Jump to content

EMB Blog: 2022 Post-Season - NO POLITICS


Connecticut Eagle

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

You’re kidding, right?  Epps and Blankenship at safety, and Josiah Scott at nickel.  
 

I don’t think any of those three players possess NFL talent.  Depth is a problem.  You can hide Epps if CGJ and Maddox are surrounding him as well as Slay and Bradberry.  You can’t hide all three of those guys in the middle of the secondary 

Your defense of Gannon here is essentially "They aren't a perfect roster." You should be able to win with some backups in there. Bradberry, Epps, Slay, Graham, Sweat, Hargrave, Edwards, Reddick, and CGJ when he comes back is plenty of talent on that side of the ball. Probably most any defense in the playoffs will have outside of the Niners.

And if you disagree, what would be your biggest concern not counting the injuries? I don't know how you could argue anything but Gannon here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
13 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

He said Gannon is his #1 concern(excluding the recent injuries) going into the playoffs, and I agree. His track record when racing top level QBs has not been great. That doesn't mean he can't get credit for some of the things they've been successful with this year, but the playoffs are going to give us a better picture of how well coached this defense is, because there's no denying their talent. So if they get absolutely lit up in a playoff game in Philly, it's going to be a problem. Let's hope it doesn't come to that and the defense plays great and it's much ado about nothing.

I’ve mentioned this multiple times, the defense wasn’t great on Saturday. They had their own flaws like not adjusting quicker to what Dallas was doing with lamb and needing to get the halftime to do it. Because your saw in the second half, the Eagles made the adjustment and Dallas wasn’t just able to keep going to lamb. And the third and 30 it’s just ridiculous for numerous reasons.

However the Eagles o turning the ball over four times and giving Dallas the ball at their own 40, the Eagles 47, Eagles 31 and Eagles 21 is basically just giving cowboys at least three field goals at minimum due to their kicker and field position. That’s 9 points because you gave them such good field position. Now they scored more, but the fact that you turn the ball over where you did they were going to score points because of the short field. It looks a lot different if the offense isn’t turning the ball over four times and can just cut it in half.

It’s not just giving the points to Dallas with way the Eagles are moving the ball. Those are points of the Eagles could’ve had as well. So the 9 points minimum that was basically gifted Dallas is actually closer to probably an 18 point swing with the way you were moving the ball. Eagles likely score at least a field goal on three of those four possessions with how Dallas couldn’t stop the eagles offense without turnovers. I would add if you got that 18 point swing, Dallas is gonna become more one dimensional so you don’t even have to worry about to run and just pin your ears back with our pass rush and I’m guessing we likely create more pressure and potentially turnovers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sack that QB said:

Your defense of Gannon here is essentially "They aren't a perfect roster." You should be able to win with some backups in there. Bradberry, Epps, Slay, Graham, Sweat, Hargrave, Edwards, Reddick, and CGJ when he comes back is plenty of talent on that side of the ball. Probably most any defense in the playoffs will have outside of the Niners.

The team is 13-2. You telling me they couldnt win with some backups in there?  I saw them do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sack that QB said:

Your defense of Gannon here is essentially "They aren't a perfect roster." You should be able to win with some backups in there. Bradberry, Epps, Slay, Graham, Sweat, Hargrave, Edwards, Reddick, and CGJ when he comes back is plenty of talent on that side of the ball. Probably most any defense in the playoffs will have outside of the Niners.

And if you disagree, what would be your biggest concern not counting the injuries? I don't know how you could argue anything but Gannon here.

You do realize the Eagles are 13-2, correct?  They ARE winning with backups; what is problematic is when the injuries are compounded within the same unit — say OL, or interior secondary.

I have no concerns at all outside of injuries.  The Eagles have been the best team in the NFL since Week 4 and I don’t see any other team without deficiencies of their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the stat that is most troubling to me. I think all of us expected a leveling off/water finding it’s level after the hot start they had in turnover differential, but they’ve been the worst team in the league the past seven weeks in that department. I’m holding onto the notion that the only way this team loses is if it shoots itself in the foot, but they’ve shown that they are extremely capable of doing that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Washington and Dallas both needed our offense to turn the ball over 4 times.

Thats more costly than a nickel CB occasionally being beaten. Not worried about the D at all against ANY NFC opponent. And not really concerned about the offense either despite those turnovers.

It is a lot more than a nickel corner. TJ Edwards is looking more and more like a  2-down LB and Blankenship is a liability in coverage as well. The middle is open and teams will be scheming it. I am not sure Dalton and Jones will have enough to exploit, but Dallas and SF will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

This is the stat that is most troubling to me. I think all of us expected a leveling off/water finding it’s level after the hot start they had in turnover differential, but they’ve been the worst time in the league the past seven weeks in that department. I’m holding onto the notion that the only way this team loses is if it shoots itself in the foot, but they’ve shown that they are extremely capable of doing that. 

