7 minutes ago, austinfan said:

A little patience, Taylor was drafted as a project with upside, Dillard was injured, it happens. JJAW is the only seemingly "whiff" the last few years and I'd still give him a whole season.

People are overreacting, it's a weird season with no exhibition games, two starting OL down, then Driscoll goes down (who really isn't suited to OT with his short arms), Hargrave and Barnett injured, then Curry and Graham go down.

The back seven probably played as well as we've seen in almost a decade, we have far more speed than we've had in a long time back there, the OLBs and Slay and Maddox.

Malik Jackson looks healthy, if they can get Hargrave back they have a heck of a DT rotation with Ridgeway, and Sweat looks like he's finally starting to live up to his athletic promise.

Reagor had a nice start, but it'll take time to build chemistry, this is where you miss exhibition games, you just can't duplicate game conditions in practice.

Ward is a solid slot WR, he knows how to get open underneath, the kind of player you don't let leave (Amendola? Edelman is a converted college QB).

I'm not panicking until game 4 or 5, this team has plenty of talent if they can get semi-healthy, and the OL should jell as they get game experience, a lot of the problems were communication against inside blitzes, and some poor route running by rookie WRs (who would have thought?). And Pederson, with a 17 point lead, should have been far more conservative - nothing wrong with dink and dunk when you're OL is shaky and you have a lead.

 

Sup afan, agreed that we have plenty of talent, but not exactly plenty of depth I'd argue. And by depth, I don't just mean some warm bodies occupying space on the bench. Depth is a funny thing, kinda like car insurance, you don't quite know how good it is until you're forced to use it. Ours is not great, as we've all seen last year and now continuing into this year. Some areas were improved (CB), others neglected (OL), but on the whole it's still not enough to win us games against inferior opponents let alone superior ones. I'm hoping that changes once the younger lads gain some experience, but only time will tell.

28 minutes ago, Br3 said:

Momentum can be too hard to stop in football and it just demoralizes the defense after they just did their jobs and Carson turns the ball over and gives the other team the ball on a short field. Almost guaranteed points 

The Eagles turned the ball over three times yesterday, two TD's and the Team kneeled to end the game after the last turnover, but could have kicked a field goal.  So you could call it a 100% success rate.

The rest of the league gave up 14 scores after 20 turnovers yesterday, and 6 of those they only gave up field goals.

Why can a defense that was playing lights out to that point not get a stop after a turnover ??

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

Sup afan, agreed that we have plenty of talent, but not exactly plenty of depth I'd argue. And by depth, I don't just mean some warm bodies occupying space on the bench. Depth is a funny thing, kinda like car insurance, you don't quite know how good it is until you're forced to use it. Ours is not great, as we've all seen last year and now continuing into this year. Some areas were improved (CB), others neglected (OL), but on the whole it's still not enough to win us games against inferior opponents let alone superior ones. I'm hoping that changes once the younger lads gain some experience, but only time will tell.

Really?  Our 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th options at OL had to play yesterday.  How much depth is expected there?

It is said that human beings have a Fight or Flight response, not Dwight.

 

3 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

This is where you could possibly make the argument that a second round LB or DB, instead of Hurts, could have made a play that a Gerry, Riley or Mills couldn't.

Yup. Or at the very least, another OL. But nope, instead Howie had to have his QB Factory. Barf.

6 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Decent hope?

Now they are just trolling

7 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Decent hope?

Do we go with the Star Wars - Episode IV meme or the Obama 2008 campaign meme?

10 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

We held McLaurin to 5/61, Haskins to a 5.7 YPA, and got 3 sacks.  I would have gladly taken that before the game began.

WFT never had to cross midfield to score.  Turnovers and fourth downs cost us the game.

 

 

Yup the Int before halftime was inexplicable, why even call that play?I get being aggressive but one has to be smart as well. Washington was a beat team then boom Wentz throws that pick wash scores and back in it. Also if one is going to defer to the second half going 3 and out to start the 2nd half negates the decision.

I smell Morhinwigs fingerprints all over this game plan, it was just reminiscent of an andy Marty game where the o line is bad and they throw 50 times and abandon the run🤬

51 minutes ago, Br3 said:

It wasnt the fact that we lost, it’s more who we lost to. Washington football club? Feels like 2 L’s. 

 

49 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

Who we lost to, and how we lost

Redskins we're one of(if not) the worst run team in the league last year and the Eagles ran the ball 17 times, o. and they had double digit lead, o and they gave up 8 sacks

Outside of Jesus coming off the cross and telling Doug to run the ball, I dont know how many more signs he needed

 

and it's still 1 game

It’s crazy how bad the Chiefs success may have crippled the Eagles this season. It’s like E45 was in Howie’s ear saying speed speed speed and everyone needs to mimic the Chiefs. 
 

They completely said F it when it came to the running game. Despite the fact that when Doug committed to the run in 2017, the offense took off. 
 

 

If neither Lane, nor Miles play on Sunday, we're losing to the Rams...and this team has real 5-11 energy.

12 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

My birthday's today, headed out to Del Frisco's. May catch the 2nd half(probably not). Also too old to stay up for the late game tonight too 

Happy Birthday dude.

11 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Decent hope?

☹️

11 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Decent hope?

 

Just now, Connecticut Eagle said:

Really?  Our 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th options at OL had to play yesterday.  How much depth is expected there?

Yes, really. If you were able to honestly look at the depth of the OL heading into the offseason and say, "we're fine there" then I don't know what to tell you. 

