3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Greend said he was confident we win this Sunday, meaning we'd go to the super bowl. He didn't say anything beyond that. So not sure why you'd invoke 2004 as a reason to refute what he said.

Confidence is the enemy.  We must cower in fear.

 

This should be a tough game, but I anticipate a victory.  I think the Eagles have a better team.  49ers are playoff tested, for the most part.  But the Eagles aren't exactly new comers to the playoffs either.  The QB differential might just be the difference in the game.

12 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Has a lifetime of eagles fandom taught you nothing?? This is where they rip our hearts out i fear. 

I like his positivity and hope he's right, but the early 2000's broke me of expecting anything from these types of Eagles games.  

17 minutes ago, Blazehound said:

Not digging the over confidence. Hopefully doesn’t rub off on the players and coaching staff. This feels like 2003 or 2004 all over again. 

At the same time i felt like after losing wentz we were done and the Vikings would beat us…

so maybe my negative vibes are just preempting a letdown

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

I like his positivity and hope he's right, but the early 2000's broke me of expecting anything from these types of Eagles games.  

Yup

i was at all the nfccg losses….

ugh

1 hour ago, greend said:

Not sure how the rest of you feel but at this point I feel very confident that we win Sunday. I wouldn't mind seeing a screen pass or two to slow down that rush a bit though. Hopefully we have work on a couple of hot receiver plays as well

This team is elite at pretty much everything yet inexplicably sucks with screens.  We’ve got a hyper-mobile OL.  We’ve got a stable of good RBs.  We’ve got a physical YAC machine WR.  We’ve got a couple fast wrs.

And we suck executing screens.

3 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

This team is elite at pretty much everything yet inexplicably sucks with screens.  We’ve got a hyper-mobile OL.  We’ve got a stable of good RBs.  We’ve got a physical YAC machine WR.  We’ve got a couple fast wrs.

And we suck executing screens.

To be fair, we did score on a screen for our second TD against NYG. But yeah, in general, we're a far cry from an Andy Reid team that knows how and when to draw those up.

4 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

This team is elite at pretty much everything yet inexplicably sucks with screens.  We’ve got a hyper-mobile OL.  We’ve got a stable of good RBs.  We’ve got a physical YAC machine WR.  We’ve got a couple fast wrs.

And we suck executing screens.

The TE screen seems to work well for us. Otherwise, yeah, we suck at them 

9 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

This team is elite at pretty much everything yet inexplicably sucks with screens.  We’ve got a hyper-mobile OL.  We’ve got a stable of good RBs.  We’ve got a physical YAC machine WR.  We’ve got a couple fast wrs.

And we suck executing screens.

Because you need the qb to not be a spaz

7 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

To be fair, we did score on a screen for our second TD against NYG. But yeah, in general, we're a far cry from an Andy Reid team that knows how and when to draw those up.

Browns block on that play was artwork

Just now, ToastJenkins said:

Because you need the qb to not be a spaz

This is a weird take. Hurts isn't the reason why we suck at screens.

@downundermike or any other stats nerds

Anyone know the league average yards per play on a WR screen? And what we have been getting on them ever since we stopped using Quez and started using Smith on them? I feel like its been pretty successful over the past say..... 5 or 6 weeks.

imo, RB screens are potential big plays. Maybe my thinking is biased because I remember the reid, and even Chip days and how well we ran them. But WR screens rarely seem to be big plays for anyone. It seems you generally hope to get about 6-10 yards on those.

Anyone notice anything odd about this offensive line formation?

 

Is Quez our right tackle of the future?

7 hours ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

I'm not sure this has been mentioned, but has anyone ever gotten an explanation as to why Anthony Harris was activated from the practice squad, only to not even be dressed for the game? Was it a paycheck thing? Was there some ulterior motive about free agency status, like, he has be active for a game in order to qualify for inclusion in the free agency signing formula (which I realize won't come into play since he won't be a sought after commodity anyway)?

It just seemed odd to me at the time.

The paycheck thing was purely speculation on my part.  Based that on how he was let go to pursue other options from the PS at the beginning of the season.  That didn’t make a lot of sense because any player on the PS can try out for other teams or get signed to other teams’ regular roster.  But there was a smidgen more opportunity in being a free agent. 

The comp pick question is interesting. To qualify for that status, a player must be in the top 35% of player compensation.  Harris spent so much time on PSs and unsigned that even at the vested vet minimum, I don’t think he would qualify as being in the top 35%.

This is a few weeks old now, but shows how we stack up vs the rest of the league.

 

17 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

This team is elite at pretty much everything yet inexplicably sucks with screens.  We’ve got a hyper-mobile OL.  We’ve got a stable of good RBs.  We’ve got a physical YAC machine WR.  We’ve got a couple fast wrs.

And we suck executing screens.

