Bonus (her Big 10 stuff is pretty good too)

 

9 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

 

I never said the flipped a table and stormed off. He was asked a question, didn't give an answer and got up and left. It's a weird scene, IMO. I said he "walked off because he was asked a question about his knee" which he did. 

I understand he doesn't want to talk about it. I understand Nick doesn't want him to talk about it. He's still going to be asked about it since he was limping all over the field Sunday. And he's now a $250M QB. The questions are never going to stop. 

Stupid of the beat to waste a question on injury in that the players are schooled not to answer injury questions.  

1 hour ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

You're what is known as a hater.

  Coming from your lips, that is a green "I need to find a new cliche” phrase

7 hours ago, rrfierce said:

Interesting that Hurts still isn't on the report. 

No it isn’t. Injuries don’t have to be reported unless it limits the player’s practicing.  The basis for that is FP doesn’t impact availability. If availability changes, even after practice ends, the status changes which is the whole reason for the injury report. 

2 hours ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

Dolphins win the kickoff. Dolphins drive the length of the field and score. Dolphins then kickoff to the colts. Colts Kick Returner fumbles the kick and Dolphins have the ball deep in Colts territory. They score an easy TD.  14-0.
 

devpool: "If Anthony Richardson comes back and wins this game, that’s not impressive.”

Do I think scoring 15 or more points to win a football game is impressive? No. Sorry we have different standards 

I think the Phillies would have put up a better fight against the Rangers.  Oh well.  I'm still not over losing two straight games at home.  It just shows how hard it is to get to back to back World Series.  

33 minutes ago, KINGnabb said:

I think the Phillies would have put up a better fight against the Rangers.  Oh well.  I'm still not over losing two straight games at home.  It just shows how hard it is to get to back to back World Series.  

Especially when you got 3 guy making like 800 mil combined who go like 0/11 in the last two games 

7 minutes ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

Especially when you got 3 guy making like 800 mil combined who go like 0/11 in the last two games 

They lost the series in Game 4 8th inning.  They had a big lead with two innings to go.  But like the World Series last year, the bats went cold at the worst time.  It should have never came to a game 7.  

9 minutes ago, KINGnabb said:

They lost the series in Game 4 8th inning.  They had a big lead with two innings to go.  But like the World Series last year, the bats went cold at the worst time.  It should have never came to a game 7.  

Almost everyone keeps pointing to that game. 

While it was bad, you’re still up 3-2 going into two home games needing one win. 

The bats choked 

22 minutes ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

Almost everyone keeps pointing to that game. 

While it was bad, you’re still up 3-2 going into two home games needing one win. 

The bats choked 

That game was big because both teams realized the late innings were up for grabs.  From the 7th inning on in games 4-7 unless it was Strahm or Hoffman, I don't think we had a 1-2-3 inning.  Walks, hits, runs.  We walked so many.  If the Phils didn't have a 5-6 run cushion the lead wasn't safe.  I think the back end bullpen impacted the approach at the plate and it snowballed in games 5-7.

18 minutes ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

Almost everyone keeps pointing to that game. 

While it was bad, you’re still up 3-2 going into two home games needing one win. 

The bats choked 

Yes and no. I agree with @KINGnabb They lost this series in Arizona. The momentum, the mood of the team, the confidence...all of it swung to the side of Arizona. 

7 hours ago, mattwill said:

  Coming from your lips, that is a green "I need to find a new cliche” phrase

Eagles 31

cowpies 30

57 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

Yes and no. I agree with @KINGnabb They lost this series in Arizona. The momentum, the mood of the team, the confidence...all of it swung to the side of Arizona. 

 they never play well in Arizona. Been the issue for years now. Really since 2017. This year they went 3-1 during the regular season which was pretty surprising cause entering the game they had been 4-12 in their last 16 in AZ. But those games could’ve easily went the other way. 3 of those 4 games were 1 run games and one of them they won cause of the stupid ghost runner at second in the 10th.

The Phillies never play the Diamondbacks well. Particularly on the road. Since 2017 they’ve gone 8-15 in Arizona (including playoffs). they’ve gone 10-13 at home (including playoffs) during the same time vs. Arizona. Overall they are 18-28 vs. Arizona. They just don’t play Arizona very well. And it’s not like the Diamondbacks have had good teams either. The Diamondbacks have been pretty crappy most of  that period of time. the Phillies just don’t play them well. It’s like the eagles with seattle. 

