BP's own words....

[Jimz31]

until they start stopping people when the games are on the line, I am not buying this...

right now we are ok, but we crumble too easily late in games to be a regarded as a dominant or great defense

the potential is there, but the results are not...the defense flat out blew two wins and nearly two others

David

Include my entire quote. I said they are the real deal....for 58 minutes.

Actually, I think they are the real deal regardless.....ONE drive a game not enough to say that they aren't domninate. They ARE dominate. 3 weeks in a row they faced the #1 ranked offense (granted, it's relatively early), and they crushed all three for the most part.

I still put the loss on the offense....to have ONE drive beat the team is NOT on the defense. It never should have gotten to this point. Yet, we allowed them how to tell us how to play.....and some fans like it that way. That's fine for them.....not for me.

 

[Jimz31]

You think that's bad, look at this moronic head coach who used a conservative game plan specifically to keep an offense off the field.



I don't know why they haven't fired the guy. Way, way, way too conservative, and he let the opposing offense and weather conditions dictate how he played the game !!! What a chicken-s#%# coach!!! You never do that.

Are you serious? Are you comparing ONE GAME to what we have dealt with FOR THE ENTIRE SEASON except ONE game?

That's funny.

 

[InmanRoshi]

Are you serious? Are you comparing ONE GAME to what we have dealt with FOR THE ENTIRE SEASON except ONE game?

That's funny.

Are you serious? You're saying we've been conservative THE ENTIRE SEASON? With a QB who's in the top 10 in the NFL with most passing yards per game?

That's just ignorant or lazy.

Besides, you said you NEVER let an opposing offense dicate what you do. So you obviously don't condone Bill Belichick's tactics, unless I'm unfamiliar with the term "never".

 

[Zaxor]

It can still be a conservative call IF (and this is where bledsoe screwed up and even admitted to it) you execute the play.

You either see the guy wide open and can get a pass to him to try to get a first down and end the game, you run forward for any yards (even if negative yards) to get more time off the clock before punting...or you throw the ball away and then punt. But do NOT throw if there is a chance for an INT.

Bledsoe had a few options and he chose the wrong one.

IMO it had NOTHING to do with conservative vs aggressive in that instance...it had to do with execution.

I think it boils down to people just second guessing here (not to say it is right or wrong to do so)....but if we run people say we should have passed, if we passed they say we should have ran....but somewhere in there is the execution that often get's overlooked because it is always easier to throw ire, anger, or any other negative word towards a specific player or coach.

I seen nothing aggressive about that play other then Bledsoes aggressiveness to make something and screwing it up.

Same type of thing about going for the FG over the TD when we were down in the area.

I guarantee if we went for the TD and did not get it, people would be second guessing and jumping up and down. Heck during the chat of the last game or the game before in similar circumstances people were screaming about it.

But if he goes for the FG then you have the other side screaming and second guessing.

I like the idea of going for the TD because if we miss then we should pin the other team in confined spaces, have a better chance of a turn over or saftey and hopefully at least get good starting position if we stop them.
However I can not fault a coach for going for what should be sure points...problem is if it works and the points are made we win the game and nobody is screaming.

Either way....I see execution problems and expect so from two guys that were not named starters this year until injuries put them and they were named at starting positions that we know will effect the QB play.

We did it last week and this week and games before that...though you and the excution people are correct...by playing for the not to lose bit (3points) instead of the win bit (TD) you allow a team to stay in the game and make that come back on you...by going for the kill you can take the wind out of there sails or at least have them pinned with there backs next to the goalline having to drive for the tieing FG...

WORST CASE SCENARIO:

they get a td with no time left...gameover...but you the fan/and probably the player feel better knowing the team and coaches gave an all out effort...

MOST PROBABLE SCENARIO:

IF your team does not score a td is a tie and overtime...WHY you ask...because most coaches are conservative anyway and would play for the tie and kick a FG...

that is why kicking a FG in the Cowboys situation the last few weeks is utterly useless...


I agree whole heartily that the execution has to improve tenfold...

but...

there are too many headscratching calls for my liking...and way too many "safe" calls that even when executed fairly well gain very little yardage "Yipee" except we won't use them on 4th and an inch but we will on 3rd and 10+...

