Takeo Spikes to Eagles...

[Smashmouth24]

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.

27-24, there was the clear difference in who won and who lost.

:lombardi: > :trophy:

That's true, when the Cowboys have 5 superbowl trophies and the Eagles have none. That doesn't change the fact that the Cowboys won those Superbowls by being collectively better passing the ball and defending the pass than the most of the NFL. It doesn't change the fact that the Eagles are a better team today because of their emphasis on the passing game exceeds that of the Cowboys.

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

Other than showing the Eagles clear tendency to play the pass-rusher over the run-stuffer, all things being equal, I guess not.

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?

I don't dispute their run defense got worse. But their defense got better overall with improved pass defense capability. Also, more reading comprehension problems on your side. Pointing out that the Eagles tend to not sign their own guys that are on the wrong side of 30 is not an endorsement of getting Takeo Spikes. Our discussion isn't about whether or not the deal was a good one for the Eagles. It's a discussion about how Darwin Walker isn't their best player against the run and also why run defense is not as important as pass defense.

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

He's no 'gem', because stopping the run isn't as important as stopping the pass. They don't mind giving up yards against the run, so long as they're defending the pass well and not giving up a lot of points. They improved in those areas last year. You might think he is a 'gem' because you mistakenly believe stopping the run is equally or more important than stopping the pass, but that's your problem.

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?

You've only asked once who I think the starter should be. I didn't bother answering then because your question was presented with a false truth. I have literally explained three times how 'better run defender' != 'eagles starter'.


The funniest thing about our exchange is that you're just some schmoe who thinks he's the resident Eagles expert and while we both agree that losing Darwin Walker makes the Eagles defense worse, you mistakenly believe it's worse because of his ability to stop the run. He has no such ability, never did. You'll find this opinion is shared by everyone but you.

 

[Blue&Silver]

Well, I'd have a difficult time finding a 1 to 1 comparison, but Hamlin is similar considering they both spent the last year getting over significant injuries, but had played to VERY high levels previously. Hamlin's alot safer for us, as you mentioned.

If Spikes gets back to being the player he was, this is probably a good trade, because that player is far better than what Walker ever was. If not, it's pretty sucky.

Always two sides...

What significant injury did Spikes have last year?

 

[superpunk]

What significant injury did Spikes have last year?

He spent last year recovering from the ACL. Just as Hamlin did the head injury.

 

[Stash]

27-24, there was the clear difference in who won and who lost.

Yeah, ignore the fact that the Eagles were run over since it blows your lame "passing" theory out of the water....

That's true, when the Cowboys have 5 superbowl trophies and the Eagles have none. That doesn't change the fact that the Cowboys won those Superbowls by being collectively better passing the ball and defending the pass than the most of the NFL. It doesn't change the fact that the Eagles are a better team today because of their emphasis on the passing game exceeds that of the Cowboys.

Check your numbers on that Junior! And tell that to the NFL's leading rusher Emmitt Smith while you're at it!

Other than showing the Eagles clear tendency to play the pass-rusher over the run-stuffer, all things being equal, I guess not.

Don't forget me showing why that strategy doesn't work while you're at it.

I don't dispute their run defense got worse. But their defense got better overall with improved pass defense capability. Also, more reading comprehension problems on your side. Pointing out that the Eagles tend to not sign their own guys that are on the wrong side of 30 is not an endorsement of getting Takeo Spikes. Our discussion isn't about whether or not the deal was a good one for the Eagles. It's a discussion about how Darwin Walker isn't their best player against the run and also why run defense is not as important as pass defense.

How does signing Spikes not contradict their 'over 30' policy? My point is exactly that it wasn't a good one for the Eagles as I feel they've made a deficiency in run defense worse.

He's no 'gem', because stopping the run isn't as important as stopping the pass. They don't mind giving up yards against the run, so long as they're defending the pass well and not giving up a lot of points. They improved in those areas last year. You might think he is a 'gem' because you mistakenly believe stopping the run is equally or more important than stopping the pass, but that's your problem.

Save the 'run vs pass' nonsense for when you can actually back it up. You've brought zero in that department. I've backed up my stance, you've looked foolish.

You've only asked once who I think the starter should be. I didn't bother answering then because your question was presented with a false truth. I have literally explained three times how 'better run defender' != 'eagles starter'.

