Kelce Must Be Replaced on Short Yardage

[Bwestbrook36]

Just now, NOTW said:

Oh, I'll bet you've had your share of jumbo packages!

BWAH HA HA HA 

I can't even comeback with anything!! That just has me literally laughing out loud.... You bastid!!!

Just now, downundermike said:

This is the best post in this topic

110%!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 He wins this round 

[NOTW]

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

This is the best post in this topic

Yet no like 

[Guest]

Just now, NOTW said:

Yet no like 

 

[NOTW]

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

 

After my post...

 

[NOTW]

5 minutes ago, Bwestbrook36 said:

I can't even comeback with anything!!

Not true, I heard you always have a comeback...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...from all those jumbo packages. 

 

 

 

[Bwestbrook36]

2 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Not true, I heard you always have a comeback...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...from all those jumbo packages. 

 

 

 

Knock it off!!! 

 

 

 

 

🖕

 

 

 

🤣🤣🤣

[NOTW]

1 minute ago, Bwestbrook36 said:

Knock it off!!! 

 

 

 

 

🖕

 

 

 

🤣🤣🤣

[Bwestbrook36]

1 minute ago, NOTW said:

You had to.much whiskey go to bed! Old ass

[NOTW]

4 minutes ago, Bwestbrook36 said:

You had to.much whiskey go to bed! Old ass

False. 

I'm drinking moonshine! 

[Bwestbrook36]

2 minutes ago, NOTW said:

False. 

I'm drinking moonshine! 

In that case carry on!

[Random Reglar]

9 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Moving your starting LT to FB in short yardage is a gimmick.   But, I'd like to know what team in the history of the NFL moved their starting LT to FB and handed him the ball in short yardage.  Is there even a single instance of that as a precedent?   

 

Having a jumbo package is completely different from moving Mailata to FB.   A jumbo package is something like 6 or even 7 OL.  3 TEs.  Maybe even putting a DT in as the FB to lead block, which is a bit of a gimmick, but is more traditional.   What you are describing isn't even close to a traditional 'jumbo package'.  

Ok.  I can dispute that, but won't. 

But the overall point that I'm making is DO JUMBO PACKAGE.

I'm coming up with ideas that might or might not work for the jumbo package.  But the specifics don't matter as much as the fact that the Eagles need to have the players on the field who are big enough to run straight ahead with blocking and get 1 yard with 4 tries.   There is 1 loss due to the fact that the Eagles didn't do that.

Core point is - the Eagles lost because they didn't have a jumbo package.

Maybe it's weirder to put DT JJ Watt on offense and have him catch TD passes.  Maybe it's weirder to take the massive professional rugby player who you trained to be a LT and put him in the backfield and have him carry the ball.  I don't know.  I can say that having a 350-380 pound rugby player with high sparq run up the middle, with 4 tries to get a total of 1 yard doesn't seem that unusual.   The Ravens have a pro bowl FB,  311 pound Patrick Ricard.   He carried the ball once in the Chiefs game.  He did not have anything like rugby player on his resume or any offense at all before the NFL.  But he's carrying the ball in the NFL and catching passes and doing a lot of blocking   Is that weird? 

When the question was asked "who should be the LT?"  I said often that I liked Dillard at LT,  not because he was better,  but because I didn't want to lose the obvious utility of Mailata in the backfield in short yardage situations.   And now, look, people are telling me that the Eagles can't use Mailata because he's the LT.  You can put Dillard there and put Mailata in the backfield.  If you wanted the right guy, the perfect guy, to plow forward and get a TD, 4 tries for a total of 1 yard,  it might be a high sparq 350-380 pound ex rugby player with a highlight reel of him carrying the ball and carrying a bunch of other players.  He can lean forward and stick the ball out and get a yard,  because he's 6'8 or something.   

I'd think that Mailata would like it too.   Does his normal thing, LT, most of the time, and occasionally, in short yardage situations,  Dillard comes in and Mailata comes into the backfield to either carry or block.  Mailata would become more famous,  Mailata is already signed to a long term deal.  It's a great story.   TV ads?  I'm right about this.  But I know it's controversial.

