Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Game Film Review
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
nephillymike
Decamara and Jaws had their film watching session. Much will be talked about on tomorrows show.

But JD said that on the INT, Sanchez had three better options than Austin.

He said that Bradford had guys wide open and uncovered, not just open, but nobody covering them on several plays. One play was when he threw it to an unprepared Austin, not Bradford's fault. Two others would have been easy TD's.

Jaws was incredulous at D. Murray QB type slide on 3rd and 1. He has never seen that before and was surprised by that and the lack of attention it's gotten.

Said or WR's are horrible and can't beat man to man.

What I would like to know but they didn't say:

On that last play, they threw the ball to J. Matthews five yards short of the first down with two defenders on him. I can see if you need a decoy to draw some attention short of the st down so that guys have a better shot at getting open beyond the 1st down. But wouldn't you want your only decent WR to be past the 1st down to catch the pass? I think decoy would be a role better suited for Cooper.
Phits
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Nov 17 2015, 10:23 PM) *
On that last play, they threw the ball to J. Matthews five yards short of the first down with two defenders on him. I can see if you need a decoy to draw some attention short of the st down so that guys have a better shot at getting open beyond the 1st down. But wouldn't you want your only decent WR to be past the 1st down to catch the pass? I think decoy would be a role better suited for Cooper.

Sanchez had Ertz right over Matthews shoulder past the first down marker. He opted for Matthews instead. Dumb move by an average QB.
SAM I Am
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Nov 17 2015, 09:23 PM) *
Decamara and Jaws had their film watching session. Much will be talked about on tomorrows show.

But JD said that on the INT, Sanchez had three better options than Austin.

He said that Bradford had guys wide open and uncovered, not just open, but nobody covering them on several plays. One play was when he threw it to an unprepared Austin, not Bradford's fault. Two others would have been easy TD's.

Jaws was incredulous at D. Murray QB type slide on 3rd and 1. He has never seen that before and was surprised by that and the lack of attention it's gotten.

Said or WR's are horrible and can't beat man to man.

What I would like to know but they didn't say:

On that last play, they threw the ball to J. Matthews five yards short of the first down with two defenders on him. I can see if you need a decoy to draw some attention short of the st down so that guys have a better shot at getting open beyond the 1st down. But wouldn't you want your only decent WR to be past the 1st down to catch the pass? I think decoy would be a role better suited for Cooper.

It's a lot easier to pick this shit out/apart when you are watching it in a studio incrementing the film from multiple camera angles frame by frame than it is at full speed with people trying to block your vision and the ball, and trying to kill you at the same time.

I agree, that our receivers can't beat man to man, so how did they get so wide open and uncovered? Let me guess, those were the plays when the opposing defense was in zone coverage rolleyes.gif

Decamara and Jaws could probably review --- in sloooooooooooooooooooooow motion from above --- film from just about every game last weekend and come back with the same observations.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (SAM I Am @ Nov 18 2015, 01:17 PM) *
It's a lot easier to pick this shit out/apart when you are watching it in a studio incrementing the film from multiple camera angles frame by frame than it is at full speed with people trying to block your vision and the ball, and trying to kill you at the same time.

I agree, that our receivers can't beat man to man, so how did they get so wide open and uncovered? Let me guess, those were the plays when the opposing defense was in zone coverage rolleyes.gif

Decamara and Jaws could probably review --- in sloooooooooooooooooooooow motion from above --- film from just about every game last weekend and come back with the same observations.


I agree with your comments. The issue for me is that players should learn from the mistakes exposed while reviewing the film and make less mistakes as they gain experience. This experience plus repetition is supposed to "slow" the game down. Sanchez has been around long enough that he should not consistently make these types of mistakes. Bradford is running out of excuses as well.

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 18 2015, 12:50 AM) *
Sanchez had Ertz right over Matthews shoulder past the first down marker. He opted for Matthews instead. Dumb move by an average QB.

