Winning Ugly

Posted: December 2nd, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Philadelphia Eagles | 173 Comments »

Something occurred to me as I watched the offensive debacle between the Jets and Dolphins on MNF. How would the Eagles fare in such a game? Can they win ugly?

The Eagles lowest point total in a win this year is 27.

The Eagles lowest point total in a win last year was 24, which they did 3 times.

Can the Eagles win an ugly game where there is limited scoring by both sides? So far in the Chip Kelly era, the answer is no. To be fair, the Eagles have only been held under 24 points a few times in Kelly’s 2 years. They generally score.

The Seattle game on Sunday will be a very good test for this. They have only allowed 24 or more points in 5 games this year. And injuries played a part in some of those games. With everyone healthy, Seattle has only allowed 3 points in each of the 2 previous games. I don’t think they will be able to shut down the Eagles to that extent, but don’t expect the Eagles to be moving up and down the field with ease.

The Eagles defense has played better recently. STs has been a major strength all year. If the Eagles can avoid turnovers, this could be the game where they win even if they don’t get to 24.

* * * * *

Chip Kelly has helped revitalize Mark Sanchez’s career. We don’t know how much just yet, but Sanchez will do much better on the free agent market next year than he did this year.

Will this make QBs want to come to Philly?

Could Sam Bradford, RG3, Christian Ponder and Jake Locker all be hoping they can come to Philly, with the idea that they can experience the magic of Chip Kelly? I mention these guys because all are former 1st round picks that have physical gifts. Each of them failed with their current team for a variety of reasons.

It will be interesting to see if the Eagles go hard after QBs or if QBs go hard after the Eagles when the offseason rolls around.


173 Comments on “Winning Ugly”

  1. 1 Ark87 said at 12:37 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I must not get this concept of winning ugly because this seems really silly. This offense has struggled a plenty, and with our backs against it we came up with a few big plays to come out with a win. Games have been won in spite of a ridiculous number of ugly turnovers because of a tenacious defense and huge and very timely plays. Were not the majority of our early wins ugly ordeals filled with turnovers and penalties? Yes the points were there, but that wasn’t exactly a humming offense. We won games with Jason Peters the only starter left on the line. No run game, no pass pro, and winning. Dunno what else to look for short of losing

  2. 2 GEAGLE said at 7:23 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Yeah, I don’t understand this one at all….we spent the first 9 games learning how to “win ugly”… I learned so much more about these players having To claw and scratch their way thru adversity to reach 7-2, then I learned last year when everything was peaches n cream playing behind The best OL in the history of our franchise…Tom just needs to get used to the fact, that “winning ugly” under chip, probably means we scored more points, than winning ugly under another coach.

    I can’t possibly disagree more with an article….we been learning how to win “ugly” all year. Who cares that we have 28 points on the board, if the special team of defense was responsible for 10 of the points? Offense ONLY scoring 18 is an UGLY win!…. Just so happened special teams and defense picked up the pffense in the “ugly wins”
    Because we have spent this season, Learning how to win ugly, that’s what gives me confidence to face a team like the seahawks down the stretch….
    If we weren’t “winning ugly” the entire first half of the season, I dunno WTF you call that

  3. 3 bill said at 8:22 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    While I agree with your logic, in defense of Tommy, I think his definition of ugly is the 49ers game. In that game, the OL just got flat out dominated, and the offense as a whole did nothing. It was ugly all the way around for the offense. Yet, if Cooper can hang on to the ball that hit him in the hands in the endzone, the Eagles pull out a win that they truly didn’t deserve. And even that’s a little bit on the edge of “ugly,” as the special teams and defense played awfully well. This weekend could be a different story. We could see a SF-like offensive performance, without the STs and defensive scores. Can the Eagles win a game where they score less than 17 points? That’s the question that hopefully they answer in the affirmative this weekend.

  4. 4 Ark87 said at 8:39 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    so the question really is: “is the defense elite”, no not yet. The way our team works is when we struggle badly on O (ie no points), it means the defense is on the field a ton, it already is when we have many-play drives, but when we flounder, we do it so fast and the defense isn’t elite to the point where it gets off the field quickly and consistently. I think we have a very good defense but the cards stack heavily against them when we are punting and throwing picks on offense.

    Now when the offense is humming, at least consistently moving the ball (even if it’s stalling and kicking field goals, just maintaining drives makes a huge difference) , the defense can definitely hold a team under 17 points and has done so plenty. It’s just under those conditions we are wearing teams down and winning the second half and scoring points.

  5. 5 Nicodemus_09 said at 5:19 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Fair points all. Color ME impressed for what that’s worth…

  6. 6 Sporran said at 1:18 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Jacksonville, Washington, St. Louis were all ugly wins.

  7. 7 ceedubya9 said at 10:07 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Jacksonville was ugly in the beginning. St. Louis got ugly in the end for some reason. Washington game was head scratchingly close for some reason.

  8. 8 Mac said at 1:47 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Hard to say what the answer will be, but thanks for asking the hard questions.

  9. 9 Anders said at 1:52 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Of those 3 guys, I only want locker or rg3. Rg3 was by far the best when healthy of the 4 you mentioned so he is 100% my favorite

  10. 10 GEAGLE said at 7:29 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Rg3 rookie year was garbage flash in the pan nonsense. When everyone was going gaga over that bullshit rookie year, I warned that, him having success playing the position that way, wasnt sustainable.
    I don’t care what the results look like, if a QB can’t make it to his second progression, that’s NOT GOOD QB play, because no shot in hell that playing the position that way, and winning was sustainable….

    Surprise surprise, he never came close to looking like he did his rookie year, I’m sure you will point to the injuries, but that’s exactly why getting carried away with how he played the game as a rookie was bullshit
    Personally I put RG3 in the johnny football category, jackass QBs that media thinks chip would adore, but guys that chip would have zero interest ever working with…character/personality alone, will never allow RG3 to become an eagle..then again, the media thought chip amd Lurie were interested in Geno smith, so what Can I really expect?
    Rather let Barkley develop on the bench for two more years the way Rogers did, than to bring in any of those scab QBs… ..rather give Barkley 4 years of developmental continuity, than to throw that continuity away for some QBs flame out

  11. 11 Anders said at 8:26 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    “character/personality alone, will never allow RG3 to become an eagle..”