But the core point is that the Eagles need a jumbo package to run in short yardage situations and definitely in 1st and goal from the 1 situations.  The Eagles lost because they failed to do that.  Core point.  No Jumbo Package = LOSS.  Jumbo Package = WIN.  Do the 2nd one and WIN.

[Random Reglar]

11 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

The solution needs to be possible with the base personnel in their base positions.

Why?

The Eagles could have a completely different set of players on the field for their short yardage / goal line offense.    There is no reason why the Eagles couldn't do something vastly different.

Putting in big players in short yardage situations is extremely normal. 

The Ravens moved the RT to a LG spot on a play,  added an addititional OL,  had 2 TEs, a 311 pound FB who never played offense until the NFL, and Lamar Jackson.  

 

[Random Reglar]

12 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Line your LT up at FB, and you've created a massive alert to the defense.  

That it's a run play?

1st and goal from the 1 should always mean, put your big players in and run up the middle.

There is no element of surprise needed.   With big players,  if you have 4 tries to get a total of 1 yard,  that is something that would happen.  It's not hard.   It only becomes hard if you are diddling around 5 yards or more behind the LOS trying to throw a pass.  Which is harder near the end zone.   Gaining one yard on the ground given 4 tries by putting your biggest people on the field and plowing forward is something that would work. 

When Mailata goes from LT to FB, its called putting in the short yardage / goal line offense, which is a run offense, with a lot of big players.   The other team doesn't know what play it's going to be,  perhaps by the end of the year Tyree Jackson would be part of the short yardage / goal line offense.   

When you have a lot of room,  a lot of yards to go, you want fast players in there,  who can make big gains.  When you don't have a lot of room you want big players who can more reliably make short gains. 

Mailata in the backfield is potentially a superweapon.    If you look at the rugby,  you will see running, catching and throwing.   He's supposedly 380 pounds now and PFF says he's been great, with an 85,  #2 OT in the NFL right now.  If he's the #2 T right now, do we think it's his superior technique?   Or is it superior size and athleticism?  If the superior size and athleticism gets him #2 Tackle, I would have to think that superior size and athleticism would be useful in the backfield.  (Or on the DL.  Superweapon)

Keeping Mailata at LT did not help the Eagles enough to get them 1 yard in 4 tries.  Maybe Mailata at FB will work?

[mr_irie1]

14 hours ago, jsdarkstar said:

Yeah, let's criticize the coach for getting overly creative and not trying to run North and South, at the same time calling for putting a D Lineman in the backfield to carry the rock. Crazy.

My bad, I thought that putting a 1 between a bunch of exclamation points was a dead giveaway that my post was sarcasm. Maybe I should've put a bunch of Z's at the end instead.

 

As a serious answer to the topic I absolutely do NOT approve of our starting LT (who just signed a nice new contract) moving into the backfield during short yardage situations. If he was a backup then I wouldn't have a huge problem with it if they tried it out once. 

[Iggles_Phan]

5 hours ago, Random Reglar said:

No Jumbo Package = LOSS.  Jumbo Package = WIN.  Do the 2nd one and WIN.

Repeating this little mantra over and over won't make it true.

And putting your LT at FB to carry the ball isn't the only Jumbo package they could have used.  In fact they did use a jumbo package in both games already.  3 TE sets are "jumbo" packages.

As for the rest of yoir post, it is quite a rant. Still haven't found a precedent for thr LT to FB move I guess.  Might as well put Lane Johnson at QB too, he played there in his college days.

[Bwestbrook36]

6 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Repeating this little mantra over and over won't make it true.

And putting your LT at FB to carry the ball isn't the only Jumbo package they could have used.  In fact they did use a jumbo package in both games already.  3 TE sets are "jumbo" packages.

As for the rest of yoir post, it is quite a rant. Still haven't found a precedent for thr LT to FB move I guess.  Might as well put Lane Johnson at QB too, he played there in his college days.

Im not sure why anyone even entertains this guy anymore. He isn't even an Eagles fan he just likes following them because they have a bunch of big guys that are fast. 

It's for the same reason he keeps bringing up the Ravens. Because they run the ball a lot with different formations. 

[Random Reglar]

8 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Repeating this little mantra over and over won't make it true.

And putting your LT at FB to carry the ball isn't the only Jumbo package they could have used.  In fact they did use a jumbo package in both games already.  3 TE sets are "jumbo" packages.

