Fan commentary on the Philadelphia Eagles and other Philly sports happenings. "Our capacity for hurt is matched only by our capacity for loyalty." -- Bill Lyon.
3 flags before the first offensive snap in yesterday's Raiders game!?!?! Are you kidding. And that doesn't even count the defensive offsides on the very first offensive play. Unbelievable.
I must say, there were more Raider fans at yesterday's game than any other opponent I've seen in the four plus years I've been going to home games. Of course, they were loud and boisterous during the game, but disappeared with about 9 seconds to go.
If nothing else, Charlie Weis is restoring the mystique and aura of Notre Dame football. Warning: tear jerker story attached.
Is it just me, or is the celebration in this city about the Skins win way overblown? I think the team that has to be most encouraged by last night’s game is the Eagles.
Sure, they’re 2-0, but I saw a team that was incapable of mounting a sustained offensive drive; that has only scored 2 TDs in 8 quarters; whose 2 TDs came on bombs. Brunell is done. The win actually buys him several more starts. Thank gosh. Did Arrington even play? I didn’t see him near a play all night.
A friend was non-plussed by last night's performance.
He writes:
McNabb was scattershot with his passes, locked in on TO all night, gave up three turnovers and worse, was injured with a nagging? chest hit. The defense gave up 200 yards rushing, allowed Vick to roam free but only gave up 14 points. Our all-pro kicker missed two FGs. and the running game was practically non-existent.
Still, the Eagles only lost to the second best team in the conference, on the road, by 4 points. Is that an encouraging or discouraging sign? The game was there for the Eagles taking. Akers makes the 2 FGs and they win. But they won't go far unless McNabb can banish the return of the overthrows and the doinks into the ground we were accustomed to pre-TO.
McNabb's health is the primary concern, but just behind taht is the running game, or lack thereof. Most of the Eagles yardage came on a nifty inside handoff to Westbrook. Other than that, the Eagles couldn't gain three yards on the ground when they really, truly need it.
I understand Reid's offense is pass first, run second, but this is getting ridiculous. I fear the Eagles o-line will become "Colt-ized" where they get so used to pass blocking that they lack the attitude, will and physical force to push the d-line off the line of scrimmage. And I can't believe I even had to write that last sentence with Jon Runyan and Shawn Andrews on the right side of the line. Indeed, that fact is probably indicative of the overall problem and attitude adjustment (to say nothing of the play calling) that needs to be made.
Finally, let me point out, again, that Jim Johnson's defense performed to expectations and necessity. They kept the Falcons at 14 points. It's all on Reid as to why his offense can't score more than that with the weapons they have.
Jeez, when you go through the schedule like Hofman and some of my friends and I have, it dawned on me that this MNF game could have pretty huge implications for the Eagles season. if they win, they get a tie break on a conf. rival. perhaps more importantly, according to the record projections, it gives the Eags a margin for error to lose a game later on (rather than to the Falcs) that others might have as a win (San Diego? KC? GB? Denver?)
a win should also set them up as 2-0 (vs. SF) going into Raiders game. win that and you are 3-0 headed into Arrowhead.
I might switch out the losses Hofman had put them down for (Atlanta, Cowboys, Giants, Denver, Arizona) and shift one from the Gints to the Skins. Probably split with Cowboys, but I think Bledsoe is a guy the eagles can handle twice.
we also play the Rams in St. Louis. that looks like a tough game. and of course, we've always had our problems with the Cards in the Valley of the Sun.
I also don't like all the monday night games cause it shortens the following week against the Giants twice (that's right, we play the Giants after two of our MNF games.) and we have to fly out to Ariz. early for a Saturday game. Including the SF game following Atl, a quarter of our games are being played on short weeks. Not good.
I also wish one of our two games on the road vs. KC and Den. were at home. oh well.
It'll probably come down to injuries and which teams suffer them and which have depth to replace starters. Thankfully, knock on wood, the Eagles have been very good on that score. i don't think Hoffman or anybody else for that matter should write the skins off, especially since they usually play us tough (the spurrier years notwithstanding - even Norv's dead teams played us tough)
Best case 4-1 at the bye?
This time my friend Paul offered his two cents on the Eagles chances in 2005.
