Kelce Must Be Replaced on Short Yardage

[Random Reglar]

On 9/24/2021 at 6:00 PM, Iggles_Phan said:

Don't forget, the Ravens 311 pound pro bowl fullback, Patrick Ricard,  never played offense before the NFL.

So,  ha ha ha.

But you're wrong. 

It's obvious that something needs to be done to bring more size and power to the offense in obvious rushing situations.  The Eagles lost last week because they didn't do that.
 

Someone just mentioned the solution that almost all teams use.   Have a big back who weighs 225+ who can run between the tackles.  Right now, the closest the Eagles have to a big short yardage back is Jalen Hurts. The downside to that is that it takes an extra spot on the roster.

[Iggles_Phan]

20 minutes ago, Random Reglar said:

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. 

 

That's 180 degrees separated from moving your LT (or now your RT) to FB.  

[Iggles_Phan]

Just now, Random Reglar said:

Don't forget, the Ravens 311 pound pro bowl fullback, Patrick Ricard,  never played offense before the NFL.

So,  ha ha ha.

But you're wrong. 

It's obvious that something needs to be done to bring more size and power to the offense in obvious rushing situations.  The Eagles lost last week because they didn't do that.
 

Someone just mentioned the solution that almost all teams use.   Have a big back who weighs 225+ who can run between the tackles.  Right now, the closest the Eagles have to a big short yardage back is Jalen Hurts. The downside to that is that it takes an extra spot on the roster.

Is Ricard also the starting LT?  Nope, but keep comparing different fruits to the apple you have in front of you.  

[DeathByEagle]

On 9/20/2021 at 11:02 AM, Swoop said:

Yeah, let's blame Kelce.

I put the  blame Wentz

[NOTW]

23 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

I put the  blame Wentz

Real fans know you blame McNabb.

[SNOORDA]

On 9/20/2021 at 10:27 AM, Random Reglar said:

1)  Mailata is like 50+ heavier now than then

2)  Mailata was running,  there,  for a lot more than 1 yard.   1 yard, that's all that's needed.  

Mailata is the heaviest player on the Eagles PLUS he has the experience running the ball.

Do people dispute that the normal thing that you do when you have a short yardage situation is put the big players in?

Did anyone watch the Ravens last night?  They beat the Chiefs.  It's not rare for them to put more than just 5 big players on offense at the same time.

I would absolutely use mailata on a short yardage play at goal line or on 4th down.  And also have a fake version of the that play where hurts keeps it.  
 

That intricate  trick play after converting a 90+ yard pass inside the 5yrd line may have been the last option in the playbook for me.  You want to make sure you get in and the best way to do that is 4 straight running plays 

[Thing3]

In this situation, I don't care what could have been done to punch the ball in, if you can't get it across after 3 tries KICK THE FEILD GOAL!  We lost all momentum after we failed to get points there and it changed the whole complexion of the game. I'm all for going for it in many cases but at this point in this game I feel it would have been better to just take the 3 points.

[Random Reglar]

7 hours ago, SNOORDA said:

I would absolutely use mailata on a short yardage play at goal line or on 4th down.  And also have a fake version of the that play where hurts keeps it.  
 

That intricate  trick play after converting a 90+ yard pass inside the 5yrd line may have been the last option in the playbook for me.  You want to make sure you get in and the best way to do that is 4 straight running plays 

Agree.

Mailata in the backfield.   I would perhaps describe his role and function differently.  I wouldn't limit him to only run forward and fake version of that.   He's a player in the backfield.  A potential SuperWeapon in the backfield.   There are always 4 players on offense at all times who could be in the backfield.  T Formation,  QB under center and 3 players right behind him.  Over the last 70 years or so,  the left halfback and right halfback have split out and become wide receivers,  and the fullback has become smaller and become a running back.   Looking at any old NFL footage tends to show 3 or more backs.  For years it was QB, RB/HB, FB.  Before that,  QB, LH, RH, FB,  before that, before there even was a QB, in the single wing days (the single wing actually had a lot of slightly different formations) there was the Tailback taking snaps from the shotgun, and either running or handing off or throwing.  Key is shotgun.  There was a Fullback close to him,  next to him, maybe a little behind.   A lot like today.  There was also a Blocking Back (BB) who stood where the QB stands.  Right behind the line, but not under center.  Also, a Wingback (WB) who often went into motion, doing things similar to today's Jet Sweep.