You haven't anxswered because like everything else, you don't have one. At least you're consistant.

The funniest thing about our exchange is that you're just some schmoe who thinks he's the resident Eagles expert and while we both agree that losing Darwin Walker makes the Eagles defense worse, you mistakenly believe it's worse because of his ability to stop the run. He has no such ability, never did. You'll find this opinion is shared by everyone but you.

I claim to be no expert, just a guy who can actually offer some suuport for his claims - unlike you. That's the funniest thing.

 

[Stash]

He spent last year recovering from the ACL. Just as Hamlin did the head injury.

achilles tendon

 

[superpunk]

achilles tendon

oops. yeah.

 

[Blue&Silver]

He spent last year recovering from the ACL. Just as Hamlin did the head injury.

Nothing wrong with his ACL.

Reading through this thread, that's all I've heard about this guys injury. He had a pulled hamstring for Christ sake.

2 years ago he blew his Achilles. That was 2 years ago. Looking at the game stats, he fully recovered from his hamstring pull by week 5 and played out the entire season.

Folks need to bone up on the situation before ya' ll can trash the guy.

Walker was their pass rushing d tackle and their worst run defender.

 

[superpunk]

Nothing wrong with his ACL.

Reading through this thread, that's all I've heard about this guys injury. He had a pulled hamstring for Christ sake.

2 years ago he blew his Achilles. That was 2 years ago. Looking at the game stats, he fully recovered from his hamstring pull by week 5 and played out the entire season.

Folks need to bone up on the situation before ya' ll can trash the guy.

Walker was their pass rushing d tackle and their worst run defender.

I put the injury out there wrong - my bad.

Walker was hardly their worst defender. Bunkley was so bad he could barely get on the field, and Patterson is about as one-dimensional as they come. This isn't an unrestricted bash fest. But when you struggle stopping the run and address that by trading your DT (who was probably their best against the run) for a LB, your priorities are off. Particularly when one was recently seriously injured, and struggled by many accounts last year.

 

[Blue&Silver]

I put the injury out there wrong - my bad.

Walker was hardly their worst defender. Bunkley was so bad he could barely get on the field, and Patterson is about as one-dimensional as they come. This isn't an unrestricted bash fest. But when you struggle stopping the run and address that by trading your DT (who was probably their best against the run) for a LB, your priorities are off. Particularly when one was recently seriously injured, and struggled by many accounts last year.

Walker could never stop the run. That's why I liked him so much. Bunkley didn't see the field. How could anyone know whether he's bad or not? I know the guy was a beast in college, and I'm guessing his time is now. Wasn't he a hold out or something?

Now it's my turn to be wrong. Bunkley did play. He played in their goal line defense and replaced Walker. That does prove my point though.

 

[Smashmouth24]

Yeah, ignore the fact that the Eagles were run over since it blows your lame "passing" theory out of the water....

It doesn't blow the theory out of the water, in fact it supports it. The Eagles were thoroughly dominated in the running game both defensively and offensively, yet the game was decided by 3 points. The Eagles have won and lost playoff games in which they were dominated in the running game. What they have never done is won a playoff game in which the otherr team made more plays passing the ball and defending the pass than they did. They've also never lost a playoff game in which they were the better team collectively making plays passing and defending the pass.

Check your numbers on that Junior! And tell that to the NFL's leading rusher Emmitt Smith while you're at it!

In your 4th or 5th failure to grasp simple logic, I defy you to explain where I stated the Cowboys didn't have a good running game when they won Superbowls.

Don't forget me showing why that strategy doesn't work while you're at it.

You've yet to demonstrate why a team is better of starting a player who is better against the run than the pass vs. another player who is better against the pass than the run when overall those players are equal.

How does signing Spikes not contradict their 'over 30' policy? My point is exactly that it wasn't a good one for the Eagles as I feel they've made a deficiency in run defense worse.

Because you failed to read the part 'Eagles free agent'. Because he's not an Eagles free agent who expect the Eagles to make him a long term offer. Those are the players who they tend not to sign and in the case of Hollis I agree it was a mistake. I think losing Walker is a mistake, but not because of his ability to stop the run, of which he has none.

Save the 'run vs pass' nonsense for when you can actually back it up. You've brought zero in that department. I've backed up my stance, you've looked foolish.

