Reid Gives Us An Update
Posted: November 1st, 2012 | Author: Tommy Lawlor | Filed under: Philadelphia Eagles | 90 Comments »Andy Reid spoke to the media today. The key topic was the status of QB Michael Vick. Reid said that Vick is the QB and that this isn’t a week-to-week decision. Vick is his QB. Reid said he was really upset after the game and wanted some time before making any decisions, which was the delay in making the announcement that Vick would remain the starter. He went so far as to say he never really considered benching Vick?
What in the name of Howard Eskin is going on here? What do we make of this?
Not much. Reid has to say this stuff. You can’t make Vick the QB on Sunday and announce to the world that his job is on the line. You have to stick with him. It keeps the other players from wondering what’s going on. Also, you hope the support helps Vick’s confidence.
I don’t for a second believe that Vick is the QB going forward, unless he starts to play well. In fact, I think Vick could get benched in the Saints game if the offense doesn’t get going. Vick had a down season in 2011. He’s down again this year and he took the whole offense with him. We have 12 offensive TDs this year. 12!?! We scored 7 offensive TDs in the 59-28 win over WAS back in 2010. The lack of points is driving Reid nuts, just like us.
Monday night is going to be so interesting. If we’re down 17-6 at half…how on Earth can you stick with Vick? If we’re up 21-17, life is good and maybe there is hope for Vick and us.
Honestly, there is part of me that would like to see the offense struggle just to find out what Reid would do. Most of me is so desperate to enjoy a game that I hope the offense and team play well and give me a night to enjoy.
* * * * *
Reid said that Mike Patterson will get some reps with the starters. He wants to see how Mike does. They’ve got to figure out if they want to add him to the mix or not.
Cullen Jenkins missed practice with a minor injury, but Reid expects him to be fine. Danny Watkins is still out. Reid made it sound like he’ll miss the game. Dennis Kelly had a good showing on Sunday so having him start again is fine with me.
* * * * *
There was a players only meeting today after Reid finished talking to the team. Per Geoff Mosher, the guys who spoke at the meeting were:
Mike Vick
Jason Avant
Jeremy Maclin
Cullen Jenkins
Trent Cole
DeMeco Ryans
DRC
Players only meetings are never a good sign. This is something you do when nothing else is working as expected. The players have good intentions, but the results aren’t always great. Coaches can yell at players. When players challenge other players…that can be awkward. Sometimes the right thing is said and it can help. More often than not, the meetings have little effect.
Our buddy Sam found a good example: 2007 Giants. They had a players only meeting in late November and then won 3 of 4 games. Then they lost in the season finale, but it was 38-35 to the undefeated Pats. That was no typical loss. The Giants built off that momentum and went 4-0 in the playoffs to win the Super Bowl.
I’d love to tell you that the Eagles will do the same thing, but that would be a false promise. I have no idea how our guys will respond on Monday. I’m certainly hoping for the best.
PE.com has a story up on the meeting.
We won’t know if the meeting means anything until we see the results on the field.
_
Big props from Dilfer. Very encouraging.
The stuff he said about Foles is very encouraging.
I fully agree with you and understand the purpose of saying Vick is our QB and that is not a week-to-week decision, but I am curious of the actual affect it has on the players. Is anyone actually convinced it isn’t a week-to-week thing if Vick plays poorly? Do the players really buy into that? I’m curious if it would have made more sense to just say “Vick is my QB” and then deny the reports. It just seems the reading between the lines, AR admits to being indecisive about Vick, and now he is finally making a decision… something that ultimately shows a lack of confidence (which is legitimate, but the point is to not show that lack of confidence).
I don’t know what goes on in players minds. If this was a QB that the players didn’t like so much personally, they might be more vocal about benching him. I get the feeling the players want Vick to succeed. However, like Reid, their patience is running out.
DeSean Jackson wants to catch TDs. He loves playing with Vick, but not if that means no TDs.
One thing to remember, despite the hellacious beating, Vick hasn’t pointed fingers at his OL (or his WRs for failing to run hot routes). Players see his courage and his desire to win, appreciate he doesn’t throw them under the bus like an unnamed former Eagle QB and want him to succeed. So for AR to move on, Vick has to fail to the extent that his teammates can rally around the rookie QB and not resent him for getting a job for which he hasn’t paid his dues.
