Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted December 1, 2004 The Eagles won't beat any team with a good running attack once the playoffs get here. They don't have the defense to stop any of the elite AFC teams. And they've choked 3 years in a row. They have to actually make a Super Bowl before I'll believe that they can do it. I can easily see Green Bay's stable of backs and Atlanta's back field destroying this team once the playoffs get here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
therealworldschampion 0 Report post Posted December 1, 2004 He's been injured the past few games. With already clinching, they can probably rest him towards the end of the year. Which is why I'd really like to see the Eagles get home-field advantage locked up soon so they can rest the starters and not have any big injuries like the last couple of years, Westbrook last year in the Redskins game as an example. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted December 1, 2004 If you're going to argue that New England's loss to Pittsburgh was solely because of injuries, at least give the Steelers the same benefit of the doubt for the last few games. Their injury list is absurd. All of the following have missed significant time (if not the whole season) this year (significant injuries to key positions in bold) RG K. Simmons WR P. Burress RB D. Staley RB V. Haynes FB D. Krieder Backup FB M. Cushing TE J. Riemersma QB T. Maddox QB C. Batch MLB K. Bell CB C. Scott NT C. Hampton LDE K. von Oelhoffen (probably out this week) Backup DE B. Kiesel Backup FS M. Logan I give Philly all the credit in the world for being 10-1 at this point, but to blame their one loss on the shoulders of one player -- especially when the team they faced was injury laden and did it anyways -- is absurd. They've got fundamental flaws in their front seven that need to be addressed somehow before they make any type of run. And when Pittsburgh gets healthy, I don't think any team in the league -- including New England -- can stop them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted December 1, 2004 Also Philly gave up 160 rushing yards to the Browns. The Browns can't even get their running game off the ground 9 out of 10 times but they didn't have any problem running all over the Eagles. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
therealworldschampion 0 Report post Posted December 1, 2004 And they've choked 3 years in a row. They have to actually make a Super Bowl before I'll believe that they can do it. I can easily see Green Bay's stable of backs and Atlanta's back field destroying this team once the playoffs get here. I wouldn't call 2001 a chokejob, people were predicting St.Louis to win by at least 2 TDs in that game and the Eagles still almost won. 2002 was a choke, 2003 maybe, but Carolina matched up very well against them and I thought the Panthers could definitley win. I could see Green Bay winning in Philly in the playoffs, maybe even Seattle if the Evil Seahawks don't show up. But not Atlanta, because they've usually done extremely well against Warrick Dunn and I can't see a first-time head coach going far into the playoffs, no matter how much ESPN kisses Vick's ass. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Winter Of My Discontent Report post Posted December 1, 2004 I give Philly all the credit in the world for being 10-1 at this point, but to blame their one loss on the shoulders of one player -- especially when the team they faced was injury laden and did it anyways -- is absurd. They've got fundamental flaws in their front seven that need to be addressed somehow before they make any type of run. And when Pittsburgh gets healthy, I don't think any team in the league -- including New England -- can stop them. No, its just without having any other options open for McNabb the dominating Steeler's defense smothered him. I think the Steelers, I think they're great. Its just I don't think they'd be able to dominate them with ease. And please, while you're at it, share with the world the fundamental problems with Philly's front seven. I understand Simeneau, but who else is "fundamentally flawed" to the point that they'll NEVER be able to succeed against the AFC? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the pinjockey 0 Report post Posted December 1, 2004 2003 was certainly a choke job. Noone showed up to play. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
therealworldschampion 0 Report post Posted December 1, 2004 Also Philly gave up 160 rushing yards to the Browns. The Browns can't even get their running game off the ground 9 out of 10 times but they didn't have any problem running all over the Eagles. That was when Simoneau was the MLB, and the man is immediately out of a play once an O-lineman touches him. Trotter has done wonders with the run defense ever since he was inserted into the lineup. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
therealworldschampion 0 Report post Posted December 1, 2004 2003 was certainly a choke job. Noone showed up to play. Ugh, I can still remember Pinkston and Thrash's performance in that game. Pinkston's done better this year, but I still play that "Pass To Pinky" game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the pinjockey 0 Report post Posted December 1, 2004 The Eagles have had some front seven problems. Simon and Walker have sucked a dick this year, it appears the threat of Rayburn and Thomas is working as they played better this week. The DE opposite Kearse (McDougle, Douglas, Burgess) have all been disappointing. They should be wreaking havoc playing opposite Kearse, but that has not been happening. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted December 1, 2004 The entire front seven is undersized. See: how quickly they got winded when facing the Steelers. It's a fundamental flaw in how the personnel was assembled, as was stated earlier in the thread. They're built for speed, not to play against a running team like the Steelers. See how easily Kearse is blown off the ball in running plays? See how their DL and LBs looked like they were on roller skates against the Tubby Tailback? They aren't big enough up front to deal with a running team. Plain and simple. Both NE and Pittsburgh from the AFC, and possibly GB and ATL in the NFC will run all over Philly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
