Iggles Blog - Philadelphia Eagles Blog

Short-Cutting the Bears

(I mentioned a few weeks ago that I felt like my Friday game previews kind of sucked and that I wanted to try something else.  Here's something else.)

One part of the DirecTV NFL Sunday Ticket package I've never taken enough advantage of is the 30-minute "short cut" provided for each game during the week.  I've had my reasons for staying away ("Yes, honey, I am watching NFL football on a Tuesday night..."), but I think I've hit on a way to finally bring something to the table with my game preview columns:  watch the next week's foe and then write about what I saw.

I know, revolutionary.  Should have thought of this years ago.  

Anyway, on to five things I learned about the Bears from watching last week's game fast forward style:

1)  The Bears clearly should have won that game.  If that game had been played 10 times, Chicago would have won at least eight.  They controlled the clock, completely shut down the Bucs' running attack, and had maybe a dozen chances to put that away.  I lost track of the number of sure interceptions they dropped.  Even in overtime, Orton hit one of their receivers right at the TB 32-yard-line ... and the guy dropped the ball.  If not for a bunch of fluke occurrences and an inexplicable hot streak from Brian Griese, Chicago has a much prettier 2-1 record coming in to this game.

2)  Kyle Orton looks like a real NFL quarterback.  He doesn't look like a really good NFL quarterback, but he's certainly not tripping over himself back there.  Two things I noticed in particular:  1) he moves constantly in the pocket, never seems to get set, and throws almost every time off his back foot; and, 2) He plays the game kind of like Koy Detmer with a legitimate arm.  I swear I'm not saying that just because of the beard thing.  He really does look like Detmer back there, except that he can also get the ball downfield.

3)  The Bears' defense really jammed the line in this game.  Both Reid and Mornhinweg have mentioned this week that Chicago has changed some of the things it's doing on defense.  It was really noticeable in this game, as Chicago jammed all three linebackers -- and often even a safety -- up to the line of scrimmage, kind of like the way the Eagles did against Pittsburgh, but more so.  Unless it was almost a sure passing situation, they were stacking that box. 

(Note:  I'd be surprised to see Chicago play the Eagles the same way.  I'm sure it will be part of the package, but that's not Brian Griese standing back there.  You get too aggressive with this Eagles' offense and suddenly you're going to be doing a lot of chasing downfield.  With Westbrook either limited or out, I still think the way to defend Philly is just to keep everything in front and dare the other guys to make enough plays to beat you.)

4)  Matt Forte is a good looking running back, but the rushing offense as a whole doesn't look that dangerous.  I really like Matt Forte.  The guy is big, seems to have good vision, nice speed.  Really seems like the whole package, if perhaps a little oversized for your typical every-down back.  But the Bears' rushing statistics were ultimately pretty misleading, as 38 yards came on a fake punt and 21 yards were the result of six Orton scrambles.  Take those away and you have 30 carries for 99 yards between the two backs (mostly Forte).  It looks like a "plugging ahead" running game rather than a "big play" running game, so I don't expect to see the Eagles struggle too much with slowing it down. 

(Another Note:  I have been known to be wrong about these kinds of things before.)

5)  What is the %$#@! deal with Brandon Lloyd?  The guy had six catches for 124 yards last week and flashed the hands and playmaking ability that enticed the Redskins into dumping all that money into him a couple years ago.  That's three times the number of receptions he had all of last year.  Generally I'm a believer in the idea that situations make players, but really, Chicago?  Kyle Orton?  What is going on with this guy?  (Although he may not be 100 percent this week.)

Bonus Observation:  Not to sound like a broken record, but Eagles fans unsatisfied with the team's quarterback situation should really be forced to go back and watch the 101 passes tossed in this game by Griese and Orton.  They were both consistently good on the checkdown stuff, but beyond that, shweeooo.  We're talking guys being missed by five yards in all directions.  Ugly.

