Dude, Jeags, for all those stats, anything is a step-up on defense from this year.
The D was bad nobody is saying they weren't
But in the 2 games they needed to win this year they didn't play that bad
The offense was no better...but the Reid lover refuses to acknowledge Reid's offense is not working in the playoffs or in big reg season games
What are you talking about? The D should've gotten torched against GB if it wasn't for GB being self-defeating for most of that game. It's this simple - you need a good O-line to be a stellar offense. It wasn't there this year because - and I can't believe I'm saying this - they tried to address every other position with draft picks.
I'm not a Reid apologist, but people are miffed because this team played so high for most of the season then got bounced in the first round. If this was the equivalent of 2000 all over again(comparing to a year when rebuilding was hitting a time of a full fledge contender), I am fine with that. If the team was to make a change at head coach, fine, but I'm not going to say having Reid around is a bad thing. The dude keeps this team competitive every year. If you could guarantee me a Super Bowl with another coach, I'll take it. But ya can't, so that's all masturbation talk, and I'll take Reid over any coach in the league not named Belichick or Payton...and possibly Tomlin, though I still think he's overrated.
i disagree with your assesment of the packers game (as they ran the ball the same amount against atlanta and more than doubled their score) but i agree that having reid back isn't a bad thing. i love winning 10 games every year and having a chance. where we differ is i think there are certain coaching and personnel philosophies utilized by reid that is preventing them from getting over the hump (ie: smaller/finesse defense that wears down through the season...an offense too reliant on the big play--plus the late adjustments/clock management issues which are crucial in big games). hopefully he improves in those areas, but after 12 years, i have my doubts.
expectations will be much bigger going into next season though. you gotta see what he can do with his new qb, and his new d coordinator.
you should attend that football 101 class the eagles run for chicks.
don't need to, the guys on here and the comcast and wip-itis jersey wearing mofos have convinced me that all we have to do is run the ball a few more times. 5 or 10 more times a game we are 100% guaranteed to win super bowls. it won't even matter when we play better teams (you know like the packers were against us. and the cowboys last year) , 5 or 10 more times run the ball up the middle is all that it will take. :roll: :roll: :roll:
you should attend that football 101 class the eagles run for chicks.
don't need to, the guys on here and the comcast and wip-itis jersey wearing mofos have convinced me that all we have to do is run the ball a few more times. 5 or 10 more times a game we are 100% guaranteed to win super bowls. it won't even matter when we play better teams (you know like the packers were against us. and the cowboys last year) , 5 or 10 more times run the ball up the middle is all that it will take. :roll: :roll: :roll:
Doesn't Reid make all the personnel decisions ?
Why are we not the most talented team ?
We'll never know if we would win running the ball 10 more times because Reid wont do it
As soon as it's not a love fest for Reid we're wip listeners :roll: :roll: :roll:
My drinking team has a hockey problem
The ONLY thing better than a glass of beer is tea with Miss McGill
A protuberance of flesh above the waistband of a tight pair of trousers
you should attend that football 101 class the eagles run for chicks.
don't need to, the guys on here and the comcast and wip-itis jersey wearing mofos have convinced me that all we have to do is run the ball a few more times. 5 or 10 more times a game we are 100% guaranteed to win super bowls. it won't even matter when we play better teams (you know like the packers were against us. and the cowboys last year) , 5 or 10 more times run the ball up the middle is all that it will take. :roll: :roll: :roll:
well at least enroll in a reading comprehension course? it will make these conversations much easier for people to digest.
you should attend that football 101 class the eagles run for chicks.
don't need to, the guys on here and the comcast and wip-itis jersey wearing mofos have convinced me that all we have to do is run the ball a few more times. 5 or 10 more times a game we are 100% guaranteed to win super bowls. it won't even matter when we play better teams (you know like the packers were against us. and the cowboys last year) , 5 or 10 more times run the ball up the middle is all that it will take. :roll: :roll: :roll:
well at least enroll in a reading comprehension course? it will make these conversations much easier for people to digest.
nah better to continue to tweak you guys and to shake my head everytime i hear the tired cliche about not running the ball enough.
don't need to, the guys on here and the comcast and wip-itis jersey wearing mofos have convinced me that all we have to do is run the ball a few more times. 5 or 10 more times a game we are 100% guaranteed to win super bowls. it won't even matter when we play better teams (you know like the packers were against us. and the cowboys last year) , 5 or 10 more times run the ball up the middle is all that it will take. :roll: :roll: :roll:
Doesn't Reid make all the personnel decisions ?