Vick hasn’t played badly the last four games, better defense and OL play and they might have won 3 of 4 instead of losing 3 of 4. So the rest of the team knows the fault is as much their’s as Vick.
Vick did mention Reynolds after his first start.
I would imagine that even if they don’t believe it, they probably appreciate Reid standing up for him publicly.
Personally, I would like if Reid told the team that no one is gaurenteed a starting spot next week, but that he is keeping that behind closed doors.
Players only meeting can be a good thing, especially for two things:
-First, it allows leaders in the team to step up and deliver their message. In the PE.com story, I find interesting the Ryans stood up and delivered his message. We know he’s a good leader and can motivate players.
-Second, it can be useful when coaches can have a negative impact on the team spirit. Follow me here, but Bowles is new for half the defense, and people may not dare to speak loud when he’s here. It’s news, players are still evaluating him. AR is in a bad mood, and his future is at least cloudy. We forget that he lost his son this summer. It can play on the way he delivers his message.
I know it could have bad consequences, but in the situation of the actual Eagles, I find it interesting. Especially when I see the players that spoke. The only surprising name for me is DRC. It’s interesting to see Maclin stepping up.
Maclin always struck me as a quiet, “goes-about-his-business” type of player, good to see he can step up as a leader.
STOP COMPARING THE EAGLES TO THE NEW YORK GIANTS! The Giants are an enigma of a Super Bowl team. Just because does they had similar failures does not mean that they will have similar success. The Giants had an elite QB, an elite defensive line, and crazy amount of luck. The Eagles don’t have those qualities that they can rely on. All facets of their team are average at best.
He wasn’t comparing teams, he just found an example of when a players-only meeting was successful.
I think the most fair comparison is between the current state of the Eagles and the previous state under Reid. When we had more success we had better O-line play, fewer turnovers, and better play at Safety.
Going back further, we had even better success with JJ at the helm of the Defense. One game does not a judgement make on Bowels… here’s to hoping he can figure things out and our defense can improve.
Off-topic:
I read the other day that Grigson in Indy apparently didn’t want to add players who were not religious. As an atheist I find that very discriminating. I don’t want to get into a long discussion about religion, but how on earth can you have opinions like that?!?
I sure don’t hope that anybody in the Eagles FO shared any of those beliefs. That could seriously hurt the way I think of them.
Religion and locker rooms are tricky. There is a lot of praying that goes on. Some non-believers join in, as a social type thing. Others don’t and it can create some friction. “What’s wrong with you?”…that type of thing.
I’ve never heard of the Eagles having such a policy.
I’m quite sure that if Andy shaved his mustache and the team began saying the rosary before every game, we could turn this thing around!
Mathis is an atheist. He said he just stands there and looks around to see if anyone is just looking around during the prayers. Usually, no one else is.
There’d be no place for the likes of Tim Rossevich and Bill Bradley, circa 1971, on the Grigson Colts.
By the way, the EEOC may — like you — also find that Grigson’s comments are discriminatory.
The rule that politics and religion are best left undiscussed at dinners and parties likewise applies to NFL GM’s.
PS — Phil Savage, when Cleveland’s GM, made a similar comment
Eeoc should definitely step in and shut the whole thing down. Adrian peterson let the cat out of the bag… football is modern day slave trade! 😉 on a somewhat more serious note, how could such a thing even be proven except by an eggregious error? If the statement is “faith” that can/could apply to any number of things including patriotism, wicca, atheism, or any number of more traditional or less traditional worldviews. I am honestly curious since i feel as though i recall you being in the law profession. This kind of thing is interesting…
I wouldn’t put much stock into what was said. This was the actual quote-
Asked whether there’s a certain type of player Colts G.M. Ryan Grigson
hopes to bring to the organization, interim coach Bruce Arians said
this: “A high quality person who has passion for football and cares
about faith, family and football.”
wow. Talk about a spin. This is why people hate the media
Yeah, it sounds like the story might have been blown out of proportion, but I still sometimes get the feeling, that religion is too much of an explicit thing, when it should be (I think) an implicit thing.
