Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: This is the most concerning thing to me
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
nephillymike
http://www.csnphilly.com/philadelphia-eagl...doning-run-game

Zach Ertz, Lane Johnson, Brandon Brooks all subtly questioning the play calling.

Fucking dip shit Zack Ertz comes out and says we should run the ball 30 times in a 60 play game. The next good run block he makes will be his first. Ok Zack, we'll take you off the field 50% of the plays while we put in a TE who puts forth the effort to block.

And Brooks and Johnson, what is the yards per carry average running to your side of the line. Block somebody!

Nice guys finish last Pedey, and nice guys in this town finish last faster. He needs to let these guys hear it.

Give Blount the ball the first three plays on the right side behind Ertz, Johnson and Brooks, and when he gets 2 yards per carry, bring those three over and tell them to shut the fuck up.
Zero

mcnabbulous
50% rushes when we're losing by 14 in the 4th quarter. Good one, Zach.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 18 2017, 08:21 PM) *
http://www.csnphilly.com/philadelphia-eagl...doning-run-game

Zach Ertz, Lane Johnson, Brandon Brooks all subtly questioning the play calling.

Fucking dip shit Zack Ertz comes out and says we should run the ball 30 times in a 60 play game. The next good run block he makes will be his first. Ok Zack, we'll take you off the field 50% of the plays while we put in a TE who puts forth the effort to block.

And Brooks and Johnson, what is the yards per carry average running to your side of the line. Block somebody!

Nice guys finish last Pedey, and nice guys in this town finish last faster. He needs to let these guys hear it.

Give Blount the ball the first three plays on the right side behind Ertz, Johnson and Brooks, and when he gets 2 yards per carry, bring those three over and tell them to shut the fuck up.

Mikey, you're headed for the deep end. Ertz has never been a blocker and he's showing how productive he can be as a receiver. We can criticize him for not blocking but he's saying the same thing you and I have been saying for years. For the second game of the season, a game where the team fought toe-to-toe with a championship caliber team,a team that had a long week to prepare, you're awfully angry.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Sep 18 2017, 07:54 PM) *
Mikey, you're headed for the deep end. Ertz has never been a blocker and he's showing how productive he can be as a receiver. We can criticize him for not blocking but he's saying the same thing you and I have been saying for years. For the second game of the season, a game where the team fought toe-to-toe with a championship caliber team,a team that had a long week to prepare, you're awfully angry.

I am not angry, very mild all things considered.

I am not pissed at the way the players played, but annoyed at the lack of loyalty this week.

Normally Id be apoplectic with an 81% pass ratio.

I'm rather mellow.

Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 18 2017, 09:04 PM) *
I am not angry, very mild all things considered.

I am not pissed at the way the players played, but annoyed at the lack of loyalty this week.

Normally Id be apoplectic with an 81% pass ratio.

I'm rather mellow.

Loyalty from the players to their coach?
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Sep 19 2017, 04:46 AM) *
Loyalty from the players to their coach?

Yes
Zero
And here's a counter argument to the RTDBP attack:
QUOTE
I just don’t see how people think running the ball more often with these group of running backs is the answer. It’s just not the solution. You can say the run game was working, but was it? The Eagles gained 34 yards on 11 carries after Sproles’ first two carries of the game. The Chiefs adjusted and the run just wasn’t effective. In addition, how many more carries did you realistically want the Eagles to give to Sproles? I’m all for using him as much as possible, but it’s just not realistic to expect him to be a 20-carry per game guy. For his career, Sproles averages FOUR (4) rush attempts per game. FOUR! When you’re counting on a 34-year-old part-time player to be your lead rushing back, things have gone wrong. This is a complete and utter failure by Howie Roseman and Philadelphia’s personnel department.
Here ...

I've always believed that a successful running attack often requires dedication. The game may start with 10 carries for 20 some yards, but the linemen are attacking and the defense is tiring ... even if they are stopping it. The defense knows you're going to run so they commit to defending it which opens space for other plays. Am I wrong?
nephillymike
http://www.csnphilly.com/philadelphia-eagl...t-figure-it-out

As a counter point, This is probably the best article supporting us running the ball more.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 19 2017, 06:20 AM) *
As a counter point, This is probably the best article supporting us running the ball more.

Yes, and why are you upset that the players are saying the same thing?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 19 2017, 05:20 AM) *
http://www.csnphilly.com/philadelphia-eagl...t-figure-it-out

As a counter point, This is probably the best article supporting us running the ball more.

