Sunday, November 29, 2009

Redskins @ Eagles Post Mortem

Version 1 of this post started during the early 4Q included the following comments:

1)Are you EFFING kidding me?!?!
2) Offense lost this game because of too many penalties.
3) Defense lost this game because they could not get off the field on third down.

Comments after they pulled out the win:

1) McNabb again comes up big in the 4th quarter. This is the second week in a row for those keeping count at home.
2) McCoy is becoming a stub. Witness the 2 point conversion in which he was stopped 2 yards short yet got it in anyways. All heart.
3) Ditto Avant. He may never be a superstar in this league but he'll play for 10 more years because all he does is get 1st downs. He has more heart than any other 2 players on this team.
4) I don't mind the onsides kick. Just because it didn't work doesn't mean it shouldn't have been called. Replays clearly showed they had it. Just a freak execution issue where it hit an Eagles player.

Finally, this is a game they had to win. Had to. No margin of error left. This is also a game this team doesn't win a month ago. Today? They squeek out the win. Is it meaningful? It definitely would have been (and not in a good way) if they had blown it. Since they won, we won't know for sure until we see how this season turns out. But we still have some hope. . .

Labels:

15 Comments:

Blogger The Happy Apologist said...

This was the quintessential sausage game. Nothing to like besides the outcome.

4:44 PM EST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought this was one of the more entertaining games of the season. Great drama, and dammit, the Eagles won. This is exactly the type of win the Birds need. They pulled one out just when it looked like the season might be over.

I really like some of the younger players. Shady has replaced 36 as far as I'm concerned. Avant, Maclin, and Jackson are an awesome trio.

Defense and offensive line need health and work, but I'm seeing a team that is beginning to jell and find itself. Love coming back two games in a row. That's what good teams do.

Hoping for a great end of season, and starting to see reasons why it is a possibilty.

Ed Wade

6:34 PM EST  
Blogger The Happy Apologist said...

They have GOT to fix the penalties problem though. If anything, it seems like it's getting worse.

8:14 PM EST  
Blogger dbarr75 said...

McNabb generated two 4th quarter comebacks, on consecutive weeks nonetheless! That is the start and end of this story. I cannot remember that happening in his career, let alone on consecutive weeks. That fact alone give sme hope that they can do something. It shows me he is learning from earlier mistakes this year and making the right decisions in crunch time. Reid also called a better balanced game and shock of all shocks it worked.

This team ain't a Super Bowl team, we all know that. Too banged up and too young. But boy they seem capable of scaring a few of the big boys and in the end, all i care about is winning when you're supposed to and being in position to knock someone off.

Bumble

9:57 PM EST  
Blogger David said...

Absolutely atrocious call on that onsides kick! You're playing a team that can't score, with major injuries problems of their and your own. Your D is too banged up to stop North Penn, you do not, repeat, do NOT give them a shred of momentum by doing something stupid like that. That play worked once, 10 years ago. It's dead and over. Horrendous execution and it could've been fatal 5 seconds into the game. Absolutely no reason to put your team in that position.

Bumble

9:58 PM EST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A couple of things, Bumble:

The onside kick was a great play because the Skins are the only team in the league to play 5 up (versus the standard 6), and are consequential ripe for a game changing play. Love the fact that Reid showed some balls.

A lot of teams would have trouble stopping North Penn. Hate that frigging team. Arch rival as a kid (Thanksgiving rival back then) and playoff nemisis now as an adult.

Ed Wade

9:40 PM EST  
Blogger David said...

Ed,

I have to strongly and respectfully disagree with you-it was not a good play. There was no need to provide momentum to a hapless team by doing that. It wasn't balls, it was the same stupid trick play he's been trotting out for 10 years that worked one time ever and cost them other times. Even if the lineup of the Skins was set as you say (I assume some talking head pointed out that it was a great thing to do based on the Skins alignment), the Birds completely shanked the kick and were out of position to make the play. In addition, I've heard half a dozen talking heads today, including 3 ex players, rip them for a stupid play call like that. I guess it comes down to which knuckle head we put our faith in. I get the "take chances" angle, but not on the opening play of the game vs. a bad team with injury problems. You do that vs. a better team to catch them off guard, not an inferior team who doesn't need to have any life breathed into them.

It doesn't really matter in the end. No one is hanging with the Saints. That team is in some ridiculous zen zone where everything they do is successful. Their offense is creative and unstoppable, their defense is relentless and attacking, and their special teams put a ton of pressure on you and provide superb field position. They can certainly go cold, but in a dome, that team is unbeatable right now.

Bumble

11:48 PM EST  
Blogger The Happy Apologist said...

Bumble,

The reason why the onside kick is a better play against a bad team vs. a good team is that your downside is less. Yes, you give a bad team some more life if it goes wrong (i.e. Sunday), but against a good team you lose. Period. High risk plays work better against bad teams. Against teams you don't think you can win, you play things VERY close to the vest and hope you make zero mistakes. You do NOT gamble against teams that you know/think are better than you.

And this is all results based analysis after the fact. They didn't convert and WAS got 7 out of it. A 14 point swing the other way and Reid's a genius. Same decision, different results.

6:48 AM EST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bumble -

You guessed it. I would have never picked up on the alignment thing on my own. I watch the ball and the skilled guys, and I'm pretty clueless about the X and O stuff.

The "talking head" that pointed it out was none other than Big Red when Eskin asked him about the play. Reid explained that Washington employed the unique alignment. His explanation was extremely reasonable to me. You send 4-5 guys to a part of the field defended by only two. If properly executed, the play has a really good chance to work. That's what Andy said, and he convinced me. If he's wrong, he fooled me, but I'm a pretty logically guy, and it appealed to me that he had a good reason for trying the play.