Do I make sense? It’s hard to discuss in a language I’m not 100% comfortable with.
Jeppe, I understand you, but we two also comes from a much different culture when it comes to religion. In the USA religion and religious origination have much more impact on things then in Denmark.
I would guess about 0.05% of NFL players are atheists.
The difference is that all of the religious nutjobs got kicked out of Europe and sent to North America a long time ago, and we’re still dealing with the negative impact of that.
As for faith and dedication, two different things. Faith is belief without evidence. Sometimes that can fuel dedication, so the two can be related, but one is not required for the other.
Being of strong faith implies you have a history of dedication and commitment. It isn’t merely an indicator of a person’s morals.
Football requires a lot of dedication and obedience. Physical talent is something that all players in the NFL have, so it’s hard to distinguish which players have the intangibles to be successful.
These drafting decisions are multi-million dollar investments, so investing in a guy who displays commitment and obedience to a faith shows an example of an athlete who might show commitment and obedience to his coach.
It’s not ethical to base a decision on this, but I think a GM wants someone who is active in his church not someone who just says he believes in God.
I guess if a guy like Jason Avant is your example, I can understand it to some extent. I recognize that you have a slimmer chance of getting into trouble if you are highly religious and spending your weekends in church rather than in clubs. However, if almost every player is religious, then this argument gets thrown out the window.
And my argument is, that you can be just as dedicated and commited to something without being religious.
“Being of strong faith implies you have a history of dedication and commitment. It isn’t merely an indicator of a person’s morals.”
Sorry that part is bull shit. Strong faith has nothing to do with deducation and commitment. It has just as much to do with how you are raised.
Why not just ignore religion and just look at his work ethic?
Sociologically speaking it is hard to back up one over the other. You cant deny that hard work and upstanding moral character are part of orthodoxy Christianity because as a worldview it is clear that they are. That does not mean that everyone who refers to himself as Christian displays those traits. It is equally evident that Christians do not hold exclusive rights to those traits. Most folks do adhere to the morals and character they were surrounded with on childhood. It would be nice if people fit into little stereotypical boxes, but in general… they do not.
Well put.
Well, reaaally sociologically speaking, hard work and upstanding more character are endemic of Protestant Christian religions (at least in Europe and the U.S.) as opposed to Catholicism (Weber, 1930). And you can create plenty of useful and robust measures to gauge religiosity and separately work ethic/obedience (not the same thing) to test for significant relationships between the two (controlling for variance explained by other demographic characteristics). The only thing you can’t do from any of these analyses is prove causality (can’t say if religiosity influences work ethic, or work ethic influenced likelihood of religiosity). Now looking at religiosity and football success would certainly be interesting, haha, every player is always thanking God for willing the team to win (God was a Chargers fan last night! or at least had their D on his Fantasy Team).
Faith has everything to do with obedience and commitment. It says that you are obedient to a higher authority and committed to the teachings of your religion.
Religion and faith are two different implications. I bet Herremans identifies himself with some church but it isn’t taken into consideration because he doesn’t express himself as a man of faith. Also faith is not a deciding factor but a consideration. I don’t think any GM would pass on Brady even if he declared himself to be an atheist.
Then Im a man of faith, but my “religion” is science.
Thanks for your answers. I guess I just don’t get why it so important for someone what other people believe in, or don’t believe in. As long as you’re a good person, that’s all that matters to me.
Ignoring talent because of background (not character) will come back around on him in the long run, so don’t let it bother you too much.
I have always hated it when guys bring religion onto the field. Spare us the public displays of faith. Tebow takes a knee and the religious folks praise him. I wonder what they would say if some Muslim athlete rolled out a prayer rug on the sidelines.
If Tim Tebow were a Muslim, he’d be a tight end in the CFL right now.
Frankly, it should be offensive to theists as well. To think that God would step down to officiate something as incredibly inconsequential as a football game? And take sides based on one side praying more fervently than the other? Why even have the playoffs then – just give the Lombardi Trophy to the team with the most Minister-of-Defense-type players. Or the Saints?