Mention this right after the game. They’ve had 2 or more turnovers in 4 of 7 games and 3 or more in 3 of 7 games. The interceptions aren’t as big of a concern to me. I tend to think hurts besides the Chicago game has done a good job not throwing them. it is the fumbles. It feels like every week we are having one or two fumbles. Had 3 fumbles vs. Washington (smith at the end lateral) and lost all 3. Against the colts had 2 fumbles and lost both. Against packers we had 2 fumbles and lost one. Against the titans we had a fumble but recovered it. The giants game is the only one in the last 7 where we didn’t fumble. Against the bears we had a fumble and lost it. Against Dallas we had 2 fumbles and lost both. So over a 7 game span we’ve had 11 fumbles and lost 9 of them. guys have to protect the ball better. There’s no other way around it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

You do realize the Eagles are 13-2, correct?  They ARE winning with backups; what is problematic is when the injuries are compounded within the same unit — say OL, or interior secondary.

I have no concerns at all outside of injuries.  The Eagles have been the best team in the NFL since Week 4 and I don’t see any other team without deficiencies of their own.

Then I'm not sure what you're even arguing because I(nor BLG) never said the Eagles aren't good enough to win the Super Bowl. I think they're the clear favorites to at least go if not win. But for argument's sake if you had to pick one area of the team that concerns you most, for me it would be Gannon. And yes they obviously have the best record in the NFL, but the offense is a massive part of that 13-2 record, and whether or not the defense will play up to standard against a top notch offense is the question at hand. Do you have confidence that they will or that Gannon can coach toe to toe with some of the better offensive minds and QBs he may face in the playoffs? And that isn't rhetorical, it's a genuine question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, aptosbird said:

It is a lot more than a nickel corner. TJ Edwards is looking more and more like a  2-down LB and Blankenship is a liability in coverage as well. The middle is open and teams will be scheming it. I am not sure Dalton and Jones will have enough to exploit, but Dallas and SF will.

My biggest 30,000' long-term concern is that this team is cresting on a wave right now (or at least through the first 13 or so weeks).  Everything fit together perfectly.  While that's great, that also means you need to pay everyone as more than they are.

TJ Edwards looked like a pro-bowl LB.  Epps looked like a key cog in the NFL's best secondary.  

When the middle of the secondary falls off, Edwards looks like a 2-down LB who is soft in coverage in the middle.  Without Maddox and CJGJ, Epps is not quite adequate as the anchor of the secondary.  

Everything fit together perfectly, which was a huge credit to everyone.  But they've all got limitations...but the limitations start to become targetable weaknesses when other dominoes in the lineup start to fall.  Howie can't pay everyone like the all-pro's they looked like for 13 weeks.

If CJGJ comes back healthy, then you can probably hide Blankenship successfully.  And if Maddox comes back, then we are really in great shape.  But all of this needs to be in the back of Howie's mind when he evaluates these guys in the offseason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I tend to agree with sheil on this 

 

I heard Quinten Mikell talk about this. Why run a disguise. He wasn't sure if it was called or Scott just screwed up...either way...just a dumb mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, mattwill said:

I have no problem with you being you either. However, your concept of a results driven, high demand approach is a bit myopic. Take for instance the final shot of the May 2019 Sixers playoff series. It was perfectly results driven and high quality.  But I suspect it didn’t satisfy you.

You suspect 100% correctly.  If you believe that the culmination of a years long process into a failure through a lucky shot is satisfying, then I'd suggest you consider raising your expectations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

Then I'm not sure what you're even arguing because I(nor BLG) never said the Eagles aren't good enough to win the Super Bowl. I think they're the clear favorites to at least go if not win. But for argument's sake if you had to pick one area of the team that concerns you most, for me it would be Gannon. And yes they obviously have the best record in the NFL, but the offense is a massive part of that 13-2 record, and whether or not the defense will play up to standard against a top notch offense is the question at hand. Do you have confidence that they will or that Gannon can coach toe to toe with some of the better offensive minds and QBs he may face in the playoffs? And that isn't rhetorical, it's a genuine question.

I don’t think it becomes a concern until the Super Bowl, and if CGJ and Maddox are there with Slay and Bradberry then my level of concern decreases quite a bit.  The Eagles will likely be at home for their two NFC playoff games and, to this point in the season, the Packers game was the only one they underperformed on defense at The Linc.

A lot had to go DAL way for them to win on Saturday even at home and a +3 in turnovers.  The Eagles will win a Divisional Round game over DAL or any other likely NFC opponent.  The NFCCG against SF (presumably) doesn’t worry me a lot with Brock Purdy playing on the road.  MIN doesn’t worry me either against Playoff Kirk and the Vikings’ porous defense.

