This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Jim Mora would know because he's actually done the job before.Juan hasn't shown that he's capable of running his own system, how can we seriously expect him to change to something else? We all knew from the beginning that he would be in way over his head and now we're just seeing it. The very sad part is that I don't see anyone of the defensive coaches we have able to take his place.
good, go cheer for the ravens or someone else...this ship will be fine without you. don't need the negative energy. Might as well go join their thread as your job is done herethe players are just as much part of the problem as the coaches, but the beauty about the NFL is that is't he Not For Long league and next week they could easily put it all togetherSome of us removed the green tinted glasses a long time ago. Are the games winnable? Sure, but the chances of them winning is what is slim. Juan keeps talking about the defense and how its been improving and they will keep improving. That he HAS TO PUT GUYS IN A BETTER POSITION....if you are an eagle fan and have been for some time, you should be banging your head against the wall after hearing that statement. This team is too stubborn to change because it is driven by a very egotistical & stubborn head coach. You may continue to cheer for them like the majority of things are going right but after seeing the same #### for the past 12 years, I am done. I held on what little faith I had ( that faith in the players themselves to overcome to coaching blunders ) but a sane sports fan can only take so much.Reids tenure here can be summed up with 4 words: Square Peg Round Holelistening to all the whining literally makes me want to become a Texans fan just so I am not part of this fan base anymore. Seems dire right now, but Eagles backs are always against the wall.We started 2-3 in 2003 & 2008 and still made it to NFC Championship game. Started 1-2 in 2000 and made Division championship. This team has more talent than both.They'll get it turned around, I'm not gonna lose hope. backs are against the wall and some guys are gonna have to step up with Cole & Peters out a while, but they always seem to come through when you are about to right them off. Definitely can win these next 2 and then we go from there. 3-3 after the bye and we'll be back on track as those guys should get healthy not to mention Graham will be back which should help the pass rush
we can win all those games. Most of those teams have significant holes in one place or anotherTo get to 11-5 from 1-3, you have to go 10-2 over the next 12 games, including 5 division games (Cowboys and Skins twice each, and Giants), not to mention NE, Jets and Bills. Yeah, I'd like to see you guys pull that off...
they don't need to be 10-2 over the next 12. 10-6 or 9-7 could easily sneak in the playoffs. However, their schedule is not as tough as you are making it. New England is hurting bad on defense and we are geared to stop their passing attack. Jets don't have a QB neither do the Skins.you guys realize we are only 2 games out of the division lead and the 2 worse teams are leading? 1 game back from Dallas.the sky is not falling. I wish all the haters would jump off this ship for good. nobody needs them...plenty of other good NFL teams to cheer for, go pick one...The Eagles have significant holes in many areas. This team is not good enough to sniff a 10-2 record going forward. Now with the injuries, they'll be lucky to finish at .500.listening to all the whining literally makes me want to become a Texans fan just so I am not part of this fan base anymore. Seems dire right now, but Eagles backs are always against the wall.We started 2-3 in 2003 & 2008 and still made it to NFC Championship game. Started 1-2 in 2000 and made Division championship. This team has more talent than both.They'll get it turned around, I'm not gonna lose hope. backs are against the wall and some guys are gonna have to step up with Cole & Peters out a while, but they always seem to come through when you are about to right them off. Definitely can win these next 2 and then we go from there. 3-3 after the bye and we'll be back on track as those guys should get healthy not to mention Graham will be back which should help the pass rush
we can win all those games. Most of those teams have significant holes in one place or anotherTo get to 11-5 from 1-3, you have to go 10-2 over the next 12 games, including 5 division games (Cowboys and Skins twice each, and Giants), not to mention NE, Jets and Bills. Yeah, I'd like to see you guys pull that off...
I'm not sure where to start here....Sneaking in isnt what I had in mind at all this season.When look as bad as we have (players and coaches) every team is tough on our schedule.Tom Brady with his left hand will make our D look silly as it stands todayJets dont have a QB and neither did SF...2 games out.....after 4 games played...Haters? Or are you one of these that just only agrees with the negatives you see?I'm all for being optomistic but you havent given me a thing....and neither has the team.
3 of the 6 last Super Bowl Champs were wild cards so as long as we make the playoffs I'm happy. I'd rather have these struggles now and peak at the right time. Fact is we are around 6 mistakes away (bad decisions, missed tackles, fumbles, etc..) from being undefeated. Those things are easily correctable and I have faith they will right the ship. The mistakes are obvious and Reid/Castillo/Marty will fix them. There too good of teachers not to. Yelling for coaches to be fired and heads rolling after 4 games is silly in my mind. They will get it going together. Nothing like a road game to Buffalo to figure it out. .500 after the bye will present a different picture and hopefully Peters & Cole will be healthy by then
You're right, 6 mistakes (by your count) away from being undefeated. Yet they made those mistakes and we're 1-3. And if they are easily correctable, why did they look worse in week 2 than in week 1? And worse yet in week 3 over week 2? Even worse in week 4? They are not being corrected. And what have you seen from either the player out on the field or in Juan Castillo's past that fills you with hope they can be corrected in week 5? What's your confidence level that our rookie kicker can make a high pressure FG in OT? We hope he can. So far in his 2 high pressure kicks he's missed.And you're happy with just making the playoff? I'm not. I've seen that season play out. The bar is raised. Deep into the playoffs is the goal. Seven seasons removed from 2004 and I'm not seeing consistent improvement. And so far this year its been one huge regression. Most HC's only get a few years to build a team. Andy's been given far more leeway than most Head Coaches/GMs get. Andy had a lot of early success and 7 years removed he so far can not match that same level. He need to at least match it or step aside at the end of the season.'loose circuits said:
they are different issues that keep arising. Plugged some holes and others were createdthe second FG wasn't a great snap and the holder had trouble if I remember correctly- I think this actually happened to some degree on both kicks- it wasn't clean that is for sure. I have no doubt that Alex Henery can make a FG when needed he's one of the most decorated kickers in college football history. Shouldn't have came down to that FG anyways as Ronnie tossed this one away. that is inexcusable for a veteran player to do something like that.