    How do we know this? Coming out of college RG3 was applauded for his character and personality and how smart he was.

  12. 12 Avery Greene said at 8:40 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Snyder ruined that.

  13. 13 anon said at 8:42 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    The guy put Matt Barkley and Aaron Rodgers in the same sentence.

  14. 14 GEAGLE said at 9:23 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Yeah that’s wha I did, you worthless troll. READ Donkey READ

    What does developmental methods have to do with comparing the two QBs? I compared a QB developmental method you jackass

  15. 15 suthrneagle said at 10:12 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Do you suffer from Tourette syndrome?;
    would help to explain you being such a childish
    internet tough guy

  16. 16 Ark87 said at 8:45 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I agree with that, that said, I would say you avoid the player because of the baggage he brings with him. Too much craziness is going to follow him wherever he goes to be a back up. That’s on the crazy fans and media. Unfortunate but you stay away from him unless you have high hope of him being your franchise QB.

  17. 17 GEAGLE said at 9:16 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Lol his entire locker room hates him…. But yeah, we don’t know this lol…. Bet you anything, RG3 will never be a chip kelly QB…. He can be sitting on waivers for a month and I still bet chip wouldn’t touch him. A QB who sat at his press conference and called out each player for not playing well enough when he was putting on the worst QB performance ever?.. Does he sound anything like a FOles press conference? LOL just stop it!
    Sure you were running around chirping about how FOles could never play for chip, or how Johnny jackass is chips QB wet dream lol… Rg3 give me a fuckin break

  18. 18 Anders said at 9:38 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Have you been in the locker room? Also do they hate him because of Snyder given him different treatment even if he didnt ask for it?

    Also not like Mark Sanchez screamed Kelly QB right?

  19. 19 suthrneagle said at 10:01 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Kelly played against Sanchez at Oregon.He saw him up close and liked very much what he saw. So, yes, Sanchez screamed Kelly QB. You just weren`t listening properly.

  20. 20 GEAGLE said at 3:23 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Don’t bother. He just argues for the sake of it.. He don’t really ever learn

  21. 21 Buge Halls said at 11:08 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I’m sorry, is Sanchez a “running” QB? No, he’s an in-the-pocket passer who can move a little when it all falls apart.

    You proved his point that Chip doesn’t need an RG3 type player – we had that in Vick and it failed!

  22. 22 BobSmith77 said at 2:42 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Definitely one of the games I have been looking forward to all year. Eagles are are quietly 16-4 in their last 20 games but still seem to be not talked about in the same breath as Seattle, GB, and NE. A win this week would start to shift that nod.

    This game to me is all about pedestrian Seahawks’ offense. If the Eagles can hold them to >20 pts, I really like their chances. If the Seahawks can eek out 23-24 pts, they’ll walk away with the W.

    Scarily to think what Seattle would be like right now without 16 players this week including 14 on IR.

  23. 23 Avery Greene said at 8:38 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    It might be first to 24. The Eagles are like 17-2 or 19-2 when they score 24 or more points.

  24. 24 Avery Greene said at 8:39 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I try not to think of it in terms of total score. Can we score 13 a half with this offense? I think so, I don’t think it’s too much to ask for an offense averaging 30 a game.

  25. 25 Mac said at 9:53 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    My goal for this defense is to hold Seattle to under 17, and I think that is realistic. Our front 7 is stout enough to stop a declining Lynch, and I think we can strip sack Wilson (hopefully we can take it to the house).

  26. 26 mksp said at 1:21 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    “still seem to be not talked about in the same breath as Seattle, GB, and NE.”

    Losing to the Packers 53-20 will do that…..

  27. 27 jay ray said at 3:32 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    so dumb. Same thing happened when NE got blown out by KC. One game does not define a team.

  28. 28 Pennguino said at 3:58 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I would take Bradford over any of those guys. Injury concern of course. But he did ok with nothing around him. Great leadership with a head on his shoulders. Not a me first kind of guy. Just turned 27. A nice 2 year deal to see what he has. Just starting to hit a qb prime years. 2 years gives us time to eval and get trade value

  29. 29 Daniel Norman Richwine said at 5:12 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Sanchez did not throw the ball deep Thursday. I don’t know for sure but it doesn’t seem to be something he does in this offense. I’m sure the Seahawks notice and will work hard to take away checkdowns. Foles threw deep much more often. We will see if Sanchez can beat the kind of press coverage coming Sunday.

  30. 30 Anders said at 5:14 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Sanchez didnt throw deep because he didnt need too.

  31. 31 GEAGLE said at 8:55 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Lol guess he didmt NEED to throw deep in GB either lol
    We are pretending that the lack of deep ball game isnt an issue now? Ok….let’s see if we can still run when LOB doesn’t respect our deep ball ability

  32. 32 GEAGLE said at 7:34 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Only attempted two passes over 20 yards…l

    We will find out for sure the limitations of sanchez not being able to work the deep ball portion of our offense this week, when the Legion of Boom doeamt respect Sanchez arm, and they completly stack the box focusing soley on stopping shady… If we can’t run the ball this week, with the way our OL has been clicking. I would be very concerned about Sanchez long ball limitatiòns…… If we can face a playoff defense like seattle that doesn’t respect our QBs ability to throw, and still manage to run the ball well. I will feel much better about going forward with Mark

    Everyone of course gets carried away with the most recent performance, but I’m extremely worried about defenses not having to respect the ability to go down field…. Hopefully we can still run the ball regardless….. But IMO, this is the most important question to get answered in the seattle game

  33. 33 anon said at 8:39 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Since when did throwing deep balls become the way to beat Seattle? Don’t they have great dbs? Don’t the rarely give up x plays?

  34. 34 bill said at 9:33 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    If their DBs are vulnerable to anything, it’s deep and outside, because they are huge and stick to their man/disrupt short and intermediate routes very well. I’m not someone who wants DJax back, but he’s exactly the type of receiver that could exploit their DBs from the slot with deep posts, etc. The thing that keeps their DBs from routinely being hurt deep is that, even if it is relative weakness, they’re still not “bad,” just not great, like they are on short plays, plus they get enough pressure from their front 7 to keep teams from getting the 4s or so necessary to get the ball out of the QB’s hands on them. I think with the current OL grouping, Sanchez will get time to make the throws. And Maclin can probably get open deep and outside away from the safety help. The question is whether Sanchez can make the throw. Maybe he will. Just haven’t seen enough yet to know that he can.