While this is true, he also got hit early because Lane got beat. So he didn't really have time to necessarily make the correct read.
D Rock
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Nov 18 2015, 02:23 AM) *
On that last play, they threw the ball to J. Matthews five yards short of the first down with two defenders on him. I can see if you need a decoy to draw some attention short of the st down so that guys have a better shot at getting open beyond the 1st down. But wouldn't you want your only decent WR to be past the 1st down to catch the pass? I think decoy would be a role better suited for Cooper.

Like I been saying all season. The WRs are SLOOOOOOW. Can't beat 1 on 1 coverage. And worse . . . can't catch a fucking ball.

And, on the last play.... "They" didn't throw the ball to J. Matthews five yards short of the first down with 2 defenders on him. Mark Fucking Sanchez did.
D Rock
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 18 2015, 05:50 AM) *
Sanchez had Ertz right over Matthews shoulder past the first down marker. He opted for Matthews instead. Dumb move by an average QB.

Correction: Dumb move by a dog shit quarterback.

Preemptively, he did NOT make the offense "look better."


laugh.gif
Phits
QUOTE (D Rock @ Nov 18 2015, 04:56 PM) *
Correction: Dumb move by a dog shit quarterback.

Preemptively, he did NOT make the offense "look better."


laugh.gif

Let's not review the countless amount of errors Bradford has caused (so far) in his abbreviated start as QB this season.
Eyrie
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 18 2015, 10:16 PM) *
Let's not review the countless amount of errors Bradford has caused (so far) in his abbreviated start as QB this season.

Agreed - it would be ridiculous to hold Bradford to the same standard as Sanchez when other players could be blamed as a distraction.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Nov 17 2015, 09:23 PM) *
Decamara and Jaws had their film watching session. Much will be talked about on tomorrows show.

But JD said that on the INT, Sanchez had three better options than Austin.

He said that Bradford had guys wide open and uncovered, not just open, but nobody covering them on several plays. One play was when he threw it to an unprepared Austin, not Bradford's fault. Two others would have been easy TD's.

Jaws was incredulous at D. Murray QB type slide on 3rd and 1. He has never seen that before and was surprised by that and the lack of attention it's gotten.

Said or WR's are horrible and can't beat man to man.

What I would like to know but they didn't say:

On that last play, they threw the ball to J. Matthews five yards short of the first down with two defenders on him. I can see if you need a decoy to draw some attention short of the st down so that guys have a better shot at getting open beyond the 1st down. But wouldn't you want your only decent WR to be past the 1st down to catch the pass? I think decoy would be a role better suited for Cooper.


So Bradford had guys wide open on several plays....but then our WRs are horrible and can't beat man to man?

Yep...that is a sensible assessment.....or does every team we play not watch film and miss that our WRs can't beat man coverage so they decide to play zone just to make sure there are plays where our QBs have wide open WRs they can miss?

Or did they only play man when Sanchez came into the game and ran the offense at such a high level....

ugh....I can't wait for this season to end....either that or I am turning to heroin..
nephillymike
QUOTE (SAM I Am @ Nov 18 2015, 08:17 AM) *
It's a lot easier to pick this shit out/apart when you are watching it in a studio incrementing the film from multiple camera angles frame by frame than it is at full speed with people trying to block your vision and the ball, and trying to kill you at the same time.

I agree, that our receivers can't beat man to man, so how did they get so wide open and uncovered? Let me guess, those were the plays when the opposing defense was in zone coverage rolleyes.gif

Decamara and Jaws could probably review --- in sloooooooooooooooooooooow motion from above --- film from just about every game last weekend and come back with the same observations.


Eh, no.

Wide open as in the defense was in total disarray lining up and only had two DB's covering three WR's and more than one DB covering the same WR. Thus really uncovered, as in six points uncovered at the time of the snap.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Nov 18 2015, 06:06 PM) *
So Bradford had guys wide open on several plays....but then our WRs are horrible and can't beat man to man?