therealworldschampion 0 Report post Posted December 1, 2004 The Eagles have had some front seven problems. Simon and Walker have sucked a dick this year, it appears the threat of Rayburn and Thomas is working as they played better this week. You would think Simon would be having a monster year due to it being a contract year, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I can still see someone *coughDanSnydercough* giving him a ton of money in the off-season. It suprises me that Hollis Thomas is still healthy this deep into the year too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Winter Of My Discontent Report post Posted December 1, 2004 Sure they've allowed yards, but it hasn't resulted in nearly as many scores as other teams. They've been effective when necessary. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted December 1, 2004 27-3. Can't remember what the Browns' score was, but they also ran all over them and took them to OT in a high scoring game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted December 1, 2004 34-31 was the score of the Browns game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vitamin X Report post Posted December 1, 2004 The Eagles have had some front seven problems. Simon and Walker have sucked a dick this year, it appears the threat of Rayburn and Thomas is working as they played better this week. You would think Simon would be having a monster year due to it being a contract year, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I can still see someone *coughDanSnydercough* giving him a ton of money in the off-season. It suprises me that Hollis Thomas is still healthy this deep into the year too. Hell, the Pack'll take him. Grady Jackson is getting on in years, and Green Bay needs size on the defensive line to counter their undersized although fast and furious linebacking corps. And everyone saw the enormous difference Jackson provided in the defense when he returned. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted December 1, 2004 Also scoring defense is a poor stat when you see the Giants, Redskins and Cowboys twice a year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the pinjockey 0 Report post Posted December 1, 2004 I like how 27 keeps getting thrown out there. How about 164, as in total points allowed. You know, tied for lowest in the league points allowed. But the defense had a couple games where they allowed points, oh my god they suck. I have tried to be reasonable here. I acknowledged the front seven has had problems, I stated their starting DTs have sucked a dick, I will acknowledge Lito Sheppard has sucked the last month and that the D has question marks. But if your response is going to be 27, I will respond with 164 and leave it at that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
therealworldschampion 0 Report post Posted December 1, 2004 Hell, the Pack'll take him. Grady Jackson is getting on in years, and Green Bay needs size on the defensive line to counter their undersized although fast and furious linebacking corps. And everyone saw the enormous difference Jackson provided in the defense when he returned. I have no doubt in my mind that Simon's going to Washington, that will be Daniel Snyder's "Try to stick it to a division rival and have it blow up in your face" move for next year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted December 1, 2004 Okay, 27 and 31. But the point is that, as Mad Dog said, scoring defense is an incredibly overrated stat when you play in the NFC East. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted December 1, 2004 Which means NOTHING when you have the Giants, Redskins and Cowboys on the schedule twice. It's a joke stat when you play incompetent offenses for half the season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the pinjockey 0 Report post Posted December 1, 2004 Well out of those three teams the only one they have played twice is the Giants, who have arguably the league's best running back this year. So shouldn't he have run wild and put some points on the board? Washington is garbage, but every team has played a garbage team. And Dallas put up 21 against them, actually hurting their per game average. So their division has been irrelevant to this point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted December 1, 2004 The problem being that the Giants have no offensive line and Tiki has done his "arguably the league's best running back this year" routine against inferior competition. And Dallas scoring 21 on them is actually working against your argument. The problem is that their other opponents have been the likes of Chicago and Detroit. That's not their fault, nor is the NFC East's weakness. They're playing as well as they need to in order to win. But the stat is simply worthless when you consider their competition. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted December 1, 2004 New York averages 18.4 pts. a game Dallas averages 17.5 a game Washington averages 12.5 a game If you want to throw some more teams into the mix Detroit averages 17.5 a game Baltimore averages 18.8 a game Chicago averages 15.6 a game Doesn't sound like these teams score against anyone. They've played two of three bottom scoring offenses in the league and all of those teams are below 20th as far as scoring offenses go. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vitamin X Report post Posted December 1, 2004 And Green Bay averages 27.4! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
therealworldschampion 0 Report post Posted December 1, 2004 Minnesota's offense is averaging a point under Green Bay's, and the Eagles held them to 16 points if you remember. Also was pretty darn effective on Moss. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted December 1, 2004 Culpepper also fumbled one on the 1 yard line that game. And Minnesota always sucks in big games. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted December 1, 2004 Not to mention the fact that they're not a power running team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
therealworldschampion 0 Report post Posted December 1, 2004 That was because of red-zone defense. I believe Minnesota got into the red-zone about 3 times in that game and was limited to field goals or turned the ball over. Stats can be awfully overrated in football, weren't the Patriots stats in 2001 around the middle? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the pinjockey 0 Report post Posted December 1, 2004 And they held all but Dallas under their season averages. They held Washington to their lowest score of the season (less that Pittsburgh allowed). They held Carolina to the second lowest score of the season (a team that has scored 20 ppg since). They held Chicago to their third lowest. They just held the Giants to 6 which is their lowest of the season. So they are doing the job against teams they should be doing their job against. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