  35. 35 GEAGLE said at 9:35 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Weakness is the run defense. Not that it’s a weak run Defense, but the few times you see Seattle lose, more times than not their opponent was able to run the ball

  36. 36 GEAGLE said at 9:35 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Learn to read and interpret information. If you can’t read the English language, not my problem
    Apparently somewhere in my post you are having delusions of seeing me write that the key to seattle is the deep ball. Please point out where you read that nonsens

  37. 37 MCD said at 6:22 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    You wrote an entire paragraph about it without saying it explicitly. It’s called an inference. Nope, can’t find anywhere you said it was the key. Just 150+ words about the difficulty of running an offense against SEA without respect for the deep ball.

    And then you jump down his throat because he used the word “key”? SMH.

  38. 38 bill said at 8:06 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Yep. That’s why I’m worried about the offense in a big way this weekend. I think SEA’s secondary is perfectly setup for locking down the short /middle of the field passing game. If Sanchez can’t get the ball downfield, this team’s going to struggle big time to sustain drives. Shady can have a great game against SEA and still just hit around 100 yds for the day. Sanchez is going to have to show he can throw deep and outside for the offense to be effective.
    On the flip side, I can see the ‘Hawks struggling to move the ball on the Eagles’ D. Wilson can struggle if asked to do too much through the air, and if you can hold Lynch in check, Wilson hasn’t been able to consistently lead the offense to scores.
    This is likely to be Tommy’s “ugly” game; first team to 14 points wins.

  39. 39 mksp said at 1:23 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    You act like Foles was throwing the ball deep successfully.

  40. 40 Jamie Parker said at 7:04 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I don’t want QB’s coming here on 1 or 2 year contracts all the time. I want a regular QB we can rely on for years. Even if he’s average at least we’d have continuity. He needs to learn the offense and then run the offense. If we have a QB carousel then the offense will always be limited because they’d never have enough time to put into it.

  41. 41 shah8 said at 1:36 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Then don’t fall in love with backup caliber QBs all the time, as a fanbase…

  42. 42 GermanEagle said at 7:08 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Christian Ponder – The anti Quarterback. As good as Chippah is, but I cannot see how his magic would work with Ponder.

  43. 43 Mitchell said at 9:51 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I would take a shot at Bradford and Locker. I agree about staying away from Ponder and probably RGIII as well.

  44. 44 D3FB said at 10:55 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I’ll pass on Locker. He’s had 1 season in college and pros with a completion % over 60. The fundamentals are so bad that it would be a full year teardown before you could even look at fixing his issues.

  45. 45 CSA said at 2:16 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Ponder’s strengths coming out were accuracy and intelligence. Those are the two things that Chip values the most.

    His weaknesses were arm strength and reads.

    I obviously don’t know the guy but this sounds like the ideal type of QB for Chip to rehab. The obvious question with Ponder is whether he is too badly damaged at this point. He never should have been a Rd 1 pick but the guy does have some nice tools that fit with Chip’s system. Throwing him in Minnesota and expecting him to be a starting and winning QB right off the bat was absolute craziness.

  46. 46 Jamie Parker said at 7:08 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    That crap we saw last night is a prime example of why you don’t want to be 1 dimensional on offense. I think the Jets threw 4 passes beyond the line of scrimmage. If you never throw the ball during the course of the game, then it becomes almost impossible when you have to. Say what you will about Geno Smith, but he was set up for failure last night.

  47. 47 Buge Halls said at 11:11 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    That was Ryan having a temper tantrum and not calling passing plays!

  48. 48 Poppi said at 7:09 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    QBs will come after Chip. If Sanchez finishes strong, will he realize its all becasue of Chip and the scheme and the amazing talent around him and want to stay even if its in a battle for the starting job? That’s my guess. If he gets offered huge money, he should probably go, but not sure there will be a surge for him because the other team would recognize the same thing, that he likely won’t change a team’s fate on the strength of his talent alone.

  49. 49 Poppi said at 7:11 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    BTW, same with Maclin – he should stay and enjoy the ride

  50. 50 Jamie Parker said at 7:21 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    When you’re as good as Maclin, you’re not going along for the ride, you’re there to make a difference. I get the point though. I’m biased, but if I’m Maclin I see that I have a chance to be an all time Eagle great.

  51. 51 GermanEagle said at 7:16 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    The game against the Seahawks will decide the No. 2 seed and a first round bye in the playoffs.

    While home field looks to belong to Green Bay, I can see the Cardinals crashing down the line with the Sea winning the NFC West.

    Thanks to the tie breaker being on the line this Sunday might even carry more importance and playoff implications thank our happy meal on Thanksgiving.

    If Sanchez looks good against the best Defense in the NFL carving out a nail biter victory I have total faith in the Eagles going all the way back to Lambeau again.

    Eagles 20, Seahawks 17.


  52. 52 Ramiroquaaii said at 7:49 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Seahawks is a big game thinking in Playoffs, but more importante than that was winning against Niners and/or Cardinals.
    We would be at least 2 games ahead them and pratically guarantee a bye in the Offs.

    I’m still have faith that Lions can beat GB in Week 17.
    GB with home field advantage could be ugly for the rest of the NFC.

    And I can already imagine us to beat them on the NFCCG in Philly haha

  53. 53 Avery Greene said at 8:34 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I’m hoping on the Bills, but their offense isn’t that good.

  54. 54 GEAGLE said at 9:44 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Doesn’t really matter that the bills offense sucks. Bills have zero percent chance of winning a shoutout vs. GB or winning a 24-21 game against GB.
    If the bills beat GB it will be because Marcel dareus, Jerry Hughes, Mario Williams, Kyle Williams.. Put a 60 minute BEATDOWN on aaron Rogers… For the bills to win, it has to be a defensive struggle where the bills win 14-10 or some low score….. The only way the bills can win, is to play Defense so well, that the GB offense gets completly shut down…… That’s how the Lions beat GB earlier in the year… I give Bills a chance because their defense is badass, and GB is very different team on the road….

