Game Day ***Cowboys vs Eagles post game thread***

[Oh_Canada]

I wouldn't go that far considering one guy is going to the playoffs, in his first year coaching no less while the other guy will be watching the game from his couch for the 3rd year at the helm. Whatever Chip Kelly has done is working at this point, whether it's the way the team practices and/or works out. I'll be the first one to admit I never thought his offense would succeed in the NFL but he proved me wrong. At the end of the day, whether anyone likes Chip Kelly, the Eagles front office went out and got the person they thought was the best coach available. I envy that process, as opposed to finding the guy that fits the owner/GM's comfort zone.

Don't get me wrong I like Kelly, but he had a lot of things go his way this season including the good fortune of playing a ton of backup QB's and incredible luck with injuries. I do believe he's a better coach than JG, but not convinced he's the prodigy some have made him out to be.

 

[jobberone]

After we had a couple of negative runs, it wash pretty much a given that we were gonna go pass heavy.

They tried to go back to it and I do think Garrett gives that up to easy. But you have to remember you run to throw because that's getting your scoring for you. I just think Garrett is too predictable in certain situations. He needs to run more in 3 and 3 or less, more play action, and throw the ball down the field more. I understand why he does the things he does. I just don't agree with the percentages he takes. He's so predictable because he doesn't take risks. And you can pretty much predict what he's going to call. That's a problem. There are no simple answers to most of this unless you boil things down to turnovers, Sc% and RZ%. Otherwise you have to look at the film to dissect the play calling.

 

[rybee]

What is the record for most consecutive 8-8 seasons?

 

[Picksix]

They tried to go back to it and I do think Garrett gives that up to easy. But you have to remember you run to throw because that's getting your scoring for you. I just think Garrett is too predictable in certain situations. He needs to run more in 3 and 3 or less, more play action, and throw the ball down the field more. I understand why he does the things he does. I just don't agree with the percentages he takes. He's so predictable because he doesn't take risks. And you can pretty much predict what he's going to call. That's a problem. There are no simple answers to most of this unless you boil things down to turnovers, Sc% and RZ%. Otherwise you have to look at the film to dissect the play calling.

I'll give you that. I've always said I think Garrett coaches scared. And I'm not saying running the ball wouldn't have led to greater success. I just have a problem with people saying it would have like it's an indisputable certainty.

 

[BourbonBalz]

Yep. Nothing to tell. I'm not going to address every baseless instance of you guys second guessing play calls just because they did not work, though.

8-8, 8-8, 8-8. Exhibits A, B, and C. Three straight season ending week 17 losses to each of our three division rivals. Exhibits D, E, and F. The prosecution rests. The jury finds the red-headed idiot guilty of being a terrible head coach. The sentence? Firing squad, but not the literal type.

 

[ShiningStar]

Once we went to the pass they knew they had teh game, because they didnt have to commit to the run, you run run run run , you saw a few runs, a few good passes, Orton was driving the offense and doing well and who goes and mucks that up, Garrett.

 

[ShiningStar]

I'll give you that. I've always said I think Garrett coaches scared. And I'm not saying running the ball wouldn't have led to greater success. I just have a problem with people saying it would have like it's an indisputable certainty.

its simple football, that and defense, and i love my some offense, but even with a pass happy league, the defense is still getting ti done. You run to set up the pass. We pass with no run. Little to no success. The evidence is on the field.

 

[dreghorn2]

Statistics say what he got on 17 carries. History says what happens when he gets 20+ carries. It's too bad, but absolutely typical under Garrett, that once again we are left with the same questions and results.

They could have tried him with a fullback a few times as well, i hear they help running backs sometimes..

 

[odog422]

I'll give you that. I've always said I think Garrett coaches scared. And I'm not saying running the ball wouldn't have led to greater success. I just have a problem with people saying it would have like it's an indisputable certainty.

How is that different from you saying he would've gotten nine more yards on three carries like it's an indisputable certainty? As I said in my original post, we are undefeated when he has 20 carries or more. It seems the stats are relevant only when they support your take.

 

[Tabascocat]

How about Escobar getting that impressive TD and seeing nothing else from him? I realize Witten caught a lot but where was the vaunted two TE set in the passing game?

How many balls were thrown Cole's way? Not many.

This offense is all over the place and can not find a groove. Heck, even if they find a groove, they go away from it. Teams dictate to us on what plays are going to be called, they all know it and we fall for it.

The offensive scheme needs scrapped, the sooner the better.

 

[HeavyBarrel]

Good lord the callers on Norm's postgame show suck......

 

[Dodger12]

Don't get me wrong I like Kelly, but he had a lot of things go his way this season including the good fortune of playing a ton of backup QB's and incredible luck with injuries. I do believe he's a better coach than JG, but not convinced he's the prodigy some have made him out to be.

Let me ask you this and answer it honestly. If the script was turned and the team that won tonight with a new, innovative HC and a young franchise QB (along with a stud RB) had a star on their helmet, how giddy would we all be? And we'd have every right to be.....

 

[hutch1254]

It doesn't matter who the QB is on this team. The offensive scheme combined with a terrible defense puts the quarterback into no win situation at the end of ball games.