If there is a set of players that the Eagles put in in short yardage or goal line situations,  I would think that Mailata would be in the backfield.  The most normal thing that he would be doing would be blocking,  specifically lead blocking on a run play.  It would be similar to what Ricard does for the Ravens.  Create a big hole in the line for the ballcarrier.   And the most normal ballcarrier I'd think would be Hurts.  Looking at what Mailata did doing rugby though,  there is a lot he could do.   catch a pitch,  throw a pitch, in addition to running.  He could take snaps.   Again.  Potential SuperWeapon.  Hurts in the shotgun.  Mailata goes into motion,  quick stops under center, quick snap to Mailata who charges forward.  Or spends a couple of seconds under center and then goes somewhere else.   WFT did that with Logan Thomas last year.

[Iggles_Phan]

1 hour ago, Random Reglar said:

Agree.

Mailata in the backfield.   I would perhaps describe his role and function differently.  I wouldn't limit him to only run forward and fake version of that.   He's a player in the backfield.  A potential SuperWeapon in the backfield.   There are always 4 players on offense at all times who could be in the backfield.  T Formation,  QB under center and 3 players right behind him.  Over the last 70 years or so,  the left halfback and right halfback have split out and become wide receivers,  and the fullback has become smaller and become a running back.   Looking at any old NFL footage tends to show 3 or more backs.  For years it was QB, RB/HB, FB.  Before that,  QB, LH, RH, FB,  before that, before there even was a QB, in the single wing days (the single wing actually had a lot of slightly different formations) there was the Tailback taking snaps from the shotgun, and either running or handing off or throwing.  Key is shotgun.  There was a Fullback close to him,  next to him, maybe a little behind.   A lot like today.  There was also a Blocking Back (BB) who stood where the QB stands.  Right behind the line, but not under center.  Also, a Wingback (WB) who often went into motion, doing things similar to today's Jet Sweep.

If there is a set of players that the Eagles put in in short yardage or goal line situations,  I would think that Mailata would be in the backfield.  The most normal thing that he would be doing would be blocking,  specifically lead blocking on a run play.  It would be similar to what Ricard does for the Ravens.  Create a big hole in the line for the ballcarrier.   And the most normal ballcarrier I'd think would be Hurts.  Looking at what Mailata did doing rugby though,  there is a lot he could do.   catch a pitch,  throw a pitch, in addition to running.  He could take snaps.   Again.  Potential SuperWeapon.  Hurts in the shotgun.  Mailata goes into motion,  quick stops under center, quick snap to Mailata who charges forward.  Or spends a couple of seconds under center and then goes somewhere else.   WFT did that with Logan Thomas last year.

 

[EazyEaglez]

On 9/26/2021 at 2:08 PM, Thing3 said:

In this situation, I don't care what could have been done to punch the ball in, if you can't get it across after 3 tries KICK THE FEILD GOAL!  We lost all momentum after we failed to get points there and it changed the whole complexion of the game. I'm all for going for it in many cases but at this point in this game I feel it would have been better to just take the 3 points.

There was a point in the game where the Eagles scored a touchdown, had it called back, went for a field goal, and then had it blocked. That was before the debacle at the one yard line. The bottom line is even the three weren’t guaranteed, but frankly Sirianni had like six chances inside the red zone on that drive and he couldn’t get it done. 

[Thing3]

6 hours ago, EazyEaglez said:

There was a point in the game where the Eagles scored a touchdown, had it called back, went for a field goal, and then had it blocked. That was before the debacle at the one yard line. The bottom line is even the three weren’t guaranteed, but frankly Sirianni had like six chances inside the red zone on that drive and he couldn’t get it done. 

I'm not sure what your point is? Obviously nothing is guaranteed but I'm not blaming the coach if we didn't make that field goal.

[EazyEaglez]

3 minutes ago, Thing3 said:

I'm not sure what your point is? Obviously nothing is guaranteed but I'm not blaming the coach if we didn't make that field goal.

My point is there is isn’t any guaranteed points out there, but Sirianni as a coach had one good game, but two bad ones. 

[Thing3]

12 hours ago, EazyEaglez said:

My point is there is isn’t any guaranteed points out there, but Sirianni as a coach had one good game, but two bad ones. 

 We can agree on Sirianni's bad games but I still say if he went for the field goal there it would have been one less call of his I would be questioning. Like I said, if we missed that field goal I wouldn't blame Sirianni for making a bad decision but the kicker/players for not executing. I can also blame the players for not executing on 4th and goal but that is asking for a lot more of them than kicking a field goal. In the NFL scoring on 4th and goal is far less likely then kicking a field goal in the red zone. Trust me, even if they scored on 4th and goal I would be saying Sirianni got lucky and still would not have liked the call. But that's me. I guess your line of thinking there is closer to Sirianni's.