Yep...that is a sensible assessment.....or does every team we play not watch film and miss that our WRs can't beat man coverage so they decide to play zone just to make sure there are plays where our QBs have wide open WRs they can miss?

Or did they only play man when Sanchez came into the game and ran the offense at such a high level....

ugh....I can't wait for this season to end....either that or I am turning to heroin..



See below regarding the uncovered comment.

If I would you, I'd turn to heroin.

You'll see the game more clearly!! tongue.gif
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Nov 18 2015, 09:47 PM) *
See below regarding the uncovered comment.

If I would you, I'd turn to heroin.

You'll see the game more clearly!! tongue.gif


I think you have turned to the white lady already.....

How a bright mind like yours can miss the contradiction in the analysis is surprising....

Bradford is missing wide open WRs who can't beat man to man coverage? yep...that makes sense...or maybe the defense only plays man when the feared Sanchez comes into the game? Yep...that makes even more sense....or maybe the defense, having seen film on Bradford only plays man against Bradford when they feel like they want to stop the Eagles but plays zone just to keep the game interesting and allow Bradford to miss the WRs who are so wide open...brilliant....
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Nov 19 2015, 09:42 AM) *
I think you have turned to the white lady already.....

How a bright mind like yours can miss the contradiction in the analysis is surprising....

Bradford is missing wide open WRs who can't beat man to man coverage? yep...that makes sense...or maybe the defense only plays man when the feared Sanchez comes into the game? Yep...that makes even more sense....or maybe the defense, having seen film on Bradford only plays man against Bradford when they feel like they want to stop the Eagles but plays zone just to keep the game interesting and allow Bradford to miss the WRs who are so wide open...brilliant....



RF,

Open as in there is a defensive mistake and two DB's are covering the same WR and nobody is on another WR.

Even our WR's as bad as they are, can get open against air!!

According to Decamara, this happened four times and once Bradford saw it and threw it to the clueless Austin who didn't turn around and didn't think it a good idea to be alert WHEN NOBODY WAS COVERING HIM. The other three times, he didn't see it.

Please tell me you understand?

The defensive secondary of MIA was a mess. Not all that teams are as clueless against our tempo but they had a bunch of injuries in the secondary and they were lost.

It is about blown assignments by them ad nothing to do with our WR's skill in beating man to man.

When nobody covers you, it ain't man to man it's man to air!!
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Nov 19 2015, 10:55 PM) *
RF,

Open as in there is a defensive mistake and two DB's are covering the same WR and nobody is on another WR.

Even our WR's as bad as they are, can get open against air!!

According to Decamara, this happened four times and once Bradford saw it and threw it to the clueless Austin who didn't turn around and didn't think it a good idea to be alert WHEN NOBODY WAS COVERING HIM. The other three times, he didn't see it.

Please tell me you understand?

The defensive secondary of MIA was a mess. Not all that teams are as clueless against our tempo but they had a bunch of injuries in the secondary and they were lost.

It is about blown assignments by them ad nothing to do with our WR's skill in beating man to man.

When nobody covers you, it ain't man to man it's man to air!!


So 3 times there is a blown assignment...I get that.....and there is a chance that Bradford just plain missed them...because...you know...he does not realize that the defender wil...umm...miss his assignment...go figure...so he reads his progressions...please tell em you gat that?

He may very well have missed wide open WRs...but you single out 3 plays.....3 plays for WRs who can't get open but the QB should realize that coverage will be blown and wait on that route....

It is ridiculous anymore.....Bradford may very well be a bust...it was a gamble and it is one that does not look good...but too many here expected him to be great in a new offense after 2 years off with an entirely new cast of teammates who themselves were new to the offense. As he was settling in..i.e. showing improvement week to week...he gets hurt.