    But I like the Lions chances because they have more ways they can beat GB.. For example, the lions put a physically BEATDOWN on GB early in the season and beat them in a low scoring dog fight….Lions can win an ugly physical dogfight game, but unlike the Bills, Stafford and Calvin could get hot and compete with GB in a shoot out game…..lions also have the wacky division dynamic on their side…

    Only problem is Detroit hasn’t won in Lambeau since like the early 90s….

    Bills and Lions are our only hope… With that said, I wouldn’t be surprised if a physocal team that can run the ball, and shut down the run like Seattle or San Fran, going to Lambeau and upsetting the Pack in the playoffs

  55. 55 P_P_K said at 10:19 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Eagles by 3, but 23-20.

  56. 56 Tyler Phillips said at 8:02 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Seattle gas played trash offense after trash offense as of late. It’s less the greatness of their D alone, as it Ben a couple of God awful offenses the last couple weeks. I mean Arizona only mustered 10 offensively vs the falcons dumpster fire D the week after they played Seattle. I don’t think our O will be as ugly people are expecting.

  57. 57 ceedubya9 said at 10:17 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Very good point. It will be interesting to see who is more for real: Seattle’s D or Philly’s O. That will be the story of the game.

  58. 58 ICDogg said at 10:49 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Arizona looks like they’re Kotiting…

  59. 59 Ark87 said at 11:11 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I think Washington wins that award this year.

  60. 60 CSA said at 12:12 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I can’t begin to tell you how much I love this!

  61. 61 Michael Winter Cho said at 9:07 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    They were due for the clock to strike midnight, plus they lost their starting QB.

  62. 62 Nicodemus_09 said at 5:41 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Hmmm… I find your ideas intriguing & would like to subscribe to your newsletter. 🙂 In all seriousness, I really hope you’re right!

  63. 63 MattE said at 8:44 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Tommy: you know what else occurred to me last night? What if Rex came to Philly to coach defense… think about it, the Ryan bloodline, two mastermind coaches (respectively on their side of the ball), the players coach with Rex and the straight shooter Chip. Just pipedream stuff (plus Billy Davis is wearing on me). But just imagine….. haha.

  64. 64 Avery Greene said at 8:46 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I like Davis and think he’s done a remarkable job with this group. But I look at that GB game and I know Rex wouldn’t have game planned to have Rodgers beat them rather than Lacy.

  65. 65 GEAGLE said at 8:48 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Doesn’t matter who the QB is that you are facing, everyone will always want to stop the run first and foremost..

  66. 66 Avery Greene said at 8:49 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    In some cases, that’s not the thing you want to focus on. Your dline is good enough to do both, but the LBs and secondary should be focusing on Rodgers. He’s that good. Just like Brady, Manning (Peyton), and Luck.

  67. 67 GEAGLE said at 8:53 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Even if you are facing the best QB in the history of the game, he is harder to shut down if his run game is working and you don’t know if he is running or passing… Even against a great QB, you want to take his run game away to eliminate the guess work for your DL, let them pin their ears back and get after the QB

    When you get to January, every team is focused on implementing their run game, and stopping the other team from running, doesn’t matter who the QB is.
    And. Think people are getting too carried away with the notion that Billy was focused on stopping the run against GB, I interpretted as he was just talking about how he expected GB to start the game, he didn’t go into that game thinking they would try to run all game instead of pass

  68. 68 Avery Greene said at 8:59 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I understand teams want to get their run game going, but some teams can’t because they’ve been one-dimensional all year long (i.e. Denver). Our front 7 is legit enough to play the pass, but still get up for run support. Maybe some more jams on the line to give our dline/LBs more time to get to Rodgers.

    I think it was just a bad game all around. There were a few factors I think that led to that whipping. They were really caught flat-footed at the beginning and it just spiraled out of control.
    1 – They expected them to try to start the game running, but Rodgers saw mismatches in the secondary and took advantage of it.
    2 – Sanchez felt I guess that it was on his shoulders and tried to go score for score w/Rodgers. Bad idea.
    3 – It was either Dawkins or Westbrook that talked about not being prepared for the field and using the wrong cleats. Interesting theory because they talked about that on the broadcast.
    4 – Our offensive line wasn’t gelling at that point, so it was tough for Shady to really get going.
    5 – Special teams played poorly until late.

    If we see them again, I think it’ll be a different game. We may lose, but I don’t think we’ll get beat like that again.

  69. 69 GEAGLE said at 9:51 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I don’t disagree,
    Dawk was the one that blamed the Lambeau wet field, saying it’s always been a really slippery field when wet. His argument was that when the weather makes the ground slippery, it effects speed teams the most…when you are slipping and sliding like that, you have to switch to a POWER Attack (think second half vs the Lions in the blizzards running the ball down the lions throat)… But that we are built for speed, dont really have a big power attack to switch to (at the time, our OL wasnt in top form yet)
    A lot of issues factored into to getting our asses handed in Labeau, but that was just 1 game, 1 week…. Since then, we have looked very different than what we saw in Lambeau…
    …I’d rather go to seattle, instead of Lambeau…with that said, can’t be afraid to go anywhere. I’d prefer avoiding Lambeau, but if we have to go there, I don’t know if we win, but I’m sure it will look ,u u different than the last game

  70. 70 suthrneagle said at 10:50 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Part of Sanchez`s problems were the two helmet shots he got on the first two sets of downs (that were mentioned by the guys on tv), that should have been but were not called. Both penalties would have sustained the drives and changed the game completely.
    The Eagles were screwed by the guys that are supposed
    call the game by the rules,but didn`t. He (Sanchez) was playing dazed and confused for rest of the game.

  71. 71 Jarock said at 2:14 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    And yet, Davis chose to stop Brees in the playoff game against the Saints only to watch them run it down our throats. I tend to think it was the right choice, then, even though we lost that game. I’m surprised slowing Rodgers wasn’t more of a priority and I’m depressed that we never adjusted in the GB game.

