Jump to content
Connecticut Eagle

EMB Blog: 2022 OTAs thru Pre-Season

Recommended Posts

4 minutes 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%

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute 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.

Okay, then I have two questions for you:

People seem "alarmed" by the Queen's present condition.  She's 96.  How many more years does she have before you get King Chuck? (or George)

Will Harry be stripped of his royal titles before he gets rid of that dreadful Meghan Markle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Okay, then I have two questions for you:

People seem "alarmed" by the Queen's present condition.  She's 96.  How many more years does she have before you get King Chuck? (or George)

Will Harry be stripped of his royal titles before he gets rid of that dreadful Meghan Markle?

My guess is she has a year or so - only because she has got a lot older in the last year has some mobility issues and had almost sad look on her face at last Jubilee celebration.  But the genes in her family are for long life, so in some respects, her being 100 and Queen is possible.  If it keeps Charles away from King, all good.

Harry has lost some titles and may do so with the rest of them.  Charles seem keen to slim things down, and if they Netflix the Royal Family, I can see them being the same as Zara Tindall - legal family, not a Royal.  It would hurt the bank balance not being an official royal and being Harry and Meghan Wales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Iggles25 said:

It seems he's already pretty effective at coming on his back.

What he does on the masseuse table regularly.

Sorry my word plays are off before I start drinking 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Anyone want to guess Hurts?

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  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%
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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%

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Nope

0?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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%

image.gif.1974888dbf9cb407131a8f380877bd4e.gif

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

image.gif.eb8b0eb7e5d7cec2eb5fc16ffd9e92e0.gif

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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'..

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

DF1FB68F-53AC-4109-831C-539570A63BC5.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

C937B3A1-A9FB-41D0-A897-00CB13D81411.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pangbun said:

 

C937B3A1-A9FB-41D0-A897-00CB13D81411.gif

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.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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🤷‍♂️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pangbun said:

 

C937B3A1-A9FB-41D0-A897-00CB13D81411.gif

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...