Sshhhh! The real reason the Eagles are winning without McNabb... (1 Viewer)

[JaxBill]

... they're now RUNNING the ball. Garcia is doing a great job, but Reid has finally come to the realization that he has to run the ball.McNabb was injured in the Eagles' 10th game. Let's look at the RB rushing attempts:Westbrook Games 1-10 - 141 rushes in 9 games (missed Week 4) = ~ 17 rushes per game.Buckhalter Games 1-10 - 56 rushes in 10 games = 5.6 rushes per gameWestbrook Games 11-15 - 98 rushes in 5 games = ~20 rushes per gameBuckhalter Games 1-10 - 26 rushes in 5 games = 5.2 rushes per gameSo basically Buckhalter's rushes have been steady but Westbrook is running the ball 3 time more a game.What about passing attempts?In his 10 starts, McNabb averaged 31 attempts per game.In his 5 starts (not counting Week 10 when he took over mid-game for McNabb), Garcia has averaged 27 attempts per game.(These attempts do not include sacks or times when the QB has tucked and ran).Three more rushes and four less pass attempts per game might not sound like much, but it shifts the balance.When McNabb starts - 22 RB rushes / (22 + 31 pass attempts) = running the ball 41.5 percent of the plays.When Garcia starts - 25 RB rushes / (25 + 27 pass attempts) = running the ball 48 percent of the plays.I know some of it is the chicken or the egg argument - Are they wiining because they're running the ball or are they running the ball because they're winning?Here are a couple of play calls from the Eagles first possession last night:

3-1-PHI32 (7:59) B.Westbrook right end pushed ob at PHI 48 for 16 yards (A.Henry). 3-1-DAL28 (4:45) C.Buckhalter left guard to DAL 25 for 3 yards (M.Spears).

Big deal, it's third and short, huh? Look at the Eagles only 3rd and 1 they had the last time they played the Cowboys:

3-1-PHI29 (11:25) D.McNabb pass incomplete short right to L.Smith (R.Williams).

Everyone is talking about Garcia(who is doing a very good job), but it sure looks like the Eagles are trying to establish the run and go with a more balanced attack.

 

[JAA]

Its been defense ans special teams. Not the offense.

 

[fred_1_15301]

... they're now RUNNING the ball. Garcia is doing a great job, but Reid has finally come to the realization that he has to run the ball.McNabb was injured in the Eagles' 10th game. Let's look at the RB rushing attempts:Westbrook Games 1-10 - 141 rushes in 9 games (missed Week 4) = ~ 17 rushes per game.Buckhalter Games 1-10 - 56 rushes in 10 games = 5.6 rushes per gameWestbrook Games 11-15 - 98 rushes in 5 games = ~20 rushes per gameBuckhalter Games 1-10 - 26 rushes in 5 games = 5.2 rushes per gameSo basically Buckhalter's rushes have been steady but Westbrook is running the ball 3 time more a game.What about passing attempts?In his 10 starts, McNabb averaged 31 attempts per game.In his 5 starts (not counting Week 10 when he took over mid-game for McNabb), Garcia has averaged 27 attempts per game.(These attempts do not include sacks or times when the QB has tucked and ran).Three more rushes and four less pass attempts per game might not sound like much, but it shifts the balance.When McNabb starts - 22 RB rushes / (22 + 31 pass attempts) = running the ball 41.5 percent of the plays.When Garcia starts - 25 RB rushes / (25 + 27 pass attempts) = running the ball 48 percent of the plays.I know some of it is the chicken or the egg argument - Are they wiining because they're running the ball or are they running the ball because they're winning?Here are a couple of play calls from the Eagles first possession last night:

3-1-PHI32 (7:59) B.Westbrook right end pushed ob at PHI 48 for 16 yards (A.Henry). 3-1-DAL28 (4:45) C.Buckhalter left guard to DAL 25 for 3 yards (M.Spears).

Big deal, it's third and short, huh? Look at the Eagles only 3rd and 1 they had the last time they played the Cowboys:

3-1-PHI29 (11:25) D.McNabb pass incomplete short right to L.Smith (R.Williams).

Everyone is talking about Garcia(who is doing a very good job), but it sure looks like the Eagles are trying to establish the run and go with a more balanced attack.

Garcia is a brilliant WC qb and is managing the game really well but the Eagles are winning because they are committing more to the run. I certainly don't think they are a better team without McNabb but his injury has truly allowed Reid to see the light so to speak. In a weak NFC, the Eagles could make a splash in the playoffs especially if their D continues to improve.

 

[stevegamer]

What this run does is expose the fact that McNabb is NOT the most valuable Eagle on offense. That would be Brian Westbrook - who was returning punts last night to boot.