  72. 72 GEAGLE said at 8:47 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Billy Davis is wearing on you? I don’t understand how anyone can be anti billy right about now. But, ok…

  73. 73 Avery Greene said at 8:50 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I have to agree. He got schooled in the GB game (but so did the whole team/coaching staff), but has been solid throughout the year. For the first 6-7 games, this unit is what held us in games (besides the special teams).

  74. 74 GEAGLE said at 8:54 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Bet he will be a head coach in 2-3 years. He will definitely get his shot down the line, as will Shurmur again

  75. 75 Mitchell said at 9:49 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    It’d be nice if they were content enough here that they didn’t want to.

  76. 76 Ark87 said at 9:54 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    A lot of the great ones seem to, Dick Lebeau, Jim Johnson. Stick with it, master your craft, become great. Don’t piss it away like Spags. But as exceptional people tend to be (by definition)…they are the exception to the rule.

  77. 77 Mitchell said at 9:55 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Poor Spags 🙁

  78. 78 D3FB said at 10:51 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Lebeau was the Bengals head coach from 2000-2002

  79. 79 Ark87 said at 11:10 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    hah, didn’t know that, seems like it’s been Marvin Lewis since 1967

  80. 80 fran35 said at 10:20 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Book it. Billy Davis has done a good job turning a staunch 4-3 defense into a functioning 3-4. Plus, he’s a very likeable guy and we’ll spoken. He may not even last 2 or 3 yrs before he’s gone. Although I get the feeling he will not just run to the first head coach opening thst offers. He’s been there and knows he cannot work for a Dan Snyder type.

  81. 81 A_T_G said at 8:56 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    From the context, I think he misused the phrase. He seems to be implying that his opinion of Davis is improving. At least, that is how I read the comment.

  82. 82 MattE said at 9:10 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Very few people know that the internet is Spanish for literal context of every letter known to man, haha. Billy has his limitations with personnel, I’m just saying the defense has improved on a weekly basis in my opinion since he got here, not world beaters, but better than last year.

  83. 83 Avery Greene said at 9:12 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    True dat.

  84. 84 eagleyankfan said at 9:18 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    “limitations with personnel” covers about 90% of the nfl…

  85. 85 ceedubya9 said at 10:21 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Yeah, Billy’s unit has done very well this season and kept all of this season’s games except 1 winnable.

    I can’t fault Billy’s D when they’ve handed the game to the Offense on a silver platter just to end up back on the field after a quick 3 and out. They’ve had their brain fart moments here and there, but they’ve played out of their minds more often than not, along with a dominant special teams unit, while the offense has underperformed at times.

  86. 86 CrackSammich said at 9:15 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Considering we’re talking about *backup* QBs, a point which I think most everyone misses in these conversations, the only one of your list (Sam Bradford, RG3, Christian Ponder and Jake Locker) that I wouldn’t want is RGIII. I don’t think he’s been humbled enough to want to play backup. He will be looking to start, and I don’t want this team falling prey to the fools gold that is his athletic abilities if he never figures it out.

  87. 87 fran35 said at 10:16 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I think Sam Bradford could still turn out to be a good nfl QB. Ponder is horrible IMO. still can’t read and nfl defense and is not good under pressure.

  88. 88 Andy Six Score and Four said at 11:56 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Bradford is even more of an injury risk than 63 year old Mike Vick at this point.

  89. 89 fran35 said at 1:23 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Not arguing that point. I just think that he is young enough that if he gets lucky and playing in the right offense, he might be a decent QB. But you are right about the injury bug. But other players have been written off because of chronic injuries and then finally overcome the numerous injuries to put together a solid career (Correll buckhalter, derrick burgess)

  90. 90 Jarock said at 2:09 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Only problem with that theory is, would you want to role the dice by putting Bradford in an important position (even backup qb is extremely important), knowing how fragile he’s been? I agree that he’s talented, but between injuries and mediocrity, I wouldn’t touch him.

  91. 91 fran35 said at 2:35 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Not saying the Eagles give him a huge contract or even pursue him, but what if he signs a Sanchez type one year deal to compete with foles next year? I have no problem with that scenario.

  92. 92 Jarock said at 2:41 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I’d be scared that someone would breathe on him wrong and suddenly we’re starting Barkley again. Matt might actually develop into a quality QB, but the coaching staff’s lack of faith in him after two years in the system is fairly damning. The same system that made Nick look like a future HOF while making Vick and Sanchez look like quality QBs. Playing the risk reward game is great at positions where you have five plus guys competing for playing time. Relying on a guy with a heavy injury history at a crucial position where realistically, you only want one guy to play all year seems like a bad use of resources.

  93. 93 CSA said at 12:10 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Locker is a definite no. He has never been accurate despite his physical gifts.

    Ponder is a maybe. Bradford is a yes. Bradford would be a better version of Sanchez in my opinion.

    RG3 is a resounding yes. I’d love to see him come in and compete but only if he agrees to be a system QB. Thus far his NFL pedigree is to run around like a headless chicken. That’s awesome til the chicken dies. I’d love to see his gifts in a read-option situation where he actually is willing to slide at the end of it.

  94. 94 GermanEagle said at 1:40 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I really cannot understand why Locker is a definite no with Ponder being a maybe. Have you ever watched both guys play???

  95. 95 CSA said at 1:50 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I’ve watched plenty of Locker. The book on him coming out of college was that he was inaccurate but tough and mobile. That hasn’t really changed and it does not mesh well with what Chip requires in a QB.

    I don’t really have a solid feel for Ponder. Accuracy as a prospect wasn’t really his problem. He threw a nice and catchable ball but had trouble with reads. I didn’t watch him much with Minnesota though. I was making the assumption that the system part of it was possibly fixable with him.

    So your point is well taken. Fair enough?

  96. 96 anon said at 1:56 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    i’d take a matt cassel

  97. 97 GermanEagle said at 6:40 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Fair. Enough.

  98. 98 botto said at 12:48 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    the funny thing is he doesn’t really have athletic abilities anymore. he isn’t fast, he cant throw and won’t run, arm is average.

  99. 99 CrackSammich said at 1:53 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    While I haven’t been paying attention to his mechanics much this year, last year he was very hesitant to step into his throws. I’d assume by his poor play, he’s not doing that this year, either, but again, I don’t know. I assume that’s where the arm strength comments come from, and I’m sure it could be fixed/improved with time. As far as his speed… He’s clearly got enough speed to be a threat still. (If Foles can…) The kid has a definite case of the David Carrs though. He panics in the pocket.