Eagles Screwed Up This FB Thing

I generally don't like to post this kind of thing heading into a big game, but a couple times already this season I've held off on writing predictions that quickly came to pass in the games.  So I'm getting this on the record.

I watched at least some part of every game in the league yesterday.  Literally.  With the Eagles not on, I turned on the game mix channel, pulled my chair within five feet of the television, and watched a league's worth of football.  Then I started to get a headache.

But anyway, I was struck yesterday by the number of plays made leaguewide by fullbacks.  Turns out those guys are actually kind of useful to an offense.  I know.  Who knew?

I was also struck by just how big fullbacks -- real fullbacks -- are.  These guys go 245 pounds.  And when they block a linebacker, they don't have to try to get tricky by taking him low or screening him out, they just knock the guy on his can. 

Yet the Eagles, who have one of the top three running backs in the league, clearly think fullbacks are fungible, staffing the position with a rotating collection of low draft picks, rookie free agents and practice squadders. 

Oh, and a "converted" halfback. 

Now, I realize the Eagles don't run that often with a fullback lead blocking anyway.  But still, for the times you do it every game -- especially down by the goal line, where having the extra man is pretty critical -- why not have a real fullback available to call on?

Remember back to 2003, when the Eagles had the three-headed monster?  Was it necessarily a coincidence that that was the year the Eagles had their best fullback of the Andy Reid era?

This is going to come back to the bite the Eagles at some point this year.  And there's no way Tony Hunt is the starting FB next year.

- - - - - -

Final note:  I don't think the argument that the Eagles tried to address the fullback position this offseason holds much water.  The guys they brought in (and then mostly cut) were a practice squadder, a rookie free agent, a career special teamer, a converted DT and a sometimes H-back.  Pretty sure they could have found someone with a bit more experience out there.

Just Play The Game Already

I'm done. 

After eight months of writing about what was, what was not, and what may be, I'm tired of making stuff up.  It's time for the games to start.

It's time for the analytical portions of our brains to slumber a bit while the reptilian pieces come to the fore.  Kill.  Destroy.  Win.

Here's my game preview for the Rams:

What I want to see from the defense -- Utter and complete domination.  A trail of broken bodies and dreams. 

The offense -- Blitzkrieg.  See 2004, early 2006.

Special teams -- Sav Rocca on the field holding for extra points.  No other appearances.

It's game time.  And because this is now practically tradition:

Plus a bonus:

Downside Only Game

Tonight's game against the Patriots is really not likely to tell us much that's positive.  On the defensive side of the ball, if we look good, well, the Pats happen to be missing someone a little more important than even Kevin Curtis.  And if, heaven forbid, Matt Cassel actually moves the ball on our guys, after a couple games when he didn't even look like he should be out there as a ball boy, well then we've got trouble.

On the other side, we'd all love to see the offense run fine without the two starting wide receivers.  That would be encouraging.  But the truth is that the Pats aren't going to be doing what they usually do on defense.  It will all be very vanilla, there won't be much scheming, and it's not going to be a great simulation of what's coming in the regular season. 

Of course, if the offense doesn't look good and the receivers seem to have some issues ... then I'm going to have to make sure my gmail account has room for all the "told you so" emails I'm going to get.  Don't let me down.

Other than that, as long as Rodney Harrison doesn't end anyone's season with another one of his dirty, cheap shots, I'll consider this a game survived, no matter how it turns out. 

So Then, Dallas

Unfathomably, I have a better feeling about this week's game against the Cowboys than I did about last week's game against the Giants.  This despite the fact that the Cowboys are easily the better team and there's every probability we could be in line for another TOMO-led whupping on Sunday afternoon. 

Four reasons I feel better this week:

1.  The Eagles play to the level of their competition.  This is a team that lost by three points each to New England (13-0), Green Bay (11-2), the Giants (9-4) and Chicago (5-8).  Only three games this season have been decided by double figures (Detroit, NYG I and DAL I).  That is consistency of a different kind, to be sure, but consistency nonetheless. 

