2015 Eagles: What the hell is going on here?!

[edmunddantes]

Clean hit, but still a dick move. It's not an either/or thing. 
 
He knew what he was doing. He could have lit him up in the chest if he wanted. He dove for the knees. 

 

[Average Reds]

 
 
When was the last time a tackler was given an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for hitting a RB low or in the knees?
 

 
Is this a joke?  These kind of hits are flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct all the time.
 

It was a clean hit, pure and simple.  Cheap shot?  Sure, it's a fucking preseason game and you're going low on a QB coming off two torn ACLs.  But there was zero reason to flag Suggs.  That hit was perfectly legal against a RB...and that's what Bradford was during that particular play.

 
The NFL has ruled that the call on the field was incorrect,  That does not make it a "clean hit, pure and simple."
 
I'm fine that you think otherwise but your opinion is not fact.;

 

[soxfan121]

 
 
When was the last time a tackler was given an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for hitting a RB low or in the knees?
 
It was a clean hit, pure and simple.  Cheap shot?  Sure, it's a fucking preseason game and you're going low on a QB coming off two torn ACLs.  But there was zero reason to flag Suggs.  That hit was perfectly legal against a RB...and that's what Bradford was during that particular play.  

 
I don't know the answer to your question. I also don't recall the last time I saw a guy dive at the knees of a guy he saw hand the ball off.
 
By the letter of the law, you and Dean Blandino are correct: the call on the field was wrong. But if a referee thinks there is intent to injure, he can throw a flag and penalize that play. In this case, the referee announced the penalty incorrectly. But had he announced "unsportsmanlike conduct" and ejected Suggs from the game, that also would be justified under a strict reading of the rulebook. 
 
The larger issue is that the NFL's Director of Officiating should have taken this as an opportunity to talk about the risk of "going low" and why obviously dirty, cheap shots are against the best interests of the game. What Blandino did was green light a BAL opponent diving at Joe Flacco's knees. And that'll probably get flagged too. 

Basically, Blandino is a shit weasel. If we can't agree on that, we won't ever agree on whether obvious cheap shots in a preseason game have a place in the game.

 

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

 
Is this a joke?  These kind of hits are flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct all the time.
 

 
Tacklers get called for hitting Running Backs low, really?  

 

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

 
I don't know the answer to your question. I also don't recall the last time I saw a guy dive at the knees of a guy he saw hand the ball off.
 
By the letter of the law, you and Dean Blandino are correct: the call on the field was wrong. But if a referee thinks there is intent to injure, he can throw a flag and penalize that play. In this case, the referee announced the penalty incorrectly. But had he announced "unsportsmanlike conduct" and ejected Suggs from the game, that also would be justified under a strict reading of the rulebook. 
 
The larger issue is that the NFL's Director of Officiating should have taken this as an opportunity to talk about the risk of "going low" and why obviously dirty, cheap shots are against the best interests of the game. What Blandino did was green light a BAL opponent diving at Joe Flacco's knees. And that'll probably get flagged too. 

Basically, Blandino is a shit weasel. If we can't agree on that, we won't ever agree on whether obvious cheap shots in a preseason game have a place in the game.

 
I'm aware of the rule.  My point is he tackled a runner low.  I can't see how it can be interpreted any other way after reviewing it with the respect to the specific rule.  And I don't ever remember someone being flagged for hitting a runner at the knees.  But apparently AR thinks that is a "joke".  
 
And we agree 100% on the shit weasel comment.  

 

[soxfan121]

 
Tacklers get called for hitting Running Backs low, really?  

 
Suggs was fined - though not penalized - for hitting LeGarrette Blount in the knees in 2014. 

Again, technically you are correct - tacklers are not usually penalized for low hits. Defensive linemen have, a lot, from Wilfork on whichever stiff was Buffalo's QB, to Suh cut blocking an OL. TJ Ward was not penalized or fined (IIRC) for his hit on Gronk. 

However, the college game has adopted the Brady Rule for low hits on quarterback and both the NFL and NCAA have had rules discussions about implementing something regarding low hits. So, while not a formalized policy, it would be within the discretion of referees if they were directed to by the supervisor of officials to penalize low hits that are obviously intending to injure. 

