1 hour ago, wussbasket said:

 

Howie, please get this guy.

I love him in the 4th. Really want a guy who is 6’3”+ across from DeVonta not named JJAW. Ezukanma, Pierce, Pickens, Ross, etc. 

I don't know how anyone can be convinced Gannon is a good DC. Maybe you know defense more than I. The kind of performances every competent QB have put up against our D this year was very bad. Literally historically bad in terms of completion %. If Gannon needs great talent to make his defense work, I'm not sure what makes him a good DC. There are dozens of good coaches in the NFL who would make a good DC with great talent. What you do with less is what makes you a special DC. He left a lot to be desired IMO. He's a first timer, so I am willing to be patient with him. He's gotta improve quickly though.

7 minutes ago, schuy7 said:

I don't know how anyone can be convinced Gannon is a good DC. Maybe you know defense more than I. The kind of performances every competent QB have put up against our D this year was very bad. Literally historically bad in terms of completion %. If Gannon needs great talent to make his defense work, I'm not sure what makes him a good DC. There are dozens of good coaches in the NFL who would make a good DC with great talent. What you do with less is what makes you a special DC. He left a lot to be desired IMO. He's a first timer, so I am willing to be patient with him. He's gotta improve quickly though.

Theres a very wide gap between the "Great talent" you are talking about needing, vs what most posters would say the eagles possess on the defensive side of the ball.

Its Darius Slay, and pretty barren, talent wise on defense.

The D wasnt all that bad considering the lack of talent. The statistics may be a little misleading. But a truly bad defense could have been run over and sliced and diced by bad teams too. And we werent. No one seems to be willing to recognize that he took a complete trash defensive roster, and turned them in to an at least middle of the pack defense. Which is by far an overperformance.

You are speaking as if he should have taken this no talent D and coached a true top 10 unit that even performed strongly against elite offenses. Thats really unrealistic. Anyone should be able to admit this D overperformed. 

57 minutes ago, austinfan said:

What I assume is the better the team you build, the larger the number of potential QBs who can win a SB with that team.

The corpse of Peyton won with Denver, 44 year old Brady with TB, and so on. Foles with the Eagles!

If you have a really good team, you don't need a great QB, just a good one. If you have merely a good team, then you ma need a great QB - and they're really hard to obtain.

didnt you about a week or two ago you tell us we can wait a year or two to go after a QB because a quarterback will just eventually become available and we can go get him then? Did you not say that?  And I know you did because I quote you that night and we had a conversation.

You assuming that there eventually just gonna be QB out there that we can get that’s good enough at that point in time isn’t definitive or a definite. that’s hope and assuming one will be there when we need it. That might blow up in your face and not have that QB come along. Or you might not be able to maneuver up the draft to get that quarterback. Or you might not have the best assets and lose out on that quarterback. And be stuck searching for the Qb for the next couple of years wasting the roster you built up (which that’s not even a Given we get that correct) 

Tom Brady is still playing as a top three quarterback in the Fing league. He’s gonna finish second in the mvp. I don’t care if he’s 44. He still great. Again I brought this up last night when you talked brady and not winning with the 2017 eagles roster with their injuries. that 2017 team from New England had the 30th pass rush. They had the 20th rushing defense. They were missing Marcus Cannon, Julian Edelman, Hightower. Three pro bowl players. And they had a bunch of other injuries. And you know what he carried their ass and got them to the Super Bowl and nearly won the Super Bowl against the eagles. 

Also I shouldn’t have to choose to either have a great team with a good quarterback or a great QB with a good team. I should be going after a great quarterback if available and then still wanting and being able to build a great team. you don’t have to have either or situation. You might not have the treasure chest of assets but you still have picks and ability to maneuver cap space. 

I think it’s gonna be just as hard to build a team that was as great as the Denver Broncos were that year to carry a quarterback like manning was then. You seem to think just because we have those picks it’s just gonna be easy to build that and no way it could fail. Ask the Raiders how it went with those six first rounders since 2019. If it was just we have 3 first round picks and that means we’re gonna make this team great with them and it was that simple the Raiders would be a juggernaut right now.

And Nick Foles played elite in order for them to win that super bowl. If Nick Foles just would’ve played a good game not elite in that Super Bowl, they lose. I would argue the Eagles did not carry Nick Foles in that Super Bowl. Nick Foles held his own and played damn near perfect

2 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Theres a very wide gap between the "Great talent" you are talking about needing, vs what most posters would say the eagles possess on the defensive side of the ball.