He would definitely have a different set of people who appreciate his work. Though Christians would likely still have to be embarrassed by the comments of people like Pat Robertson (who in my opinion is a blight on Christianity).
In my observation, most folks find comfort in homogeneous groups. Whether spoken out loud or done in shadow, most people discriminate on some basis. For example: i am going to naturally be less inclined to want to talk about football at length with a cowboys fan. I have done it and it can be ok, but my natural inclination to avoid the conversation i assume saves me time and potential frustration. Also… as someone who was single in the not too distant past and age 34… i was not inclined to ruminate the possibility of dating a 65 year old woman. Not sure if those are helpful examples or not.
This is very true, though few people like to admit it.
Public display of Christian and Jewish faith as always been a part of our history as Americans. A return to publicily expressed good values would be beneficial on all levels. Everyone always displays their beliefs whether its religion or not. Its their life expression. Just because someone believes in God and the Bible, he should not be asked to quench his “life expression”. This is America: lets live free including publicily living “out in the open” for God and good values in all that you do including football. You just dont need to be rude about it. Go Eagles!
No, let’s not. People already do and it’s very tiring. Hearing someone talk about their personal relationship with God is like hearing a child talk about their imaginary friend. It has as much basis in reality but the child doesn’t try to force everyone else to believe in the imaginary friend, or treat them differently if they don’t.
God can be ignored but He still exists just like gravity exists. You can call gravity imaginary but if you jump off a building you will find out gravity is very real no matter if you believe it or not. My point here was not to offend but just to say America is about freedom. And every person has the right to express their life. If we dont agree with someone that is also our choice and we can always walk away. Denying someone their right to be open and live in public for God is wrong. It is a part of their life and who they are.
Gravity is provable and quantifiable. God is not. Sorry.
I believe this post is counter productive to the general discussion at hand on a variety of levels…
Freedom of speech is a foundational principle, which regardless of faith/lack there of, is protected in American culture. In fact, it protects your right to share that you are tired of it, but the brute fact is that any of us maintain the right to share and you have the right to do something else with your time if you choose to avoid it.
Perhaps Atheists can align themselves with Cam Newton and his Superman pose with the claim that he is tied in with Nietzsche’s Ubermensch. That could be an effective symbol to stand for what you believe in, easily recognizable and definable, as well as easy to execute.
Belittling comments (while protected by free speech) do not generally win anyone’s respect or admiration.
Stereotypes exist for a reason…yes… however I do hope for your sake that you do not over generalize to entire populations of believers of various religions based on your own experience. It is possible to have meaningful conversations with people of other faiths. For my part, (in football terms) I have found it interesting to hang out over at Jimmy Bamma’s site to hear opinions of Cowboy, Giant, and Redskin fans. Not saying I’m making best friends over there, but it’s interesting.
Lastly, I find it ironic that part of your proselytizing involves telling people how annoyed you are by the proselytizing of others.
I think I’m pretty well aware of how free speech works. You can tell me about your religion all you want, and I can ignore it all I want, that much is understood. My issue is with the original poster, saying “a return to publicly expressed good values would be beneficial”. This assumes that we’ve ever left that place, because we certainly haven’t. What has changed is that when Christians espouse their worldview as if it were objective reality, everyone isn’t chiming in and agreeing with them; other worldviews are now gaining public awareness. Christians in general tend not to like this and pretend that their freedom is being threatened. It’s not. Other people are simply expressing their own points of view, and the oppressive weight of a collective agreement on Christian values as the “right” values is fading, however slowly.
And the suggestion that an atheist would need some kind of Superman logo to rally behind shows a complete lack of understanding of why people would become atheists in the first place, and an inability to conceive of a world view that didn’t require a higher power.
I’m not afraid to admit that I may well not understand the Atheist worldview. I was pulling from my limited knowledge and experience with the philosophy of Nietzsche to suggest that perhaps a symbolic proclamation of embracing one’s self as the only power the “superman” states simply that “I did this, on my own without any kind of supernatural intervention.”
But I think I can say that your point is to say that there simply is no need to express anything.