I'm also encouraged that the coach was willing to try somethig a little gutsy. All week you predicted (accurately, I will add) that this would be a tough game. Why don't you like your coach trying to do something thoughtful to gain an edge?

I hate using results only to judge the quality of effort, as you know. For example, an in-the-dirt slider that gets hit for a homer is still a good pitch in my world. Not Tim McCarver's, but mine.

We all complain when Red goes "predictable." When he does something a little ballsy and has a good reason for doing so, I think he should be judged on more than just the result. The kick team executed poorly. Agreed.

Hate it when we say a runing play was a bad idea because the back fumbled, or a pass was a bad choice because the receiver dropped the ball. You understand the kind of thing I'm talking about. I'm guessing you still would not have liked the onsides kick (even a little) if it had worked?

More to the point, I want the Eagles to play interesting football. Yes, I completed the entire Sunday Inquirer crossword during the game as always, but at least I didn't nap this week. The game was interesting from jumpstreet, in part because Andy showed me he was interested in pulling out all stops to win it.

Unfortunately, I agree that the Eagles have no chance to win the Bowl. There are several teams that are flat out better than they are.

I'd also like to admit out loud that I think Brett Favre is having an incredible season and deserves a ton of praise (damn, did that hurt).

Ed Wade

Ed

6:59 PM EST  
Blogger The Happy Apologist said...

Ed,

No one has a chance of winning the Bowl today (especially the Eagles) because it's not played in week 12! Good thing the Eagles still have 2 months to get in shape for it. And improve they must, but I wouldn't say they have no shot.

8:17 PM EST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Touche, HA. Let me ammend my statement. Unless the Eagles improve both lines significantly, or unless several key injuries slow down the superior teams (Colts, Patriots, Saints, Vikings, Patriots, etc.), they have only a remote chance to win the SB.

I haven't given up on the possibility yet either, but the chances are less robust than I'd like.

Ed

9:58 PM EST  
Blogger David said...

I just don't call it ballsy when he trots out the same on sides kick play that he's been doing for 10 years now. You don't need to do trickeration when you're playing an inferior team. Give them no life. Kick them deep, three and out, then start the beating. Instead you give them life and if not for some amazing late game heroics, the Birds lose that game having spotted the Skins a silly 7. Just my opinion.

Favre looks very good, and I know that has to tear into the fiber of your being Ed. That team is very balanced and could make things tough for New Orleans.

every team has a theoretical shot of winning the SB, the Birds shot is statistically lower. I blame it mostly on the bum health of their team. If you tell me a team will lose their RT, their RB, their MLB, and have 2 gimpy CB and be alive, I'd tell you no way. If they could get healthy, the lines gel (shout out to you Big Ed, strong lines can carry a team very far), and a few injured offensive players come back, they could be in a position to at least scare the big guys.

What is the deal with Curtis? Age?

And Ed, I love the Schneider signing. Great back-up player at a core position. Keep getting deeper on the bench and the bullpen. Lousy off season before that with a ridiculous cutting of Feliz and a WTF signing of a 40 year old journeyman, but this is a sign of good things to come.

Bumble

11:33 PM EST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Schneider signing:

Here's a summary of my scouting report from last season (I watched Schneider with interest because he used to be a Phillie killer and I like to follow the Mets because I hate them)...

Wow, is this guy ever washed up. He has no bat speed to speak of, seldom hits the ball with authority, has a girl's arm, and consistently seems in contention with his pitchers. I can't believe this guy is still in the major leagues.

Sorry, I hate this signing. Chris Coste is a way better player than Schneider at this point, and I think Chris coste is washed up also.

Polanco signing: Okay, he's a nice little contact hitter with a better than average glove. Not significantly better than Feliz with the bat, not significantly worse with the glove, but locked in for a little more money and two additional years. Don't get it. I know people rave about his baseball aptitude, but I kind of liked Pedro that way also.

Bottome line: If the Phils want to beat the Yankees with this once-in-my-lifetime core, they need to get a big-time pitcher, specifically Doc H. If the Phillies just want to have some more fun winning 90+ games and winning some playoff games in October, they're headed in the right direction.

Pitching, pitching, pitching.

Love the Joe Blanton's of the world, but you aren't beating the Yankees without hammers on the hill. Cole can be your #3 in the playoffs, but he can't start 2 games. Not if you want to win it all.

Go get an ace and win the damn thing.

Ed Wade

7:16 PM EST  
Blogger David said...

what would it take to get Doc? Do they have the ponies to do it? When the Yanks and Bosox are interested?

Underwhelming off season thus far. I also don't like that Polanco is a 2B vs. a 3B. Huge difference, especially on 34 year old legs.

I like Schneider but not based on anything more recent than 2-3 years ago. i felt he was pretty good at one point. Too bad he fell off.

Bumble

11:20 PM EST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't know what all it would take to get Doc, but presumably it would be less than the Phils offered last year. Baseball America rates the Phils' minor league system #4, and I know they are particularly stocked at the lower levels. They have what it would take to pull off a major trade. I think Drabek or Happ would need to be part of the deal. Maybe one of the blue chip outfielders as well.

If the goal is to be competitve for the next five years, it will be tough to pony up. If the goal is to add another WS or two right now, you go for it. I'm all in with this core. I say go for it now. If the Phils can beat the Yankees in 2010, I'll be set for life. I mean that. I'll enjoy the following seasons with shorter lines at Tony Lukes and let Shaner worry about the next Haley's Comet sighting.

Ed Wade

8:20 PM EST  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home