Its Darius Slay, and pretty barren, talent wise on defense.

The D wasnt all that bad considering the lack of talent. The statistics may be a little misleading. But a truly bad defense could have been run over and sliced and diced by bad teams too. And we werent. No one seems to be willing to recognize that he took a complete trash defensive roster, and turned them in to an at least middle of the pack defense. Which is by far an overperformance.

You are speaking as if he should have taken this no talent D and coached a true top 10 unit that even performed strongly against elite offenses. Thats really unrealistic. Anyone should be able to admit this D overperformed. 

The talent isn't good, but it isn't slop either. Hargrave, Cox, Sweat can contribute to an above average DL. LBs and safeties are bad. Slay is the lone talent at CB imo. Nelson is fine in zone. It's not bottom of the league talent though. 

They weren't a defense that any good offense took seriously. They feasted on Gilbert, Fromm, Glennon, Simien, etc.

No way IMO that they over-achieved. Good offenses marched down the field on them non-stop with little resistance.

3 minutes ago, schuy7 said:

The talent isn't good, but it isn't slop either. Hargrave, Cox, Sweat can contribute to an above average DL. LBs and safeties are bad. Slay is the lone talent at CB imo. Nelson is fine in zone. It's not bottom of the league talent though. 

They weren't a defense that any good offense took seriously. They feasted on Gilbert, Fromm, Glennon, Simien, etc.

No way IMO that they over-achieved. Good offenses marched down the field on them non-stop with little resistance.

It just seems when people want to bash Howie, the will say this team has no talent. However when they want to criticize Gannon, they act as if he should have been able to coach that minimal talent to compete with the elite QBs. 

It doesnt really add up. People will have to admit that either Howie, or Gannon are better than they gave him credit for. 

If they had no talent, and Gannon got them to feast on anyone, they overperformed. 

Wow Devonta was wide open on that double move to end the half that resulted in an INT. Hurts easily could have stayed in the pocket. What a missed opportunity. 

12 minutes ago, schuy7 said:

The talent isn't good, but it isn't slop either. Hargrave, Cox, Sweat can contribute to an above average DL. LBs and safeties are bad. Slay is the lone talent at CB imo. Nelson is fine in zone. It's not bottom of the league talent though. 

They weren't a defense that any good offense took seriously. They feasted on Gilbert, Fromm, Glennon, Simien, etc.

No way IMO that they over-achieved. Good offenses marched down the field on them non-stop with little resistance.

The defense was 7 against the run and 15 against the pass on yards per attempt. They don't blitz much because who on this team can even blitz? There were far fewer big plays against the defense than there had been under Schwartz. Remember, Schwartz wasn't great between the 20's but the defense tightened up in the RZ. The Eagles have fairly slow LBs and safteys that can't make up lost ground, so they try to keep everything in front of them.

It takes awhile for new schemes to be put in place. They need to produce turnovers as they were severely lacking there this year. They definitely need better and younger talent, and hopefully they draft defense in the early rounds.

7 minutes ago, Wentz 2 Ertz said:

Wow Devonta was wide open on that double move to end the half that resulted in an INT. Hurts easily could have stayed in the pocket. What a missed opportunity. 

TE was wide open in the middle of the field for an easy 1st down too.

1 minute ago, wussbasket said:

The defense was 7 against the run and 15 against the pass on yards per attempt. They don't blitz much because who on this team can even blitz? There were far fewer big plays against the defense than there had been under Schwartz. Remember, Schwartz wasn't great between the 20's but the defense tightened up in the RZ. The Eagles have fairly slow LBs and safteys that can't make up lost ground, so they try to keep everything in front of them.

It takes awhile for new schemes to be put in place. They need to produce turnovers as they were severely lacking there this year. They definitely need better and younger talent, and hopefully they draft defense in the early rounds.

Yeah, those defensive ranking numbers don't mean a lot to me. There just isn't enough context. 

Limiting big plays is great, but if they still get down the field in 7 plays consistently, what's the difference?

I agree that it takes time. New scheme with a first time DC. I'm sure it was a learning experience. 

19 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

It just seems when people want to bash Howie, the will say this team has no talent. However when they want to criticize Gannon, they act as if he should have been able to coach that minimal talent to compete with the elite QBs. 

It doesnt really add up. People will have to admit that either Howie, or Gannon are better than they gave him credit for. 

If they had no talent, and Gannon got them to feast on anyone, they overperformed. 

I think some of those offenses we faced wouldn't have had success against anyone. They weren't at all functional. Joe Judge was running a QB sneak with Fromm as his best 3rd and long call.