Dudes, seriously, take a big step back and out of our negative, gun-shy Phillly fishbowl.
this is a 14-2 team, period.
they're not losing to anyone in the division, we're going 6-0 in the division. Worst-case scenario, we slip up and lose one game to a division rival late in the year (kind of the way we almost lost to the Cowboys and the Skins last year).
So we go 5-1 in the division. After that, we are a prohibitive favorite in every single game, and probably even money in KC.
Remember, KC is great offensively, and Priest Holmes scares the crap out of me, sorf of the way Ahman Green did two years ago. (And Vermiel's no dope like that idiot in G.B, he'll just keep giving it to Priest if he's running wild.) But their defense completely blows, and Donovan might throw for five TDs against them.
BUT, let's face it, we've gone 12-4, 12-4 and 13-3 the past three years, and you know what? We've have HORRIFICALLY BAD injuries in those years. Donovan missing the final six or seven games one season, TO missing three games and two playoff games, W'brook ending his season in a meaningless game at FedEx Field.
again, don't get caught up in the fact that we were 13-3 and the Falcons were 11-5 and what other teams RECORDS were.
We were two touchdowns or more better than every single team in the NFC last season. Go look at last year's box scores.
there are only two things preventing us from 14 wins this year: andy pulling the plug late in the year like he did last season, or a slew of injuries to Donovan, TO and every D-lineman.
My brother chimed in in response to the Hofman crystal ball article.
I’m not sure they aren’t better on paper. T.O. is the x-factor, but on “paper” he should be counted as good as last year. Lewis/Sheppard/Brown should be better. Andrews makes them better, Patterson and Brown vs. Simon and Fredex?? Downgrade w/out Simon. Trotter starting all year. More maturity w/ LJ, Westbrook.
We may not be better, but I would say we are NOT worse.
The schedule is tougher this year (AFC West vs. NFC Central).
5 road losses is a lot for a team that has the best road record over the past few years (assuming the Giants and Cowboys losses are on the road). I see AT KC being difficult as well as the Broncos. The Cards would be devastating assuming he’s right and we are 10-4 going to Arizona for Xmas. 12-4 probably gets HF. BTW – the falcons got the bye last year at 11-5. Who is going 11-5 this year. Tice alone is worth 3 defeats. The Falcons are probably an 11-5 team which makes the tiebreaker important (next week is pretty huge). Seattle, St. Louis, Cards, Packers are all about 9-7 at best, possibly 10-6. That leaves the dreaded Panthers. Great coach, great defense, ball control offense.
Panthers concern me, but only one of the falcons or panthers can win division.
I always think the Vikes scare me (big D upgrades w/ Sharper and Smoot among others), but they were frickin’ 8-8 last year and Culpeper had a Manning like season. They will lose some games they shouldn’t. It happens to poorly coached teams each year (see Redskins losing to Cards every year at least once around ‘99/’00 – when they has atrocious special teams and would lose to the Cards and then beat the greatest show on turf). The Vikings will do no better than 11-5.
Every team that might be good in NFC is from a dome (sans Panthers) also. Don’t discount that come ’06.
5 straight this year!!!
Rich Hofman (see attached link) has the Eagles at 11-5 worst case scenario. Good enough for the playoffs, but not for homefield advantage. The only thing i disagree with in his analysis of the division is the Redskins, although his take that the Eagles aren't better than last year is debatable. With that defense, the Skins O has to only be marginally better and they could get to 10 wins. seriously, if Gibbs can't cant the offense on track then he will be gone after this season. That would also likely add a loss to Hoffman's projected Eagles record which gets them to 10-6. as my brother has long noted, the key is really not home field advantage throughout, but the first round bye. At some point, maybe it would be a good thing not to have the champ game at home if only to lessen the pressure on the team.
Hofman's predicted losses are as follows: "Give the Eagles a loss each to the Cowboys and Giants. Give them losses at Atlanta, Denver and Arizona on Christmas Eve. That would be 11-5, and it would give the Eagles a likely two-game cushion in the division. But it wouldn't give them homefield throughout the playoffs."
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/columnists/rich_hofmann/12578034.htm
Boy, the Eagles have one seriously disgruntled all-pro RB in Brian Westbrook. Aside from his bitterness and inferiority complex (3rd round pick, 5'8", small school Villanova grad) which have conspired to prevent him from cashing in on his NFL production so far, and which I can understand, the thing that I don't get is why contract talks were suspended and how a deal can't be done.
