Myth: Eagles WRs won't be effective enough

[Westbrook36]

goaldeje, the Eagles offense doesn't have to be better than the Skins offense to be productive. But, that being said, I believe it will be. You highlight your strengths then just gloss over the most important position in football (QB) where your signal caller is, well, he leaves something to be desired and is 37 years old.

[HOF44]

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.

You are correct in that I don't care enough to look it up. But you are trying to use stats to back up a point you want to make, without really doing the work to make it a valid argument.

If for instance the opponents in 2002 had a higher ppg average allowed than in 2004 then your argument would be incorrect. If the opposite were true your argument would be bolstered.

I really don't know which it is, but to leave it out makes the whole agrument you made useless. Its not an "easy out" its how you make a statistical comparison.

[TradeTheBeal!]

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.

WB, I got nothing against you and enjoy the banter, so, believe me when I say that any time I refer to "Reasonable People" in the context of Eagles football, I am not even remotely referring to you!

[Westbrook36]

You are correct in that I don't care enough to look it up. But you are trying to use stats to back up a point you want to make, without really doing the work to make it a valid argument.

If for instance the opponents in 2002 had a higher ppg average allowed than in 2004 then your argument would be incorrect. If the opposite were true your argument would be bolstered.

I really don't know which it is, but to leave it out makes the whole agrument you made useless. Its not an "easy out" its how you make a statistical comparison.

You don't think that an NFL season is static enough to compare one years offense to another years offense? Honestly! I could see if I cherry picked a game or two but an entire year of offensive production. Come on, HOF.

[Goaldeje]

goaldeje, the Eagles offense doesn't have to be better than the Skins offense to be productive. But, that being said, I believe it will be. You highlight your strengths then just gloss over the most important position in football (QB) where your signal caller is, well, he leaves something to be desired and is 37 years old.

I think you've just done the same thing, my friend. Your O-line is solid, but lacking talent in spots. Your WR corps is average at best. Your QB is outstanding, assuming health. Your name sake is an incredible talent, when healthy. You guys have plenty of question marks. We have one. Granted, QB is a BIG position. However, did you not see the way Brunell played much of last year? I thought he should have been in the Pro Bowl, certainly over Vick. Will he wear down again? Probably. However, Gibbs has been downright effusive in his praise of Campbell's progress, making me feel good about Campbell as a backup if Brunell can't make it.

BTW, your offense has very little chance to be as good or productive as ours, based on talent levels alone (injuries aside, of course). Sorry.

Go back to my posts and address the other stuff you are ignoring.

[fdarugar]

goaldeje, the Eagles offense doesn't have to be better than the Skins offense to be productive. But, that being said, I believe it will be. You highlight your strengths then just gloss over the most important position in football (QB) where your signal caller is, well, he leaves something to be desired and is 37 years old.

Your posts just get increasingly unbearable...you have one proven player on your offensive line, 4 decent wideouts (generously adding Pinkston), 1 good te, a decent half back/great backfield reciever and a former pro bowl qb comming off a bad injury...there is your offense in a nutshell. SOUNDS AWESOME TO ME.

[Westbrook36]

I think you've just done the same thing, my friend. Your O-line is solid, but lacking talent in spots. Your WR corps is average at best. Your QB is outstanding, assuming health. Your name sake is an incredible talent, when healthy. You guys have plenty of question marks. We have one. Granted, QB is a BIG position. However, did you not see the way Brunell played much of last year? I thought he should have been in the Pro Bowl, certainly over Vick. Will he wear down again? Probably. However, Gibbs has been downright effusive in his praise of Campbell's progress, making me feel good about Campbell as a backup if Brunell can't make it.

Your only question mark is QB? List all the OL on your roster that aren't starters, please. You have lot starting OL the last two years for the season. QB is the most important position on offense. I'm glad you are annointing Campbell a success already (even though first round QBs have over a 65 percent failure rate) even though he hasn't played one down yet.

Portis sure has a lot of carries the last 4 years.

BTW, your offense has very little chance to be as good or productive as ours, based on talent levels alone (injuries aside, of course). Sorry.

Well, saying the Eagles offense, led by McNabb, has very little chance to be as good or productive than yours is, well, just ridiculous.

Go back to my posts and address the other stuff you are ignoring.

I didn't know it was my job to respond to every comment. I'm not ignoring anything on purpose, I can assure you. I'm posting in 3 threads at once. :laugh:

[Westbrook36]

Your posts just get increasingly unbearable...you have one proven player on your offensive line, 4 decent wideouts (generously adding Pinkston), 1 good te, a decent half back/great backfield reciever and a former pro bowl qb comming off a bad injury...there is your offense in a nutshell. SOUNDS AWESOME TO ME.

One proven player on the OL?

