Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: We need Sleeves to lead a win tonight
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
nephillymike
The trade mark throw the ball short of the sticks on 3rd down not the best start.

Cmon Sleeves!
Dreagon
The Giants are actually showing you guys how to attack that defense in three weeks by using the run. The problem is they don't really have the horses to pull that strategy off.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 3 2016, 08:44 PM) *
The trade mark throw the ball short of the sticks on 3rd down not the best start.

Cmon Sleeves!


Yeah...looks horrible...lol
mcnabbulous
He looks like his typical game managing self. He beat the trash giants twice last year. It appears he'll have no problem tonight.
Reality Fan
Yeah the game manager can rely on his running game with those great tackles and AP....oh wait...they are all hurt...

Of course he has had 4 weeks in this offense so......too damn funny
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Oct 3 2016, 10:19 PM) *
Yeah the game manager can rely on his running game with those great tackles and AP....oh wait...they are all hurt...

Of course he has had 4 weeks in this offense so......too damn funny

He's a game manager. It's quite obvious. That's not to say he's bad. He just is what he is. Conservative, accurate, low risk.

The Vikings are good enough that a game manager may meet their needs. Few teams can get away with it, but their defense looks special. I'd personally never be comfortable leaving my team in the hands of a guy like Bradford. At some point they are going to get into a gun fight and he's going to need to lead them. I'll be surprised if he has what it takes.

And while I like our defense, I don't have enough faith in them to believe they can win 4 games in Jan/Feb with a game manager at the helm. Few defenses all time can pull that off.
Joegrane
And if he continues to do that he'll ride that very good D deep into the playoffs and give us an extra 3rd or 2nd round pick. Go, Sam.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 3 2016, 09:38 PM) *
He looks like his typical game managing self. He beat the trash giants twice last year. It appears he'll have no problem tonight.

Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 3 2016, 11:28 PM) *
He's a game manager. It's quite obvious. That's not to say he's bad. He just is what he is. Conservative, accurate, low risk.

The Vikings are good enough that a game manager may meet their needs. Few teams can get away with it, but their defense looks special. I'd personally never be comfortable leaving my team in the hands of a guy like Bradford. At some point they are going to get into a gun fight and he's going to need to lead them. I'll be surprised if he has what it takes.

And while I like our defense, I don't have enough faith in them to believe they can win 4 games in Jan/Feb with a game manager at the helm. Few defenses all time can pull that off.


What was game manager about it tonight? He threw a perfect strike 40 yards to the 4 to set up the death blow TD. He threw for 262 yds with no credible RB to keep the defense honest and missing both starting tackles.

I love how you toss terms around, they didn't win 13-10....oh wait.....he is an "Air Raid" QB....3-0 without a turnover....now if he could only read a defense....

Funny what happens when you are healthy and have a decent team.




mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Oct 3 2016, 10:38 PM) *
What was game manager about it tonight? He threw a perfect strike 40 yards to the 4 to set up the death blow TD. He threw for 262 yds with no credible RB to keep the defense honest and missing both starting tackles.

Throwing the occasional deep ball doesn't a gunslinger make. The baseline for QB play is so completely out of whack these days that you just can't see through the weeds. The game has changed. Throwing for 262 yards (on 36 attempts) isn't earth shattering stuff. It's actually very middle of the pack.
QUOTE
I love how you toss terms around, they didn't win 13-10....oh wait.....he is an "Air Raid" QB....3-0 without a turnover....now if he could only read a defense....

He has thrown 4 TD passes in 3 games. Over a 16 game season that would give him...21 or 22. Once again. Middle of the pack.

QUOTE
Funny what happens when you are healthy and have a decent team.

He looks just like the rest of his career. Low TD%, low INT%, average YPA. The difference is that he has an elite defense. But those are game manager type stats. I don't know why that offends you so much.

If he finishes the year with a 70% completion, 20 TDs, a handful of INTs and a YPA around 7.2, I would say that's managing the game. If you disagree, you haven't paid much attention to the shift in QB numbers in the past decade.
Reality Fan
again...his 4th week in a new offense and he has not thrown 10 TDs? Who knew? Especially after loosing his running threat....and he was still 10th in the league before tonight.

It is not I who have not been paying attention...I guess I should not be surprised. 3-0 must be killing you.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Oct 3 2016, 11:21 PM) *
again...his 4th week in a new offense and he has not thrown 10 TDs? Who knew? Especially after loosing his running threat....and he was still 10th in the league before tonight.

