Takeo Spikes to Eagles...

[Stash]

Walker was not their best defensive tackle against the run. He was, however, their most proven defensive tackle against the pass but one of many defensive tackles they have that fit the same role. This is precisely why he the Bills want him and precisely why the Eagles think they can afford to take a chance on letting him go. In the end, it is more important to be good at stopping the pass than it is to be good at stopping the run.

I'm not sure where it's written that stopping the pass is more important than the run.

Sounds like more opinion to me.

It sure didn't help the Eagles when they culdn't stop New Orleans' rushing attack in the playoffs did it?

And if Walker wasn't their best run defending DT, I'd like to know who was.

It sure wasn't Broderick Bustley who couldn't even manage to get on the field.

If they're counting on either him or Reagor as the new starter, this Cowboys fan is happy about it.

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

There are more factors that go into making a team one dimensional than whether your defense is good against the pass or run. It's far more important to prevent a team from making plays in the passing game and to be able to make your own plays in the passing game. There is no bigger myth in football than the importance of running and stopping the run when compared to the passing game.

That's fair, and it's true. But while the bottom line boils down to getting the first-downs and scoring, you"ve got to hold that opponent and limit their potential to score ...that's defense.

I'm sure you've heard the term ...games are won and lost at the line of scrimmage.

 

[Smashmouth24]

I'm not sure where it's written that stopping the pass is more important than the run.

Sounds like more opinion to me.

It sure didn't help the Eagles when they culdn't stop New Orleans' rushing attack in the playoffs did it?

And if Walker wasn't their best run defending DT, I'd like to know who was.

It sure wasn't Broderick Bustley who couldn't even manage to get on the field.

If they're counting on either him or Reagor as the new starter, this Cowboys fan is happy about it.

It's not just an opinion, it's supported by history of teams that make it to the Superbowl since its inception. You must be collectively good at passing the ball and defending the pass. You do not need to be collectively good at running the ball and defending the run.

Against New Orleans, the Eagles faced a team that were better at collectively defending the pass and passing the ball than the Eagles were. While the running game certainly helps, they still needed to make many big plays in the passing game against the Eagles in order to drive down the field to put McAllister/Bush in a position to score.

The Eagles have at least two defensive tackles who play better against the run than Darwin Walker, Mike Patterson and Sam Rayburn. Patterson is similar to Walker in that he's a penetrating tackle, but he possesses a motor and speed that Walker lacks in chasing down runners. Rayburn is bigger, stronger, and slower but just tends to not get driven around as much as Walker and Patterson. The reason Darwin Walker started for the Eagles is his ability to play well against the pass, not in stopping the run. The same reason Hollis Thomas _didn't_ start for the Eagles whenever they had two defensive tackles that excelled against the pass.

 

[deadrody]

Good trade in general, but if the Eagles were going to make a trade, don't you think they should keep in mind the fact that you have to SCORE points, too ? At least last year they had Dante Stallworth to keep defenses honest. Their defense could be very good, but by November, they will be beat to snot with Philly losing the TOP game every week.

 

[Smashmouth24]

Good trade in general, but if the Eagles were going to make a trade, don't you think they should keep in mind the fact that you have to SCORE points, too ? At least last year they had Dante Stallworth to keep defenses honest. Their defense could be very good, but by November, they will be beat to snot with Philly losing the TOP game every week.

The Eagles scored more points in the games Stallworth didn't participate in than in the ones he did. That's not to say they're better without Stallworth, but just to point out that he's not the sole reason the Eagles were able to score points.

 

[Stash]

It's not just an opinion, it's supported by history of teams that make it to the Superbowl since its inception. You must be collectively good at passing the ball and defending the pass. You do not need to be collectively good at running the ball and defending the run.

I'd like to see these 'numbers' you refer to. Post them when you have the time. Thanks in advance.

Against New Orleans, the Eagles faced a team that were better at collectively defending the pass and passing the ball than the Eagles were. While the running game certainly helps, they still needed to make many big plays in the passing game against the Eagles in order to drive down the field to put McAllister/Bush in a position to score.