  100. 100 eagleyankfan said at 9:16 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    If you’re a GM and your sitting there thinking “Gee, look at Mark play I have to have him” well, you’re a terrible GM. Mark didn’t all of sudden start playing like this. Chips system allows Mark to thrive. Unless Chip follows Mark somewhere, he’s not a QB any GM should be going after…

  101. 101 GEAGLE said at 9:22 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    FOles, mark and probably Barkley will all be back next year….

  102. 102 eagleyankfan said at 9:23 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Agreed. If I’m Mark — this is a GREAT situation in Philly — I’m staying.

  103. 103 Avery Greene said at 9:23 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Why not go for your 2nd superbowl with the same team?


  104. 104 P_P_K said at 10:17 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    That’s right!

  105. 105 GEAGLE said at 9:55 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    You hear mark often talk about how much “fun” he is having. He sounds like an overjoyed kid rediscovering love for the game he lost in New York… It sticks out, because you don’t often here a player talking about how much fun he is having… …
    Mark also probably knows THAT if we are going to win a SB, both QBs will have to contribute at some point. If Mark chooses to stay in Philly one more year, it’s not like the starting offers won’t be there the following year.

    I just get the impression that Sanchez feels like he died and went to heaven, and that he won’t be ready to leave us after the season… I’d bet he is here ATleast thru next season, even as a backup

  106. 106 fran35 said at 10:14 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Plus, he seems to really like the chicken tenders served at the Linc.

  107. 107 MattE said at 3:28 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Gotta give credit where it’s due. The chicken tenders at the Linc are good lol.

  108. 108 anon said at 1:03 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    yup he already got paid twice

  109. 109 mksp said at 1:29 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    It’s really adorable how you believe these feel-good abstractions will override $ and the opportunity to be a starter.

    Mark may be back but it will be at an $8 MM – $9 MM number, not $2 MM, and he’ll be given a chance to compete with Nick.

  110. 110 Scott said at 12:56 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Money talks.

  111. 111 scratcherk said at 9:58 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Is there any way we can get something of value for Sanchez? Tender/tag then trade?

  112. 112 Ark87 said at 10:06 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    probably not. It would take some maneuvering on our part and any impediment will likely chase away any opportunities for Mark. He’s earning himself an audition year as a starter right now (a low-risk multi-year contract with very little guaranteed somewhere). I think every organization has to be skeptical of how much of this growth is from the system, and wonder where in the spectrum between 2012 Jet’s Sanchez and 2014 Eagle’s Sanchez would he fall on as the starter for their team. I think Mark would love to just have to opportunity to go somewhere and get that second chance, even with no commitments to him, to be a starter somewhere. Who knows, maybe that’s here, but I have doubts.

  113. 113 Jernst said at 11:32 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Yea, I’d be very wary of signing Sanchez if I were another team. This is a system that made Foles (who I’m not trying to slight at all here, because I legitimately think he’s a good QB) look like a future hall of famer. And Sanchez, while he’s looked good and has definitely played well, hasn’t exactly put up other worldly numbers. Even if you think the system has only slightly enhanced his numbers, how much would you be chomping at the bit for a QB who you’d expect to be at the very least slightly less impressive than what Sanchez has been for us this year. That would be pretty mediocre QB play.

  114. 114 D3FB said at 10:46 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I don’t think you’re allowed to tag anyone who is on a one year contract.

  115. 115 ICDogg said at 10:47 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Even if you can, that’s a hell of a cost

  116. 116 D3FB said at 11:00 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Exactly no team is trading for him if he would cost them 18 million dollars next year.

  117. 117 Insomniac said at 11:22 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I see Sanchez going to the Bengals or Vikings next year.

  118. 118 Bert's Bells said at 12:12 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Yeah, a team without a QB who’s picking in the 8-18 range and wants a stop gap player.

  119. 119 mksp said at 1:30 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Bridgewater is the Vikings starter.

    Buffalo, Tennessee, Houston, St. Louis, Tampa Bay are all more likely.

  120. 120 Buge Halls said at 11:18 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I expect the Tag goes to Maclin if they can’t work out a deal. I also expect that Riley Cooper will be cut lose to give that money to Maclin to help make a deal. I think that under the new CBA, they can’t trade a tagged player.

  121. 121 Anders said at 12:41 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Why not just sign Sanchez to a team friendly deal? I really doubt Sanchez will demand a ton

  122. 122 MaggieMagpie said at 12:21 AM on December 3rd, 2014:

    Sanchez may not be perfect, but he has brought the speed to Chip’s high-speed offense.

  123. 123 A_T_G said at 3:06 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    The tag would be the average of the highest salaries at his position. Sanchez would be untradeable at that price.

    Besides, we did get some value for him. We got these wins because he is the backup. If he moves on next year, both sides won.

  124. 124 suthrneagle said at 4:03 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Don`t know about that…hard to replace a back up that does what Sanchez is doing. He`s an asset now.Need to think him as such, and treat him accordingly.

  125. 125 GermanEagle said at 10:19 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    If we lose to the Seahawks on Sunday, we will have to play at least one playoff game in Seattle and/or Green Bay…

  126. 126 ICDogg said at 10:46 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Yep… and the Seahawks have been on fire the last few weeks. This game is a test to see where we are (gulp, we said that about the Packers a few weeks ago)

  127. 127 Avery Greene said at 11:30 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    BUT!!! We are at home, and we’ve seen across the league (sans Dallas) that it makes a huge difference.

  128. 128 Jernst said at 11:22 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Tommy, you’re usually so spot on, but I gotta say, buddy, we’ve been winning ugly all year. We’re 9-3 dispite having no oline, shitty QB play, leading the league almost in turnovers and a struggling run game until just recently. But, you are right in the sense that we haven’t seen us win a defensive struggle type of game where we don’t put up points. It’s pretty incredible how we always score at least 24 points even when the offense looks like crap.

    In my opinion though I have more faith in this time to win a defensive battle than any former Eagles team I’ve ever routed for. This is of course assuming the are Jekyll and Hyde defense equally shuts down the opposing teams offense. The reason being is that our team has an uncanny ability to score in so many different ways. If neither offense can score, I have more faith in our special teams coming up big than any other squads special teams.