 

[LondonSox]

Also what determines the QB is allowed to be hit?
If Flacco hands the ball off and stands around you can't go hit him. Bradford hands the ball off, never makes a move to run at all - it's not a read option because Chip Kelly runs the read option. It's one thing if it was close fine, but you can't dive at the knees of a QB standing in the pocket - let alone one who doesn't have the ball.
 
Now sure you can claim Suggs thought he was running the read option (even though Bradford hasn't run the ball once in joint practices they've just had). But that doesn't explain going low and rolling him over on his left knee.
 
I can't prove it, but then again I'm not expecting or asking for anything. I'm just calling out a dick move. And it was.
 
If this was in a real game I'd call it a dick move, in pre season? It's a total dick move. If that had been done to the Ravens QBs they'd have freaked and none of them is playing their first start in a year coming off a very public knee injury. Don't be the guy defending this. I'd even give some benefit in the regular season, but there's not god damned need in a preseason game. Do we need DELIBERATE attempts? It's bad enough we lose great talent for the season by accident. 

 

[Shelterdog]

Also what determines the QB is allowed to be hit?
If Flacco hands the ball off and stands around you can't go hit him. Bradford hands the ball off, never makes a move to run at all - it's not a read option because Chip Kelly runs the read option. It's one thing if it was close fine, but you can't dive at the knees of a QB standing in the pocket - let alone one who doesn't have the ball.
 
Now sure you can claim Suggs thought he was running the read option (even though Bradford hasn't run the ball once in joint practices they've just had). But that doesn't explain going low and rolling him over on his left knee.
 
I can't prove it, but then again I'm not expecting or asking for anything. I'm just calling out a dick move. And it was.
 
If this was in a real game I'd call it a dick move, in pre season? It's a total dick move. If that had been done to the Ravens QBs they'd have freaked and none of them is playing their first start in a year coming off a very public knee injury. Don't be the guy defending this. I'd even give some benefit in the regular season, but there's not god damned need in a preseason game. Do we need DELIBERATE attempts? It's bad enough we lose great talent for the season by accident. 

I think the standard is that a QB can be hit until they care clearly out of the play.  It looked enough like a QB keeper that I wouldn't have called it a penalty but it's a borderline call--and clearly more typical Suggs bullshit because you don't need to go at a guy's knees in preseason.

 

[lambeau]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/24/chip-kelly-confused-about-what-roughing-the-passer-means/

Chip says Blandino got the call wrong--it wasn't read option so QB protection applies; I'm glad he's speaking up to clarify this for shotgun plays.

 

[LondonSox]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/24/chip-kelly-confused-about-what-roughing-the-passer-means/

Chip says Blandino got the call wrong--it wasn't read option so QB protection applies; I'm glad he's speaking up to clarify this for shotgun plays.

 
I think this is pretty spot on. Kelly is wrong saying it should have been a roughing the passer penalty, but running a draw out of the shotgun doesn't give anyone the right to level the QB.
But easy solution, don't run any zone reads with Bradford, as he's not running there's minimal upside and lots of downside.
 
If there is no zone read and Bradford takes that hit it's dirty and a flag. (P.s. there's no zone read)

 

[Super Nomario]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/24/chip-kelly-confused-about-what-roughing-the-passer-means/

Chip says Blandino got the call wrong--it wasn't read option so QB protection applies; I'm glad he's speaking up to clarify this for shotgun plays.

How is Suggs supposed to know whether or not Bradford has a run option, though? He came in unblocked like it was a zone read play. How can an unblocked defender know the difference between a designed handoff and a read option?
 
It was a dirty play given Bradford's injury history. I'm not sure it should have been a flag, but it was the Ravens and Suggs so the refs can't throw too many 15-yarders as far as I'm concerned.

 

[LondonSox]

The more I read on it the more I come to the conclusion that the NFL has a problem here.
More and more teams will run out of the shotgun, and clearly you can't have a free shot on the QB handing off the ball because they're in the shotgun. 
I think if you free release a guy, making it look like a read option then they have to assume it is one. And can't really penalize them for doign their job, they can't have to know what play it is to know what they can do. Despite some of the roughing the passer calls from the statuesque QBs we've all come to know and hate.
 
So what's the solution here? If you run one read options your QB is fair game? None and he's safe. That seems silly.
 