First let me say that the Eagles sometimes get grief for playing "hardball" in salary negotiations. But going all the way back to the first Trotter talks, the Eagles usually offer fair deals. Certainly not extravagant and over the top, but not low ball offers either. It's when the player doesn't come to terms that the hard hearted Eagles basically cut a player loose, which you really can't blame them for if the team and player can't come to a financial agreement. What is there left to say or do at that point?
It seems, if the source reports are true, the $12 million over 3 years deal ($9 mill signing bonus) that Domanick Davis got and which the Eagles are offering to Westbrook is a fair deal. I think Westbrook is slightly over inflating his worth by seeking LaMont Jordan money at $16 million/ 3 years.
On the other hand, aside from the frachise player in #5, Westbrook is the most valuable offensive player - TO included. The simple fact is that he's a game changer and that when he's played in the NFC championship, the Eagles have gone to the Super Bowl. When he has not been in the lineup for the most biggest most important game of the year the past couple of seasons, the Eagles have lost.
Sure, Westbrook isn't your prototypical feature back. But he is nearly perfect for the Andy Reid offense. If the Eagles can admit that, then maybe Westbrook can bring himself to appreciate how anomlous the Jordan deal is.
With the Eagles $15 million under the '05 cap, how can they not get a deal done with Westbrook right now? Go to $13 million over 3 years and give him $10 million up front as a roster bonus applicable to this year's cap. Hell, split the difference between Davis and Jordan and make it $14 million, 3 years, and a $10.5 million roster bonus.
Westbrook doesn't get $16 million, but he does get extra guaranteed cash which can be banked immediately and start earning interest rather than waiting on slightly more deferred money in 2006 or 07. Didn't Villanova's Commerce and Finance classes teach the young lad anything about opportunity costs? Plus, he's financially set for life. In addition, he starts working on fulfilling the new contract so he's that much closer to another payoff in 3-4 years if he is still producing at even a reduced level.
From the Eagles standpoint, they get a happy RB and fairly reward him for past and future performance. It still leaves them $5 million under this year's cap to extend other players (can you say Michael Lewis?), and gives them super insurance from a salary cap standpoint if Westbrook were to suffer a career ending injury. With the roster bonus, they won't take a hit on future salary caps if they have to release him in the out years. They can also start grooming Ryan Moats to take over in 2-3 years when Moats will be where Westbrook is now in terms of familiarity with the offense and league.
This compromise makes so much sense from everybody's vantage point I can't believe it doesn't get done.
What was with Frank Fitzpatrick's unprovoked rant in the Morning Byte's column earlier this week savaging the knowledge of the Philadelphia fans because the fans wrote off the Phillies in April and now the team is proving them wrong by playing meaningful games in September?
It was the worst kind of Philly journalism and beneath publication in the Inquirer. Worst of all, it just perpetuates the stereotype of the ignorant, knuckleheaded Philly fan that the national press loves to play up. That such a screed appeared in the Inqy was doubly hurtful.
Besides, Fitzpatrick didn't even have a valid point. First, his attack on the fans was published the same day as a front sports page story on Billy Wagner and how the closer supposedly lit a fire under the team by claiming they had no shot at the playoffs back in June. Did Fitzpatrick take exception to Wagner's erroneous statement, especially since as a member of the actual Phillies he would be presumed to be a knowledgeable baseball comentator?
Second, is this really what Philly sports journalists now define as success for the Phillies-- meaningful games in September competing for a wild card spot? Not making the playoffs, not winning the pennant, but competing in regular season games that have post-season implications?! Perhaps nothing says more about the sustained mediocrity of the Phillies organization since 1993 than Fitzpatrick's argument in that regard.
Finally, Fitzpatrick had the misfortune of running his piece just as the Phils were in the middle of dropping 2 of 3 from the staggering Nationals and then getting swept by the Astros to drop to 3rd place in the wild card standing.
Sure, Frank, the fans don't know, do they? But they do know as much, if not more than some Inquirer "journalists."