Are you talking about the Pro Bowler, Tra Thomas? The Pro Bowler, Jon Runyan, or the 1st Alternate from this past year, Shawn Andrews?

Unbearable? I'm sorry that I'm one of the guys who just doesn't sit back and let guys like you make nonsensical arguments and pat each other on the back without anyone saying anything.

[fdarugar]

Your only question mark is QB? List all the OL on your roster that aren't starters, please.:

I'd rather have depth be our problem than the friggin' STARTERS...come on.

[fdarugar]

One proven player on the OL?

Are you talking about the Pro Bowler, Tra Thomas? The Pro Bowler, Jon Runyan, or the 1st Alternate from this past year, Shawn Andrews?

Unbearable? I'm sorry that I'm one of the guys who just doesn't sit back and let guys like you make nonsensical arguments and pat each other on the back without anyone saying anything.

First Resign Runyan...OK. Didn't realize Andrews was a 1st alternate, then you have two reliable starters.

Yes, unbearable. You are the uber homer.

[HOF44]

You don't think that an NFL season is static enough to compare one years offense to another years offense? Honestly! I could see if I cherry picked a game or two but an entire year of offensive production. Come on, HOF.

Yea I think a season is a good thing to look at. I'm saying you can't look at the offenses in a vacuum if your trying to statisicaly prove a point.

You would have to look at the season avg ppg given up by opponents and get an average from that. Then compare that stat from 2002 to 2004. Otherwise your agrument holds no water. Its picking the stat you want to pick and ignoring the others because it takes to much work to research.

Doesn't prove anything to me the way your doing it. You might just as well have said I think our system is the key not the recievers and not put up any stats. Its really the same thing.

[Westbrook36]

I'd rather have depth be our problem than STARTERS...come on.

The Eagles don't have a problem at starter. Some of you guys THINK that because they went after Bentley but I can assure you they have drafted OL for the last 3 years.

BTW, depth becomes a problem when they become starters....as has happened the last 2 years for the Skins.

[Westbrook36]

Yea I think a season is a good thing to look at. I'm saying you can't look at the offenses in a vacuum if your trying to statisicaly prove a point.

You would have to look at the season avg ppg given up by opponents and get an average from that. Then compare that stat from 2002 to 2004. Otherwise your agrument holds no water. Its picking the stat you want to pick and ignoring the others because it takes to much work to research.

Doesn't prove anything to me the way your doing it. You might just as well have said I think our system is the key not the recievers and not put up any stats. Its really the same thing.

GW's defense might not work because you might have been playing anemic offenses.

See how ridiculous that is?

[Goaldeje]

Your only question mark is QB? List all the OL on your roster that aren't starters, please. You have lot starting OL the last two years for the season. QB is the most important position on offense. I'm glad you are annointing Campbell a success already (even though first round QBs have over a 65 percent failure rate) even though he hasn't played one down yet.

I'll start by saying that I will take Gibbs' word over yours, any day. If he says Campbell is progrssing nicely, good enough for me. And no where did I call Campbell a success already. I enjoy discussing with you, but please don't misquote me. I grant you (again) that QB is a question mark for us. But not near as big one as you seem to think.

Not sure what to make of your first arguement. Thomas missed a couple of games last year, and Rabach missed a half or so. Granted, they were during the playoffs which really hurt us, but next year could very well be different. Our depth is hurt a great deal with Ray Brown retiring, but I am still confident that Gibbs is going to address that, as recent reports have confirmed.

Portis sure has a lot of carries the last 4 years.

Uh, yes. Yes he has. :paranoid: Are you suggesting he will break down at some point? He could. Last I look, though, our RB depth is superb. Betts is more than capable of stepping in and starting, and Cartwright can put up great numbers as well. Not really a concern of mine.

Well, saying the Eagles offense, led by McNabb, has very little chance to be as good or productive than yours is, well, just ridiculous.

Why? You have given no facts or evidence to support yourself; I am left with the assumption that you have none, and have resorted to calling me names. I will wait for you to address this intelligently if you would like to.

I didn't know it was my job to respond to every comment. I'm not ignoring anything on purpose, I can assure you. I'm posting in 3 threads at once. :laugh:

Me too. It's tough rebutting you in three threads at once, but someone's gotta keep you straight. :laugh:

[fdarugar]

The Eagles don't have a problem at starter. Some of you guys THINK that because they went after Bentley but I can assure you they have drafted OL for the last 3 years.

BTW, depth becomes a problem when they become starters....as has happened the last 2 years for the Skins.

Herremans, Hicks, and Jackson...three guys that would ride the pine for the Skins, right? Exactly...We had our injury problems toward the end of the season. As did you guys and your oline and offense suffered greatly, however we endured through the injuries and still made the Playoffs.

