3 minutes ago, UK Eagle said:

Coach Caplan says he needs work, so that's a no apparently

Just notice this part. "But what’s funny is, when my phone rang I actually think it came up as maybe a spam call. Then the area code hit me: 215??? "

Howie's phone is listed as SPAM because he calls so many people with crazy ideas.

His mom is a Bird fan. Maybe she's in here

"Also, I didn’t tell y’all this before, but it’s almost like destiny aligned me with the Eagles — because my mom has been an Eagles fan for years!! "

9 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Oh no doubt.  I just also think with our lack of talent on the edge, we might have to be more aggressive then just not playing a soft zone.  

Probably need to be more creative using the edge talent that we have, I don’t remember Reddick running many games although he is built for it.

17 hours ago, downundermike said:

Or you could just watch the game

More input after the fact is a good thing, No?

Stats have their place, why discount them?

Can add to an intelligent discussion afterwards, unless that's not on your playlist.

43 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Claims of racism or tasteless jokes about domestic abuse are neither "discussion” nor "conversation”.  

Really going full Karen on this, aren't you. 

53 minutes ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

So does anyone have faith the DLine will be better? 

I can't fathom how it could be any worse.  Hopefully everyone knocked the rust off and Jordan Davis gets more snaps.  Also, Detroit has a very good OL.  I don't know if we will face an OL at that level for awhile.  

38 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

And that's a completely separate argument than the one you made about QBs who run being sacked less frequently versus pocket passers.   I specifically added Bledsoe for reference... hardly a guy that's mobile.   But, we can play whatever game you wish...

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/player-stat/passing-plays-sacked?season_id=19

Check the stats for yourself.   You went hyperbolic for no reason.  The premise is faulty.

2021 - Highest sacked QB was Burrow at 71.   Next was 48 - Tannehill (a mobile guy).
2020 - Highest was Wilson at 51, Wentz at 50, Watson 49, Daniel Jones 48.   These are all guys that were 'plus' mobility QBs.
2019 - Watson - 55, Wilson - 54, Murray - 48.  Plus mobility guys.
2018 - Watson - 65, Prescott - 58, Wilson - 52.
2017 - Brissett - 52 (first real 'statue' type QB to make the list), Tyrod Taylor - 48 

The point remains... there's more to the number of sacks allowed than the mobility of the QB.  That 50+ number you threw out there for effect just isn't a realistic number.  Only 9 QBs have been sacked 50+ times in the last 5 seasons... and almost all of them are guys that wouldn't be referred to as a 'statue', but rather as more mobile than not.  

Great post.

Thank you for the research. Leaves a lot to discuss, No?

QB mobility as a function of O Line deficiency and Down and Distance measurables vs D Line talent against....

That's gonna take some thinkin about...

( Thanks for hanging).

 

 

3 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

We are more built for 3-4 then 4-3.  Good thing Gannon doesn’t have a scheme.  

I actually like the philosophy of being able to adapt week to week based on opponent when you have versatile players.  Gannon pretends like this is his philosophy, but implements this on gameday.  

 

9 minutes ago, Doc S. said:

Great post.

Thank you for the research. Leaves a lot to discuss, No?

QB mobility as a function of O Line deficiency and Down and Distance measurables vs D Line talent against....

That's gonna take some thinkin about...

( Thanks for hanging).

 

 

Yup.  I think of sacks and QBs in terms of natural selection, survival of the fittest, to use evolutionary terms.

QBs like Marino, Brady, Peyton Manning, Rivers, Dan Fouts, etc. were sacked less than the average even though they had little mobility for one simple reason -- they got rid of the ball before the pass rush could get there.

QBs like Wilson, Watson, even Luck and Wentz to an extent get hit and sacked a lot because they will hold the ball longer to try to make plays downfield.  Burrow has a weak OL in Cincy, but he's also holding the ball longer by design because their offense is built around the WRs and hitting chunk plays.  Those plays take time to develop.

54 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

And that's a completely separate argument than the one you made about QBs who run being sacked less frequently versus pocket passers.   I specifically added Bledsoe for reference... hardly a guy that's mobile.   But, we can play whatever game you wish...

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/player-stat/passing-plays-sacked?season_id=19

Check the stats for yourself.   You went hyperbolic for no reason.  The premise is faulty.

2021 - Highest sacked QB was Burrow at 71.   Next was 48 - Tannehill (a mobile guy).
2020 - Highest was Wilson at 51, Wentz at 50, Watson 49, Daniel Jones 48.   These are all guys that were 'plus' mobility QBs.
2019 - Watson - 55, Wilson - 54, Murray - 48.  Plus mobility guys.
2018 - Watson - 65, Prescott - 58, Wilson - 52.
2017 - Brissett - 52 (first real 'statue' type QB to make the list), Tyrod Taylor - 48 

The point remains... there's more to the number of sacks allowed than the mobility of the QB.  That 50+ number you threw out there for effect just isn't a realistic number.  Only 9 QBs have been sacked 50+ times in the last 5 seasons... and almost all of them are guys that wouldn't be referred to as a 'statue', but rather as more mobile than not.  

