7 minutes ago, hputenis said:

I'd also like to see what the average percentage was for opposing QBs.  It seems every good to great QB threw for 80% plus against Gannon's brilliant death by papercuts defense that couldn't create turnovers.  

Woooooooooo, pencil neck geek

3 minutes ago, hputenis said:

I'd also like to see what the average percentage was for opposing QBs.  It seems every good to great QB threw for 80% plus against Gannon's brilliant death by papercuts defense that couldn't create turnovers.  

409/589 -- 69.4%

6 times last season the opposing QB was over 75%; Goff was damn close to making it 7 but he was only 25/34 for a crummy 73.5%

42 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

	Att	Comp	%
Falcons	35	21	60.00%
49ers	30	22	73.33%
Cowboys	26	21	80.77%
Chiefs	30	24	80.00%
Panthers	37	21	56.76%
Bucs	42	34	80.95%
Raiders	34	31	91.18%
Lions	34	25	73.53%
Chargers	38	32	84.21%
Broncos	36	22	61.11%
Saints	40	22	55.00%
Giants	30	19	63.33%
Jets	38	23	60.53%
WTF	31	20	64.52%
Giants	44	23	52.27%
WTF	36	27	75.00%
Cowboys	28	22	78.57%
Bucs	37	29	78.38%
Total	626	438	69.97%

50 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

409/589 -- 69.4%

6 times last season the opposing QB was over 75%; Goff was damn close to making it 7 but he was only 25/34 for a crummy 73.5%

The discrepancy between the good QBs and the bad ones with the defense was alarming last year.   Goff was murdered that entire game so I’m not really worried about that percentage.  But they need to prove this year that they can beat some of the upper echelon QBs. At least don’t allow them to march down the field at will on every possession.  We face 6-7 good to great QBs this year (that‘s counting Dak twice).  They better show they can limit at least 2-3 of them with this defense. 

9 minutes ago, hputenis said:

The discrepancy between the good QBs and the bad ones with the defense was alarming last year.   Goff was murdered that entire game so I’m not really worried about that percentage.  But they need to prove this year that they can beat some of the upper echelon QBs. At least don’t allow them to march down the field at will on every possession.  We face 6-7 good to great QBs this year (that‘s counting Dak twice).  They better show they can limit at least 2-3 of them with this defense. 

Gannons defense against good QB’s

6 hours ago, Utebird said:

Has Lurie said he wanted Russell Wilson?

I mean I thought the whole organization including Andy Reid liked him a lot, they just thought they could get him after their 2nd pick but Seattle had different ideas.

Also wasn't aware that Lurie had anything to do with the Mailata or Lane picks.

Lane was a Kelly pick and Mailata was given the green light by Stoutland, not sure how much involvement Lurie had in those picks???

 

That dude sucked and would be a reason Lurie shouldn't be making personnel decisions.

At the NFL Annual meeting he said those three names as the three times he had 'overstepped'..

2 hours ago, UK Eagle said:

I said none for my own entertainment.  I'm so bored of the Hurts talk, I actually try and avoid it for the most part.  Like Politics on the blog, no thanks.

 

Perhaps my notion that what the Eagles have chosen to do is valid - have vets and rookies report at the same time - is less than scintillating. At the same time, however, the notion that a coach would deliberately sabotage his team by giving them less practices, reps, etc. is even worse. More is not always more. I see tired, well, that's the way it's always done arguments. Not a one of us has our livelihood at risk by this decision, yet I see a lot of quick-trigger reactions.

Pre-season is too long; we've all agreed on that forever. Given that, why burden the squad with endless reps AND meaningless games?  Lest we forget, we have not one but two practices with other squads. Perhaps, just maybe, this staff sees those things as being useful, maybe even more useful than a week of rookies only in July heat. If they thought the OTAs they have eschewed had utility, why would they give them up? I have seen no answers to this simple question.

The generic answer is that more is better than less. I say not so.

I would be appreciative if contrary opinions were at least civil in their expression. I have a few people on ignore but is not for their wisdom or lack thereof, but for the fact that they are rude. I can't devour them as Hannibal Lecter might, those he referred to as "free-range rude." 