Bzzt! Wrong answer. But nice try though.

The difference in that game was the running game. Garcia's Eagles actually passed for more yards than the Saints did. They were outrushed 208-123. That was the difference. When crunch time came, the Eagles couldn't stop the Saints or get the ball back when they needed to.

The Eagles have at least two defensive tackles who play better against the run than Darwin Walker, Mike Patterson and Sam Rayburn. Patterson is similar to Walker in that he's a penetrating tackle, but he possesses a motor and speed that Walker lacks in chasing down runners. Rayburn is bigger, stronger, and slower but just tends to not get driven around as much as Walker and Patterson. The reason Darwin Walker started for the Eagles is his ability to play well against the pass, not in stopping the run. The same reason Hollis Thomas _didn't_ start for the Eagles whenever they had two defensive tackles that excelled against the pass.

Yeah, Rayburn is so "good" he's a backup, right? Must be great to have backups who are better than the starter is. Nice "logic" there.

As for Patterson, color me uninpressed. The run defense has gotten worse with him starting, not better. And this trade is another step in that direction.

 

[Smashmouth24]

I'd like to see these 'numbers' you refer to. Post them when you have the time. Thanks in advance.

It's been a while since I've gone through it. I don't know that I'll do it again for this thread but I would point out that both ESPN (in a "Truths and Myths" piece) and CZ resident AdamJT13 have crunched the data and come to a similar conclusion.

Bzzt! Wrong answer. But nice try though.

The difference in that game was the running game. Garcia's Eagles actually passed for more yards than the Saints did. They were outrushed 208-123. That was the difference. When crunch time came, the Eagles couldn't stop the Saints or get the ball back when they needed to.

Passing for more yards isn't wholly indicative of a team's ability to make plays in the passing game. Their inability to stop the run would have been rendered moot if they could make plays in the passing game when they needed to. Their last two drives ended in a FG and punt after losing 2 yards on a 3rd down pass and gaining zero yards on 3 consecutive passes, respectively.

Yeah, Rayburn is so "good" he's a backup, right? Must be great to have backups who are better than the starter is. Nice "logic" there.

I said Rayburn was a better defender against the run. It is you that seems to have the problem with reading comprehension and "logic". You do see how Rayburn being a better run defender and not being a starter, for a team that places higher value on guys that are better at defending the pass, are not mutually exclusive concepts yes? This pattern similarly held for Eagles tackles that excelled against the run (Hollis Thomas) when they happened to have two healthy tackles that excelled against the pass (Walker and Simon).

As for Patterson, color me uninpressed. The run defense has gotten worse with him starting, not better. And this trade is another step in that direction.

The run defense has never been very good for the Eagles, save one year, because they tend not to place a very high value on being good against the run. The Eagles defense in general has gotten worse as they've failed to replace the production of players like Hugh Douglas, Corey Simon, and Carlos Emmons (all exceptional against the pass). They don't get off the field as well as they used to, period.

 

[Stash]

It's been a while since I've gone through it. I don't know that I'll do it again for this thread but I would point out that both ESPN (in a "Truths and Myths" piece) and CZ resident AdamJT13 have crunched the data and come to a similar conclusion.

Well I'll believe it when I see it then.

Passing for more yards isn't wholly indicative of a team's ability to make plays in the passing game. Their inability to stop the run would have been rendered moot if they could make plays in the passing game when they needed to. Their last two drives ended in a FG and punt after losing 2 yards on a 3rd down pass and gaining zero yards on 3 consecutive passes, respectively.

And why were the Saints able to win the game? Because they were able to control the ball and the clock with their running game. Much like all of the teams who beat the Eagles do. See the playoffs.

I said Rayburn was a better defender against the run. It is you that seems to have the problem with reading comprehension and "logic". You do see how Rayburn being a better run defender and not being a starter, for a team that places higher value on guys that are better at defending the pass, are not mutually exclusive concepts yes? This pattern similarly held for Eagles tackles that excelled against the run (Hollis Thomas) when they happened to have two healthy tackles that excelled against the pass (Walker and Simon).