Why are we not the most talented team ?
We'll never know if we would win running the ball 10 more times because Reid wont do it
As soon as it's not a love fest for Reid we're wip listeners :roll: :roll: :roll:
ha--last time i listened to more than 5 minutes of wip was about 4 months ago before i got my new sirius installed
well at least enroll in a reading comprehension course? it will make these conversations much easier for people to digest.
nah better to continue to tweak you guys and to shake my head everytime i hear the tired cliche about not running the ball enough.
well i'm not big into "tweaking" other dudes but whatever works for you...
seriously, i'm just trying to have an honest discussion here. you either are not understanding my point or are just choosing to ignore certain things like the packers stats in their other playoff games...which you specifically mentioned as something that would prove your point, then ignored what the actual stats where when you realized they disproved what you were saying.....and then you disolved into name calling. :roll:
we can agree to disagree. like i said, i can see both arguments for reid. i'm not blind to his faults but i also see his strong points. and i am for him coming back and turing this thing around.
But in the 2 games they needed to win this year they didn't play that bad
The offense was no better...but the Reid lover refuses to acknowledge Reid's offense is not working in the playoffs or in big reg season games
What are you talking about? The D should've gotten torched against GB if it wasn't for GB being self-defeating for most of that game. It's this simple - you need a good O-line to be a stellar offense. It wasn't there this year because - and I can't believe I'm saying this - they tried to address every other position with draft picks.
I'm not a Reid apologist, but people are miffed because this team played so high for most of the season then got bounced in the first round. If this was the equivalent of 2000 all over again(comparing to a year when rebuilding was hitting a time of a full fledge contender), I am fine with that. If the team was to make a change at head coach, fine, but I'm not going to say having Reid around is a bad thing. The dude keeps this team competitive every year. If you could guarantee me a Super Bowl with another coach, I'll take it. But ya can't, so that's all masturbation talk, and I'll take Reid over any coach in the league not named Belichick or Payton...and possibly Tomlin, though I still think he's overrated.
The argument goes both ways my friend...guarantee me a SB win with Reid...you cant
I'm sick of being close and not winning..but you guys like making the playoffs every year and not winning
I think 12 years of the same mistakes and the same ending is enough of a sample size for me
His philosphy has to change on both sides of the ball...if not we're gonna be having this same discussion next year
The argument doesn't go both ways. The point is being competitive because the goal is to be rational about this shit. Reid keeps you competitive year in and year out.
you guys do realize it's been a decade since a hall-of-fame level running back has won a super bowl and that was marshall faulk with the rams. and they won because of their passing game.
not sure what your point is jaegs, we lost to a team better than us, a team now a 3-point favorite on the road to go to the Super Bowl. sometimes people look to far into blaming a coach for a loss.
you guys do realize it's been a decade since a hall-of-fame level running back has won a super bowl and that was marshall faulk with the rams. and they won because of their passing game.
not sure what your point is jaegs, we lost to a team better than us, a team now a 3-point favorite on the road to go to the Super Bowl. sometimes people look to far into blaming a coach for a loss.
you keep harping on the running the ball thing. go back to every post today and you'll see that you are the one who keeps bringing that up. i posted a fairly objective article that presented multiple points about how the offense didn't do the defense any favors in either of the two games at the end of the season, and the only one you keep talking about is the running the ball issue. there's plenty of other reasons. (yet is is funny how you continute to ignore that packers stat that you first brought up ). i don't think you read the full article.
as i've said numerous times, i'm way more upset over the loss to the vikings than the packers loss. no excuse to lose at home to team like that, as a 14 point favorite with the #2 seed on the line. the offense scored 7 points in that game. d allowed 17.
you guys do realize it's been a decade since a hall-of-fame level running back has won a super bowl and that was marshall faulk with the rams. and they won because of their passing game.
not sure what your point is jaegs, we lost to a team better than us, a team now a 3-point favorite on the road to go to the Super Bowl. sometimes people look to far into blaming a coach for a loss.
