44 minutes ago, Texas Eagle said:

Today’s dialogue is some of the dumbest shhit I’ve read on here

I haven't been posting that much.  

Just now, downundermike said:

 

It even looks like he sees him on that endzone angle, but just got distracted with the push from his right.  Still it's hard to criticize his overall play this year.  He's doing alot of the things that had many people concerned.  He's looking the part.

2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

He somehow missed him and, as a result, had one of his 4 bad reads on the night. It happens.

Cool, an opportunity to get even better. 

A least it wasn't a bad read that led to an INT.  I'd rather Hurts eat the ball when isn't sure of what he sees.

7 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

 

 

Well to be fair to Hurts...because Devonta is now a TE, he didnt think he had to speed to get past his man.

10 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Our tackling has been consistently bad and at times downright embarrassing.  Claypool dragged three Eagles like 15 yards, pretty sure that happened multiple times vs Dallas.

Last night was a joke, way too many half-arse arm tackle attempts.

It needs to improve very quickly

Maybe they should do more than this in TC

 

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

It even looks like he sees him on that endzone angle, but just got distracted with the push from his right.  Still it's hard to criticize his overall play this year.  He's doing alot of the things that had many people concerned.  He's looking the part.

And he ran into that pressure.  If he ran left, open field.

 

And some thought we needed to trade for a good back up TE smh. Guys we have Devonta Smith!!

14 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

 

 

At the 8 second mark, pressure was collapsing in on Hurts and the safety did not make a commitment yet to whether covering the underneath route or not. How can he rip it down the seam at that point?

53 minutes ago, DawkinsOwnage03 said:

I think he was just having fun it didn’t look malicious 

Howie saw the sign and took it personally.  He called out the person with the sign in the best way possible. I like it.   

Yes, tackling has been poor at times. Yes, the run defense is the biggest weakness of this team (special teams not considered).

No team is perfect, and if these are our biggest weaknesses that’s pretty good.

Connor, Zeke/Pollard, and Pierce are all good running backs. They break a lot of tackles against a lot of teams.

Its something I hope they work on and improve moving forward, but I’m much happier to see that’s the way to beat us, because I still remember the Bradley fletcher and Cary Williams years where they got torched with ease. The defensive game plan seems to be make the other team sustain long drives, and capitalize when they make a mistake. Limit turnovers on O/ST, and with our great offense, teams struggle to keep up. We saw it last night in full effect, eventually Houston had to press to keep up with us, and mills just couldn’t get it done.

Can a playoff team beat us? Of course. But it won’t be easy and they’ll have to earn it. 

10 minutes ago, pallidrone said:

At the 8 second mark, pressure was collapsing in on Hurts and the safety did not make a commitment yet to whether covering the underneath route or not. How can he rip it down the seam at that point?

Because he was already beat by then. The fact that the safety didnt commit yet is the reason why Hurts should have bombed it. You dont wait for Devonta to run 5-10 yards past the Safety to throw it. When the safety is flat footed and looking at the QB by the time Devonta is essentially parallel to him...hes already f'ed. This is called anticipation.

If you had to choose, which do you think is more likely from the Phils for game 6.

Wheeler holding the Astros to 2 runs or under or the offense scoring 2 runs or more vs Framber?

To me it's the former. I just have no confidence in this offense right now. I wouldn't be stunned of Wheeler pitched his heart out, only gave up a run through 6, but trailed 1-0 because they couldn't get anything going vs Valdez.

I much rather have Suárez starting then nola at this point if we even get to a game 7

 

Just now, downundermike said:

And he ran into that pressure.  If he ran left, open field.

Yes.  It was just a missed opportunity.   I thought he played good last night in a road game on a short week. 

22 minutes ago, downundermike said:

And he ran into that pressure.  If he ran left, open field.

 

And what is the point you are trying to make?

It's ok be direct.  Don't worry.  This is a safe space.

19 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

Can a playoff team beat us? Of course. But it won’t be easy and they’ll have to earn it. 

Yup. We'll be favoured in every NFC playoff game.