    I actually think we match up well w the Seahawks. Their defense can shut anybody down and our offense very well may struggle. But, defensively our guys can handle Russel Wilson and Beast Mode. They really don’t have any other offensive weapons. I just can’t see them scoring more than 17 points on us in a tight game and as good as their defense is I can’t see them holding us to less than 20.

    This is another game were tempo will be our best friend. Seatle had so much success on defense recently due to the waves of depth that they were able to platoon out there. They lost a lot of that depth with the standard free agent pilfering of their super bowl squad, they’re traveling across country and their defense is used to staying off the field with their run based offense.

    I figure they’ll sell out to stop the run, expect their outside corners to shut down our outside WR one on one and use Earl Thomas to limit any deep passes by patrolling the deep middle. They’ll dare Sanchez to beat them with his arm and he will oblige them by hitting TEs and JMatt all day long behind their attacking LBs and single deep safety. This would be an opportune time for Ertz to reemerge as the weapon we know he can be. If I’m chip I go two TEs early, hope they counter by trying to stuff the run and then pepper them with intermediate passes to the TEs. Just tell Sanchez that under no circumstances is he to throw an out pattern to Shermans side of the field and we should put up enough points to squeak by an offense that really doesn’t scare me.

  129. 129 mtn_green said at 11:42 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I’m with you eagles have won ugly all year. First three games down by 17 points before comeback.
    Defense making ‘just’ enough stops to win. So many games opponent has had a a chance in fourth to take lead, sometimes more than one chance.

    9ers game offense didn’t score a point, defense and ST put up 21, that is a dirty game, not a win though.

  130. 130 mtn_green said at 11:39 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    NFL GM’s are not thinking “wow I need Sanchez” the gm is thinking “wow I need chip, or his assistant, or his scheme from a college coach, look how good he made buttfumble look.”

  131. 131 Andy Six Score and Four said at 12:17 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Don’t underestimate the stupidity of some NFL GMs.

  132. 132 Ben Hert said at 1:06 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    to tag along:

    There are GMs out there who thought “Wow, I need to spend a first round pick on Christian Ponder/Blaine Gabbert.”

    I don’t think teams wanting a sharp looking Sanchez is out of the question.

  133. 133 Sean Stott said at 2:17 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Blaine Gabbert was universally considered to be worthy of a high first rounder. He has all the physical tools.

    Hindsight is 20/20

  134. 134 MaggieMagpie said at 12:19 AM on December 3rd, 2014:

    So was Danny Watkins.

  135. 135 MaggieMagpie said at 12:18 AM on December 3rd, 2014:

    Especially the Jets.

  136. 136 Anders said at 12:40 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Over on SBnation, they run “who would you pick from the other team” and other teams have quite often picked Kelly over any player.

  137. 137 anon said at 12:41 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    yeah doubt anyone is really enamored with our skill position guys other than shady. People understand it’s the coach that should get paid not the players.

  138. 138 Anders said at 12:42 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Peters, Mathis, McCoy, Maclin, Ertz, Celek, Kelce and Johnson have all been mentioned on offense. Some blogs have also said Graham, Cole, Barwin or Cox (two years running now)

  139. 139 Jarock said at 2:01 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I’m with you, Anders. Eagles have talent and had it under Reid as well. Chip has done a wonderful job of getting that talent to play like a team, but we shouldn’t sell that talent short.

  140. 140 Andy Six Score and Four said at 11:52 AM on December 2nd, 2014:

    So does low scoring game = ugly now?

  141. 141 Andy Six Score and Four said at 12:12 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    This has pretty much been addressed in other comments. Never mind.

  142. 142 iceberg584 said at 1:04 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Yeah, I’d say that our win over the Redskins would qualify as ugly.

  143. 143 botto said at 3:20 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    that win was a classic!
    tough division game with nick coming through in the clutch.

  144. 144 Ark87 said at 12:54 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    So I was feeling like every team we beat has gone on to tank and discredit our victories. Teams like the Jags, Redskins, and NYG all faced us with hopeful seasons and have each bottomed out in a big way since. Redskins played us when they were 1-1, Giants came in 3-2 before we kicked off a 7 game losing streak.

    So I went ahead and did some research on all the teams we beat excluding the losses we dished out to discover the before we beat them record and after we beat them record. I took out the Jags because the had no previous record and Cowboys as they have no prior record.
    Combined records of teams before they lost to Eagles:
    14-23-1 or a .37 win rate
    after losing to the eagles
    16-23 or a .41 win rate

    4 of the teams in the sample went on to tank, 3 went on to bounce back and improve their win rate (floated by the Colts).

    So really overall the teams we beat are doing better after we beat them, so the perception was a false one.

    Anyway, excluding our games against our opponents,
    The teams we beat (including jags and cowboys) have a cumulative record of:
    40-58 .41 win rate

    The teams we lost to:
    22-11 .67 win rate

    I’m curious what the league average is, I wonder if the disparity is as big for most teams.

  145. 145 A_T_G said at 3:22 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Wait, I am confused. First you said you had an anecdotal perception of the way you thought things were, and so you shared that perception with us. I was with you there.

    Then, you gathered data regarding this perception? Why? You already had a perception, why cloud the issue with numbers and data? Just say what you think is happening confidently, loudly, and repeatedly. That way you can be assured you are correct.

    To compound your problem, you changed your narrative to match what this data showed? Don’t you know anything? If the data doesn’t match your perception, you suppress, ignore, dismiss, and discredit the data, in that order. At no point do you allow anyone to sway your perception based on data, even worse to do it to yourself! If the data looks convincing you are simply not being loud or repeated enough about your initial perception.

    After all, where would we be if we allowed facts and data to interfere with our perceptions? Our flying cars would never travel at top speeds because the machines doing our work for us wouldn’t face any emergencies that required us to rush about. And who would want that?

    Who, I ask?


  146. 146 D3FB said at 3:49 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Bullshit baffles brains.


  147. 147 Ark87 said at 4:02 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Sorry, I had something of an episode, must have eaten something funny. I’m feeling better now. Will get back to trying to aggressively take over people’s opinions will volume, caps, and pure force of conviction.