 

[Slider]

Are you kidding me? You think the reason they're winning is because they run it 4 times a game more?

You might want to check out their first 5 games and see how that all worked....

They have a real QB in now and the D is playing better.

 

[omally]

Its been defense ans special teams. Not the offense.

The offense has done well whether you want to give them credit or not.

 

[Despyzer]

Its been defense ans special teams. Not the offense.

The offense has done well whether you want to give them credit or not.

If this is the case, how much credit goes to new offensive coordinator Marty Mornhinweg?

 

[JAA]

Its been defense ans special teams. Not the offense.

The offense has done well whether you want to give them credit or not.

Please re-read the thread topic. The qestion is "The real reason the Eagles are winning now". The answer is not the offense or the number of running plays.

 

[JaxBill]

Its been defense ans special teams. Not the offense.

The offense has done well whether you want to give them credit or not.

Please re-read the thread topic. The qestion is "The real reason the Eagles are winning now". The answer is not the offense or the number of running plays.

And the defense has benefitted from extended rest during the games.The Eagles' first 2 scoring drives: 13 plays, 89 yards 7 minutes 12 seconds & 12 plays 89 yards 7 minutes 36 seconds.It's a little easier for the Eagles maligned run defense to stay fresh when they can take half of a quarter off.

 

[suchislife]

Without looking up a bunch of stats and numbers (its the morning after Xmas, can't deal with numbers right now), the Eagles are winning because they can stop the run and are more committed to the run on offense. Just watch the games....move away from your computers and just watch. Its that simple.

As I've mentioned in other threads, how soon people foget the MVP-like season McNabb was having. Scoring and QB play was not the reason for a 5-6 start - the defense was.

 

[suchislife]

Its been defense ans special teams. Not the offense.

The offense has done well whether you want to give them credit or not.

Please re-read the thread topic. The qestion is "The real reason the Eagles are winning now". The answer is not the offense or the number of running plays.

And the defense has benefitted from extended rest during the games.The Eagles' first 2 scoring drives: 13 plays, 89 yards 7 minutes 12 seconds & 12 plays 89 yards 7 minutes 36 seconds.

It's a little easier for the Eagles maligned run defense to stay fresh when they can take half of a quarter off.

Excellent point as well. Anyone who watched the game saw some of the Eagles best offense in those 2 series. As Madden put it, they were efficient. And the breakdown for those 2 scoring drives was 14 runs, 10 passes. 58% running plays. Certainly helps to rest your defense.

 

[omally]

Its been defense ans special teams. Not the offense.

The offense has done well whether you want to give them credit or not.

Please re-read the thread topic. The qestion is "The real reason the Eagles are winning now". The answer is not the offense or the number of running plays.

I never said anything about the number of running plays, and I read the thread topic. The offense does have something to do with why the Eagles are winning now. The team as a whole is playing well, and that includes the offense.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I will say Westbrook has almost completely proven himself as a between the tackles, meat and potatoes RB, and he's stayed healthy since taking over that role, upping his status to a mid first round pick next year in the process.

 

[BGP]

It might have something to do with the fact that they are controlling the line of scrimmage. They have a good OL. Jeff Garcia played behind a crappy OL in Cleveland , and surprise! He looked washed up. Now he's behind a quality OL and suddenly everyone thinks his career has been resurrected.

 

[Slider]

All you McNabb apologists need to give it up. You had him as a top 5 star in the league. He's out and this team is playing great football. That's not supposed to happen. You can point to any other thing you want but but lay off the McNabb stuff. He was average and made a lot of mistakes. Maybe the D is playing better because Garcia is managing the game better and not taking stupid sacks and throwing costly int's. Let's not forget 17 players on D showed up at Owens' party. Let's also not forget they partied with him the other night.

 

[StormChasers]

Its been defense ans special teams. Not the offense.

I'll dis-agree with this somewhat. It has been the defense but it's because of the change in time of posession that the Defense has begun to play better. This surely has to do with the running game increase:In the Games in which McNabb started the Eagles won Time of Possession 2 times. In the games in which the Eagles lost ToP it wasn't even close. The Defense was just tired with all the time they spent on the field. They have won ToP more in the last 5 weeks then they did in the first 10 weeks of the season.The Defense is playing better but I believe a part of it has to do with the Offense and it's ability to run the ball and sustain drives.

 

[BoulderBob]

The passing game hasn't missed a beat with Garcia behind center, and the defense continues to improve.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Maybe the D is playing better because Garcia is managing the game better and not taking stupid sacks and throwing costly int's.

McNabb throws less INTs than almost anybody. The past three seasons, McNabb has throwns fewer INTs per attempt than anyone but Peyton Manning.