He needs more talent to have a good defense, I don't really doubt that. I would have liked to have seen them be more competitive and have put up more resistance in some of those games against the good QBs.

We stopped the big plays, but over and over again we would allow completions in soft zones. You might as well try some man or some blitzes if you're getting torn up over and over again.

Really good DCs IMO really know how to adapt their match zone calls to spot drop where they think the opposing team's WRs will be. That's difficult to do early in the season though when you have less intel on teams, so the schedule didn't do Gannon any favors. But those are some of the things great DCs do to help mitigate the lack of talent.

10 minutes ago, schuy7 said:

Yeah, those defensive ranking numbers don't mean a lot to me. There just isn't enough context. 

Limiting big plays is great, but if they still get down the field in 7 plays consistently, what's the difference?

I agree that it takes time. New scheme with a first time DC. I'm sure it was a learning experience. 

The problem that comes along with Gannon‘s defense if you are going make them methodically march down the field by taking away the big play potential is if your red zone defense is bad then in general it fails. The problem is the Eagles finish 29th in the league in red zone defense giving up touchdowns 66% of the time their opponent got in the red zone. From 20 to 20 you can slow a team down. But in the red zone you better have good enough talent to come up with stops and make plays with your playmakers to limit the damage to FGs. The Eagles don’t have that.

Also we were tied for 26th in the league in takeaways with 16. When you think about how many bad quarterbacks and mediocre quarterbacks the Eagles played this year to have only 16 is bad. Some of that is definitely based off the scheme but I think some of this is that they just don’t have talented enough players to just make a play. slay is about the only playmaker they have in their back seven. And their pass rush was also either hargrave when he was hot early. And josh sweat towards the end of the year. 

You can't successfully blitz if you can't cover man to man and take away the hot read.

It's not like we have Jenkins, Bradham and Hicks out there.

While you can blame Howie for the bad picks on offense, Schwartz was the primary mover on defensive personnel moves, he got his veterans, had a good defense for 3 years, then they got old.  Even then 12, 4, 12, 15 in points allowed before 2020, it's not like Schwartz built an elite defense.

45 minutes ago, schuy7 said:

I don't know how anyone can be convinced Gannon is a good DC. Maybe you know defense more than I. The kind of performances every competent QB have put up against our D this year was very bad. Literally historically bad in terms of completion %. If Gannon needs great talent to make his defense work, I'm not sure what makes him a good DC. There are dozens of good coaches in the NFL who would make a good DC with great talent. What you do with less is what makes you a special DC. He left a lot to be desired IMO. He's a first timer, so I am willing to be patient with him. He's gotta improve quickly though.

I guess the real question is to take some top 5, top 10 defenses this year that faced the Chiefs, TB, Dallas, etc. and compare them to our defense.  Did other defenses give up 75-80% completion vs those teams?

31 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

didnt you about a week or two ago you tell us we can wait a year or two to go after a QB because a quarterback will just eventually become available and we can go get him then? Did you not say that?  And I know you did because I quote you that night and we had a conversation.

You assuming that there eventually just gonna be QB out there that we can get that’s good enough at that point in time isn’t definitive or a definite. that’s hope and assuming one will be there when we need it. That might blow up in your face and not have that QB come along. Or you might not be able to maneuver up the draft to get that quarterback. Or you might not have the best assets and lose out on that quarterback. And be stuck searching for the Qb for the next couple of years wasting the roster you built up (which that’s not even a Given we get that correct) 

Tom Brady is still playing as a top three quarterback in the Fing league. He’s gonna finish second in the mvp. I don’t care if he’s 44. He still great. Again I brought this up last night when you talked brady and not winning with the 2017 eagles roster with their injuries. that 2017 team from New England had the 30th pass rush. They had the 20th rushing defense. They were missing Marcus Cannon, Julian Edelman, Hightower. Three pro bowl players. And they had a bunch of other injuries. And you know what he carried their ass and got them to the Super Bowl and nearly won the Super Bowl against the eagles. 

Also I shouldn’t have to choose to either have a great team with a good quarterback or a great QB with a good team. I should be going after a great quarterback if available and then still wanting and being able to build a great team. you don’t have to have either or situation. You might not have the treasure chest of assets but you still have picks and ability to maneuver cap space. 

I think it’s gonna be just as hard to build a team that was as great as the Denver Broncos were that year to carry a quarterback like manning was then. You seem to think just because we have those picks it’s just gonna be easy to build that and no way it could fail. Ask the Raiders how it went with those six first rounders since 2019. If it was just we have 3 first round picks and that means we’re gonna make this team great with them and it was that simple the Raiders would be a juggernaut right now.