Could be they don't want to go to man coverage because they worry teams will run the guys in man coverage away from the play and then runners can get big gains because the defenders will have their backs to the play and not realize there is a guy running through the secondary. That's what happened to the Giants last year, so now they are going with more zone even though the Giants CBs are better at man coverage.'Amused to Death said:
Is that the same Cris Carter that didn't consider Calvin Johnson elite or even top 6 WR in the NFL? That Calvin was great in video games, but not real life. If he doesn't even know his own position, why do we think he would understand defenses?'Amused to Death said:
Really? Giants with a 10-6 record missed the playoffs just last year.'loose circuits said:they don't need to be 10-2 over the next 12. 10-6 or 9-7 could easily sneak in the playoffs. However, their schedule is not as tough as you are making it. New England is hurting bad on defense and we are geared to stop their passing attack. Jets don't have a QB neither do the Skins.you guys realize we are only 2 games out of the division lead and the 2 worse teams are leading? 1 game back from Dallas.'fred_1_15301 said:The Eagles have significant holes in many areas. This team is not good enough to sniff a 10-2 record going forward. Now with the injuries, they'll be lucky to finish at .500.listening to all the whining literally makes me want to become a Texans fan just so I am not part of this fan base anymore. Seems dire right now, but Eagles backs are always against the wall.
We started 2-3 in 2003 & 2008 and still made it to NFC Championship game. Started 1-2 in 2000 and made Division championship. This team has more talent than both.
They'll get it turned around, I'm not gonna lose hope. backs are against the wall and some guys are gonna have to step up with Cole & Peters out a while, but they always seem to come through when you are about to right them off. Definitely can win these next 2 and then we go from there. 3-3 after the bye and we'll be back on track as those guys should get healthy not to mention Graham will be back which should help the pass rush
we can win all those games. Most of those teams have significant holes in one place or anotherTo get to 11-5 from 1-3, you have to go 10-2 over the next 12 games, including 5 division games (Cowboys and Skins twice each, and Giants), not to mention NE, Jets and Bills.
Yeah, I'd like to see you guys pull that off...
the sky is not falling. I wish all the haters would jump off this ship for good. nobody needs them...plenty of other good NFL teams to cheer for, go pick one...
Wasn't that the Packers record last year when they won the super bowl and the Giants when they won in 2007? that's 2 of the last 4 super bowl champs.Would love for you to go figure out the statistical probability of 10-6 missing the playoffs since the new divisions. My guess is it is far below .5. Be also interesting to do the same thing for 9-7. As well as break it down by each conference. I don't have the time right now, gotta get some work doneReally? Giants with a 10-6 record missed the playoffs just last year.'loose circuits said:they don't need to be 10-2 over the next 12. 10-6 or 9-7 could easily sneak in the playoffs. However, their schedule is not as tough as you are making it. New England is hurting bad on defense and we are geared to stop their passing attack. Jets don't have a QB neither do the Skins.you guys realize we are only 2 games out of the division lead and the 2 worse teams are leading? 1 game back from Dallas.'fred_1_15301 said:The Eagles have significant holes in many areas. This team is not good enough to sniff a 10-2 record going forward. Now with the injuries, they'll be lucky to finish at .500.listening to all the whining literally makes me want to become a Texans fan just so I am not part of this fan base anymore. Seems dire right now, but Eagles backs are always against the wall.
We started 2-3 in 2003 & 2008 and still made it to NFC Championship game. Started 1-2 in 2000 and made Division championship. This team has more talent than both.
They'll get it turned around, I'm not gonna lose hope. backs are against the wall and some guys are gonna have to step up with Cole & Peters out a while, but they always seem to come through when you are about to right them off. Definitely can win these next 2 and then we go from there. 3-3 after the bye and we'll be back on track as those guys should get healthy not to mention Graham will be back which should help the pass rush
we can win all those games. Most of those teams have significant holes in one place or anotherTo get to 11-5 from 1-3, you have to go 10-2 over the next 12 games, including 5 division games (Cowboys and Skins twice each, and Giants), not to mention NE, Jets and Bills.
Yeah, I'd like to see you guys pull that off...
the sky is not falling. I wish all the haters would jump off this ship for good. nobody needs them...plenty of other good NFL teams to cheer for, go pick one...
Maybe he's talked to other DC's, scouts or other people around the NFL....
You just misspoke by saying "easily". 10-6 should be enough to get a team into the playoffs, probably about 2/3rds do, but I wouldn't say easily, easily would be 11-5 where I think only 2 teams since 1978 have missed out on the playoffs. 9-7, I'd guess that it's about 55-65% make the playoffs.
Did he not talk to OC's, scouts, or other people when he 'researched' for his top 6 WR's in the NFL?I honestly could care less then what people like him say. Jim Mora Jr, maybe, but even then he is now in the media for a reason. They love to pile on whenever they can cause disgruntles Eagles fans like you keep listening.
well with the way it is going, I could see 9-7 winning the NFC East for one. I also said sneak, like going in the back door. Like you said, 55-65% make the playoffs at 9-7 so more often than not they get in...depends on if the Bucs & Lions can both keep it up, but I don't think both can...think the Bucs are more than likely to stumble at some point
I don't even know if this deserves a response, but I will go ahead. What happens when you throw the ball and its incomplete? The clock stops. What would you like to do when your up by 20 points? Take time off the clock. What happens to an opposing team when they can't get the ball in their hands? They don't score. You do the math.Only Eagles fans complain about the play calling after 500 yards of offense. Second half where people say they should have run more they had drives of 50, 8, 59, 65, and 48 yards. 1 punt, 1fg, 2mfg, 1 fumble. They needed more points so I don't even know what argument is trying to be made. I guess if they chewed up 3 more minutes of clock then they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at the end. Would that make you happy?
