Can our Defense finally contain McNabb?

[jazzcat22]

With all the interesting threads, articles and comments on the NFCE. Who is best, who will emerge. Debates that will go on throughout TC. McNabb being healthy and all, can he find his average WR's to be a factor.

So I thought of this:

Without TO to get open quickly, and with McNabb's injuries healed. Will he resort to more scrambling than usual, will he take off running more also. And do we finally have the defense and speed and size to keep him from running on us for 45 seconds. With bigger players and more strength, can we finally make those tackles on first contact, instead of letting the strength of McNabb let him slip away only to find a wide open WR. Which is also where our improved CB situation will come in. With the exception of getting strong FS play from whoever becomes our starter.

I think we can, but must get to him pretty quick, like the first game last year. This is one of the things I'm looking forward to, how we handle an elusive QB.

 

[DallasEast]

IMO, I think that we finally have a front seven to pressure any quarterback on every possession. In McNabb's case, we also have the speed to pursue and quickly close on him anywhere he would scramble behind the LOS. That should help reduce any time for him to (luckily) find a wide open receiver.

Actually, I'm hoping to see us put him into enough hurried situations where he would abandon the pocket and try to scramble for first downs. In other words, beat us with his legs. With our current talent level, and regardless of how great a game he might have, I don't think he can beat us on his own. The rest of the team would have to suck it up and help him do it.

 

[AbeBeta]

Honestly it is a hell of a lot easier without having to worry about TO.

 

[Eddie]

Randall Cunningham used to wipe for floor with our Defenses. Finally, in 91/92, we had the speed to keep him in check. From then on, it was all downhill for Philly until 2000.

I don't know if we can contain McNabb from running, but WTH, let him run. No QB has ever won a Super Bowl with his legs.

I'm not sold on his WR's. So I think we have the speed along the front 7 to get to him quick enough to force him to change his read or flee for his life.

I like it.

 

[lspain1]

A couple of points here:

1. McNabb has always been elusive and before TO often kept drives alive by ad-libbing or moving the chains himself. It has always been one of his strengths. In fact, he may be at his most dangerous when the play has broken down because he ad-libs so well. His passes on medium short routes can sometimes get away from him but his accuracy does not seem to decline when he moves.

2. I believe that Parcells push to go to the 3-4 was in part aimed at containing McNabb and the WCO. McNabb is the most dangerous QB in the NFC East and he is now the only player on the Eagle's offense that must be accounted for on every play.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Philly has been lucky enough to be in a position the last few years where they didn't really need to depend on there running game within the division. Now, I think it's a must for them. I believe that everything comes down to there ability to be succesful with the run game. If they can run on us, it renders our front seven's ability to control/contain McNabb useless. If they can run, McNabb will be able to pick and choose his spots and he will hurt us of the scramble. You can count on that. If we can stuff there run, I think we can dominate this team. We have the athletic ability to cut off the edges on McNabb. If you force him to be a drop back passer, I believe you can force him into poor decisions. Eventually, you make him play catch up and that's not his game IMO. It all comes down to the run IMO.

 

[Stash]

Judging by last season's results, the Cowboys owned McNabb and the Eagles' passing game.

Game 1:

13 of 26 (50% completion) for 131 yards 0 TD's 0 INT's resulting in a 33-10 shellacking which wasn't even as close as the score might indicate

Game 2:

19 of 34 (56% completion) for 169 yards 0TD's 1 INT with an ill-advised McNabb pass costing the Eagles the game and ending his season

Any decision would have to consider how much McNabb's injuries affected him, but his numbers in games prior to and after the Cowboys indicate that he wasn't overly limited from a passing perspective due to injury.

 

[TEK2000]

As Stasheroo said... I thought they contained him pretty well in 2005.

Game 1... sacked 4 times and threw for a total of 110 yards.
Game 2... sacked 2 times, threw for 169 yards, and gave up the game winning TD on the Roy INT.

 

[RCowboyFan]

Lost in all the hoopla about his scrambling ability to scramble and escape pressure, he gets sacked a lot too, because he has tendency to hold ball too long sometimes. Heck in 2004, Drew Bledsoe was sacked just four more times and Vinny only two more times than McNabb, with Owens that is. Its just he had that one highligh play against Dallas, that makes us remember it way too often

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/stats/byposition?pos=QB&conference=NFL&year=season_2004&timeframe=All&sort=8&old_category=QB

 

[Yakuza Rich]

McNabb's last three performances against our defense:

54.5% completion
5.5 yards per attempt
174 passing yards per game
1 passing TD
3 INT's
61 QB Rating
11.7 offensive points scored per game


Looks like we've been containing him pretty well lately.

Rich........

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Historically, McNabb has beaten us when we fail to contain him. If you look at past games with us, when he hurts us is when he gets free to throw down field or scramble. This observation is not based off of one game, by any means. We have done a good job with McNabb historically because we do try to force him into being a pocket passer. He hurts us when he is able to free lance. I don't think you look at last year as an indication to very much. Previous years are a better indication of what McNabb can do when healthy. I think his WR corp is going to limit him but it should be better this year then last. This is why I believe the running game is so much more important this year then in years past. The Eagles must run the football effectively this year or it's going to be a long season for them.

