NFL Week 12

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I'll agree with you that the Pats have a good chance at knocking off the Steelers. I won't agree that the Eagles have that same chance.

 

The Eagles are too thin-skinned up front to deal with a physical attack. They can't beat any physical, running team in the playoffs.

[Cartman 0]

Oh well I know THAT!

 

Honestly i would LIK to see the Pats/Eagles in the Superbowl just because it would be a goof/fun to watch matchup.

 

If Dillon, Law, Poole, etc. were healthy the Pats MIGHT have been able to win that game...BUT being on the road in that stadium just multiplied the lopsidedness. If they meet in the Championship game it will be much closer. I'll take Brady of Ben any day. Ben hasn;t really won games for the Steelers, he keeps them IN the games nicely by not turning the ball over.

 

Of course he hasnt needed to attept more than 25 passes in a game yet either. So if someone can actually stop their run game he will be tested.

 

I think Ben is a good QB in the making but nowhere NEAR as amazing as some seem to want to make him look.

 

Back on track...Eagles can pretty much coast to the playoffs while not risking injuries. Meanwhile the Patriots still have to keep their game up since the AFC as a whole is tight. Law and Poole coming back to help the still solid secondary will be nice in the coming weeks as well.

 

Look out for Rosie Colvin as he is improving and returning to old for slowly but surely. If this guy was healthy last year the Pats may have went undefeated with an even MORE impressive defense.

 

Corey Dillon is the MVP of the team this year so far also. What he brings to the table totally changes the style of offense the pats can play with now. Amazingly they have been so successful without a premier trustworthy running back in past seasons...NOW they have this weapon added into their already potent passing game...*shudder*

 

So yea...Go Pats.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I'll let you, and the city of New England, stay overconfident about beating the Steelers. I'll just say that the Steelers match up better against a healthy Patriots team than you're giving them credit for.

[the pinjockey 0]

What is with the Westbrook doesn't show up stuff?

 

vs. Minnesota - 138 total yards

vs. Detroit - bad game 76 yards, Jon Ritchie got hurt and all blocking was lost for the day

vs. Chicago - 183 total yards

vs. Carolina - 90 total yards

 

And then he got injured against Cleveland and was out for Balt., still injured vs. Pitt.

 

Also, going back through last year in his 343 touches, he has exactly 1 fumble. So he doesn't take anything away from his team either.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

He wasn't still injured against Pittsburgh. He was ineffective because the Steelers render cutback runners ineffective.

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

Donovan McNabb is the best quarterback in the NFL.

 

He has always been a better quarterback than Peyton Manning and Michael Vick, this year's two darlings of the media.

 

Put PEYTON in the Philly offense when they had THRASH, PINKTON, etc. receiving...would they have gotten to NFC Title Games, NO. Vick just doesn't have it yet, but he runs fast.

 

But McNabb is a weapon, a threat, and finds our useless garbage receivers open by giving them extra time. He's a winner.

[the pinjockey 0]

Please tell me you are kidding? He had a rib injury and two weeks later it was fully healed, don't think so. I guess it also explains the 9 touches he had that game.

 

"I have an idea, we aren't doing jack on offense, we better avoid giving the ball to our best gamebreaker."

 

Makes sense to me.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

He, himself, said that the injury was a bruised rib. He, himself, said it wasn't even that serious.

 

He got the ball a few times in the first half and was ineffective. They tried running it up the middle with a thicker-bodied runner -- Levens -- as a result. They knew that the only way to exploit Pitt's run D is to take advantage of the fact that Casey is out for the year. They failed because their O-Line wasn't up to the task.

[the pinjockey 0]

And there was just a story in the Philadelphia Inqurier where he states he is feeling better every week and is fully recovered from his rib injury. Just because it was not serious (read: broken), does not mean it still did not affect him.

 

I am not saying that he would have done anything against Pitt. Nobody was that day. I am just eliminating that from the "does not show up" arguement, because he was still affected by the injury

[Guest Vitamin X]

Ahem.

 

27-3

 

At least the Pats put up a fight with half the damn team injured. Philadelphia couldn't do shit with a healthy team.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

He, himself, said that the injury was a bruised rib. He, himself, said it wasn't even that serious.

