly the coach more than anything else other than those guards. Who said that guards aren't important?

I'm too polite to call anyone out, but I am waiting for one of those posters to speak up now that the evidence supports my off season prediction that the failure to improve at the G positions would hurt us. Although I didn't expect the impact to be this bad.
Zero
LOG - journeyman
ROG - journeyman
WR - good, not great
OLB - one good, one invisible
Slot CB - below average (did a decent job on Beasley yesterday)
#1 CB - disappointing (scheme?)
QB - who did they have that was better or who would have played better yesterday?
RB - Murray, Sproles, Mathews > McCoy, Sproles, Polk
Pbfan
Chip made all these sudden moves that weren't necessary. He said we had cap problems when we didn't, in order to get rid of certain players. These moves were nothing more than Chip wanting to shape the team fresh. Some of them are immediate mistakes, some we won't know for years possibly.

Immediate Mistakes
-We could have kept boykin, mathis, maybe Herremans
-We shouldn't have overpayed for Maxwell. There was some CB talent in FA, which we could have acquired for less than 8.7m. We could have gotten 2 decent CBs (both just as good as maxwell) for maybe 10m-12m total. (we have the cap space)

Not Yet known
-No incremental value from Demarco Murray yet
-Kiko gamble may blow up with his knee
-Bradford gamble could have meant paying more for a no major additional value

We could have focused our cap room not on major name players, but on developing depth in the o-line and secondary. Instead we stacked specific positions and got rid of vital spots.
SAM I Am
QUOTE (Zero @ Sep 21 2015, 05:41 AM) *
No doubt, Bradford looked dismal but that was aided greatly by an OL that couldn't pass block or run block. Somebody figured out what Kelly's line does and found the way to decimate it. Even bad guards shouldn't have looked that bad. RBs were hit five yards deep consistently.

Unlike the run blocking --- which was horrendous -- I thought the pass protection wasn't too bad , and when he did have time, he threw some pretty shitty passes.
Pbfan
Thats the key, I'd let him off the hook if he threw the interception when he had guy barreling down on him. He made poor decisions and poor throws independent of the o-line.
Eyrie
QUOTE (Pbfan @ Sep 21 2015, 12:48 PM) *
Chip made all these sudden moves that weren't necessary. He said we had cap problems when we didn't, in order to get rid of certain players. These moves were nothing more than Chip wanting to shape the team fresh. Some of them are immediate mistakes, some we won't know for years possibly.

Immediate Mistakes
-We could have kept boykin, mathis, maybe Herremans
-We shouldn't have overpayed for Maxwell. There was some CB talent in FA, which we could have acquired for less than 8.7m. We could have gotten 2 decent CBs (both just as good as maxwell) for maybe 10m-12m total. (we have the cap space)

Not Yet known
-No incremental value from Demarco Murray yet
-Kiko gamble may blow up with his knee
-Bradford gamble could have meant paying more for a no major additional value

We could have focused our cap room not on major name players, but on developing depth in the o-line and secondary. Instead we stacked specific positions and got rid of vital spots.

Boykin made sense because Shepherd was doing well in camp. It was simple bad luck that he was lost for the season the day after the trade. Besides, Boykin didn't play that well last year.

Mathis was a stupid move at the time and remains so.

Herremans made sense because both Gs were ageing and the correct move was to create space for a younger player to come through. The mistake was in assuming that someone who couldn't earn the job from Herremans should be handed it instead of drafting or signing a G.

Maxwell appears to be the product of his old team and scheme, and out of his depth in Davis' clusterfuck of a defensive scheme.

Murray hasn't had a chance due to the self-inflicted wounds on the OL.

Alonso depends on how he plays, not if he gets injured.

Bradford was a gamble with a massive upside that currently looks like we've lost all our stake on a flip of the coin.
Pbfan
It couldn't have hurt to keep Boykin. He would have been starting nickel. The same with Herremans at G. These are players where the move was unnecessary. Why create/exacerbate issues at positions. Were they the greatest players? No, but they were starters that weren't the major problems on the team. So why take the risk? These new guys would get their talent developed when they would earn playing time.

OH and I forgot, how does everyone miss those hands of Maclin's now?
mcnabbulous
Hey Mikey...

@JoeBanner13: According to PFF, Gardner and Barbre two of the highest graded eagles for game, and Kelce and Peters among lowest.

I think pff tends to be full of shit, but I know you value them.
Pbfan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 21 2015, 08:28 AM) *
Hey Mikey...