The best QB the Eagles will face will be in the Super Bowl if they get there.  If they don’t get there I assume it will be because of turnovers or a defense bottling up Hurts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I tend to agree with sheil on this 

 

[Insert ManuManu post about how stupid that play call was and how no one should have ever defended it]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

[Insert ManuManu post about how stupid that play call was and how no one should have ever defended it]

if you aren’t going to play sticks or have guys just back then i don’t get the disguise called. You weren’t fooling Dallas and only wound up hurting yourself. Heck I’d been more understanding if he had the front four pass rush and sent two blitzers. At least Dak would’ve been forced to get rid of it faster then make sure your other 5 guys tackle. At least i get the logic there. The disguising of 3rd and 30 with your backup nickel is just a bad idea from the start. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

if you aren’t going to play sticks or have guys just back then i don’t get the disguise called. You weren’t fooling Dallas and only wound up hurting yourself. Heck I’d been more understanding if he had the front four pass rush and sent two blitzers. At least Dak would’ve been forced to get rid of it faster then make sure your other 5 guys tackle. At least i get the logic there. The disguising of 3rd and 30 with your backup nickel is just a bad idea from the start. 

The disguise was for man-man defense....something they rarely did during the game and never do on 3rd and really long..what the hell were they thinking?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aptosbird said:

The disguise was for man-man defense....something they rarely did during the game and never do on 3rd and really long..what the hell were they thinking?

 

I am more willing to try something like that if my backup nickel wasn’t playing and i had maddox as well as having CGJ playing. At that time wouldn’t do it and i think asking way too much if your backup nickel. Frankly I’d have just done one of two things: what Schwartz used to do with sticks or less likely sent a blitz to either get a sack or force Dak to throw it out quick and hope my secondary guys can make a tackle before giving up a massive gain to make it 4th and manageable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slay got a bit of criticism after that game. 

You could see him carry that Hilton route only so far and then he didnt turn and run. You could tell right then, he expected someone else to have that deep zone.

I dont think Slay had a bad game. I think Scott had a bad game and made everyone look worse.

The guy who may not have an excise is Bradberry. Id like to see that play again though because  was thinking maybe someone should have filled behind him. Odd how flat footed he was on that route unless he knew he only had the inside breaking route there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Slay got a bit of criticism after that game. 

You could see him carry that Hilton route only so far and then he didnt turn and run. You could tell right then, he expected someone else to have that deep zone.

I dont think Slay had a bad game. I think Scott had a bad game and made everyone look worse.

The guy who may not have an excise is Bradberry. Id like to see that play again though because  was thinking maybe someone should have filled behind him. Odd how flat footed he was on that route unless he knew he only had the inside breaking route there.

The Turds might have studied Bradberry’s tendencies and ran a "buster” route on that one.  The broadcast crew when they showed the replay believed Bradberry was getting set to jump an in-breaking route, and Lamb cut it off toward the pylon.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

The Turds might have studied Bradberry’s tendencies and ran a "buster” route on that one.  The broadcast crew when they showed the replay believed Bradberry was getting set to jump an in-breaking route, and Lamb cut it off toward the pylon.  

Bradberry sure did that. But hes not a guy whos been known to get burnt on double moves here. If hes jumping an inside route, its because he knows someone else has the zone behind him covered. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gannon has a top 3 DL and the best CB duo in the NFL. That should be enough for average results against real QBs.

If Gannon needs good players at all 11 spots, then he's simply not a good DC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RLC said:

Gannon has a top 3 DL and the best CB duo in the NFL. That should be enough for average results against real QBs.

If Gannon needs good players at all 11 spots, then he's simply not a good DC.

Lets see his results against Dallas next time. If its bad, we can criticize.

Right now, there was enough incentive to keep it really vanilla in that game. Over analysis of a sandbagged game plan would be pointless.

Dak isnt so far above a bunch of other QBs we have already seen this season. 

Rodgers is certainly on his level, if not still above him. Cousins and Murray depending on the year, or even week are on his level. Tannehill is close. Even Lawrence is on his way and fairly close right now.

In fact, Id even say Dak played over his had on Christmas Eve. Hes usually accurate but will throw a few erratic passes most games. I dont remember any erratic passes. He was on all game long. And making really fast reads. He also lead the league in INTs the preceding 6 weeks leading up to that game. If not for the fluky Sweat snag he wouldnt have thrown an INT that game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, schuy7 said:

Who disguises a coverage on 3rd and 30? lol

I suppose you make the weak armed turnover prone QB think he has 1 on 1 outside on 3rd and 30 you fool him in to an underthrown deep ball to an old washed up WR and the safety or nickel comes over for an easy INT opportunity.

Next thing you know, the nickel isnt there, its a game of pitch and catch between the QB and WR with no defender in the area, and the deep ball is thrown perfectly. Now you look like an idiot.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, schuy7 said:

Who disguises a coverage on 3rd and 30? lol

Clearly 

93ED8BDA-E193-4D12-8C34-0C569CBCF1A8.thumb.jpeg.15f10d5f06c855807cdc4ccb64f8a2ac.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...