Holy Crap dude.....we never said we needed a HOF'er
Just someone that is consistent at running the ball
A GB team we were favored to beat @ home ?
A MINN team we were favored to beat @ home ?
My drinking team has a hockey problem
The ONLY thing better than a glass of beer is tea with Miss McGill
A protuberance of flesh above the waistband of a tight pair of trousers
you guys do realize it's been a decade since a hall-of-fame level running back has won a super bowl and that was marshall faulk with the rams. and they won because of their passing game.
not sure what your point is jaegs, we lost to a team better than us, a team now a 3-point favorite on the road to go to the Super Bowl. sometimes people look to far into blaming a coach for a loss.
you keep harping on the running the ball thing. go back to every post today and you'll see that you are the one who keeps bringing that up. i posted a fairly objective article that presented multiple points about how the offense didn't do the defense any favors in either of the two games at the end of the season, and the only one you keep talking about is the running the ball issue. there's plenty of other reasons. (yet is is funny how you continute to ignore that packers stat that you first brought up ). i don't think you read the full article.
as i've said numerous times, i'm way more upset over the loss to the vikings than the packers loss. no excuse to lose at home to team like that, as a 14 point favorite with the #2 seed on the line. the offense scored 7 points in that game. d allowed 17.
and yes, you obviously don't get my point....
because your packers stats are bogus. yes they ran the ball 29 times each game but they throw the ball more often against atlanta so the 29 times are not equal. 18-27 against birds passing and 31-36 against atlanta. last year 28-42 passing in the playoff loss. but wait they lost because they only carried the ball 17 times, not the 51 (that fifty fucking one) points their defense gave up. ugh
and same thing i'll say to you now that i said in the pre-season and also after the vikings game - teams in the NFL end up where they are supposed to. if you thought going into the vikings that the eagles were a 12-win team they you are either delusional or crazy. not surprising at all they lost that game. not sure why almost a month later we are complaining about the vikings game but i guess that what the fans who don't like andy do nitpick at the end of the season. i guess we could nitpick belicheck and mike smith as well.
The argument doesn't go both ways. The point is being competitive because the goal is to be rational about this shit. Reid keeps you competitive year in and year out.
I'm all for being competitive but when does it get to being a SB winner or bust ?
Do you agree he needs to change some of the game plans and personnel...especially on D?
My drinking team has a hockey problem
The ONLY thing better than a glass of beer is tea with Miss McGill
A protuberance of flesh above the waistband of a tight pair of trousers
The argument doesn't go both ways. The point is being competitive because the goal is to be rational about this shit. Reid keeps you competitive year in and year out.
I'm all for being competitive but when does it get to being a SB winner or bust ?
Do you agree he needs to change some of the game plans and personnel...especially on D?
Defense has never been his thing - he puts someone into place and they take over. Hopefully, who ever it is, is much better than McDermott. As I was reading a couple days ago - who knows, if Jim Johnson retires 5, 6, years ago, then Spagnuolo is probably still the D-coordinator here. A bunch of lower level coaches rose quickly in this organization to other positions with other teams, and subsequently McDermott flew up the promotion charts way too quickly.
Personnel, mainly on offense, has always been a strong point of Reid's. Game plan as well. How it is executed always becomes the problem.
And the day we WIN a Super Bowl is the way we're allowed to have the balls to say it's Super Bowl or bust. That's always been my hang up with this city and the whole image of acting like we've been there before. That the thing - we NEVER have been there before. And the players who actually were there before are nearly all dead.
The argument doesn't go both ways. The point is being competitive because the goal is to be rational about this shit. Reid keeps you competitive year in and year out.
I'm all for being competitive but when does it get to being a SB winner or bust ?