 

[Slider]

Maybe the D is playing better because Garcia is managing the game better and not taking stupid sacks and throwing costly int's.

McNabb throws less INTs than almost anybody. The past three seasons, McNabb has throwns fewer INTs per attempt than anyone but Peyton Manning.

Right because he holds it forever. How has he done in sacks taken? Top 2? How about Manning?

 

[parasaurolophus]

... they're now RUNNING the ball. Garcia is doing a great job, but Reid has finally come to the realization that he has to run the ball.McNabb was injured in the Eagles' 10th game. Let's look at the RB rushing attempts:Westbrook Games 1-10 - 141 rushes in 9 games (missed Week 4) = ~ 17 rushes per game.Buckhalter Games 1-10 - 56 rushes in 10 games = 5.6 rushes per gameWestbrook Games 11-15 - 98 rushes in 5 games = ~20 rushes per gameBuckhalter Games 1-10 - 26 rushes in 5 games = 5.2 rushes per gameSo basically Buckhalter's rushes have been steady but Westbrook is running the ball 3 time more a game.What about passing attempts?In his 10 starts, McNabb averaged 31 attempts per game.In his 5 starts (not counting Week 10 when he took over mid-game for McNabb), Garcia has averaged 27 attempts per game.(These attempts do not include sacks or times when the QB has tucked and ran).Three more rushes and four less pass attempts per game might not sound like much, but it shifts the balance.When McNabb starts - 22 RB rushes / (22 + 31 pass attempts) = running the ball 41.5 percent of the plays.When Garcia starts - 25 RB rushes / (25 + 27 pass attempts) = running the ball 48 percent of the plays.I know some of it is the chicken or the egg argument - Are they wiining because they're running the ball or are they running the ball because they're winning?Here are a couple of play calls from the Eagles first possession last night:

3-1-PHI32 (7:59) B.Westbrook right end pushed ob at PHI 48 for 16 yards (A.Henry). 3-1-DAL28 (4:45) C.Buckhalter left guard to DAL 25 for 3 yards (M.Spears).

Big deal, it's third and short, huh? Look at the Eagles only 3rd and 1 they had the last time they played the Cowboys:

3-1-PHI29 (11:25) D.McNabb pass incomplete short right to L.Smith (R.Williams).

Everyone is talking about Garcia(who is doing a very good job), but it sure looks like the Eagles are trying to establish the run and go with a more balanced attack.

I will respectfully disagree. I dont really buy that they are that much more committed to the run, and thats why they are winning. They are on a 4 game win streak. They have looked very good.However against tennesee(where garcia took over) they ran 30 times. They scored 13 points and lost. Against Indy they ran 25 times. They lost. Against Carolina they ran 27 times(3 of which were kneel downs) and they won. Garcia had 312 yds and 3 tds. The running game generated a whole 98 yds. I am gonna go ahead and say they didnt win because of the run here.Against the redskins they ran 22 times for again for a whole 99 yards. They won 21-19 mostly because the defense didnt give up TDs and scored a return TD.Against the Giants the Running game did awesome, 30 carries for 161 yds. However dont forget Garcia still had to bring them back from behind in the 4th and the defense scored a return TD to ice it.Against Dallas they had 42 carries for 204 yds. They ran, ran and ran some more. The defense only gave up 7 points and 201 yds. They were running the ball great in the first quarter, so i will definitely give the running game credit for part of this victory. But Anytime your defense puts the clamps on like that, you will run a lot. You will also win a lot.Lets not also forget the way the eagles lost some of those games. 62 yd FG at buzzer. FG at buzzer to New Orleans. OT to the giants. And then the 2 games, I already mentioned, where they ran plenty and still got crushed because they couldnt stop anybody on defense. I think this team just had a bit of bad luck in the middle of the season, gave up some crucial big plays, got unlucky by some fluke things, and was poorly coached for a stretch as well. But to give credit to the fact that they are running 3 more times per game, really just doesnt fit into the equation i think. But again, I could be wrong.

 

[JAA]

Its been defense ans special teams. Not the offense.

The offense has done well whether you want to give them credit or not.

Please re-read the thread topic. The qestion is "The real reason the Eagles are winning now". The answer is not the offense or the number of running plays.

And the defense has benefitted from extended rest during the games.The Eagles' first 2 scoring drives: 13 plays, 89 yards 7 minutes 12 seconds & 12 plays 89 yards 7 minutes 36 seconds.It's a little easier for the Eagles maligned run defense to stay fresh when they can take half of a quarter off.

