3 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

Not once did I say a Gimmick offense cant be successful for a year.... or two. 

Go look at the Cam Newton year, it was a gimmick they did great, it took the NFL a year to catch up and turned back to a poopie QB. 

Go look at the Dolphins Wild Cat year. They won the division, next year they looked like trash. 

Look at the Ravens, huge offensive numbers during the regular season when they play more bad teams then good, once they get into the playoffs they turn to pumpkins. 

 

We aren't doing anything new and unheard of though. We're implementing a run-first, smash mouth offense that has some read option mixed in with a mobile quarterback. That's all been done before. Defensive coordinators have seen it for years. So I really wouldn't consider it a gimmick. It's not working because it's brand new, it's working because we have the personnel on the o-line and the QB to run it effectively. 

2 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

Multi Dollar Millionaire who's been in professional football for decades...

"it's gimmicky, we planned for it, we only gave up 330 yards of offense, 7 points and forced 4 turnovers,  won the game and we stopped it)

Hoagie mouth Eagle Fans.. ITS NOT GIMMICKY AND YOU DIDNT STOP IT LOL. 

Wow, a multi dollar millionaire said that? I'd be more impressed if he was a single-dollar millionaire. All that money consolidated into one bill, you know?

But seriously, using this logic fans could never disagree with anything a coach says about the game ever. Which is fine if you don't want to discuss it. I just disagree that it's a "gimmick" offense because it's been around for years, and we've been able to run it very effectively against some of the better defenses in the league. Yes the Giants "stopped it" in the sense that we scored 7 points, but we still accumulated over 200 rushing yards and moved the ball relatively well. We had some awful turnovers caused by mental errors more than anything the defense did.

Based on how you and McMullen twisted around Judge's words, you should go work for CNN.

11 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

The Eagles had less then 350 yards of total offense, 7 points and 4 turnovers. thats the definition of STOPPING AN OFFENSE.  

And by definition a gimmick is an uncommon stunt or scheme(per webster) Considering 2 teams run it(ravens/eagles) and only 1 team ran it last year(ravens) Yes, I'd say its EXTREMELY uncommon. 

Colts and 49ers have started to run it as well

9 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

The Eagles had less then 350 yards of total offense, 7 points and 4 turnovers. thats the definition of STOPPING AN OFFENSE.  

And by definition a gimmick is an uncommon stunt or scheme(per webster) Considering 2 teams run it(ravens/eagles) and only 1 team ran it last year(ravens) Yes, I'd say its EXTREMELY uncommon. 

Yeah, I don't really want to quibble over the definition of the word "gimmick." It's fine if that's how he wants to describe it, and you can agree with his opinion if you want. I'll be happy to continue to run the "gimmick" offense if it allows us to rack up 200+ yards rushing per game because when you do that, you'll usually win. Hopefully we'll use that as bulletin board material and blow them out in the next game. Judge sucks and so do the Giants, so we should be able to if we limit the braindead turnovers in the redzone. 

2 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

Like I said, go look at Lamar, the Dolphins, Cam, and now the Eagles being 5-7 and missing the playoffs. YAAAA GIMMICKS!`

Well we're a very incomplete team who was entering a season most understood to be a rebuilding one and we racked up a ton of those losses running a pass happy offense before we switched to a run-dominant one. But hey, the rest of the league is pass happy, so throwing the ball 40 times is not a "gimmick," but running the ball for over 200 consistently is. 

I prefer "nontraditional" or "trick" over "gimmick".  Whatever it's called, It's 100% not sustainable in its current form.  The VaGiants figured out that they just needed to beat on him a little bit on option plays and stuff the run in the redzones and then let Hurts take care of the rest with his arm....and he did.

When was the last team that won a Super Bowl with a trick offense?   

3 minutes ago, E-A-G-L-E-S Eagles said:

I prefer "nontraditional" or "trick" over "gimmick".  Whatever it's called, It's 100% not sustainable in its current form.  The VaGiants figured out that they just needed to beat on him a little bit on option plays and stuff the run in the redzones and then let Hurts take care of the rest with his arm....and he did.

When was the last team that won a Super Bowl with a trick offense?   

We mixed in the RPO the year we won our super bowl even with Nick Foles at QB. Obviously we're dialing up more RPOs now with Hurts than we did with him, but we still run traditional passing plays and traditional running plays as well. 

if hurts doesnt turn the ball over, the eagles win. his int's resulted from horrible decisions, not great defensive play. if raegor didnt have hands of stone, the eagles win. the giants defense didnt cause him to drop those passes. he just stinks. 

the eagles are running the type of offense that this talent can  flourish most in. is it a gimmick ? i guess, but it's their best option. 