I'd be more inclined to think he used his own judgement of Calvin when stating his opinion...being a WR and all himself but that's JMOAnyway...after 4 games what grade would you give Castillo? Also, how much longer would you give him before being a "hater"?
500 yards of offense means squat when you're not scoring. 6 points total in the 2nd half of the last 2 games combined. When they needed to put teams away. The winner is the team with more points, not yards. And once again this team struggles to score inside the red zone and struggles to keep the opponents out. I don't care if they put up 100 yds of offense...as long as we win. We haven't been winning (1-6 in last 7, 0 for last 5 at home.A 50 yard drive taking 1:30 with no points when you're leading by 20 <<<< a 20 yard drive with no points using 4:00 when you're up by 20.Only Eagles fans complain about the play calling after 500 yards of offense. Second half where people say they should have run more they had drives of 50, 8, 59, 65, and 48 yards. 1 punt, 1fg, 2mfg, 1 fumble. They needed more points so I don't even know what argument is trying to be made. I guess if they chewed up 3 more minutes of clock then they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at the end. Would that make you happy?
500 yards of offense means squat when you're not scoring. 6 points total in the 2nd half of the last 2 games combined. When they needed to put teams away. The winner is the team with more points, not yards. And once again this team struggles to score inside the red zone and struggles to keep the opponents out. I don't care if they put up 100 yds of offense...as long as we win. We haven't been winning (1-6 in last 7, 0 for last 5 at home.A 50 yard drive taking 1:30 with no points when you're leading by 20 <<<< a 20 yard drive with no points using 4:00 when you're up by 20.Only Eagles fans complain about the play calling after 500 yards of offense. Second half where people say they should have run more they had drives of 50, 8, 59, 65, and 48 yards. 1 punt, 1fg, 2mfg, 1 fumble. They needed more points so I don't even know what argument is trying to be made. I guess if they chewed up 3 more minutes of clock then they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at the end. Would that make you happy?
ThisI remember an Eagles team that lead the league in yards and was almost last in points scored. They had a sub .500 record. Rolling up yards does no good if you can't score points. And once you have a lead you need to kill the clock and shorten the game500 yards of offense means squat when you're not scoring. 6 points total in the 2nd half of the last 2 games combined. When they needed to put teams away. The winner is the team with more points, not yards. And once again this team struggles to score inside the red zone and struggles to keep the opponents out. I don't care if they put up 100 yds of offense...as long as we win. We haven't been winning (1-6 in last 7, 0 for last 5 at home.A 50 yard drive taking 1:30 with no points when you're leading by 20 <<<< a 20 yard drive with no points using 4:00 when you're up by 20.Only Eagles fans complain about the play calling after 500 yards of offense. Second half where people say they should have run more they had drives of 50, 8, 59, 65, and 48 yards. 1 punt, 1fg, 2mfg, 1 fumble. They needed more points so I don't even know what argument is trying to be made. I guess if they chewed up 3 more minutes of clock then they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at the end. Would that make you happy?
This does not explain why three of the best 1-on-1 corners aren't playing man-to-man.Put 8 in the box and let your corners do what they do. Take your chances that way.Honestly, with Cole's injury, the Wide 9 might get thrown away which might actually help this defense. Change the scheme to fit your personnel, NOT the other way around.
Sadly, this is what Reid has done here his entire tour. With JJ gone ( sadly ) he now has that control over the defensive side too ,especially with putting Juan as the DC.
'Jeff Pasquino said:
If they had chewed up more time they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at end, 49ers went ahead with 3 minutes left in the game! Sorry, but consistently having 60 yard drives does take time off the clock. Here is the math You have to stop the other team, there is no way around that. If you guys had your way you would be running the ball 3 and out and actually taking less time off the clock. Eagles may have lost by a couple TD's if that was the case. Time of Possession was close with 1. 49ers icing the game at the end, 2. 1 more drive, 3. Eagles D being swiss cheese. Also 49ers started all 3 TD drives on their own 20 yard line, so the offense did a good job of giving their defense good field position.I don't even know if this deserves a response, but I will go ahead. What happens when you throw the ball and its incomplete? The clock stops. What would you like to do when your up by 20 points? Take time off the clock. What happens to an opposing team when they can't get the ball in their hands? They don't score.Only Eagles fans complain about the play calling after 500 yards of offense. Second half where people say they should have run more they had drives of 50, 8, 59, 65, and 48 yards. 1 punt, 1fg, 2mfg, 1 fumble. They needed more points so I don't even know what argument is trying to be made. I guess if they chewed up 3 more minutes of clock then they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at the end. Would that make you happy?
You do the math.
Of course, 1 out of 2 field goals would have been enough or not having the Maclin fumble. I was addressing the criticism of the play calling in regards to passing in the second half. Red zone is a totally different conversation, and I agree they need to do a much better job there.500 yards of offense means squat when you're not scoring. 6 points total in the 2nd half of the last 2 games combined. When they needed to put teams away. The winner is the team with more points, not yards. And once again this team struggles to score inside the red zone and struggles to keep the opponents out. I don't care if they put up 100 yds of offense...as long as we win. We haven't been winning (1-6 in last 7, 0 for last 5 at home.A 50 yard drive taking 1:30 with no points when you're leading by 20 <<<< a 20 yard drive with no points using 4:00 when you're up by 20.Only Eagles fans complain about the play calling after 500 yards of offense. Second half where people say they should have run more they had drives of 50, 8, 59, 65, and 48 yards. 1 punt, 1fg, 2mfg, 1 fumble. They needed more points so I don't even know what argument is trying to be made. I guess if they chewed up 3 more minutes of clock then they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at the end. Would that make you happy?