Im sure we both have watched the games, but I have never noticed any fatique issues. Its been pressure on the QB and DL getting off of blocks. While Im not saying rest isnt part of that, what I have noticed is better technique in the trenches and more weakside blitzes.

 

[Pole Cat]

As a Birds fan and someone who watches every second of every game, I'll have to agree with much of what has been posted. They are much more balanced now and this keeps the defense off the field and fresh. The difference isn't just in the number of rushes, but how effective they are running the ball. Westbrook and Buckhalter are picking up big chunks running behind a behemoth O-Line that has begun to gel. Andrews just keeps getting better and better. It is so refreshing to see them picking up short yardage situations and sustaining drives. Jimmie Johnson's willingness to become more aggressive has helped the D too.

 

[JAA]

All you McNabb apologists need to give it up. You had him as a top 5 star in the league. He's out and this team is playing great football. That's not supposed to happen. You can point to any other thing you want but but lay off the McNabb stuff. He was average and made a lot of mistakes. Maybe the D is playing better because Garcia is managing the game better and not taking stupid sacks and throwing costly int's. Let's not forget 17 players on D showed up at Owens' party. Let's also not forget they partied with him the other night.

The Eagles are a system team. Do you remember when McNabb was out a couple years ago and Koy and Feeley ran the show? This is not new.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I know some of it is the chicken or the egg argument - Are they winning because they're running the ball or are they running the ball because they're winning?

In Eagles wins...McNabb: 31.40 PA/G, 25.00 RA/G, 31.6 PF/G, 14.0 PA/GGarcia: 28.25 PA/G, 30.5 RA/G, 26.75 PF/G, 18.0 PA/GThe sample sizes are pretty small here, so I'd be hesitant to draw any conclusions from those data.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

The real reason the Eagles are winning is because of their offensive line. They are big, strong and most importantly healthy.

The most underrated thing talked about in the NFL is the offensive line. If you have a good offensive line, you are in ANY ballgame. The way the Eagles cam move the ball on long drives and eat up clock, they can neutralize another team's good offense.

I'm not counting Philly out of anything with the way their line has been playing the last few weeks. My pick in the NFC is the Saints, but I wouldn't be surprised if Philly wins a few close games in the playoffs either.

 

[Sludge]

I'm not sure what it is and as a fan I really don't care as long as they win but it is nice to see a Qb out there with a little fire in his belly.

 

[Slider]

Maybe the D is playing better because Garcia is managing the game better and not taking stupid sacks and throwing costly int's.

McNabb throws less INTs than almost anybody. The past three seasons, McNabb has throwns fewer INTs per attempt than anyone but Peyton Manning.

Right because he holds it forever. How has he done in sacks taken? Top 2? How about Manning?

Chase, have you dug up that info?

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I'm not sure what it is and as a fan I really don't care as long as they win but it is nice to see a Qb out there with a little fire in his belly.

I know this is a slight hijack so excuse me but I had to mention it since you mention the QB. I too see the fire in Garcia.........and as a Detroit native, we brought him in to do the same thing. But, according to Detroit and their coaches, he was done, washed up. He couldn't throw the long ball, no longer could get around like he once did.....injury proned. Now watching him in Philly it's mind boggling.You look at Joey Harrington. Yes, he got pulled. Put just a couple of weeks ago he was on a 4 or 5 game winning streak with that team. But yet in Detroit, he was booed out of the stadium each week before the offense took a snap.I look at Marty Morniweg (sp?). He used to be the Lions head coach but was basically tarred and feathered out of Detroit as someone who didn't know a thing about football. That he was a joke of a coach........now he's the offensive coordinator for Philly and they look great.The Detroit Lions are the joke, the joke of the entire league.Sorry, hijack ends. I didn't want to make an entire thread about the Lions, they aren't worth it.

 

[BGP]

I know some of it is the chicken or the egg argument - Are they winning because they're running the ball or are they running the ball because they're winning?

In Eagles wins...McNabb: 31.40 PA/G, 25.00 RA/G, 31.6 PF/G, 14.0 PA/GGarcia: 28.25 PA/G, 30.5 RA/G, 26.75 PF/G, 18.0 PA/GThe sample sizes are pretty small here, so I'd be hesitant to draw any conclusions from those data.

The sample sizes usually are too small in the NFL. There just aren't enough games. It often comes down to drawing conclusions based on limited intel.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

It might have something to do with the fact that they are controlling the line of scrimmage. They have a good OL. Jeff Garcia played behind a crappy OL in Cleveland , and surprise! He looked washed up. Now he's behind a quality OL and suddenly everyone thinks his career has been resurrected.