On 11/29/2021 at 10:49 PM, Vileborg said:

It's a Gimmick until enough teams do it. Several other teams have already gone run heavy and are seeing the same or better success.

 

But not with their QB as the FEATURED RB! 🤣

11 minutes ago, Kz! said:

We mixed in the RPO the year we won our super bowl even with Nick Foles at QB. Obviously we're dialing up more RPOs now with Hurts than we did with him, but we still run traditional passing plays and traditional running plays as well. 

This is what I see, but fell free to convince me otherwise.

I don't believe RPOs were ever tricks or gimmicks.  It is just simplified. We just used more of them to create an offense for Nick at the time, but they have been being run for a long time.  Nick is a traditional drop back passer and those "RPOs" are designed to benefit guys like him.  

What Hurts is running is technically a Zone Read offense which is a majority running plays where he holds the ball and reads the DE.  You then mix in screens and crossing patterns to get the ball out quickly.  RPO and Zone Read aren't the same, despite how mixed up the announcers get.  Where does this become a trick?  Our QB runs the ball on a pace like a RB and then can't pass when he has to.  He paid the price for it last week because he is an open target on those zone plays.   Certainly, he runs from some rare traditional sets and that is a good move...except that he isn't effective as a passer.  This is a passing league with everything set up to benefit the passer.  Our offense is really one dimensional.  Zone Read works in college, but its far tougher with NFL speed.

I think the closest thing we have currently that has been SB successful as a nontraditional offense is Kansas City.  The difference between them and us is their offense is pass based and their QB is pass first, but they can definitely gash you with run and pass.  The rest of the nontraditionals get to the playoffs and flame out.

16 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

if hurts doesnt turn the ball over, the eagles win. his int's resulted from horrible decisions, not great defensive play. if raegor didnt have hands of stone, the eagles win. the giants defense didnt cause him to drop those passes. he just stinks. 

the eagles are running the type of offense that this talent can  flourish most in. is it a gimmick ? i guess, but it's their best option. 

What if the Giants taking the run away and forcing him to pass in the Red Zone led to those picks?  They knew his strength isn't accuracy, so they made him do it.  I'm just saying that it's a really fine line...but YES, we would have likely won without the interceptions...but they forced him into those bad plays and we lost.  That's good defensive design.

7 minutes ago, E-A-G-L-E-S Eagles said:

What if the Giants taking the run away and forcing him to pass in the Red Zone led to those picks?  They knew his strength isn't accuracy, so they made him do it.  I'm just saying that it's a really fine line...but YES, we would have likely won without the interceptions...but they forced him into those bad plays and we lost.  That's good defensive design.

they didn't take the run away IMO. some of those 3rd and longs were courtesy of penalties, not great defense. the 2nd int doesn't happen if there is not holding penalty that nullified a TD. 

don't get me wrong here, i am not trying to say hurts played well, he didn't. also, i am not saying the giants defense didnt play the eagles well, but some are making it sound like the giants D was lights out. 

1 minute ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

they didn't take the run away IMO. some of those 3rd and longs were courtesy of penalties, not great defense. the 2nd int doesn't happen if there is not holding penalty that nullified a TD. 

don't get me wrong here, i am not trying to say hurts played well, he didn't. also, i am not saying the giants defense didnt play the eagles well, but some are making it sound like the giants D was lights out. 

Like I said...it's a fine line.  The Giants didn't just blanket shut them down, but they did enough to win by making Hurts do what he was not good at.  At one point early in the 4th quarter, I think he had less passing yards (75) than rushing (77).  That is what I remember anyway after a few beers.  Whatever caused that and the turnovers cost us the game.

6 minutes ago, E-A-G-L-E-S Eagles said:

Like I said...it's a fine line.  The Giants didn't just blanket shut them down, but they did enough to win by making Hurts do what he was not good at.  At one point early in the 4th quarter, I think he had less passing yards (75) than rushing (77).  That is what I remember anyway after a few beers.  Whatever caused that and the turnovers cost us the game.

i agree its a fine line, and the issues wouldn't have disappeared if the eagles won. 

 

17 hours ago, PoconoDon said:

To all the "Pocket passers are a thing of the past" people,  you've been fooled yet again. Happens every year and TBF, a long time ago I thought so too for a brief time. Then I realized the truth. The running QB's of the world won't win if you take away their ability to run. The hyper accurate pocket passer reigns supreme in the NFL.

An uncomfortable truth.

2 hours ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

i agree its a fine line, and the issues wouldn't have disappeared if the eagles won. 

Right.  The issue we need to correct to win consistently is still there win or lose.

9 hours ago, mikemack8 said:

Did anyone actually read the article?  The coach didn’t say any of the things OP said he did.

I didn't read it until you said something. He used the words "What that means is" which was a red flag right away. Judge talked about what they did to try and stop the Eagles offense and nothing more. Just like any coach would say after any game where their team won.