I understand the concept of deception but if it is done enough times it is no longer deceptive it is a trend...

...This was an outstanding job by our defense to bad the offensive coaches and the offense itself couldn't get the job done...

 

[joseephuss]

I have know problems with the game plan. As situations change week to week, you have to do different things to deal with them. No Julius, no Flozell, no Crayton. I can see where you modify a game plan to account for those things. Seattle's offense is different than either the Eagle's or Giant's. I can see where you change your play calling for that. It is raining. That too has an effect on the game plan.

All these things contribute to how a game plan is devised prior to the game and called during it. So does getting the ball at the 9 yard line due to a special teams play or getting the ball due to a interception and penalty. As the circumstances change within the game, you have to adapt as well. They did not do that in those two situations.

If he did not trust the team to pass it on 1st or 2nd down, then why did they try to pass it on 3rd down in both situations. Seems to go against the grain of wanting to be conservative, especially on the second situation. It was 3rd and 3. Why not trying running a draw? Keep the clock running all they way down to the 2:00 warning.

My problems hasn't been with a so called conservative game plan. My problem has been with inconsistent play calling and situational decisions. Why is the offense even attempting a play at the end? The holding penalty clearly negated the good kick off return by Thompson. Play to the situation.

Execution does matter the most, but play calling matters as well. Seattle is on the other side executing their defense and they had defensive play calls geared toward stopping runs on 1st and 2nd down.

If play calling didn't matter, then why was Parcells hesitant to hand over those duties the last two years. Why didn't Landry ever let Staubach call the plays?

 

[Jimz31]

Are you serious? You're saying we've been conservative THE ENTIRE SEASON? With a QB who's in the top 10 in the NFL with most passing yards per game?

That's just ignorant or lazy.

Besides, you said you NEVER let an opposing offense dicate what you do. So you obviously don't condone Bill Belichick's tactics, unless I'm unfamiliar with the term "never".

No, you don't do it to the degree that BP has. This has been a complaint by many since he's been here.

 

[dbair1967]

Wrong !

The Defense has allowed 2 TD's in the last 45 or so opponents possessions.

Against the NFL's #1 rated offense the past three games.

How in the world can you blame the Defense ?

The offense is to blame.
The offensive line to be specific.

Those games should not have come down to one last possession.

Our Defense is playing great, I wouldn't trade them for any other.

its easy to say we should have scored more because that IS the object, however there is nothing you or anyone else can say to discount the fact that we were up 13-0 against Wash with 5 mins or left in the game and gave up two tds to lose the game, we were up 13-6 with little time left last week vs NYG and gave up a TD to tie the game and we were up 10-3 yesterday with 2 mins to go and gave up an 81 yd TD drive to tie the game...they did manage to hold on against both San Diego and SF but in both cases the defense made the end result a huge question mark till the end

facts are facts...the defense was in position to hold leads we had against Washington, NYG and Seattle yesterday...they blew it all 3 times...and it ewasnt like the offense turned the ball over at our 2yd line or something...the other teams covered huge chunks of yardage to get those tds

we are an ok defense...a great defense would have slammed the door on all those teams

David

 

[Jimz31]

Are you serious? You're saying we've been conservative THE ENTIRE SEASON? With a QB who's in the top 10 in the NFL with most passing yards per game?

That's just ignorant or lazy.

Besides, you said you NEVER let an opposing offense dicate what you do. So you obviously don't condone Bill Belichick's tactics, unless I'm unfamiliar with the term "never".

Are you honestly saying that we are dictating the game?

Are you honestly saying that we have played aggresive this year? I would agree that the Philly game was aggresive. Gee, look at what happened when the handcuffs came off. Are you gonna tell me that the Seattle defense puts more pressure on a QB that the Eagles?

Face it, we play "not to lose" football.....it only helps our opponents "not to lose.".

Until you see that, we will continue to disagree I guess.