Can you tuck that thought in a bottle and keep it on hand for the upcoming off season because this is the most over looked fact in almost any discussion on these boards. Tomlinson is trmendous but the rookie LT that has been blowing open trailer truck wide holes on the left side could be part of the reason he broke so many records this year. The OL makes a decent QB look good/great, and an average RB look good/great as well.

 

[scorchy]

Maybe the D is playing better because Garcia is managing the game better and not taking stupid sacks and throwing costly int's.

McNabb throws less INTs than almost anybody. The past three seasons, McNabb has throwns fewer INTs per attempt than anyone but Peyton Manning.

Right because he holds it forever. How has he done in sacks taken? Top 2? How about Manning?

Chase, have you dug up that info?

McNabb took 21 sacks in 10 starts this year (which is more than years past), so pro-rate to 30 in 15 games. In comparison, Kitna has taken 58, Bulger 49, Walter 48, Roethlisberger 45. Even Brady has taken 25. Manning only has 14, and Garcia 6. So right now, Garcia takes one less sack per game than McNabb. Certainly helps the offense, but doesn't lend a ton of credence to your "McNabb is terrible" hypothesis.

 

[Mark Wimer]

It might have something to do with the fact that they are controlling the line of scrimmage. They have a good OL. Jeff Garcia played behind a crappy OL in Cleveland , and surprise! He looked washed up. Now he's behind a quality OL and suddenly everyone thinks his career has been resurrected.

Excellent point. True story about the Philadelphia/Dallas game last night - one of my kids' godparents was in visiting for Christmas, and he never watches football. Just isn't his thing - he's a fanatic baseball fan and that's where he knows tons of stats, etc - but anyway, he's sitting on the sofa with me watching the game 'cuz it is on the tube and he says "Man, the Eagle's OL is just dominating Dallas! Did you see them shove those guys off the line? Garcia has a ton of time to pass, too!"

This from a guy who doesn't know a guard from a tackle from a center.

My point is that if this guy who doesn't know or care about football at all notices the complete domination at the line of scrimmage, it is just off the charts. And it is. The entire Eagles team has elevated their game during this 3-game divisional road trip. It has been a thing of beauty to watch, and I am not an Eagles fan.

Those that are have to be loving life right now: how often does a team sweep a 3-game road series from all divisional opponents? It can't have happened very often in NFL history...let me ask Dr. Drinen and I'll post how often if he can suss it out of the DB....

Kudos to the Eagles and Andy Reid, who appropriately said after the huge win last night:

"We thought it would be a cakewalk," he said with a wry smile (referring to the brutal schedule - MW). "Every one of those games has been huge. The guys have buckled down against some good teams. Our players knew what was ahead of them. Everybody really pulled closer together."

 

[Slider]

Maybe the D is playing better because Garcia is managing the game better and not taking stupid sacks and throwing costly int's.

McNabb throws less INTs than almost anybody. The past three seasons, McNabb has throwns fewer INTs per attempt than anyone but Peyton Manning.

Right because he holds it forever. How has he done in sacks taken? Top 2? How about Manning?

Chase, have you dug up that info?

McNabb took 21 sacks in 10 starts this year (which is more than years past), so pro-rate to 30 in 15 games. In comparison, Kitna has taken 58, Bulger 49, Walter 48, Roethlisberger 45. Even Brady has taken 25. Manning only has 14, and Garcia 6. So right now, Garcia takes one less sack per game than McNabb. Certainly helps the offense, but doesn't lend a ton of credence to your "McNabb is terrible" hypothesis.

I was talking to Chase about his McNabb is second to Manning. And I believe it's less than in years past. Not sure why you bring up the worst. But I'm pretty sure McNabb was top 5 for a few years. Of course, the facts wouldn't lend to your credence that he was great.

 

[scorchy]

I was talking to Chase about his McNabb is second to Manning. And I believe it's less than in years past. Not sure why you bring up the worst. But I'm pretty sure McNabb was top 5 for a few years. Of course, the facts wouldn't lend to your credence that he was great.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but your point seems to be that Garcia is better than McNabb. The first reason you cite is that McNabb throws too many INTs. Chase points out that is not true. You then say that reason that he doesn't throw too many INTs is because he takes too many sacks. I bring up stats that say he was actually about average in sacks taken. Nobody every said he was second only to Manning in sacks, but he was also nowhere near the top 5 in the last 3 years (the only years for which I could find data).In 2004, McNabb was sacked 32 times, which ranked him 13th overall, but around 20th in sacks per game started (a lot of guys took less sacks, but only started 1/2 the games). Manning was sacked only 13 times, a truly astounding number. Carr was tops with 49, and Vick, CPep, Bulger, Brooks, and Warner all took more than 40.In 2005, McNabb was sacked 18 times in 9 games, which pro-rates to 28 over a full season. That would rank him 17th in the league, tied with Brady. Manning was sacked 17 times, and Carr 68.If McNabb was ever in the top 5, it was more than 3 seasons ago, and I don't see how that can impact your argument that Garcia is somehow better.So we've established that he doesn't throw too many INTs and he doesn't take too many sacks. What's your next fallacy?