People like to use the word 'gimmick' to denigrate something that a team is doing, but all offenses are gimmicks to one extent or another.

Whatever the Eagles offense is, gimmick or no, it is awful they only put up 7 points against the lowly Giants. F'n Joe Judge figured them out! 

Interesting quote (author's take) from the article:

 

Quote

 

what Sirianni was attempting to do early on Sunday after the team’s recent success was building off of that to take the next step into a more well-rounded unit that can strike in multiple ways.

It failed on Sunday.

 

I can buy that.  It's very possible that's what Siri had in mind going into the game because they started out passing more than running.   And yes, it failed miserably.  And therein lies the problem...Hurts just isn't the guy who can beat you with his arm and mind vs. his legs.  And as coaches, they need to see whether or not Hurts can do this and/or if he at least has the potential to do this at some point.  

Hurts seems to be at his best when the offense is effectively running the ball and the game flow is under control...meaning, they aren't getting far behind on the scoreboard.  It's a good thing they've been facing crap offenses lately and will again this week.  But there is nothing that makes me think that if we were to play a team with a good offense, that we wouldn't get stomped again.  Getting behind on the scoreboard spells disaster for Hurts and the offense...until garbage time.

 

1 hour ago, EaglesAddict said:

Interesting quote (author's take) from the article:

 

I can buy that.  It's very possible that's what Siri had in mind going into the game because they started out passing more than running.   And yes, it failed miserably.  And therein lies the problem...Hurts just isn't the guy who can beat you with his arm and mind vs. his legs.  And as coaches, they need to see whether or not Hurts can do this and/or if he at least has the potential to do this at some point.  

Hurts seems to be at his best when the offense is effectively running the ball and the game flow is under control...meaning, they aren't getting far behind on the scoreboard.  It's a good thing they've been facing crap offenses lately and will again this week.  But there is nothing that makes me think that if we were to play a team with a good offense, that we wouldn't get stomped again.  Getting behind on the scoreboard spells disaster for Hurts and the offense...until garbage time.

 

If their focus is primarily on now, then they should continue to go run heavy to maximize their chances of winning.  If their eyes on more on the longer term picture, then they need to see if Hurts can develop his passing game to be able to lead the offense to take that next step, as the author mentioned.  This is the year to do that, because even if they win a few games against bad-to-average teams by running more, that isn't going to be sustainable or lead to success against the better teams.  

7 minutes ago, time2rock said:

If their focus is primarily on now, then they should continue to go run heavy to maximize their chances of winning.  If their eyes on more on the longer term picture, then they need to see if Hurts can develop his passing game to be able to lead the offense to take that next step, as the author mentioned.  This is the year to do that, because even if they win a few games against bad-to-average teams by running more, that isn't going to be sustainable or lead to success against the better teams.  

Yep, exactly.  They have to determine if Hurts is going to be in the conversation for starter next year...or not.  I really wish he was playing better or was just showing more as a passing QB because I really want them to focus on other areas in the offseason and draft.  But, the good ole QB factory will be firing up the smoke stacks come March.

On 12/2/2021 at 11:44 AM, EaglesAddict said:

Yep, exactly.  They have to determine if Hurts is going to be in the conversation for starter next year...or not.  I really wish he was playing better or was just showing more as a passing QB because I really want them to focus on other areas in the offseason and draft.  But, the good ole QB factory will be firing up the smoke stacks come March.

I hear ya.  There are still 5 games remaining, so hopefully he shows a little something before the season concludes.  But even if he doesn't, I don't want that to force them to feel the need to take a lesser prospect in April ... I'd still prefer to build other areas of the roster and put QB on the back burner for another year.  I just don't have confidence in Howie being able to do that and we'll end up with the next Goff or Mayfield or Trubisky or Daniel Jones and still not be competitive.  

On 12/1/2021 at 9:58 AM, Kz! said:

We aren't doing anything new and unheard of though. We're implementing a run-first, smash mouth offense that has some read option mixed in with a mobile quarterback. That's all been done before. Defensive coordinators have seen it for years. So I really wouldn't consider it a gimmick. It's not working because it's brand new, it's working because we have the personnel on the o-line and the QB to run it effectively. 

And it works even better when there's a 230 pound RB on the field (Jordan Howard) and get another one.

And it would work even better when there aren't 3 small WRs on the field instead of larger blockers,  which the Eagles should be getting in the offseason.  

51 minutes ago, Random Reglar said:

And it works even better when there's a 230 pound RB on the field (Jordan Howard) and get another one.

And it would work even better when there aren't 3 small WRs on the field instead of larger blockers,  which the Eagles should be getting in the offseason.  

Apparently Howard gains 5 lbs with every post mentioning his weight.