From my friend Paul, some random thoughts on the sinking Phillies season, and a good question about the red/blue hats in the WS:
* the Phillies wear those red-and-blue caps during inter-league games. If by some random stroke of blind luck they were to go on an amazing run and win the NL pennant, would they wear those caps in the world series? Or would those not be considered "inter-league" games?
* Having the MLB package gives you great access to other teams' broadcast booths. Wow, the SF Giants have one of the worst combos in teh world. They have some guy who, whenever it's a likely fast-ball pitch, says to the audience, "He's sitting dead red on this one." I had never heard the phrase before, but other friends assure me it's acceptable -- but again, I stress that this guy says it roughly three times per half inning. This same guy referred to David Bell as "a guy who just keeps finding ways for your team to win games, he's a winnder." I believe Bell promptly grounded into a double play.
On the flip side, I caught some Mets games last week. Ross, you hear him more than I do, but the game I heard, wow, Keith Hernandez seemed great. I told other friends that he reminded of McCarver in his early, non-ego-driven days as a Phillies No. 2 or No. 3 color guy. Really sharp, insightful, and most importantly, retired long enough ago that he has no attachment to these players of today and is willing to call them out for being stupid.
Also, the Astros color guy was pretty decent last night. Not sure who he was, but he struck me as somone who migth have been a catcher because of his awareness of pitch selection.
A friend comments on Charlie Manuel's managing of two games from last weekend:
* I don't think Charlie Manuel is a good game manager, surely not for the NL anyway. I've now seen two games in little more than a week in which he let his pitcher come to the plate in a critical situation. One time, Lidle batted with the game tied in about the 6th or 7th with runners on base, I think. He hit a grounder that he furiously tried to beat out for a single -- and injured himself in the process of trying to get the single. Last night, down 4-0 in the 6th, he lets Brett Myers bat for himself and he's in the LEAD-OFF SLOT for that inning. Myers makes an out and is subsequently lifted after finishing the 7th.
Does he realize pitchers can be pinch-hit for before the 8th inning?
Also, in the 7th last night (Monday the 5th), down 4-1, with one out Tomas Perez, playing first for a resting Howard, comes up in the 8 hole and appears to be a sure shot to be pinch-hit for, probably by Howard. No, instead, Manuel has Howard pinch-hit for the pitcher in the 9-hole, coming to the plate with the bases loaded and the chance to put the Phils right back in the game.
However, it falls right into Phil Garner's wheelhouse, becasue he immediately counters by bringing in a lefty -- not just to face Howard, who is way below the Mendoza line against lefties, but also to Rollins, who when turned around and batting right-handed is hitting 30 points lower and lacks any power.
The lefty struck out Howard. Thankfully, J-Roll worked a walk to get one run in for the inning.
Leading to another complaint of mine: How can we still have Rollins hitting lead off? That walk that drove in the run, it was just his 36th walk of the season. Terrible lead-off hitter.
All this aside, the Phils still had a chance to tie it in the 9th, when Rollins, batting lefty against Lidge, pounded a two-out double down the right-field line against the wall.
In the most anti-Dale Sveum move I've ever seen, our 3rd base coach holds up our runner (THE GAME-TYING RUN) at 3rd. yeah, it would have been a close play, and we were hitting Lidge, but there were two outs and a good baserunner (a speedy minor leage call-up) was circling 3rd.
Oh, and our next batter up was Endy Chavez, who promptly struck out and ended the game with runners on 2nd and 3rd.
Even if our starting pitching holds up down the stretch, and even if David Bell decides to play like a Major Leaguer, I don't think we have the smarts in management to pull this off.
Wow. Didn't see the Hugh Douglas cut coming. Jon Ritchie just didn't seem as surprising, which is strange given how many D-ends the Eagles had and how Josh Parry is the only other FB on the team.
It is doubly surprising given the leadership Douglas played in the locker room, a not insignificant consideration given the potential for TO to wreak havoc in there at any time. Still, I can't help but wonder if Douglas would still be on the team if Trotter hadn't ascended to the starting LB spot and returned to be the defensive leader. Certainly, no one the defense other than Douglas (or Dawkins) has that stature and status to command the respect of the defense and the team. Cole must have really outplayed Douglas for them to let him go. If the TO situation blows up during the season as expected, not having his gregarious and garrulous personality around to lighten the mood may be something Reid comes to regret.