You're being ridiculous and taking the other extreme. It's called balance. Fans have been screaming for years to run more because a balanced attack is less predictable and tougher to defend, and it actually makes play action effective. I don't think anyone is saying in the 2nd half they should run-run-run-punt. Just don't pass every damn play. You have one of the top running backs in the league and don't use him, how does that make sense?If they had chewed up more time they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at end, 49ers went ahead with 3 minutes left in the game! Sorry, but consistently having 60 yard drives does take time off the clock. Here is the math You have to stop the other team, there is no way around that. If you guys had your way you would be running the ball 3 and out and actually taking less time off the clock. Eagles may have lost by a couple TD's if that was the case. Time of Possession was close with 1. 49ers icing the game at the end, 2. 1 more drive, 3. Eagles D being swiss cheese. Also 49ers started all 3 TD drives on their own 20 yard line, so the offense did a good job of giving their defense good field position.I don't even know if this deserves a response, but I will go ahead. What happens when you throw the ball and its incomplete? The clock stops. What would you like to do when your up by 20 points? Take time off the clock. What happens to an opposing team when they can't get the ball in their hands? They don't score.Only Eagles fans complain about the play calling after 500 yards of offense. Second half where people say they should have run more they had drives of 50, 8, 59, 65, and 48 yards. 1 punt, 1fg, 2mfg, 1 fumble. They needed more points so I don't even know what argument is trying to be made. I guess if they chewed up 3 more minutes of clock then they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at the end. Would that make you happy?
You do the math.
I'm not being ridiculous, they moved the ball fine in the 2nd half, took time off the clock, set up scoring opps for their kicker, and put their D in good field position even though they themselves were put in bad field position on every drive. Criticizing the play calling in the second half is crazy and doesn't make one ounce of sense. There is no way they could have taken off the 3 more minutes of clock needed to happen to stop the 49ers from taking the lead.You're being ridiculous and taking the other extreme. It's called balance. Fans have been screaming for years to run more because a balanced attack is less predictable and tougher to defend, and it actually makes play action effective. I don't think anyone is saying in the 2nd half they should run-run-run-punt. Just don't pass every damn play. You have one of the top running backs in the league and don't use him, how does that make sense?If they had chewed up more time they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at end, 49ers went ahead with 3 minutes left in the game! Sorry, but consistently having 60 yard drives does take time off the clock. Here is the math You have to stop the other team, there is no way around that. If you guys had your way you would be running the ball 3 and out and actually taking less time off the clock. Eagles may have lost by a couple TD's if that was the case. Time of Possession was close with 1. 49ers icing the game at the end, 2. 1 more drive, 3. Eagles D being swiss cheese. Also 49ers started all 3 TD drives on their own 20 yard line, so the offense did a good job of giving their defense good field position.I don't even know if this deserves a response, but I will go ahead. What happens when you throw the ball and its incomplete? The clock stops. What would you like to do when your up by 20 points? Take time off the clock. What happens to an opposing team when they can't get the ball in their hands? They don't score.Only Eagles fans complain about the play calling after 500 yards of offense. Second half where people say they should have run more they had drives of 50, 8, 59, 65, and 48 yards. 1 punt, 1fg, 2mfg, 1 fumble. They needed more points so I don't even know what argument is trying to be made. I guess if they chewed up 3 more minutes of clock then they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at the end. Would that make you happy?
You do the math.
Look at the damn stats. 6 incomplete passes and that doesn't even cover all the times they went out of bounds. Give 30 seconds per incomplete and there's your 3mins alone. Not to mention the fact that they ran 24 plays from the shotgun in the 2nd half, 17 of those while leading. 20 called pass plays to 6 run plays while leading. Of the 24 minutes before the Eagles lost the lead, they had the ball for 10 minutes. It speaks for itself. Running the ball even 6 more times would have eaten the clock and kept the niners offense off the field and that much more desperate when they came on.I'm not being ridiculous, they moved the ball fine in the 2nd half, took time off the clock, set up scoring opps for their kicker, and put their D in good field position even though they themselves were put in bad field position on every drive. Criticizing the play calling in the second half is crazy and doesn't make one ounce of sense. There is no way they could have taken off the 3 more minutes of clock needed to happen to stop the 49ers from taking the lead.You're being ridiculous and taking the other extreme. It's called balance. Fans have been screaming for years to run more because a balanced attack is less predictable and tougher to defend, and it actually makes play action effective. I don't think anyone is saying in the 2nd half they should run-run-run-punt. Just don't pass every damn play. You have one of the top running backs in the league and don't use him, how does that make sense?If they had chewed up more time they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at end, 49ers went ahead with 3 minutes left in the game! Sorry, but consistently having 60 yard drives does take time off the clock. Here is the math You have to stop the other team, there is no way around that. If you guys had your way you would be running the ball 3 and out and actually taking less time off the clock. Eagles may have lost by a couple TD's if that was the case. Time of Possession was close with 1. 49ers icing the game at the end, 2. 1 more drive, 3. Eagles D being swiss cheese. Also 49ers started all 3 TD drives on their own 20 yard line, so the offense did a good job of giving their defense good field position.I don't even know if this deserves a response, but I will go ahead. What happens when you throw the ball and its incomplete? The clock stops. What would you like to do when your up by 20 points? Take time off the clock. What happens to an opposing team when they can't get the ball in their hands? They don't score.Only Eagles fans complain about the play calling after 500 yards of offense. Second half where people say they should have run more they had drives of 50, 8, 59, 65, and 48 yards. 1 punt, 1fg, 2mfg, 1 fumble. They needed more points so I don't even know what argument is trying to be made. I guess if they chewed up 3 more minutes of clock then they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at the end. Would that make you happy?
You do the math.