 

[Jimz31]

its easy to say we should have scored more because that IS the object, however there is nothing you or anyone else can say to discount the fact that we were up 13-0 against Wash with 5 mins or left in the game and gave up two tds to lose the game, we were up 13-6 with little time left last week vs NYG and gave up a TD to tie the game and we were up 10-3 yesterday with 2 mins to go and gave up an 81 yd TD drive to tie the game...they did manage to hold on against both San Diego and SF but in both cases the defense made the end result a huge question mark till the end

facts are facts...the defense was in position to hold leads we had against Washington, NYG and Seattle yesterday...they blew it all 3 times...and it ewasnt like the offense turned the ball over at our 2yd line or something...the other teams covered huge chunks of yardage to get those tds

we are an ok defense...a great defense would have slammed the door on all those teams

David

An "OK" defense allows more TD's over the amount of drives that we have.

The defense is allowed 1 "screw up" a game if our offense is allowed 5 "3 & outs" a game.

 

[wileedog]

its easy to say we should have scored more because that IS the object, however there is nothing you or anyone else can say to discount the fact that we were up 13-0 against Wash with 5 mins or left in the game and gave up two tds to lose the game, we were up 13-6 with little time left last week vs NYG and gave up a TD to tie the game and we were up 10-3 yesterday with 2 mins to go and gave up an 81 yd TD drive to tie the game...they did manage to hold on against both San Diego and SF but in both cases the defense made the end result a huge question mark till the end

facts are facts...the defense was in position to hold leads we had against Washington, NYG and Seattle yesterday...they blew it all 3 times...and it ewasnt like the offense turned the ball over at our 2yd line or something...the other teams covered huge chunks of yardage to get those tds

we are an ok defense...a great defense would have slammed the door on all those teams

David

I agree.

Although given the choice between this years '58-minute version' and lasts years '60-minutes of suck' version, I'm quite happy where the defense currently is, thank you. Especially considering how much youth is involved.

I never thought they would be this good. this fast. At some point you have to think they are going to get this last 2 minutes of the game thing figured out, and even if they don't if can get some sort of consistency going with our o-line than what they are doing now will still be more than sufficient.

Guys like Ware, Canty, Burnett, Spears, etc are all going to get better. The team is going to get more and more comfortable with the 3-4, probably allowing us to use more complicated blitz packages and create more even more offensive confusion.

No, I don't think we are a 'dominant' defense right now for the reasons you stated. But I have a hard time believing we won't be, and probably pretty soon at that.

 

[WV Cowboy]

its easy to say we should have scored more because that IS the object, however there is nothing you or anyone else can say to discount the fact that we were up 13-0 against Wash with 5 mins or left in the game and gave up two tds to lose the game, we were up 13-6 with little time left last week vs NYG and gave up a TD to tie the game and we were up 10-3 yesterday with 2 mins to go and gave up an 81 yd TD drive to tie the game...they did manage to hold on against both San Diego and SF but in both cases the defense made the end result a huge question mark till the end

facts are facts...the defense was in position to hold leads we had against Washington, NYG and Seattle yesterday...they blew it all 3 times...and it ewasnt like the offense turned the ball over at our 2yd line or something...the other teams covered huge chunks of yardage to get those tds

we are an ok defense...a great defense would have slammed the door on all those teams

David

On a scale from 1 - 10, your Defense is a 9, and your offense is a 3, and you are blaming the Defense.

OK

Is it asking too much for an NFL offense to score 14 - 17 - 20 pts ?

Especially when ST and defense gives you the ball 1st and goal at the 9, and 1st and 10 at the 12.

We got a grand total of 3 pts.

 

[Alexander]

Is it asking too much for an NFL offense to score 14 - 17 - 20 pts ?

Not at all.

It is asking too much to ask your defense to hold good offenses to less than two touchdowns in 55 possessions. Especially a young one that is learning a new system.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

Yes...that and Nyquil.

Dang.....I could use something right now.......head hurts and heart hurts from that game hang over!

 

[2much2soon]

OK...even though I dont agree, I'll give you this.

But then explain the play calling on that final pass by Bledsoe.

That play has been called a bunch of times this season.
In yesterday's particular situation, with no timeouts and little time left, they had to throw something to the sideline.
However, this was the first time Bledsoe threw it when he shouldn't have. Given his performances this season no one would of suspected he would make such a poor decision.
And if Parcells had Bledsoe take a knee everyone would of been screaming about him being too conservative and not trying to win the game.