2.  The first game was (slightly) better than we remember.  Lots of things didn't work out in that first Cowboys game, but remember that the game opened with a fumble on the first play and McNabb threw a boneheaded interception at the end of the first half.  Both turnovers offered free points to Dallas.  Put them aside, and while the game would still have been a whupping, it wouldn't have been as bad as it ended up.

3.  The defense was embarrassed by TO last time.  As much as Lito at TO are best buds and all, no one likes getting shown up by that preening little jackass.  Look for an entirely different defensive gameplan this time that focuses on taking away the middle of the field.  If Dallas wants to take shots, let it happen on the outside. 

Come to think of it, that would have been a nice thing to see last week, too...

4.  The season's over and who gives a crap.  Aaaaannnnddd... of course there's this, which might be the biggest factor of all.  Winning is gravy, losing only reaffirms what we already know. 

Clinging to the Feeling

The last three weeks have been kind of a fun time for Eagles fans.  If there was a "soft" part of the schedule, the two-game set against Washington and Miami was it.  The Pats game was played with house money -- anything short of utter annihilation would have been an OK result.

But this week we're back to the serious times.  The Seahawks, who never seem to get the attention their results would merit, are a good football team.  They have the 11th-ranked defense, the 11th-ranked offense and both the NFL standings and Football Outsiders have them as the ninth(ish)-best team in the league.  They've also won three in a row. 

If there's a silver lining, it's that the Seahawks haven't really beaten anyone good all season.  Of course, neither have the Eagles.

And while it's great that only six NFC teams have a better record than the Eagles, it's also true that only four are worse.  Also, a 3-5 conference record at this point isn't what you want to see when you're trying to figure out playoff positioning. 

That's the problem with getting yourself into must-win situations this early in the season.  If the Eagles win, yippee, they're a .500 ball club.  Lose, and we can pretty much turn out the lights.

I think that's why I've been trying to avoid thinking about Sunday's game.  I hope things go well ... but couldn't you see this being a game where A.J. suddely wakes up and realizes he's a career back-up, everyone lets down after the roller coaster ride of last week, and we get another one of those frustrating Linc performances where everyone kind of bumbles around waiting for the next guy to make a play?

I've got a bad feeling about this game.

Eagles / Patriots Game Preview

IgglesBlog Special Guest Preview

All right, injuries.  Sean Considine is on IR with his shoulder strain.  It's the same deal he's had repaired before.  Rick and his guys will be in there, doing their thing to get him back out there.  Q will step in there as the starter and I don't think it will be that big of a transition.  It's not things he's never done before

Lito should play, yeah.  We expect him out there.

As for Washington, they've got a good football team down there.  They're a little banged up in the secondary, but we expect whoever steps up in there will do a good job for them. 

Again, we look forward to playing the Washington Redskins.  This is our second go-around with them. We came up a little short on the first one and we know what kind of football team they are, how good they are.  They are a good football team, very solid in all phases.  It's important that we take care of business and get ourselves prepared to go down there and play a good football game against a good team.

This is a big game.  I don't think you can look past anybody in this league, is probably what Coach Gibbs is telling his team down there today. 

Time's yours.

On whether the Eagles plan to run the ball more this weekend:  I think we'll see how it goes out there.  Westbrook, you know, Westbrook will get his touches.  We've got a number for him and Marty really tries to hit that.  Beyond that, yeah, we'll see how it goes.

On if better offensive balance could help a struggling Donovan McNabb:  Look, Donovan, Donovan's doing ok out there.  I'm sure there are some throws he'd like to have back, but he's doing fine.  The knee looks good, he's moving around better and we think he'll continue to get better.  He just needs to string some throws together and get a good game in there.

On whether not answering the previous question means things aren't changing with the playcalling:  Look, you try to do some things out there and take what they give you and you move forward.  Like I said, we'll just have to see how it goes out there.

On whether "we'll see how it goes" actually means "no chance in hell":  Yes. 