Do you agree he needs to change some of the game plans and personnel...especially on D?
offensive game plan is fine. needs an improved offensive line and a much better d. again the D lost 5 starters during the season. they drafted 2 starters who were lost for the year and still won the division. not sure what you want or expect. stop looking at the minnesota loss - this was a 10-6 team regardless of where the 10 wins came upon the schedule (well actually most of you had them at 8 or less wins back in august-september so...) and they finished 10-6 and won a division title. not sure why i need to defend a coach for winning a division title and losing to a better team in the playoffs. i guess that's what i get with people who could be delusional enough to blame an offense for losing a playoff game last year 51-45 (as was done about the packers here earlier).
4-12...we didnt have a SB win....13-3 we didn't win the SB either
But hey...we make the playoffs every year and continue to lose the same way
Why change anything ? .500 Coach in the playoffs...has lost numerous playoff games as a favorite..but hey..we make the playoffs every year
serious question - how old are you? did you ever sit through a 4 win season? i have and i've seen really bad and meaningless football games and it sucks worse than losing in the playoffs. nothing worse than cheering for an irrelevant team. i watched marion campbell, rich fn kotite, ray rhodes, with guys like ty detmer, koy detmer, rodney peete - so yeah 10-6 division title, exciting games, playoff games every year is still a whole lot fucking better than the alternative.
to compare 4-12 and 13-3 season because neither won a title is fn insane.
and every coach loses playoff games. only 1 wins them all each season. bellichek has lost 3 straight playoff games, does that mean he has lost it and should be fired because he can't win anymore?
and again every year people like you talk about Reid but you never ever have a viable alternative to him in mind (remember no coach has ever won a super bowl with 2 franchises). so if not Reid please tell me who you want to coach this team next year and for the next 4-5 years (or 4-5 years if a new coach can last that long as most new coaches flame out, see how many are left that have been around 5+ years today).
edit: sorry bored at work so have lots of time to argue these points, but it's the same arguments each year.
you keep harping on the running the ball thing. go back to every post today and you'll see that you are the one who keeps bringing that up. i posted a fairly objective article that presented multiple points about how the offense didn't do the defense any favors in either of the two games at the end of the season, and the only one you keep talking about is the running the ball issue. there's plenty of other reasons. (yet is is funny how you continute to ignore that packers stat that you first brought up ). i don't think you read the full article.
as i've said numerous times, i'm way more upset over the loss to the vikings than the packers loss. no excuse to lose at home to team like that, as a 14 point favorite with the #2 seed on the line. the offense scored 7 points in that game. d allowed 17.
and yes, you obviously don't get my point....
because your packers stats are bogus. yes they ran the ball 29 times each game but they throw the ball more often against atlanta so the 29 times are not equal. 18-27 against birds passing and 31-36 against atlanta. last year 28-42 passing in the playoff loss. but wait they lost because they only carried the ball 17 times, not the 51 (that fifty fucking one) points their defense gave up. ugh
and same thing i'll say to you now that i said in the pre-season and also after the vikings game - teams in the NFL end up where they are supposed to. if you thought going into the vikings that the eagles were a 12-win team they you are either delusional or crazy. not surprising at all they lost that game. not sure why almost a month later we are complaining about the vikings game but i guess that what the fans who don't like andy do nitpick at the end of the season. i guess we could nitpick belicheck and mike smith as well.
you think the packers stats are bogus only because they are the opposite of what you were hoping to be. come on dude. you were the one who brought that up. 29 rushes is 29 rushes.
and you're reasoning about the vikings game is horrific. you should have just given up on the season once they got to 10 wins then, you dope. you predicted they'd win that game by double digits. said so the day of the game. they were at home as a 14 point favorite against a 6 win team. you're not surprised they lost that game? you sound uttlerly ridiculous. nit picking.... good god.
i swear i think you work in the eagles PR department. unreal.
you keep harping on the running the ball thing. go back to every post today and you'll see that you are the one who keeps bringing that up. i posted a fairly objective article that presented multiple points about how the offense didn't do the defense any favors in either of the two games at the end of the season, and the only one you keep talking about is the running the ball issue. there's plenty of other reasons. (yet is is funny how you continute to ignore that packers stat that you first brought up ). i don't think you read the full article.
as i've said numerous times, i'm way more upset over the loss to the vikings than the packers loss. no excuse to lose at home to team like that, as a 14 point favorite with the #2 seed on the line. the offense scored 7 points in that game. d allowed 17.
and yes, you obviously don't get my point....
