Iggles-Jints

I'm taking off work Sunday because I am in Giants country and there's no way I can tolerate being in this environment.

The more I look at it, the more I like the Birds' chances. The matchups are good for them with Plax out. Dawkins should be playing near the LOS all game as there's no real deep threat on the Giants anymore and no Shockey for him to cover deep down the middle. That's a plus.

I look for the Eagles' CBs to press the shit out of the Giants' receivers and they should be able to keep Eli under 11 yards per completion.

The Eagles' defense has been stupendous, and the run defense was incredible against Peterson last week. However, Jacobs is probably the toughest back in the league for them to stop. I don't really think they can stop him but they have to contain him to, say, under 110 yards.

Justin Tuck is the Giants' best player (a rarity, an All-Pro from Notre Dame who plays in NY yet is still underrated), but he's banged up. Jon Runyan is also banged up though, so this crucial matchup should be interesting.

On offense, I think the Eagles need to do three things:
1. Establish DeSean Jackson as a deep threat early in the game.
2. Isolate Westbrook on Pierce in the passing game.
3. Use a somewhat balanced attack...I think this is a good game to use the Buckhalter-Westbrook backfield a lot.

Problems for the Eagles, I think, are that Akers has been pretty bad at the Meadowlands, and that's not good in what figures to be a close game; and you have to like Eli over Donovan when it comes down to directing a late-game drive.

Definitely like the Eagles with the points now, and I think they probably win the game outright.

Birds 21, Giants 20

I'm thinking more like this
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...simmons/090109
(almost at the end, search giants if you're lazy, 3rd occurance)

But, this is why the games are played. Def different angles you can take, which seem to draw logical conclusions.

i'm a goddamn homer so i'll refrain from making this too long, but i'm saying eagles 24, giants 13. i think with strahan retired, umenyiora (this guy still gives me nightmares) out, and with a lot of giants banged up, with elisha's safety valve cheddar bob gone (eli is awful, btw), i think the eagles can hold the giants down. stack the box ftw. without plax eli is the suck. gogo gadget iggles.

Simmons is an idiot...Is Minnesota's defense supposed to be soft or something? They were 4th in defense, giving up exactly 7 more yards than the Giants. The Eagles scored 51 on the Giants in two games and gave up no sacks...

Eli does not suck.

Giants 20, Eagles 16

D-Mac chokes at crunch time, like he always does.

title should read Stillers-Fckknuckles and should discuss todays Steeler victory.

I have no idea what's going to happen but I AM SO FUCKING PUMPED.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

Giants 20, Eagles 16

D-Mac chokes at crunch time, like he always does.

---

Hasn't disappointed so far.

this is very ugly

The Eagles need to run the ball about 60% of the time in the second half, with Buckhalter getting about 40% of those carries. The chance of this happening is less than 0%.

Eagles D is so good.

All the big bad home teams who were supposed to be well rested after bye weeks are about to be 0-3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dthorne04

i'm a goddamn homer so i'll refrain from making this too long, but i'm saying eagles 24, giants 13. i think with strahan retired, umenyiora (this guy still gives me nightmares) out, and with a lot of giants banged up, with elisha's safety valve cheddar bob gone (eli is awful, btw), i think the eagles can hold the giants down. stack the box ftw. without plax eli is the suck. gogo gadget iggles.

---

Good call.

Coughlin and Eli totally gave the game away, imo.

We'll need someone other than Asante Samuel to give us some offense next week.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WildBobAA

All the big bad home teams who were supposed to be well rested after bye weeks are about to be 0-3.

---

This just further solidifies my belief (actually, it completely nails it) that 1&2 seeds need to play through the NFL season as if they are meaningful games, even if they aren't.

Teams with first round byes in the playoffs that have rested their starters late in the regular season have done so atrociously in recent years compared to what one would expect, and my eyes, it's a direct correlation.

If professional athletes on a better team at home are doing so poorly after 2 weeks without a game and 3-4 weeks without a meaningful game, how are collegiate athletes on a supposedly inferior team supposed to fare across the country (possibly their first such trip ever) after 8 weeks of no game *whatsoever*, with extremely limited practice and school/tests/midterms inbetween?

Think about it.

/endhijack :)

Also, I think the Steelers come out and break the streak today and win. I can't ever remember them not coming ready to play.

:puke:

I think you're giving too much weight to a small sample size.

I think this points to the parity in the NFL these days more than anything. Look at last year's Super Bowl; with two weeks off between the championship games and the SB, there's not a huge edge for either team. But it would have been unthinkable as recently as 10 years ago for a wildcard team to beat the league powerhouse.

This also happens to be a year where none of the top seeds were really great teams. The Giants had a chance to be great if Plaxico didn't literally shoot himself in the foot. The Panthers were solid, not great (they're perennially overrated, imo), and did anyone really think the Titans had a huge edge on the Ravens?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baudib

I think you're giving too much weight to a small sample size.

---

I'm trying to think about it logically. It just so happens that the results, small sample size or not, happen to support my theory.

These guys play the entire season with 1 week off.. already a significant time off between games. Once a season, they get a bye week, meaning two weeks off. I don't have the stats on hand, but I know that teams have historically done well (i.e. better than .500) after their bye week. This is part of the built in advantage that the 1&2 seeds get in the NFL post-season (also playing lower seeds, being at home, and having to win one less game).

After 2 weeks or so, I think teams just get sloppy and start to lose their conditioning. These guys haven't taken more than a week off (other than their bye week) for the ENTIRE SEASON. I just don't think you can turn it off for a while then instantly turn it back on.

Quote:

---

I think this points to the parity in the NFL these days more than anything. Look at last year's Super Bowl; with two weeks off between the championship games and the SB, there's not a huge edge for either team. But it would have been unthinkable as recently as 10 years ago for a wildcard team to beat the league powerhouse.

---

I agree that parity has something to do with it as well. But remember, 12 out of 32 teams make the playoffs (in my mind a large number), so there should still be a significant skill difference between the best and the worst teams in the playoffs.

The two weeks off from the Super Bowl is irrelevant. It's the same for both sides. Plus, both teams had just played, at minimum, two meaningful games (divisional round and conference championship game) before that.

Interestingly enough, the #1 seeded Patriots are one of the rare 1 seeds in recent memory to do very well in the playoffs (won 2 playoff games against tough teams), despite the upset in the Super Bowl. The Giants last year, I BELIEVE were the #5 seeds with nothing to play for in week 17, except to try to ruin the Pats perfect season. So here you have two teams in week 17 playing a brutal game with absolutely no post-season implications, and they meet again in the Super Bowl. I find this intriguing. I'm not trying to imply that's the sole reason, but yeah, I think it matters.

Quote:

---

This also happens to be a year where none of the top seeds were really great teams. The Giants had a chance to be great if Plaxico didn't literally shoot himself in the foot. The Panthers were solid, not great (they're perennially overrated, imo), and did anyone really think the Titans had a huge edge on the Ravens?

---

I thought the Titans were a better team but came out sloppy, choked in key situations, and didn't come out like the physically mauling team that they had been all season. The Ravens were downright ferocious.

FWIW home teams in this round win 75%+, it's the next round they all tend to lose more than you would expect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

Also, I think the Steelers come out and break the streak today and win. I can't ever remember them not coming ready to play.

:puke:

---

eL Deee Ohhhhh!

You have a No. 1 seed making the SB pretty much every year, but there hasn't been a matchup of two No. 1s since Bills-Cowboys II. Since 1997, home teams are just 12-10 in the championship games. Most of the 10 losses really can't be called upsets, other than the Giants-Packers last year...for example, the Patriots were defending champs, went 14-2 and were favored at Pittsburgh in 2005. in 2000, the Titans were the wild-card but went 13-3 and beat Jacksonville three times.

who the funk cares!? ALL PENNA SUPERBOWL SON!

I've never given a shit either way about the eagles, but i'm a huge fan now. if the cards somehow win the superbowl (lol i know, but not much more lol than the thought of them hosting the nfc championship) i will cry for a very long time.

I'm also going to be a ravens fan. the steelers already had a superbowl gifted to them a couple years ago. I don't blame them. i'd take one if it was gifted to the hawks, but it did happen and i don't want to see them win again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkfan79

I've never given a shit either way about the eagles, but i'm a huge fan now. if the cards somehow win the superbowl (lol i know, but not much more lol than the thought of them hosting the nfc championship) i will cry for a very long time.

I'm also going to be a ravens fan. the steelers already had a superbowl gifted to them a couple years ago. I don't blame them. i'd take one if it was gifted to the hawks, but it did happen and i don't want to see them win again.

---

I'm definitely pulling for the Eagles now. It's really shocking that they were only 9-6-1 in the regular season. I mean, +127 net points in the NFC east (near the best in the NFL), top 3 defense, top 10 offense... ridiculous. They won in the Meadlowlands back to back times and it was no fluke. (Plax being Plax probably helped a bit though.. LOL)

Next week I'm going to watch the Ravens and Steelers and admire the defense. Obviously I don't like either team really, but the defenses are something to be appreciated. I'm quite sure that only one browns player (Rodgers) would start on either defense.