 

[wileedog]

Are you honestly saying that we have played aggresive this year? I would agree that the Philly game was aggresive. Gee, look at what happened when the handcuffs came off. Are you gonna tell me that the Seattle defense puts more pressure on a QB that the Eagles?

The Eagles never came close to Bledsoe all day. There was no reason not to open things up, because Drew had several hours back there in the pocket to pick his targets.

The Seahawks were blowing past our tackles on every play, and even getting pressure up the middle. As a result Drew was getting hit and rushing throws, screwing up his accuracy and decision making. The book on Bledsoe has ALWAYS been that if you hit him early and often, he's a much different QB.

Meanwhile the line was doing a pretty decent job of opening holes, and we were averaging a very respectable 4.2 YPC in the running game.

To try and 'open things up' in that scenario, with the #1 offense over on the other side of the field and in terrible playing conditions makes no sense - the two situations are not comparable.

The only thing I'm scratching my head about is why we started throwing at the end there, but quite frankly had we just taken a knee and then lost in OT the same crowd would be hollaring about not taking a chance there.

And BTW, the Seattle defense is currently ranked better than the Eagles D in just about every category, including having 1 more sack.

 

[joseephuss]

The Eagles never came close to Bledsoe all day. There was no reason not to open things up, because Drew had several hours back there in the pocket to pick his targets.

The Seahawks were blowing past our tackles on every play, and even getting pressure up the middle. As a result Drew was getting hit and rushing throws, screwing up his accuracy and decision making. The book on Bledsoe has ALWAYS been that if you hit him early and often, he's a much different QB.

Meanwhile the line was doing a pretty decent job of opening holes, and we were averaging a very respectable 4.2 YPC in the running game.

To try and 'open things up' in that scenario, with the #1 offense over on the other side of the field and in terrible playing conditions makes no sense - the two situations are not comparable.

The only thing I'm scratching my head about is why we started throwing at the end there, but quite frankly had we just taken a knee and then lost in OT the same crowd would be hollaring about not taking a chance there.

And BTW, the Seattle defense is currently ranked better than the Eagles D in just about every category, including having 1 more sack.

You don't have to open it up in the middle of the field, but when you have two opportunities at around the opponents 10 yard line, you can take a chance or two on 1st or 2nd down. If Bill doesn't trust the team to pass it in those situations, then why trust them to throw it on the obvious passing situation of 3rd down? This is what they tried both times and the defense was ready both times.

 

[Hoov]

BP admitted that he allowed the Seattle offense to dicate what we do on offense.

This should be alarming to everyone that is remotely a fan. We are allowing opponents to tell US how to play the game.

This IS a recipe for disaster/mediocrity.

What was his statement? It was in response to a question asking whether he never turned Bledsoe loose was due to our o-line...he stated: "No, we were just trying to keep the Seattle offense off the field".

Why? They couldn't do squat anyway.

If anything, he should trust the defense as opposed to the offense anyway. Our defense has played excellent for the VAST most part. It has only been in the final minute or two that it unravels....however, a more aggresive offense game-plan would more than likely negate this problem.

Enough of us allowing Them to dictate to US how we should play!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2:

i think your twisting his words a bit, and the comment your referring to came at a PC after the game when he was obviously frustrated and was probably just giving a quick reply to blow off a reporter on a topic he didnt want to discuss at the time.

 

[WV Cowboy]

Not at all.

It is asking too much to ask your defense to hold good offenses to less than two touchdowns in 55 possessions. Especially a young one that is learning a new system.

I agree.

That's my point, plus that has already been accomplished defensively.

 

[Juke99]

That play has been called a bunch of times this season.
In yesterday's particular situation, with no timeouts and little time left, they had to throw something to the sideline.
However, this was the first time Bledsoe threw it when he shouldn't have. Given his performances this season no one would of suspected he would make such a poor decision.
And if Parcells had Bledsoe take a knee everyone would of been screaming about him being too conservative and not trying to win the game.

They "HAD" to?

And what difference does it make if everyone would have been screaming?

I'll ask again, even if the play worked, we would not have been in FG range for a guy who was just cut today, so why run that play?