See 2 post below, he is saying it, because there was a whole 6 in-completions.You're being ridiculous and taking the other extreme. It's called balance. Fans have been screaming for years to run more because a balanced attack is less predictable and tougher to defend, and it actually makes play action effective. I don't think anyone is saying in the 2nd half they should run-run-run-punt. Just don't pass every damn play. You have one of the top running backs in the league and don't use him, how does that make sense?If they had chewed up more time they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at end, 49ers went ahead with 3 minutes left in the game! Sorry, but consistently having 60 yard drives does take time off the clock. Here is the math You have to stop the other team, there is no way around that. If you guys had your way you would be running the ball 3 and out and actually taking less time off the clock. Eagles may have lost by a couple TD's if that was the case. Time of Possession was close with 1. 49ers icing the game at the end, 2. 1 more drive, 3. Eagles D being swiss cheese. Also 49ers started all 3 TD drives on their own 20 yard line, so the offense did a good job of giving their defense good field position.I don't even know if this deserves a response, but I will go ahead. What happens when you throw the ball and its incomplete? The clock stops. What would you like to do when your up by 20 points? Take time off the clock. What happens to an opposing team when they can't get the ball in their hands? They don't score.Only Eagles fans complain about the play calling after 500 yards of offense. Second half where people say they should have run more they had drives of 50, 8, 59, 65, and 48 yards. 1 punt, 1fg, 2mfg, 1 fumble. They needed more points so I don't even know what argument is trying to be made. I guess if they chewed up 3 more minutes of clock then they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at the end. Would that make you happy?
You do the math.
No it wouldn't because if they ran 6 more times, then they probably wouldn't have had 4 drives of 60 yards. First downs chew up more time then running a couple times and having to punt or having a couple less in-completions. If they ran more they wouldn't have given their kicker two easy chances to win the game, or turned around bad field position and given the 49ers bad field position. Also 3 minutes makes the Eagles lose with no time left to score. With everything we know now, we know it was the right move to stay aggressive, you can't sit on a lead when your defense gives up TDs every drive. The fact that you have all this after the fact information and if you could go back you would try and run the clock out is baffling to me. I'm glad you don't coach the Eagles.Look at the damn stats. 6 incomplete passes and that doesn't even cover all the times they went out of bounds. Give 30 seconds per incomplete and there's your 3mins alone. Not to mention the fact that they ran 24 plays from the shotgun in the 2nd half, 17 of those while leading. 20 called pass plays to 6 run plays while leading. Of the 24 minutes before the Eagles lost the lead, they had the ball for 10 minutes. It speaks for itself. Running the ball even 6 more times would have eaten the clock and kept the niners offense off the field and that much more desperate when they came on.I'm not being ridiculous, they moved the ball fine in the 2nd half, took time off the clock, set up scoring opps for their kicker, and put their D in good field position even though they themselves were put in bad field position on every drive. Criticizing the play calling in the second half is crazy and doesn't make one ounce of sense. There is no way they could have taken off the 3 more minutes of clock needed to happen to stop the 49ers from taking the lead.You're being ridiculous and taking the other extreme. It's called balance. Fans have been screaming for years to run more because a balanced attack is less predictable and tougher to defend, and it actually makes play action effective. I don't think anyone is saying in the 2nd half they should run-run-run-punt. Just don't pass every damn play. You have one of the top running backs in the league and don't use him, how does that make sense?If they had chewed up more time they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at end, 49ers went ahead with 3 minutes left in the game! Sorry, but consistently having 60 yard drives does take time off the clock. Here is the math You have to stop the other team, there is no way around that. If you guys had your way you would be running the ball 3 and out and actually taking less time off the clock. Eagles may have lost by a couple TD's if that was the case. Time of Possession was close with 1. 49ers icing the game at the end, 2. 1 more drive, 3. Eagles D being swiss cheese. Also 49ers started all 3 TD drives on their own 20 yard line, so the offense did a good job of giving their defense good field position.I don't even know if this deserves a response, but I will go ahead. What happens when you throw the ball and its incomplete? The clock stops. What would you like to do when your up by 20 points? Take time off the clock. What happens to an opposing team when they can't get the ball in their hands? They don't score.Only Eagles fans complain about the play calling after 500 yards of offense. Second half where people say they should have run more they had drives of 50, 8, 59, 65, and 48 yards. 1 punt, 1fg, 2mfg, 1 fumble. They needed more points so I don't even know what argument is trying to be made. I guess if they chewed up 3 more minutes of clock then they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at the end. Would that make you happy?
You do the math.
Dunlap is only starting because Justice still is hurt. They HAVE to put Watkins in, they have no other choice because DeVan looked pretty bad last game. Plus if the guy doesn't see any significant playing time, its going to be considered a HUGE bust by drafting him. So he has to play now. Still think it was a mistake drafting a 27yr old inexperienced guard in the 1st round. This Oline is patch work as hell. They are basically back having two rookies in the middle of the line, Kelce @ C & Watkins @ RG. I have absolutely no idea what would happen in Herremans or Dunlap go down because they have no OTs on the roster that can play ( Justice still hurt ). There depth on the Oline atm is Jamaal Jackson ( C ), Kyle DeVan ( G ) & Justin Vandervelde ( G ). There is a reason Herremans is starting RT, because Dunlap wasn't good enough. This has the potential to get reallly ugly.