"A sack occurs when the quarterback is tackled behind the line of scrimmage, prior to an attempt to complete a forward pass. The last part of the definition is important. For a sack to be recorded, it has to be clear that the QB was attempting a forward pass or was in the pocket with no clear objective."

Looking further back, historically, the data are not as biased toward mobile QBs. I wonder if the increased implementation of the RPO has created the current trend for mobile QBs and Os that attempt to take advantage of their mobility.

 

1 hour ago, Iggles_Phan said:

And that's a completely separate argument than the one you made about QBs who run being sacked less frequently versus pocket passers.   I specifically added Bledsoe for reference... hardly a guy that's mobile.   But, we can play whatever game you wish...

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/player-stat/passing-plays-sacked?season_id=19

Check the stats for yourself.   You went hyperbolic for no reason.  The premise is faulty.

2021 - Highest sacked QB was Burrow at 71.   Next was 48 - Tannehill (a mobile guy).
2020 - Highest was Wilson at 51, Wentz at 50, Watson 49, Daniel Jones 48.   These are all guys that were 'plus' mobility QBs.
2019 - Watson - 55, Wilson - 54, Murray - 48.  Plus mobility guys.
2018 - Watson - 65, Prescott - 58, Wilson - 52.
2017 - Brissett - 52 (first real 'statue' type QB to make the list), Tyrod Taylor - 48 

The point remains... there's more to the number of sacks allowed than the mobility of the QB.  That 50+ number you threw out there for effect just isn't a realistic number.  Only 9 QBs have been sacked 50+ times in the last 5 seasons... and almost all of them are guys that wouldn't be referred to as a 'statue', but rather as more mobile than not.  

No crap sherlock, maybe these issues aren't black and white? Maybe there's room for nuance in these discussions?

Like stop focusing on Hurts not being Peyton, and start focusing on what would make Hurts a better version of Hurts.

Stop focusing on imaginary QBs that we might magically obtain, and start looking at realistic alternatives.

Which is pretty much why I've stop responding to most of the people here, I like to discuss things, but I put in mental earplugs when fools shout at me.

29 minutes ago, hputenis said:

I can't fathom how it could be any worse.  Hopefully everyone knocked the rust off and Jordan Davis gets more snaps.  Also, Detroit has a very good OL.  I don't know if we will face an OL at that level for awhile.  

Funny how people kept saying Lions Oline wasn't good until we faced them lol

3 minutes ago, austinfan said:

No crap sherlock, maybe these issues aren't black and white? Maybe there's room for nuance in these discussions?

Like stop focusing on Hurts not being Peyton, and start focusing on what would make Hurts a better version of Hurts.

Stop focusing on imaginary QBs that we might magically obtain, and start looking at realistic alternatives.

Which is pretty much why I've stop responding to most of the people here, I like to discuss things, but I put in mental earplugs when fools shout at me.

A better version of Hurts would be one that doesn't bail from a clean pocket. Agree or no?

2 minutes ago, austinfan said:

No crap sherlock, maybe these issues aren't black and white? Maybe there's room for nuance in these discussions?

Like stop focusing on Hurts not being Peyton, and start focusing on what would make Hurts a better version of Hurts.

Stop focusing on imaginary QBs that we might magically obtain, and start looking at realistic alternatives.

Which is pretty much why I've stop responding to most of the people here, I like to discuss things, but I put in mental earplugs when fools shout at me.

This is exactly how we wound up with Hurts in the first place. Remember this guy:

1 minute ago, Mike030270 said:

Funny how people kept saying Lions Oline wasn't good until we faced them lol

A better version of Hurts would be one that doesn't bail from a clean pocket. Agree or no?

I don't know who said that because it's not some new revelation, that was always the strongest unit on their team. Last year their O-line sucked but they were also missing their LT, all Pro Center and I think one of the starting G's. 

6 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Which is pretty much why I've stop responding to most of the people here, I like to discuss things, but I put in mental earplugs when fools  FACTS shout at me.

FYP

5 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Like stop focusing on Hurts not being Peyton, and start focusing on what would make Hurts a better version of Hurts.

Evade the DL rush (check), keep eyes downfield while rolling out (seldom), if there is an open receiver hit receiver in stride (very seldom), OR

Take snap, spot open WR, throw ball on time and on script to distribute ball to playmakers (all too seldom) 

Be the conductor, not the fiddle player

3 hours ago, austinfan said:

And that's how they end up with 50+ sacks and a nice QB rating (b/c QB rating doesn't take into account holding the ball too long and killing drives with bad sacks).

The advantage of the running QB is he can get out of the pocket, run if there's open space or throw the ball away - the stationary QB has to eat the ball or force it into coverage.

It's all a matter of balance, I just want Hurts to stay long enough to go through his progressions, but it's up to his WRs to get open, it's up to him to avoid losses that put the team in a bad hole (3rd and 12+, and so on).