@JoeBanner13: According to PFF, Gardner and Barbre two of the highest graded eagles for game, and Kelce and Peters among lowest.

I think pff tends to be full of shit, but I know you value them.


I'm really surprised by that. I don't know how they grade, but I would have figured someone on the d-line, maybe Cox would have been higher rated than the entire o-line combined.
mcnabbulous
I suspect he was high. That comment seems entirely related to who were the primary culprits on the OL yesterday.

I didn't notice Peters yesterday, but Kelce was real bad from what I saw.
D Rock
QUOTE (Pbfan @ Sep 21 2015, 11:48 AM) *
Chip made all these sudden moves that weren't necessary. He said we had cap problems when we didn't, in order to get rid of certain players. These moves were nothing more than Chip wanting to shape the team fresh. Some of them are immediate mistakes, some we won't know for years possibly.

Immediate Mistakes
-We could have kept boykin, mathis, maybe Herremans
-We shouldn't have overpayed for Maxwell. There was some CB talent in FA, which we could have acquired for less than 8.7m. We could have gotten 2 decent CBs (both just as good as maxwell) for maybe 10m-12m total. (we have the cap space)

Not Yet known
-No incremental value from Demarco Murray yet
-Kiko gamble may blow up with his knee
-Bradford gamble could have meant paying more for a no major additional value

We could have focused our cap room not on major name players, but on developing depth in the o-line and secondary. Instead we stacked specific positions and got rid of vital spots.

Just curious, which "2 decent CBs" would you have signed for 10-12m?
D Rock
QUOTE (SAM I Am @ Sep 21 2015, 11:50 AM) *
Unlike the run blocking --- which was horrendous -- I thought the pass protection wasn't too bad , and when he did have time, he threw some pretty shitty passes.

Agreed. Sam had time yesterday. Replays showed open receivers (cooper in the end zone in the int for one example). Sam sucked with no excuse.
D Rock
Herremins was terrible least year, and has been terrible so far this year. Letting him go want the problem. Failing to replace him was. And I think we ALL see (even those who won't admit it) that you NEED capable guard okay if you wanna run the goddamn ball.

mcnabbulous
I still think this is more fundamental than our guard play. Kelce got blown off the ball multiple times yesterday.

It's like the defenses have found a tell that they are exploiting.
D Rock
Or perhaps they just lack NFL talent.

Occams Razor.
mcnabbulous
That's certainly possible, but 7 yards on 17 carries indicates something larger than that.
Reality Fan
ok...full disclaimer...I screwed up yesterday and was entertaining a female friend at gametime...I thought it was an 8 PM game for some reason or would not have invited her over....so I missed the entire first half.....

That being said...

I understand the angst over a horrible offensive performance.....historically bad....

But the defense? The defense played well until the very end.......after they had been on the field forever....

So all these posts about horrible moves for the defense? wtf?

Yesterday...from what I saw in the 2nd half was all about the gameplan and terrible line play from Peters....really bad....Kelce...pretty bad....and the line in general....not good....

Thats it.......Kelly had a horrible game plan.......horrible.........that is what worries me.......not the players.....no one could run behind that blocking....

and is it just me or do the hand offs look awkward? Just seems odd to me in the first 2 games...

mcnabbulous
In complete agreement, RF. I think they look so awkward because there is a defender consistently 4 yards into the backfield. But yes, there is just something fundamentally wrong. This is bigger than a straight talent issue.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 21 2015, 06:15 PM) *
That's certainly possible, but 7 yards on 17 carries indicates something larger than that.

It does? How? 17 carries for 7 yards suggests reality. They cant block a damn thing. The backs (all of them) are getting hit 3 yards behind the LOS. It could only get worse by having the defenders get there before the hand off. If you're constantly getting contact behind the LOS, how you can say it's anything OTHER than piss poor interior line play, is unfathomable.
D Rock
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 21 2015, 06:40 PM) *
ok...full disclaimer...I screwed up yesterday and was entertaining a female friend at gametime...I thought it was an 8 PM game for some reason or would not have invited her over....so I missed the entire first half.....

That being said...

I understand the angst over a horrible offensive performance.....historically bad....

But the defense? The defense played well until the very end.......after they had been on the field forever....

So all these posts about horrible moves for the defense? wtf?

Yesterday...from what I saw in the 2nd half was all about the gameplan and terrible line play from Peters....really bad....Kelce...pretty bad....and the line in general....not good....

Thats it.......Kelly had a horrible game plan.......horrible.........that is what worries me.......not the players.....no one could run behind that blocking....

and is it just me or do the hand offs look awkward? Just seems odd to me in the first 2 games...

Not the players? Who's supposed to be doing the blocking? Players. That's who.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Sep 21 2015, 01:25 PM) *
It does? How? 17 carries for 7 yards suggests reality. They cant block a damn thing. The backs (all of them) are getting hit 3 yards behind the LOS. It could only get worse by having the defenders get there before the hand off. If you're constantly getting contact behind the LOS, how you can say it's anything OTHER than piss poor interior line play, is unfathomable.

I think it's scheme based on how bad it is. Even a bunch of dead bodies can typically get 3 YPC.
Eyrie
QUOTE (D Rock @ Sep 21 2015, 03:57 PM) *
Agreed. Sam had time yesterday. Replays showed open receivers (cooper in the end zone in the int for one example). Sam sucked with no excuse.

Aikman observed at one point that he didn't think Bradford was seeing the field, and didn't qualify that by referring to the shitty OL play.

QUOTE (D Rock @ Sep 21 2015, 03:59 PM) *
Herremins was terrible least year, and has been terrible so far this year. Letting him go want the problem. Failing to replace him was. And I think we ALL see (even those who won't admit it) that you NEED capable guard okay if you wanna run the goddamn ball.

Agreed. Herremans had to be replaced at some point and the end of his contract was as good a time as any.

What you were too polite to mention is that the failure to address the need for a new RG was then compounded by cutting our LG, thus creating a second hole when we had failed to fix the first.
D Rock
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Sep 21 2015, 06:44 PM) *
What you were too polite to mention is that the failure to address the need for a new RG was then compounded by cutting our LG, thus creating a second hole when we had failed to fix the first.

yup
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Sep 21 2015, 01:44 PM) *
Aikman observed at one point that he didn't think Bradford was seeing the field, and didn't qualify that by referring to the shitty OL play.


Agreed. Herremans had to be replaced at some point and the end of his contract was as good a time as any.

What you were too polite to mention is that the failure to address the need for a new RG was then compounded by cutting our LG, thus creating a second hole when we had failed to fix the first.


and that LG we let go is terrible in Denver.....you apparently missed him acting as a turnstile one on one and getting Manning sacked and nearly hospitalized.......and Herremans AND Mathis missed 8 games each last year and they still produced as an offense with the same guys they have in now so don't tell me it is the 2 guards...they were able to execute with the same personnel last year...in a rush to yell "I told you so" many folks here forget that nugget....these are the same guys who helped them get the number 1 ranking as run blockers last year......something else is wrong here and it has to be either poor prep or poor gameplan...even Kelce and Peters were terrible yesterday.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 21 2015, 07:18 PM) *
and that LG we let go is terrible in Denver.....you apparently missed him acting as a turnstile one on one and getting Manning sacked and nearly hospitalized.......and Herremans AND Mathis missed 8 games each last year and they still produced as an offense with the same guys they have in now so don't tell me it is the 2 guards...they were able to execute with the same personnel last year...in a rush to yell "I told you so" many folks here forget that nugget....these are the same guys who helped them get the number 1 ranking as run blockers last year......something else is wrong here and it has to be either poor prep or poor gameplan...even Kelce and Peters were terrible yesterday.

I'm not sure why no one else has acknowledged this. This is very clearly a bigger issue than just the 5 guys on our OL. Defenses are doing something different up front. Like they know what is coming.

In Chip's first year, defenses made adjustments which we then combated by dragging a TE (typically Casey) across the formation as a lead blocker. We need Chip to figure out what's going on and make a similar adjustment.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 21 2015, 10:31 AM) *
I still think this is more fundamental than our guard play. Kelce got blown off the ball multiple times yesterday.

It's like the defenses have found a tell that they are exploiting.



Many said that Peters and Kelce made Mathis.

Looking at Kelce play, maybe Mathis and Heremans made Kelce?

Not sure about PFF but that wouldn't fit your MO well since Mathis was rated #2 last year even after coming off injury.

That being said, the big time pressure was coming from the three technique DT's which are predominately the responsibility of the OG's. Their rating was piss poor game one.