And Nick Foles played elite in order for them to win that super bowl. If Nick Foles just would’ve played a good game not elite in that Super Bowl, they lose. 

Yes. We should go all out and get the next GOAT at QB. Good luck with that plan.

And talk about "pie in the sky."

Benjamin Allbright seems to think Gannon has a legit shot at the Broncos job.

3 minutes ago, 315Eagles said:

I guess the real question is to take some top 5, top 10 defenses this year that faced the Chiefs, TB, Dallas, etc. and compare them to our defense.  Did other defenses give up 75-80% completion vs those teams?

Add the Raiders, Chargers, etc

Mahomes completed 66% of his passes this year. 80% against us.

Carr completed 68% of his passes. 91% against us.

Herbert completed 66%. 84% against us.

Those are just 3 examples I looked at quickly. Again, I don't expect a very good defense with our talent, but it was very bad against competent opponents this year. It's hard to be much worse.

2 minutes ago, 315Eagles said:

I guess the real question is to take some top 5, top 10 defenses this year that faced the Chiefs, TB, Dallas, etc. and compare them to our defense.  Did other defenses give up 75-80% completion vs those teams?

Off-topic a little bit, but I actually thought once the Eagles got down 17-0 the defense was the only reason that game didn’t become 30 to 40 quicker. The three possessions after Tampa Bay went up 17, the Eagles defense gave up -1 yards, 2 sacks and forced three punts on 3 straight 3 -‘d outs. Once Jalen Reagor went full jalen Reagor and fumble the punt, I thought the wind completely went out of their sails and momentum the defense had been building up crashed and burned. Granted some of that I believe was the injuries that occurred to the Tampa Bay buccaneers offensive line

49 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Yes. We should go all out and get the next GOAT at QB. Good luck with that plan.

And talk about "pie in the sky."

Yes that’s clearly what I said. Good job reading. reading comprehension helps cause nowhere did i say go get the Goat or one was available.  I said if you can go get a great quarterback (or believe he’s going to be) that is in your future plans and you love that QB you go do it. You don’t hold back cause your roster isn’t ideal. And you can still build your roster eve if you get the QB. You don’t just say well we got a quarterback so I guess we don’t have to build the roster anymore.  And I don’t use your opinion on what quarterbacks are good or great because you’ll just change the goal post of how you determine it depending on the week. Also way to avoid the question.

But don’t worry, when the Eagles build up the roster (because apparently that’s just a given to happen with those picks… raiders say hi) then the messiah quarterback is magically going to appear.  Are you sure you aren’t prophet because apparently you’re telling me you can see the future and know definitively a good (or even great )Quarterback is just gonna come along over the next two years and no one other team is going to get that QB over the eagles and we are just gonna be in a better position assets wise then other teams to get that QB and that QB actually wants to come here. 

There are maybe 3-4 great QBs in the NFL at any one time, and no team is going to give you one. You can get "damaged goods," and bet on a rebound, you can trade up for a high pick and hope of beating the odds (1 out of 4 or so taken in the top 10 or so picks become top 10 starting QBs, and of that group, maybe 1/3 become "great" QBs - so once or twice a decade at the top of the draft).

Teams that get great QBs tend to luck into them, Brady (6th rd), Brees (late 1st, traded as "damaged goods", Rodgers #24, Mahomes #10, Peyton #1).

It's much easier to find a good QB (4-12th or so) than a great one.

49 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Off-topic a little bit, but I actually thought once the Eagles got down 17-0 the defense was the only reason that game didn’t become 30 to 40 quicker. The three possessions after Tampa Bay went up 17, the Eagles defense gave up -1 yards, 2 sacks and forced three punts on 3 straight 3 -‘d outs. Once Jalen Reagor went full jalen Reagor and fumble the punt, I thought the wind completely went out of their sails and momentum the defense had been building up crashed and burned. Granted some of that I believe was the injuries that occurred to the Tampa Bay buccaneers offensive line

Some games it seems like the defense just lays back and sees what the offense is trying to do then adjusts after that.  Problem is by that point you're down 10-0, 14-0, 17-0 to good teams.  

They had trouble stopping the Jets in the 1st half then got it together.  I don't understand what Gannon is doing.