We had 27 first downs. We outgained our opponent by 70 yards. We didn't lose this game cause of play calling. We lost because we turned the ball over two more times than our opponent. Both times in our own territory, resulting in 10 points.
Zero
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 19 2017, 07:56 AM) *
We had 27 first downs. We outgained our opponent by 70 yards. We didn't lose this game cause of play calling. We lost because we turned the ball over two more times than our opponent. Both times in our own territory, resulting in 10 points.

Fair enough, but don't you think opposing defenses will be hitting Wentz more and more, knowing we aren't running? I'm betting that's what happens when the Giants know they need a win and have the horses to hurt us. Don't you think it's a trend that DCs will take advantage of?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Zero @ Sep 19 2017, 07:03 AM) *
Fair enough, but don't you think opposing defenses will be hitting Wentz more and more, knowing we aren't running? I'm betting that's what happens when the Giants know they need a win and have the horses to hurt us. Don't you think it's a trend that DCs will take advantage of?

I think, for the most part, defensive coordinators aren't worried about getting beat by the run. And the statistics suggest they shouldn't be.

So if I'm a DC looking at the makeup of our team, am I worrying about Blount and Smallwood Sproles running the ball? Or am I worried about Alshon and Ertz and Smith and Sproles catching the ball?

The answer is the latter. And playcalling isn't the reason and it's not going to change it.
Zero
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 19 2017, 08:15 AM) *
I think, for the most part, defensive coordinators aren't worried about getting beat by the run. And the statistics suggest they shouldn't be.

So if I'm a DC looking at the makeup of our team, am I worrying about Blount and Smallwood Sproles running the ball? Or am I worried about Alshon and Ertz and Smith and Sproles catching the ball?

The answer is the latter. And playcalling isn't the reason and it's not going to change it.

I would think that if the Eagles are consistently churning out 4+ yds on running plays the defense would respond by bringing a safety into the box creating opportunities for either Ertz and Agholor or by having one man on either Jeffery or Smith. I think that relates specifically to play calling and preparation.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Zero @ Sep 19 2017, 08:13 AM) *
I would think that if the Eagles are consistently churning out 4+ yds on running plays the defense would respond by bringing a safety into the box creating opportunities for either Ertz and Agholor or by having one man on either Jeffery or Smith. I think that relates specifically to play calling and preparation.

I really don't think DCs worry about 4 ypc. Or at least, statistically they shouldn't. There is adequate data to suggest that having an efficient running game doesn't impact Ws and Ls.

Would you, as a DC, leave Alshon 1-1 to stop Blount from gaining 4-5 yards? I wouldn't. I suspect most DCs wouldn't.

Ertz has been dominating the middle of the field thus far this year and Alshon proved to be a threat on the outside this past week (and Wentz has definitely missed him deep too).

DC's not fearing our running game doesn't seem to be holding back the passing game. We moved the ball extremely well this past week. I'm not really sure how running it more would have improved upon our 27 first downs.
Joegrane
You would think that the success in the passing game would have opened some opportunities for the run. Other than some Sproles magic there was essentially nothing on Sunday.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 19 2017, 08:22 AM) *
I really don't think DCs worry about 4 ypc. Or at least, statistically they shouldn't. There is adequate data to suggest that having an efficient running game doesn't impact Ws and Ls.

Would you, as a DC, leave Alshon 1-1 to stop Blount from gaining 4-5 yards? I wouldn't. I suspect most DCs wouldn't.

Ertz has been dominating the middle of the field thus far this year and Alshon proved to be a threat on the outside this past week (and Wentz has definitely missed him deep too).

DC's not fearing our running game doesn't seem to be holding back the passing game. We moved the ball extremely well this past week. I'm not really sure how running it more would have improved upon our 27 first downs.

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Sep 19 2017, 09:12 AM) *
You would think that the success in the passing game would have opened some opportunities for the run. Other than some Sproles magic there was essentially nothing on Sunday.

This is a big reason why I think the idea of "keeping a defense honest" is a total farce. If that were true, our run game should benefit tremendously from the idea that teams think we're pass heavy.

If we're seeing those benefits, it should be even more proof that running with this group of backs and linemen is a waste of time.
The Franchise
QUOTE (Zero @ Sep 19 2017, 06:10 AM) *
I've always believed that a successful running attack often requires dedication. The game may start with 10 carries for 20 some yards, but the linemen are attacking and the defense is tiring ... even if they are stopping it. The defense knows you're going to run so they commit to defending it which opens space for other plays. Am I wrong?


Bingo. This is what people who understand football have been saying for years, especially frustrated Eagles fans. It doesn't even matter if your team is built for the passing game - you have to keep the defense honest, or else you won't consistently beat good teams. This is why Andy, despite his regular season wins, will never win a Super Bowl. And if Pederson thinks fans are going to watch this shit for another 14 years, he's out of his mind. As for loyalty from players, maybe the people who actually play the game want their big RB to be hitting the D-line more than 0 times a game?

