Breaking Eagles down by quarter

[Jimz31]

I can't believe AJM is even arguing this? He's GOTTA be kidding.

If a WR goes over the middle, who would they rather get hit by first? DEFINATELY not W & W!

This is so ridiculous that it is alarming. LOL.

 

[BillsFan]

Dawkins is has much better coverage skills though yes? I think on that alone you gotta give him the nod.

Williams is a game breaker though. He'll force more turnovers and put a scare in the other teams receivers.

They are both great players.

The -experts- say Sean Taylor will be better than both of them.

 

[AJM1613]

Dawkins is has much better coverage skills though yes? I think on that alone you gotta give him the nod.

Williams is a game breaker though. He'll force more turnovers and put a scare in the other teams receivers.

They are both great players.

The -experts- say Sean Taylor will be better than both of them.

I never heard Dawkins being named in any discussion with Taylor, I heard he was the best college prospect since Lott. Dawkins was a 2nd round pick, not exactly projected well.

It is pretty amazing that the top 3 safeties in the league would be in this divison (and yes that would mean Williams would be better than Reed, that is possible if he can tackle better).

 

[blindzebra]

STATS DON'T MATTER

Read the sig, I think he would know what makes a good safety, he was a very good one.

Williams is slower than Dawkins, and he misses A LOT of tackles, Dawkins never does. Dawkins catches HBs from behind, Williams gets burned.

Dawkins covers better than Williams and they both blitz equally as well.

Williams is the harder hitter (he should be he weighs 245 lbs and Dawkins weighs 205) but Dawkins is a hard hitter as well, second hardest in the league. Pound for pound...

Also Dawkins is in his prime, from 1999-2006 is his prime, before 99 he was in a bad defensive scheme (for safeties) and wasn't used to his capabilities.

Neither one of them are that good of interceptors, the best safeties at that would have to be Sharper or Parrish.

Reed is the best cover safety, Dawkins is second.

It's funny, but I'd bet if Dawkins' stats WERE better they'd matter.

Roy weighs 230, not 245.

So you agree that Dawkins is in the downside of his prime, Roy is ENTERING his. Where are all these missed tackles, you got a stat for that? I've seen Dawkins miss a tackle, so to say he NEVER misses a tackle lowers what little credibility you have.

Roy's stats are better, he's younger, and he causes receivers to think twice about getting near him.

 

[AJM1613]

It's funny, but I'd bet if Dawkins' stats WERE better they'd matter.

Roy weighs 230, not 245.

So you agree that Dawkins is in the downside of his prime, Roy is ENTERING his. Where are all these missed tackles, you got a stat for that? I've seen Dawkins miss a tackle, so to say he NEVER misses a tackle lowers what little credibility you have.

Roy's stats are better, he's younger, and he causes receivers to think twice about getting near him.

Stats don't matter for all defensive positions except the line (sacks, hurries) and the oposing reciever's stats for cornerbacks. FF for safeties and linbackers are important, so I will give Williams the nod on that one.

I heard that he bulked up to 245, just a rumor?

Dawkins is the better safety RIGHT now, he is still in his prime, 3 more years. Please refer me to the missed tackle by Dawkins, I will look up that game and see if it actually happened. the only thing that I remember was the jump ball that Shockey beat him on in the endzone (6'5"-6'0") when he sliped in the NFCCG. Do you agree with me that Williams misses more tackles than Dawkins?

 

[AJM1613]

I can't believe AJM is even arguing this? He's GOTTA be kidding.

If a WR goes over the middle, who would they rather get hit by first? DEFINATELY not W & W!

This is so ridiculous that it is alarming. LOL.

That isn't the only thing that matters. Read the sig.

 

[twa]

That isn't the only thing that matters. Read the sig.

That sig speaks as much for woodson as anything I could say.He is a class act and a hell of a football player.I hope he can remain one of the best for awhile longer.

 

[Smashmouth24]

Roy can't do many of the things Dawkins can, thats why Roy spends the majority of his time at the line of scrimmage. He may hit hard, and that might scare receivers, but QBs have little trouble throwing in his direction. He doesn't cover his zone very well. Anyway, that's why Roy is asked to play at the LOS because that is where he is most damaging to the opposition. The hits on WRs are nice but typically come well after the first down was gained. Its much more impressive to see Roy meeting unsuspecting RBs in the hole time after time or breaking through the line for a big hit on the QB.

Dawkins is asked to do everything, and he does everything pretty well. He's not as good as Roy has become at the LOS, but is much further ahead of Roy in coverage. QBs are afraid to throw at Dawkins, if he's healthy. Dawkins gets the edge over Roy simply because he's a better fit for what a FS is traditionally thought of.