 

[Picksix]

How is that different from you saying he would've gotten nine more yards on three carries like it's an indisputable certainty? As I said in my original post, we are undefeated when he has 20 carries or more. It seems the stats are relevant only when they support your take.

I never said it was a certainty. I'm was just saying that, based on what the running game had produced, there was really no reason to think that three more carries would have made the difference. It might have. He may broken one. But there really wasn't much to suggest he would. He might have fumbled again. As for the whole, "we win when we run the ball at least 20 times," why then don't we just run it the first 20 plays? I mean, what do you think? Given that Murray had 51 yards on 17 carries, and his longest run was 9 yards, do you think that running the ball three more times - just to get to the magical number of 20 - would have made a difference? And also, in all those games where we did run 20 times and won, did we win because we ran, or did we run because we were winning?

 

[Picksix]

its simple football, that and defense, and i love my some offense, but even with a pass happy league, the defense is still getting ti done. You run to set up the pass. We pass with no run. Little to no success. The evidence is on the field.

Was our defense getting it done? At times, yes. At others, no. We still gave up long, quick drives. 137 yards on the ground, 124 passer rating. We did get good pressure on Foles, and stuffed McCoy at times, and overall it was good effort, but it was by no means dominant. As for running to set up the pass, I really think that's an antiquated idea. You look at the high powered offenses of today. They don't really run to set up the pass. They come out of the gate throwing, and mix in enough run to keep from being one-dimensional. I do believe in balance, and you're right, we don't have near enough of that. But is that why we lost the game tonight? We ran the ball a lot early, and it did okay. Nothing great, and we did it turn it over once running the ball. We weren't running it well in the second half. Maybe if we had kept with it, things would have been different. But there's no way to know that.

 

[Beast_from_East]

8-8, 8-8, 8-8. Exhibits A, B, and C. Three straight season ending week 17 losses to each of our three division rivals. Exhibits D, E, and F. The prosecution rests. The jury finds the red-headed idiot guilty of being a terrible head coach. The sentence? Firing squad, but not the literal type.

The fact that Garrett was not fired in the lockerroom makes this franchise a joke.

3 consecutive 8-8 seasons while being eliminated in week 17 by all 3 division rivals...........................they need to put some sort of plaque up on the wall for that.............special kind of suck to accomplish that feat.........we are witnessing history boys.

 

[big dog cowboy]

3 consecutive 8-8 seasons

You know I still want JG gone but it beats 3 straight 5-11 seasons.

 

[Lazyking]

I wish we could fire the GM. Then maybe mediocrity wouldn't be tolerated.

 

[odog422]

I never said it was a certainty. I'm was just saying that, based on what the running game had produced, there was really no reason to think that three more carries would have made the difference. It might have. He may broken one. But there really wasn't much to suggest he would. He might have fumbled again. As for the whole, "we win when we run the ball at least 20 times," why then don't we just run it the first 20 plays? I mean, what do you think? Given that Murray had 51 yards on 17 carries, and his longest run was 9 yards, do you think that running the ball three more times - just to get to the magical number of 20 - would have made a difference? And also, in all those games where we did run 20 times and won, did we win because we ran, or did we run because we were winning?

Yes, you did say that: "So, if we had run 3 more times, statistics say we'd have gained 9 more yards." Your words. Now, if you want to say its not verbatim, your choice, but I think clearly your statement intent is the same. I think we have no debate. When your response is to try to muddy the waters with "why don't we run it 20 straight times to start," respectfully, you have no response because that statement is simply ridiculous. As for "win because we ran, etc." or, in other words, chicken or the egg, if nothing else, Garrett has shown he does not follow the logical trends when it comes to use of the running game so trying to make that distinction is again an attempt to grasp at layered deep innocuous stats. End of the day, you made a statement based on what you thought would probably occur if we continued to run the ball to support your statement that we weren't going to win if we continued to give Murray the ball and I made one that shows what has occurred when we have given him the ball 20 times or more - we have an undefeated record.

 

[Picksix]

Yes, you did say that: "So, if we had run 3 more times, statistics say we'd have gained 9 more yards." Your words. Now, if you want to say its not verbatim, your choice, but I think clearly your statement intent is the same. I think we have no debate. When your response is to try to muddy the waters with "why don't we run it 20 straight times to start," respectfully, you have no response because that statement is simply ridiculous. As for "win because we ran, etc." or, chicken or the egg, if nothing else, Garrett has shown he does not follow the logical trends when it comes to use of the running game so trying to make that distinction is again an attempt to grasp at layered deep innocuous stats. End of the day, you made a statement based on what you thought would probably occur if we continued to run the ball to support your statement that if we weren't going to win if we continued to give Murray the ball and I made one that shows what has occurred when we have given him the ball 20 times or more - we have an undefeated record.

Just going by statistics does not make it a certainty. I did say that stats say 3 more runs would have yielded 9 more yards, but only as base to back an arugment. I never actually said that, because of statistics, it was an indisputable certainty that he would have gotten 9 more yards with 3 more carries? I think you need to go back and look again, and not have your mind already made up.