I can be stupid, as is obvious, but I strive not to be rude. There is no excuse for that.

Ever.

4 minutes ago, justrelax said:

Perhaps my notion that what the Eagles have chosen to do is valid - have vets and rookies report at the same time - is less than scintillating. At the same time, however, the notion that a coach would deliberately sabotage his team by giving them less practices, reps, etc. is even worse. More is not always more. I see tired, well, that's the way it's always done arguments. Not a one of us has our livelihood at risk by this decision, yet I see a lot of quick-trigger reactions.

Pre-season is too long; we've all agreed on that forever. Given that, why burden the squad with endless reps AND meaningless games?  Lest we forget, we have not one but two practices with other squads. Perhaps, just maybe, this staff sees those things as being useful, maybe even more useful than a week of rookies only in July heat. If they thought the OTAs they have eschewed had utility, why would they give them up? I have seen no answers to this simple question.

The generic answer is that more is better than less. I say not so.

I would be appreciative if contrary opinions were at least civil in their expression. I have a few people on ignore but is not for their wisdom or lack thereof, but for the fact that they are rude. I can't devour them as Hannibal Lecter might, those he referred to as "free-range rude." 

I can be stupid, as id obvious, but I strive not to be rude. There is no excuse for that.

Ever.

 

1 minute ago, pangbun said:

 

What is this supposed to mean? I have never been a Hurts hugger, or whatever the term is. I think this is a stupid post and without substance. Hopefully you can do better and use actual words.

1 hour ago, justrelax said:

Perhaps my notion that what the Eagles have chosen to do is valid - have vets and rookies report at the same time - is less than scintillating. At the same time, however, the notion that a coach would deliberately sabotage his team by giving them less practices, reps, etc. is even worse. More is not always more. I see tired, well, that's the way it's always done arguments. Not a one of us has our livelihood at risk by this decision, yet I see a lot of quick-trigger reactions.

Pre-season is too long; we've all agreed on that forever. Given that, why burden the squad with endless reps AND meaningless games?  Lest we forget, we have not one but two practices with other squads. Perhaps, just maybe, this staff sees those things as being useful, maybe even more useful than a week of rookies only in July heat. If they thought the OTAs they have eschewed had utility, why would they give them up? I have seen no answers to this simple question.

The generic answer is that more is better than less. I say not so.

I would be appreciative if contrary opinions were at least civil in their expression. I have a few people on ignore but is not for their wisdom or lack thereof, but for the fact that they are rude. I can't devour them as Hannibal Lecter might, those he referred to as "free-range rude." 

I can be stupid, as is obvious, but I strive not to be rude. There is no excuse for that.

Ever.

My philosophy probably leans towards what the Eagles and many other teams are doing now.  It’s not 1990 anymore; these players treat football as a 12 month per year occupation and most come to training camp in peak physical condition.  Those that don’t usually aren’t long for full time employment.

I view the preseason as an opportunity for the 2nd/3rd string players to show something against peer competition, but under a larger microscope to earn a position on the 53-man roster.  IMO the starters should play one quarter in PS Game 1, little more than one quarter in PS Game 2, then the bottom half of the roster show what they’ve got in order for the team to make roster decisions.

Pretty much everyone here knows who the Eagles starting 11 will be, on both sides of the ball.  Whatever method works best for minimizing preseason injuries to those players is the side I typically land on.

2 hours ago, Infam said:

At the NFL Annual meeting he said those three names as the three times he had 'overstepped'..

I guess he forgot how he directed the organization to draft a QB In the late rounds so Howie and co drafted Clayton thorson at the owners behest.

Or how he was a known proponent of JJAW.

How convenient for him to leave out all the times he overstepped that ended in disaster and only mention 3 highly successful picks...

 

1 hour ago, justrelax said:

Perhaps my notion that what the Eagles have chosen to do is valid - have vets and rookies report at the same time - is less than scintillating. At the same time, however, the notion that a coach would deliberately sabotage his team by giving them less practices, reps, etc. is even worse. More is not always more. I see tired, well, that's the way it's always done arguments. Not a one of us has our livelihood at risk by this decision, yet I see a lot of quick-trigger reactions.

