Henry Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Hmmm ... talk all you want about the last half of one season, but when a team averages 20th in the league in passing over four years, that says something about the QBs abilities as a passer. As a playmaker, yeah, McNabb is fantastic. He is able to take his team on his shoulders and make something out of a nothing offense. Now, he's got a bonafide star at WR too, so maybe his pure passing game will elevate as well and he'll be an absolute demon on the field. Or maybe that's just not a very strong aspect of his game. We'll find the answer out this year. And I for one will readily admit I'd much rather have seen Owens land in Baltimore. The above question is not one I was hoping would ever be answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeHateMe Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Originally posted by Oldskool how so? Well, who would you rather have locked up one on one with T.O.? Springs, Smoot or Bailey? I know, Skins have Portis now to show for it, but it would be nice to know Bailey was locking T.O. down twice a year wouldnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Originally posted by HeHateMe Well, who would you rather have locked up one on one with T.O.? Springs, Smoot or Bailey? I know, Skins have Portis now to show for it, but it would be nice to know Bailey was locking T.O. down twice a year wouldnt it? I suspect we will double TO all day and try and make the Eagles beat us with someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATCRedskin82 Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Ill take MOss and Caulpepper any day. TO is a ticking time bomb.....I love Phillys offseason so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucky*13 Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Unless the eagles get another wr,i doubt owens will be left one on one with any of our guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowtrain Posted March 17, 2004 Author Share Posted March 17, 2004 Originally posted by TunaIsGod It's the rare receiver who "makes" a QB. Rarer still a compete partnership, a symbiosis lile Manning/Harrison , or Young/Rice. But there is a type of receiver who can and does "make a QB". We saw something of that in NY with Keyshawn Johnson, playing with both Tesataverde and Lucas. TO, a much completer talent, having both go-to and possession skills, is a scary proposition, especially considering his oft stated WILL to play with and for McNabb. It's true that it is rare for a WR to make a QB. I'd be tempted to throw our friend Randy Moss into that category, as as huge percentage of those jump ball completions and TDs are mere incompletions (or worse, INTs) for most other QBs. But I can't put Keyshawn in that category. Key was an outstanding, complete player in his prime - tough, great hands over the middle and a lethal blocker. But when Ray Lucas had his 15 minutes of fame, and Vinny his phenomenal 1998 season, there were many other factors at play. Aside from Chrebet's clutch presence as an excellent compliment, and aside from a sturdy and supportive running game that also exceled receiving out of the backfield - there is what I feel to be the real factor that allowed Lucas to succeed. The Weis/Tuna combination. Since their divorce, Weis has proven his talent as an OC many times over by delivering 2 rings without WRs or RBs. The tools with which he had to work on the Jets were superior, hence the better offense, but what was less clear then and is more apparent now, is that much of it was his doing. That's not to take anything away from Tuna who erased the losing culture, installed a disciplined team, extracted the most from marginal players, and provided excellent in-game management. But together they were a potent mix that, although aided by Key in their cause, were able to elevate QBs like Lucas and Testaverde to levels never before realized and never subsequently duplicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gridironmike Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Browsing over page one..there are several lethal combinations out there. I happen to think Ramsey to Gardner on the deep patterns will grow in the future. If Brunell starts this year, Coles and he will form quite a tandem. I guess if I had to swallow my pride, Manning to Harrison gets it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleSteve Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Originally posted by Art But, that total didn't add up to the ninth best run offense in football not counting McNabb's totals. And when you measure how effective your running game is, you have to exclude McNabb because his yards aren't really part of your running game. And I'm not writing you about how dynamic our guys proved to be. How come you are to me? You don't count a three-back rotation or a two-back rotation as a single running back. You count the rotation as a rotation. The fact is your running backs produced a pedestrian 1,613 yards rushing. If you think that's something that scares me, you're wrong. Well, once again Art, if your entire focus is on total yards, you are correct. And once again, total yards does not tell the story of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the Eagles offense. The Eagles' HB's averaged 4.7 YPC and were about 38% of the total number of plays. 4.7 YPC was good enough for 6th in the league last year. Sounds like an effective running game to me. The dynamic nature of the backs helps make it effective. Westbrook was quick with moves and strength. Staley was a bull - steady and solid. Buckhalter added speed and size. They complemented each other very well and Reid used them based on the opponent's on-field personnel and the play group he intended to use. You cannot judge anything the Eagles do without taking this into account. If your definition of an effective running game is a single RB who gains 1300+ yards, then the Eagles don't have that and they never will under Reid. If your definition includes the overall per-play production then the Eagles have a good, if under-utilized, running game. If it's the former, then we'll have to agree to disagree. The question is not whether the Eagles' running game should scare you, as it's not what the Eagles concentrate on doing. The fact that they can run the ball whenever they choose to is what makes it effective. Especially when they pop off a 20+ yard run or two per game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halter91 Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Even though i hate the birds witha passion, Owens and McNab, will not produce. Double cover TO, and put pressure on McCrapp and it's over. Staley was the only back that could block. They are screwed!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECU-ALUM Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 The McNabb to Owns connection is going to need time to devlope...I think a wait & see approach is not a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.