Printable View
when you have Weapon X (Dawkins) on your D you are pretty much set.
I think McNabb is done, what has it been, 3 season ending injuries in like the last 4 years? he is about as durable as a double wide in florida during hurricane season.
Philly would be best served to trade him to someone like Chicago, then develop Kolb or something...he WILL NOT make it this whole season.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vairox
The problem with that idea is that they are built to win now. He has been hurt a lot in his career, but they have a very good team right now, and if you think they are better right now, or even for the next 2 years with Kolb you are crazy. When Mcnabb is healthy he is the one of, if not the best QB in the NFC. They have some aging (but still very good) players, Dawkins, Trotter, Spikes on D, and both tackles on O, Runyan and Thomas.
Kolb is a project with a very accurate arm, but is from a run and shoot system in college and took almost every snap from the shotgun formation. The Eagles run a very complicated offense that Mcnabb pretty much has down perfectly. With the NFC as a whole being pretty weak, you go with your best guy and don't look back, the Eagles ahould have a win now attitude. Also, I strongly believe if they just run the ball with the frequency they did after he got hurt, they would not have teams able to just go all out after him, and his chance of injury will decrease by a lot.
As for Kolb, I think he has a shot of being very good, but is a long term project and 2 or more years as a backup will greatly benefit his career.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard
The eagles had the 25th ranked defense in 1999. The cards ranked 30 last year, so yeah I guess the eagles where a whole lot better. :eek:
Staley also averaged less than 4 yards a carry. He did have a lot of yards, on a lot of carries. Some people are impressed by those kind of numbers but I am not.
Our wideouts were Torrance Small, Na Brown, Damaene Douglas, Dietrich Jells, and Charles Johnson. Chad Lewis was on tha team and turned out to be a very good tight end, but he only played like 6 games that year with minimal numbers. Luther Broughton, and Jed Weaver where our tight ends.
It also was Reids first year, and the first year of running the west coast offense. There where lots of growing pains in the first 2-3 years running this system as it takes a few years just to install everything.
Walter looked good last night, so did Culpepper, unfortunately he began his series the same way he did last week by fumbling the first snap... what a tard. For the first time, Lamont Jordan actually look REALLY GOOD...what the? the offensive line looks much better
Wow.Quote:
The eagles had the 25th ranked defense in 1999. The cards ranked 30 last year, so yeah I guess the eagles where a whole lot better. :eek:
I would have never guessed that.
Even so... the Eagles had talent on D on that team...
Troy Vincent, Jeremiah Trotter, William Thomas (one of my favorite pass defending LB of alltime), Bobby Taylor, Brian Dawkins, and Hugh Douglas.
Now quick... name one player on Arizona's D who you would consider a "good" player... not easy is it? In fact, I can't think of ONE off the top of my head.
You sure present it in a decidedly negative light. Truth is, Staley's yard per carry average was 3.9 yards per carry. "Less than 4 yards a carry" as you describe... but BARELY. A shade under. 3.9 yards a carry is still enough to get things done in the NFL. And with Staley's 1,200 yards rushing that yer... that means BALL CONTROL. McNabb didn't have to be "The Man" that year for the Eagles offense to move the chains.Quote:
Staley also averaged less than 4 yards a carry. He did have a lot of yards, on a lot of carries. Some people are impressed by those kind of numbers but I am not.
Now... in contrast... Edgerrin James was 3.4 yards per carry last year. What is 1/2 a yard per carry difference? MONUMENTAL. The difference between a bad season, and a decent season. The difference between a decent season, and a "good" season.
No way that you can cut it dude... Eagles in 1999 had a running game, and the Cards last year had none.
That makes all the difference in the world... especially to a rookie QB.
Now I think that James is a good back... I think that just goes to show you JUST how bad the Cards O-Line was last year. There really isn't anywhere for them to go but up.
No arguements here... the Eagles WRs sucked. This is the ONLY advantage that the Cards last year had over the 1999 Eagles. And as I said before... that advantage is greatly marginalized with a poor O-Line.Quote:
Our wideouts were Torrance Small, Na Brown, Damaene Douglas, Dietrich Jells, and Charles Johnson. Chad Lewis was on tha team and turned out to be a very good tight end, but he only played like 6 games that year with minimal numbers. Luther Broughton, and Jed Weaver where our tight ends.
Well... since we are comparing... I wonder how many Offensive Coordinators that the Cards have gone through in the past few years?Quote:
It also was Reids first year, and the first year of running the west coast offense. There where lots of growing pains in the first 2-3 years running this system as it takes a few years just to install everything.
Do I even need to look it up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard
First, Staley is not even close to being as good as James. Staley was a little better than average his entire career. Staley had a lot of yards that year because we gave him the ball a lot, we had to switch to a new QB halfway through the season, and we ran the ball a lot.
I can think of one, just off the top of my head, Adrian Wilson is a stud. One of the best strong safeties in football. And yes, it was very easy to think of him.
I agree... Staley isn't near the back that James is. Which should just put the exclamation point on just how much better the Ragles O-Line was that year than the Card's of last year.Quote:
First, Staley is not even close to being as good as James. Staley was a little better than average his entire career. Staley had a lot of yards that year because we gave him the ball a lot, we had to switch to a new QB halfway through the season, and we ran the ball a lot.
Now how important would that be to a rookie QB? And a decent running game vs. NONE?
And yea... you ran the ball a lot... and at 3.9 yards per carry were able to move the sticks. Whereas at 3.4 yards per carry you'd have REAL difficulty doing so.