8 minutes ago, austinfan said:

There are maybe 3-4 great QBs in the NFL at any one time, and no team is going to give you one. You can get "damaged goods," and bet on a rebound, you can trade up for a high pick and hope of beating the odds (1 out of 4 or so taken in the top 10 or so picks become top 10 starting QBs, and of that group, maybe 1/3 become "great" QBs - so once or twice a decade at the top of the draft).

Teams that get great QBs tend to luck into them, Brady (6th rd), Brees (late 1st, traded as "damaged goods", Rodgers #24, Mahomes #10, Peyton #1).

It's much easier to find a good QB (4-12th or so) than a great one.

if the Eagles believe a QB is great (via trade for veteran) or can be great (draft) and they absolutely love him then they should go try get him.  I don’t care what the roster looks like if you feel that particular way about a Quarterback. you do everything in your power to get him. (Hence why they probably inquired into trading up for Zack Wilson). 

 

6 minutes ago, 315Eagles said:

Some games it seems like the defense just lays back and sees what the offense is trying to do then adjusts after that.  Problem is by that point you're down 10-0, 14-0, 17-0 to good teams.  

They had trouble stopping the Jets in the 1st half then got it together.  I don't understand what Gannon is doing.

Don’t disagree. However i don’t think the eagles would be down 17-0 in that Bucs game if the offense wasn’t inept in the first half. The Eagles offense left a lot of points and yards on that field in the first half due to poor quarterback play and not utilizing their best weapons (smith having 0 targets).

1 hour ago, schuy7 said:

Yeah, those defensive ranking numbers don't mean a lot to me. There just isn't enough context. 

Limiting big plays is great, but if they still get down the field in 7 plays consistently, what's the difference?

I agree that it takes time. New scheme with a first time DC. I'm sure it was a learning experience. 

They were 25th in defensive DVOA, which uses context.

The frustrating thing about this defense was the front four's inability to feast on inferior OLs.  We were 26th in adjusted sack rate on Football Outsiders.  We played against a lot of backups and didn't see all that much from Cox and Hargrave in the second half.  Contrast that with what Kerrigan did against the sub OT on the Bucs.  That type of winning should have been happening all season.

Back to Gannon...it was talent.  I pointed it out earlier.  Only 4 out of our last 17 first or second round picks have been on the defensive side of the ball.  Barnett, Jones, Rowe, Smith.  An embarrassment.  And I agree, there needs to be some continuity of scheme for a defense to success.  Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Rams, Buffalo, NO.

I think Gannon was evaluating as much as coaching this year. He knows that a bunch of guys are probably gone, Barnett, Kerrigan, Avery, McLeod, Harris, Nelson, and some others may be upgraded. So he was working within the limitations of the talent he had, but the focus was on the talent he's going to get (cross fingers). He's running a similar scheme to Indy, last four seasons, 10, 18, 10, 9 in points allowed. And it's not like Indy has great talent on defense.

Paye #21, Muhammad DE (SFA), Stewart DE #144, Lewis DE #64, Buckner DT (T for 1st), Stallworth (UDFA)

Okereke LB #89, Franklin LB #235, Leonard LB #36

Moore NCB (UDFA), Rhodes CB (former 1st rd pick, 2nd tier FA), Ya-Sin CB #34, Rodgers #211, Currie (SFA)

Sendejo S (SFA), Odum S (SFA), Blackmon #85

Pro Bowl in bold.

This suggests to me we may draft quantity over "quality," that is, Gannon may target players up and down the draft he likes, instead of being fixated on a few high picks - what stands out in Indy is the contributions they got from later round picks, UDFAs and SFAs.

 

2 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

They were 25th in defensive DVOA, which uses context.

The frustrating thing about this defense was the front four's inability to feast on inferior OLs.  We were 26th in adjusted sack rate on Football Outsiders.  We played against a lot of backups and didn't see all that much from Cox and Hargrave in the second half.  Contrast that with what Kerrigan did against the sub OT on the Bucs.  That type of winning should have been happening all season.

Back to Gannon...it was talent.  I pointed it out earlier.  Only 4 out of our last 17 first or second round picks have been on the defensive side of the ball.  Barnett, Jones, Rowe, Smith.  An embarrassment.  And I agree, there needs to be some continuity of scheme for a defense to success.  Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Rams, Buffalo, NO.

That was Schwartz - he didn't like rookies, he wanted veterans, we brought in Bradham, Jenkins, McLeod, Robinson, C Graham, Darby, Long, Jernigan, then Bennett, Ngata, Sendejo, M Jackson, Slay, Robey-Coleman, Hargrave. Schwartz was given a say on defensive personnel as a condition of hiring.