On how the wide receivers will adjust to the press coverages they struggled with in the first game:  I'm not really going to get into all that, we've got some things we're going to try to do and we'll just let it play out there.

On rumors the receivers had something to do with all the injuries Washington has suffered in the secondary:  No, I don't get into all that with Reggie and Kevin and the voodoo dolls and stuff.  Not real big on needles these days.

On whether a healthy LJ Smith can be the difference this time around:  Any time you've got a great BZZZT really good BZZZT -- Joe, stop shocking me.  [glares offstage]  Like I said, any time you're missing a guy like LJ, yeah, it has an impact.  It will be on us to put him in a position where he can make some plays and potentially alter the coverage packages we're seeing

On how the Redskins wide receivers haven't caught a touchdown pass this season:  Yeah, I mentioned that up to Donovan last time he started talking about "weapons."

On whether the Redskins missing the entire starting right side of their offensive line changes the game plan on defense:  Jim's probably got some things he wants to do up in there, but you'd have to ask him about that.

On whether if Kearse doesn't have a big game this week it means it's never going to happen:  I'm not really going to get into all that.  [Looks at Joe.]

On whether he's considered putting guys in a bit better position to make plays:  Seriously?

On whether Eagles 16, Reskins 12 was a good guess at the final score:  These days, your guess is as good as mine.

It's Still About Romo

I'm sticking to my guns.  I said before the season that the path of the Cowboys this year would be determined by the play of Tony Romo.  And I was right.

I just didn't expect him to play so well.

Dammit.

The good news for Eagles fans is that Romo isn't perfect.  He's not Tom Brady or Peyton Manning.*  You can beat Romo if you follow the IgglesBlog's Three-Step Process for Taking Down Tony:

1. Jump on him early.

As befits a guy who likes to party with a truly remarkable range of women from Carrie Underwood to Britney Spears, Romo is a bit of a slow starter on game day.+  Check out Romo's situational stats this year and last year.  His passer rating in first quarters this year is 44.8.  Last year it was 69.8.  It's the same thing with attempts.  In his first 10 attempts this year he's at 62.0, last year it was 70.8.  This is for a guy who overall in his career is at 95.3. 

It reminds me a little bit of what used to be the book on Greg Maddux.  If he was going to make a mistake, it was going to come early, so you better jump on him in the first inning.

It's also not surprising (since Tony is almost certainly a Cowboys fan) that Romo is also a major front-runner.  His passer rating when his team is ahead is a phenomenal 131.0.  He's only thrown one INT in that situation.  But when the Cowboys are behind, he's at 75.3 with six INTs.  The same thing held true last year when he was 121.1/86.5. 

And what's maybe even more remarkable about those numbers is how few chances he's actually had to throw with a lead.  He has only 38 pass attempts with a lead, 86 while tied and 115 from behind.  I think Brady averages 38 pass attempts with a 14+ point lead every week.

So here's a question for folks who can stand to watch the Cowboys when the Eagles aren't on.  Has Dallas really been playing from behind so much this season or does Romo just hand off to Barber repeatedly when they're ahead?   

In either case, the best way to deal with Romo is to rough him up early, get a lead and make him play from behind, when he's not nearly as good.  We need another fast start, Don.

2. Keep him in the pocket.

Romo has only been sacked 11 times all season.  That's one fewer than McNabb against the Giants if you're keeping score at home.  He's a jittery little fella.

The thing about Romo is that it's not the sacks that bother him.  His worst game this season -- the five INT debacle/miracle against Buffalo -- came in a game when he wasn't sacked a single time, despite having 50 pass attempts. 

The key to stopping Romo isn't sacking him, it's keeping him in the pocket.  It's kind of funny actually, that the Eagles would be best-served by playing the exact same kind of defense that teams used to use against McNabb.  Keep him in the pocket and make him beat you with his arm, rather than scrambling and doing it with his legs.^ 

I think Romo is actually most dangerous when he's sliding to his right from the pocket.  He's not a particularly tall guy, so when he gets out there he's got a great view of the field and seems to love throwing while moving that way.  He just locks on Witten and waits for that big body to get open.