Bradford has played poorly but he seemed to becoming comfortable with his knee...more mobile and confident in the pocket....whether that would have continued is now moot....enjoy it....this season was about finding out if Kelly could have stolen a starting QB for a song.....


D Rock
Bottom Line:

Bradford at his worst, is better than Butt Fumble at his best.

Phits
QUOTE (D Rock @ Nov 20 2015, 04:36 PM) *
Bottom Line:

Bradford at his worst, is better than Butt Fumble at his best.

Hahahaha....good one.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Nov 20 2015, 12:24 PM) *
So 3 times there is a blown assignment...I get that.....and there is a chance that Bradford just plain missed them...because...you know...he does not realize that the defender wil...umm...miss his assignment...go figure...so he reads his progressions...please tell em you gat that?

He may very well have missed wide open WRs...but you single out 3 plays.....3 plays for WRs who can't get open but the QB should realize that coverage will be blown and wait on that route....

It is ridiculous anymore.....Bradford may very well be a bust...it was a gamble and it is one that does not look good...but too many here expected him to be great in a new offense after 2 years off with an entirely new cast of teammates who themselves were new to the offense. As he was settling in..i.e. showing improvement week to week...he gets hurt.

Bradford has played poorly but he seemed to becoming comfortable with his knee...more mobile and confident in the pocket....whether that would have continued is now moot....enjoy it....this season was about finding out if Kelly could have stolen a starting QB for a song.....



Forget about these three instances. Look at the big picture.

The big picture is that Sam has had over 8 1/2 games of football and he has proven that he is a bottom tier starting QB.

If you want a bigger picture, look at his career.

Maybe Sanchez stinks up the joint and gives us exactly what we're seeing from Bradford; bottom tier QB play. I know that Bradford is not the answer. Most here do too although some are reluctant because of buying in to the hype, but you know deep inside that he isn't. And maybe it was a gamble worth taking. I disagree, but I think I'm in the minority there and so be it and I understand why people would think that. Looking at what Foles has done, is as strong a statement than Foles wasn't the answer as Bradford's play here is that he isn't.

So where I'm at is this. Foles wasn't the answer. Bradford wasn't the answer. Let Sanchez play out the string to see what he's got. Will it be top two tier QB play? Likely not. But maybe it will be average to slightly above average play that gets us the extra win needed to get into the playoffs over what we'd have with Bradford. We enjoy the short ride, maybe even win a playoff game in a slight upset, save a multi million dollar mistake by avoiding signing Bradford long term and at the end of the year, figure it out.

We've had worse situations over the years.

Let it play out.

That's where I'm at.
nephillymike
QUOTE (D Rock @ Nov 20 2015, 04:36 PM) *
Bottom Line:

Bradford at his worst, is better than Butt Fumble at his best.



Well, if Sanchez' best was last year, and Bradford's worst is this year (nah it really wasn't, he's been worse than this several times), than you need to get a new theory because Sanchez last year is better than Bradford this year.

It won't get answered. No matter what happens in these next two games, Bradford will be given his starting job back by Chip the GM. Unless, Uncle Jeffrey tells Chip the GM he needs to make the playoffs or else. That could be interesting.
Eyrie
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Nov 21 2015, 01:49 AM) *
Well, if Sanchez' best was last year, and Bradford's worst is this year (nah it really wasn't, he's been worse than this several times), than you need to get a new theory because Sanchez last year is better than Bradford this year.

It won't get answered. No matter what happens in these next two games, Bradford will be given his starting job back by Chip the GM. Unless, Uncle Jeffrey tells Chip the GM he needs to make the playoffs or else. That could be interesting.

We've seen enough to know that Bradford was a gamble that didn't work out, so he hasn't earned the right to a new contract as our starter next year. But I agree that our GM will want to extend his audition anyway rather than admit that the gamble has failed.