Did anyone notice that we don't run left anymore? That was McCoy's bread and butter and our go to, yet it seems we go right on a 3 or 4 to 1 margin. I wonder if the lack of a QB keeper on the read option allows the DE to be free, thus making that run more productive.

Our answers at OG aren't here any more. You can extend Barbre (last year) and Gardner and Kelly (this year) and it doesn't make the moves any better.

I have no answers at this time of the year and neither does Chip. The test was in the off season. No makeups allowed.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 21 2015, 07:18 PM) *
and that LG we let go is terrible in Denver.....you apparently missed him acting as a turnstile one on one and getting Manning sacked and nearly hospitalized.......and Herremans AND Mathis missed 8 games each last year and they still produced as an offense with the same guys they have in now so don't tell me it is the 2 guards...they were able to execute with the same personnel last year...in a rush to yell "I told you so" many folks here forget that nugget....these are the same guys who helped them get the number 1 ranking as run blockers last year......something else is wrong here and it has to be either poor prep or poor gameplan...even Kelce and Peters were terrible yesterday.



The guys who replaced Mathis and Herremans were bad last year. Remember all of the fretting about Shady's running and his dancing b/c he had no lanes?

Then Mathis comes back and the holes appear and Shady ends up with a strong finish to a respectable YPC.

FWIW, Per Gargano, Mathis graded out really well in his first week vs. BAL.
nephillymike
QUOTE (D Rock @ Sep 21 2015, 02:05 PM) *
yup



Problem is, you should never create a need.

This is especially true for a playoff caliber team.

If you have a guy who can play at a high level, keep him.

There was no need to create needs at OG, WR or slot corner.

Needs will find you.

They find you by failed draft picks and injury shortened careers and a failed FA signing here and there.

It is too tough to draft good players to create a need.
D Rock
It's at least as much scheme as poor play. It looks so vanilla. They didn't do terribly in pass pro, to my eyes. Sam had some time and seemed to hold the ball forever. He looked scared. The whole mess is just weird.
nephillymike
QUOTE (D Rock @ Sep 21 2015, 10:23 PM) *
It's at least as much scheme as poor play. It looks so vanilla. They didn't do terribly in pass pro, to my eyes. Sam had some time and seemed to hold the ball forever. He looked scared. The whole mess is just weird.


I agree.

I heard someone say this today.

We have an OL that can't run block, and that is just OK at pass pro.

We have a QB who won't run, nor enhance the run game with believable read option looks.

We have no receivers and/or a QB who are deep threats catching or throwing.

We have WR's who have below average hands.

You stack the box, blitz the C-G gaps to disrupt things, play your safeties deep and press have your CB's play medium up.

You force them to beat you by matriculating the ball down the field.

Their WR's are not good enough to catch it often enough and the OL is not good enough to give them favorable third downs and you just sit back and wait for the crucial dropped pass, bad pass or non conversion because of long distance. Give it to your offense to throw against zone corners who can't play press man and throw the inside slants on the one on one CB match ups all day.

Sounds like a pretty good game plan if you are the opposition.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 21 2015, 08:33 PM) *
The guys who replaced Mathis and Herremans were bad last year. Remember all of the fretting about Shady's running and his dancing b/c he had no lanes?

Then Mathis comes back and the holes appear and Shady ends up with a strong finish to a respectable YPC.

FWIW, Per Gargano, Mathis graded out really well in his first week vs. BAL.


ummmm...per Mathis....and I quote...."I sucked".....something that was mentioned by the announcers during the game.....

now on to your next ridiculous point....sorry...but you, as a numbers guy, should know better...

While Mathis was out we had 2 bad games....the San Fran game and the Skins game....but we had Herremans for both......We also had the 2nd highest rushing total of the season against the Giants.....without Mathis.....Without Mathis we had 2 games where we rushed for less than 100 yards....with him we had 3.....maybe we missed Herremans....

Your point is all bluster and no fact....go to pro football reference....last year we had games where they rushed for 22, 37, 54, 57 and 75.

It was not the guards....it was a complete failure on the line...did you not see Peters whiffing repeatedly? I know you want it to be true but the OGs are not the only scapegoat......
Pbfan
QUOTE (D Rock @ Sep 21 2015, 10:59 AM) *
Herremins was terrible least year, and has been terrible so far this year. Letting him go want the problem. Failing to replace him was. And I think we ALL see (even those who won't admit it) that you NEED capable guard okay if you wanna run the goddamn ball.