Jevon Kearse has to make sure he's not just tearing all the way upfield, opening up that running lane.  If he does, someone else needs to fill.  This is a week for the mush rush. 

With Lito healthy and Terry Glenn injured, try containing and covering and see how that works.

3. Stop the run.

This one isn't exactly brain surgery.  If you want to stop the Cowboys, you have to keep Marion Barber from piling up six yard gains.  The aforementioned Buffalo game was the only time this year Barber was held to fewer than 5.1 yards a carry. 

Last year, the Eagles did a mediocre job against Julius Jones in the first game, allowing him to pick up 100 yards on 26 carries.  In the second game, the Eagles held the two-headed monster to 41 yards on 16 carries, forcing Romo to beat them.  He couldn't. 

-----------------------------------------------------

* This satisfies by bloggorial obligation to say something about the most important competition ever in the history of sports, art or warfare.

+ Yes, I know the Britney story is supposedly overblown.  So what?  Can you imagine what your parents would say if they found out you were no longer dating Carrie Underwood -- who probably called his parents "sir" and "ma'am" and wrote adorable thank you cards -- and instead were hanging with Britney Spears?  "Um, she didn't have the kids with her at the bar, did she son?"

^ Yeah, this didn't always work against McNabb either.

Vikings Game Preview

For as long as I've been doing this blog, my operating principle in picking the games has been to take a look at what the other team does well, match it up with what the Eagles do poorly, and try to figure out how our guys could lose.

This approach has worked pretty well in the past, like just last week when I noted that the Eagles should be able to contain the Bears offense all day but I was particularly worried about how they'd do if they got into a situation at the end of the game where Griese had to drive 97 yards with no timeouts and a non-functioning helmet radio after stinking up the joint for the first 58 minutes of the game.

What can I say, I'm just that good.

However, in the ABC (After Bears Choke) era, I'm throwing my previous assumptions out the window.  The most important question is no longer, "Is there a way the Eagles can lose?"  It's now, "Is there a way they can win?"

Vegas seems to think there is, because even on the road the Eagles are ever so slight favorites.  It should, however, be noted that Vegas has been wrong about the Eagles almost as many times this season as I have.

Whether or not you think the Eagles can win this game probably comes down to how you feel about McNabb.  The defense has been solid this year, but hasn't been making the kind of game-changing plays that win games, rather than just keep you in them.  And as great as Brian Westbrook is, no one really runs against the Vikings.  Many teams don't even try.

So this one's on the quarterback. 

The thing about McNabb is that he really hasn't been that bad this year, despite his occasional struggles.  His numbers are better than any of the pre-TO years.  He hasn't been the one losing these games. 

Unfortunately, he hasn't been the one winning them either.  In almost every game this season (not against NYG) there have been a couple of plays he could have made to change the result, but just didn't.  And we've already discussed the whole leadership issue way too much around here this week.   

But when you're just looking at on-field performance, the fact remains that it's hard to put too much of that on McNabb.  If you're looking for the real culprits, Phil Sheridan does a pretty convincing round-up today in his piece calling out the Eagles' wide receivers:

First, the Eagles' passing game struggled because cornerbacks were jamming their wide receivers hard at the line of scrimmage, throwing off the timing.

Now we hear the Eagles can't get the ball down the field because defenses are playing soft, forcing Donovan McNabb to check down to Brian Westbrook or, gulp, Thomas Tapeh.

Too hard, too soft. Maybe, if the Eagles are lucky, the Minnesota Vikings will play them just right on Sunday.

And...

"We like to dictate," Eagles offensive coordinator Marty Mornhinweg said yesterday. "When we call some of our [downfield passing] shots, there are some times when it's just simply taken away."