 

11 minutes ago, austinfan said:

No crap sherlock, maybe these issues aren't black and white? Maybe there's room for nuance in these discussions?

Like stop focusing on Hurts not being Peyton, and start focusing on what would make Hurts a better version of Hurts.

Stop focusing on imaginary QBs that we might magically obtain, and start looking at realistic alternatives.

Which is pretty much why I've stop responding to most of the people here, I like to discuss things, but I put in mental earplugs when fools shout at me.

Nice to start with hostility at the beginning of the post, and punctuate it with hostility at the end.

 

I didn't shout at you.  I argued that your premise was flawed.  I provided data to back it up.  You shot back with more hyperbole.   So I provided more data to counter your hyperbole.   But, you proposed a black and white situation... either the QB has to be mobile, or they end up with lots of sacks but a good QB rating.  I showed with evidence that that's just not accurate.  Turns out the mobile QBs, not the statues, are actually the ones getting sacked more frequently according to the data, and in general, they are the only ones getting to the super high sack numbers.  Only Burrow and Brissett would really qualify as the stationary QB.  And they both played behind OLs that were criminally neglected for years.  The data doesn't support your assertion.

 

Now, what am I looking for from Hurts?  Something different from what the coaches are, apparently.  Hence my personal frustration with the QB situation.  I do not want my QB running as a part of the design of the offense.   And I want the coaches to make him the better version of himself.  I disagree with their methodology of how to achieve that, and I believe that because of that, we have a limited ceiling with Hurts at QB.  Is that his fault?  Nope.  But, seems we have a ceiling with this coaching staff as well.  Gannon's continuing to play the soft coverage and giving up 35 to the Lions led by Jared Goff.  Steichen is calling running plays for his QB, rather than riding his RBs and trusting his OL to grind out first downs.  Only 22 rushes for the Rbs, while the team enjoyed a 3 score lead for periods in the 3rd quarter.   Meanwhile, they called about 40 passes, while the Lions were blitzing like crazy.   That's bad process, to me.

And, they lean in to Hurts' running and incorporate it as a part of the design of the offense.  They treat him like he's a finished product who can't benefit from snaps in the PS.  They talk about the need to have him run the ball, rather than talking about how they are working to help him get better from inside the pocket.  Ultimately, look at how Reid worked with the QBs here in the past, McNabb and Vick and how he focused on getting them to play better within the pocket and never went the easy route of just taking advantage of what they were in the moment, but took the long view and tried to make them better at the thing that would lead to a longer career, and better success in the playoffs.  

 

10 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I don't know who said that because it's not some new revelation, that was always the strongest unit on their team. Last year their O-line sucked but they were also missing their LT, all Pro Center and I think one of the starting G's. 

Weren't they also missing players on Oline for Sunday?

1 hour ago, Mike030270 said:

Weren't they also missing players on Oline for Sunday?

Just Vaitai and his backup (whose new this year). But you can scheme stuff to help out the RG probably more than any other position. You could tell that one spot was a little shaky when the guy got back to back false starts but he settled down after that. 

21 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Yup.  I think of sacks and QBs in terms of natural selection, survival of the fittest, to use evolutionary terms.

QBs like Marino, Brady, Peyton Manning, Rivers, Dan Fouts, etc. were sacked less than the average even though they had little mobility for one simple reason -- they got rid of the ball before the pass rush could get there.

QBs like Wilson, Watson, even Luck and Wentz to an extent get hit and sacked a lot because they will hold the ball longer to try to make plays downfield.  Burrow has a weak OL in Cincy, but he's also holding the ball longer by design because their offense is built around the WRs and hitting chunk plays.  Those plays take time to develop.

The "Old School" guys you referenced already knew where they were going with the ball at the snap. Play design and D alignment dictated.

The game isn't so much different today but Nowadays they seem to drop back and look around instead of pulling the trigger 2 secs in as a play is designed....looking downfield for the Chunk seems to be the recipe for success instead of Death by 1,000 cuts.  

Offensive Philosophies endorsed by the coach I guess.

Peyton was a Master at picking you to pieces, now it's Pat Mahomes confounding you with his improv.

League is getting what they want tho, what they've been working towards...more and varied Offenses and scoring opportunities.

28 minutes ago, austinfan said:

No crap sherlock, maybe these issues aren't black and white? Maybe there's room for nuance in these discussions?

Like stop focusing on Hurts not being Peyton, and start focusing on what would make Hurts a better version of Hurts.

Stop focusing on imaginary QBs that we might magically obtain, and start looking at realistic alternatives.

Which is pretty much why I've stop responding to most of the people here, I like to discuss things, but I put in mental earplugs when fools shout at me.

You may have missed the simple intent of his post.

Nobody is shouting at you Afan...a quick study of the most visible QBs and their sack history is food for discussion.

Why so touchy?

1 hour ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

So does anyone have faith the DLine will be better? 

Yes. I do.

 

4 hours ago, WentzFan11 said:

What if Reagor drops 100 yards and a TD on us? 

My bold season prediction is reagor having his first ever 100 yard game against us

21 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said: