1 minute ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

No.  Before the injuries I was saying this is an 8-8 team.  And I am not just talking about the 2020 draft.  But knowing the holes and age we had at the D-line and O-line.  You don't draft a project QB with the 2nd pick.    Howie is not a GM.  He's a capologist and he's now failing at that.  The next time you are critical of anything Eagles related will be the first time.   Howie, Doug and Lurie are all too smart for their own good.  Or at least they think they are.  

While our assessments of the team are quite different, you have been consistent on the issues and the record projections. 

Some are over reacting to one game but this game was a little more proof for your assessment.

We still disagrees .

I know I am an idiot (saved you the time )

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Of course not, but the causal relationship being implied is the one between establishing a running game and its resultant effects on the effectiveness of play action passes. The null hypothesis here is that there is no causal relationship between the two, thus the need to prove it exists lies on those that argue there still is one despite a dearth of non-anecdotal evidence indicating as much.

I agree, and I don't have the time means nor desire to compile stats that prove it does exist though I'm sure if someone cared enough they could compile some stats to fit their narrative.

 

Just now, greend said:

Playing crappy against crappy teams happens  every year to someone. Teams that should blow someone out on opening day ends up losing all the time in the NFL. Let's reign it in a bit and see how week 2 goes. 

In 2003, the Patriots were shutout by the Bills 31-0 in week 1. 

The Pats won the SB a few months later.  The Bills went 6-10.

Just now, In2football said:

While our assessments of the team are quite different, you have been consistent on the issues and the record projections. 

Some are over reacting to one game but this game was a little more proof for your assessment.

We still disagrees .

I know I am an idiot (saved you the time )

Do you now Smeagol? Smeagol from the Eagles

Just now, Connecticut Eagle said:

In 2003, the Patriots were shutout by the Bills 31-0 in week 1. 

The Pats won the SB a few months later.  The Bills went 6-10.

So obviously we are winning the Superbowl. 

Brb betting life saving on this 

Just now, greend said:

Do you now Smeagol? Smeagol from the Eagles

Did you add that s I don't know where it came from 

2 minutes ago, greend said:

Do you now Smeagol? Smeagol from the Eagles

Ya know if you hadn't of quoted me I could have went back and fixed it

1 minute ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Coddle two seasoned Veterans (Peters and Jackson).  Great precedence Doug.  No wonder this team is soft.  

 

 

He's been doing this since he arrived.  Now, I'm not a fan of his game plans or how he refuses to move Carson or do any RPO, which is whst got us all excited about Carson to begin with, resting veterans - Kelce gets them too- isn't a bad idea throughout a season.  

5 minutes ago, In2football said:

It's the NFL play action is not buying you 4 steps ever! Those lb wouldn't even make our squad.

It's meant to freeze or a false step. One step is enough to create plenty of separation. 

Even if you told the other team no run was coming muscle memory and habit will still make it work sometimes. It works because it could be happening not that it is or does happen 

Not buying 4 steps in today's game that's for sure.

I've seen games where LBs get totally engulfed by the offense after a play action and take them selves out of the play. I've seen other games where LBs don't even take 1 false step or freeze on play action.

Some of it could be scheme some could the defensive call at the time, there are just so many variables and so much going on between 22 players on a field that it's impossible to nail it down to one thing by claiming running the ball doesn't increase the effectiveness of play action, and one would then also have to define what's an effective play action play. Is it based on how far one got a defender out of position or the end result of the play?

So this is my afternoon: a traveling musician playing at a Senior Living Community singing "Anchors Away!"

 

Brutal

Makes you wonder if that report that they thought they could beat Washington without some of our top players was actually true. Also said in the report that the schemes were vanilla so we wouldn’t show the Rams anything on tape. Some of that may have been true.

9 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

No.  Before the injuries I was saying this is an 8-8 team.  And I am not just talking about the 2020 draft.  But knowing the holes and age we had at the D-line and O-line.  You don't draft a project QB with the 2nd pick.    Howie is not a GM.  He's a capologist and he's now failing at that.  The next time you are critical of anything Eagles related will be the first time.   Howie, Doug and Lurie are all too smart for their own good.  Or at least they think they are.  

i think some were wayyy to optimistic about the roster. I was with you. Imo it was a 8-9 win team before the injuries. I think their core is continuously aging and beginning to show signs of wear and tear. It’s what happens when players even talented ones age. Add on your pipeline of young players isn’t as impressive as some guys have failed to be the players we imagined or just weren’t very good picks. They need to add to the young core and build up the next core for their next title run. Unfortunately our draft history hasn’t been all that impressive. Feels like every other year is a bad draft. 

3 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Not buying 4 steps in today's game that's for sure.

I've seen games where LBs get totally engulfed by the offense after a play action and take them selves out of the play. I've seen other games where LBs don't even take 1 false step or freeze on play action.

Some of it could be scheme some could the defensive call at the time, there are just so many variables and so much going on between 22 players on a field that it's impossible to nail it down to one thing by claiming running the ball doesn't increase the effectiveness of play action, and one would then also have to define what's an effective play action play. Is it based on how far one got a defender out of position or the end result of the play?

There have been some pretty good stats posted that do support the argument that running success and play action success are not related. 

 

Stats are stats but I lean towards it doesn't matter. 

11 minutes ago, In2football said:

Ya know if you hadn't of quoted me I could have went back and fixed it

15 minutes ago, greend said:

Point is they don't need them to take 4 steps to be effective. 1 false step forward when the receiver is running at you is all it takes to be effective. The stats prove it to be true. I understand that it's hard to believe it but I used to argue with Manu about it constantly. He's right and the stats prove it.