That doesn't invalidate the original decision to take the gamble, which was worth trying, but it does call into question Kelly's judgement. Is he too loyal to his own off-field decisions ahead of a player's on-field production?
nephillymike
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Nov 21 2015, 05:58 AM) *
We've seen enough to know that Bradford was a gamble that didn't work out, so he hasn't earned the right to a new contract as our starter next year. But I agree that our GM will want to extend his audition anyway rather than admit that the gamble has failed.

That doesn't invalidate the original decision to take the gamble, which was worth trying, but it does call into question Kelly's judgement. Is he too loyal to his own off-field decisions ahead of a player's on-field production?



By comparison, Tampa has benched some FA's, most on D, some high priced, in favor of better performing lesser paid types. Their play has improved as of late.

Their D is 7th in the league.
Phits
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Nov 21 2015, 05:58 AM) *
We've seen enough to know that Bradford was a gamble that didn't work out, so he hasn't earned the right to a new contract as our starter next year. But I agree that our GM will want to extend his audition anyway rather than admit that the gamble has failed.

That doesn't invalidate the original decision to take the gamble, which was worth trying, but it does call into question Kelly's judgement. Is he too loyal to his own off-field decisions ahead of a player's on-field production?

When dealing with the prospect of a franchise QB you have to be patient and take gambles. While our patience as a fanbase is wearing thin with Bradford, the HC/GM has to continue with their due diligence. The reality is that 8 games, with an overhauled roster, is not enough time for a QB (coming off a major injury) to acclimate to a new team and players.

Take Carson Palmer as an example; he ended his career with the Bengals on a downward spiral, he had a brutal stint with the Raiders (8W 15L) where he had a 10 game streak with at least one INT. Since then he has had a resurgence with ARI.

QUOTE (nephillymike @ Nov 21 2015, 08:50 AM) *
By comparison, Tampa has benched some FA's, most on D, some high priced, in favor of better performing lesser paid types. Their play has improved as of late.

Their D is 7th in the league.

Historically, a QB tends to get more rope than other players.
Zero
As much as I'm frustrated with this team overall and specifically with Bradford's play, I have to agree with Phits on this. None of us see him in meeting rooms, film session or practices. Coaching, system familiarity, better receivers and physical confidence may make a difference. He also could be fools gold.
Eyrie
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 21 2015, 03:27 PM) *
When dealing with the prospect of a franchise QB you have to be patient and take gambles. While our patience as a fanbase is wearing thin with Bradford, the HC/GM has to continue with their due diligence. The reality is that 8 games, with an overhauled roster, is not enough time for a QB (coming off a major injury) to acclimate to a new team and players.

Take Carson Palmer as an example; he ended his career with the Bengals on a downward spiral, he had a brutal stint with the Raiders (8W 15L) where he had a 10 game streak with at least one INT. Since then he has had a resurgence with ARI.

Historically, a QB tends to get more rope than other players.

I've already said that the gamble was worthwhile, but I'm not seeing any signs of consistent improvement from Bradford to indicate that he is starting to acclimate.

At what point has he had enough rope to be hung from?

QUOTE (Zero @ Nov 21 2015, 04:33 PM) *
As much as I'm frustrated with this team overall and specifically with Bradford's play, I have to agree with Phits on this. None of us see him in meeting rooms, film session or practices. Coaching, system familiarity, better receivers and physical confidence may make a difference. He also could be fools gold.

Then it's beyond time he showed on the field what he's keeping for practice and study.
Phits
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Nov 21 2015, 05:28 PM) *
At what point has he had enough rope to be hung from?

Unfortunately, that is the conundrum our HC/GM finds himself in. Bradford cost us a 2nd round pick, so Chip will probably ride this horse until it breaks....especially considering that there are no other feasible long term options available right now.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Nov 20 2015, 08:45 PM) *
Forget about these three instances. Look at the big picture.

The big picture is that Sam has had over 8 1/2 games of football and he has proven that he is a bottom tier starting QB.

If you want a bigger picture, look at his career.