Oh yeah let that one slide right by . 

HBD B ..... 

2 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Yup the Int before halftime was inexplicable, why even call that play?I get being aggressive but one has to be smart as well. Washington was a beat team then boom Wentz throws that pick wash scores and back in it. Also if one is going to defer to the second half going 3 and out to start the 2nd half negates the decision.

I smell Morhinwigs fingerprints all over this game plan, it was just reminiscent of an andy Marty game where the o line is bad and they throw 50 times and abandon the run🤬

I have no issue with Doug calling pass plays at the end of the first half. It was a chance for a dagger. Even after the pick, we HC two chances for explosive plus at the end of the half. Keep firing. 

11 minutes ago, RLC said:

Deferring is almost always the right decision. You avoid teams scoring twice in a row + make sure the offense doesn't not touch the ball for 45 minutes, which can happen. 
In this instance, we got a 3 and out to open the game, then scored on the 1st drive. There are legitimate issues with coaching and situational football, but this one is unfair IMO.

I don't have a problem deferring, and agree in most cases it may provide a slight advantage.  However, if we are going to commit to deferring every time, I want to be great at opening the 2nd half with a drive rather than a 3 and out.  Advantage from deferring is rooted in being able to look at the first half of the game and coming out with an edge in the second half.  My concern is that last year they stopped being able to scheme up anything new at halftime and started to give the ball right back to the opponent in most cases, killing momentum.  The halftime plans and adjustments just don't seem to be working for whatever reason.  Normally you can come up with something you have identified that will work, at least to some degree, given the extra time.  Self scout and figure out why this is happening so frequently.

2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yes, really. If you were able to honestly look at the depth of the OL heading into the offseason and say, "we're fine there" then I don't know what to tell you. 

I can’t and won’t defend Hurts in round 2, but other than a center replacement for Kelce, I don’t think it would have made a lot of sense to draft an OL high. 

We had just traded up for Dillard in round 1, Seumalo is the guy at LG, Brooks is the guy at RG and Johnson is the guy at RT. Al of them for the foreseeable future — at least at the time FA opened and the draft rolled around.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yes, really. If you were able to honestly look at the depth of the OL heading into the offseason and say, "we're fine there" then I don't know what to tell you. 

OK.  So a few years ago, Big V had to start for Lane.  He looked awful initially.  Our #6 OL wasn't good and that reflected on the suspect depth at the time. 

However, it was just one of the five positions on the OL.  That is something that you can compensate for schematically and still survive. In fact, almost all teams can compensate for one suspect backup, or even starter, on the OL.

We had three backups playing yesterday at the same time.

That is my point about depth.

1 minute ago, ManuManu said:

I have no issue with Doug calling pass plays at the end of the first half. It was a chance for a dagger. Even after the pick, we HC two chances for explosive plus at the end of the half. Keep firing. 

At that point eagles were up 17-0 they go into halftime 17-0 getting the ball back they can come back establish the run milk the clock and let there defense which was playing well make wash earn it.

Instead the offense kept giving washington short fields because pederson wanted to be aggressive.

Well that aggressiveness lost the game.

Horrible game plan outside of the first 15 plays.

50 minutes ago, paco said:

Trade greend!!!

as long as you understand i'm his back up. if i can stay unsuspended for a season, not face another divorce, i'm game i guess. 

mind you, i've switched to marlboro 72s. and from hicks to oswalt, so the rants may be shorter. 

5 minutes ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

It’s crazy how bad the Chiefs success may have crippled the Eagles this season. It’s like E45 was in Howie’s ear saying speed speed speed and everyone needs to mimic the Chiefs. 
 

They completely said F it when it came to the running game. Despite the fact that when Doug committed to the run in 2017, the offense took off. 
 

 

50 passing plays and 17 running plays when the team is leading or tied most of the game isn't anything new for Doug; it's an oft-repeated theme that gets people in here angry on an ongoing basis.

There wasn't a need to draft RB; the Eagles already have a three down RB in Sanders.  They should have brought in better talent than Clement, though -- the Super Bowl win was a long time ago.  I'm not a believer in Boston Scott as anything more than a change of pace RB who gets the ball 5-6 times per game.  When those two guys are your only RB options, the defense can pin their ears back all game, which is what happened against WASH.

1 minute ago, Utebird said:

At that point eagles were up 17-0 they go into halftime 17-0 getting the ball back they can come back establish the run milk the clock and let there defense which was playing well make wash earn it.

Instead the offense kept giving washington short fields because pederson wanted to be aggressive.

Well that aggressiveness lost the game.

Horrible game plan outside of the first 15 plays.

Yup.  Just establish the run.  Every one can do it.  Hold on....

 

 

I just did it here at home.  It's super easy!

2 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

I can’t and won’t defend Hurts in round 2, but other than a center replacement for Kelce, I don’t think it would have made a lot of sense to draft an OL high. 

We had just traded up for Dillard in round 1, Seumalo is the guy at LG, Brooks is the guy at RG and Johnson is the guy at RT. Al of them for the foreseeable future — at least at the time FA opened and the draft rolled around.

In 2021, we'll have the following OL: Dillard, Seumalo, ???, Brooks, Johnson. We have Opeta/Driscoll/Prince/Pryor on the bench. We'll need either a C or a LG depending with what we did with Seumalo. So we'll need one new starter, or a top 100 pick. It's fine as long as we see anything from Driscoll/Herbig/Pryor moving forward to be comfortable with them as backups. As of today, you can safely pencil Driscoll as OL #6 for next year.