I have no problem with logic - when I see it. A team starts its' best players - period. 1st down is predominantly running downs - just ask Trotter when he leaves the field on 3rd down about tendencies.

The run defense has never been very good for the Eagles because they tend not to place a very high value on being good against the run. The Eagles defense in general has gotten worse as they've failed to replace the production of players like Hugh Douglas and Corey Simon (both exceptional against the pass). They don't get off the field as well as they used to, period.

And the reason the Eagles can't win anything is their failure to place a bigger priority on the running game - offensively or defensively. Your own team contradicts your pass-pass theory.

And it's getting worse, not better - especially with moves like this one.

By your logic, is Sam Rayburn now the new starter for the Eagles?

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

The run defense has never been very good for the Eagles because they tend not to place a very high value on being good against the run.

You've said a whole lot of things that have been inaccurate Sm24. But that lead comment quoted above makes no sense at all! Listen to it an aread it back to yourself slowly ...

...The run defense has never been very good for the Eagles because they tend not to place a very high value on being good against the run ... Why would any team not place a very high value on improving an area that they are weak in? That's Just basic GM for any franchise. Granted, I'm not saying we haven't been weak up front in the MLB (monster man) spot in the past, but you're saying we knew it and intentionally paid no attention to it ...Huh!?!

The Eagles defense in general has gotten worse as they've failed to replace the production of players like Hugh Douglas and Corey Simon (both exceptional against the pass). They don't get off the field as well as they used to, period.

This coming from a fan whose team we Beat twice last year? Look I actually think the Cowboys defense was actually better that the Eagles defense in 2007. But only in the MLB and FS positions. We solidified our LB, DT, and DE positions ...our FS is weapon X (that's Brian Dawkins). If you thought we had a weak DL in the past, you'd better watch out In 2008! By the way, your defense wasn't all that ...especially in the secondary.

 

[Smashmouth24]

Well I'll believe it when I see it then.



And why were the Saints able to win the game? Because they were able to control the ball and the clock with their running game. Much like all of the teams who beat the Eagles do. See the playoffs.

Most teams that beat the Eagles in the playoffs do a better job in the passing game. What you don't seem to grasp is that I'm talking about the teams collective ability in the passing game, that means defending it and throwing it. Each of the Giants, Rams, Tampa Bay, Carolina, and New England teams that the Eagles lost to in the playoffs made many more plays defensively (interceptions, sack-fumbles) and offensively (3rd down conversions, big plays) in the passing game than the Eagles.

I have no problem with logic - when I see it. A team starts its' best players - period. 1st down is predominantly running downs - just ask Trotter when he leaves the field on 3rd down about tendencies.

This is the second time you've failed to realize that being better at one aspect of defense is not the sole factor in determining whether or not the player starts for the Eagles. The Eagles value pass defense more than run defense. That doesn't mean the best player for every situation is the better pass defender. It just means that if two defenders were equal overall, the EAgles would prefer to have the one that is better against the pass on the field. Their stated goal, on every down, is to get the quarterback. They hope that in doing so they can eventually stop a run for negative yardage and force a 2nd or 3rd and long. They accept the fact that they will give up running yardage between the 20s with this strategy.

And the reason the Eagles can't win anything is their failure to place a bigger priority on the running game - offensively or defensively. Your own team contradicts your pass-pass theory.

Not really, since almost every playoff defeat ever experienced under Reid came against a team that collectively defended the pass and passed the ball better than the Eagles did.

And it's getting worse, not better - especially with moves like this one.

I'm sure this hasn't made their run defense demonstrably worse. I think it could make their pass defense demonstrably worse. It's a risk they've not been willing to take in the past.

By your logic, is Sam Rayburn now the new starter for the Eagles?

[/quote]
I cannot for the life of me understand what brought you to this conclusion.

 

[juck]

You've said a whole lot of things that have been inaccurate Sm24. But that lead comment quoted above makes no sense at all! Listen to it an aread it back to yourself slowly ...

