Can our Defense finally contain McNabb?

[ABQCOWBOY]

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.

The McNabb will be different in what way David? More experienced I would imagine but I don't see him being much less mobile.

It will be a much different defense but as I said earlier, it won't matter if they can run the ball. If they can run the ball against our defense, and this is true of any team, they will be successful against us.

 

[Stash]

Originally Posted by stasheroo
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.

Sorry, can't have it both ways. If you want to factor in McNabb's injury last year, you have to factor in the Dallas defense as well. Both situations were different last season. And it's interesting at how McNabb's numbers dropped dramatically each time he faced the Cowboys.

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.

Is our defense dramatically changed from the group that did a number on McNabb last season? Not in my opinion. A few different faces, but not the same as last season's overhaul. But they're almost an entirely different unit than the one McNabb ran around and through in '04.

I agree that if they can't or don't run the football effectively, they're done.

 

[Stash]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

The McNabb will be different in what way David? More experienced I would imagine but I don't see him being much less mobile.

It will be a much different defense but as I said earlier, it won't matter if they can run the ball. If they can run the ball against our defense, and this is true of any team, they will be successful against us.

Maybe you don't see it, but others of us do. I'm not going to attribute McNabb's lack of running completely due to injury. I think he also made a conscious effort to remain in the pocket.

And another interesting observation of mine - see if anyone agrees:

It appeared to me that McNabb seemed a lot "healthier" when things were going well, and his injuries seemed to "worsen" when they weren't.

Did anyone else notive the same?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by stasheroo
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.




Sorry, can't have it both ways. If you want to factor in McNabb's injury last year, you have to factor in the Dallas defense as well. Both situations were different last season. And it's interesting at how McNabb's numbers dropped dramatically each time he faced the Cowboys.



Is our defense dramatically changed from the group that did a number on McNabb last season? Not in my opinion. A few different faces, but not the same as last season's overhaul. But they're almost an entirely different unit than the one McNabb ran around and through in '04.

I agree that if they can't or don't run the football effectively, they're done.

I guess I don't understand why this discussion is going on. McNabb was hurt last year and he was a different player then in years past but it doesn't change the original point. If they can run, they are going to have an excellent chance of beating us. If they can't, it' will be a long day. There is no both ways to it. That is what I originally said. It is a true statement.

As for doing a number on McNabb last year, well, I guess you can look at it that way but IMO, we played an injured QB twice. Who can say what would have happened or will happen when he's healthy? Certainly not I. I do not have a crystal ball that works that well.

If they can run the ball, they will be tough. If they can't, we will be tough. EOS.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.




Maybe you don't see it, but others of us do. I'm not going to attribute McNabb's lack of running completely due to injury. I think he also made a conscious effort to remain in the pocket.

And another interesting observation of mine - see if anyone agrees:

It appeared to me that McNabb seemed a lot "healthier" when things were going well, and his injuries seemed to "worsen" when they weren't.

Did anyone else notive the same?

What others and what is it that all of you see? You saw that he didn't run nearly as much last season? I agree. He was injured very early on. The team did not want him to risk further injury so he became much more of a pocket passer. I don't see him continuing to do that if he's healthy. If he is healthy, he will try to make things happen off the scramble. That's his strength.

I don't dispute the later. Having said that, I think that's true of just about any player. That of course is just my opinion.

 

[Stash]

I guess I don't understand why this discussion is going on. McNabb was hurt last year and he was a different player then in years past but it doesn't change the original point. If they can run, they are going to have an excellent chance of beating us. If they can't, it' will be a long day. There is no both ways to it. That is what I originally said. It is a true statement.

And I'm not discounting that. Nor should you discount the fact that he was facing a different defense than the ones he had in the past. The players the Cowboys now have aren't the same ones they had in 2004. That's every bit as much of a factor as McNabb being injured. That's my point.

As for doing a number on McNabb last year, well, I guess you can look at it that way but IMO, we played an injured QB twice. Who can say what would have happened or will happen when he's healthy? Certainly not I. I do not have a crystal ball that works that well.

If they can run the ball, they will be tough. If they can't, we will be tough. EOS.

That can be said, but as I stated earlier, go to NFL.com and check out McNabb's numbers. He had some great games despite his injury - except when he played the Cowboys. That happened not just once, but twice. So while he still managed some great games despite injury, the Cowboys abused him.

 

[Stash]

What others and what is it that all of you see? You saw that he didn't run nearly as much last season? I agree. He was injured very early on. The team did not want him to risk further injury so he became much more of a pocket passer. I don't see him continuing to do that if he's healthy. If he is healthy, he will try to make things happen off the scramble. That's his strength.

My opinion is that his lack of scrambling was not strictly the result of his injury, and I've seen other posts that seem to echo that opinion. But we'll have to wait for this season to see if that's the case or not.