Maybe Sanchez stinks up the joint and gives us exactly what we're seeing from Bradford; bottom tier QB play. I know that Bradford is not the answer. Most here do too although some are reluctant because of buying in to the hype, but you know deep inside that he isn't. And maybe it was a gamble worth taking. I disagree, but I think I'm in the minority there and so be it and I understand why people would think that. Looking at what Foles has done, is as strong a statement than Foles wasn't the answer as Bradford's play here is that he isn't.


The big picture is that Bradford missed 2 years and freshoff a knee injurt and came to a new offense with a rookie WR....2 new starters on the OL...oh..and 2 new RBs that were also new to the offense..how could he not start like a house on fire.

Here is where we differ....I was overly optimistic about Bradford...and you have been consistently negative about him...but I recognize the gamble of trading for him...it was a good move. I also realize that giving him the full year to see if he grew in the offense was the right move. If he settles in we are in good shape...you want to go with Sanchez which means that the Eagles effectively give up on Bradford and are back to square one. My question is why cut the experiment before its conclusion? You know Sanchez is not the answer...I hope I am wrong about that with all my heart.....but if you want to look at Bradford's career numbers then look at Sanchez's as well....it is funny how you constantly throw Bradford's career numbers around and act as if Sanchez has better career numbers.....guess again....

nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Nov 21 2015, 07:32 PM) *
The big picture is that Bradford missed 2 years and freshoff a knee injurt and came to a new offense with a rookie WR....2 new starters on the OL...oh..and 2 new RBs that were also new to the offense..how could he not start like a house on fire.

Here is where we differ....I was overly optimistic about Bradford...and you have been consistently negative about him...but I recognize the gamble of trading for him...it was a good move. I also realize that giving him the full year to see if he grew in the offense was the right move. If he settles in we are in good shape...you want to go with Sanchez which means that the Eagles effectively give up on Bradford and are back to square one. My question is why cut the experiment before its conclusion? You know Sanchez is not the answer...I hope I am wrong about that with all my heart.....but if you want to look at Bradford's career numbers then look at Sanchez's as well....it is funny how you constantly throw Bradford's career numbers around and act as if Sanchez has better career numbers.....guess again....


1. Sanchez #'s career were pretty bad, this is true.

2. Sanchez played in this system with all of it's flaws last year and has played so at a higher level than Foles last year and Bradford this year. Sanchez offense with NYJ was nothing to write home about either. For some reason, all are willing to forgive Bradford because of his injuries and his poor offensive support and him coming into the season on a new team one year after injury etc, yet none of those are acceptable excuses for Sanchez. Sanchez has 70 starts, Bradford 58, yet one is a known commodity and one is untapped potential. I don't get it. Bradford injured his follow through knee, Sanchez his throwing shoulder. I don't get the entitlement.

3. I think that Sanchez playing at last year's level against this year's competition and supported by this year's defense and spotty OL, will perform at a higher level than Bradford will this year and that it will be the difference between us making the playoffs or not. If we were better than that now, maybe the Bradford one game penalty as I see it would not be the "playoffs or not" difference, but to me, given where we are, it will. Will we win a SB? Nope. But I'd rather have a playoff season with a puncher's chance than one sitting on the sidelines in January, especially when the guy I'd be throwing it away for is a guy who shouldn't be here next year because he isn't the answer.

Lastly, it doesn't matter. No matter what happens this next week and a half, Bradford will get the ball back to finish off the season. Sanchez could dazzle with a rating of 105, or sizzle with a rating of 65 and it won't matter. Chip the GM will guarantee that, unless Jeff interferes which is not his style. Hopefully, Sanchez can manage two wins to keep hope alive. With Peters questionable and their best offensive weapon out with a concussion, it will be more challenging that it could have been this week, but we'll see. Can't take anything for granted, last week taught me that lesson. Road wins on Thursday games are unlikely. We're going to need a solid few games to have a shot when Bradford returns. But make no mistake, he will return. Your experiment is safe.

Let's all keep fingers crossed to hope that come 4:30 Sunday, there is reason for hope on Thursday.

With this team and this coach and GM, that's all we can hope for. One week at a time.
Eyrie
I've seen enough from Bradford to accept that he's not good enough and may well be holding back the rest of the offense, so it's time to give Sanchez a shot and see if the receivers can actually catch the ball. Kelly has presumably already decided that Sanchez will never be a genuine starter (can't argue with that) so there is no point to persisting with him if Bradford is healthy.

QUOTE (nephillymike @ Nov 22 2015, 01:16 AM) *
For some reason, all are willing to forgive Bradford because of his injuries and his poor offensive support and him coming into the season on a new team one year after injury etc, yet none of those are acceptable excuses for Sanchez. Sanchez has 70 starts, Bradford 58, yet one is a known commodity and one is untapped potential. I don't get it. Bradford injured his follow through knee, Sanchez his throwing shoulder. I don't get the entitlement.


Phits has nailed it .....

QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 21 2015, 11:09 PM) *
Unfortunately, that is the conundrum our HC/GM finds himself in. Bradford cost us a 2nd round pick, so Chip will probably ride this horse until it breaks....especially considering that there are no other feasible long term options available right now.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Nov 21 2015, 08:16 PM) *
1. Sanchez # 's career Si male, hoc verum est.

2. Sanchez psallebat in esta System cum omnia s vitiisque constabat annum ultimum preteritum et fornicata est in altiori gradu, quam ante annum fuit, et sic ad illam cordam ligant Bradford Anno. Cum Sanchez NYJ delictum nihil scribere domum de utr‚que siletur. Horum autem omnium iniuriarum ob rem noluit Dominus propitiari actum ludit ingrata sustentationem pauperum et post annum novum quadrigis ingrediantur temporum iniuria etc., excusat sternebant Sanchez qui pecudum tamen ulla secuta. Sanchez habet LXX incipit, Bradford LVIII, unus est, et alius quidem Known mercimonia untapped potential. Ego non capio. Sequantur per sua Bradford laesus genu, Sanchez His iactis umero deiceret. Non adepto entitlement.

3. putamus Sanchez ludo anno gradu resistere anno elit sustentatur Anno defenderetur et perfunctorie OL perficiet in superiori gradu actum ludit velit esta anno fore inter nos facit quis felis vel . Atque utinam melius nunc, maybe unum actum ludit ludum poena non esset, ut uideo "aut quis felis" differentiae, sed mihi Datum ubi sumus velit. Et vincimus a SB? Nequaquam. Et a tempore cum playoff puncher mallem mihi quam forte sedentem in limitibus Ianuariis praesertim cum sit amet metus quis enim eum missurus essem non adesse, quia non post annum responsum.

Denique nihil refert. Quodcumque enim fit esta proxima septimana et dimidium erit actum ludit pila ad conficiendum tempus. Sanchez perstringere possent cum rating de CV, vel sizzle cum rating of LXV et non ex parte materiae. GM praestabo Chip Quod, nisi Jeff impedit quod ei non convenit style. Hopefully, Sanchez possint duo uincit servare spem vivere. Ambiguam et ultro Peters Qui optimus in concussione cum erit hoc magis arduum potuisse septimanam sed videbimus. Nec auferre quid possumus pro confesso ultima septimana Hoc me docuisti documentum. Road conciliat ludos die Jovis sunt abhorret. Sumamus postulo habere velit ludis cum paucis solidum reddit actum ludit. Sed faciam equidem, et revertar. Experimentum vestri est tutum.

Sit ut conservent digitis transierunt manducet 4:30 spero dominica ratio spei est in quinta.

Cum esta esta raeda et quadrigis et GM, quod suus omnes possumus aliis sperare. Hebdomadam at tempus.

We're looking at the same girl except you're groping the ass while I'm squeezing the boobs.

