Andy Reid ...

slotdirt · #1 09-21-2010, 10:22 PM

If Detroit looked like the '85 Bears, I don't think the Eagles would have put 35 on the board the other day.

I'll always contend that a team that wants to win won't have Michael Vick as their starting quarterback. It didn't work in Atlanta, and it won't work in Philly. This is a 6-10 team waiting to happen.

P.S. - the Lions have the worst secondary - nay, the worst defense overall - in the entire league. If not for LeSean McCoy having the best game of his career, you're talking about an Eagles loss to the woeful Lions and an 0-2 start. Anybody who actually watched the game the other day (I'm presuming only AntiTrust and myself did based on comments here) would realize that Vick was hardly the reason the Eagles won the game. This isn't baseball; stats can definitely lie.

dalakhani · #2 09-21-2010, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

If Detroit looked like the '85 Bears, I don't think the Eagles would have put 35 on the board the other day.

I'll always contend that a team that wants to win won't have Michael Vick as their starting quarterback. It didn't work in Atlanta, and it won't work in Philly. This is a 6-10 team waiting to happen.

Want to wager on the 6-10 thing?

It didn't "work" in atlanta? Didnt they make it to the NFC Title game? Is that not working?

dalakhani · #3 09-21-2010, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

If Detroit looked like the '85 Bears, I don't think the Eagles would have put 35 on the board the other day.

I'll always contend that a team that wants to win won't have Michael Vick as their starting quarterback. It didn't work in Atlanta, and it won't work in Philly. This is a 6-10 team waiting to happen.

P.S. - the Lions have the worst secondary - nay, the worst defense overall - in the entire league. If not for LeSean McCoy having the best game of his career, you're talking about an Eagles loss to the woeful Lions and an 0-2 start. Anybody who actually watched the game the other day (I'm presuming only AntiTrust and myself did based on comments here) would realize that Vick was hardly the reason the Eagles won the game. This isn't baseball; stats can definitely lie.

He got sacked 6 times and there was pressure all day. Hence the 85 bears comment. And if you indeed watched the game you would see that they sent blitz after blitz against them all day long. You did watch the game didnt you?

slotdirt · #4 09-22-2010, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

He got sacked 6 times and there was pressure all day. Hence the 85 bears comment. And if you indeed watched the game you would see that they sent blitz after blitz against them all day long. You did watch the game didnt you?

Now I know you didn't watch the game. Blitz after blitz? Really? If they were blitzing so much, wouldn't more than one of the five Detroit sacks or three of the 11 QB hits have been from a non-defensive lineman? Detroit is hardly a blitzing team.

Antitrust32 · #5 09-22-2010, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Now I know you didn't watch the game. Blitz after blitz? Really? If they were blitzing so much, wouldn't more than one of the five Detroit sacks or three of the 11 QB hits have been from a non-defensive lineman? Detroit is hardly a blitzing team.

they were throwing zero blitzes out there (blitz more than can be blocked)

You guys could have rushed 3 guys the whole game and still had 5/6 sacks.

slotdirt · #6 09-22-2010, 09:13 AM

And that's what they did. The Lions would be retarded to blitz that often because they literally don't have a soul who can cover man-to-man in the back seven. The front four was creating the pressure throughout the game.

And yes, you guys could have had anybody out there playing quarterback and still won.

Antitrust32 · #7 09-22-2010, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

And that's what they did. The Lions would be retarded to blitz that often because they literally don't have a soul who can cover man-to-man in the back seven. The front four was creating the pressure throughout the game.

And yes, you guys could have had anybody out there playing quarterback and still won.

you guys have a really nice front four.. and awesome skill players on offense.

there will be improvement in Detriot eventually!

dalakhani · #8 09-24-2010, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

And that's what they did. The Lions would be retarded to blitz that often because they literally don't have a soul who can cover man-to-man in the back seven. The front four was creating the pressure throughout the game.

And yes, you guys could have had anybody out there playing quarterback and still won.

Lol

a "zero blitz" is when you throw your safeties in and go all in at the qb. Antitrust is saying that Detroit was indeed blitzing. It doesn't seem like you picked up on that. Reid was also commenting on it after the game.

slotdirt · #9 09-24-2010, 09:42 AM

We clearly define "blitz" in so far as applies to NFL terms complete differently. In my world, "blitz" means the defending team is bringing linebackers/safeties/cornerbacks in on the rush in an attempt to outnumber the offensive team's blockers and stop a running back or quarterback behind the line of scrimmage or force the quarterback to make an inaccurate throw. If that is the standard definition of "blitz" in football parlance, then the Lions did very little of that last Sunday. Period. End of story. The Lions statistically were one of the three or four least likely to blitz teams in the entire NFL last season, and last I checked, they still employ the same defensive coordinator.

dalakhani · #10 09-24-2010, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Now I know you didn't watch the game. Blitz after blitz? Really? If they were blitzing so much, wouldn't more than one of the five Detroit sacks or three of the 11 QB hits have been from a non-defensive lineman? Detroit is hardly a blitzing team.

No especially with a guy like Vick. Vick was making the bandits miss. He was getting hit by the collapsing pressure. But you knew that.

