What to make of the Birds?
So the Eagles beat the Redskins handedly. 27-3. That’s an impressive win. There’s also talk about the fact that they ran the ball more than they passed.
On the surface everthing seems to be back on track. But in my view the picture’s a lot less rosy than it seems.
Let’s consider the facts:
1. The Eagles offense sputtered and gave out on too many occassions when they had the ball on the Skins side of the field.
2. The Birds still rely on the big play, which is unreliable. Stallworth on a deep double move. Reggie Brown fumbles into the lucky hands of Buckhalter. Sheldon Brown returns the interception for a touchdown. None of these plays are indicators of a consistent offense. Yet all three touchdowns came on lucky plays.
3. The Birds failed to systematically drive down the field and score. Not once. See 2 above.
4. The Redskins lost Portis early and effectively lost their offense at the same time. Not that the Redskins offense was any good to begin with. But losing Portis was like losing the engine on a bad car. In other words, the defense didn’t show us jack.
5. The Eagles ran 14 times in the 4th quarter when they had the big lead. So forget all this talk about how they’ve become a running team. The fact is that they ran because they had the lead. Next time they fall behind, expect them to become a 1 dimensional offense again.
The point here is that the Redskins game was a joke. It was a good team beating a bad team. Nothing special. Nothing proven. In fact, if anything was proven it was that the Eagle’s offense still can’t march down the field systematically. They live and die by the big play, and to me that is scary.
About this Post
Posted on November 14, 2006 by Micah | Filed Under Eagles, Philadelphia
|
Print This Article |
macih, or what ever your name is writing the colum, run that’s what you have to do after you have the big lead. that’s why we lost to the giants. give morningwig credit. if they didn’t run with the lead you would have written about that. i agree that it was a good team beating a bad team. the eagles found a way to win, that what good teams are going to do. the d also held when they had to. they did well on third downs and got of the feild. give the “O” credit for pounding the rock(at least pound in our own little 9 min. way) i agree that if the go in that direction in the first half of games teams like the colts won’t have to many chances to get on the feild. give credit for game plan and pray Andy lets Mc nabb and MorningW” do the darn thing. then when we take over the division your head line in the paper could be “Good Morning MR. Mcnabb how do you want your offence, two pass,three runs. or 3 parts run 2 parts screens 3 parts bib play. you’re the writer you get the point.
macih, or what ever your name is writing the colum, run, that’s what you have to do after you have the big lead. that’s why we lost to the giants. give morningwig credit. if they didn’t run with the lead you would have written about that. i agree that it was a good team beating a bad team. the eagles found a way to win, that what good teams are going to do. the d also held when they had to. they did well on third downs and got of the feild. give the “O” credit for pounding the rock(at least in our own little 9 min. way) i agree that if the go in that direction in the first half of games teams like the colts won’t have to many chances to get on the feild. give credit for game planing and pray Andy lets Mc nabb and MorningW” do the darn thing. then when we take over the division your head line in the paper could be “Good Morning MR. Mcnabb how do you want your offence, two pass,three runs. or 3 parts run 2 parts screens 3 parts big play. you’re the writer you get the point.