 

[Slider]

I was talking to Chase about his McNabb is second to Manning. And I believe it's less than in years past. Not sure why you bring up the worst. But I'm pretty sure McNabb was top 5 for a few years. Of course, the facts wouldn't lend to your credence that he was great.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but your point seems to be that Garcia is better than McNabb. The first reason you cite is that McNabb throws too many INTs. Chase points out that is not true. You then say that reason that he doesn't throw too many INTs is because he takes too many sacks. I bring up stats that say he was actually about average in sacks taken. Nobody every said he was second only to Manning in sacks, but he was also nowhere near the top 5 in the last 3 years (the only years for which I could find data).In 2004, McNabb was sacked 32 times, which ranked him 13th overall, but around 20th in sacks per game started (a lot of guys took less sacks, but only started 1/2 the games). Manning was sacked only 13 times, a truly astounding number. Carr was tops with 49, and Vick, CPep, Bulger, Brooks, and Warner all took more than 40.In 2005, McNabb was sacked 18 times in 9 games, which pro-rates to 28 over a full season. That would rank him 17th in the league, tied with Brady. Manning was sacked 17 times, and Carr 68.If McNabb was ever in the top 5, it was more than 3 seasons ago, and I don't see how that can impact your argument that Garcia is somehow better.So we've established that he doesn't throw too many INTs and he doesn't take too many sacks. What's your next fallacy?

Are you kidding? Someone with supreme athletic ability and a very good OLine has no business being ranked 15th or so in sacks. Add to that he's supposed to be a Superstar and it makes absolutely no sense. Add to that he's in a WCO that's based on quick reads and throws and it's absurd. Yes, he was even worse years ago which presents a problem. After 7 years you think he would have the O mastered?I never said he throws too many int's, I said critical int's. Check out his Superbowl and Championship game numbers. What's your next misunderstanding?

 

[suchislife]

I was talking to Chase about his McNabb is second to Manning. And I believe it's less than in years past. Not sure why you bring up the worst. But I'm pretty sure McNabb was top 5 for a few years.

Of course, the facts wouldn't lend to your credence that he was great.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but your point seems to be that Garcia is better than McNabb. The first reason you cite is that McNabb throws too many INTs. Chase points out that is not true. You then say that reason that he doesn't throw too many INTs is because he takes too many sacks. I bring up stats that say he was actually about average in sacks taken. Nobody every said he was second only to Manning in sacks, but he was also nowhere near the top 5 in the last 3 years (the only years for which I could find data).In 2004, McNabb was sacked 32 times, which ranked him 13th overall, but around 20th in sacks per game started (a lot of guys took less sacks, but only started 1/2 the games). Manning was sacked only 13 times, a truly astounding number. Carr was tops with 49, and Vick, CPep, Bulger, Brooks, and Warner all took more than 40.

In 2005, McNabb was sacked 18 times in 9 games, which pro-rates to 28 over a full season. That would rank him 17th in the league, tied with Brady. Manning was sacked 17 times, and Carr 68.

If McNabb was ever in the top 5, it was more than 3 seasons ago, and I don't see how that can impact your argument that Garcia is somehow better.

So we've established that he doesn't throw too many INTs and he doesn't take too many sacks. What's your next fallacy?

Are you kidding? Someone with supreme athletic ability and a very good OLine has no business being ranked 15th or so in sacks. Add to that he's supposed to be a Superstar and it makes absolutely no sense. Add to that he's in a WCO that's based on quick reads and throws and it's absurd. Yes, he was even worse years ago which presents a problem. After 7 years you think he would have the O mastered?I never said he throws too many int's, I said critical int's. Check out his Superbowl and Championship game numbers.

What's your next misunderstanding?

Do you think he's asked to drop back the most in the NFL? Or close to it? So obviously the number of sacks would go up. Now why don't you go see how many sacks per attempts he takes and compare that number. IMO, that's a better indication.

 

[suchislife]

I was talking to Chase about his McNabb is second to Manning. And I believe it's less than in years past. Not sure why you bring up the worst. But I'm pretty sure McNabb was top 5 for a few years.