because your packers stats are bogus. yes they ran the ball 29 times each game but they throw the ball more often against atlanta so the 29 times are not equal. 18-27 against birds passing and 31-36 against atlanta. last year 28-42 passing in the playoff loss. but wait they lost because they only carried the ball 17 times, not the 51 (that fifty fucking one) points their defense gave up. ugh
and same thing i'll say to you now that i said in the pre-season and also after the vikings game - teams in the NFL end up where they are supposed to. if you thought going into the vikings that the eagles were a 12-win team they you are either delusional or crazy. not surprising at all they lost that game. not sure why almost a month later we are complaining about the vikings game but i guess that what the fans who don't like andy do nitpick at the end of the season. i guess we could nitpick belicheck and mike smith as well.
you think the packers stats are bogus only because they are the opposite of what you were hoping to be. come on dude. you were the one who brought that up. 29 rushes is 29 rushes.
and you're reasoning about the vikings game is horrific. you should have just given up on the season once they got to 10 wins then, you dope. you predicted they'd win that game by double digits. said so the day of the game. they were at home as a 14 point favorite against a 6 win team. you're not surprised they lost that game? you sound uttlerly ridiculous. nit picking.... good god.
i swear i think you work in the eagles PR department. unreal.
jaegs so because i predicted a win makes the loss worse? i know im smart but i didn't think you valued my opinion that much. and show me a team in the nfl that didn't lose a game as a favorite at home. it happens. jeez you act like the eagles are the only team to ever lose a home game late in the season.
edit: and if i worked in the eagles pr department i'd try to sell you another jersey
4-12...we didnt have a SB win....13-3 we didn't win the SB either
But hey...we make the playoffs every year and continue to lose the same way
Why change anything ? .500 Coach in the playoffs...has lost numerous playoff games as a favorite..but hey..we make the playoffs every year
serious question - how old are you? did you ever sit through a 4 win season? i have and i've seen really bad and meaningless football games and it sucks worse than losing in the playoffs. nothing worse than cheering for an irrelevant team. i watched marion campbell, rich fn kotite, ray rhodes, with guys like ty detmer, koy detmer, rodney peete - so yeah 10-6 division title, exciting games, playoff games every year is still a whole lot fucking better than the alternative.
to compare 4-12 and 13-3 season because neither won a title is fn insane.
and every coach loses playoff games. only 1 wins them all each season. bellichek has lost 3 straight playoff games, does that mean he has lost it and should be fired because he can't win anymore?
and again every year people like you talk about Reid but you never ever have a viable alternative to him in mind (remember no coach has ever won a super bowl with 2 franchises). so if not Reid please tell me who you want to coach this team next year and for the next 4-5 years (or 4-5 years if a new coach can last that long as most new coaches flame out, see how many are left that have been around 5+ years today).
edit: sorry bored at work so have lots of time to argue these points, but it's the same arguments each year.
A little young to remember the Campbell years but did live through the other horrible years
I never said I want lose again just sick of the same routine
It's not necassarily wanting Reid gone as much as just have him tweak a few things like we discussed..its obvious his way has not been working
so whats wrong in changing things ?
My drinking team has a hockey problem
The ONLY thing better than a glass of beer is tea with Miss McGill
A protuberance of flesh above the waistband of a tight pair of trousers
The argument doesn't go both ways. The point is being competitive because the goal is to be rational about this shit. Reid keeps you competitive year in and year out.
I'm all for being competitive but when does it get to being a SB winner or bust ?
Do you agree he needs to change some of the game plans and personnel...especially on D?
offensive game plan is fine. needs an improved offensive line and a much better d. again the D lost 5 starters during the season. they drafted 2 starters who were lost for the year and still won the division. not sure what you want or expect. stop looking at the minnesota loss - this was a 10-6 team regardless of where the 10 wins came upon the schedule (well actually most of you had them at 8 or less wins back in august-september so...) and they finished 10-6 and won a division title. not sure why i need to defend a coach for winning a division title and losing to a better team in the playoffs. i guess that's what i get with people who could be delusional enough to blame an offense for losing a playoff game last year 51-45 (as was done about the packers here earlier).[/quote]
i'm astounded at your idiocy if you truly believe what i put in bold.
