The Eagles Looked Pretty Good Last Night - Dallas Cowboys Forum

lspain1 · 09-21-2004

I think we have to give credit where credit is due. The Eagles beat the Vikings pretty much fair and square even with the TO "catch" in the fourth quarter. The credit goes to the Eagle defense. The Vikings went into the red zone 5 times and came up with one touchdown. McNabb was McNabb doing well on scrambles and occasionally throwing the ball into the ground.

This is really a vintage Andy Reid Eagle team. The addition of TO gives them a real vertical threat and some addtional firepower as long as Westbrook stays healthy. As much as I hate to admit it, they played the Vikings FAR better than we did on the defensive side of the ball. They remain the class of the NFC East until we can prove otherwise. I don't think that will be this year.

Tio · 09-21-2004

I sadly have to agree.

Jarv · 09-21-2004

Actually its Jimmy Johnson all over again...That guy is a hell of a DC.

dbair1967 · 09-21-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by lspain1

I think we have to give credit where credit is due. The Eagles beat the Vikings pretty much fair and square even with the TO "catch" in the fourth quarter. The credit goes to the Eagle defense. The Vikings went into the red zone 5 times and came up with one touchdown. McNabb was McNabb doing well on scrambles and occasionally throwing the ball into the ground.

This is really a vintage Andy Reid Eagle team. The addition of TO gives them a real vertical threat and some addtional firepower as long as Westbrook stays healthy. As much as I hate to admit it, they played the Vikings FAR better than we did on the defensive side of the ball. They remain the class of the NFC East until we can prove otherwise. I don't think that will be this year.

They did look better than us but honestly that isnt saying much...they had the benefit of a week of film to work off and they also had the advantage of seeing what we did wrong. The Vikes were also minus Kleinsasser and then lost starting RT Rosenthal early in the game, that certainly didnt help. The officiating was pretty one sided as well, in addition to the Owens non catch the Eagles were offsides alot (and only flagged once that I remember) and the first TD drive shoudlnt have never been, as Antione Winfield was flagged for def holding on a McNabb 3rd down incompletion, replay clearly showed he was not holding. Despite the Vikes clearly not playing as well, Culpepper had one rush TD called back for a holding penalty and fumbled going into the endzone another time...

The thing I was most impressed with was the Eagles tackling, it was excellent. Jim Johnson also did a heckuva job with his scheme...you didnt see him playing scared defense like Zimmer did last week. It's why he's an elite coordinator and Mike Zimmer is not.

I still stand by my preseason prediction that the Eagles wont win the division though.

David

Jarv · 09-21-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbair1967

They did look better than us but honestly that isnt saying much...they had the benefit of a week of film to work off and they also had the advantage of seeing what we did wrong. The Vikes were also minus Kleinsasser and then lost starting RT Rosenthal early in the game, that certainly didnt help. The officiating was pretty one sided as well, in addition to the Owens non catch the Eagles were offsides alot (and only flagged once that I remember) and the first TD drive shoudlnt have never been, as Antione Winfield was flagged for def holding on a McNabb 3rd down incompletion, replay clearly showed he was not holding. Despite the Vikes clearly not playing as well, Culpepper had one rush TD called back for a holding penalty and fumbled going into the endzone another time...

[View Full Quote]

Good analisys David, but why don't you think they will win the division ?

TLW47 · 09-21-2004

I only watched briefly but the Vikings looked sad out there. They looked like a high school team compared to the Eagles.

dbair1967 · 09-21-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarv

Good analisys David, but why don't you think they will win the division ?

Even with Owens out there I dont see much difference in their offense. It's still alot of dink and dunk stuff, and controlling McNabb from running free. I think their OL is average at best (and they've already lost #1 pick Andrews) and their defense, while pretty good last night will eventually be exposed. They gave up 400+ yards to the Giants last week too.

I may end up being wrong, but I think our offense will eventually score enough pts to get us the division title, I wasnt counting on us losing Julius Jones for the yr though and had expected him to be a big boost to our run game...I am hopeful our defense wont have any more meltdowns like last week, hopefully Zimnutz and Tuan have learned their lesson about playing to passively on D

David

lspain1 · 09-21-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbair1967

They did look better than us but honestly that isnt saying much...they had the benefit of a week of film to work off and they also had the advantage of seeing what we did wrong. The Vikes were also minus Kleinsasser and then lost starting RT Rosenthal early in the game, that certainly didnt help. The officiating was pretty one sided as well, in addition to the Owens non catch the Eagles were offsides alot (and only flagged once that I remember) and the first TD drive shoudlnt have never been, as Antione Winfield was flagged for def holding on a McNabb 3rd down incompletion, replay clearly showed he was not holding. Despite the Vikes clearly not playing as well, Culpepper had one rush TD called back for a holding penalty and fumbled going into the endzone another time...