How many 100 yard games did Westbrook have? How many did Portis Have? How many sacks did your oline yield? How many did ours yield?

Now your turn to reply with something nonsensical...

[Westbrook36]

I'll start by saying that I will take Gibbs' word over yours, any day. If he says Campbell is progrssing nicely, good enough for me. And no where did I call Campbell a success already. I enjoy discussing with you, but please don't misquote me. I grant you (again) that QB is a question mark for us. But not near as big one as you seem to think.

Trust Joe Gibbs! Ramsey is his starter!

Not sure what to make of your first arguement. Thomas missed a couple of games last year, and Rabach missed a half or so. Granted, they were during the playoffs which really hurt us, but next year could very well be different. Our depth is hurt a great deal with Ray Brown retiring, but I am still confident that Gibbs is going to address that, as recent reports have confirmed.

You don't think OL depth is paramount? Seriously. :doh:

Why? You have given no facts or evidence to support yourself; I am left with the assumption that you have none, and have resorted to calling me names. I will wait for you to address this intelligently if you would like to.

I thought I provided ample evidence in my first post as to why the Eagles can average over 24 points a game which will be just fine.

[HOF44]

GW's defense might not work because you might have been playing anemic offenses.

See how ridiculous that is?

Nobody tried to make a statistical argumant about GW defenses. You tried to make this claim using stats. But you didn't even come close to doing it.

You can argue the point and believe what you want, but you have proved nothing with the stats you put up either way.

[tr1]

Trust Joe Gibbs! Ramsey is his starter!

He was the starter until he got hurt.

Trust Andy...he can control TO.

[Westbrook36]

He was the starter until he got hurt.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Goaldeje]

Trust Joe Gibbs! Ramsey is his starter!

Right.

You don't think OL depth is paramount? Seriously. :doh:

Show me where I said that. Seriously, stop quoting me if you're going to mis-quote me.

I thought I provided ample evidence in my first post as to why the Eagles can average over 24 points a game which will be just fine.

And we're not able? Really?

WB, you're beginning to bore me some. I think we should all be able to admit that we have made tremendous strides with our offense, on paper, this offseason. Moss had a career year, and an all-time Redskins year last year with not much help. Now he has help. What's so hard to understand? The Eagles dumped a great WR (I'm not saying they shouldn't have, btw), and have brought in a borderline number 2, and now you're saying your offense is going to be better than ours? Come on.

[ouvan59]

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.

What makes them such an improvement over last year? You had Westbrook, Moats and Perry last year. What makes you think that any one of those guys will stay healthy?

In 2002 you were 5th in the NFL in rushing. The last two years you were in the upper 20s. Do you have some kind of magical wand that will automatically make the Eagles a good running team.

[Goaldeje]

In 2002 you were 5th in the NFL in rushing. The last two years you were in the upper 20s. Do you have some kind of magical wand that will automatically make the Eagles a good running team.

Yes he does. In his head.

Oh wait, you meant something that will actually work? Nevermind.

[Westbrook36]

WB, you're beginning to bore me some. I think we should all be able to admit that we have made tremendous strides with our offense, on paper, this offseason. Moss had a career year, and an all-time Redskins year last year with not much help. Now he has help. What's so hard to understand? The Eagles dumped a great WR (I'm not saying they shouldn't have, btw), and have brought in a borderline number 2, and now you're saying your offense is going to be better than ours? Come on.

Which offense we talking about? I'd rather use the offense of the last 3 weeks of last year. If that Brunnell shows up, you won't be the prolific offense you have already annointed yourself as.

[Westbrook36]

What makes them such an improvement over last year? You had Westbrook, Moats and Perry last year. What makes you think that any one of those guys will stay healthy?

In 2002 you were 5th in the NFL in rushing. The last two years you were in the upper 20s. Do you have some kind of magical wand that will automatically make the Eagles a good running team.

The point of this thread was to show how the WRs aren't a problem. goaldeje keeps trying to make this a Skins O vs. Eagles O thing, but it doesn't help his argument.

If Andy decides to run the ball, we'll be successful. We need it at about 60/40 for the offense to work.

[jammer8]

Which offense we talking about? I'd rather use the offense of the last 3 weeks of last year. If that Brunnell shows up, you won't be the prolific offense you have already annointed yourself as.

Oh you mean when Randy Thomas was out, Moss had no help and was triple teamed at times and Portis was very banged up, which reduced his effectiveness greatly.

If that's what you mean, you have no argument... come on homer.

as far as being a solid running team and scoring 24 plus a game. I think you eagles fans just magically thing because of 02-04 that somehow your team will just win. It doesn't happen that way. The NFC has gotten much much better in the last 2 years so to think your team will somehow dominate again is idiotic.