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

Tony C · Aug 30, 2015

JerBear said:
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.

Oil Can Dan said:
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.

I don't think you're getting it. JerBear's post is consistent with Super Nomario's, not your objection to SN's post. Total points is fine as a metric if everyone is playing at the same pace/same # of drives. But if played at a fast pace there will be more drives hence more opportunities to score points. So looking at total points will overstate how good an offense played and understate how well a defense played. Better, hence, to look at efficiency.

tims4wins · Aug 30, 2015

Yeah we have had this debate before, particularly with regard to Super Bowl 45. The Pats only gave up 21 that day and 2 of that was a safety so the D played well, right? Not quite - IIRC the Giants had 8 drives all game and scored on half of them and had the ball a ton.

soxfan121 · Aug 30, 2015

LondonSox said:
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.

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.

Related to the other conversation - the Eagles tempo is a game plan element. And in the preseason, opponents aren't preparing for it the same way as they do for games that count. Thus, the Eagles base offense is a better game plan than most teams use in the preseason, and their incredible success in the preseason can be explained (partially) as the result in difference of preparation.

And the idea opposing teams don't game plan in the preseason isn't "desperate"; it's the truth. No team is showing their hand, which means few blitzes, no combination coverages, fewer matchups being targeted.

soxfan121 · Aug 30, 2015

LondonSox said:
Except the Eagles are? This is my point. No one game plans.
So that means the Eagles offense is vanilla too no?

Why such a huge drop off from first and second string offense to third and beyond?

And the Eagles had this advantage the last two years no? Yet had no such results.

I am very much on board with no reading too much into pre season. I 100% agree. But better to be good than bad. Other teams run hurry up and don't score 40 in a half away to a good team. So I don't think you can just say eh it's the system and no one is trying to stop it. Equally I don't think you can expect the Eagles to blow out the Packers in the first quarter when they play next either.

Yes, the Eagles are using vanilla offensive concepts and plays. There is a huge drop off from 1 to 2 to 3 because of talent. Systems and processes get better as they are improved; if you don't think I've got a lot of love for what CK is doing systematically, you ain't paying attention JV. ;-)

This is what I'm trying to convey: Every team does vanilla in the preseason. The Eagles, because of superior preparation methods, gain a small "game plan" advantage through conditioning, tempo, and practice habits. This tiny advantage, born from a seemingly successful organizational system ruthlessly dedicated to efficiency, yields a slightly better return than other, more conventional systems when no one's trying particularly hard (in the preseason).

Whereas, that tempo/conditioning/pace advantage is specifically addressed by game plan(s) in games that count. Then, the edge the CK system yields may be smaller, because of talent/conditions/external factors.

I think about these things.

Oil Can Dan · Aug 31, 2015

Tony C said:
I don't think you're getting it. JerBear's post is consistent with Super Nomario's, not your objection to SN's post. Total points is fine as a metric if everyone is playing at the same pace/same # of drives. But if played at a fast pace there will be more drives hence more opportunities to score points. So looking at total points will overstate how good an offense played and understate how well a defense played. Better, hence, to look at efficiency.

I get it, I just don't think it's all that meaningful one way or the other. But appreciate the conversation and will drop it.

There's some speculation that both Barkley and Tebow will be cut next weekend, which would leave the Eagles with Bradford & Sanchez as the only two QBs on the roster. Some say that's too risky, but I think that if you're down to your third string QB things probably aren't going to work out too well for you anyway. Will be interesting to see what happens though...

dcmissle · Aug 31, 2015

You guys may be amused about certain angst that RGIII should not be cut because Chip will scoop him up. I personally don't see it, but if you disagree, I'd be interested in that. I did not say trade. He is untradeable under his current contract.

soxfan121 · Sep 1, 2015

Moved RG3 talk to the Washington thread.

crystalline · Sep 1, 2015

They don't need to spend a roster spot on Tebow as the emergency 3rd QB. It's not like anyone else is going to sign him if he's cut.

Oil Can Dan · Sep 1, 2015

It seems to come down to who the 53rd person on the roster is. I like Chip's emphasis on ST players that are really good at STs, but it comes at a bit of a cost to quality of depth. They're pretty thin at OLB, S, OL and a bit at CB. I'd much rather forgo the #3 QB for improved depth elsewhere.

Would you choose Tebow over Marcus Smith or Moffitt? I wouldn't.

lambeau · Sep 2, 2015

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/02/chip-kelly-now-understands-the-rule-on-hitting-quarterbacks/

I think what's missing here is that the referee intuitively thought it was a late hit, that Suggs knew he didn't have the ball, he just used the wrong call.

soxfan121 · Sep 2, 2015

LondonSox said:
Well I think the attraction for tebow is his value in certain packages and setups like goal line and 2pts etc.
If he makes the team he probably dresses. If he's not going to dress I agree. Pick up if and when you need him. But I think dressing a gadget guy is a waste. Barkley only dressed due to injury last year and I can't see how tebow can be more useful than an extra player. Dress tebow or dress Hart seems like a no brainer.