So why aren't defenses taking away Randy Moss and Marvin Harrison, Donté Stallworth and Reggie Wayne? Why is it Tony Romo keeps finding Terrell Owens downfield? Are we to believe NFL defensive coaches go to great lengths to contain Kevin Curtis and Reggie Brown, but haven't figured out that Moss and Owens and Harrison are dangerous?

Amen.

Again, I don't want to scapegoat one guy for what's been a team-wide malaise, but if you're just looking at production it's hard to find a guy on the team who's been more disappointing than Reggie Brown.  It's not just that he hasn't made the leap -- it's that he's going backwards.  Through six games, Brown has 17 catches for 214 yards and no touchdowns.  Through six games last year, Greg Lewis had 12 catches for 198 yards and two TDs. 

Which is to say that if Reggie were the team's number four wide receiver, Brownie would be doing a heckuva job.

One of the issues with the Eagles' plan to lock up young players with long-term deals is that it puts you into an uncomfortable situation if those guys aren't playing that well.  If Brown were just a guy three years into his rookie deal, the pressure would be squarely on him to get things turned around.  But when they've got you locked up through 2014, then the pressure is on the team to realize its investment.

It's like that old saying goes, if you owe the bank a little money, they own you, but if you owe the bank a lot of money, you own them.

I understand why Reid believes he's got the right approach to winning.  By staying calm, keeping things in-house and avoiding panic moves, Andy's steered this team through plenty of troubled times and has a great deal of success to show for it. 

I just wonder what happens when "no finger-pointing" becomes "no consequences."  Jim Johnson certainly has no trouble ripping a guy off the field if he screws up.  Maybe things should work a little bit more that way on the offensive side too.  The next time an Eagles receiver drops a sure completion -- and I'm sure we won't need to wait long -- yank his butt and get someone else in there.  Like it would hurt to occasionally get the 6-4 high-jumper on the field when the story all year has been the Eagles receivers not winning their physical match-ups.

Heck, maybe Andy could even kick a little ass on the sidelines for a change.  The fire on this team has to come from someone.  Might as well be the coach.

The other issue the Eagles need to address if they're going to start winning some ballgames is the whole problem of playing tentative football.  I can't see Reid calling for a game-opening onsides kick against either his old assistant or the Cowboys (ouch), but something needs to be done to shake this stuff up.  Kicking away from Hester all last game may have worked out strategically (I don't think it did -- they gave up too much field position all game) but it definitely sent a terrible message to the team: "We don't think you guys are good enough to get the job done so we're just going to play it safe."

I was certain we were going to see the flea-flicker last week, given how focused the Bears were on stopping Westbrook.  Maybe this is the week that crazy Andy comes out to play again.  Go a little deeper in the playbook, throw a halfback pass, try something strange on special teams -- do SOMETHING so that other teams don't already know everything you ever plan to do all game.

I'm getting the wrap-it-up sign from the guy stage right and the music is starting to play, so I'll try to bring this most rambling of previews to a close.  Yes, I realize that once again I barely talked about the Vikings.  That's because I still can't shake the feeling that the problems for the Eagles all season have been mostly home-grown.  If they can't get out of their own way, it barely matters who the opponent is.

One way or the other, I just don't see this game being close.  I truly believe this team is in a very, very precarious position right now.  Facing a dominating running game and a stifling run defense, this might be the game when the team just packs it in.  If they don't come out playing smart and aggressive football, they're going to get rolled.  Half-time adjustments won't matter.  If that happens, in a must-win game against a mediocre at best opponent, we're officially starting the clock on not just Andy Reid, but also a lot of these players.

And yet, I don't think that's going to happen.  Yes, fool me this many times and I'm a !#$@& idiot, but I think the Eagles are going to dominate this one from start to finish.  I expect an inspired defensive effort that shuts down a one-dimensional offense and a lot of points against a poor pass defense.

Then next week we get to find out if the transformation was for real or just a one-week blip in a long season of discontent.