Yea because the ones we have are doing a bang up job aren't they. Your complete lack of basic football understanding and clock management amazes me. As previous posters said, we're not talking run it into the line 3 times in a cloud of dust and punt. You have Shady McCoy, the most dynamic RB in the league right now. Use him on tosses or off tackle runs where the lineman are moving FORWARD and not BACKWARD. Who gets more of the punishment in pass protection, the OL or the DL? Who gets more punishment when its a designed run play? Exactly. You wear on a defense when 300lb lineman are coming at you instead of catching you. 20 point lead and the Eagles have to continue to be aggressive in the 3rd quarter? That's pretty much the worst coaching staff in football right there if you can't hang on to that.'crewmember said:No it wouldn't because if they ran 6 more times, then they probably wouldn't have had 4 drives of 60 yards. First downs chew up more time then running a couple times and having to punt or having a couple less in-completions. If they ran more they wouldn't have given their kicker two easy chances to win the game, or turned around bad field position and given the 49ers bad field position. Also 3 minutes makes the Eagles lose with no time left to score. With everything we know now, we know it was the right move to stay aggressive, you can't sit on a lead when your defense gives up TDs every drive. The fact that you have all this after the fact information and if you could go back you would try and run the clock out is baffling to me. I'm glad you don't coach the Eagles.'Insein said:Look at the damn stats. 6 incomplete passes and that doesn't even cover all the times they went out of bounds. Give 30 seconds per incomplete and there's your 3mins alone. Not to mention the fact that they ran 24 plays from the shotgun in the 2nd half, 17 of those while leading. 20 called pass plays to 6 run plays while leading. Of the 24 minutes before the Eagles lost the lead, they had the ball for 10 minutes. It speaks for itself. Running the ball even 6 more times would have eaten the clock and kept the niners offense off the field and that much more desperate when they came on.'crewmember said:I'm not being ridiculous, they moved the ball fine in the 2nd half, took time off the clock, set up scoring opps for their kicker, and put their D in good field position even though they themselves were put in bad field position on every drive. Criticizing the play calling in the second half is crazy and doesn't make one ounce of sense. There is no way they could have taken off the 3 more minutes of clock needed to happen to stop the 49ers from taking the lead.'jasvic said:You're being ridiculous and taking the other extreme. It's called balance. Fans have been screaming for years to run more because a balanced attack is less predictable and tougher to defend, and it actually makes play action effective. I don't think anyone is saying in the 2nd half they should run-run-run-punt. Just don't pass every damn play. You have one of the top running backs in the league and don't use him, how does that make sense?'crewmember said:If they had chewed up more time they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at end, 49ers went ahead with 3 minutes left in the game! Sorry, but consistently having 60 yard drives does take time off the clock. Here is the math You have to stop the other team, there is no way around that. If you guys had your way you would be running the ball 3 and out and actually taking less time off the clock. Eagles may have lost by a couple TD's if that was the case. Time of Possession was close with 1. 49ers icing the game at the end, 2. 1 more drive, 3. Eagles D being swiss cheese. Also 49ers started all 3 TD drives on their own 20 yard line, so the offense did a good job of giving their defense good field position.I don't even know if this deserves a response, but I will go ahead. What happens when you throw the ball and its incomplete? The clock stops. What would you like to do when your up by 20 points? Take time off the clock. What happens to an opposing team when they can't get the ball in their hands? They don't score.Only Eagles fans complain about the play calling after 500 yards of offense. Second half where people say they should have run more they had drives of 50, 8, 59, 65, and 48 yards. 1 punt, 1fg, 2mfg, 1 fumble. They needed more points so I don't even know what argument is trying to be made. I guess if they chewed up 3 more minutes of clock then they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at the end. Would that make you happy?
You do the math.
They ran quite a bit in the 2nd half of the NYG game (15 runs vs 8 pass before Kafka came in and they were down 2 scores), which also resulted in a loss. Not sure the answer is as simple as you claim - and really no need to insult those holding an opinion different than yours. I am finding their failure to make basic tackles more disturbing and problematic than anything Andy/Marty is doing with the play calling . If anything, the fact that they lost 3 games in a row after holding the lead in the 2nd half should confirm that they should stay aggessive in the 2nd half.Yea because the ones we have are doing a bang up job aren't they. Your complete lack of basic football understanding and clock management amazes me. As previous posters said, we're not talking run it into the line 3 times in a cloud of dust and punt. You have Shady McCoy, the most dynamic RB in the league right now. Use him on tosses or off tackle runs where the lineman are moving FORWARD and not BACKWARD. Who gets more of the punishment in pass protection, the OL or the DL? Who gets more punishment when its a designed run play? Exactly. You wear on a defense when 300lb lineman are coming at you instead of catching you. 20 point lead and the Eagles have to continue to be aggressive in the 3rd quarter? That's pretty much the worst coaching staff in football right there if you can't hang on to that.'crewmember said:No it wouldn't because if they ran 6 more times, then they probably wouldn't have had 4 drives of 60 yards. First downs chew up more time then running a couple times and having to punt or having a couple less in-completions. If they ran more they wouldn't have given their kicker two easy chances to win the game, or turned around bad field position and given the 49ers bad field position. Also 3 minutes makes the Eagles lose with no time left to score. With everything we know now, we know it was the right move to stay aggressive, you can't sit on a lead when your defense gives up TDs every drive. The fact that you have all this after the fact information and if you could go back you would try and run the clock out is baffling to me. I'm glad you don't coach the Eagles.'Insein said:Look at the damn stats. 6 incomplete passes and that doesn't even cover all the times they went out of bounds. Give 30 seconds per incomplete and there's your 3mins alone. Not to mention the fact that they ran 24 plays from the shotgun in the 2nd half, 17 of those while leading. 20 called pass plays to 6 run plays while leading. Of the 24 minutes before the Eagles lost the lead, they had the ball for 10 minutes. It speaks for itself. Running the ball even 6 more times would have eaten the clock and kept the niners offense off the field and that much more desperate when they came on.'crewmember said:I'm not being ridiculous, they moved the ball fine in the 2nd half, took time off the clock, set up scoring opps for their kicker, and put their D in good field position even though they themselves were put in bad field position on every drive. Criticizing the play calling in the second half is crazy and doesn't make one ounce of sense. There is no way they could have taken off the 3 more minutes of clock needed to happen to stop the 49ers from taking the lead.'jasvic said:You're being ridiculous and taking the other extreme. It's called balance. Fans have been screaming for years to run more because a balanced attack is less predictable and tougher to defend, and it actually makes play action effective. I don't think anyone is saying in the 2nd half they should run-run-run-punt. Just don't pass every damn play. You have one of the top running backs in the league and don't use him, how does that make sense?'crewmember said:If they had chewed up more time they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at end, 49ers went ahead with 3 minutes left in the game! Sorry, but consistently having 60 yard drives does take time off the clock. Here is the math You have to stop the other team, there is no way around that. If you guys had your way you would be running the ball 3 and out and actually taking less time off the clock. Eagles may have lost by a couple TD's if that was the case. Time of Possession was close with 1. 49ers icing the game at the end, 2. 1 more drive, 3. Eagles D being swiss cheese. Also 49ers started all 3 TD drives on their own 20 yard line, so the offense did a good job of giving their defense good field position.I don't even know if this deserves a response, but I will go ahead. What happens when you throw the ball and its incomplete? The clock stops. What would you like to do when your up by 20 points? Take time off the clock. What happens to an opposing team when they can't get the ball in their hands? They don't score.Only Eagles fans complain about the play calling after 500 yards of offense. Second half where people say they should have run more they had drives of 50, 8, 59, 65, and 48 yards. 1 punt, 1fg, 2mfg, 1 fumble. They needed more points so I don't even know what argument is trying to be made. I guess if they chewed up 3 more minutes of clock then they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at the end. Would that make you happy?