I'd argue too that most teams don't RBs as physical as Dameon Pierce.

19 minutes ago, UndyTaker said:

Because he was already beat by then. The fact that the safety didnt commit yet is the reason why Hurts should have bombed it. You dont wait for Devonta to run 5-10 yards past the Safety to throw it. When the safety is flat footed and looking at the QB by the time Devonta is essentially parallel to him...hes already f'ed. This is called anticipation.

Except that the safety would have made a play on that throw. His eyes were on the QB. Making that throw at the time or before would have resulted in an incompletion on a contested ball or an interception.

In defense of Hurts in that play with him missing Smith, he's backed up against end zone, probably felt the pressure on him and decided to bail the pocket. His pocket presence will continue to improve as he gains more confidence in his arm. 

 

 

 

39 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

Claypool was being pushed by a team mate on that play.

Just watched it again....he broke 3 tackles right after catching it--3 Eagles within an arms' length just grabbing at him--then yes his teammate pushed him, and the two of them carried about 4 Eagles for another 5-10 yards

It was embarrassing.  We get plenty of turnovers from picks and sacks, can they just make a group decision to cool it with the strip attempts, please?

Its one thing when youre in a pile, its another thing when its in the middle of the field and its already a huge gain.

1 minute ago, pallidrone said:

Except that the safety would have made a play on that throw. His eyes were on the QB. Making that throw at the time or before would have resulted in an incompletion on a contested ball or an interception.

Hes not throwing a line drive to where Devonta is at he would be throwing a bomb to where he is going, which would be over the top of the safety. And if you think hes catching up to Devonta from where hes at, hes not lol. Theres no way. Most explosive TE in the league we're talking here.

26 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

When Elliott went for that 54 yard FG, the telecast had a graphic that estimated it as a 36% chance he makes it.

How the F do they calculate that? Career he's better than 50% from 50-59. Granted he missed it, but what goes into that calculation?

About eight years ago, I spent about a month during the summer trying to build a database of historical field goal attempts, as well as develop a formula for rating kickers. I'm very pleased with the results, and I currently spend about an hour every week maintaining it. One of the most difficult things for me to was to find out what the historical percentages were for kicks from every single yard distance. I eventually found an old (circa 2000) article that showed a graph of historical percentages. This graph, combined with a record of many, many kicks, allowed me to create a value for kicks from every distance.

For example, I learned that the tipping point is at 55 yards. That is to say, that is the distance from which a field goal attempt should be roughly equivalent to a coin flip. From fifty yards, it should be about 62%. From forty yards, it's about 80%. From thirty yards, it's about 92%. This includes blocked kicks, by the way, which is why field goals from inside 25 yards are closer to 95% rather than 98-99%. If a kick is missed from that short a distance, it was probably blocked rather than shanked.

But all this is based on kicking efficiency about twenty years ago. Kickers have actually improved a lot over that period. That is why every single kicker in the league at the moment has a rating above the standard. They're just better than they were a couple decades ago. David Akers would probably be considered a below average kicker today if he were kicking and was as precisely effective in terms of percentages as he was when he was active. I would venture to say that every single kicker who was on a training camp roster is a better kicker than Jan Stenerud was. Good kickers in the seventies made about 70% of their attempts. Bad kickers today make about 80%. Incidentally the same is true for punters. I think every punter in the league right now is better than Ray Guy (RIP) was.

A few years ago when they started showing the graphic of percentages during field goals, I took notice. For example, when a kicker would be attempting a 46 yard kick and the graphic would show the odds of a successful kick, I would make a mental note of what they said the odds were and I would run downstairs to the bulletin board where I keep my numbers and do a quick comparison. Usually we're very close. Sometimes my percentages are higher but sometimes they're lower. But it's close. Close enough to make me feel pretty good about my numbers.

I have to admit that the numbers I use are consistent. They do not take into account the field conditions or the wind or the altitude...or anything like that. I suspect that when the network shows their numbers, they are attempting to account for some of that.