You really should be comparing Roy Williams to SS Michael Lewis, because they're almost identical in style and in what they are asked to do. One always reminds me of the other, though obviously Roy is much more accredited at this point.

 

[AJM1613]

Roy can't do many of the things Dawkins can, thats why Roy spends the majority of his time at the line of scrimmage. He may hit hard, and that might scare receivers, but QBs have little trouble throwing in his direction. He doesn't cover his zone very well. Anyway, that's why Roy is asked to play at the LOS because that is where he is most damaging to the opposition. The hits on WRs are nice but typically come well after the first down was gained. Its much more impressive to see Roy meeting unsuspecting RBs in the hole time after time or breaking through the line for a big hit on the QB.

Dawkins is asked to do everything, and he does everything pretty well. He's not as good as Roy has become at the LOS, but is much further ahead of Roy in coverage. QBs are afraid to throw at Dawkins, if he's healthy. Dawkins gets the edge over Roy simply because he's a better fit for what a FS is traditionally thought of.

You really should be comparing Roy Williams to SS Michael Lewis, because they're almost identical in style and in what they are asked to do. One always reminds me of the other, though obviously Roy is much more accredited at this point.

Good Post

Dawkins and Williams are very different types of players but I had to compare them because they play the same positon. Williams is better than Lewis, and Dawkins is better than Woodson, but the gap is a lot further than it would be if I compared Williams to Dawkins and Lewis to Woodson.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Dawkins is has much better coverage skills though yes? I think on that alone you gotta give him the nod.

Williams is a game breaker though. He'll force more turnovers and put a scare in the other teams receivers.

They are both great players.

The -experts- say Sean Taylor will be better than both of them.

"Experts" said the world was flat too...

 

[TheSkaven]

Look, I'm a Cowboys fan but I'd also like to think that I am a fan of the league and know the players. I live outside of Philadelphia so I've seen quite a bit of Dawkins. He's a great safety. The guy gets migraine headaches everytime he lays a hit on someone and he plays anyway, you have to respect someone like that.

But he's not better than Roy Williams, and after reading your response I think it's relatively clear that you haven't watched the Cowboys play all that much.

You're right, stats don't matter so let's put those aside. Roy is the better playmaker, and if we broke down plays made over the past several years, Roy Williams would clearly be better. Dawkins is a big hitter but he doesn't make plays like Roy does. Sorry AJM it's just true.

Over the past two years, Roy Williams' bone crushing hits have changed games. He knocked Amani Toomer out of the game last year, and he layed a hit on Emmitt Smith that put him out for 6 weeks. He took out Kurt Warner last year. The body count goes on and on..

Dawkins hasn't done that. Dawkins is a big hitter and an excellent safety. But he's not better than Roy..

 

[Nors]

Bob Ford | Sooner or later, Eagles will need to stop the run

By Bob Ford

Inquirer Columnist


Now that the Eagles have clinched a playoff spot, assuring themselves a place in the postseason for the fourth straight year, it is finally permissible to look at what the real season might bring.

If current form holds in the National Football Conference, where men are men and great teams are hard to find, it might just bring the Eagles a meeting with the St. Louis Rams for the right to play in the Super Bowl.

Been there, bungled that.

Should the scenario play out again, however, the Eagles are going to have to improve what has become a frighteningly porous rushing defense. For a refresher course in how important that could be, tune in tonight and watch Marshall Faulk run the football for the Rams.

Going into tonight's game in Cleveland, Faulk has rushed for more than 100 yards in three straight games and appears to have recovered fully from the hand and knee injuries that kept him out more than a month earlier this season. Faulk is capable of sustaining an offense almost by himself and the Eagles, despite eight straight wins and a 10-3 record, seem capable of letting someone like him ruin an otherwise promising postseason.

"We didn't stop it too good today," defensive end N.D. Kalu said yesterday after the Cowboys became the ninth straight team to rush for more than 100 yards against the Eagles. "If I knew why, I'd tell you. But I don't know what's going on with that."

Dallas did most of its damage in the first half, when the teams played to a 10-10 tie and the Cowboys ran for 105 of their 150 yards for the day. Early in the second half, as the makings of the 36-10 rout were forming, the Eagles took the lead and took the Cowboys out of the running mode. Until then, however, the yards were there for the taking.

"When a team runs the ball all day, unless it has the lead, it's going to come back to bite them," linebacker Carlos Emmons said. "You get them in a situation where they have to throw the ball and then maybe they will make some mistakes."

There was no "maybe" in that equation when Quincy Carter was finished. The Dallas quarterback was 8 for 10 in the first half, then 7 for 14 with two interceptions and three sacks in the second half. Once the Cowboys fell behind, the job of the Eagles' defense became a lot easier.