Pre-season is too long; we've all agreed on that forever. Given that, why burden the squad with endless reps AND meaningless games?  Lest we forget, we have not one but two practices with other squads. Perhaps, just maybe, this staff sees those things as being useful, maybe even more useful than a week of rookies only in July heat. If they thought the OTAs they have eschewed had utility, why would they give them up? I have seen no answers to this simple question.

The generic answer is that more is better than less. I say not so.

I would be appreciative if contrary opinions were at least civil in their expression. I have a few people on ignore but is not for their wisdom or lack thereof, but for the fact that they are rude. I can't devour them as Hannibal Lecter might, those he referred to as "free-range rude." 

I can be stupid, as is obvious, but I strive not to be rude. There is no excuse for that.

Ever.

I'm not sure why fans would care how much or how little a team practices, if they get results does it matter 

If the eagles say miss the playoffs by one game will an extra OTA practice in July have made a difference?

Let's say they have the worst record in the league, how does one quantify how much of that was due to lack of OTAs?

Maybe they just suck and no number of OTAs will fix that🤷‍♂️

35 minutes ago, Utebird said:

I'm not sure why fans would care how much or how little a team practices, if they get results does it matter 

If the eagles say miss the playoffs by one game will an extra OTA practice in July have made a difference?

Let's say they have the worst record in the league, how does one quantify how much of that was due to lack of OTAs?

Maybe they just suck and no number of OTAs will fix that🤷‍♂️

Sure, it absolutely could. The first quarter of last season the Eagles were sloppy and on pace to blow away the record for most penalized team in NFL history. I think more practices could help them learn how to run a simple pick play. They were lucky enough it didn’t end up mattering in the end, but I could see it happening. The NFL and game of football is all about finding advantages. They may feel this gives them a health advantage, but I don’t understand the reasoning behind it. Players are going to just be working out on their own where they probably have just as good if not more chance of injury. They aren’t getting bubble wrapped in a storage unit. 

2 hours ago, justrelax said:

Perhaps my notion that what the Eagles have chosen to do is valid - have vets and rookies report at the same time - is less than scintillating. At the same time, however, the notion that a coach would deliberately sabotage his team by giving them less practices, reps, etc. is even worse. More is not always more. I see tired, well, that's the way it's always done arguments. Not a one of us has our livelihood at risk by this decision, yet I see a lot of quick-trigger reactions.

Pre-season is too long; we've all agreed on that forever. Given that, why burden the squad with endless reps AND meaningless games?  Lest we forget, we have not one but two practices with other squads. Perhaps, just maybe, this staff sees those things as being useful, maybe even more useful than a week of rookies only in July heat. If they thought the OTAs they have eschewed had utility, why would they give them up? I have seen no answers to this simple question.

The generic answer is that more is better than less. I say not so.

I would be appreciative if contrary opinions were at least civil in their expression. I have a few people on ignore but is not for their wisdom or lack thereof, but for the fact that they are rude. I can't devour them as Hannibal Lecter might, those he referred to as "free-range rude." 

I can be stupid, as is obvious, but I strive not to be rude. There is no excuse for that.

Ever.

It is too bad you even need to speak up about the lack of civility. 

4 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

	Att	Comp	%
Falcons	35	21	60.00%
49ers	30	22	73.33%
Cowboys	26	21	80.77%
Chiefs	30	24	80.00%
Panthers	37	21	56.76%
Bucs	42	34	80.95%
Raiders	34	31	91.18%
Lions	34	25	73.53%
Chargers	38	32	84.21%
Broncos	36	22	61.11%
Saints	40	22	55.00%
Giants	30	19	63.33%
Jets	38	23	60.53%
WTF	31	20	64.52%
Giants	44	23	52.27%
WTF	36	27	75.00%
Cowboys	28	22	78.57%
Bucs	37	29	78.38%
Total	626	438	69.97%

For league comparison, Burrow was the only QB who maintained a % this high all season.