Of course, the facts wouldn't lend to your credence that he was great.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but your point seems to be that Garcia is better than McNabb. The first reason you cite is that McNabb throws too many INTs. Chase points out that is not true. You then say that reason that he doesn't throw too many INTs is because he takes too many sacks. I bring up stats that say he was actually about average in sacks taken. Nobody every said he was second only to Manning in sacks, but he was also nowhere near the top 5 in the last 3 years (the only years for which I could find data).In 2004, McNabb was sacked 32 times, which ranked him 13th overall, but around 20th in sacks per game started (a lot of guys took less sacks, but only started 1/2 the games). Manning was sacked only 13 times, a truly astounding number. Carr was tops with 49, and Vick, CPep, Bulger, Brooks, and Warner all took more than 40.

In 2005, McNabb was sacked 18 times in 9 games, which pro-rates to 28 over a full season. That would rank him 17th in the league, tied with Brady. Manning was sacked 17 times, and Carr 68.

If McNabb was ever in the top 5, it was more than 3 seasons ago, and I don't see how that can impact your argument that Garcia is somehow better.

So we've established that he doesn't throw too many INTs and he doesn't take too many sacks. What's your next fallacy?

Are you kidding? Someone with supreme athletic ability and a very good OLine has no business being ranked 15th or so in sacks. Add to that he's supposed to be a Superstar and it makes absolutely no sense. Add to that he's in a WCO that's based on quick reads and throws and it's absurd. Yes, he was even worse years ago which presents a problem. After 7 years you think he would have the O mastered?I never said he throws too many int's, I said critical int's. Check out his Superbowl and Championship game numbers.

What's your next misunderstanding?

True the Superbowl int's hurt, but how's his redzone int numbers? Would they be critical?

 

[Bojang0301]

Are you kidding me? You think the reason they're winning is because they run it 4 times a game more?

You might want to check out their first 5 games and see how that all worked....

They have a real QB in now and the D is playing better.

Signed,

Northwest Ohio resident forced to watch old limp arm/wrist play in Detroit and Cleveland.

 

[Slider]

Are you kidding me? You think the reason they're winning is because they run it 4 times a game more?

You might want to check out their first 5 games and see how that all worked....

They have a real QB in now and the D is playing better.

Signed,

Northwest Ohio resident forced to watch old limp arm/wrist play in Detroit and Cleveland.

Cleveland was a joke and Detroit always has been. He's been to some Pro Bowls.

 

[Slider]

I was talking to Chase about his McNabb is second to Manning. And I believe it's less than in years past. Not sure why you bring up the worst. But I'm pretty sure McNabb was top 5 for a few years.

Of course, the facts wouldn't lend to your credence that he was great.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but your point seems to be that Garcia is better than McNabb. The first reason you cite is that McNabb throws too many INTs. Chase points out that is not true. You then say that reason that he doesn't throw too many INTs is because he takes too many sacks. I bring up stats that say he was actually about average in sacks taken. Nobody every said he was second only to Manning in sacks, but he was also nowhere near the top 5 in the last 3 years (the only years for which I could find data).In 2004, McNabb was sacked 32 times, which ranked him 13th overall, but around 20th in sacks per game started (a lot of guys took less sacks, but only started 1/2 the games). Manning was sacked only 13 times, a truly astounding number. Carr was tops with 49, and Vick, CPep, Bulger, Brooks, and Warner all took more than 40.

In 2005, McNabb was sacked 18 times in 9 games, which pro-rates to 28 over a full season. That would rank him 17th in the league, tied with Brady. Manning was sacked 17 times, and Carr 68.

If McNabb was ever in the top 5, it was more than 3 seasons ago, and I don't see how that can impact your argument that Garcia is somehow better.

So we've established that he doesn't throw too many INTs and he doesn't take too many sacks. What's your next fallacy?

Are you kidding? Someone with supreme athletic ability and a very good OLine has no business being ranked 15th or so in sacks. Add to that he's supposed to be a Superstar and it makes absolutely no sense. Add to that he's in a WCO that's based on quick reads and throws and it's absurd. Yes, he was even worse years ago which presents a problem. After 7 years you think he would have the O mastered?I never said he throws too many int's, I said critical int's. Check out his Superbowl and Championship game numbers.

What's your next misunderstanding?

Do you think he's asked to drop back the most in the NFL? Or close to it? So obviously the number of sacks would go up. Now why don't you go see how many sacks per attempts he takes and compare that number. IMO, that's a better indication.

Why don't you?

 

[scorchy]

I never said he throws too many int's, I said critical int's. Check out his Superbowl and Championship game numbers.