Sorry, I’m just trying to clarify to see if I “get” where you’re coming from… thanks for being willing to talk.
yeah, you might have confused the point with the Nietzsche reference, since modern Atheists don’t associate their rationale with the individual being the focal point.. but no big at all. This is a (great) football blog, and while we’re free to talk about what we want more or less, the best discussions on this site are always about football.
Little suprised Coleman didn’t say anything he seems to be emerging as one of the leaders of the D.
I’m surprised Maclin spoke instead of the likes of Shady or Desean. And no offensive lineman? The whole thing changes my perspective a bit.
Mac was the biggest surprise to me too.
While talented, I don’t get the impression that Shady or DeSean have the maturity to be leaders. I do however get that impression with Maclin’s demeanor.
I would say they don’t have the maturity to be *good* leaders. But leaders tend to be the guys who get it done on the field and win games (not always, but young guys tend to look up to and follow that). I don’t think Djax is or will be a leader on this team, he’s the kid brother of the locker room. Shady I think has been developing well into the role. He recognizes that he sets the standards for the young guys and takes his job very seriously because of that. He isn’t there yet, but he will be.
In my mind Maclin comes off as the most intelligent of our skill position players by far with a nice helping of maturity as well. A guy like that who is respected might have something valuable to contribute to the meeting. Perhaps we are reading too much into the “leadership” thing by who spoke. Interesting to speculate though.
It is definitely fun to speculate!
I thought I read that Herremans was one of the guys who spoke up.
I’m sure Peters held that role for awhile. It is troubling no one has stepped up in his absence though. I’d hope Mathis or Kelce would as good performing veterans, but Kelce is out and I don’t see Mathis as the leader type. That does raise a great point though, we don’t really have a leader on the OL to hold people accountable on the field and in the locker room.
Not trying to criticize, I am legitimately curious, but what makes you think he seems to be emerging as one of the leaders? To me, if we had a better option, he would be sitting on the bench. I haven’t noticed any leadership qualities either, but maybe I am missing something.
I have seen it too. Coleman is firey, getting in opponents’ faces and talking to teammates. I guess that I don’t know for sure that his emotions necessarily translate as leadership, but I view him as a leader in the making.
Exactly. He may not be the biggest, strongest, fastest or smartest player but the way Kurt Coleman plays the game, I would absolutely love having him as a teammate.
I dare say his teammates appreciate him owning his mistakes as well.
I think Coleman would be a team leader if we didn’t have Nnamdi.
I can’t decide if I’m more surprised that DRC spoke or that Babin didn’t.
We had a player meeting last year…forgot what week it happened in. Didn’t we lose the next game? Eventually the team got it together, wish we knew why or how so that we could unleash that magic again (don’t think it was the meeting).
I think a player meeting can be a good thing if the locker room is starting to crack.
I think the defense needed it. Isn’t it strange that DRC gets defensive and tells a big story about how much he learned from Juan and how great a coach Juan was, then throw a turd of a game. While other players clearly didn’t think much of him. I think that defense was due for some sort of mending. This is all wild speculation of course.
They had one after the 1-4 start, won the next two, then went 1-4 again.
I realise this is highly hypothetical but what if at half, by some great mystery, the game is tied at 7-7, do bench Vick?
depends why we only have 7 points
Reid’s sticking with Vick for a simple reason, he’s not playing that badly under the circumstances:
There have been 5 turnovers the last four games (slightly below the league average), Eagles are 1-3 in those games.
I think we can put the turnover issue to rest now.
88 141 918 62.4% 6.5 6-2 / 27 166 rushing
McCoy 69 243 3.5 1 / 17 92 5.4
Vick may have left some plays on the field, but he’s been efficient the last four games and he’s not getting a lot of help. Note that not only is McCoy failing to gain a lot of yards rushing, he’s not much of a threat as a receiver. When the Eagles used to struggle, you could always count on Westbrook to break a big play or two off screens.
He was sacked 11 times and probably avoided as many by scrambling. His rushing is a big part of the offense right now.
