Thiebear Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 I've always said The iggles are Westbrook first... then Mcnabb.. It was evident last night... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epistopheles Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Any chance of them losing at home against SF next week and going 0-2? (Any chance of Brunell throwing for 300 yds. next week?) Look! Up in the sky! PIGS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 You're homering out man...watch it. :doh: Look who's talking! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 look up the numbers hehateme, i'll think you'll see your wrong. he played a bad game, not a career. Alot of his stats are skewed because of the talent of Westbrook. All of the little dump-offs and screens that WB turns into big gains make #5 look like a much better passer then he really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhodatSkinsFan? Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 I would love to hear WIP.... I know they were/ are going nuts!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSmithTheReal#36 Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Do you think McNabb might still be shaken up after that hit? I kept thinking if he was actually ok they would have came back and won. ATL has a solid D :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y100Rocks Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Savor the flavor. I think we all know it won't last long though... I hope you realize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeHateMe Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Alot of his stats are skewed because of the talent of Westbrook. All of the little dump-offs and screens that WB turns into big gains make #5 look like a much better passer then he really is. Another point I did not make. Thanks M51C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y100Rocks Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Bogus point. You could make that argument about anyone. Unless you can name a pro bowl quarterback with crap talent around him. If you'll notice, most if not all of the others have a teams that have big time running backs, and if not, still try to establish the run. Your reaching for something that isn't there. Don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom [Giants fan] Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Alot of his stats are skewed because of the talent of Westbrook. All of the little dump-offs and screens that WB turns into big gains make #5 look like a much better passer then he really is.[/Quote]Especially the one's that go backwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeHateMe Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Bogus point. You could make that argument about anyone. Unless you can name a pro bowl quarterback with crap talent around him. If you'll notice, most if not all of the others have a teams that have big time running backs, and if not, still try to establish the run.Your reaching for something that isn't there. Don't. The Eagles use the screen and passes in the flats to RBs just about more than any other team. Thats a fact. How many times and yards did it account for yesterday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Bogus point. You could make that argument about anyone. Unless you can name a pro bowl quarterback with crap talent around him. If you'll notice, most if not all of the others have a teams that have big time running backs, and if not, still try to establish the run.Your reaching for something that isn't there. Don't. Reaching? Please. Most teams actually have a true running game. The Eagles running game consists almost solely on McNabb throwing dumps and screens to WB. When he has to throw more than 10 yards he is extremely average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hail_to_Kessel Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 A great MNF game, was happy to see the iggles get beat and hope they continue to reside in the basement of the NFC East! Eventhough I love my Skins, I don't see the eagles being at the bottom of the east for long. They are too good to be down there. Then again, it's a long season and you never know! :eaglesuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlsbadd Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 The Falcons know that if you come out hard on Defense and smack Philly in the mouth they will fold. There are very few teams that are able to to this , hats off to the Falcons for playing so hard. Also, it seemed to me that TO wasn't playing with as much passion as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Man, where are all of the Eagle fans today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y100Rocks Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Reaching? Please. Most teams actually have a true running game. The Eagles running game consists almost solely on McNabb throwing dumps and screens to WB. When he has to throw more than 10 yards he is extremely average. No No No. Your not following what I'm saying. I saying that the eagles don't have a pounding running game. You didn't need to tell me what I just said as if you think your educating me... I'm saying, in the absense of that pound 'em style running game that Manning and Brady have, McNabb now has to throw the ball 45-50 times a game. He did it in the superbowl and he did it last night. When a quarterback is forced to do that against a team with a pass rush like those, its going to make anyone look bad. Now, as for your last point. Your just flat wrong. Didn't you notice the stat they brought up last night, where they said the eagles had more 40+ yard gains then ANYONE last season. And for that matter since 2000. And I'm going to guess that other team from 2000 was the greatest show on turf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y100Rocks Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 The Falcons know that if you come out hard on Defense and smack Philly in the mouth they will fold.There are very few teams that are able to to this , hats off to the Falcons for playing so hard. Also, it seemed to me that TO wasn't playing with as much passion as usual. This is another one of my favorites. If a defense comes out and plays very well, they might beat the eagles. OMG, you've figured out the master plan... Please, people just think about what your saying. Apparently the same rules don't apply to the rest of the league then they do for the Eagles today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeHateMe Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 No No No. Your not following what I'm saying. I saying that the eagles don't have a pounding running game. You didn't need to tell me what I just said as if you think your educating me... I'm saying, in the absense of that pound 'em style running game that Manning and Brady have, McNabb now has to throw the ball 45-50 times a game. He did it in the superbowl and he did it last night. When a quarterback is forced to do that against a team with a pass rush like those, its going to make anyone look bad.Now, as for your last point. Your just flat wrong. Didn't you notice the stat they brought up last night, where they said the eagles had more 40+ yard gains then ANYONE last season. And for that matter since 2000. And I'm going to guess that other team from 2000 was the greatest show on turf. Gee, and how many 40+ gainers did they have before T.O.? Check that stat out and get back to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y100Rocks Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 When he has to throw more than 10 yards he is extremely average. This is the comment I responded to. He didn't put a "TO doesn't count" qualifier on it. Sorry. Again. In order to prove a point against McNabb you need to go back in time to a point when McNabb had SIGNIFICANTLY less talent then other top tier quarterbacks thus why he himself looked worse then them significantly. Lets put it in other terms you can understand. Look at Kyle Boller. He has Derrick Mason, Todd Heap and Jamal Lewis at the skilled positions. And what has he done with them? So what is your argument about? TO, a very skilled wide out simply makes him look good. Whilst he is otherwise average. Then why can't Mason and crew do that for Boller? Oh wait, the quarterback might actually = half the connection between the concept of a reception. Man you guys are really on fire today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom [Giants fan] Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Since we are going to be excited about who is in last place after week 1, how about this? If the season ended today, the Giants, Skins, Lions, Falcons, Saints, Bucs, and 49er's would all be in the playoffs. (The Cowboys beat an AFC team so the other six have the tie breaker over them) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Man you guys are really on fire today. All I really know is this: I have watched McNabb consistently throw more balls into the turf/dirt, behind receivers or over their heads, than any other quality qb in the league. I DO feel that Donovan is a quality qb because of the skills that he posesses other than passing. However, I also think that he was a more effective one when there was at least the threat of him running. As a passer though he is nothing more then extremely average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 McNabb has great touch on the longball. Maybe the best in the league. What he really needs is to get on a roll. Unfortunately for us, he was on a great roll in the preseason and got punched last night and lost a lot of confidence. Once he gets "it" back, he will be very difficult to defend, as most of you realize after watching him kill you for so many years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard saunders Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 I'd say McNabb did look a lot more accurate last season (w/T.O.). Hopefully he goes back to the inaccurate moonwalking guy we all love to hate:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjmck172 Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 yeah, its always nice to look down at 5th place philly, for how ever long it lasts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Unfortunately for us, he was on a great roll in the preseason and got punched last night and lost a lot of confidence. The truly great ones don't lose confidence when they "get punched". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.