Quote: @Norse said:
That game wasn't just a fluke. The year before the Eagles had a better game plan than the Vikings and Zimmer couldn't adjust.
The year we had multiple INTs that lead to zero points by the offense? The year the defense handed the offense the ball inside the 20 twice and we turned it over on one and backed out of FG range on the other? The year the Eagles shut down Bradford's short game and we couldn't adjust?
Yeah, not thinking the Eagles handled our D that year.
Quote: @purplefaithful said:
Sorry, that Eagle loss and collapse of the D gave gave me pause and harkened me back to 70's SB's.
Those RPO slants killed the Falcons the week before the CG. Why did Waynes and XR not play those differently technique wise? I get getting beat by a trick play here or there, but Zimmer got taken to the woodshed by the Eagles staff - and Vikings fans got #6 CG loss in a row.
The Minnesota Vikings will always give you cause to pause!
Quote: @pumpf said:
Since no one else mentioned it: the slants were the product of the Eagle's "RPO" (Run - Pass Option) plays, where the QB has the option of handing the ball to the RB or throwing it. In essence, it is a play-action pass, designed to force the LB's to stay in the box and defend the run. At that point, the slant becomes "wide open". If we keep our LB's back in the passing lanes, then the QB hands off. The way *I* would've defended it would've been to play man defense and line our CBs up on the inside of the WR's- in effect taking away the slant (but giving up any kind of "out" route).
I have never understood giving inside leverage to a wide receiver... never. I will always want my DBs to take away the inside first and then force the QB to beat them over the top where hopefully the S is able to assist.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ pumpf said:
Since no one else mentioned it: the slants were the product of the Eagle's "RPO" (Run - Pass Option) plays, where the QB has the option of handing the ball to the RB or throwing it. In essence, it is a play-action pass, designed to force the LB's to stay in the box and defend the run. At that point, the slant becomes "wide open". If we keep our LB's back in the passing lanes, then the QB hands off. The way *I* would've defended it would've been to play man defense and line our CBs up on the inside of the WR's- in effect taking away the slant (but giving up any kind of "out" route).
I have never understood giving inside leverage to a wide receiver... never. I will always want my DBs to take away the inside first and then force the QB to beat them over the top where hopefully the S is able to assist.
That's exactly what I coach my DBs to do (unless it's a zone... which we didn't run much because I like to blitz too much).
By the way, I am pretty sure that the coaching staff "assumed" that we could take away the deep passes by putting pressure on Foles. It didn't happen. Our DBs weren't used to covering guys that long- and often they "gave up" because they assumed the play HAD to be over by then. And then the ball went sailing over their heads...
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ pumpf said:
Since no one else mentioned it: the slants were the product of the Eagle's "RPO" (Run - Pass Option) plays, where the QB has the option of handing the ball to the RB or throwing it. In essence, it is a play-action pass, designed to force the LB's to stay in the box and defend the run. At that point, the slant becomes "wide open". If we keep our LB's back in the passing lanes, then the QB hands off. The way *I* would've defended it would've been to play man defense and line our CBs up on the inside of the WR's- in effect taking away the slant (but giving up any kind of "out" route).
I have never understood giving inside leverage to a wide receiver... never. I will always want my DBs to take away the inside first and then force the QB to beat them over the top where hopefully the S is able to assist.
That's exactly what I coach my DBs to do (unless it's a zone... which we didn't run much because I like to blitz too much).
By the way, I am pretty sure that the coaching staff "assumed" that we could take away the deep passes by putting pressure on Foles. It didn't happen. Our DBs weren't used to covering guys that long- and often they "gave up" because they assumed the play HAD to be over by then. And then the ball went sailing over their heads...
i also hate off coverages unless its a long down and distance thing. especially when we have a front 7 that can get after the QB, make that guy hold the ball for at least a 2.5-3 count to give the pressure a chance to make him uncomfortable.
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ pumpf said:
Since no one else mentioned it: the slants were the product of the Eagle's "RPO" (Run - Pass Option) plays, where the QB has the option of handing the ball to the RB or throwing it. In essence, it is a play-action pass, designed to force the LB's to stay in the box and defend the run. At that point, the slant becomes "wide open". If we keep our LB's back in the passing lanes, then the QB hands off. The way *I* would've defended it would've been to play man defense and line our CBs up on the inside of the WR's- in effect taking away the slant (but giving up any kind of "out" route).
I have never understood giving inside leverage to a wide receiver... never. I will always want my DBs to take away the inside first and then force the QB to beat them over the top where hopefully the S is able to assist.
That's exactly what I coach my DBs to do (unless it's a zone... which we didn't run much because I like to blitz too much).
