Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Myth: Eagles WRs won't be effective enough


Westbrook36

Recommended Posts

Over the months, I have read many times about how Greg Williams takes ordinary players and makes them stars in his defensive system. The results are undeniable. Which leads us to the question, how effective are schemes in making average players great, when everyone plays together.

Recently, I have read reply after reply about how the Eagles are going to struggle without TO and how there is not a true number one thus making this years offense bad.

As I normally do when confronted with convoluted logic, I did some research.

In 2002 the Eagles Offence averaged 25.9 points per game. In 2004, with Owens, the Eagles averaged 24.1 points per game.

Eagles WR roster 2002

David Foye

Sean scott

Freddie Milon

Carlos Johnson

Lawrence story

James Thrash

Freddie Mitchell

Na Brown

Gari Scott

Todd Pinkston

Wow, can't be, right? Maybe now you guys should just sit back and realize that in the WCO, there is not a need for a star WR. Solid players who know the system is key. By definition, the WCO exploits gaps in defenses who don't have enough defenders to effectively defend receivers. This is done a myriad of ways.

Eagles WR roster 2006

Gasperson

Jenkins

Ford

McCants

McMullen

Lewis

Brown

Pinkston

Gaffney

Simms

Allow me to shoot down basic arguments before they even get posted.

1. But the rush game was much better! Hmm, well Buck was injured for the year leaving Staley, Westbrook and Levens. This year, we'll have Westbrook, Moats and Perry. 2003 is when we had a ridiculous running offense. This years running game should be able to match the 2002 level.

2. But the defense was much better! Perhaps. I guess we'll see. Regardless, defensive prowless isn't a determining factor in scoring when your offense has the ball.

3. But McNabb is a choker and always injured! You are right. He was injured in 2002 for 6 games. When he plays, he alludes the rush and makes everyone around him better, QB rating and completion percentage be damned.

There you go. I just laid out the fallocy of one of the biggest board myths. I'll be signing autographs later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Redskins fans coming in 3.......2..........1.........

Not even worth it. Even if I were to point out all the holes in the argument, I would be labelled a homer and asked "do you even watch football?" So...I'll let someone else knock this softball out of the park. :) (EDIT: If its even worth it for someone else...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You forgot a couple things.

1. The running game was better because Staley is an excellent control the clock back. You have Westbrook who's good for 15 carries a game an some catches. He does most of his damage catching, not running. You're completely lacking any semblance of a power running game, something you had in 2002.

2. How the **** does the defense not afffect scoring? If the D is stingier, the opposing offense is on the field less, yours more. The field is shortened for you allowing more points in significantly less yards. That's not to mention whether the D gets in on the scoring, too.

3. Why the hell did they go get Owens in the first place if their scheme doesn't require a #1 WR?

4. Why are the Eagles so ****ing cheap that the pass up on the FAs they want because someone else offers a few dollars more? Don't they have at least 20 mil in cap room?

5. Last but most important point: WHY IS THEIR TROPHY CASE EMPTY?!?

:eaglesuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DC, you brought up a few valid points before you acended into smack talking. The lack of power running game would be more of a RB problem then a WR problem, correct? I thought the point of this thread was to show that you don't need dominate WRs to score points in the WCO.

I'll concede that the Eagles will have to have a good running game this year in order for them to put points on the board. If they do have a running game, the WRs will be fine and more than adequate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over the months, I have read many times about how Greg Williams takes ordinary players and makes them stars in his defensive system. The results are undeniable. Which leads us to the question, how effective are schemes in making average players great, when everyone plays together.

Recently, I have read reply after reply about how the Eagles are going to struggle without TO and how there is not a true number one thus making this years offense bad.

As I normally do when confronted with convoluted logic, I did some research.

In 2002 the Eagles Offence averaged 25.9 points per game. In 2004, with Owens, the Eagles averaged 24.1 points per game.

Eagles WR roster 2002

David Foye

Sean scott

Freddie Milon

Carlos Johnson

Lawrence story

James Thrash

Freddie Mitchell

Na Brown

Gari Scott

Todd Pinkston

Wow, can't be, right? Maybe now you guys should just sit back and realize that in the WCO, there is not a need for a star WR. Solid players who know the system is key. By definition, the WCO exploits gaps in defenses who don't have enough defenders to effectively defend receivers. This is done a myriad of ways.

Eagles WR roster 2006

Gasperson

Jenkins

Ford

McCants

McMullen

Lewis

Brown

Pinkston

Gaffney

Simms

Allow me to shoot down basic arguments before they even get posted.

1. But the rush game was much better! Hmm, well Buck was injured for the year leaving Staley, Westbrook and Levens. This year, we'll have Westbrook, Moats and Perry. 2003 is when we had a ridiculous running offense. This years running game should be able to match the 2002 level.

2. But the defense was much better! Perhaps. I guess we'll see. Regardless, defensive prowless isn't a determining factor in scoring when your offense has the ball.

3. But McNabb is a choker and always injured! You are right. He was injured in 2002 for 6 games. When he plays, he alludes the rush and makes everyone around him better, QB rating and completion percentage be damned.

There you go. I just laid out the fallocy of one of the biggest board myths. I'll be signing autographs later.

Actual 2002 reciever stats:

Freeman 46 rec

Mitchell 12 rec

Pinkston 60 rec

Thrash 52 rec 17 total Tds

2004:

Greg Lewis 17 rec

Billy McMullen 3 rec

Freddie Mitchell 22 rec

Pinkstom 36 rec

Terrell 77 rec 17 total Tds

I dont know what your arguing for or against, but as long as your throwing "data" around you might as well get it right. You dont want your "logic" to be accused of being convoluted. You also might want to make mention of the division's other coaches in 2002 - Spurrier, Campo, and Fassel - and contrast them with the current lineup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DC, you brought up a few valid points before you acended into smack talking. The lack of power running game would be more of a RB problem then a WR problem, correct? I thought the point of this thread was to show that you don't need dominate WRs to score points in the WCO.

I'll concede that the Eagles will have to have a good running game this year in order for them to put points on the board. If they do have a running game, the WRs will be fine and more than adequate.

You're right, it was smack talk, just having a litttttle fun. I think the problem I see is that Westbrook probably is your most dominant reciever. I mean, sure teams can get by without them but you saw the product on the field. Off the field issues aside, TO made your offense extraordinarily hard to defend. Right now, we don't even have to worry about the run so we can focus on doubling up westbrook and leaving ST in a single deep zone to crush any WRs who happen to slip their man coverage.

I'm not saying you won't put up points, I think McNabb is an amazing QB and as long as he's healthy, he'll patiently go through his reads and generally make plays. You're putting an awful lot of pressure on him, though, with no power running game and no dominant WRs to do a lot of by himself. If he's not 100%, well, you saw last year, it hurts. TO is a prototypical WCO reciever. His ability to make plays after the catch is one of the fundemantal basics of the offense and nobody does that better than him. Given what you lost and what you haven't added, I don't see how your offense will compare to the SB year. 2002 isn't a good comparision because a lot of those players either aren't there anymore or are starting to get long in the tooth. I really thought the Eagles should've tried harder to get Bentley, he'd have gone a long way towards stabilizing your offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who cares?

This is "Around the NFL". I thought everyone wanted to talk football. See, this is talking football. Schemes, formations, players, etc.

I know its just much easier to post smack like "BUT THEY GOT NO WRS BUT BARGAIN BASEMENT GUYS!!!!" instead of providing a rational, thought-out response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

boyd, what data did I post that was incorrect? Also, the Eagles dominated the NFC East worse in 2004 than in 2002 so what exactly was your point?

Just lookin out for you because you didn't list Freeman on your 02 list even though he was strong player for ya that year. In 02, you were 5-1 with the only loss in week 17 when you benched everyone and in 04 you went 6-0 as you had to win down the stretch to maintain home field - beating the skins by 3 in week 14 and Dallas by 5 the next week. That seems pretty even.

BTW, I agree with you that Arrington might be the most overrrated defensive guy ever...do you see any similarities with My most overrated guy Barry Sanders?

Hey, are you looking forward to the Cowboy games this year? I know I am!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just lookin out for you because you didn't list Freeman on your 02 list even though he was strong player for ya that year. In 02, you were 5-1 with the only loss in week 17 when you benched everyone and in 04 you went 6-0 as you had to win down the stretch to maintain home field - beating the skins by 3 in week 14 and Dallas by 5 the next week. That seems pretty even.

Good point on Freeman. Sorry I neglected him. Does he change the point, however, since you show that both teams had 17 tds from the WR position?

Also, the 04 Eagles clinched earlier than any team in over 20 years. Your last point is a little off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with your data is your assuming a given that the skins defense has remained static, that its the same defense now it was in 2002.

I would think any reasonable person would concede that our defense alot better now than it was in 2002 in regards to scoring. If you don't here's the stats.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=team&sort=ppg&pos=def&league=nfl&season=2&year=2004

2002 Rank 21 PPG 22.8

2004 Rank 5 PPG 16.6

So I don't see how you can argue your 2002 team was a more effective scoring team.

In 2002 you outscored our average by 3.1 points.

In 2004 you outscored our average by 7.5 points.

So by these stats I would say your offense was alot more effective with TO.

Your mistaken in the assumption that I provided this as a comparison of the Eagles to the Skins. Quite the contrary. Read my initial post again for my thesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your mistaken in the assumption that I provided this as a comparison of the Eagles to the Skins. Quite the contrary. Read my initial post again for my thesis.

You are correct. But to really validate your point you would have to compare the Eagles opponents avg. ppg given up for both years to see if the defenses were superior one year over the other. Without that the argument is flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point on Freeman. Sorry I neglected him. Does he change the point, however, since you show that both teams had 17 tds from the WR position?

Also, the 04 Eagles clinched earlier than any team in over 20 years. Your last point is a little off.

Nah, I dont really have a point. You guys dominated the East both years. However, explain to me how you are going to do that in 2006. Most reasonable people would suggest that after last years meltdown - BTW, statistically the worst season a defending Halas Trophy winner has ever had - a little luck (you had NONE last year) and a 9-7, 10-6 season is about the best you can expect and pretty damn good. The Skins can realistically set their sights a little higher. I'm thinkin 12-4 and we get Seattle at our house this year and - Oh, please god - maybe even You!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is "Around the NFL". I thought everyone wanted to talk football. See, this is talking football. Schemes, formations, players, etc.

I know its just much easier to post smack like "BUT THEY GOT NO WRS BUT BARGAIN BASEMENT GUYS!!!!" instead of providing a rational, thought-out response.

Ok, man you proved your point...The Eagles WR's are great. I swear we should start one huge dumbass thread called "Eagles Fans vs. Redskins Fans" and we could just plug in the top 5-10 threads on this Around the League Forum, I wanna hear about things going on with the league other than why YOU think the Eagles are a good team...so once again I reiterate...who cares?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct. But to really validate your point you would have to compare the Eagles opponents avg. ppg given up for both years to see if the defenses were superior one year over the other. Without that the argument is flawed.

Come on. I think a seasons worth of games is a large enough barometer to make a statement about the scheme and it's reliance on superior receivers.

If what you are suggesting were true, I'd tell you to post the ppg averages of the offenses which GW's defense has encountered.

We both know neither of us will research that info so it is an easy "out" to not really talk about the scheme and it's need for a dominant WR corps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, I dont really have a point. You guys dominated the East both years. However, explain to me how you are going to do that in 2006. Most reasonable people would suggest that after last years meltdown - BTW, statistically the worst season a defending Halas Trophy winner has ever had - a little luck (you had NONE last year) and a 9-7, 10-6 season is about the best you can expect and pretty damn good. The Skins can realistically set their sights a little higher. I'm thinkin 12-4 and we get Seattle at our house this year and - Oh, please god - maybe even You!

I don't think "most reasonable people" think the Eagles will top out at 10-6, at best while thinking the Skins will go 12-4. Unless your target population is the reasonable people who post on this site. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WB, I assume you're at least somewhat addressing my posts here. You are mis-construing what I am saying. Perhaps I am not being clear.

First, the comparison to 2002 is misleading. McNabb was a different QB then. Correct me if I am wrong, but he was much more willing to scramble. A scrambling QB changes EVERYTHING for a defense. It also allows average or slightly above average WRs time to get open and make plays.

Now, my point has simply been that the Eagles will not have as many options as will the Skins. Our offense has the chance to be much more prolific given the obvious difference in talent in the WR corps of both teams. That differnce can be negated somewhat by the talent difference between the QBs, but a good O-line and three very good receivers can help overcome that difference. The Eagles are going to have to be much more creative in their blitz protection packages and routes and so on. You simply do not (yet) have a WR who commands a double-team. We do. Therefore, we have more options. Even if you make the arguement (debateable at best) that Pinkston/Brown/Gaffney are better than ARE/Lloyd/Thrash, you still have not accounted for our game-breaker.

I am not arguing that your offense is going to suck. Reid is going to HAVE to run the ball more, and perhaps encourage McNabb to break the pocket as well. If you don't have some way to keep the defenses honest, you could be in for a long season, offensively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...