Which is all very distinct by the way from Suggs is filth for clearly deliberately going low and for the knee. That's some nonsense esp in a pre season game. If he hit him clean that's another argument and one I think is unclear at this point. But what he did was a dick move. 

 

[lambeau]

Is the blocking determinative? What about whether Bradford clearly has finished the play and does not have the ball? On a read option it is unclear who is the runner--here Suggs knows.
Kelly's point is that just because he may run occasionally (not often, in Bradford's case), that should not make him fair game after every shotgun handoff when he's out of the play.

 

[Super Nomario]

Is the blocking determinative? What about whether Bradford clearly has finished the play and does not have the ball? On a read option it is unclear who is the runner--here Suggs knows.
Kelly's point is that just because he may run occasionally (not often, in Bradford's case), that should not make him fair game after every shotgun handoff when he's out of the play.

The handoff technique Bradford used looked to me like the same one as the read option - he put the ball in Sproles' belly. At some point, it becomes clear that he's not going to pull it back and run, but until that point Suggs has to proceed with the assumption that the QB keeper is on the table. It's fair to argue that in this particular case Suggs had enough time, and obviously he's one of the more odious players and people in the league and we shouldn't give his dirty ass any benefit of the doubt, but similar cases are going to come up over and over again.
 
It seems to me that this play largely functioned as designed from Philly's standpoint - the premise in leaving Suggs unblocked was that the read-option-like action would prevent him from crashing on the running back hard and chasing the play down from behind - the threat of the QB run would effectively "block" Suggs even though it was a designed handoff. Kelly's complaints strike me as wanting the benefits of the zone read without the drawbacks - which doesn't excuse a cheap shot from Suggs.

 

[Shelterdog]

The handoff technique Bradford used looked to me like the same one as the read option - he put the ball in Sproles' belly. At some point, it becomes clear that he's not going to pull it back and run, but until that point Suggs has to proceed with the assumption that the QB keeper is on the table. It's fair to argue that in this particular case Suggs had enough time, and obviously he's one of the more odious players and people in the league and we shouldn't give his dirty ass any benefit of the doubt, but similar cases are going to come up over and over again.
 
It seems to me that this play largely functioned as designed from Philly's standpoint - the premise in leaving Suggs unblocked was that the read-option-like action would prevent him from crashing on the running back hard and chasing the play down from behind - the threat of the QB run would effectively "block" Suggs even though it was a designed handoff. Kelly's complaints strike me as wanting the benefits of the zone read without the drawbacks - which doesn't excuse a cheap shot from Suggs.

 
I swear I was going to write the same thing.  Philly decided not to block Suggs and instead use the threat of a QB keeper/option to "block" a key defender. Did Suggs have a second where he could have pulled up? Probably.  But don't leave Suggs unblocked and then run a play where you're threatening a QB keeper and then get shocked, shocked, shocked that somebody hit the QB. 

 

[dcmissle]

Absolutely on board with the two preceding posts. There is a lot of special pleading going on, now from Pete Carroll, unsurprisingly.

If you are going to dangle the QB as a potential runner, live with the consequences.

 

[Phil Plantier]

Belichick uses a similar tactic in the infrequent situations when a team runs a "normal" option play: he tasks a linebacker with trucking the QB whether he's pitched or not. This seems like a direct analogue.

 

[Average Reds]

Belichick uses a similar tactic in the infrequent situations when a team runs a "normal" option play: he tasks a linebacker with trucking the QB whether he's pitched or not. This seems like a direct analogue.

 
Suggs hits him high and I have no problem with the play.  But Suggs had a lot of time to read the play, knew Bradford didn't have the ball and clearly went right at the knees.
 
People who are reading this as anything other than what was right in front of us are looking too hard.  It wasn't roughing the passer.  It was absolutely an intent to injure.

 

[johnmd20]

 
Suggs hits him high and I have no problem with the play.  But Suggs had a lot of time to read the play, knew Bradford didn't have the ball and clearly went right at the knees.
 
People who are reading this as anything other than what was right in front of us are looking too hard.  It wasn't roughing the passer.  It was absolutely an intent to injure.

 
He really did go right at the knee, lowering his body specifically to do so. It was a cheap shot.

 

[Phil Plantier]

Oh, I completely agree that Suggs' hit would have been a cheap shot in a regular season game and is unconscionable in a preseason game. Unfortunately the NFL does not want to make a distinction between regular-season and preseason, even though we all know the difference.
 
I was just speaking to the more general point of protecting QBs in that situation.

 

[LondonSox]

I agree with all of the recent posts.
But what happens if a qb is doing a handoff and it's a blown blocking assignment? You get to just blow up the qb?

I agree if you are letting someone come unblocked and using the qb read option to 'block" that player you live with it. But it doesn't mean that any qb in the shotgun gets leveled on any running play.
Though for the nfl that could be protecting the qb and safety. For them. Totally possible.

 

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

 
Suggs was fined - though not penalized - for hitting LeGarrette Blount in the knees in 2014. 

Again, technically you are correct - tacklers are not usually penalized for low hits. Defensive linemen have, a lot, from Wilfork on whichever stiff was Buffalo's QB, to Suh cut blocking an OL. TJ Ward was not penalized or fined (IIRC) for his hit on Gronk. 

However, the college game has adopted the Brady Rule for low hits on quarterback and both the NFL and NCAA have had rules discussions about implementing something regarding low hits. So, while not a formalized policy, it would be within the discretion of referees if they were directed to by the supervisor of officials to penalize low hits that are obviously intending to injure. 

 
Not exactly.  Here is the hit. 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2rxsLFHOAA
 
The official NFL announcement of the fine said the penalty was for, "unecessary roughness, striking opponent late whose forward progress has been stopped.”
 
Like Al Michael's said on the broadcast, Blount was effectively down and Suggs threw himself at the back of the runner's legs (although it looks like his shoulder actually hits Blount in the ass). 
 
First off, Suggs is scum.  I think his hit on Bradford was dirty.  But how do you penalize him on that play?  If we are going to truly treat Bradford as a RB, he's allowed to be hit low by a defender attempting to make an open field tackle.  It happens all the time on RBs and it's NEVER called.  
 
If you want to say it's "Intent to injure", then you're going to have to make that same call every time a runner breaks out of the backfield and is upended by a diving CB or Safety who goes low.  

 

[Shelterdog]

 
Not exactly.  Here is the hit. 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2rxsLFHOAA
 
The official NFL announcement of the fine said the penalty was for, "unecessary roughness, striking opponent late whose forward progress has been stopped.”
 
Like Al Michael's said on the broadcast, Blount was effectively down and Suggs threw himself at the back of the runner's legs (although it looks like his shoulder actually hits Blount in the ass). 
 
First off, Suggs is scum.  I think his hit on Bradford was dirty.  But how do you penalize him on that play?  If we are going to truly treat Bradford as a RB, he's allowed to be hit low by a defender attempting to make an open field tackle.  It happens all the time on RBs and it's NEVER called.  
 
If you want to say it's "Intent to injure", then you're going to have to make that same call every time a runner breaks out of the backfield and is upended by a diving CB or Safety who goes low.  

 
If you think the QB was out of the play by the time Suggs hit him then you penalize Suggs for unnecessary roughness for a late hit, same as you did with Blount.  I think it's a close call and could go either way, but given Suggs' history I'm not inclined to give Suggs the benefit of the doubt.

 

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

 
If you think the QB was out of the play by the time Suggs hit him then you penalize Suggs for unnecessary roughness for a late hit, same as you did with Blount.  I think it's a close call and could go either way, but given Suggs' history I'm not inclined to give Suggs the benefit of the doubt.

 
Fair point (and I agree with your assessment of Suggs rep).  And if the official throws a flag because he thinks the hit is late, that's fine with me.  I'm just stating that you can't treat the QB as a runner, then penalize the tackler for going low.  RBs get their knees taken out all the time and nobody gives a shit.  I'm just looking for consistency.  

 

[soxfan121]

 
Fair point (and I agree with your assessment of Suggs rep).  And if the official throws a flag because he thinks the hit is late, that's fine with me.  I'm just stating that you can't treat the QB as a runner, then penalize the tackler for going low.  RBs get their knees taken out all the time and nobody gives a shit.  I'm just looking for consistency.

 
Dude, you are following the wrong sport. 

 

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

 
Dude, you are following the wrong sport. 

 
 
Haha...well put.  I'll drop it.  I don't feel particularly proud defending a bleach wielding, douchebag anyway.  

 

[natpastime162]

 
Fair point (and I agree with your assessment of Suggs rep).  And if the official throws a flag because he thinks the hit is late, that's fine with me.  I'm just stating that you can't treat the QB as a runner, then penalize the tackler for going low.  RBs get their knees taken out all the time and nobody gives a shit.  I'm just looking for consistency.  

My problem is that I believe it was a premeditated dirty hit with intent, based on his actions and quotes.

Arguments justifying the hit should be stronger than "Chip Kelly runs the read option, so how are we supposed to know?" What would Blandino say if Suggs hit Peyton or Brady after a shotgun handoff?

 

[Myt1]

The issue is that the NFL rule book is Swiss-cheesed with exceptions and interpretations such that it's almost comically inconsistent at accomplishing much of anything other than slowing down the game and giving the officials far too much discretion and, as a result, too much impact on the game.

 

[OCST]

The issue is that the NFL rule book is Swiss-cheesed with exceptions and interpretations such that it's almost comically inconsistent at accomplishing much of anything other than slowing down the game and giving the officials far too much discretion and, as a result, too much impact on the game.

 
Right.  Each effort to "clarify" by adding yet another rule, or exception, just makes it worse.
 
The bewildering complexity of the rules is a "barrier to entry," IMO.  Mrs. OCST did not grow up a sports fan, so I try to get her to watch along.  I've been most successful with soccer, somewhat successful with baseball, and not at all with football.  I don't think it's coincidental that this is in inverse proportion to the complexity of the rules.  
 
Watching an NFL game, it's nearly impossible to explain what "should" be a penalty, and what "shouldn't," according to the "rules."  Try it sometime - try explaining PI/no PI, holding/no holding, or roughing/no roughing to a newbie, let alone illegal formations (where even lifelong fans, let alone players, coaches, and refs, can't recognize rules violations, coughHarbaughcough).

 

[LondonSox]

Chris Long demonstrates how a non douche acts on a such a play in the pre-season
 
https://vine.co/v/ejBLW3Y0HK0
 
Edit ok I can't do vines properly apparently, is there a code for them?

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I agree with the discussion that the NFL has a rules issue between read options and shotgun handoffs. Two things though.

Players are going low a lot more these days to avoid the head. If Suggs goes high and Bradford ducks, that's 15 yards.

Also, Suggs said he let up for whatever that is worth (not much here I'm sure).

 

[crystalline]

The more I read on it the more I come to the conclusion that the NFL has a problem here.
More and more teams will run out of the shotgun, and clearly you can't have a free shot on the QB handing off the ball because they're in the shotgun. 
I think if you free release a guy, making it look like a read option then they have to assume it is one. And can't really penalize them for doign their job, they can't have to know what play it is to know what they can do. Despite some of the roughing the passer calls from the statuesque QBs we've all come to know and hate.

 

My point is he tackled a runner low.  I can't see how it can be interpreted any other way after reviewing it with the respect to the specific rule.  And I don't ever remember someone being flagged for hitting a runner at the knees.  

I agree with the discussion that the NFL has a rules issue between read options and shotgun handoffs. Two things though.
Players are going low a lot more these days to avoid the head. If Suggs goes high and Bradford ducks, that's 15 yards.

 
Right.  Isn't the problem that the sport by its nature leads to injuries?
 
RBs last 2 years on average in the NFL and the Patriots regularly carry three of them so one can be "the next guy up" when others inevitably go out with an injury.  Quarterbacks make more money for the NFL than RBs, both because injuring them leads to bad football and because they're the marketing faces of the game.  So the NFL legislates rules to protect QBs, which protect them from normal football plays.  And now the rules are trying to reduce head injuries, which players claim increases knee injuries.
 
The read option has made QBs more similar to other players, but that's just exposed the essential problem in football -- the sport by its nature, when played according to the rules, leads to injuries.

 

[LondonSox]

I agree with the discussion that the NFL has a rules issue between read options and shotgun handoffs. Two things though.

Players are going low a lot more these days to avoid the head. If Suggs goes high and Bradford ducks, that's 15 yards.

Also, Suggs said he let up for whatever that is worth (not much here I'm sure).

 
He grabbed Bradford's bad knee and used it to roll him over to the ground. Did he level him with a mammoth shot? No. But did something more deliberately tailored to the person he was trying to injure. 
He had plenty of time to leave it, he didn't NEED to go low at all. He certainly had no reason to use the knee to pull him down.

 

[Oil Can Dan]

I know it's just preseason.  I know this.  But I am jacked and pumped for the Eagles this season.  I think Sam Bradford is going to throw for 75 TDs and 6k yards.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

I know it's just preseason.  I know this.  But I am jacked and pumped for the Eagles this season.  I think Sam Bradford is going to throw for 75 TDs and 6k yards.

With a completion percentage of 100.

 

[LondonSox]

The Eagles have a few concerns.
O line depth. Safety depth and overall new secondary. Bradford injury question mark and probably most of all olb depth behind two good starters.

They are silly deep at wr and rb and d line and inside linebacker.

This is a really good team. Bradford > Sanchez is just such a huge upgrade that is Bradford gets hurt they are ok. Like a 9-10 win team they have been the last couple of years with foles Vick and Sanchez but with Bradford they are very dangerous.

I know it's preseason etc but you can tell the team is deep by the amount of good players who will be cut. I mean barner has two punt return td and a screen for 50 yards and has looked great and he's no lock to make the 53.
The first and second strings have blown the hell out of the colts Ravens and packers who didn't come to lay down and play dead.

Preseason means nothing but I tell you one thing no one is asking if chip is mad today.

 

[soxfan121]

Got into a conversation with someone last night about "Chip Kelly, NFL Coach of the Preseason". 

The criticism is that Kelly's system is "game plan" and no defensive opponent is game planning against it, so it looks awesome against a vanilla scheme of guys who will be bagging groceries, etc. 

I haven't yet watched last night, but I tend to agree that the Eagles - unlike most teams - are running more of a "game plan" than anyone else and that would allow them to look more coordinated/with it/efficient than opponents. 
 
Just something to keep in mind when evaluating the Eagles preseason success.

 

[crystalline]

I feel like the pre season schedule is designed to make pats fans cheer for the Eagles. Colts and Ravens so far.
Ravens tonight



Edit oh yeah and the jets are week 4 preseason. Come on guys Eagles should be your nfc team this year. Preseason has spoken.

I'm on board, London. I am fully behind the Eagles. They've always mostly been my NFC team, and now with Chip I am enjoying rooting for them.

(However I can't support the tanking travesty of sportsmanship that is your Sixers.)

Edit: and thanks for keeping this thread going, the info here is great.

 

[Super Nomario]

Got into a conversation with someone last night about "Chip Kelly, NFL Coach of the Preseason". 

The criticism is that Kelly's system is "game plan" and no defensive opponent is game planning against it, so it looks awesome against a vanilla scheme of guys who will be bagging groceries, etc. 

I haven't yet watched last night, but I tend to agree that the Eagles - unlike most teams - are running more of a "game plan" than anyone else and that would allow them to look more coordinated/with it/efficient than opponents. 
 
Just something to keep in mind when evaluating the Eagles preseason success.

Greg Cosell made a similar point about rushing QBs - that they look great in the preseason because no one is game-planning to stop them, but then when teams focus on shutting them down their effectiveness drops. That makes sense to me. I don't think there's any doubt that Kelly's offense will make defenses look stupid at times, but I still have questions about their performance against really good D's.
 
Also worth noting: the Eagles are kind of like Coors Field because of the pace they play. They were 3rd in points and 5th in years in 2014, but only 12th in points / yards per drive. The offense is worse and the defense better than the raw points / yards totals indicate.

 

[Oil Can Dan]

Why is per drive important though? If the Eagles use a tempo that translates to more drives per game, why penalize them for that when evaluating how good they are? I suspect Chip cares more about points at the end of a game than how efficient or good you or I think the offense is.

As for the Coors analogy, you can't take the Coors effect on the road with you, whereas the Eagles tempo travels well.

 

[LondonSox]

Look it's preseason I get it. But the eagles are not doing some weird read option offense no one can prepare for. If you are thinking that you haven't watched.

The offense is fast but it's not a lot more. What's more there are more and more teams running game hurry up and offense with package plays etc that have similarities to the eagles.

The claim teams just don't bother Prepping for the Eagles just seems a but desperate to me. Isn't this what preseason is for.

Also let's not start with the idea chip is running up the score. Bradford played one drive combined in the first two games and three this week. Anyone with any ding at all has been held back (the starting inside linebackers etc)

The starters have played less than many teams. This isnt some Spurrier nonsense.

That said. Yes it's the preseason. Yes teams are likely not showing all their plans to counter but equally I'm Damn sure the Eagles haven't shown their hand either.

The focus has been on the new secondary, two new guards and who the three qb will be for goodness sake.

Bradford is a clear upgrade to Sanchez, and almost certainly foles. If he can stay upright. If.

 

[JerBear]

Why is per drive important though? If the Eagles use a tempo that translates to more drives per game, why penalize them for that when evaluating how good they are? I suspect Chip cares more about points at the end of a game than how efficient or good you or I think the offense is.

As for the Coors analogy, you can't take the Coors effect on the road with you, whereas the Eagles tempo travels well.

You normalize to per drive because unless you are generating an obscene positive differential in turnovers you probably have equal number of drives to your opponent.

If you're getting 15 drives rather than 10 because of your pace, so is your opponent.

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

The Eagles basically are what their record says they are. 9th and 8th in point differential the past two years; 8th and 7th in team DVOA. They get and give up slightly higher number of points than you'd expect given their per drive offensive and defensive efficiency, but overall they've been good on both sides of the ball. Pretty impressive to me given the QB talent.

 

[Oil Can Dan]

You normalize to per drive because unless you are generating an obscene positive differential in turnovers you probably have equal number of drives to your opponent.

If you're getting 15 drives rather than 10 because of your pace, so is your opponent.

Exactly. The person I quoted said something to the effect of the offense not being as good and the defense not being as bad on a per drive basis. I don't see the point of looking at it that way since that's not how the Eagles play. It is what it is for both offense and defense. But if the opposition isn't as deep or as well conditioned, then big advantage Philly.

 

[Super Nomario]

Exactly. The person I quoted said something to the effect of the offense not being as good and the defense not being as bad on a per drive basis. I don't see the point of looking at it that way since that's not how the Eagles play. It is what it is for both offense and defense. But if the opposition isn't as deep or as well conditioned, then big advantage Philly.

Drives are essentially the unit of opportunity in football. Scoring 27 points in 10 drives is not the same as scoring 27 points in 12, just as getting 3 hits in 10 at-bats isn't the same batting average as getting 3 hits in 12, or making 3 of 10 3-pointers isn't the same as making 3 of 12.

 

[Oil Can Dan]

But there's not a finite amount of drives per game per team. So then why does it matter in any particular football game?

 

[Super Nomario]

But there's not a finite amount of drives per game per team. So then why does it matter in any particular football game?

Because for every extra possession Philly gets, the other team gets one, too. The Eagles defense faced 212 drives last year, 13 more than the next team. As a consequence, even though they gave up 1.76 points per drive - actually a better-than-average mark, they allowed 400 points, 22nd in the NFL.

 

[Oil Can Dan]

But why bother adjusting the offense down and the defense up, as you suggested initially? What is the point of doing that? To see what would happen in a finite drive per team game or something?

 

[Super Nomario]

But why bother adjusting the offense down and the defense up, as you suggested initially? What is the point of doing that? To see what would happen in a finite drive per team game or something?

The same reason you use any rate stat. Why adjust ERA to runs per 9 IP when no one pitches 9 innings anymore? Part of the consideration for efficiency is the number of opportunities. Bradford didn't suck last night because he "only" had 10 completions; he was awesome because he had 10 completions in 10 attempts, which is a perfect rate. I'm kind of confused as to what your objection is here.

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

The same reason you use any rate stat. Why adjust ERA to runs per 9 IP when no one pitches 9 innings anymore? Part of the consideration for efficiency is the number of opportunities. Bradford didn't suck last night because he "only" had 10 completions; he was awesome because he had 10 completions in 10 attempts, which is a perfect rate. I'm kind of confused as to what your objection is here.

I think what he's saying is: "well they score a lot of points, so why does it matter that they're not particularly efficient."

The answer, if I understand correctly, is that the increased volume of points scored due to their unusually high number of drives is offset by the increased volume of points they give up due the unusually high number of drives they allow their opponents. Am I on the right track?