to me, it feels like after game two they lost focus. in game three they were awful on offense. They were fortunate that game that they manage to even score and that it was as close til the 9th. the Diamondbacks for like the last half of that game always felt like they had runners in scoring position, and the Phillies managed to somehow avoid complete meltdown (and there were some crazy things go their way) until kimbrel.  Game 4 they slightly recovered until the bullpen blew it. But really it wasn’t just the bullpen. The Phillies had chances to bust that game open. could only manage to get 5 against the Diamondbacks bullpen. And the Diamondbacks bullpen you saw in game four vs. the Rangers (bullpen game like game 4 vs. Phillies) got absolutely lit up. The Phillies couldn’t do that. And they should’ve because that bullpen aside from Ginkel is not very good like it showed in the rangers series. I think after they won game five they kind of got overconfident going back home. assumed that just going back to citizens Bank Park would carry them and psyche out the dbacks to roll over and die. As soon as dbacks Hit nola in game 6, the Phillies couldn’t get momentum completely back and dbacks had confidence. Whereas the Rangers seized momentum after game 3 and made the dbacks hitters and bullpen look like they had for the last month of the season. Which was inconsistent and mostly bad it’s why they backed into the playoffs. 

If your scheme does not allow CBs to flip sides, you have a bad scheme. 

Desai has flipped CBs before. He did it against Minnesota on a short week (Slay followed Jefferson). He didn't do it against other teams. 

51 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

Yes and no. I agree with @KINGnabb They lost this series in Arizona. The momentum, the mood of the team, the confidence...all of it swung to the side of Arizona. 

The Phils won game 5… 

1 hour ago, KINGnabb said:

They lost the series in Game 4 8th inning.  They had a big lead with two innings to go.  But like the World Series last year, the bats went cold at the worst time.  It should have never came to a game 7.  

Might have lost it in that inning but really things were put in motion game 3. Had a chance to really put the dbacks out of their misery. The Phillies came out flat in game 3 on offense. They looked like they were just going through the motions and that they dbacks were gonna roll over and die down 2-0. Stubbs talking about the pool felt like a reflection of how they played. Once you gave dbacks momentum and confidence, it was an issue. It began unraveling in the 7th then 8th it imploded with kimbrel. They recovered in game 5 but it felt like after game 5 they thought going home with Nola on the mound would be enough to carry them. It wasn’t and after the dbacks hit nola they looked like a team that wasn’t afraid of CBP and could win both of those games. And felt like they began pressing even more 

24 minutes ago, RLC said:

If your scheme does not allow CBs to flip sides, you have a bad scheme. 

Desai has flipped CBs before. He did it against Minnesota on a short week (Slay followed Jefferson). He didn't do it against other teams. 

Shadowing for both your CBs isn't just flipping sides. It's asking them to travel with WRs anywhere they line up, including the slot. Flipping (but not following) is a much easier tweak to implement, but offenses can still dictate matchups against flipped CBs by motioning the WR into the slot, into a bunch on the other side, into the backfield via orbit, etc. When's the last time you've seen Bradberry tracking a WR in motion all the way across the formation?

31 minutes ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

The Phils won game 5… 

I know, but you could still feel it. Their relievers couldn't find a strike if their lives depended on it. The Phillies hit in bunches and they just couldn't sustain it. 

13 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Shadowing for both your CBs isn't just flipping sides. It's asking them to travel with WRs anywhere they line up, including the slot. Flipping (but not following) is a much easier tweak to implement, but offenses can still dictate matchups against flipped CBs by motioning the WR into the slot, into a bunch on the other side, into the backfield via orbit, etc. When's the last time you've seen Bradberry tracking a WR in motion all the way across the formation?

For sure, but that's still a schematic choice. We've seen in the Fangio scheme CBs get wasted because teams would push out their TE/RB to the sidelines and suddenly Slay/Bradberry are covering their #4 option while the offense gets their best options against our safeties and slot CBs.

We choose to not have CBs follow in large part because we want to play a ton of zone and I'm guessing they don't trust Bradberry.

5 minutes ago, RLC said:

For sure, but that's still a schematic choice. We've seen in the Fangio scheme CBs get wasted because teams would push out their TE/RB to the sidelines and suddenly Slay/Bradberry are covering their #4 option while the offense gets their best options against our safeties and slot CBs.

We choose to not have CBs follow in large part because we want to play a ton of zone and I'm guessing they don't trust Bradberry.

It's not just with Fangio where this happens, it's the vast majority of DCs in the NFL now. Honestly, go out and try to find a pre-snap look from a defense where the outside CBs are lined up right next to each other against a trips formation look. It's incredibly difficult to find for a reason.

 

8 minutes ago, RLC said:

For sure, but that's still a schematic choice. We've seen in the Fangio scheme CBs get wasted because teams would push out their TE/RB to the sidelines and suddenly Slay/Bradberry are covering their #4 option while the offense gets their best options against our safeties and slot CBs.

We choose to not have CBs follow in large part because we want to play a ton of zone and I'm guessing they don't trust Bradberry.

Based on the bad defensive performance reported against bunches, it might be even more reason to rely on zone.