because your packers stats are bogus. yes they ran the ball 29 times each game but they throw the ball more often against atlanta so the 29 times are not equal. 18-27 against birds passing and 31-36 against atlanta. last year 28-42 passing in the playoff loss. but wait they lost because they only carried the ball 17 times, not the 51 (that fifty fucking one) points their defense gave up. ugh
and same thing i'll say to you now that i said in the pre-season and also after the vikings game - teams in the NFL end up where they are supposed to. if you thought going into the vikings that the eagles were a 12-win team they you are either delusional or crazy. not surprising at all they lost that game. not sure why almost a month later we are complaining about the vikings game but i guess that what the fans who don't like andy do nitpick at the end of the season. i guess we could nitpick belicheck and mike smith as well.
you think the packers stats are bogus only because they are the opposite of what you were hoping to be. come on dude. you were the one who brought that up. 29 rushes is 29 rushes.
and you're reasoning about the vikings game is horrific. you should have just given up on the season once they got to 10 wins then, you dope. you predicted they'd win that game by double digits. said so the day of the game. they were at home as a 14 point favorite against a 6 win team. you're not surprised they lost that game? you sound uttlerly ridiculous. nit picking.... good god.
i swear i think you work in the eagles PR department. unreal.
jaegs so because i predicted a win makes the loss worse? i know im smart but i didn't think you valued my opinion that much. and show me a team in the nfl that didn't lose a game as a favorite at home. it happens. jeez you act like the eagles are the only team to ever lose a home game late in the season.
edit: and if i worked in the eagles pr department i'd try to sell you another jersey
offensive game plan is fine. needs an improved offensive line and a much better d. again the D lost 5 starters during the season. they drafted 2 starters who were lost for the year and still won the division. not sure what you want or expect. stop looking at the minnesota loss - this was a 10-6 team regardless of where the 10 wins came upon the schedule (well actually most of you had them at 8 or less wins back in august-september so...) and they finished 10-6 and won a division title. not sure why i need to defend a coach for winning a division title and losing to a better team in the playoffs. i guess that's what i get with people who could be delusional enough to blame an offense for losing a playoff game last year 51-45 (as was done about the packers here earlier).[/quote]
i'm astounded at your idiocy if you truly believe what i put in bold.
did you not infer that with your comment about them only running the ball 17 times? please stop jaegs you put that in there in your comments on the packs stat for that reason and i called you on it.
jeez you must be as bored and not busy at work as i am.
Comments
being healthy and filling a few holes will be a step up no matter who the coordinator is.
as long as we run the ball everything will be ok. defense won't matter if we run the ball 5 or 10 more times a game. :roll:
i disagree with your assesment of the packers game (as they ran the ball the same amount against atlanta and more than doubled their score) but i agree that having reid back isn't a bad thing. i love winning 10 games every year and having a chance. where we differ is i think there are certain coaching and personnel philosophies utilized by reid that is preventing them from getting over the hump (ie: smaller/finesse defense that wears down through the season...an offense too reliant on the big play--plus the late adjustments/clock management issues which are crucial in big games). hopefully he improves in those areas, but after 12 years, i have my doubts.
expectations will be much bigger going into next season though. you gotta see what he can do with his new qb, and his new d coordinator.
you should attend that football 101 class the eagles run for chicks.
edit--no offense to pearljgirl2010 as she knows her shit
don't need to, the guys on here and the comcast and wip-itis jersey wearing mofos have convinced me that all we have to do is run the ball a few more times. 5 or 10 more times a game we are 100% guaranteed to win super bowls. it won't even matter when we play better teams (you know like the packers were against us. and the cowboys last year) , 5 or 10 more times run the ball up the middle is all that it will take. :roll: :roll: :roll:
He has done a good job on turning this mess around but at the same time he needs to get the job done
Like Jeags said..we're seeing his same mistakes since '99
He is stubborn to a fault IMO
The ONLY thing better than a glass of beer is tea with Miss McGill
A protuberance of flesh above the waistband of a tight pair of trousers
Doesn't Reid make all the personnel decisions ?
Why are we not the most talented team ?