You do the math.
No doubt the defense is awful (coaching scheme). But the niners had the worst offense in the league coming in. You're up by 20. Theres a difference between being aggressive and being wreckless. They threw 8 passes of the 20 before they lost the lead that were deemed "short." Three of those were incomplete. There were no screen passes attempted. The offense and the playcalling is just as much to blame as the defense. Getting outscored 36-0 in the 4th quarter is a 2 way street.They ran quite a bit in the 2nd half of the NYG game (15 runs vs 8 pass before Kafka came in and they were down 2 scores), which also resulted in a loss. Not sure the answer is as simple as you claim - and really no need to insult those holding an opinion different than yours. I am finding their failure to make basic tackles more disturbing and problematic than anything Andy/Marty is doing with the play calling . If anything, the fact that they lost 3 games in a row after holding the lead in the 2nd half should confirm that they should stay aggessive in the 2nd half.Yea because the ones we have are doing a bang up job aren't they. Your complete lack of basic football understanding and clock management amazes me. As previous posters said, we're not talking run it into the line 3 times in a cloud of dust and punt. You have Shady McCoy, the most dynamic RB in the league right now. Use him on tosses or off tackle runs where the lineman are moving FORWARD and not BACKWARD. Who gets more of the punishment in pass protection, the OL or the DL? Who gets more punishment when its a designed run play? Exactly. You wear on a defense when 300lb lineman are coming at you instead of catching you. 20 point lead and the Eagles have to continue to be aggressive in the 3rd quarter? That's pretty much the worst coaching staff in football right there if you can't hang on to that.'crewmember said:No it wouldn't because if they ran 6 more times, then they probably wouldn't have had 4 drives of 60 yards. First downs chew up more time then running a couple times and having to punt or having a couple less in-completions. If they ran more they wouldn't have given their kicker two easy chances to win the game, or turned around bad field position and given the 49ers bad field position. Also 3 minutes makes the Eagles lose with no time left to score. With everything we know now, we know it was the right move to stay aggressive, you can't sit on a lead when your defense gives up TDs every drive. The fact that you have all this after the fact information and if you could go back you would try and run the clock out is baffling to me. I'm glad you don't coach the Eagles.'Insein said:Look at the damn stats. 6 incomplete passes and that doesn't even cover all the times they went out of bounds. Give 30 seconds per incomplete and there's your 3mins alone. Not to mention the fact that they ran 24 plays from the shotgun in the 2nd half, 17 of those while leading. 20 called pass plays to 6 run plays while leading. Of the 24 minutes before the Eagles lost the lead, they had the ball for 10 minutes. It speaks for itself. Running the ball even 6 more times would have eaten the clock and kept the niners offense off the field and that much more desperate when they came on.'crewmember said:I'm not being ridiculous, they moved the ball fine in the 2nd half, took time off the clock, set up scoring opps for their kicker, and put their D in good field position even though they themselves were put in bad field position on every drive. Criticizing the play calling in the second half is crazy and doesn't make one ounce of sense. There is no way they could have taken off the 3 more minutes of clock needed to happen to stop the 49ers from taking the lead.'jasvic said:You're being ridiculous and taking the other extreme. It's called balance. Fans have been screaming for years to run more because a balanced attack is less predictable and tougher to defend, and it actually makes play action effective. I don't think anyone is saying in the 2nd half they should run-run-run-punt. Just don't pass every damn play. You have one of the top running backs in the league and don't use him, how does that make sense?'crewmember said:If they had chewed up more time they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at end, 49ers went ahead with 3 minutes left in the game! Sorry, but consistently having 60 yard drives does take time off the clock. Here is the math You have to stop the other team, there is no way around that. If you guys had your way you would be running the ball 3 and out and actually taking less time off the clock. Eagles may have lost by a couple TD's if that was the case. Time of Possession was close with 1. 49ers icing the game at the end, 2. 1 more drive, 3. Eagles D being swiss cheese. Also 49ers started all 3 TD drives on their own 20 yard line, so the offense did a good job of giving their defense good field position.I don't even know if this deserves a response, but I will go ahead. What happens when you throw the ball and its incomplete? The clock stops. What would you like to do when your up by 20 points? Take time off the clock. What happens to an opposing team when they can't get the ball in their hands? They don't score.Only Eagles fans complain about the play calling after 500 yards of offense. Second half where people say they should have run more they had drives of 50, 8, 59, 65, and 48 yards. 1 punt, 1fg, 2mfg, 1 fumble. They needed more points so I don't even know what argument is trying to be made. I guess if they chewed up 3 more minutes of clock then they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at the end. Would that make you happy?
You do the math.