Sanchez is a known which is why he was resigned. He can do the job for most of the game but will likely make a critical mistake that will lose it. Bradford, because of what you said, is still an unknown. You call it entitlement, I scratch my my head because it's not really that complicated to me. Neither guy is going to win the SB this year, you know what you have in one QB, why wouldn't you want to know what you have in the guy who you gave up a #2 for and whose contract is expiring at the end of the year?

I believe you've said that the risk of getting Bradford was a worthwhile gamble. Are you saying you're willing to sacrifice the certainty of who Bradford could be for another "almost" year? It makes no sense to me.
Eyrie
Is it just me, or does anyone else see Mike's quoted posted appearing in Latin? unsure.gif
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Nov 22 2015, 10:57 AM) *
We're looking at the same girl except you're groping the ass while I'm squeezing the boobs.

Sanchez is a known which is why he was resigned. He can do the job for most of the game but will likely make a critical mistake that will lose it. Bradford, because of what you said, is still an unknown. You call it entitlement, I scratch my my head because it's not really that complicated to me. Neither guy is going to win the SB this year, you know what you have in one QB, why wouldn't you want to know what you have in the guy who you gave up a #2 for and whose contract is expiring at the end of the year?

I believe you've said that the risk of getting Bradford was a worthwhile gamble. Are you saying you're willing to sacrifice the certainty of who Bradford could be for another "almost" year? It makes no sense to me.


I contest three things:

#1 that Sanchez is a "known" commodity in this offense with 8 starts in it and Bradford is unknown with 9 starts.

#2. That Bradford, who has not performed as good to date as Sanchez did last year, should get entitlement treatment.

#3 I did not say that "I" thought it was a worthwhile gamble. I said I know that I am in the minority on that and I can see why some think it was worthwhile. I've been against that from day 1. Except for one quarter of play in a preseason game, I haven't thought otherwise.

My post has staying power no matter what language you post it in!!!
nephillymike
One non Eagle fan's take on the situation.

Note that he was spot on about previous criticism of the OL blocking assignments and that since then, Chip has employed a lot more double TE sets.

FWIW

http://www.phillymag.com/birds247/2015/11/...d/#more-3043971
Zero
Not a lot of positive in there, that's for sure.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Nov 22 2015, 12:42 PM) *
Not a lot of positive in there, that's for sure.



True.

Stink was the most vocal critic of Kelly but on an unusual, rarely spoken about part, the OL,and the demands it puts on the OLmen. He ripped him real bad weeks ago. However, Kelly did correct some things that Stink voiced criticism on, so maybe he was on to something.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Nov 22 2015, 11:17 AM) *
I contest three things:

#1 that Sanchez is a "known" commodity in this offense with 8 starts in it and Bradford is unknown with 9 starts.

#2. That Bradford, who has not performed as good to date as Sanchez did last year, should get entitlement treatment.

#3 I did not say that "I" thought it was a worthwhile gamble. I said I know that I am in the minority on that and I can see why some think it was worthwhile. I've been against that from day 1. Except for one quarter of play in a preseason game, I haven't thought otherwise.

My post has staying power no matter what language you post it in!!!


Tell me in Latin how good Sanchez is........pleaseeeee.....
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Nov 22 2015, 02:41 PM) *
Tell me in Latin how good Sanchez is........pleaseeeee.....



Not played well so far. for sure.

Had Algholor open on the right on that INT. Went to the well too often.

Although D could help by holding TB rookie QB to less than 28 first half points.

Let it play out.

We've been horrible in 1st half all year in all games except one.

They get opening kick which could be trouble some given our swiss cheese D today.
Eyrie
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Nov 22 2015, 07:41 PM) *
Tell me in Latin how good Sanchez is........pleaseeeee.....

Sanchez malus QB Bradford sed quod deterius est.

Per Google translate, but it doesn't look quite right to me. My Latin was almost thirty years ago though.

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.