We'll never know if we would win running the ball 10 more times because Reid wont do it
As soon as it's not a love fest for Reid we're wip listeners :roll: :roll: :roll:
The ONLY thing better than a glass of beer is tea with Miss McGill
A protuberance of flesh above the waistband of a tight pair of trousers
well i'm pretty damn stubborn myself so it could be that.
and i didn't call you a wip-lover. i said the people on here AND comcast and wip idiots.
you clearly have a singular definition of getting the job done so clearly only 1 coach per year 'gets the job done'
well at least enroll in a reading comprehension course? it will make these conversations much easier for people to digest.
nah better to continue to tweak you guys and to shake my head everytime i hear the tired cliche about not running the ball enough.
ha--last time i listened to more than 5 minutes of wip was about 4 months ago before i got my new sirius installed
well i'm not big into "tweaking" other dudes but whatever works for you...
seriously, i'm just trying to have an honest discussion here. you either are not understanding my point or are just choosing to ignore certain things like the packers stats in their other playoff games...which you specifically mentioned as something that would prove your point, then ignored what the actual stats where when you realized they disproved what you were saying.....and then you disolved into name calling. :roll:
we can agree to disagree. like i said, i can see both arguments for reid. i'm not blind to his faults but i also see his strong points. and i am for him coming back and turing this thing around.
The argument doesn't go both ways. The point is being competitive because the goal is to be rational about this shit. Reid keeps you competitive year in and year out.
not sure what your point is jaegs, we lost to a team better than us, a team now a 3-point favorite on the road to go to the Super Bowl. sometimes people look to far into blaming a coach for a loss.
you keep harping on the running the ball thing. go back to every post today and you'll see that you are the one who keeps bringing that up. i posted a fairly objective article that presented multiple points about how the offense didn't do the defense any favors in either of the two games at the end of the season, and the only one you keep talking about is the running the ball issue. there's plenty of other reasons. (yet is is funny how you continute to ignore that packers stat that you first brought up
as i've said numerous times, i'm way more upset over the loss to the vikings than the packers loss. no excuse to lose at home to team like that, as a 14 point favorite with the #2 seed on the line. the offense scored 7 points in that game. d allowed 17.
and yes, you obviously don't get my point....
Holy Crap dude.....we never said we needed a HOF'er
Just someone that is consistent at running the ball
A GB team we were favored to beat @ home ?
A MINN team we were favored to beat @ home ?
The ONLY thing better than a glass of beer is tea with Miss McGill
A protuberance of flesh above the waistband of a tight pair of trousers
because your packers stats are bogus. yes they ran the ball 29 times each game but they throw the ball more often against atlanta so the 29 times are not equal. 18-27 against birds passing and 31-36 against atlanta. last year 28-42 passing in the playoff loss. but wait they lost because they only carried the ball 17 times, not the 51 (that fifty fucking one) points their defense gave up. ugh
and same thing i'll say to you now that i said in the pre-season and also after the vikings game - teams in the NFL end up where they are supposed to. if you thought going into the vikings that the eagles were a 12-win team they you are either delusional or crazy. not surprising at all they lost that game. not sure why almost a month later we are complaining about the vikings game but i guess that what the fans who don't like andy do nitpick at the end of the season. i guess we could nitpick belicheck and mike smith as well.
I'm all for being competitive but when does it get to being a SB winner or bust ?
Do you agree he needs to change some of the game plans and personnel...especially on D?
The ONLY thing better than a glass of beer is tea with Miss McGill
A protuberance of flesh above the waistband of a tight pair of trousers
Defense has never been his thing - he puts someone into place and they take over. Hopefully, who ever it is, is much better than McDermott. As I was reading a couple days ago - who knows, if Jim Johnson retires 5, 6, years ago, then Spagnuolo is probably still the D-coordinator here. A bunch of lower level coaches rose quickly in this organization to other positions with other teams, and subsequently McDermott flew up the promotion charts way too quickly.
Personnel, mainly on offense, has always been a strong point of Reid's. Game plan as well. How it is executed always becomes the problem.