That said I still like a little run game mixed in. 

I get that I'm fine discussing it and even learning about what the data suggests and even accepting that data going forward and id have a smoother time accepting that data if the response to my comments wasn't, " wrong" or you don't know what youre talking about.

Sometimes posters on this board can be real A holes.I appreciate your candor and ability to have a conversation and the information presented.

 

27 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Anti intellectualism???

You called me a "Karen"for saying stats don't tell a whole picture.

Let's assume that I'm wrong on that assertion how does that have anything to do with being a Karen???

Then again maybe in Canada the term Karen has a different meaning than it does here in America.🤔

When you proudly proclaim "I see your stats, but they were made up by nerds, I played high school football so I know more than your so called stats", that's textbook anti-intellectualism. Karen's generally follow this same line of thinking..."I don't care about what rules you have, I'm special and I need your manager!!"

10 minutes ago, MediterraneanDiet said:

So this is my afternoon: a traveling musician playing at a Senior Living Community singing "Anchors Away!"

 

Brutal

1 hour ago, NCiggles said:

I think  the data is pretty convincing and the analysis is pretty thorough.  I'm not sure what impact play action has on the screen game because I'm fairly certain that most screen, wheel and flat routes plays aren't using play action.   

It has nothing to do with screen wheel and flat. You totally missed the point - which was that play action didn't work because the Saints game plan was to ignore the run. Their focus in that game was to take away the passing game to Westbrook - which was mostly screens, wheels and flats. They left the middle of the defense wide open to runs - banking that the Eagles wouldn't take advantage of that void and they were correct - despite gashing the Saints on the few runs up the middle Andy Reid never exploited it. Any other coach would have adjusted by pounding the ball up the middle until the Saints adjusted to stop it AND then play action would have had an impact late in the game. 

Again, play action is now overused which is why the data is misleading or wrong. The whole point of play action is to get LBers (And Safeties) to bite on the run fake. If every other pass play is a run fake - it's not really a fake. 

30 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Anti intellectualism???

You called me a "Karen"for saying stats don't tell a whole picture.

Let's assume that I'm wrong on that assertion how does that have anything to do with being a Karen???

Then again maybe in Canada the term Karen has a different meaning than it does here in America.🤔

It means Karen Magnussen up here; he wants you to do a triple-salchow

5 minutes ago, In2football said:

There have been some pretty good stats posted that do support the argument that running success and play action success are not related. 

 

Stats are stats but I lean towards it doesn't matter. 

Yup I agree, the stats seem pretty valid.

I think my main problem isn't with the stats or how they are presented or the hypothesis behind them rather the reaction from posters to me for making a comment about conventional football, which apparently is no longer conventioal thinking according to these stats.

I wonder how much weight nfl circles give this study. I'm assuming doug and co as much as they are into analytics give it a fair amount of attention.

Having said that it didn't work out for them so we'll last game☹️

1 minute ago, Utebird said:

I get that I'm fine discussing it and even learning about what the data suggests and even accepting that data going forward and id have a smoother time accepting that data if the response to my comments wasn't, " wrong" or you don't know what youre talking about.

Sometimes posters on this board can be real A holes.I appreciate your candor and ability to have a conversation and the information presented.

 

Yeah and sometimes I can be too. That said you presented yourself well and didn't appear to be stubborn about your point of view, which also makes conversations a little easier.

What do the historical stats say about when the defense doesn't even need to be concerned about the opposition RB or running game and just pins their ears back to attack the opposing QB?  Because that's actually what happened on Sunday, regardless of play-action or not.

3 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

When you proudly proclaim "I see your stats, but they were made up by nerds, I played high school football so I know more than your so called stats", that's textbook anti-intellectualism. Karen's generally follow this same line of thinking..."I don't care about what rules you have, I'm special and I need your manager!!"

I didn't discount the stats I simply said stats don't tell the whole story, which they don't.

I didn't say I knew more because I played football I said what happened when I played football which was a long time ago and echoed the comment of a poster who played college football.

So what's the name for a poster that tells people they're wrong anti intellectualist and a Karen over a discussion on a sports message board talking about the effect running game has on play action?

1 minute ago, Utebird said:

I didn't discount the stats I simply said stats don't tell the whole story, which they don't.

I didn't say I knew more because I played football I said what happened when I played football which was a long time ago and echoed the comment of a poster who played college football.

So what's the name for a poster that tells people they're wrong anti intellectualist and a Karen over a discussion on a sports message board talking about the effect running game has on play action?

A genius. Thank you for your time. 

40 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

No I wouldn't. If he's fully healthy like they claim, you play your healthy players. If they get hurt they get hurt. Dude could tear his ACL running a route this Sunday untouched. Name me one 100% healthy #1 WR who was on a pitch count. I can never recall that happening before.

It's Fing insane to limit the snaps of a fully healthy WR, especially when everything behind him is either an unproven rookie or not very good.

And if they knew this was going to be a thing, they should've addressed the position better. Just awful roster management by Howie, which is as per usual the last 3 offseasons.

Yep, I mentioned this yesterday.  If they are that worried he is going to get hurt then why have him on the team?  Are we going to play Brandon Brooks half the plays next year for fear he tears something again?  

12 minutes ago, Utebird said:

I get that I'm fine discussing it and even learning about what the data suggests and even accepting that data going forward and id have a smoother time accepting that data if the response to my comments wasn't, " wrong" or you don't know what youre talking about.

Sometimes posters on this board can be real A holes.I appreciate your candor and ability to have a conversation and the information presented.

 

My apologies if I was being an A-hole.