All that being said, I have no idea how on earth they could claim that the odds of a 54-yard field goal indoors with no wind could be only 36%. There's just no way. I have it at 53%. Maybe they meant it was a 36% chance of a miss and somehow inverted their graphics and the announcers simply read what was in front of them. In fact, after a quick check of recent field goals from 54 yards, this is plausible. From 2015 through last season, including the postseason, there were 138 field goal attempts from that distance. 89 were successful. That comes to 64%.

TLDR...they probably use historical data and perhaps tweak things based on the stadium and field type.

P.S. (I love this crap.)

43 minutes ago, Eagle1ne said:

The graphic immediately changed to somewhere in the 60s after he missed, which confused the hell out of me. 

Okay, this makes sense to me now.

8 minutes ago, RLC said:

Yup. We'll be favoured in every NFC playoff game.

I'd argue too that most teams don't RBs as physical as Dameon Pierce.

We do have Jones/Dillon, Henry, Barkley, and Pollard/Zeke still to come...

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

I much rather have Suárez starting then nola at this point if we even get to a game 7

 

Yes, but got to win that game 6 is what the Skipper is thinking, it seems.  So he goes with Wheeler and follows with his more solid playoff performer for 6.  

5 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

About eight years ago, I spent about a month during the summer trying to build a database of historical field goal attempts, as well as develop a formula for rating kickers. I'm very pleased with the results, and I currently spend about an hour every week maintaining it. One of the most difficult things for me to was to find out what the historical percentages were for kicks from every single yard distance. I eventually found an old (circa 2000) article that showed a graph of historical percentages. This graph, combined with a record of many, many kicks, allowed me to create a value for kicks from every distance.

For example, I learned that the tipping point is at 55 yards. That is to say, that is the distance from which a field goal attempt should be roughly equivalent to a coin flip. From fifty yards, it should be about 62%. From forty yards, it's about 80%. From thirty yards, it's about 92%. This includes blocked kicks, by the way, which is why field goals from inside 25 yards are closer to 95% rather than 98-99%. If a kick is missed from that short a distance, it was probably blocked rather than shanked.

But all this is based on kicking efficiency about twenty years ago. Kickers have actually improved a lot over that period. That is why every single kicker in the league at the moment has a rating above the standard. They're just better than they were a couple decades ago. David Akers would probably be considered a below average kicker today if he were kicking and was as precisely effective in terms of percentages as he was when he was active. I would venture to say that every single kicker who was on a training camp roster is a better kicker than Jan Stenerud was. Good kickers in the seventies made about 70% of their attempts. Bad kickers today make about 80%. Incidentally the same is true for punters. I think every punter in the league right now is better than Ray Guy (RIP) was.

A few years ago when they started showing the graphic of percentages during field goals, I took notice. For example, when a kicker would be attempting a 46 yard kick and the graphic would show the odds of a successful kick, I would make a mental note of what they said the odds were and I would run downstairs to the bulletin board where I keep my numbers and do a quick comparison. Usually we're very close. Sometimes my percentages are higher but sometimes they're lower. But it's close. Close enough to make me feel pretty good about my numbers.

I have to admit that the numbers I use are consistent. They do not take into account the field conditions or the wind or the altitude...or anything like that. I suspect that when the network shows their numbers, they are attempting to account for some of that.

All that being said, I have no idea how on earth they could claim that the odds of a 54-yard field goal indoors with no wind could be only 36%. There's just no way. I have it at 53%. Maybe they meant it was a 36% chance of a miss and somehow inverted their graphics and the announcers simply read what was in front of them. In fact, after a quick check of recent field goals from 54 yards, this is plausible. From 2015 through last season, including the postseason, there were 138 field goal attempts from that distance. 89 were successful. That comes to 64%.

TLDR...they probably use historical data and perhaps tweak things based on the stadium and field type.

P.S. (I love this crap.)

Okay, this makes sense to me now.

Speaking for myself, I could never do the work, but love reading the results.  I know many on here have appreciated it too (by virtue of the comments and likes).