And the day we WIN a Super Bowl is the way we're allowed to have the balls to say it's Super Bowl or bust. That's always been my hang up with this city and the whole image of acting like we've been there before. That the thing - we NEVER have been there before. And the players who actually were there before are nearly all dead.
offensive game plan is fine. needs an improved offensive line and a much better d. again the D lost 5 starters during the season. they drafted 2 starters who were lost for the year and still won the division. not sure what you want or expect. stop looking at the minnesota loss - this was a 10-6 team regardless of where the 10 wins came upon the schedule (well actually most of you had them at 8 or less wins back in august-september so...) and they finished 10-6 and won a division title. not sure why i need to defend a coach for winning a division title and losing to a better team in the playoffs. i guess that's what i get with people who could be delusional enough to blame an offense for losing a playoff game last year 51-45 (as was done about the packers here earlier).
serious question - how old are you? did you ever sit through a 4 win season? i have and i've seen really bad and meaningless football games and it sucks worse than losing in the playoffs. nothing worse than cheering for an irrelevant team. i watched marion campbell, rich fn kotite, ray rhodes, with guys like ty detmer, koy detmer, rodney peete - so yeah 10-6 division title, exciting games, playoff games every year is still a whole lot fucking better than the alternative.
to compare 4-12 and 13-3 season because neither won a title is fn insane.
and every coach loses playoff games. only 1 wins them all each season. bellichek has lost 3 straight playoff games, does that mean he has lost it and should be fired because he can't win anymore?
and again every year people like you talk about Reid but you never ever have a viable alternative to him in mind (remember no coach has ever won a super bowl with 2 franchises). so if not Reid please tell me who you want to coach this team next year and for the next 4-5 years (or 4-5 years if a new coach can last that long as most new coaches flame out, see how many are left that have been around 5+ years today).
edit: sorry bored at work so have lots of time to argue these points, but it's the same arguments each year.
you think the packers stats are bogus only because they are the opposite of what you were hoping to be. come on dude. you were the one who brought that up. 29 rushes is 29 rushes.
and you're reasoning about the vikings game is horrific. you should have just given up on the season once they got to 10 wins then, you dope. you predicted they'd win that game by double digits. said so the day of the game. they were at home as a 14 point favorite against a 6 win team. you're not surprised they lost that game? you sound uttlerly ridiculous. nit picking....
i swear i think you work in the eagles PR department. unreal.
jaegs so because i predicted a win makes the loss worse? i know im smart but i didn't think you valued my opinion that much. and show me a team in the nfl that didn't lose a game as a favorite at home. it happens. jeez you act like the eagles are the only team to ever lose a home game late in the season.
edit: and if i worked in the eagles pr department i'd try to sell you another jersey
A little young to remember the Campbell years but did live through the other horrible years
I never said I want lose again just sick of the same routine
It's not necassarily wanting Reid gone as much as just have him tweak a few things like we discussed..its obvious his way has not been working
so whats wrong in changing things ?
The ONLY thing better than a glass of beer is tea with Miss McGill
A protuberance of flesh above the waistband of a tight pair of trousers
offensive game plan is fine. needs an improved offensive line and a much better d. again the D lost 5 starters during the season. they drafted 2 starters who were lost for the year and still won the division. not sure what you want or expect. stop looking at the minnesota loss - this was a 10-6 team regardless of where the 10 wins came upon the schedule (well actually most of you had them at 8 or less wins back in august-september so...) and they finished 10-6 and won a division title. not sure why i need to defend a coach for winning a division title and losing to a better team in the playoffs. i guess that's what i get with people who could be delusional enough to blame an offense for losing a playoff game last year 51-45 (as was done about the packers here earlier).[/quote]
i'm astounded at your idiocy if you truly believe what i put in bold.
you're acting like 12 year kid...or this guy:
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/
either way, way to destroy a thread.
did you not infer that with your comment about them only running the ball 17 times? please stop jaegs you put that in there in your comments on the packs stat for that reason and i called you on it.
jeez you must be as bored and not busy at work as i am.
He's just "tweaking" you
The ONLY thing better than a glass of beer is tea with Miss McGill
A protuberance of flesh above the waistband of a tight pair of trousers
destroying a thread, we've gone on for over 3 pages today. i'd call keeping the thread alive not destroying it :twisted: