PRETTY SURE EAGLES GO 19-0. START THE SEASON ALREADY
Printable View
PRETTY SURE EAGLES GO 19-0. START THE SEASON ALREADY
http://i.imgur.com/Uuxobol.jpg
behold! the architect of your destruction!
joint practice with Eagles probably Belichick's fatal mistake. CHIP KELLYAMENTS
The Seahawks are better than we were last year. As long as Wilson and Thomas stay healthy, we're about to see the first repeat in a decade.
I'm unbelievably excited for Football, Go Skins!
RG3 to Jaccson should be exciting.
Hopefully there are more TD connections than drama. But with RG3 looking quite bad this preseason I have a feeling we're going to see an annoyed Jackson yapping to the media at some point this season. Sigh.Quote:
Originally Posted by baudib
DeSean is not T.O.; I actually don't recall an incident of him complaining about teammates. The only real issues with him revolved around money (being a mid-round pick he was underpaid per production) -- stuff like not wanting to return punts while he was trying to get a new contract -- and the whispers of gang-related stuff. He's obviously a showboat but there are 200 guys in the league like that.
He was probably my favorite player on the Eagles over the past 5 years or so, hope you like him.
TOM BRADY
FREE SANCHEZ
LOL IGGLES
LOL FOLES
GOD I LOVE FOOTBALL SEASON
WHAT THE FUCK
Quote:
Originally Posted by bikes
Yeaaaaaaah boy
Also obvious that if the punter leaned in to tackle, it's a clean jump. Punter leans back in submission, boy's foot's gotta land somewhere. And it better land with purpose.
foles might be the 2nd coming. i swear.
lul rams.
Sanchez > Foles
sweet gif
Thursday night NFL can eat my poo
fkn chiefs
calvin johnson single handedly carries this lions team.
Wooooooooow, should be 1st and Goal for the Colts in the redzone, instead the refs give the ball to the Eagles on an interception. Should be 3rd and 12 from their own 27, instead the refs hand them 1st and 10 at the 42.
A baffling missed call. He out and out pulls down the intended receiver, and the refs miss it. Best the Eagles can hope for is to get the ball back with 3 minutes left down by 2 scores if they'd seen it.
its mindblowing to me how the jets find new ways to lose week after after week
Foles has been so terrible that the Eagles almost have to win the Super Bowl now.
To clarify, the Eagles are missing 3 of their top 6 OL, Foles has been horrible (he should have had 600 yards vs. Jacksonville), McCoy has just been OK and the WRs have been mediocre at best. And they have the No. 1 O in the NFL. The only guys who have really been good are Ertz, Sproles and the two Jasons on the lnie.
Things will be pretty exciting if any of these situations improve.
I put $20 on the bucs to cover tonight. It's a weekly bet i have with a buddy of mine so I was able to get an extra couple points across the spread (not because i'm jewish but because i thought the spread was inaccurate). anyways.... i lost that bet
Wow, losing 3 players on the strongest half of the team qualifies as injury woes? Every other team in the division envies you.Quote:
Originally Posted by baudib
yes.
I assure you that each of the Cowboys, Giants and Redskins have much more storied pasts with injuries. The 2013 Cowboys are a good example. The place they could least afford injuries was their defense, and yet:
- Anthony Spencer (coming off 1st Pro Bowl season) missed the entire season (played half of 1 game)
- Jay Ratliff (perennial Pro Bowler) missed the entire season
So we're already 2/3s of the way there to your "Oh no, we're missing 3 players."
To round out the D-line, Demarcus Ware (HoFer) was injured basically the entire season. He was only deactivated for 3 games, but his hobbled ass only got 2 sacks after Week 3.
As for depth guys, Tyrone Crawford, Ben Bass and Josh Brent both all the entire year (the first two due to injury; the last one due to legal issues). So that's 5 of the top 8-or-so linemen you'd generally take to the game never so much as smelling the field, with a 6th player being severely limited by injuries. Jason Hatcher only missed 1 game and made his first ever Pro Bowl.
At linebacker, Sean Lee (very important player to the D, second only to Ware) missed 6 games, and his backup missed 7 games (5 of which overlapped). Their starting SLB missed essentially half the season, and his backup was out 2 of those games. So basically, they averaged missing SOMEONE in the linebacking core every game, and they got about a 1/2 a season's-worth of playing time from 3rd stringers. Bruce Carter only missed 1 game.
Defensive back was very healthy, with Morris Claiborne missing 6 games and JJ Wilcox missing 3 games. That's only 22.5%* of their defensive back play in 2013 ...
... which is about the equivalent 3 out of 11 players missing some amount of time through the first 2 games of the season, which goes to show that other teams envy you because what you're experiencing would be considered relative health for any other team in the division. Like, I'm not just saying, "Hey, let's look at an extreme example of an injury-riddled team, and you'll feel all 'it could be worse' about the whole thing." I'm literally saying that whenever I think of teams missing playing time in the low 20%-range, that's considered very good health.
But I should clarify that I'm not being as tongue-in-cheek as you might assume when I talk about other teams envying you. It might not be pure luck: the Eagles might take health as a high priority on draft day (Jerry Jones, for example, has a bit of a reputation for taking players who woulda been "1st round talents" with injury histories in the late rounds), might have good training staff, might be good at running safe practices, etc.
I was gonna do a Redskins and Giants example for this too, but that all took a lot longer than I thought it would, so I'm gonna get back to work, haha.
*In all fairness, this was considered SUCH a healthy group was probably in part due to who the injuries were to. JJ Wilcox was one of their worst starters, and Scandrick had a career year in Claiborne's place (though the bigger issue wasn't so much the dropoff from Claiborne to Scandrick on the outside in base formations, as the dropoff from Scandrick to ?? in the slot in nickel formations).
we're down to our 3rd string RT and missing our All-Pro guard. We'd be better if that weren't the case.
Chip seems to believe he's on the cutting edge as far as training/injury prevention. I'm not convinced but he could be.
Incidentally, as an interested observer, I've thought the Cowboys' biggest problems of recent years has been offensive line issues and lack of depth/inability to get anything out of the late rounds/FA draft.
Right, but try to follow my logic on this. Either the Eagles:Quote:
Originally Posted by baudib
1) Will only suffer more injuries, so they'll be even worse off than they are now, or
2) They will be a team with a very enviable injury situation.
Again, I promise that this is neither an anti-Eagles nor pro-Eagles stance; my only point is that injuries aren't a problem for them.
uh, no. Teams aren't expected to lose 1/2 their OL.
I'm sure the Eagles will suffer more injuries (our best linebacker is out this week vs. WAS, for instance) but losing 2-3 defensive "starters" isn't a big deal for us (barring Jenkins or Cox) unless they accumulate all at the same position.
My point was that the offense is No. 1 right now and should get better as the season goes on. Foles playing like garbage and the WRs being worthless have been far bigger issues than anything else. The WRs might actually be garbage though.
The Cowboys have a lot of problems, and many of them have to do with depth. Probably the biggest contributors to this is that they have an awful training staff (pretty much the antithesis of the Chip Kelly innovation train), they've taken some flyers on very talented players who fell in the draft due to injury concerns, and the 2009 draft. The 2009 draft just absolutely killed them, and it's no coincidence that they're stretch of mediocrity started in 2011, the exact season where you would expect to get some solid contribution from the 2009 draft.Quote:
Originally Posted by baudib
Now that those rookie contracts are up around the league (so that that year's draft helps other teams no more than it helps the Cowboys) is a big reason why the Cowboys have gone from one of the oldest teams in the league to the 3rd youngest in the matter of 2 years.
They have other problems now, though.
I had something else here, but I'm not opening that can of worms unless at least provoked to ...
Teams are expected to lose half their something. Teams always have multiple players at *some* position go down to injury. My only point the whole time is that fans of any team would be so jealous of you to hear you think it unusual for that to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by baudib
Would you rather the injuries were to Fletcher + Jenkins? Sproles + Polk? DeMeco Ryans + Casey Matthews? Maclin + Celek? Nick Foles? Maybe some of those hypotheticals sound better (especially Sproles + Pok, but I thought you wouldn't think it fair for me to hypothetically knock out arguably your best player), but the point is that while the Eagles O-line is unusually depleted, they're not unusually depleted overall on offense. Not because their depth is great or any of that, but because 3 players on one half of the ball isn't that much.
I'd take losing Maclin + Celek or Ryans + Mathews over Mathis + Johnson/Tobin
Cowboys' 2009 draft was nearly as bad as the Eagles' 2011 draft, which was as bad as any as the team's had in about 20 years, salvaged only by getting Kelce in the 6th round. Dallas' 2010 draft was terrific though.
The thing is that the Cowboys had a ton of picks in 2009. They had swapped a 2008 pick for one a first day pick in 2009, had traded some players for some late round picks, etc. What do they get out of it? Well they traded a 1st and a 3rd for Roy Williams who was more of a detriment than a help considering he signed a new deal that was later salary slashed without any worthwhile production.
And the best player they got with the remaining 12 picks was Victor Butler. I mean like far and away Victor Butler was the best player. Nobody else so much as stuck around for more than a training camp or two.
Looking back on it, I actually thought the 2010 draft was the worst for the Cowboys since then. 2012 might end up being the worst if Claiborne can't be any more than a mediocre starter. 2011 is terrific and 2013 has a very good chance of being great as well (though my fellow Gamecock DeVonte Holloman had a career ending injury already after a promising start to his career. :'( ).
While we're speaking drafts in the NFC East, the Redskins are not going to be good for a long time.
I feel like any draft where you get a franchise cornerstone like Bryant and also Sean Lee, it has to be pretty decent.
Eagles get lucky again and the OL situation is getting comical.
Next week's game in SF looks like a surefire loss. On the positive side, Nick Foles played great yesterday and the wide receivers finally came up with huge games. I feel like if they can get to 6-3 or so when Mathis/Kelce come back and they get the running game going, things will be pretty solid heading into the playoff push.
Also, it was fun to have a nail-biter against Washington, it's been quite a while since they felt like a real rival.
C Jason Kelce will be missed.
http://<a href="http://prod.static.e...092214.gif</a>
.Quote:
Originally Posted by bikes
How true, how true ...Quote:
Originally Posted by surviva316
bill simmons holding it down for team common sense.
I hate Simmons but yeah Goodell deserves everything he gets
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingnat
Our friendship might not survive this.
Let's start with the good for the Eagles.
They are 4-1 and they got Lane Johnson back.
The special teams is absolutely crushing it, getting another TD. The defense got another TD, and the DL/OLBs have been a revelation.
The bad:
Foles and McCoy had lolriffic turnovers. McCoy actually showed signs of life after that though.
The DBs are terrible other than Jenkins and Boykin, who the Eagles refuse to play on the outside even though he's easily their best cover corner.
DeMeco Ryans left the game with an injury and if he's out for any length of time, the D is in trouble. ILB/CBs are the softest spots on the team and there's zero depth.
I think the problems Foles is having are correctable but he doesn't look good at all.
TOM BRADY
WHY ARE THE BOGERS CHEATING FOR THE BUNGLES?
THIS IS THE WORST OFFICIATING IVE SEEN THIS YEAR AND OFC IT HAPPENS TO TOM BRADY
I'm pretty ok with Mark Sanchez starting...he looked VERY good in summer and seemed to have great chemistry with rookie WR Jordan Matthews, would love to see him get more catches.
The OL is finally getting healthy and the running game is, unsurprisingly, much improved.
Of greater concern is losing defensive captain DeMeco Ryans.
The Eagles look to be a surefire 10-12 win team this year, and hopefully a team that can compete in the NFC championship game.
Long-term, it is troublesome that Nick Foles did not establish himself as a top-caliber QB after such an amazing year last year, but it seems the team can win games even when he struggles. If the team can plug a couple of holes on defense, I like our chances of getting into a Super Bowl over the next 3 seasons.
4th and 2, down by 7 with 5 mins left in the game, and the Falcons decide to rely on one of the worst defenses in football stopping Le'Veon Bell. NFL coaches are hilarious at game management.
Aaaaaaand they don't touch the ball again.
Eagles did a similar thing last week punting down by 10 with 4:15 left to trust their D against Marshawn Lynch and Russell Wilson. That was even worse because they were already down by 2 scores, and even if you trust your D to get a 3-and-out, then if you miss the 4th down, your D can force a FG and you're still just down by 2 scores.
That one was situationally worse, but 4th and 2? Lol.
Steelers won, so why are you complaining?
"Relying on your defense to get a stop and then driving down for the winning score" is pretty much almost always bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by surviva316
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by baudib
The Eagles one was so glaringly, easily, inarguably awful from anyone with any modicum of Game Theory understanding.
Just go through the outcome branches. If you go can rely on a 3-and-out for your defense, then:
1) When you go for it and make it on 4th down, then you can score, kick it off deep, get the ball back with time still left and score again without ever needing an onside kick (which is a 10% crap shoot).
2) When you punt it, then you can get the ball back with ~3:30 left and no timeouts in a 1 TD + 1 FG Earns You a Coinflip's Chance at a Win scenario.
3) When you go for it and don't make it, then your D stops them for a fieldgoal, and you get the ball back with exactly as much time as you do in the "Punt it and force a 3-and-out" instance. You are now in a 2 TDs Wins scenario, which is notably worse than the TD+FG scenario with such limited time less, but they're hardly on opposite ends of the spectrum.
If you can't rely on a 3-and-out from your defense (which, again, with Marshawn Lynch and Russell Wilson running the read option against the Eagles D is a sizable consideration), then punting it is obviously disaster.
Basically, even if every single thing goes right in the punt-it-away scenario, then you're still forcing yourself to rely on a 1-in-10 onside kick scenario, and a Chip Kelly led offense can probably match those odds right there on 4th and 11. Add in the variables that there's a good chance that not everything will go right when you punt it and add in the consideration that missing 4th down and still have everything go mostly right is only a bit worse than the punt it away scenario, and it's just awfulawfulawfulawful.
The Falcons decision is only really bad because the coach was uninfluenced by the varying likelihood of making it based on down and distance. And, you know, those odds are a pretty fucking crucial factor when weighing "the odds." All Mike Smith (and the broadcasters) considered is that he's reached the punting down, he's on his own side of the field, and he has 3 timeouts. Auto-punt time!
Yeah and Chip Kelly should be smarter about these things. Maybe because he's having a winning year he doesn't want to get criticized for "FPS" but there was also a spot early in the year, either the Arizona or SF game, where he had a 4th-and-goal at the 1 and kicked a field goal where they really needed a TD.
The spot that really annoys me is when teams punt on the opposition's 38 or something. Like, that punt goes into the end zone so often (because teams these days just try to get it downed at the 1 instead of kicking it out of bounds) that the net gain is so little. It's not even so much that teams fail to go for it on, say, 4th-and-6, but that 3rd down is treated as do-or-die when they should really act like it's 4-down territory and just try to set up a more makeable field goal attempt or makeable 4th down.
Yeah, as much as the big decisions from the contending teams are the visible errors, I almost blame Jay Gruden (and coaches like him) playing a 1pm game broadcasted by Herb Albert and Tijuana Brass in the Battle for the Basement for still not bothering to see if maybe all those math geniuses who know far more about strategy than they could ever dream of might not have a point. A read-option team with possession receivers like Garcon and Reed would just be absolutely dirty if offered 4 opportunities to get 10 yards.
I think--putting aside the hivemind/traditional approach to strategy and the nitty approach to risk, even as the game becomes more basketball-like than baseball-like in its scoring structure--people underestimate the effect having 4 actual downs would have on *all 4 downs*, and wouldn't just affect the "Aw, shucks, do we really have to punt here" feeling you get when you don't put on 4th. Obviously, the playbook becomes wide open for you on 3rd and 5 (hell, 3rd and 7). But even beyond that, 2nd and friggin 9 actually becomes a pretty favorable down, which obviously trickles back to 1st down pretty easily.
Another thing that I don't really understand is how 4th and <5 is handled in the middle part of the field. Shouldn't you alwaysalwaysalwaysalwaysalways line up and say "Hut" 100 times? I feel like coaches have some sort of gentlemanly instinct to not waste everyone's time or that they should just line up and punt like men or something. I feel like any kind of remotely GTO mindset could open a lot of possibilities here. Like every time you're in this situation, you rush to the line and get lined up with 25 seconds on the playclock: 35% of the time, you just scream "Hut for 25 seconds and see if you can't draw anyone offsides (obviously, if you do it this much, your team should be better trained to jump every time a defender comes into the neutral zone); 10% of the time, you quick snap it on the word "Set" and run right up the gut; 30% of the time you go on a normal count; 25% of the time you scream Hut for 24 seconds and then snap it when the playclock reaches 1. I mean, obviously I'm just pulling numbers out of my ass, and you could increase the first number as much as you want if you want to decrease the amount of times you actually want to expose yourself to risk, but I just can't see why they don't do *something* along those lines.
Soooooo aside from the 3rd-string led Cards, I'm pretty sure the Lions are the least impressive of the 11-4 NFC teams.
They beat the Packers at home early, but other than that have done nothing but squeak by mediocre teams.
I can't help but feel that suspending Suh for 2 games to start 2015 would be more appropriate. I just think there should be a very minimalist approach from the commissioner on how he affects the playoffs.
That said, the Cowboys were already kinda shafted for getting a tougher matchup (as a team tied with the NFL's best record and who beat the NFC's #1 seed head-to-head) than the 7-8-1 Panthers. And I've already expressed that the Lions are unimpressive and I was already cheering against them making it anywhere in the playoffs, so I guess it all works out in the end.
The Cowboys got robbed.