To their credit, the Eagles also played a lot better. They got mad at themselves at halftime and it showed. Why it would take a half for their afterburner to kick in against Dallas is another matter.

"Sometimes you've got to stir them up a little bit," defensive coordinator Jim Johnson said. "Sometimes, things have to happen bad to stir guys up."

If the run defense wanted to get stirred up, all it had to do before the game was check out the league statistics. The Eagles came in yesterday ranked 22d against the rush, and 21st in yards allowed per attempt. The rankings won't improve much this week, either, although the Eagles did break a four-game streak in which they had allowed a running back to gain 100 yards.

Going into yesterday, the Eagles had been run over and around by Ahman Green of the Packers (192 yards), Tiki Barber of the Giants (111), Deuce McAllister of the Saints (184) and Stephen Davis of the Panthers (115).

Yes, all of those games were Eagles wins.

No, it's still not a good idea.

The run defense has to get better.

"No doubt about that," linebacker Mark Simoneau said. "We play really well at times, then seem to give up big runs, give up big drives where they continue to pop for four or five yards. We can't allow that to happen."

According to the defensive players, the problems yesterday were a combination of things. First of all, the Cowboys came out committed to running the ball, and did so in situations that were unusual. Secondly, the Eagles fell victim to their own aggressiveness, overpursuing at times and leaving themselves vulnerable to the draw play.

In the second half, as Andy Reid put it, the Eagles played more "matter-of-fact," which means they went back to basics and stayed there.

"We've been giving up so many yards that teams know that's the way to be successful against us," Kalu said. "It was still surprising how much they ran. They ran on third down. They ran against the nickel. I said, 'Whoa, this is a slap in the face.' "

The slap woke them up and, with some help from the scoreboard, the second half went a lot better.

"We wallowed around for a half and then said, 'Let's get it done,' " Corey Simon said. "At halftime, we knew we had played absolutely horrible and were still in the game. I don't even think we went over any X's and O's. It was more like realizing it was time to go to work."

That's fine against the Cowboys (and the Panthers, Saints, Giants, etc.), but might not be fine enough somewhere down the road against a team with horns on its helmets and a Faulk in its backfield.

One bad half might not mean it's time to go to work. It might mean it's time to go home.

 

[Smashmouth24]

Look, I'm a Cowboys fan but I'd also like to think that I am a fan of the league and know the players. I live outside of Philadelphia so I've seen quite a bit of Dawkins. He's a great safety. The guy gets migraine headaches everytime he lays a hit on someone and he plays anyway, you have to respect someone like that.

But he's not better than Roy Williams, and after reading your response I think it's relatively clear that you haven't watched the Cowboys play all that much.

You're right, stats don't matter so let's put those aside. Roy is the better playmaker, and if we broke down plays made over the past several years, Roy Williams would clearly be better. Dawkins is a big hitter but he doesn't make plays like Roy does. Sorry AJM it's just true.

Over the past two years, Roy Williams' bone crushing hits have changed games. He knocked Amani Toomer out of the game last year, and he layed a hit on Emmitt Smith that put him out for 6 weeks. He took out Kurt Warner last year. The body count goes on and on..

Dawkins hasn't done that. Dawkins is a big hitter and an excellent safety. But he's not better than Roy..

Huh? When the hell did Brian Dawkins have migraines?

Anyway, Dawkins makes plays other than the kind that result in big hits that put out players. He can dictate to his opponents at the LOS and in the secondary. He's a master of all trades, though not the best in any area. Roy is a land rover and fills that role better than any safety in the NFL right now -- he's practically a linebacker. Roy is great at what he is asked to do and much younger, but Dawkins just gives you more to play with and that's why he's regarded as the best. Though if Dawkins can't stay healthy now he's soon going to be thought of as "was the best".

I think we really need to get over Roy's depth chart label of "FS" and comparing him to Dawkins, they're different players with different jobs. If Woody hadn't lost 3 steps, HE would be the true "FS" simply because he's much more instinctive in coverage.

 

[Smashmouth24]

The Eagles, under Jim Johnson, have never been focused on stopping the run. I don't think they've ever cracked the top half of the NFL in run defense.

But under Jim Johnson it would appear that they've had pretty good defenses regardless, agreed? So why keep perpetuating this ridiculous myth that you have to be 'good' against the run to have a good defense? If Jim Johnson's schemes deny points, as they always have under his tenure (#7 in points allowed in 2003), why continue to pretend that the Eagles are in trouble because they're gave up so many yards on the ground? Remembering their worst effort came in a season where they lost more starters to injury than any of Johnson's previous years? Its fine to speculate that maybe those injured players don't return to full health and that maybe the run defense doesn't improve significantly, but I think they've proven they can get by.