So keeping tebow and not dressing him seems a waste. As does dressing him. I'm leaning towards cutting both and keeping tebow close just in case.

I've gotta say - I'm enjoying this immensely. TEBOW!!!

ifmanis5 · Sep 5, 2015

Tebow released. But hey, he's still a winner.

dcmissle · Sep 5, 2015

I feel badly for Tebow -- but take note of Chip's blunt assessment: he made strides but is not good enough to be our #3.

Where are the folks who were calling racism?

Hear that SAS -- Kelly called your boy's binky "not good enough"?

soxfan121 · Sep 5, 2015

ifmanis5 said:
Tebow released. But hey, he's still a winner.

E5 Yaz · Sep 5, 2015

Damn, when the coach says you're not good enough to be the No. 3 quarterback ....

CaptainLaddie · Sep 5, 2015

soxfan121 said:

I'd take this opportunity to point out our conversations from a few years ago, but that would be bragging and kind of rude.

Oil Can Dan · Sep 9, 2015

I'm tired of reading about injury risks at QB. That applies to every single team in the NFC. Who feels good about the Cowboys with Weeden under center, or Seattle with Tarvarus Jacksin at QB? I'd honestly like Phillys chances better with Sanchez.

It's fair to point out a lack of depth on the OL. Aside from the secondary that's my biggest concern. But I'm not the slightest bit worried about the green WRs, and it's crazy to write that many words and not point out their RB depth, which is what this offense will really be about. And he completely ignores the defensive front seven, which is the strength of the D.

SoxinPA · Sep 9, 2015

LondonSox said:
Barnwell put the Eagles in his list of 8 teams that could decline this year,

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nfl-2015-season-predictions-part-2-the-falling-stars/

I would agree with his closing comments that the potential upside of this team is a superbowl, the potential downside if the injuries hit is very ugly. The latter is true for most (all?) teams and the former is true of a short list. Seems an odd way to comment on a team in the will decline area
They also don't meet his criteria very well - played about to their pythag, 500 in close games, low turnover ranking.

In the same article Barnwell's downside comment about the Steelers was much the same. Worst Case Scenario: The Steelers three best players (Bell, Roethlisberger, Brown) ALL get hurt and the defense isn't awesome. So lazy. Isn't the worst case scenario for just about every team basically "Subtract their three best players and everyone else is mediocre at best"?

EricFeczko · Sep 15, 2015

LondonSox said:
Game was on late so will watch the recording tonight, but couple thoughts

1) The lack of running game is a concern, the lack of attempts is a bit odd given the monetary commitment at the position.
2) That said if the opposition is loading the box you're going to be passing more.
3) The first half was bad, the second half was better. It's bradford's first game back, and some rush is not unexpected. But this year it cost them the game, last year they were able to come back and win game 1 after a bad first half.
4) Kiko Alonso is good, and needs to be playing not Ryans
5) The secondary isn't exactly fixed
6) O line concerns will be loud this week.
7) What is it with kickers. Amazing rookie season to a concern very fast for Parkey

I think Chip should have gone for it, but I think most would have kicked for the lead, it didn't work out, and I would rather have not given it back to Ryan and Julio up 1 with time left.

I'll have more thoughts once I have watched the game properly but it makes the Dallas game somehow bigger! If the Cowboys hadn't had their miracle this game would have been silly hype for week 2. As it is, the Eagles will be in a bad spot if they lose.

1) The RB's were heavily involved in the passing game; 14 of Bradford's 36 completions were to RB's (not sure on the attempts number). DeMarco Murray's overall play was concerning, but both Matthews and Sproles looked capable in open space.

2) I think that's probably why they were using sweeps, passes to RBs in open space, etc.

3) The falcons defense appeared to collapse in the second half. Limited pressure on the O-line and what appeared to be a lot of missed assignments. Not sure if this was the Eagles offense playing well or the Falcons defense showing its true colors.

4+5+6+7) Yup.

Bosoxen · Sep 15, 2015

EricFeczko said:
1) The RB's were heavily involved in the passing game; 14 of Bradford's 36 completions were to RB's (not sure on the attempts number). DeMarco Murray's overall play was concerning, but both Matthews and Sproles looked capable in open space.

2) I think that's probably why they were using sweeps, passes to RBs in open space, etc.

3) The falcons defense appeared to collapse in the second half. Limited pressure on the O-line and what appeared to be a lot of missed assignments. Not sure if this was the Eagles offense playing well or the Falcons defense showing its true colors.

4+5+6+7) Yup.

1) Don't say we didn't warn you about that Murray contract. Sure, he scored two touchdowns, but he looked very much the weak link in that crop of running backs. One game and all that, so we'll see how it goes as the season progresses.

3) I imagine it was a combination of the Eagles offense finding its rhythm and the Falcons defense wearing down. They didn't appear to have the depth necessary to maintain the level of intensity required to run around the field with that offense. There was a very visible lack of flying to the ball in the second half that was in obvious display in the first half. Credit to the offense, though, because those running backs can and likely will run anyone ragged.

GregHarris · Sep 15, 2015

Chip Kelly gets a lot of press and a lot of love for being a football maverick, but he needs to be able to beat sub .500 teams on the road to be considered a good coach. Granted it still early to call Atlanta a sub .500 team but that's a winnable road game.

Tony C · Sep 15, 2015

Bosoxen said:
1) Don't say we didn't warn you about that Murray contract. Sure, he scored two touchdowns, but he looked very much the weak link in that crop of running backs. One game and all that, so we'll see how it goes as the season progresses.

3) I imagine it was a combination of the Eagles offense finding its rhythm and the Falcons defense wearing down. They didn't appear to have the depth necessary to maintain the level of intensity required to run around the field with that offense. There was a very visible lack of flying to the ball in the second half that was in obvious display in the first half. Credit to the offense, though, because those running backs can and likely will run anyone ragged.

The total yards weren't great, but that was on the O-line (and a penalty), not Murray. To say he looked like a weak link is an overreaction to a stat line.

points 1 and 3...what about 2?

ethangl · Sep 15, 2015

GregHarris said:
he needs to be able to beat sub .500 teams on the road to be considered a good coach.

He needs to be able to beat sub 500 teams on the road to be considered not a bad coach.

Bosoxen · Sep 15, 2015

Tony C said:
The total yards weren't great, but that was on the O-line (and a penalty), not Murray. To say he looked like a weak link is an overreaction to a stat line.

points 1 and 3...what about 2?

Whoa now, I didn't say anything about the box score. To my eye, Murray looked the least suited to that offense. Stats be damned. Just because he played in a spread offense at Oklahoma, it doesn't mean he's a good fit here. He's a very good downhill runner who can make people miss and catch passes out of the backfield well enough, but he's not Darren Sproles or LeSean McCoy. Maybe Kelly signing him was on purpose, in order to add a power wrinkle to his offense but, like you said, that line isn't particularly built for that.

They seemed to have #2 covered well enough. No need to add my, wait for it, two cents.

wibi · Sep 15, 2015

Oil Can Dan · Sep 15, 2015

Obviously they started slow and the first half was a mess. I'm willing to overlook just about everything on offense except the fact that the OG play was not good, especially Barbre. He doesn't have enough credibility built up for me to wave that off. I think he blew that -12 yard rush by Murray on the 2nd series, and if he hadn't Murray had lots of daylight.

The defense was just about a complete let down. Yeah, they showed some fight and made some plays in the second half, but I really had no confidence that they would get a stop when they needed to (even though they actually did). I'm willing to give Maxwell a bit of a pass because Julio Jones and all, but yeah not good.

I really felt the game was lost on the 3rd & 15 draw conversion by Atl late in the 3rd. Game was lost right there. You cannot give that 1st down up. You have to expect the draw there. Ryan is taking the snap in his own end zone and Philly had been getting pressure. What else do you expect there?? The Atl defense was totally gassed, and that first down led to 7 minutes of game clock coming off and 3 points for the Falcons. They don't pick that up and worst case Philly has the ball on their own 40ish with their foot on the Falcon defense neck. That was ballgame.

Whatever - it's one game. I'm better now and putting it into context than I used to be. Bring on the Boys.

DanoooME · Sep 15, 2015

Bosoxen said:
Whoa now, I didn't say anything about the box score. To my eye, Murray looked the least suited to that offense. Stats be damned. Just because he played in a spread offense at Oklahoma, it doesn't mean he's a good fit here. He's a very good downhill runner who can make people miss and catch passes out of the backfield well enough, but he's not Darren Sproles or LeSean McCoy. Maybe Kelly signing him was on purpose, in order to add a power wrinkle to his offense but, like you said, that line isn't particularly built for that.

They seemed to have #2 covered well enough. No need to add my, wait for it, two cents.

They are a zone blocking scheme team, right? Which does focus on one cut and go as the offensive philosophy. I think he'll fit in this offense. He may not be used to the whole scheme yet and how it works.

Kull · Sep 16, 2015

EricFeczko said:
Now when Bradford blows the first half of the season, I can see the latter occurring.
As an aside, from our own message board, these are hilarious:

Kull said:
It all comes down to Bradford. If he regains (and builds upon) the form shown in his first 4 NFL seasons, this is a great move and the Eagles are contenders.

Suffice it to say, Eric and I have different expectations for this year's "Sam Bradford Experience". After some good-natured PM discussion, we agreed to let DVOA decide. If at the end of the season Bradford is in the top 15 of qualifying QBs, Eric donates $50 to the Jimmy Fund. If Sam can't pull it off (and injury is no excuse), it's my duty to oblige instead. Games On!

EricFeczko · Sep 16, 2015

Kull said:
Suffice it to say, Eric and I have different expectations for this year's "Sam Bradford Experience". After some good-natured PM discussion, we agreed to let DVOA decide. If at the end of the season Bradford is in the top 15 of qualifying QBs, Eric donates $50 to the Jimmy Fund. If Sam can't pull it off (and injury is no excuse), it's my duty to oblige instead. Games On!

This should be a lot of fun. If Bradford manages to pull this off, I'll happily admit I'm wrong.

soxhop411 · Sep 20, 2015

RT @DarrenDegaetano I'm told Kiko Alonso's season is done. #Eagles

Jnai · Sep 20, 2015

DeMarco Murray literally has 0 yards rushing on the season. He had 9 yards last week, and has -9 yards this week.

jk333 · Sep 20, 2015

Jnai said:
DeMarco Murray literally has 0 yards rushing on the season. He had 9 yards last week, and has -9 yards this week.

And the biggest thing is Murray hasn't been bad. The line play has been a huge issue but Bradford cant work down the field at all.

At what point does Chip consider Sanchez? He was adequate last year. With the bye in week 8, I'd think if they make it to 4 losses before then and this Qb play continues, he'd have to strongly consider it.

Marciano490 · Sep 20, 2015

jk333 said:
And the biggest thing is Murray hasn't been bad. The line play has been a huge issue but Bradford cant work down the field at all.

At what point does Chip consider Sanchez? He was adequate last year. With the bye in week 8, I'd think if they make it to 4 losses before then and this Qb play continues, he'd have to strongly consider it.

Is Chip the kind of fella who can admit a mistake like that? He gave up a lot for Bradford, against prevailing wisdom.

crystalline · Sep 21, 2015

Sorry London. Tough day.
Good summary about all the problems in addition to Bradford.
Remember you're never as bad as you look when you lose, it's early, and we think Kelly is a good teacher who will hopefully coach up the team as the year goes on.

About Bradford. Even if Kelly declares he made a mistake and cuts him loose, what next? Is it better to ride with Bradford or go with Sanchez? I think if Bradford continues to be terrible Chip shows us he knows what a sunk cost is. But that presumes there are better options.

Worst thing about Bradford is what he says about Kelly's ability to evaluate pro talent.

soxfan121 · Sep 21, 2015

LondonSox said:
The good sign for this was dumping Tebow and not being arrogant about that one.

Chip says you don't need a mobile QB to run this offense. Chip is full of shit, which is why he did everything he could to move up and get Mariota, and then flirted with Tebow in the preseason.

Personally, I'm enjoying the plight of the Eagles. When you disrespect Tebow, you will reap what you've sown. Hear me? REAP WHAT YOU'VE SOWN, PHILADELPHIA! <maniacal laugh>

Sorry. Dunno what came over me. Clearly the problem is the offensive line. And Jordan Matthew's cement hands. And locusts. Wait, what was that?

crystalline · Sep 21, 2015

Sounds like RG3 will be available cheap.

dcmissle · Sep 21, 2015

LondonSox said:
What the living hell is going on.
So about preseason. That seems a long time ago

It didn't happen very much here, but anyone assigning predictive value to it needs two things -- a blindfold and a cigarette. The line for that starts with the two bozos who anchor ESPN every morning from 6 to 10

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

Moderator

PN23's replacement

JAG

Robert the Deuce

JAG

Robert the Deuce

Well-Known Member

Robert the Deuce

Deflatigator

Robert the Deuce

JAG

Member

Robert the Deuce

Well-Known Member

Member

JAG

Robert the Deuce

Robert the Deuce

Member

Deflatigator

JAG

polka king

dj paul pfieffer

Robert the Deuce

Robert the Deuce

Well-Known Member

Robert the Deuce

New Member

Robert the Deuce

Member

Bounced back

beware my sexy helmet/overall ensemble

Moderator

Member

Bounced back

Member

Well-Known Member

above replacement level

wannabe merloni

Member

Robert the Deuce

news aggravator

is not worried about sex with goats

Member

Urological Expert

Robert the Deuce

Member

JAG

Member

Deflatigator