QUOTE
There is adequate data to suggest that having an efficient running game doesn't impact Ws and Ls.


No, there isn't. You posted an unbelievably sophomoric 'study' done by a numbers geek, where 'running efficiency' equaled offensive rushing yardage per carry minus defensive rushing yardage per carry given up. I dismantled it within 5 seconds, and pointed out that the guy who actually did the study was reconsidering his methodology after a few knowledgeable people pointed out the study's many flaws. You, in typical cuck fashion, responded by flailing your arms around and posting other useless studies from people who know nothing of the game.
The Franchise
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 18 2017, 09:04 PM) *
Normally Id be apoplectic with an 81% pass ratio.

I'm rather mellow.


Same here. A lot of our pass attempts came when down by a lot late in the game, plus I fully expected a passing orgy with Andy vs. Doug. On top of that, I think most of us expected a loss going in. I guess that's why I didn't throw the remote into the tv.

nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Sep 19 2017, 05:32 AM) *
Yes, and why are you upset that the players are saying the same thing?

Because this early in the season, it disloyal.

Because it ignores the fact that poor run blocking by those three individual was a contributing factor why our run game struggled.

Ertz, who can't block me, criticizing us for not running the ball. That's a treat.
The Franchise
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 19 2017, 07:22 PM) *
Because this early in the season, it disloyal.


Like, say, essentially benching your starting RB after a slightly-below-average performance in the previous week's road win?

None of us know the dynamics of being in an NFL locker room, but that strikes me as a good way to piss off your veterans. Case in point, the reason we're discussing this. I'm glad Ertz spoke out.



nephillymike
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 19 2017, 06:54 PM) *
Like, say, essentially benching your starting RB after a slightly-below-average performance in the previous week's road win?

None of us know the dynamics of being in an NFL locker room, but that strikes me as a good way to piss off your veterans. Case in point, the reason we're discussing this. I'm glad Ertz spoke out.

Just heard this on CSN from D. Gunn.

He asked a player why he thought Blount had no carries.

He said, "did you see all those holes he missed last week, what do you think".

Of course he did not name the player, but while players may want the run game, I don't think they want fat boy to be the guy carrying it.

One other thing that I haven't heard mentioned on here, but I think deserves some discussion. You know how coaches give game plan tidbits to the broadcast crew? This way, the crew can mention it during the broadcast and sound clued in. Well early in that game, they said the Eagles game plan was to give heavy dose of Sproles, Ertz, and Jeffery and focus on the perimeter of the KC defense. It was working. That plan going in, does not indicate Blount was to be a big part of the game plan. I do agree we should have run it more than 19%, but given the game, 65-35 at most up until the point we were down 2 scores in the 4th.

Hopefully this week, we'll find ourselves in a more balanced attack.
The Franchise
QUOTE
Of course he did not name the player, but while players may want the run game, I don't think they want fat boy to be the guy carrying it.


Yes, we've all seen the picture of the giant hole that he hit poorly, which combined with a shitty block from Celek resulted in only a 5 yard gain. It was clear against the Redskins that there was no ingenuity or creativity in utilizing the backs. At least 4 or 5 times it was clear to everyone in Landover that a run up the gut was coming - he still put together a respectable enough game, though not good enough. And we won. Certainly his performance didn't warrant dropping behind Smallwood on the depth chart.

QUOTE
You know how coaches give game plan tidbits to the broadcast crew? This way, the crew can mention it during the broadcast and sound clued in.


I'm aware that coaches feed announcers and sideline reporters horseshit, platitudes, and painfully obvious 'tidbits.' Any coach who broadcasts anything remotely pertinent to their actual game plan should be immediately fired and blacklisted from the game for all eternity.

I could care less about Blount personally. I liked the signing a lot, and I'm not ready to write him off. But we need to run more, and clearly the plan against the Chiefs isn't going to translate to wins against good teams.
Joegrane
The Dallas RBs had around 100 yds rushing vs Giants but around 4 yd avg

Detroit's RBs had less than 60 yards vs Giants. but less than 3 yd avg.

Any news on J Peter's groin? I bet that did not help the running game last week.


QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 19 2017, 07:13 PM) *
Just heard this on CSN from D. Gunn.

He asked a player why he thought Blount had no carries.

He said, "did you see all those holes he missed last week, what do you think".

Of course he did not name the player, but while players may want the run game, I don't think they want fat boy to be the guy carrying it.