 

[Nors]

The Eagles, under Jim Johnson, have never been focused on stopping the run. I don't think they've ever cracked the top half of the NFL in run defense.

But under Jim Johnson it would appear that they've had pretty good defenses regardless, agreed? So why keep perpetuating this ridiculous myth that you have to be 'good' against the run to have a good defense? If Jim Johnson's schemes deny points, as they always have under his tenure (#7 in points allowed in 2003), why continue to pretend that the Eagles are in trouble because they're gave up so many yards on the ground? Remembering their worst effort came in a season where they lost more starters to injury than any of Johnson's previous years? Its fine to speculate that maybe those injured players don't return to full health and that maybe the run defense doesn't improve significantly, but I think they've proven they can get by.

I will not debate that Eagles HAD a good defense
They jost lost two shut down corners. Bye Bye!
They had very aggressive blitzing packages - soon to be Bye Bye!
Their linebackers this year are worse and their is no depth.
DL the one strength is frail.

Its easier to play defense with leads for a good team - the cycle is turning on this unit.

 

[Nors]

Eagles 2002 Defense

291.10 yards a game
15.1 points a game

Eagles 2003 Defense

331.70 yards a game
17.9 points a game


Dallas Defense on the rise!

2002

329.20 yards a game
20.6 points a game

2003

253.50 yards a game
16.2 points a game

Clearly two defenses going in different directions. BTW - Why does it matter to stop the run? Playoffs, Eagles were run over to the tune of 182.50 yards a GAME. Matters

 

[Smashmouth24]

I will not debate that Eagles HAD a good defense
They jost lost two shut down corners. Bye Bye!
They had very aggressive blitzing packages - soon to be Bye Bye!
Their linebackers this year are worse and their is no depth.
DL the one strength is frail.

Its easier to play defense with leads for a good team - the cycle is turning on this unit.

Of the shutdown corners that exist in the NFL, the Eagles did NOT have any of them. What they did have in Bobby Taylor and Troy Vincent is two decorated, crafty veterans that played right into the strength of the defense. That is to say they always kept the plays in front of them between the 20s, often allowing 1st downs in the process when the defensive line couldn't get to the QB. When it came down to the redzone, what they had lost over the years in speed and quickness didn't matter anymore. In the short field, and with the help of Dawkins, they used their experience and savvy to take away most options in the end zone. That style of play isn't what I would refer to as 'shut down', but it doesn't make it any easier to replace.

What the Eagles have now at cornerback is comparison is vastly inexperienced, though younger, faster, quicker, and much more capable of actually covering receivers up and down the field than their predecessors. Whether that translates into a more effective pass defense remains to be seen, in the short term I would tend to think they'll give up more points but allow fewer yards making it a net loss.

They haven't had an 'aggressive' blitz scheme since 2000. Physically declining cornerbacks and much better offensive opponents have contributed to that lack of aggressiveness.

Their linebackers weren't all that talented last year, and it seems that will be the case again this year. But surely they have depth, its not hard to backup linebackers as underwhelming as Wayne, Simonwho, and Emmons/Jones.

 

[Smashmouth24]

Clearly two defenses going in different directions. BTW - Why does it matter to stop the run?

Of course Dallas had a better defense than the Eagles in 2003, what the hell does that have to do with our debate? Don't build up a straw man, or bring up a completely irrelevant comparison, and attack what I never said. It is a tempting but weak debating tactic that you should avoid if you want your opinions taken seriously.

Playoffs, Eagles were run over to the tune of 182.50 yards a GAME. Matters

And they led all playoff teams in points allowed (15.5 per game). I've already explained the focus of a Jim Johnson defense, and it isn't stopping the run. You're going to have to accept that in the NFL it is vastly more important to deny points than it is to deny yards to a running back between the 20s. The same philosophy applied to all facets of the Eagles defense -- run, pass, whatever.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

What the Eagles have now at cornerback is comparison is vastly inexperienced, though younger, faster, quicker, and much more capable of actually covering receivers up and down the field than their predecessors.

That statement sir is conjecture. Nothing more... nothing less. Let's see it in reality.

 

[Nors]

Of course Dallas had a better defense than the Eagles in 2003, what the hell does that have to do with our debate? Don't build up a straw man, or bring up a completely irrelevant comparison, and attack what I never said. It is a tempting but weak debating tactic that you should avoid if you want your opinions taken seriously.

Eagles defense on decline - case made



And they led all playoff teams in points allowed (15.5 per game). I've already explained the focus of a Jim Johnson defense, and it isn't stopping the run. You're going to have to accept that in the NFL it is vastly more important to deny points than it is to deny yards to a running back between the 20s. The same philosophy applied to all facets of the Eagles defense -- run, pass, whatever.

And they were bounced in playoffs yet again - Run right over how ever you want to rationalize that.