Bravo... you are more familiar with the Card's D than I am.Quote:
I can think of one, just off the top of my head, Adrian Wilson is a stud. One of the best strong safeties in football. And yes, it was very easy to think of him.
Anyone else?
(tick, tock, tick, tock)
Even at 25th in the league, the Eagles D of '99 had some spot players of quality. They had a pretty good secondary. And they had a quality player at each of the D lineman and linebacker spots.
The Card's of last year have... Wilson? AND?
(tick, tock, tick, tock)
Does one good strong safety a defense make?
He'd better be doing it *ALL* on his own little lonesome...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard
Who cares what the "names" where, obviously neither defense got it done. Who the players were are irrelevant. Both defenses pretty much sucked and thats all that matters
Also, Carlos Dansby is a very good looking young outside linebacker. Berry is a pretty good defensive end also. Obviously they are not full of superstars or else there defense would not have sucked. Oh yeah, the guy that just got hurt with the hard to spell name, Okeafor or something. He is a decent end also.
The whole discussion was about Leinert i think. I thought he played pretty well considering (kinda like Mcnabb in 99). We will learn a lot in his second year, defenses will be able to study his tendencies and that means a lot (see Romo's first few games versus the end of the year). He will need to make the adjustments versus the defensive adjustments made against him.
It makes a difference.Quote:
Who cares what the "names" where, obviously neither defense got it done. Who the players were are irrelevant. Both defenses pretty much sucked and thats all that matters
Because one defence will play better... more consistently than the other and give the team a better chance to win games. Which is the bottom line.
Maybe ranked just 25th may give a team a chance to win another two games over a team that is ranked 30th. Which can be all the difference in the world. If it's even just two field goals that are the difference makers.
Agreed.Quote:
The whole discussion was about Leinert i think. I thought he played pretty well considering (kinda like Mcnabb in 99). We will learn a lot in his second year, defenses will be able to study his tendencies and that means a lot (see Romo's first few games versus the end of the year). He will need to make the adjustments versus the defensive adjustments made against him.
One poster here just made the comment that Leinhart "looked like he sucks" and I thought that it was way too premature to make that call.
Especially when you compare Leinhart's first year... which I think was even better than McNabb's first year. And I think that McNabb held the advantage in the situation of his 1st year. And I also think that McNabb is a good QB (even if for different reasons than you).
But they both sucked.Quote:
It makes a difference.
Because one defence will play better... more consistently than the other and give the team a better chance to win games. Which is the bottom line.
Maybe ranked just 25th may give a team a chance to win another two games over a team that is ranked 30th. Which can be all the difference in the world. If it's even just two field goals that are the difference makers.
Comparing their seasons is kinda dumb to me. Leinhart started like twice as many games as Mcnabb did, 11 to 6.Quote:
Agreed.
One poster here just made the comment that Leinhart "looked like he sucks" and I thought that it was way too premature to make that call.
Especially when you compare Leinhart's first year... which I think was even better than McNabb's first year. And I think that McNabb held the advantage in the situation of his 1st year. And I also think that McNabb is a good QB (even if for different reasons than you).
Yes they did.Quote:
But they both sucked.
But my point is that even the difference between 25th and 30th overall will effect each teams situation... and thus each QBs situations.
And yet you were more than willing to jump headfirst into the debate.Quote:
Comparing their seasons is kinda dumb to me.
My point was to highlight that Leinhart's season didn't "suck"... that he is every bit as comparable to some other good QBs in the past. I used McNabb just because his stats came to mind first (as per our other debates on him).
Looking on NFL.com, McNabb played in 12 games. Now I know that doesn't mean that he started in all of them... it just doesn't seem right to me that he only started 6. Are you sure?Quote:
Leinhart started like twice as many games as Mcnabb did, 11 to 6.
And of course we can always look at QB rating... which gives us a better picture.
Leinhart's was a fair bit better than McNabb's (1st seasons that is). And I'm not bashing McNabb in saying that... he's proven a LOT more than Leinhart at this point.
I am sure, besides watching all of them, there is a games started column.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard
And to me Qb rating means nothing...its a worthless stat.
QB1 throws starts on the 30 yard line, goes 3 for 3, each pass for 10 yards, the last obviously for a TD.
QB2 starts on the same 30 yard line, throws 2 incomplete passes, then a 30 yard TD.
QB1 has a rating of like 147.9, but QB2's rating is something like 111.1. Does that really make sense? The end result was still 30 yards and a TD after 3 passes.
As of 2004, Jeff Garcia had the 4th best QB rating of all time. Culpepper is 6th. Friggin Aaron brooks is 22 all time. Brooks?
your posts are too long...cant take the time to read it
Quote:
Originally Posted by Recon
Really? Because yours are way to short. I would love some facts, maybe a discussion, a thought provoking insight. But instead...nothing. Nothing at all.
Taking of meaningless stats... "Games Started" is one.Quote:
I am sure, besides watching all of them, there is a games started column.
Who should get more credit? The QB who takes the first few snaps of the game and then gets yanked right away (or injured), or the one who actually plays the majority of the game?
LOL!Quote:
And to me Qb rating means nothing...its a worthless stat.
QB rating may not be the perfect measuring stick... but what's a better alternative do you think? Weight?
LOL!
No... QB rating gives you a fairly good idea. It isn't perfect as you have proven... but it is far from a "worthless stat" as you have said.
As for Garcia, Culpepper, and Brooks... they were flashes in the pan those years (as far as top QB rating of alltime goes). It happens... get over it.
What would be more important is LONG TERM QB rating. That would hold more weight.
For guys like Leinhart... all we have is one year to judge... but it was a decent year for a rookie QB. Better than McNabb's I'd say.