NoCalMike Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 From what I remember in 2010, the first game against the Eagles we used the smaller size of the Eagles WRs against them. Jammed them at the line, looked to disrupt their timing, and it really seemed to work in stopping the passing game. The fact that Vick left the game sort of early, probably makes it an incomplete analysis, but in the second game against the Eagles, the startegy by the defense seemed to change. They were giving Jackson & Maclin cushion, which allowed them to use their speed to get down field and into open space, fast. What else changed? Most people will only remember the 58-29 drubbing, but we also did beat them in a game where the Eagles struggled to move the ball against the 2010 defense for most of the game. Did anything we did, change, or did the Eagles just get that much better through the course of the season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Michael Vick stayed in the game. In the first game, when we put him out it was on the goal line. They were marching, and it was early. No reason not to believe they couldn't keep it going if we had not injured him. In game 2 they managed to use his run/pass threat to great effect because we rushed 3 and played to not let them get behind the defense (which they did anyway.) They rolled Vick out and used the OL as a decoy to get him space, time and options. Given those three things, Michael Vick is going to destroy most defenses. we had no pass rush, and when we did it was usually chasing air, because he wasn't in the pocket. On his rollouts he had five seconds to survey the field, and at least 20 yards of empty grass in front of him. This year their OL is junk.. his rollouts aren't there because they can't give him enough time to pull off the fakes. Our best advantage is our pass rush is greatly improved, while their pass protection has disappeared. They will take a deep shot early, probably in the first drive. Bank on that. That is my estimation. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 There were 1 or 2 passes over or under thrown in the first game by the Eagles were accurately thrown in the second game so that explains 7, maybe 14 points. McNabb did not make killer mistakes which explains another 7. Another 7 were due to a couple of mistakes on tackles (there were some in the first game but they never all came at once). In the first game, they missed on a 2 point try which they didn't need in game 2. This explains about 30 of those extra points allowed. The rest (16 points) were due to fact that Vick was healthy and on-fire and the fact that our best RB was missing (first game, we played a lot more ball-control) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 You can watch the first 5 minutes of the 1st Eagles game last season to help figure it out lol... http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2010100310/2010/REG4/redskins@eagles#menu=gamepass&tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay From the looks of it we were taking away the deep stuff (not sure if that was because of being more aggressive against their WRs at the LOS or not)...Vick has plenty of time but he kept resorting to dump offs. We were up 14-0 before Vick had a chance to even slightly resemble anything close to a dynamic weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 You can't downplay the impact of losing Vick early in the game. The simple fact that he broke his rib on a scramble to the 1, only to have it completely negated by a holding penalty, took a lot of fight out of them early. But, despite that, they still only lost by 5 (woulda been 4 if they went for a PAT over a 2 pointer, but I digress) despite starting that piss-poor excuse for a franchise QB Kolb for most of the game. Not to mention that we won because Avant dropped a Hail Mary pass in the back of the endzone that Kolb somehow floated in over Landry's swatting jump. If Avant holds on to the ball that hits him in the hands, we lose in a heart-breaker that we would still be pissed about. With Vick, the Eagles win that game. Of course that doesn't negate his once-in-a-lifetime, superhuman, MVP-level performance against us that night, but the Eagles are a much worse team without Vick's ability to run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 You can't downplay the impact of losing Vick early in the game. The simple fact that he broke his rib on a scramble to the 1, only to have it completely negated by a holding penalty, took a lot of fight out of them early. But, despite that, they still only lost by 5 (woulda been 4 if they went for a PAT over a 2 pointer, but I digress) despite starting that piss-poor excuse for a franchise QB Kolb for most of the game. Not to mention that we won because Avant dropped a Hail Mary pass in the back of the endzone that Kolb somehow floated in over Landry's swatting jump. If Avant holds on to the ball that hits him in the hands, we lose in a heart-breaker that we would still be pissed about.With Vick, the Eagles win that game. Of course that doesn't negate his once-in-a-lifetime, superhuman, MVP-level performance against us that night, but the Eagles are a much worse team without Vick's ability to run. I don't think the question between the two games is merely winning and losing, though. Even if Vick had stayed in the game and the Eagles won the first time, I highly doubt it would have been anything remotely like the 2nd game...this thread still could have/would have been made, asking the same question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrifNick21 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 The Eagles were down 14-0 when Vick got knocked out the first game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I don't think the question between the two games is merely winning and losing, though. Even if Vick had stayed in the game and the Eagles won the first time, I highly doubt it would have been anything remotely like the 2nd game...this thread still could have/would have been made, asking the same question. But as a defense, you play Kevin Kolb much differently than you play Michael Vick. Kolb is not likely to rip off a 50 yard scramble when the CBs backs are turned. Kolb is not likely to evade 2 sacks and extend the play by 6 seconds. Plus, you have to figure that early last year teams hadn't quite figured out just how bad this D was in its switch to the 3-4. I personally believe if Vick stays in the game we lose something like 31-17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoskins Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Well besides Vick, another factor is that in the first game there was less tape on our then brand new defense. No doubt Reid had much more to work with by the second game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Michael Vick turned into superman on MNF. Along with that there were some crazy fluky plays in that 1st quarter. The 50 yard TD run, the bomb that was just tossed up and brought down to make it 35-0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I don't think the question between the two games is merely winning and losing, though. Even if Vick had stayed in the game and the Eagles won the first time, I highly doubt it would have been anything remotely like the 2nd game...this thread still could have/would have been made, asking the same question. To some extent it does. The difference between those 2 games attributable to our defense versus their offense was about 6 plays only 1 of which was completely based on the play of people who played in both games. Would you argue that Vick's phenomenal game was not greater than Kolb's (whose game is totally different from Vick's) by just 5 plays? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrecker Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC9 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Too much cover 2 in game 2. That's how we started the game in game 1 before Vick was knocked out, and that's how a lot of people say is the best way to beat the Eagles. If your front four can get it done in a nickel, and apply pressure, then you can play cover 2. The other big difference (aside of the McNabb benching) was that we scored first. That first drive set the tone. HAIL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I think the defense played afraid in game 2. In game one, the Eagles hadn't been obliterating the league and scorching defenses with bomb after bomb. I think they played too soft and conservative and it backfired esp. with the horrible safety play we had last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.