One other thing that I haven't heard mentioned on here, but I think deserves some discussion. You know how coaches give game plan tidbits to the broadcast crew? This way, the crew can mention it during the broadcast and sound clued in. Well early in that game, they said the Eagles game plan was to give heavy dose of Sproles, Ertz, and Jeffery and focus on the perimeter of the KC defense. It was working. That plan going in, does not indicate Blount was to be a big part of the game plan. I do agree we should have run it more than 19%, but given the game, 65-35 at most up until the point we were down 2 scores in the 4th.

Hopefully this week, we'll find ourselves in a more balanced attack.

Rick
I've got to say, reading everything after the game on Sunday, some of you guys need to chill the fuck out. I mean, show of hands, how many of you believed this team was a SB contender before the season... That's what I thought.

Nit picking about how a 2nd year QB who didn't even play at the highest level of college football--and wasn't even supposed to dress in his first season but wound up starting (under fire)--isn't 100% PERFECT is ridiculous. I want to see progression from him. I'm seeing it. He's better than he was last year. Perfect? Hardly. But, other than Tom Brady, who is?

Add to that the Eagles have issues on the OL--something we ALL knew about coming into this season--and you've got what you've got. He's doing way better than he should be at this point.

This bickering about Blount is even more ridiculous. Yeah, Howie shit the bed in getting one of the great backs this season. That's not gonna change. The Eagles don't need to be #1 in the run to win, they need to be respectable. Until they get their shit together on the OL, they're not going to be respectable no matter WHO is running the ball. Did you see how bad Elliot looked Sunday afternoon? That's what happens when your offensive line gives you absolutely NOWHERE to run.

Blount will be just fine if they use him properly--and the OL does a reasonable job at blocking for him. He should make them better inside the 10 yard line.

But, as some have pointed out, you cannot 100% abandon the run. No matter what some people think, you do have to keep the defense honest or they just, as they say, pin their ears back and head towards the QB with no regard for the run. Also, many times a team will fail miserably at the run in the first half when the defense is fresh. Then, as they get worn down, the run starts to work better. Of course, this still depends on a reasonable job done by the OL.

Pedersen has not been horrible coaching this season but he's not been great either. Honestly, I don't think he'll ever be great based on what I've seen from him so far this season and last season. He doesn't seem to learn from his mistakes. I call him Andy Reid 2.0 (I think others may have said similar things). He could surprise me and turn into an awesome coach--I hope so (at least while he's in Philly)--but I'm not expecting him to be.

The Eagles are also a few players away from being a true contender. We know they need some OL help. DB is still a question although they do seem to be a little better than last season. Obviously, there's currently a question at kicker. Could use a better feature back (I think Blount is better-suited for short-yardage situations rather than a featured back.).

So, while it certainly looks like they can contend for an NFC East title this season, that's mainly because everyone else in the division looks bad. I don't kid myself and believe they're winning a SB this season. But I see the team (overall) moving in the right direction.

Some of you pick everything apart like they have an actual shot at winning it all this season. Sheesh...
Zero
My only real complaint is that they don't even seem to be trying to commit to the run. At least they have to make the defense think that maybe they might run ... somebody, somewhere, somehow.
mcnabbulous
So to summarize, you guys simultaneously believe...

1) We need to run more because defenses are selling out to stop the pass.

2) Defenses will defend the run more, thus making our passing more successful

3) Our OL has done a poor job running blocking against defenses that don't respect the run and aren't focused on stopping it

4) Despite not having success against teams not trying to stop the run, defensive coordinators will change their approach to defending the run.

5) We will have more success running against defenses that begin focusing more on stopping the run.

6) It doesn't matter if we don't have success running, running for the sake of running is worthwhile becausing doing things that aren't successful is smart.
Zero
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 20 2017, 07:31 AM) *
So to summarize, you guys simultaneously believe...

1) We need to run more because defenses are selling out to stop the pass.

2) Defenses will defend the run more, thus making our passing more successful

3) Our OL has done a poor job running blocking against defenses that don't respect the run and aren't focused on stopping it

4) Despite not having success against teams not trying to stop the run, defensive coordinators will change their approach to defending the run.

5) We will have more success running against defenses that begin focusing more on stopping the run.

6) It doesn't matter if we don't have success running, running for the sake of running is worthwhile becausing doing things that aren't successful is smart.
  1. No
  2. Yes
  3. Huh?
  4. Sarcasm
  5. Yes
  6. Sarcasm

mcnabbulous

  1. No - So you don't believe defenses are selling out to stop the pass?
  2. Yes - How can this be yes, but the first one be no?
  3. Huh? - I'm saying people are complaining about the run blocking, but also say that defenses don't respect it and aren't trying to stop it.
  4. Sarcasm - This wasn't sarcasm. This seems to be the consensus. We haven't been successful running, but people think defenses will start to focus more on the run if we do it more.
  5. Yes - You think, despite the fact that we can't run against teams not focused on stopping it, we will have success against teams that are more focused on stopping it?
  6. Sarcasm - This was sarcasm, yes.


Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 20 2017, 07:31 AM) *
So to summarize, you guys simultaneously believe...

1) We need to run more because defenses are selling out to stop the pass.

2) Defenses will defend the run more, thus making our passing more successful

3) Our OL has done a poor job running blocking against defenses that don't respect the run and aren't focused on stopping it

4) Despite not having success against teams not trying to stop the run, defensive coordinators will change their approach to defending the run.

5) We will have more success running against defenses that begin focusing more on stopping the run.

6) It doesn't matter if we don't have success running, running for the sake of running is worthwhile becausing doing things that aren't successful is smart.


Some of your best work and that is not Sarcasm. I actually spit my coffee out as I read it...lol

I was wondering if I was the only one confused by the irony.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 20 2017, 02:30 PM) *
Some of your best work and that is not Sarcasm. I actually spit my coffee out as I read it...lol

I was wondering if I was the only one confused by the irony.



While funny it was disingenuous.

He took opinions from several individuals, than lumped all individuals into a group. Then he attributed every opinion to every individual in the group.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Sep 20 2017, 09:19 AM) *
While funny it was disingenuous.

He took opinions from several individuals, than lumped all individuals into a group. Then he attributed every opinion to every individual in the group.

Which parts do you agree and disagree with?
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 20 2017, 03:29 PM) *
Which parts do you agree and disagree with?



Reference our conversation on Sunday. I really have nothing new to add to what I said then and I have not seen anything new from you since then either.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Sep 20 2017, 09:41 AM) *
Reference our conversation on Sunday. I really have nothing new to add to what I said then and I have not seen anything new from you since then either.

Hard pass
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 20 2017, 08:30 AM) *
Some of your best work and that is not Sarcasm. I actually spit my coffee out as I read it...lol

I was wondering if I was the only one confused by the irony.

cheers.gif:
Joegrane
A film review of selected running plays vs KC--good and bad.
http://www.csnphilly.com/philadelphia-eagl...-game-vs-chiefs

QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 18 2017, 07:21 PM) *
http://www.csnphilly.com/philadelphia-eagl...doning-run-game

Zach Ertz, Lane Johnson, Brandon Brooks all subtly questioning the play calling.

Fucking dip shit Zack Ertz comes out and says we should run the ball 30 times in a 60 play game. The next good run block he makes will be his first. Ok Zack, we'll take you off the field 50% of the plays while we put in a TE who puts forth the effort to block.

And Brooks and Johnson, what is the yards per carry average running to your side of the line. Block somebody!

Nice guys finish last Pedey, and nice guys in this town finish last faster. He needs to let these guys hear it.

Give Blount the ball the first three plays on the right side behind Ertz, Johnson and Brooks, and when he gets 2 yards per carry, bring those three over and tell them to shut the fuck up.

The Franchise
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Sep 20 2017, 10:19 AM) *
While funny it was disingenuous.

He took opinions from several individuals, than lumped all individuals into a group. Then he attributed every opinion to every individual in the group.


Welcome to Wingheads.
The Franchise
QUOTE (Rick @ Sep 20 2017, 06:21 AM) *
Blount will be just fine if they use him properly--and the OL does a reasonable job at blocking for him. He should make them better inside the 10 yard line.

But, as some have pointed out, you cannot 100% abandon the run. No matter what some people think, you do have to keep the defense honest or they just, as they say, pin their ears back and head towards the QB with no regard for the run. Also, many times a team will fail miserably at the run in the first half when the defense is fresh. Then, as they get worn down, the run starts to work better. Of course, this still depends on a reasonable job done by the OL.

Pedersen has not been horrible coaching this season but he's not been great either. Honestly, I don't think he'll ever be great based on what I've seen from him so far this season and last season. He doesn't seem to learn from his mistakes. I call him Andy Reid 2.0 (I think others may have said similar things). He could surprise me and turn into an awesome coach--I hope so (at least while he's in Philly)--but I'm not expecting him to be.


This is why I'm perfectly fine with veterans calling him out. People who understand the dynamics of football need to be screaming in his ear about the things that have and will continue to prevent his mentor from winning it all. Reich sure as hell ain't going to do it. And after coming so close for so many years, the fans aren't going to be as patient with him, as you see already.
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.