Regardless, either way, despite the protection issues he played superbly.

dalakhani · #11 11-16-2010, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

If Detroit looked like the '85 Bears, I don't think the Eagles would have put 35 on the board the other day.

I'll always contend that a team that wants to win won't have Michael Vick as their starting quarterback. It didn't work in Atlanta, and it won't work in Philly. This is a 6-10 team waiting to happen.

P.S. - the Lions have the worst secondary - nay, the worst defense overall - in the entire league. If not for LeSean McCoy having the best game of his career, you're talking about an Eagles loss to the woeful Lions and an 0-2 start. Anybody who actually watched the game the other day (I'm presuming only AntiTrust and myself did based on comments here) would realize that Vick was hardly the reason the Eagles won the game. This isn't baseball; stats can definitely lie.

Contend away!

I guess maybe that 6-10 thing might be out the window there sparky?

herkhorse · #12 11-22-2010, 06:41 AM

Coach of the year.

3kings · #13 11-22-2010, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by herkhorse

Coach of the year.

Reid has done great things with Vick but Morris in Tampa has to be coach of the year unless they implode the rest of they way.

dalakhani · #14 11-24-2010, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3kings

Reid has done great things with Vick but Morris in Tampa has to be coach of the year unless they implode the rest of they way.

I disagree. That record is a product of schedule. They haven't beaten a team over .500 yet and play in the weakest division in football.

I think Belichick has done a tremendous job with that team.

Cannon Shell · #15 11-24-2010, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I disagree. That record is a product of schedule. They haven't beaten a team over .500 yet and play in the weakest division in football.

I think Belichick has done a tremendous job with that team.

So you were picking the Bucs to be 7-3 and a playoff team? Vegas had the Buc over/under for wins this season at 5 1/2 wins. There is a good chance that they win 10 games which comes close to doubling the expected output. Josh Freeman is the QB, not Tom Brady. The schedule has been pretty easy but do you seriously think that the NFC South is the weakest division in football?

Bigsmc · #16 11-24-2010, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So you were picking the Bucs to be 7-3 and a playoff team? Vegas had the Buc over/under for wins this season at 5 1/2 wins. There is a good chance that they win 10 games which comes close to doubling the expected output. Josh Freeman is the QB, not Tom Brady. The schedule has been pretty easy but do you seriously think that the NFC South is the weakest division in football?

The NFC West has been abused by the NFC South all season (9-2, I believe).

Some strength of schedule numbers courtesy of Gary Shelton at the St. Pete Times:

'72 Dolphins were 14-0 in the regular season, 12 of those wins were against teams under .500, 9 of those teams were 5-9 or worse. All we remember is that they were 17-0.

'74 Steelers didn't win a game in the regular season against a team with a winning record, but they won the Super Bowl.....

'84 49ers went 15-1, only 4 of those wins came against teams with winning records.

This year's Jets and Bucs have beaten 7 teams below .500, the Bears, 6, the Falcons and Packers, 5.

You are what your record is, there are only 2 of the 16 games based upon where you finish the previous year. The other 14 games are set years in advance.

NTamm1215 · #17 11-24-2010, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So you were picking the Bucs to be 7-3 and a playoff team? Vegas had the Buc over/under for wins this season at 5 1/2 wins. There is a good chance that they win 10 games which comes close to doubling the expected output. Josh Freeman is the QB, not Tom Brady. The schedule has been pretty easy but do you seriously think that the NFC South is the weakest division in football?

NFC West has that locked up. In fact, I think a few divisions are weaker than the NFC South, even with Carolina serving as the anchor.

dalakhani · #18 11-25-2010, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So you were picking the Bucs to be 7-3 and a playoff team? Vegas had the Buc over/under for wins this season at 5 1/2 wins. There is a good chance that they win 10 games which comes close to doubling the expected output. Josh Freeman is the QB, not Tom Brady. The schedule has been pretty easy but do you seriously think that the NFC South is the weakest division in football?

My brain wasn't working and for a sec I confused them for being in the west.

The bucs have done a good job. This, though, looks to me like one of those teams that pops one year with a weak schedule only to return to being bad the next year. Time will tell.

I realize that brady is a great qb but look what that team has done this year. I think it's an incredible job considering the team totally changed their style of play after the season had already begun and they are winning against the better teams.

Bigsmc · #19 11-24-2010, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3kings

Reid has done great things with Vick but Morris in Tampa has to be coach of the year unless they implode the rest of they way.

Dala is partially correct, but it is a major step in the right direction when you beat the teams you are supposed to beat. The Bucs have zero bad losses and I don't have the time or energy to research it, but I doubt there are many other NFL teams that can say that this year. They have beaten the teams you'd expect them to beat, Cleveland, Carolina (twice), Cincinnati, St. Louis, Arizona and San Francisco. They've lost to the teams that you would expect them to lose to, Pittsburgh, Atlanta and New Orleans. They are 4-1 on the road and were one goal line stand from beating Atlanta on the road to make that 5-0. The next two weeks will tell us a lot about the Bucs.

Bottom line, the team has bought into Raheem and that is big in the NFL.