If the blocking improves, Reid may be hoping Vick can bounce back (and not off the turf), Dunlap was an upgrade over Bell, Kelly was up and down but better than Watkins, Tennant is waiting to replace Reynolds if he doesn’t improve. Right now Vick is playing too safe, trying to avoid mistakes, but better blocking means more comfort in the pocket and maybe more plays.
Though another beat down or two and I think Vick will volunteer to sit, he’s taken an amazing amount of punishment in seven games, about what most top QBs take in a full season. Looking at Sheila’s 22 on the defense, it was interesting when they got pressure on Ryan in less than 2.5 seconds how ineffectual he was, but also how clean the pocket was on many of his big plays – it works on both the offensive and defensive sides of the ball.
I hate feeling like there is nothing the offense can do to convince me this week. If they do poorly, more of the same and when will it change? If they do well, of course they did, this defense makes everyone look good. What can I look for as a sign of things improving?
How about this: football isn’t just a physical game, its mental too. When players start to doubt, even with talent, they play bad. Maybe a whooping on the Saints will give them confidence to get it done. Maybe it will only last a game or two, but its something.
Well, the offense has been consistently horrid when travelling, and the superdome is extremely hostile. Our offensive line is awful as a norm, the crowd noise magnifies that by 10. If the team executes well in the away game and scores over 30 like they should I’ll be happy. I won’t think they are a top 5 or even 10 offense or anything like that, but it will be a step in the right direction. Even if the saints did have a good defense and we we put up 40 you can’t buy into it. Great offenses do it week in and week out. Lets get it started in New Orleans, and most importantly do it again next week and the week after. It’s going to take a few weeks to get that good feeling back (if it comes back).
But I totally agree with you on the concept. Any situation where success is supposed to be a given and failure is a tragedy….is a real no-win situation.
a good showing this monday and an ass whooping on the cowboys just might drag me out of the doldrums concerning this team
Good points guys. I guess I’ll just hope to have power restored, then hope to see a functional offense. A solid performance against even a bad defense is a step in the right direction.
To quote what about bob: “babysteps”
Is that corn hand-shucked?
haha
I’m hoping to see the O line correctly pick up the Saint’s pass rushers and also for Vick to take his shots down field – as the 22 reviews have shown he didn’t in the Falcons game.
What if it’s 17-6, but Bryce Brown fumbles twice in the redzone on the same possession and coughs up a turnover?The score could have been 17-13, which means the Eagles would be on pace to score 26 points.
On pace to score 26 points on that terrible defense is not good enough for me
I think steve is suggesting a halftime score
Half of the players who spoke at the meeting should have only been apologizing for their horrid play. Otherwise, I hope the other players had a nice sit down and STFU for them.
Tommy, I suppose you head Steve Spurrier’s comments about Alabama been able to beat an NFL team. My instant reaction is why does he say such nonsense? What does he gain? I mean we are talking about a team with maybe 4-6 players there would be rookies next season vs a whole team there is playing in the NFL.
Because it makes headlines, gets players excited and he knows there is no way the statement will be disproven.
You don’t hope for the best, you pray for the best while expecting the worst.
I notice there’s not a single OL who stepped in to speak, which is the root of the problems on offense.
According to this article that Sam shared on Twitter earlier, Herremans was one of the guys who spoke up: http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2012/11/eagles_hold_spirited_team_meet.html
It also says 9 or 10 players in total spoke in front of their teammates.
Read somewhere that Vick said he would revert back to playing more instinctively. I hope so. Even though he’s lost a step, scrambling is still very much an asset for him. Still not sure why Reid or Marty or whoever is responsible tried to turn Vick into a pocket passer
I need some positive Eagles news
Is it possible that our excessively tall oline makes vick’s job of attempting to stay in the pocket extra tricky? Maybe he just cant play like brees.
From the It Could Be Worse department:
The Chiefs are a few minutes away from going half a season without ever leading in a game. (Their only win came on the final play of the game.) That is stunningly bad.
It is stunningly bad. But the Chiefs shouldn’t have been and should NEVER be Eagles’ standard.
… [Trackback]…
[…] There you will find 76121 more Infos: igglesblitz.com/philadelphia-eagles-2/reid-gives-us-an-update/ […]…