So why cut if you arent going to replace? lettong him go WAS the oroblem IF youre not going to replacd him. Let him battle it out in training camp. Then, if he cant perform, cut him. But dont cut him or the others with no alternatives under the guise of "we need cap room", which is COMPLETE BS
Eyrie
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 22 2015, 05:35 AM) *
ummmm...per Mathis....and I quote...."I sucked".....something that was mentioned by the announcers during the game.....

now on to your next ridiculous point....sorry...but you, as a numbers guy, should know better...

While Mathis was out we had 2 bad games....the San Fran game and the Skins game....but we had Herremans for both......We also had the 2nd highest rushing total of the season against the Giants.....without Mathis.....Without Mathis we had 2 games where we rushed for less than 100 yards....with him we had 3.....maybe we missed Herremans....

Your point is all bluster and no fact....go to pro football reference....last year we had games where they rushed for 22, 37, 54, 57 and 75.

It was not the guards....it was a complete failure on the line...did you not see Peters whiffing repeatedly? I know you want it to be true but the OGs are not the only scapegoat......

The OL is only as strong as its weakest link.

We let Herremans go at the end of his contract and did nothing to replace him. Then Kelly cut Mathis despite already having an unaddressed weakness on the OL

Maybe if we'd kept Mathis we'd still be struggling. Or maybe we'd have some solidity there. We can only speculate.

But what is not speculation is the unavoidable fact that the problems with our OL are the direct result of failing to replace the two players who left, and that one of them did not need to go.
mcnabbulous
Eyrie - I agree with you about the weakest link. With that said, Herremans was bad last year and worse this year. Gardner and Barbre aren't worse than what we were rolling with last year.

These problems aren't personnel related. Defenses are dissecting our plays pre snap and making the appropriate post snap plays to throw everything out of whack. Unless we fix that, no changes to personnel will fix it.

Eyrie
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 22 2015, 08:08 PM) *
Eyrie - I agree with you about the weakest link. With that said, Herremans was bad last year and worse this year. Gardner and Barbre aren't worse than what we were rolling with last year.

These problems aren't personnel related. Defenses are dissecting our plays pre snap and making the appropriate post snap plays to throw everything out of whack. Unless we fix that, no changes to personnel will fix it.

I had no problem with letting Herremans go. I wanted a replacement for him playing this season and then Mathis replaced in 2016.

My major beef is the failure to replace him and Kelly's belief that two turnstiles who couldn't win the job from a fading Herremans last year would miraculously improve over the summer. We could have addressed the need in FA or the draft, and had we done so then there may have been a case for cutting Mathis if the new guy was good enough.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 22 2015, 08:08 PM) *
Eyrie - I agree with you about the weakest link. With that said, Herremans was bad last year and worse this year. Gardner and Barbre aren't worse than what we were rolling with last year.

These problems aren't personnel related. Defenses are dissecting our plays pre snap and making the appropriate post snap plays to throw everything out of whack. Unless we fix that, no changes to personnel will fix it.

It's a first play problem. If they dissect (to use your word) the first play, we never hit the speed where our tempo prevents them from dissecting further. Once a drive gets going, it's all good. But we've not gotten them going. Chip needs to mix it up early in each series to get that tempo rolling.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 21 2015, 12:40 PM) *
ok...full disclaimer...I screwed up yesterday and was entertaining a female friend at gametime...I thought it was an 8 PM game for some reason or would not have invited her over....so I missed the entire first half.....

That being said...

I understand the angst over a horrible offensive performance.....historically bad....

But the defense? The defense played well until the very end.......after they had been on the field forever....

So all these posts about horrible moves for the defense? wtf?

Yesterday...from what I saw in the 2nd half was all about the gameplan and terrible line play from Peters....really bad....Kelce...pretty bad....and the line in general....not good....

Thats it.......Kelly had a horrible game plan.......horrible.........that is what worries me.......not the players.....no one could run behind that blocking....

and is it just me or do the hand offs look awkward? Just seems odd to me in the first 2 games...



You missed the game because of a GIRL????

Eeeewwwww!!

I have to file that one on your permanent record!!
Dreagon
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 22 2015, 08:35 PM) *
You missed the game because of a GIRL????


Holy shit! Guys have had their Man Card suspended for things like that. ohmy.gif
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 22 2015, 09:35 PM) *
You missed the game because of a GIRL????

Eeeewwwww!!

I have to file that one on your permanent record!!

Disturbing, but better than a boy. cool.gif
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.