Thats what Ive been saying. How bad can he be? Worse than Page or coleman? I doubt it.
not saying I fully disagree, just that I think there is more to it than just "run the ball more". I would suspect Andy is/was keenly aware that the defense had blown two 2nd half leads in the prior weeks - he may have thought it was a better plan to just bury the niners (which they were successfully doing in the 1st half) rather than expecting the defense to hold the lead, which they have shown unable to do thus far. It wasn't as if they weren't moving the ball, burning the clock, getting 1st downs throwing it. Heck, if they converted even 50% of their red zone visits and/or made a stop or two on D; that game could/should have been a blow out. McCoy averaged 2 ypc Sunday, not sure how much better off they would have been running more on that particular day. IMO their problem is more about the players playing sound fundemental football on both sides of the ball, including their horrid efforts in the red zone on O & D.As an aside, ESPN noted it was the first time in Eagles history that they had 500 yards on offense and lost the gameNo doubt the defense is awful (coaching scheme). But the niners had the worst offense in the league coming in. You're up by 20. Theres a difference between being aggressive and being wreckless. They threw 8 passes of the 20 before they lost the lead that were deemed "short." Three of those were incomplete. There were no screen passes attempted. The offense and the playcalling is just as much to blame as the defense. Getting outscored 36-0 in the 4th quarter is a 2 way street.They ran quite a bit in the 2nd half of the NYG game (15 runs vs 8 pass before Kafka came in and they were down 2 scores), which also resulted in a loss. Not sure the answer is as simple as you claim - and really no need to insult those holding an opinion different than yours. I am finding their failure to make basic tackles more disturbing and problematic than anything Andy/Marty is doing with the play calling . If anything, the fact that they lost 3 games in a row after holding the lead in the 2nd half should confirm that they should stay aggessive in the 2nd half.Yea because the ones we have are doing a bang up job aren't they. Your complete lack of basic football understanding and clock management amazes me. As previous posters said, we're not talking run it into the line 3 times in a cloud of dust and punt. You have Shady McCoy, the most dynamic RB in the league right now. Use him on tosses or off tackle runs where the lineman are moving FORWARD and not BACKWARD. Who gets more of the punishment in pass protection, the OL or the DL? Who gets more punishment when its a designed run play? Exactly. You wear on a defense when 300lb lineman are coming at you instead of catching you. 20 point lead and the Eagles have to continue to be aggressive in the 3rd quarter? That's pretty much the worst coaching staff in football right there if you can't hang on to that.'crewmember said:No it wouldn't because if they ran 6 more times, then they probably wouldn't have had 4 drives of 60 yards. First downs chew up more time then running a couple times and having to punt or having a couple less in-completions. If they ran more they wouldn't have given their kicker two easy chances to win the game, or turned around bad field position and given the 49ers bad field position. Also 3 minutes makes the Eagles lose with no time left to score. With everything we know now, we know it was the right move to stay aggressive, you can't sit on a lead when your defense gives up TDs every drive. The fact that you have all this after the fact information and if you could go back you would try and run the clock out is baffling to me. I'm glad you don't coach the Eagles.'Insein said:Look at the damn stats. 6 incomplete passes and that doesn't even cover all the times they went out of bounds. Give 30 seconds per incomplete and there's your 3mins alone. Not to mention the fact that they ran 24 plays from the shotgun in the 2nd half, 17 of those while leading. 20 called pass plays to 6 run plays while leading. Of the 24 minutes before the Eagles lost the lead, they had the ball for 10 minutes. It speaks for itself. Running the ball even 6 more times would have eaten the clock and kept the niners offense off the field and that much more desperate when they came on.'crewmember said:I'm not being ridiculous, they moved the ball fine in the 2nd half, took time off the clock, set up scoring opps for their kicker, and put their D in good field position even though they themselves were put in bad field position on every drive. Criticizing the play calling in the second half is crazy and doesn't make one ounce of sense. There is no way they could have taken off the 3 more minutes of clock needed to happen to stop the 49ers from taking the lead.'jasvic said:You're being ridiculous and taking the other extreme. It's called balance. Fans have been screaming for years to run more because a balanced attack is less predictable and tougher to defend, and it actually makes play action effective. I don't think anyone is saying in the 2nd half they should run-run-run-punt. Just don't pass every damn play. You have one of the top running backs in the league and don't use him, how does that make sense?'crewmember said:If they had chewed up more time they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at end, 49ers went ahead with 3 minutes left in the game! Sorry, but consistently having 60 yard drives does take time off the clock. Here is the math You have to stop the other team, there is no way around that. If you guys had your way you would be running the ball 3 and out and actually taking less time off the clock. Eagles may have lost by a couple TD's if that was the case. Time of Possession was close with 1. 49ers icing the game at the end, 2. 1 more drive, 3. Eagles D being swiss cheese. Also 49ers started all 3 TD drives on their own 20 yard line, so the offense did a good job of giving their defense good field position.I don't even know if this deserves a response, but I will go ahead. What happens when you throw the ball and its incomplete? The clock stops. What would you like to do when your up by 20 points? Take time off the clock. What happens to an opposing team when they can't get the ball in their hands? They don't score.Only Eagles fans complain about the play calling after 500 yards of offense. Second half where people say they should have run more they had drives of 50, 8, 59, 65, and 48 yards. 1 punt, 1fg, 2mfg, 1 fumble. They needed more points so I don't even know what argument is trying to be made. I guess if they chewed up 3 more minutes of clock then they wouldn't have had a shot to win the game at the end. Would that make you happy?
You do the math.
Thanks for posting the link. Mark Eckel is usually pretty candid about the Eagles. He's not the Eagles beat reporter for The Times (anymore) and is an admitted Packers fan. I don't know if he carries any bias towards the team, but he certainly does not subscribe to the "Andy-Reid-for-life" theory.I thought this blurb from this week's Random Shots was interesting...it was Deion Sanders in regards to Romo, but I can relate it to Reid as well.
I can live with the rest of those. Ostracizing a rookie kicker with obvious potential would be counter-productive.