By the way, I am pretty sure that the coaching staff "assumed" that we could take away the deep passes by putting pressure on Foles. It didn't happen. Our DBs weren't used to covering guys that long- and often they "gave up" because they assumed the play HAD to be over by then. And then the ball went sailing over their heads...
I thought you were an O-Line coach? 
Quote: @StickyBun said:
We got owned and it was very obvious that the team had a major hangover from the dramatic win the week before.
I think it's that simple. & what Nicholls said.
I think the coaching staff suffered a bit of hangover, as well.
I'm optimistic, tho, even after we pick over the bones as to why we're not playing this weekend.
If'n you'd a told me, going into last season.....
1) We'd finish the yr, with one of the best O-lines
2) We'd finish even higher, defensively
3) We'd have tons o' cap space, to sign any qb, we want
4) We beat the Packers, twice
5) We personally ended Rodgers/Packer season
6) We ran away with the NFC North
7) We lost our opening starting QB/RB, yet made the NFCCG
8) Our UDFA QB, pressed into duty, would finish fourth in the NFL MVP race
8) We beat the Saints twice. On opening day, and then tore their hearts out, in the playoffs (sweet 09 revenge)
...... I'd have taken that ^^ season, gladly, not knowing the result of the NFCCG and why we lost to the Iggles.
8 surprises is a lot... and normally gets you a SB.
Heard the other day, Alshon Jeffrey ultimately chose the Iggles last off-season, over us.
That (Iggles signing) may have been, the "difference".
Can you imagine Jeffrey with Diggs/Thielen/Rudolf, this past yr?
Quote: @savannahskol said:
@ pumpf said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ pumpf said:
Since no one else mentioned it: the slants were the product of the Eagle's "RPO" (Run - Pass Option) plays, where the QB has the option of handing the ball to the RB or throwing it. In essence, it is a play-action pass, designed to force the LB's to stay in the box and defend the run. At that point, the slant becomes "wide open". If we keep our LB's back in the passing lanes, then the QB hands off. The way *I* would've defended it would've been to play man defense and line our CBs up on the inside of the WR's- in effect taking away the slant (but giving up any kind of "out" route).
I have never understood giving inside leverage to a wide receiver... never. I will always want my DBs to take away the inside first and then force the QB to beat them over the top where hopefully the S is able to assist.
That's exactly what I coach my DBs to do (unless it's a zone... which we didn't run much because I like to blitz too much).
By the way, I am pretty sure that the coaching staff "assumed" that we could take away the deep passes by putting pressure on Foles. It didn't happen. Our DBs weren't used to covering guys that long- and often they "gave up" because they assumed the play HAD to be over by then. And then the ball went sailing over their heads...
I thought you were an O-Line coach?
The Rev can do it all. He can have a crowd on their feet screaming on friday night, and have them sitting quietly in prayer on Sunday. That's only 2 days, just imagine what he accomplishes with the other 5....
Quote: @savannahskol said:
Heard the other day, Alshon Jeffrey ultimately chose the Iggles last off-season, over us.
That (Iggles signing) may have been, the "difference".
Can you imagine Jeffrey with Diggs/Thielen/Rudolf, this past yr?
If you believe the apologists for Treadwell and Floyd, Jeffery would have caught about 30 passes for 300 yards, because Thielen and Diggs left no opportunities for a #3 WR.
I think we had a QB who was not looking for all possible targets. It worked, I loved the season, thank you Case - but it would not have been more effective with another WR in the mix. Maybe Diggs or Thielen would have just been doing the 3rd-slot-guy-for-bunch-formations role that Wright performed, and got more from it, and maybe Jeffery would have gained more yards than Diggs did. But I don't think we would have had 3 WRs with 800+ yards each.
Quote: @savannahskol said:
@ StickyBun said:
We got owned and it was very obvious that the team had a major hangover from the dramatic win the week before.
I think it's that simple. & what Nicholls said.
I think the coaching staff suffered a bit of hangover, as well.
I'm optimistic, tho, even after we pick over the bones as to why we're not playing this weekend.
If'n you'd a told me, going into last season.....
1) We'd finish the yr, with one of the best O-lines
2) We'd finish even higher, defensively
3) We'd have tons o' cap space, to sign any qb, we want
4) We beat the Packers, twice
5) We personally ended Rodgers/Packer season
6) We ran away with the NFC North
7) We lost our opening starting QB/RB, yet made the NFCCG
8) Our UDFA QB, pressed into duty, would finish fourth in the NFL MVP race
8) We beat the Saints twice. On opening day, a nd then tore their hearts out, in the playoffs (sweet 09 revenge)
......
For that reason and that reason alone, this was a great season. Add the packer misery caused by us and going 5-1 in the division... I will cherish the season.
|