You actually said, "costly" INTs, which isn't really the same thing as critical. In fact, IIRC, he has a much better TD/INT ratio in the red-zone than any active QB, which is a pretty telling stat when it comes to whether an INT is costly or not. As for the postseason numbers, he's been pretty damn good in the wins and not as good in the losses. People always want to criticize the latter and forget the former. Even in his first NFC championship game against the Rams, McNabb played pretty well. He was bad the next year agains the Bucs, and average against the Panthers (I lay most of the blame there on Pinkston). In the Super Bowl, he definitely had his ups and downs.Regardless, Garcia is winning because he is being put in a position to win. The play-calling is much improved meaning that that Eagles are sustaining drives, play action actually works, and the defense gets a chance to rest. I'm elated that Garcia is playing so well, but I also don't have McNabb-hate blinding me to the reasons for it.

 

[scorchy]

Do you think he's asked to drop back the most in the NFL? Or close to it? So obviously the number of sacks would go up. Now why don't you go see how many sacks per attempts he takes and compare that number. IMO, that's a better indication.

Why don't you?

Why should he? So you can change your argument again when the stats don't show what you thought they would?

 

[Snotbubbles]

I never said he throws too many int's, I said critical int's. Check out his Superbowl and Championship game numbers.

What about all the playoff games that lead up to those games? Aren't they big games as well?You arguing that Garcia > McNabb based on McNabb's games in the NFC Championship games and Superbowl is about as ridiculous as saying Frank Reich > Jim Kelly based on Kelly's Superbowl performances.

 

[Slider]

I never said he throws too many int's, I said critical int's. Check out his Superbowl and Championship game numbers.

You actually said, "costly" INTs, which isn't really the same thing as critical. In fact, IIRC, he has a much better TD/INT ratio in the red-zone than any active QB, which is a pretty telling stat when it comes to whether an INT is costly or not. As for the postseason numbers, he's been pretty damn good in the wins and not as good in the losses. People always want to criticize the latter and forget the former. Even in his first NFC championship game against the Rams, McNabb played pretty well. He was bad the next year agains the Bucs, and average against the Panthers (I lay most of the blame there on Pinkston). In the Super Bowl, he definitely had his ups and downs.Regardless, Garcia is winning because he is being put in a position to win. The play-calling is much improved meaning that that Eagles are sustaining drives, play action actually works, and the defense gets a chance to rest. I'm elated that Garcia is playing so well, but I also don't have McNabb-hate blinding me to the reasons for it.

Well, the costly int's was just a throw in with the sack question to Chase. You guys seemed to make it a point. And he has thrown many costly int's in every Championship and Suoerbowl game the Eagles have lost. As a matter of fact he looked scared and puked. McNabb hate? Geeze, I'm just throwing out facts.

 

[Slider]

Do you think he's asked to drop back the most in the NFL? Or close to it? So obviously the number of sacks would go up. Now why don't you go see how many sacks per attempts he takes and compare that number. IMO, that's a better indication.

Why don't you?

Why should he? So you can change your argument again when the stats don't show what you thought they would?

When did I ever change my argument? I merely asked a sack question.

 

[Slider]

I never said he throws too many int's, I said critical int's. Check out his Superbowl and Championship game numbers.

What about all the playoff games that lead up to those games? Aren't they big games as well?You arguing that Garcia > McNabb based on McNabb's games in the NFC Championship games and Superbowl is about as ridiculous as saying Frank Reich > Jim Kelly based on Kelly's Superbowl performances.

Not as big. And his performances in those games was beyond bad.

 

[AB in DC]

So you can change your argument again when the stats don't show what you thought they would?

 

[Snotbubbles]

Not as big. And his performances in those games was beyond bad.

Ask Peyton Manning how big those wildcard and divisional playoff games are. Any game where it's win or go home is big.

 

[scorchy]

Not really sure why I keep replying, but I'm bored at work and felt like doing some research. McNabb's playoff stats aren't as good as in the regular season, but they aren't terrible either:

McNabb (7-5) 249/419 (59%) 18TD 12INT

Brady (11-1) 225/336 (61%) 15 TD 5INT

Manning (3-6) 193/322 (60%) 15 TD 8INT

Throw in the fact that McNabb has had 350 rushing yards and 3 rushing TDs in the post-season, and those are by no-means bad stats for the playoffs.

 

[Slider]

Not really sure why I keep replying, but I'm bored at work and felt like doing some research. McNabb's playoff stats aren't as good as in the regular season, but they aren't terrible either:McNabb (7-5) 249/419 (59%) 18TD 12INTBrady (11-1) 225/336 (61%) 15 TD 5INTManning (3-6) 193/322 (60%) 15 TD 8INTThrow in the fact that McNabb has had 350 rushing yards and 3 rushing TDs in the post-season, and those are by no-means bad stats for the playoffs.

So do the last games without throwing in the porous Green Bay and such D's you encounter in the early games. Well, if you're still bored.