 

[RealCowboyfan]

Can our Defense finally contain McNabb?

Yes, without Terrell Owens, Cowboys will have to worry more about Westbrook, and McNabb.

 

[lspain1]

Lost in all the hoopla about his scrambling ability to scramble and escape pressure, he gets sacked a lot too, because he has tendency to hold ball too long sometimes. Heck in 2004, Drew Bledsoe was sacked just four more times and Vinny only two more times than McNabb, with Owens that is. Its just he had that one highligh play against Dallas, that makes us remember it way too often

I disagree with the impression your post gives. McNabb has been VERY effective rushing the football. Let's ignore last season due to injury. So:

Year _____Team_______G GS Att Yards _Avg Lg TD 20+ FD
2002 Philadelphia Eagles 10 10 63__460__7.3 40 _6 _6 _34
2003 Philadelphia Eagles 16 16 71__355__5.0 34 _3 _3 _26
2004 Philadelphia Eagles 15 15 41__220__5.4 28 _3 _2 _12

If you take 2004 as the Year of TO, it is plain to see his legs were a significant part of the Eagle offense before TO (and will be again IMO). To say his sack totals match Drew Bledsoe completely obscures the fact that his running plays mostly result in positive yardage. Bledsoe's do not!

 

[Stash]

Historically, McNabb has beaten us when we fail to contain him. If you look at past games with us, when he hurts us is when he gets free to throw down field or scramble. This observation is not based off of one game, by any means. We have done a good job with McNabb historically because we do try to force him into being a pocket passer. He hurts us when he is able to free lance. I don't think you look at last year as an indication to very much. Previous years are a better indication of what McNabb can do when healthy. I think his WR corp is going to limit him but it should be better this year then last. This is why I believe the running game is so much more important this year then in years past. The Eagles must run the football effectively this year or it's going to be a long season for them.

I think you can look at last year every bit as much as you can at what McNabb had done in prior years.

It's not the same Dallas defense that McNabb had faced in years past.

I do agree with your observation regarding the running game.

The Eagles gave the Cowboys a hard time in game 2 last season, a game which they should have won by making a concerted effort to run the football. I think they would be best-served to make an effort to balance-out their offense.

 

[RealCowboyfan]

I think you can look at last year every bit as much as you can at what McNabb had done in prior years.

It's not the same Dallas defense that McNabb had faced in years past.

I do agree with your observation regarding the running game.

The Eagles gave the Cowboys a hard time in game 2 last season, a game which they should have won by making a concerted effort to run the football. I think they would be best-served to make an effort to balance-out their offense.

GOOD POINT:starspin

 

[chinch]

McNabb is gonna look terrible against us this year (as he did last year)

 

[RealCowboyfan]

McNabb is gonna look terrible against us this year (as he did last year)

good point...:starspin

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think you can look at last year every bit as much as you can at what McNabb had done in prior years.

It's not the same Dallas defense that McNabb had faced in years past.

I do agree with your observation regarding the running game.

The Eagles gave the Cowboys a hard time in game 2 last season, a game which they should have won by making a concerted effort to run the football. I think they would be best-served to make an effort to balance-out their offense.

I would not agree. When healthy, McNabb is a threat to run. That puts a great deal of pressure on a defense. When you can game plan for a QB to be in the pocket, it makes it much easier IMO. When a QB can bring the added dimension of mobilty into the equation, it's a different ball game. In years past, McNabb has been a mobile QB. Last year, in both contests, that was not the case. It doesn't matter how good or bad our defense is or was. If a QB can run, you have to game plan for it. Now, having said that, it doesn't matter IMO. If the Eagles are one dimensional, I believe our defense, as I said earlier, is fast enough to limit McNabb. This, IMO, is the first time we can say that since McNabb has been with the Eagles. Again, JMO. The Eagles will have to be able to run the football or we will make them pay for it with defensive speed. It all comes down to the run game.

 

[RealCowboyfan]

I would not agree. When healthy, McNabb is a threat to run. That puts a great deal of pressure on a defense. When you can game plan for a QB to be in the pocket, it makes it much easier IMO. When a QB can bring the added dimension of mobilty into the equation, it's a different ball game. In years past, McNabb has been a mobile QB. Last year, in both contests, that was not the case. It doesn't matter how good or bad our defense is or was. If a QB can run, you have to game plan for it. Now, having said that, it doesn't matter IMO. If the Eagles are one dimensional, I believe our defense, as I said earlier, is fast enough to limit McNabb. This, IMO, is the first time we can say that since McNabb has been with the Eagles. Again, JMO. The Eagles will have to be able to run the football or we will make them pay for it with defensive speed. It all comes down to the run game.

You make an interesting point

 

[ravidubey]

The McNabb of 2000 was far different guy than the player we will face in 2006 as is the Cowboy defense. Against a 3-4 defense the resposibility of containing McNabb will fall upon a more athletic player in a 3-4 than it did in a 4-3.