We might be so RPO heavy, that the OL blocking for a classic screen is a tip-off or a free run at the QB is totally out of character.

6 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

This is a few weeks old now, but shows how we stack up vs the rest of the league.

 

 

 

 

36% of the time it works everytime. 

Obscure stat time:

I know that Super Bowl winning coaches are usually cast from the same mold, and by that I mean, as players they were usually former QBs, OL, or DBs. In fact, I think you have to go all the way back to when the Packers won it during the 2010 season to find a coach who wasn't on of those 3 positions as a player (I think McCarthy was strictly a TE in his playing days.) 

So that begs the question, if we somehow do cap off this whirlwind season with another title, would Sirianni be the first Super Bowl winning coach who was a former WR?

1 hour ago, greend said:

My opinion is it's childish to need to express yourself using f bombs and other such language and it's totally unnecessary to get your point across. Quite frankly I'm surprised that one of our older posters is trying to push it. 

Oh woe is me how will I ever be able to type my thoughts on a message board without seeing my cusswords in view. 

If you think "cuss words” are the only words censored, you are missing my point.  Many of the censored words in the filters suggest a censorship of Victorian age.  But then again, I am pretty libertarian in nature, view words in their many meanings as tools and being offended by a word seems akin to being offended by a screwdriver.  We see the memes, articles and videos on here all the time that use words that get censored when we write so the censorship is unevenly applied.  The filters go way past George Carlin’s seven words.   The censorship made sense for a corporation but seems out of place in a collective that clearly isn’t sensitive to those words as a whole.

1 hour ago, ToastJenkins said:

Has a lifetime of eagles fandom taught you nothing?? This is where they rip our hearts out i fear. 

I’m ready for it should it happen. Things aren’t quite the same after 2017. That one can never be taken away from us. 

12 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Obscure stat time:

I know that Super Bowl winning coaches are usually cast from the same mold, and by that I mean, as players they were usually former QBs, OL, or DBs. In fact, I think you have to go all the way back to when the Packers won it during the 2010 season to find a coach who wasn't on of those 3 positions as a player (I think McCarthy was strictly a TE in his playing days.) 

So that begs the question, if we somehow do cap off this whirlwind season with another title, would Sirianni be the first Super Bowl winning coach who was a former WR?

Sean McVay was a college WR as well.

We aren’t very good at WR screens because our WRs largely suck at blocking them. We’re very good at TE screens because we block them up well and Goedert is very good after the catch. 

As far as RB screens go, I seem to remember hearing repeatedly during broadcasts that it’s hard to run them effectively with a mobile QB because teams often mush rush instead of aggressive rushing upfield. 

53 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Confidence is the enemy.  We must cower in fear.

 

This should be a tough game, but I anticipate a victory.  I think the Eagles have a better team.  49ers are playoff tested, for the most part.  But the Eagles aren't exactly new comers to the playoffs either.  The QB differential might just be the difference in the game.

The players seem to take that strive to get better every day in hand.  When my kids were younger, I would come home and say I learned something new today.  Then I would ask them what was new that they experienced that day. I think viewed that way, the players keep learning and improving everyday. Led by the members of Stout University.  Sounds like the 49ers have some of that philosophy as well.   As a fan, it’s all gravy from here. 

2 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Sean McVay was a college WR as well.

Totally forgot about literally the most recent one   

thanks

8 hours ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

No matter what happens the rest of this season (meaning even if we go on and win the Super Bowl), I guarantee that there will be fans complaining next August about how soft training camp is and how ridiculous it is that players are given "rest days". And when our starters play one series in the first preseason game and don't play at all in the final preseason game, there will be cries about how unprepared we're going to be for the opener and "Jalen needs the work!"

Hopefully the proof is in the pudding for folks by now. We were pretty darn healthy last year, and we’re about as healthy as can be going into the NFCCG. 

2 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

We aren’t very good at WR screens because our WRs largely suck at blocking them. We’re very good at TR screens because we block them up well and Goedert is very good after the catch. 

As far as RB screens go, I seek to remember hearing repeatedly during broadcasts that it’s hard to run them effectively with a mobile QB because teams often mush rush instead of aggressive rushing upfield. 

We were awesome with them for years with McNabb and even Vick at QB, though. I think it's more of a schematic issue, with an expertise that's currently lacking among our staff.

3 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

We aren’t very good at WR screens because our WRs largely suck at blocking them. We’re very good at TR screens because we block them up well and Goedert is very good after the catch. 

As far as RB screens go, I seek to remember hearing repeatedly during broadcasts that it’s hard to run them effectively with a mobile QB because teams often mush rush instead of aggressive rushing upfield. 

doesnt add up though. We have always had a moble, QB. Actually a step further, we have always had a running QB. 

We were a great screen team with McNabb, and Vick at QB. That cant be it.