theogt
Surrealist
- Messages
- 45,846
- Reaction score
- 5,912
I didn't watch the Giants-Eagles game on Sunday so I was curious to see how the Eagles actually won the game. On paper, it looked like they just dominated the Giants and that scared me, since the Giants are pretty good team, even if they've lost three in a row. I wanted to find out how they were so dominant during the game.
After looking at the game, the thing that stood out the most was field position. The Eagles' average starting field position in the game was their own 40 yard line. I kid you not.
Here are their drives according to starting position, including the result of the drive and an explanation of why they had such a great starting position.
On the drives in which they had "normal" field position, they punted twice, had one turnover, and scored 10 points. Not particularly impressive. Once the Eagles are given starting position mid-field or better, they become more aggressive, taking shots downfield that lead to big plays. I think if you eliminate the field position advantage, you eliminate their big plays. Granted, the one touchdown was a big play 60+ yard TD run by McCoy, but that was the result of terrible play execution (appears someone blew a gap assignment) and poor tackling.
As you can see from the explanations, the primary causes of the great field position were special teams and turnovers. Given how our special teams is playing, I think we can limit their returns significantly. The only question is, can we limit our turnovers? Lately, we've been able to. Manning's INTs were both what I would consider "unforced errors." In neither case did Philly have good pressure on Eli. Eli simply threw inaccurate passes that were picked off. In other words, it's not as if the Eagles were creating these turnovers.
I think we can do two things the Giants couldn't: (1) not allow big returns on special teams, and (2) limit the stupid turnovers.
If we do that, I think we win by multiple scores. Just my two cents.
After looking at the game, the thing that stood out the most was field position. The Eagles' average starting field position in the game was their own 40 yard line. I kid you not.
Here are their drives according to starting position, including the result of the drive and an explanation of why they had such a great starting position.
On the drives in which they had "normal" field position, they punted twice, had one turnover, and scored 10 points. Not particularly impressive. Once the Eagles are given starting position mid-field or better, they become more aggressive, taking shots downfield that lead to big plays. I think if you eliminate the field position advantage, you eliminate their big plays. Granted, the one touchdown was a big play 60+ yard TD run by McCoy, but that was the result of terrible play execution (appears someone blew a gap assignment) and poor tackling.
As you can see from the explanations, the primary causes of the great field position were special teams and turnovers. Given how our special teams is playing, I think we can limit their returns significantly. The only question is, can we limit our turnovers? Lately, we've been able to. Manning's INTs were both what I would consider "unforced errors." In neither case did Philly have good pressure on Eli. Eli simply threw inaccurate passes that were picked off. In other words, it's not as if the Eagles were creating these turnovers.
I think we can do two things the Giants couldn't: (1) not allow big returns on special teams, and (2) limit the stupid turnovers.
If we do that, I think we win by multiple scores. Just my two cents.