It is not I who have not been paying attention...I guess I should not be surprised. 3-0 must be killing you.

Why would I care about 3-0. It's actually been great. They have beat the Packers and Panthers (two places I don't want to have to play in January) and a division rival.

There is nothing about Sam's game that suggests he's the type to throw 10 TDs over a 3 game stretch. He's on pace to put up Alex Smith type numbers. That can win a lot of games. I just don't want to put my hopes on it.

Once again, I don't know why all this offends you so much. I don't hate Sam the player. I don't think he's bad. I can't recall saying either of those things. I did think he handled the competition thing like a bitch, but whatever. I just think he's very limited as a QB. And I don't believe he was the type that could take us to the promised land. That's literally the only thing I care about.

Not everything is black and white. Just because I don't think Sam is great or even very good doesn't mean I think he's bad. And just because I think QBs are more important than coaches doesn't mean I don't think coaching is important.

You seem to want to build a team around a great defense and suitable QB play. That's one way to win. I happen to believe it's the most difficult, least predictable way to do so. Statistically I think it's a bad bet. You're not right or wrong.

We can disagree without your obnoxious sarcasm.
nephillymike
Sleeves play has been excellent so far.

They have one more game, then they get to spend two weeks during their bye game planning for us. mad.gif

That must be the "in" thing. Having a bye week before you play us.

Isn't there four or five teams on bye before they play us?

A guy in work was complaining about that. (I didn't verify it)

If true, Roger G. really sticking it to us.

Screw em! We had a short week vs Pitt and we did OK!


mcnabbulous
By my count it's just two, but back to back weeks against the Vikings and Cowboys
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 4 2016, 07:30 PM) *
By my count it's just two, but back to back weeks against the Vikings and Cowboys

ATL?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 4 2016, 07:56 PM) *
ATL?

Well they play the Bucs the previous Thursday. So depends how you look at it.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 4 2016, 07:57 PM) *
Well they play the Bucs the previous Thursday. So depends how you look at it.

Week and a half bye!
nephillymike
Just texted the guy from work.

Add the NYG to this list!

They play back to back to back bye teams followed by a team with 1-1/2 weeks to prepare.

That's pretty fucked up.

That's tough to do.

I always wondered why not have an entire division off one week, and then have them play division games the post bye weeks so it prevents teams from getting screwed like they did to us.

It's not rocket science.
D Rock
100% agree. Personally, I think teams should only play a thursday game after a bye. You get your bye one Sunday, play the following Thursday, then 10 days til the next game.

As you said, it's not rocket science. This week should be Eagles vs. Green Bay on the Thursday night game as both were on their bye last Sunday.
samaroo
The NFL doesn't want fair, they want money. That's why.
nephillymike
QUOTE (samaroo @ Oct 5 2016, 02:07 AM) *
The NFL doesn't want fair, they want money. That's why.

How would doing it my way have an adverse effect on money?

All four NFC East teams need to have a bye sometime.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 5 2016, 02:04 AM) *
100% agree. Personally, I think teams should only play a thursday game after a bye. You get your bye one Sunday, play the following Thursday, then 10 days til the next game.

As you said, it's not rocket science. This week should be Eagles vs. Green Bay on the Thursday night game as both were on their bye last Sunday.

The challenge is the early and late season games when byes aren't happening, but otherwise it's sensible. The Packers v Eagles scenario you laid out makes a lot of sense.
samaroo
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 5 2016, 07:16 PM) *
How would doing it my way have an adverse effect on money?

All four NFC East teams need to have a bye sometime.

I wasn't trying to say that it would cost them money. It won't make any so they don't care. That's my point.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (samaroo @ Oct 5 2016, 07:08 PM) *
I wasn't trying to say that it would cost them money. It won't make any so they don't care. That's my point.

Improving the quality of those games might earn them more money. Although the NFL never seems to have a problem with ratings.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 5 2016, 08:56 PM) *
Improving the quality of those games might earn them more money. Although the NFL never seems to have a problem with ratings.

TV networks have reported that NFL ratings are down across the board. Meanwhile, "viewership" has increased; you can watch games on twitter and alternate (social) media resources. That's a bit of a black eye to the networks paying billions for the right to broadcast the games. The cable providers are also taking a beating, with so many people "cutting the cable". The game is changing and the traditional method for viewing TV is quickly going the way of the 'dodo bird'. All of those decades of poor customer service is coming round and biting the cable giants in the ass.
nephillymike
Two Words:

Red Zone!

I'm sure if they include Red Zone viewers, ratings are just fine.
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.