I don't dispute the later. Having said that, I think that's true of just about any player. That of course is just my opinion.

Maybe, but I really seemed to see it in McNabb last season. I'm surious to see if it looked like that to anyone esle or if I'm alone in that opinion.

 

[lspain1]

My opinion is that his lack of scrambling was not strictly the result of his injury, and I've seen other posts that seem to echo that opinion. But we'll have to wait for this season to see if that's the case or not.



Maybe, but I really seemed to see it in McNabb last season. I'm surious to see if it looked like that to anyone esle or if I'm alone in that opinion.

I did not see what you saw and I don't understand what reasons there would be other than injury preventing McNabb from scrambling. I believe McNabb was injured early, and made a serious effort not to scramble and worsen the injury. To claim otherwise is to say he made an effort not to employ one of the things that made him (and the Eagles) so successful in the past. His scrambling went down in 2004 but the Eagle offense required less of it than in years past.

 

[5Stars]

In the first game with the Eagles, Chris Canty is going to put McNabb down like a horse breeder would do to a horse with a Thiesman leg!

 

[MONT17]

noone has mentioned the transformation the Iggs OL has taken in the past 18 months... with OG Andrews and Max Jean Giles on the field McDs "scramble" ability will put pressure on those guys to pass block!!! for example QUINCY CARTER was sacked about 35 times in 03 LARRY ALLEN gave up 6 of those but in 04 and 05 Cowboys QBs were sacked over 85 times ALLEN gave up 4!!! the Iggs OG are built for power run blocking and a pocket QB!!!

http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/playerstats.asp?id=2841&Submit=Go

Bill Walshs WCO calls for the QB to "avoid and throw" Montana was/is the master... McD can avoid but with this OL and WR group he may just be able to avoid and run!!!

McD is the best running QB in the league (yes better than Vick) when he wants to hurt a D... with the way REID is building this OL it looks like REID will ask 5 to RUN more often along with running the ball with POWER with 2 OGs that would make EMMITT smile and wanna run the rock!!!


the SKINS & Gmen D r set up perfect to beat the Iggs twice this year... I dont know about the BOYS because what they played last year may not be the style they play this year!!! the McD will be lucky to make it to DECEMBER!!!

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

And I'm not discounting that. Nor should you discount the fact that he was facing a different defense than the ones he had in the past. The players the Cowboys now have aren't the same ones they had in 2004. That's every bit as much of a factor as McNabb being injured. That's my point.



That can be said, but as I stated earlier, go to NFL.com and check out McNabb's numbers. He had some great games despite his injury - except when he played the Cowboys. That happened not just once, but twice. So while he still managed some great games despite injury, the Cowboys abused him.

I am not prepaired to say it is or it isn't. No statement, IMO, can be made until we face the guy at 100%.

As far as his injuries, I can kinda agree with you to a ceratian extent but almost from the outset, McNabb was injured. He started with the bruised sternum, then got the sports hernia, then the wrist. He was hurt pretty much all season. I mean, I understand why he didn't run and why he had up and down games. He did not have a good game against us but I don't know if I can give all the credit to our defense in that situation. We won't know for sure till he gets back healthy. He didn't really even have a good game in the second go round but he played well enough to win and they really should have beaten us so I don't know.

All I do know is that this season, the run will tell the story.

 

[J-DOG]

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.

Wait a second....Didn't Mcnabb have a rushing td in that second game???
Or was it my imagination that he did that Michael Jackson impersonation in the end-zone after that td?
You know, for a guy who has a sports hernia why in the world was he breakin it down after the td?
Not to bright...definitely bad karma.
That karma came back in the form of Bradie James putting him on his back.:starspin

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

but almost from the outset, McNabb was injured. He started with the bruised sternum, then got the sports hernia, then the wrist. He was hurt pretty much all season. I mean, I understand why he didn't run and why he had up and down games.

​

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

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!

​

 

[TheSport78]

mcnabb is going into his 8th year and he's obviously not getting any younger...our defense is stronger, faster, bigger and more athletic than ever. i'm not worried about mcnabb

 

[TEK2000]

In the first game with the Eagles, Chris Canty is going to put McNabb down like a horse breeder would do to a horse with a Thiesman leg!

Just gonna let you know that I found that funny. I see no one else commented on it but you got a nice laugh out of me.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

yes

Bradie and AKin coming at him up the middle, Ware from the edge, plus Canty and Spears have shown that they can collapse a pocket, and throw in Roy for good measure, we got McNabb

 

[Bob Sacamano]

ABQ, I'll give you that McNabb will make it a hard time for our D, but he won't be running around on us like he did in the past

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

mcnabb is going into his 8th year and he's obviously not getting any younger...our defense is stronger, faster, bigger and more athletic than ever. i'm not worried about mcnabb

Great ...I hope your defense adopts that same attitude.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

I would say more speed at stopping the run....and size!