So basically everyone had career days against us, and very few defenses did as bad… or we’d have more 70% QBs

 

 

ED IT; yeah we were 32nd in comp% against

2 hours ago, pangbun said:

 

do you ever post sentences or just memes, are we clear pang

3 minutes ago, olsilverhair said:

do you ever post sentences or just memes, are we clear pang

His name is pangbun. I don’t think I want to know what comes out of the mouth of someone named pangbun

1 minute ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

His name is pangbun. I don’t think I want to know what comes out of the mouth of someone named pangbun

ok, captain

The blog could use a clone that just posts memes.

3 hours ago, Alphagrand said:

My philosophy probably leans towards what the Eagles and many other teams are doing now.  It’s not 1990 anymore; these players treat football as a 12 month per year occupation and most come to training camp in peak physical condition.  Those that don’t usually aren’t long for full time employment.

I view the preseason as an opportunity for the 2nd/3rd string players to show something against peer competition, but under a larger microscope to earn a position on the 53-man roster.  IMO the starters should play one quarter in PS Game 1, little more than one quarter in PS Game 2, then the bottom half of the roster show what they’ve got in order for the team to make roster decisions.

Pretty much everyone here knows who the Eagles starting 11 will be, on both sides of the ball.  Whatever method works best for minimizing preseason injuries to those players is the side I typically land on.

The scrimmages are more important to Sirianni than the games, b/c he can script the scrimmages with the other coach and see players have multiple reps in situations, whereas in a game he has limited control, especially if they're only playing a quarter or a half.

I think the exhibitions have more value for the backups only b/c they get a taste of game conditions.

7 hours ago, Alphagrand said:

You disrespectful SOBs.  Hurtsy had 5

I wouldn't mind guessing what his 2022 completion percentage will be.  My prediction is 62.8%

yes, but he didn't get to play the Eagle defense. 😂

1 hour ago, olsilverhair said:

do you ever post sentences or just memes, are we clear pang

 

7 hours ago, austinfan said:

The scrimmages are more important to Sirianni than the games, b/c he can script the scrimmages with the other coach and see players have multiple reps in situations, whereas in a game he has limited control, especially if they're only playing a quarter or a half.

I think the exhibitions have more value for the backups only b/c they get a taste of game conditions.

Sure but having that limited control in games is also a skill that needs to be developed. You can’t setup scenarios when the bullets are live, strange things happen in games, there’s a pressure element that just isn’t replicable in practice or scrimmage. How a coach and staff reacts to those situations has importance

12 hours ago, justrelax said:

Perhaps my notion that what the Eagles have chosen to do is valid - have vets and rookies report at the same time - is less than scintillating. At the same time, however, the notion that a coach would deliberately sabotage his team by giving them less practices, reps, etc. is even worse. More is not always more. I see tired, well, that's the way it's always done arguments. Not a one of us has our livelihood at risk by this decision, yet I see a lot of quick-trigger reactions.

Pre-season is too long; we've all agreed on that forever. Given that, why burden the squad with endless reps AND meaningless games?  Lest we forget, we have not one but two practices with other squads. Perhaps, just maybe, this staff sees those things as being useful, maybe even more useful than a week of rookies only in July heat. If they thought the OTAs they have eschewed had utility, why would they give them up? I have seen no answers to this simple question.

The generic answer is that more is better than less. I say not so.

I would be appreciative if contrary opinions were at least civil in their expression. I have a few people on ignore but is not for their wisdom or lack thereof, but for the fact that they are rude. I can't devour them as Hannibal Lecter might, those he referred to as "free-range rude." 

I can be stupid, as is obvious, but I strive not to be rude. There is no excuse for that.

Ever.

The front office has certainly fallen prey to hubris before, and this may be another example where they think they know better.

I was ok with the experiment last year because sometimes you do need to try different approaches. But as leanmean pointed out our first month last year was a sloppy, penalty filled mess. It makes me far more apprehensive this off-season that we seem to be repeating the approach.

Now, there’s an argument that it was a new system, a new coach, etc and that may have played into the sloppiness; but then that’s all the more reason they should have had more reps! A perfectly circular argument!

If we start out sloppy and poor again this season, I think that’s enough evidence to support ditching this off-season strategy. If we come out looking sharp and crisp, then I could see it becoming the new norm. I lean towards us coming out sloppy, but hope to be pleasantly surprised