Just now, Bacarty2 said:

Curious question, if the offense didnt give the ball away 4 times, do they have 40 minutes of TOP?

At bare Minimum a turn over gives them 2 minutes each. thats 8 minutes, minimum

that turns that 40 minute number to 32, real Quick and 32 to 28 TOP is no big deal. 

My point in all of this is... I dont care if its' the 86 Bears, if you give the other team 4 extra drives, they're going to look like poop 

Yeah, I agree that the turnovers made it worse. No doubt about that. 

1 minute ago, Bacarty2 said:

Curious question, if the offense didnt give the ball away 4 times, do they have 40 minutes of TOP?

At bare Minimum a turn over gives them 2 minutes each. thats 8 minutes, minimum

that turns that 40 minute number to 32, real Quick and 32 to 28 TOP is no big deal. 

My point in all of this is... I dont care if its' the 86 Bears, if you give the other team 4 extra drives, they're going to look like poop 

Yep, and it'll be a giant wgaf when they're running Taylor, down 17 in the 4th quarter. 

Lol, people in here will be bishing regardless 

Just throwing it out there, I wouldn't expect the Eagles to just go back to their +16 turnover differential. I'm not saying they will have 4 fumbles/int's per game either, but both were pretty much opposite ends of the spectrum. 

2 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

What teams have a good run game and good QB? You also need a good defense to stop our really good O.

None. Obviously the Eagles are the best team in football and can't ever be beaten.

I mean we just saw a mediocre team and QB do just that, but certainly top shelf teams won't be able to pass, run or cause turnovers.

You got me.

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Just throwing it out there, I wouldn't expect the Eagles to just go back to their +16 turnover differential. I'm not saying they will have 4 fumbles/int's per game either, but both were pretty much opposite ends of the spectrum. 

The Eagles had a positive turnover differential for a few reasons

1. We're leading a lot, so we take less risks on offense and less on defense
2. Gannon plays more zone coverage, which means more INTs
3. Hurts in general plays it safe, and runs, which cuts down on INTs. This was true last year too.

None of those are changing, so we'll continue to see good results for turnovers in the long-term.

And, for what's it's worth, I do still feel we're a SB contender and obvious playoff team, but let's maybe stop pretending there aren't some weaknesses, too.

Just now, Swoop said:

None. Obviously the Eagles are the best team in football and can't ever be beaten.

I mean we just saw a mediocre team and QB do just that, but certainly top shelf teams won't be able to pass, run or cause turnovers.

You got me.

We’ve seen 8 teams try it, and only the team we saw a second time was able to pull it off. And barely at that. We are a REALLY good team….some might even say best in the league 

Just now, TorontoEagle said:

We’ve seen 8 teams try it, and only the team we saw a second time was able to pull it off. And barely at that. We are a REALLY good team….some might even say best in the league 

And again, I'm not arguing that. Never have. What I'm suggesting is that as crunch time comes around and we are facing better teams, it's an issue that may come up and should at least be discussed rather than "Meh, 8-1".

1 minute ago, Swoop said:

None. Obviously the Eagles are the best team in football and can't ever be beaten.

I mean we just saw a mediocre team and QB do just that, but certainly top shelf teams won't be able to pass, run or cause turnovers.

You got me.

What made the Commandos successful is that they had McLaurin's threat to take the top off the defense, on top of their running game. For some reason Slay did not want to go stride for stride with him. Not many teams have a great running game and a receiver like McLaurin, let alone a good QB. 

4 hours ago, Bacarty2 said:

Like, I'm trying not to be mean, but stfu and know what youre talking about before hitting the submit button.

1) couple of those guys werent on the roster last week, so yes, it got a  lot deeper

2) They're 5th in QB sacks(Realistically 3rd since 2 teams played more than them), they allow the lowest QB rating in the league, and they have one of the highest QB pressure %'s in the league

3) they're 8th in rushing defense.

 

Literally everything you said was wrong

Yea no ish. The point is what's the point of being "deep" when the team can't do anything before they got there? 

5th in the league in sacks because of the first commanders game. Every single game people bish because we can't get to the QB. Every. Single. Game. 

8th in rushing defense just got run all over by brian robinson and antonio gibson. Helps when you have a multi score lead so teams have to throw 80% of the time.

Not trying to be mean, but stfu and use some Fing critical thinking. 

2 minutes ago, RLC said:

The Eagles had a positive turnover differential for a few reasons

1. We're leading a lot, so we take less risks on offense and less on defense
2. Gannon plays more zone coverage, which means more INTs
3. Hurts in general plays it safe, and runs, which cuts down on INTs. This was true last year too.

None of those are changing, so we'll continue to see good results for turnovers in the long-term.

It's mostly luck

2022 Eagles Defensive rankings

Points Allowed: 167 (6th)

Yards allowed: 2722 (3rd)

Yards per play: 4.6 (1st)

Turnovers: 19 (1st)

Sacks: 29 (4th)

Penalty Yards 405 (7th)

Percentage of drives ending in score: 29.3% (3rd)

Percentage of drives ending in turnover: 21.7% (1st)

Where the defense struggles is unfortunately mostly on 3rd and 4th down as they are allowing a conversion rate of 41.4% (20th) on 3rd down and whopping 63.6% (29th) on 4th down. They really need to start getting off the field and be more aggressive. Can't rely on turnovers to bail them out when they get to the playoffs.

If Braden Smith misses Sunday's game, they'll be in real, real trouble.

3 minutes ago, Eagle1ne said:

What made the Commandos successful is that they had McLaurin's threat to take the top off the defense, on top of their running game. For some reason Slay did not want to go stride for stride with him. Not many teams have a great running game and a receiver like McLaurin, let alone a good QB. 

I think a lot of it was Scott too. It seemed like he wasn't sinking enough in zone which was giving them easy holes to attack. 

2 minutes ago, devpool said:

Yea no ish. The point is what's the point of being "deep" when the team can't do anything before they got there? 

5th in the league in sacks because of the first commanders game. Every single game people bish because we can't get to the QB. Every. Single. Game. 

8th in rushing defense just got run all over by brian robinson and antonio gibson. Helps when you have a multi score lead so teams have to throw 80% of the time.

Not trying to be mean, but stfu and use some Fing critical thinking. 

Ppl are dumb.

1 - 1

2 - 2

3 - 9

4 - 4

5 - 1

6 - 0

7 - 6

8 - 3

9 - 3

But sure, just one game. 

21 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Not saying either way on that.  I think Musk likes challenges and turning Twitter around (if he does) would be a challenge, imo.

He's failing miserably so far. Sure seems like he isn't up to this particular challenge.

Using the word "concerned" here lightly. But I think I am more concerned about the Offense against the Colts than the Defense. 

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Using the word "concerned" here lightly. But I think I am more concerned about the Offense against the Colts than the Defense. 

because goedert is out?

5 minutes ago, rrfierce said:

because goedert is out?

Goedert out, Brown I don't think is 100%, Smith is also banged up, Kelce banged up.

Goedert does so much for this offense that Stoll isn't going to be able to do. And he was huge on 3rd downs. 

Defense basically has to limit Taylor. Nothing else on that team concerns me from a defensive perspective. I think the offense is much more of an unknown. 

16 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

He's failing miserably so far. Sure seems like he isn't up to this particular challenge.

I would think something like that would take some time.

 

Out of curiosity, why the big "uproar” over him buying Twitter?  I’m guessing it’s been politicized?  Another Right Vs Left issue? 

36 minutes ago, Swoop said:

I think people are a little confused. Teams that continue to run the ball against us usually do so decently enough to both keep our offense off of the field and keep the game closer than it maybe should be. We saw it week one. We saw it the last two weeks. 

No one is saying that we're a garbage team or that we couldn't win the game. Obviously we can. Had our offense not turned the ball over stupidly multiple times, we don't have this conversation.

Given that we have largely played teams that either don't have a good running game or a good quarterback, this has largely been unnoticed. As we get into the playoffs, soon these teams are going to have both. It's reason for concern.

To simply ignore it as "Hur dur, we're 8-1" is just as asinine as those that think the team is going to get run all over with ease each week and we'll start to pile up loses.

Its not been unnoticed at all. Its been brought up every week, even during all those wins. What it has been is a non-issue. Something that we knew was there, but that we have been good enough to overcome. 

What cost us was the turnovers. If we play our game on offense, the run D wouldnt have even mattered. Just like it didnt matter in any of the other 8 games. 

Its good to see Howie trying to improve it because the ultimate goal is no weaknesses. But its not something that snuck up on us, not is it something that should suddenly be so concerning. Those hypothetical good teams in the playoffs you speak of dont exist. We already dominated the Vikings, and handled Dallas. We are better. And there is no better competition than them in the NFC. 

We are fine. Too much concern over run D. 

We know its weak. We know we are good enough to overcome it. We know they are trying to improve. 

12 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Using the word "concerned" here lightly. But I think I am more concerned about the Offense against the Colts than the Defense. 

Im not concerned about our offense against anyone. The only person who can stop our offense is Hurts, or players fumbling. No defense can.

3 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I would think something like that would take some time.

 

Out of curiosity, why the big "uproar” over him buying Twitter?  I’m guessing it’s been politicized?  Another Right Vs Left issue? 

For the most part. But all forms of social media have been covered in "political slime".

3 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Goedert out, Brown I don't think is 100%, Smith is also banged up, Kelce banged up.

Goedert does so much for this offense that Stoll isn't going to be able to do. And he was huge on 3rd downs. 

Defense basically has to limit Taylor. Nothing else on that team concerns me from a defensive perspective. I think the offense is much more of an unknown. 

Matt Ryan will eat Gannon's lunch if he tries that middle school BS.

The guy needs to start taking risks. Every week from here on out our DBs should be taking one step closer to their man at the LOS. 

By playoff time our DBs should be inside their f'ing jock straps and daring teams to try and take shots downfield.

 

 

 

That Heinecke performance shook my confidence. That type of nonsense should not occur again in this season.  

 

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I would think something like that would take some time.

 

Out of curiosity, why the big "uproar” over him buying Twitter?  I’m guessing it’s been politicized?  Another Right Vs Left issue? 

Most of the issues with him are based on the decisions he’s making as CEO, not politics. If you want to call forcing employees to work 80 hours a week or resign political, then sure.