As for the rest of yoir post, it is quite a rant. Still haven't found a precedent for thr LT to FB move I guess.  Might as well put Lane Johnson at QB too, he played there in his college days.

 

 

It being TRUE makes it TRUE.

The Eagles lost because they didn't put in a bunch of big players on first and goal from the 1 and run up to 4 times.

I didn't say that putting Mailata in the backfield was the only option.

And putting Lane Johnson in the backfield is another option.
 

 

[Random Reglar]

1 hour ago, Bwestbrook36 said:

Im not sure why anyone even entertains this guy anymore. He isn't even an Eagles fan he just likes following them because they have a bunch of big guys that are fast. 

It's for the same reason he keeps bringing up the Ravens. Because they run the ball a lot with different formations. 

I'm here because the Eagle have a bunch of running QBs.   In January I noticed that the Eagles signed Tyree Jackson and Khalil Tate.  In addition to Jalen Hurts and Greg Ward Jr.   At that point, I said "wow, the Eagles have quite a lot of the running QBs I like,  I think that I'll pay very close attention to the Eagles and go annoy people on the message boards with my ideas about a bunch of running QBs on the field at the same time."

And then I went and started paying attention to the Eagles, started looking closely at the roster.   And one of the first things that I noticed was that the Eagles roster - although it had Jalen Hurts, running QB,  was not a run first team and did not have the kind of big backs that typically you like to have.  I noticed a while ago, and mentioned, that the Eagles were likely to have difficulties in short yardage situations unless they did something different like putting in more of their big players.  And look,  the Eagles lost because they didn't put in the big players on first and goal from the 1. 

It's  interesting to me,  because I identified the problem,  came up with general solutions and specific solutions, months ago, and the Eagles didn't do that, and they lost.

The reason I compare the Eagles to the Ravens is that the Eagles have Jalen Hurts who is almost as good a runner as Lamar Jackson, and because the Eagles have him,  the Eagles can do a lot of the same things as the Ravens do.

All teams have backup OL who are 300+ pounds.  So, I'm not here because the Eagles are a rare team that has 300+ pound backup OLs, or 300+ DTs who can be used in short yardage situations.  All teams have that.  What the Eagles do have are Mailata and Lane, who are both  versatile and high sparq.   But I didn't start paying attention to the Eagles because of them.

[Bwestbrook36]

Mailata missed practice with a sprained knee. That's what they get for playing him at LT. Should of made him a running back where those kinds of injuries don't happen. 

[NOTW]

Remember when Chip was here and some Oregon fans joined the old EMB and would talk about X's and O's, scheme and break down plays and people made fun of them?

Then we have topics like this.  

[Iggles_Phan]

On 9/22/2021 at 2:23 PM, Random Reglar said:

 

 

It being TRUE makes it TRUE.

The Eagles lost because they didn't put in a bunch of big players on first and goal from the 1 and run up to 4 times.

I didn't say that putting Mailata in the backfield was the only option.

And putting Lane Johnson in the backfield is another option.
 

 

[Guest]

How is this thread not in R&R yet ??

[Bwestbrook36]

4 minutes ago, downundermike said:

How is this thread not in R&R yet ??

Because they are great ideas 

[EagleVA]

On 9/20/2021 at 11:19 AM, Talonblood said:

Sure, pull Kelce and let the other team KNOW you are running the ball.

There are times when you have to run the ball when the entire stadium kows you're gonna run, the stuidity of the Eagles is they don't have a RB for those types of situations.

The Eagles need a 225+,  between the tackles, downhill runner on the team, year after year they pass on those types of RBs, ironically, the only SB the Eagles won they had two of those types.

[Random Reglar]

1 hour ago, EagleVA said:

There are times when you have to run the ball when the entire stadium kows you're gonna run, the stuidity of the Eagles is they don't have a RB for those types of situations.

The Eagles need a 225+,  between the tackles, downhill runner on the team, year after year they pass on those types of RBs, ironically, the only SB the Eagles won they had two of those types.

that's exactly right

it's the normal, basic, common sense, conventional wisdom approach to what you do when you need to run.   Short yardage,  goal line,  and also to run out the clock at the end of games.