...The run defense has never been very good for the Eagles because they tend not to place a very high value on being good against the run ... Why would any team not place a very high value on improving an area that they are weak in? That's Just basic GM for any franchise. Granted, I'm not saying we haven't been weak up front in the MLB (monster man) spot in the past, but you're saying we knew it and intentionally paid no attention to it ...Huh!?!



This coming from a fan whose team we Beat twice last year? Look I actually think the Cowboys defense was actually better that the Eagles defense in 2007. But only in the MLB and FS positions. We solidified our LB, DT, and DE positions ...our FS is weapon X (that's Brian Dawkins). If you thought we had a weak DL in the past, you'd better watch out In 2008! By the way, your defense wasn't all that ...especially in the secondary.

weapon x???:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: *** weapon x.

 

[Smashmouth24]

You've said a whole lot of things that have been inaccurate Sm24. But that lead comment quoted above makes no sense at all! Listen to it an aread it back to yourself slowly ...

...The run defense has never been very good for the Eagles because they tend not to place a very high value on being good against the run ... Why would any team not place a very high value on improving an area that they are weak in? That's Just basic GM for any franchise. Granted, I'm not saying we haven't been weak up front in the MLB (monster man) spot in the past, but you're saying we knew it and intentionally paid no attention to it ...Huh!?!

No, what that means is that when the Eagles look at their team and the money they have to spend and who they want to spend it on, defending the run and running the ball comes long after defending the pass and passing the ball. That's not to say they will accept being weak in the running game, they just know they don't have to be good.

This coming from a fan whose team we Beat twice last year? Look I actually think the Cowboys defense was actually better that the Eagles defense in 2007. But only in the MLB and FS positions. We solidified our LB, DT, and DE positions ...our FS is weapon X (that's Brian Dawkins). If you thought we had a weak DL in the past, you'd better watch out In 2008! By the way, your defense wasn't all that ...especially in the secondary.

[/quote]

The Cowboys are an excellent example of a team that, though they passed the ball well, became one of the most ineffective at defending the pass in the NFL. It ensured that they would not get a BYE, not win the division, and have to play their first playoff game on the road where they lost on a fluke play.

 

[Stash]

Most teams that beat the Eagles in the playoffs do a better job in the passing game. What you don't seem to grasp is that I'm talking about the teams collective ability in the passing game, that means defending it and throwing it. Each of the Giants, Rams, Tampa Bay, Carolina, and New England teams that the Eagles lost to in the playoffs made many more plays defensively (interceptions, sack-fumbles) and offensively (3rd down conversions, big plays) in the passing game than the Eagles.

Conversely, tell me about their running games. Give me those results as well. I clearly showed that the run game killed the Eagles against the Saints.

This is the second time you've failed to realize that being better at one aspect of defense is not the sole factor in determining whether or not the player starts for the Eagles. The Eagles value pass defense more than run defense. That doesn't mean the best player for every situation is the better pass defender. It just means that if two defenders were equal overall, the EAgles would prefer to have the one that is better against the pass on the field. Their stated goal, on every down, is to get the quarterback. They hope that in doing so they can eventually stop a run for negative yardage and force a 2nd or 3rd and long. They accept the fact that they will give up running yardage between the 20s with this strategy.

Fine. That's the Eagles' reasoning. How does history show that strategy to be working?

:trophy:

Not really, since almost every playoff defeat ever experienced under Reid came against a team that collectively defended the pass and passed the ball better than the Eagles did.

Not the case last year, was it?

I'm sure this hasn't made their run defense demonstrably worse. I think it could make their pass defense demonstrably worse. It's a risk they've not been willing to take in the past.

Losing Hollis Thomas made their run defense worse, not better. I fully expect the same here.

I cannot for the life of me understand what brought you to this conclusion.

If Rayburn is the better player, why wouldn't he start?

If not him, then who does?

 

[Smashmouth24]

Conversely, tell me about their running games. Give me those results as well. I clearly showed that the run game killed the Eagles against the Saints.

You didn't clearly show any such thing. You showed that one one drive the Eagles needed to stop the run and couldn't. Similarly I showed that on the previous drive the Eagles needed to pass the ball which would have prevented the Saints from even getting the ball back, and couldn't. One or two drives or even a single game doesn't tell the whole story about a team.

Fine. That's the Eagles' reasoning. How does history show that strategy to be working?

:trophy:

A lot better than the Cowboys` strategy that doesn't emphasize making plays in the passing game, I'd say.

Not the case last year, was it?

I did say "almost every". The Saints and Eagles played very much an even game. The Saints certainly held an advantage in that they had the ball last with the lead. However, if the Eagles were able to make the plays necessary in the passing game, they never would have been in the position where they needed to stop the New Orleans running game in 3 downs.

Losing Hollis Thomas made their run defense worse, not better. I fully expect the same here.

I happen to think it did too. Hollis was a quality defensive tackle who happened to be an Eagles free agent on the wrong side of 30. Their defense, however, improved overall with other additions that increased their ability to stop the pass. Losing Walker will not negatively impact the run defense in any way shape or form. It will probably impact the pass defense demonstrably.

If Rayburn is the better player, why wouldn't he start?

If not him, then who does?

Better at defending the run. Not the better player overall. This will only be the 3rd time I've had to explain this.

 

[LowTech]

Let's just agree on one thing............................:suxiggle: :suxiggle:

 

[Bob Sacamano]

First I heard of that! Are you serious ...where did you hear that, this guy is straight linebacker - one of the best when healthy!

Are you fudging with me sp?

BTW, the term upgrade was a reference to player-to-player...not position-by-posotion!

Note: This goes way back doesn't it ...Cole?

that makes absolutely no sense

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Are any concerns anyone has brought up illegitimate?

You have a team that struggled against the run, especially along the interior, trading away one of their DTs for a LB getting over an achilles problem.

It's a good gamble for Philly to take maybe, but criticism is hardly unfounded.

Darwin Walker sucked against the run

 

[superpunk]

Darwin Walker sucked against the run

Maybe. I never said he didn't.

 

[Stash]

You didn't clearly show any such thing. You showed that one one drive the Eagles needed to stop the run and couldn't. Similarly I showed that on the previous drive the Eagles needed to pass the ball which would have prevented the Saints from even getting the ball back, and couldn't. One or two drives or even a single game doesn't tell the whole story about a team.

Apparently you missed it the first time:

Net Yards Rushing - 123 - Philadelphia 208 - New Orleans


There was the clear difference in who won and who lost. But - like Andy Reid, you apparently don't get it either.

A lot better than the Cowboys` strategy that doesn't emphasize making plays in the passing game, I'd say.

:lombardi: > :trophy:

I did say "almost every". The Saints and Eagles played very much an even game. The Saints certainly held an advantage in that they had the ball last with the lead. However, if the Eagles were able to make the plays necessary in the passing game, they never would have been in the position where they needed to stop the New Orleans running game in 3 downs.

And like the rest of your "facts", there's been nothing to back up any point you've tried to make.....

I happen to think it did too. Hollis was a quality defensive tackle who happened to be an Eagles free agent on the wrong side of 30. Their defense, however, improved overall with other additions that increased their ability to stop the pass. Losing Walker will not negatively impact the run defense in any way shape or form. It will probably impact the pass defense demonstrably.

Well, the numbers clearly show that it had a negative effect. And while we're on the subject the new linebacker is also "on the wrong side of 30", funny how that doesn't seem to matter though?

Better at defending the run. Not the better player overall. This will only be the 3rd time I've had to explain this.

So why is this "gem" not starting the games when the team is getting gashed by the run? What are they saving him for?

And it's also the 3rd time you've shied away from actually naming the starter who moves in to make the Eagles defensive line better?

 

[Dayton Cowboy]

NFL Live's segment 'On the Clock' is asking does the addition of Spikes make the Eagles the best pass rushing defense?

According to Schlereth..... not in the NFL.. but best in the NFC

Who would be better in the NFC? I know that we all hope that the system that WP is putting into place will strengthen our pass rush. Are the 'Boys better than Philly?