 

He got the ball a few times in the first half and was ineffective. They tried running it up the middle with a thicker-bodied runner -- Levens -- as a result. They knew that the only way to exploit Pitt's run D is to take advantage of the fact that Casey is out for the year. They failed because their O-Line wasn't up to the task.

I like the Steelers, hell I was cheering for the Steelers. But it was clear to see that Westbrook was not healthy. He wasn't hitting his holes, nor was he as evasive as usual. While one might chalk that up to the Steelers defense, I'd wager a guess that his ribs or another injury was hampering. He'll be coming back strong soon though.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

Ahem.

 

27-3

 

At least the Pats put up a fight with half the damn team injured. Philadelphia couldn't do shit with a healthy team.

Man, quit speaking shit. You're clearly biased against the Eagles. The Eagles playred horribly at the beginning of last year. But so much has changed since then, its really like night and day.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I'm honestly not. I just hate hearing all these Eagles fans yapping on and on about how Westbrook is the key to the offense. Westbrook is a great back, but he's not the key to that offense.

[therealworldschampion 0]

Ahem.

 

27-3

 

At least the Pats put up a fight with half the damn team injured. Philadelphia couldn't do shit with a healthy team.

 

That's funny, considering they lost to the quite possibly the best team in the league on the road and your team lost at home to Tennessee, the Giants(who the Eagles beat twice this year) and the Chicago Fucking Bears.

[Guest Vitamin X]

That's funny, considering they lost to the quite possibly the best team in the league on the road and your team lost at home to Tennessee, the Giants(who the Eagles beat twice this year) and the Chicago Fucking Bears.

 

I'm not talking about Green Bay, I'm talking about Philadelphia.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

I'm honestly not. I just hate hearing all these Eagles fans yapping on and on about how Westbrook is the key to the offense. Westbrook is a great back, but he's not the key to that offense.

Sure he is. Without him, they become a pass heavy team. They lost to the Panthers for that reason. They weren't able to effectively have a varied offense. And with James Thrash and Pinkston as the McNabb's only threat, their offense was castrated. Now, imagine McNabb having the option of handing off to Westbrook while still having T.O for the defense to open it all up.

 

Having a tremendous running back always makes a great QB better. Look what it did for Elway with Terrell Davis, and what its doing for Peyton this year (who, btw, will not have nearly as good of numbers next year without James).

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

The Eagles have always had an above average running attack, though. Some guy named Duce Staley has been behind McNabb for several years, and it hasn't made a lick of a difference. They've always been a pass heavy team, and to think that they were gonna run it thirty times against the Steelers had Westbrook been healthy is purely disingenuous. They bracketed off TO and made the other recievers beat them. The Eagles couldn't do it. Game over.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

Not saying they'd run it 30 times, but they certainly would have been more effective with it. And forced the Steelers to play the run instead of concentrating solely on the pass.

[therealworldschampion 0]

They just had a horrible game that week and Dick LeBeau had a great gameplan to use against the Eagles offense, along with everything just clicking for the Steelers. I mean when Roethlisberger scrambled and made that 12 yard gain for the first down on the opening drive, that's when I knew it was trouble. The Steelers got up big early, got the home crowd really into the game, and the Eagles never recovered.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Maybe, but I'm just not buying it.

 

I have no doubts that the Eagles could, quite possibly, run over the NFC. But my main problem with your argument is that you said they could run over the AFC, as well.

 

I think New England and Pittsburgh both could stop them, even at full strength. And I know for a fact that both offenses could dominate their defensive front 7, which is a huge problem for the Eagles.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

The Eagles have always had an above average running attack, though. Some guy named Duce Staley has been behind McNabb for several years, and it hasn't made a lick of a difference. They've always been a pass heavy team, and to think that they were gonna run it thirty times against the Steelers had Westbrook been healthy is purely disingenuous. They bracketed off TO and made the other recievers beat them. The Eagles couldn't do it. Game over.

For the record, Staley hasn't always been a premier back. He's just benefitting from having a wonderful offensive line in front of them. Even Bettis, who has stunk up the joint the past 2 years, has seen great success. I'd take Westbrook as an all around back over Staley. I think the Eagles would too.