  148. 148 Mac said at 3:34 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    We’re more likely to beat a team with a lot of losses than a team with a lot of wins. Interesting… on a more serious note, I appreciate the leg work you did here and agree more work would be needed to see if this is a league wide trend among top teams or if the Eagles are an anomaly. I expect a spreadsheet by tomorrow at 11:00 am.

    *edit: or a photo of a large cork board with pictures and different colors of string connecting them together if that’s more your style.

  149. 149 Ark87 said at 3:38 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I just feel like wins and losses are typically a little more random, like the rams

  150. 150 Mac said at 3:41 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    More of an “any given Sunday” kinda thing?

  151. 151 Ark87 said at 3:48 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    exactly. Also It seems like we’ve uniquely faces terrible teams or excellent teams. Hasn’t seemed like we’ve played many middle of the road teams.

  152. 152 anon said at 4:02 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    SF is a middle of the road team so are rams and cowboys — not sure we felt that way when we faced them though.

  153. 153 Ark87 said at 4:06 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Record-wise though cowboys and 49er’s are good teams. Talking about it from a data perspective an how it made for interesting results. They probably aren’t as good as their records as you say though.

  154. 154 iceberg584 said at 1:06 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Antoine Cason released by the Panthers. Can’t be any worse than Mr. Carmichael.

  155. 155 shah8 said at 1:43 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Panthers have a terrible defensive backfield. This is like Stephen Hill being released by the Jets.

  156. 156 A Roy said at 2:15 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I’m absolutely certain Joe Webb can be had.

  157. 157 GEAGLE said at 3:28 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Started of having a good year, and then completely nose dived… Similar to what Cortez did in Pittsburg, only difference is the panthers werent fooled into giving Cason a juicy extension before his game imploded the way the steelers were embezzled by Cortez

  158. 158 MaggieMagpie said at 12:14 AM on December 3rd, 2014:

    I KNEW somebody was going to start yelling for Cason. The Panthers were his FOURTH team. The Panthers! Please stop.

  159. 159 shah8 said at 1:30 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Please scratch Ponder and Locker off the list, thx.

  160. 160 Anders said at 2:31 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Hats of to Brian Solomon on twitter

  161. 161 Ark87 said at 2:47 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    that’s a gorgeous shot, nice share

  162. 162 Mac said at 3:40 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I hope the cowboys continue to use the single oline and a Rb as a blocking scheme. worked well on that play at least.

  163. 163 Jarock said at 2:36 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Tommy, I have to agree with much of the forum that the Eagles have won quite a few ugly games this season. You can certainly argue that our ugly is different than Miami’s ugly. Our ugly is usually 3 unforced turnovers and one or two deep balls that our defense is supposed to be designed to prevent, yet we somehow manage to win anyways. Jacksonville, Washington, and even Indy could be considered ugly wins. The thing that has impressed me most about the Eagles this season is that they are 9-3, yet every observer believes they could be playing so much better.

  164. 164 Mac said at 3:45 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    It’s because the team is a couple plays away from being 10-1. People that are optimistic are overlooking or not remembering the flaws of those wins. Everyone is remembering how close we came to beating the 49ers and Cardinals. In the end, I think the oddball stuff has pretty well evened out and 9-3 or 8-4 would be about right for this talented and well coached but sometimes flawed team.

  165. 165 Jarock said at 3:53 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Actually, I’m optimistic because of the flawed wins. I look back and see close games that would have been blowouts. I see close losses that could have been wins. Outside of the Indy game, I really don’t feel like the Eagles stole any of their wins. They won despite uneven play.

  166. 166 RobNE said at 3:51 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    top offensive minds….and Chip isn’t part of this? my god?!?!

    because it really takes a genius to lead an offense run by Peyton Manning or Rogers.

    just like Dallas’ OL is “league MVP”. The Eagles really do not get the respect they deserve.

  167. 167 Jarock said at 3:56 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Look at who’s mind he’s picking. Martz is part of the established ‘this is how we do things in the nfl,’ while Kelly is about as new-school anti-establishment as they get. Not that shocking that Martz would pick and choose three of the best traditional minds. He managed to leave Sean Payton off the list as well which is every bit as criminal.

  168. 168 RobNE said at 4:21 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    I agree but the writer or editor has to have some integrity and just add Chip into the mix. If anything I would say McCarthy is over rated because he has one SB while having Rogers on his team who is playing a tier above all other QB’s (even the other elite ones).

    Oh, but the website is run by Peter King so enough said. Maybe Chip didn’t give him a one on one interview recently.

    Let’s put it this way, if Chip had Rogers on his team we’d be looking at a three peat and then maybe Rogers playing some baseball because he was bored it had become too easy.

  169. 169 Avery Greene said at 3:58 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Good to keep staying under the radar. I’m afraid that will change when we beat the Seahawks this week. There’s zero respect for this team around the league’s different media markets.

  170. 170 GEAGLE said at 4:12 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    Anyone who thought that an OL with Ronald Leary can possibly be the best OL in the NFL is a jackass. if that PIGEON leary isn’t enough, they start friggin Doug Free at RT…

    I don’t even understand how this crap gets started.

  171. 171 RobNE said at 4:22 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    there was no talk of the Eagles OL being MVP when Shady won the rushing title and Nick went 27-2.

  172. 172 CrackSammich said at 7:34 PM on December 2nd, 2014:

    The Eagles barely get mentioned on some of the national news sites. It almost seems like Grantland intentionally ignores them, except when the Cardinals beat us. It’s a shame I can’t seem to find writers outside of our cocoon to see what the national opinion is, but at this point, you have to assume that all of them just don’t have enough time to make an informed opinion on everything.

  173. 173 unhinged said at 5:37 PM on December 3rd, 2014:

    This column got me thinking about the irony that Philly has a QB whisperer. The previous coach was hyped as a QB developer, and he pretty much abused every QB he started with his pass-happy delusions. Chip Kelly is a run strategist/scheme artist whose approach is kind to QB’s primarily because he has tons of pre-snap activity, has a no-huddle where he can talk to his QB while the latter is looking across the line of scrimmage, and, perhaps most important, he wants to run the ball… frequently.