[View Full Quote]

David, I don't buy the officiating argument but I agree with your other points. The Eagle defense was quick off the ball and aggressive. They demonstrated that aggressive defense can disrupt a pretty good offense.

Your tackling point is very good. I also observed that the Eagle CB's technique looked very good. They were able to draw an offensive PI call against Moss late in the game. With all of these points, I will stand my ground that these guys are better than the rest of us in the division.

mullet · 09-21-2004

the vikings looked like the boys. penalties and turnovers preventing scores.

but, philly gets some credit for causing those things to happen.

unfortunately, I think the eagles look like the team again in the East.

SA_Gunslinger · 09-21-2004

too bad for philly they don't play that good in january!

aikemirv · 09-21-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by lspain1

David, I don't buy the officiating argument but I agree with your other points. The Eagle defense was quick off the ball and aggressive. They demonstrated that aggressive defense can disrupt a pretty good offense.

Your tackling point is very good. I also observed that the Eagle CB's techniques looked very good. They were able to draw an offensive PI call against Moss late in the game. With all of these points, I will stand my ground that these guys are better than the rest of us in the division.

I do buy the Officiating argument. Moss had pass int called on him on an uncatchable ball and also on a play that the DB initiated the contact. Last week he pushed T New 5 yards into the endzone with no call. There is no way Winfield was holding on the Eagles first drive and it did not look like a hold on the Culpeper TD run from the angle I saw.

TO "catch" was not and the booth did not even attempt a replay on the Culpeper fumble. Those are just off memory. And they were offsides multiple times.

Their D played much better than ours but they got some very fortunate calls that changed the game trememdously

lspain1 · 09-21-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by aikemirv

I do buy the Officiating argument. Moss had pass int called on him on an uncatchable ball and also on a play that the DB initiated the contact. Last week he pushed T New 5 yards into the endzone with no call. There is no way Winfield was holding on the Eagles first drive and it did not look like a hold on the Culpeper TD run from the angle I saw.

TO "catch" was not and the booth did not even attempt a replay on the Culpeper fumble. Those are just off memory. And they were offsides multiple times.

Their D played much better than ours but they got some very fortunate calls that changed the game trememdously

Don't misunderstand me...I hope you guys are right, and I'm wrong

Clay_Allison · 09-21-2004

Jim Johnson sure showed how nice it would be to have a REAL defensive coordinator.

Zimmer is so afraid of looking bad he will not try anything that might result in making a play.

slick325 · 09-21-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by lspain1

I think we have to give credit where credit is due. The Eagles beat the Vikings pretty much fair and square even with the TO "catch" in the fourth quarter. The credit goes to the Eagle defense. The Vikings went into the red zone 5 times and came up with one touchdown. McNabb was McNabb doing well on scrambles and occasionally throwing the ball into the ground.

This is really a vintage Andy Reid Eagle team. The addition of TO gives them a real vertical threat and some addtional firepower as long as Westbrook stays healthy. As much as I hate to admit it, they played the Vikings FAR better than we did on the defensive side of the ball. They remain the class of the NFC East until we can prove otherwise. I don't think that will be this year.

I sadly concur. The Eagles did look like the class of the division and the NFC. They know how to win. We are just starting to acquire that knowledge as a collective. They played like they were top dogs on the block last night. They were confident and aggressive, they have been there done that. They were unimpressed or awestruck by the Vikes offense because they have dealt with this type of O before when they played the Rams machine of 1999. Jim Johnson is a heck of a coach.

Ken · 09-21-2004

I disagree that the eagles looked great last night.

I thought they were extremely lucky.

Their defense still gave up over 400 yards of offense and it would have been more if the Vikings were not shooting themselves in the foot. They were inside the 5 3 times and self destructed on all of them.

Their offense looked good but it is not like the Vikings have a good defense.

The home field advantage was obvious as was the fact that the Vikings RT was hurt very early in the game. Made Kearse look like he was shot out of a cannon not being blocked half the time. Throw in the fact that they faced the Vikes without Moe Williams and Keinsasser and you can see why they won the game.

If this game was in Minny, I am certain they would not have won.