[Guest Vitamin X]

It's not just Westbrook. Granted, he's averaging 4.7 yards per carry, which is just what McNabb and the pass offense needs to open up the passing game, but Westbrook only has 668 yards in 10 games played, with only 3 TD's. McNabb has the same amount of rushing TD's actually. Philly has the league's 17th rated rushing offense, which isn't particularly impressive (and they're 20th against the run.. whereas Green Bay is actually 9th against the run, and 8thin rushing offense.. Of course you don't hear much about that nearly as much), whereas the Eagles' air attack ranks 6th in the league (hate to bring this up again, but Green Bay ranks 3rd...).

 

Either way, Philadelphia has one huge advantage for them in their favor, arguably their redzone defense. They've allowed the least points in the league as of right now, so they're playing similar defense in the aspect that you can march up the field but you won't get in the endzone.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

They just had a horrible game that week and Dick LeBeau had a great gameplan to use against the Eagles offense, along with everything just clicking for the Steelers. I mean when Roethlisberger scrambled and made that 12 yard gain for the first down on the opening drive, that's when I knew it was trouble. The Steelers got up big early, got the home crowd really into the game, and the Eagles never recovered.

You're missing the whole point of why Pittsburgh dominated Philly.

 

Philly's defensive front seven is not a championship squad. They're all undersized and they get beat up when the other team commits to the run. They get pushed around and winded rather quickly, and it'll happen again and again unless they make a serious committment to the run on their offense. They HAVE to win the TOP battle, because quite frankly, their defense can't hold against the better offensive lines in the NFL.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

Maybe, but I'm just not buying it.

 

I have no doubts that the Eagles could, quite possibly, run over the NFC. But my main problem with your argument is that you said they could run over the AFC, as well.

 

I think New England and Pittsburgh both could stop them, even at full strength. And I know for a fact that both offenses could dominate their defensive front 7, which is a huge problem for the Eagles.

Well...I don't really say they will run over the AFC, I said they COULD. The Steelers played the games of their lives against the Pats and Eagles, and have since come back to life with rather mediocre showings. I don't know if the Eagles could beat those two teams at their best, but I certainly wouldn't ever rule it out. You have to give the Eagles credit for consistantly (outside of Pitts) dominating their games, regardless of if its in the NFC. Many of their pieces seem to be in place to make a strong run. Am I confident they could defeat the two best teams in the AFC? No. But again, I wouldn't rule it out.

[Guest Vitamin X]

For the record, Staley hasn't always been a premier back. He's just benefitting from having a wonderful offensive line in front of them. Even Bettis, who has stunk up the joint the past 2 years, has seen great success. I'd take Westbrook as an all around back over Staley. I think the Eagles would too.

 

Is it that the Steelers' offensive line is really that good or that Philly's is not that good?

[therealworldschampion 0]

Philly's defensive front seven is not a championship squad. They're all undersized and they get beat up when the other team commits to the run. They get pushed around and winded rather quickly, and it'll happen again and again unless they make a serious committment to the run on their offense. They HAVE to win the TOP battle, because quite frankly, their defense can't hold against the better offensive lines in the NFL.

 

The problem with their front seven goes back to 2002 when their defense was built with the purpose of beating the Rams in the playoffs, which is why it's an undersized, speedy defense. For the Eagles to win games, the key is for them to get up early with their offense and force the other team to throw rather than run, freeing up Kearse in the pass rush and all of the blitz packages.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

It's not just Westbrook. Granted, he's averaging 4.7 yards per carry, which is just what McNabb and the pass offense needs to open up the passing game, but Westbrook only has 668 yards in 10 games played, with only 3 TD's.

He's been injured the past few games. With already clinching, they can probably rest him towards the end of the year.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

For the record, Staley hasn't always been a premier back. He's just benefitting from having a wonderful offensive line in front of them. Even Bettis, who has stunk up the joint the past 2 years, has seen great success. I'd take Westbrook as an all around back over Staley. I think the Eagles would too.

 

Is it that the Steelers' offensive line is really that good or that Philly's is not that good?

A little of both to be honest.

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

I have no doubts that the Eagles could, quite possibly,

 

The phrase contradicts itself.

[the pinjockey 0]

And Westbrook also has 48 catches on the season, tied for the league lead among RBs and creates constant mismatches when flanked out on the edge. His gamebreaking ability is not just based on running the ball.