Well you haven't really shown that Superbowl champions don't need to be collectively better against the pass than the run. That would be backing up your stance. The burden is on me to crunch the numbers again, since I brought it up. But dont' act like you've proven anything.

You haven't anxswered because like everything else, you don't have one. At least you're consistant.

I didnt' answer because you presented the question with a false truth, telling me that I must think Rayburn should start because he's better against the run. That conclusion is based on your own incorrect understanding of the run being more important than the pass. Such questions are not worth answering. For the sake of closure, in my opinion the Eagles are going to start either Bunkley or Monte Reagor at defensive tackle along side Mike Patterson. But this has nothing to do with Sam Rayburn being better against the run than Darwin Walker.

I claim to be no expert, just a guy who can actually offer some suuport for his claims - unlike you. That's the funniest thing.

[/quote]
You support you offer has in some cases contradicted your rather matter-of-fact claims. At least whatever support I offer has been completely consistent with my claims. That you can't understand my logically consistent argument or form one of your own is again, your problem.

 

[Stash]

It doesn't blow the theory out of the water, in fact it supports it. The Eagles were thoroughly dominated in the running game both defensively and offensively, yet the game was decided by 3 points. The Eagles have won and lost playoff games in which they were dominated in the running game. What they have never done is won a playoff game in which the otherr team made more plays passing the ball and defending the pass than they did. They've also never lost a playoff game in which they were the better team collectively making plays passing and defending the pass.

"Supports" it? Where do you live, 'Bizarroworld'? Anyone who watched that game knows that the running game decided it.

In your 4th or 5th failure to grasp simple logic, I defy you to explain where I stated the Cowboys didn't have a good running game when they won Superbowls.

No, you claimed that pass offense and defense was more important. I proved otherwise.

You've yet to demonstrate why a team is better of starting a player who is better against the run than the pass vs. another player who is better against the pass than the run when overall those players are equal.

Never made that claim. You stated that a backup was better than a starter -nonsense as usual.

Because you failed to read the part 'Eagles free agent'. Because he's not an Eagles free agent who expect the Eagles to make him a long term offer. Those are the players who they tend not to sign and in the case of Hollis I agree it was a mistake. I think losing Walker is a mistake, but not because of his ability to stop the run, of which he has none.

The fact is that it goes against their prior stance of not being interested in players over 30. You can argue semantics if you want.

Well you haven't really shown that Superbowl champions don't need to be collectively better against the pass than the run. That would be backing up your stance. The burden is on me to crunch the numbers again, since I brought it up. But dont' act like you've proven anything.

No, I've just disproven your weak attempt at a theory.

I didnt' answer because you presented the question with a false truth, telling me that I must think Rayburn should start because he's better against the run. That conclusion is based on your own incorrect understanding of the run being more important than the pass. Such questions are not worth answering. For the sake of closure, in my opinion the Eagles are going to start either Bunkley or Monte Reagor at defensive tackle along side Mike Patterson. But this has nothing to do with Sam Rayburn being better against the run than Darwin Walker.

More like you didn't answer because you don't have a more viable alternative. And neither do the Eagles.

You support you offer has in some cases contradicted your rather matter-of-fact claims. At least whatever support I offer has been completely consistent with my claims. That you can't understand my logically consistent argument or form one of your own is again, your problem.

Sorry, but you haven't shown jack to support your claims. I've offered facts to counter them. If you can't produce any quality information then it's a lot of baseless opinion and noise.

 

[TobiasEagle77]

I almost fell out of my chair when I saw someone calling Darwin Walker a run-stopping DT. Then I saw who posted it. I can't believe some people still go after old bait like that.

 

[Smashmouth24]

"Supports" it? Where do you live, 'Bizarroworld'? Anyone who watched that game knows that the running game decided it.

Let's ignore for a moment something that is obvious to everyone but you -- that I never said that the team that is better at passing and defending the pass wins every game. Ignoring that for a moment, allow me to point out for the second time why this game does not support any argument that the running game is more important. In a game in which the Eagles were thoroughly dominated in the running game, combined defense and offense, they lost by 3 points on the road.

No, you claimed that pass offense and defense was more important. I proved otherwise.

Combined pass defense and offense is more important than Emmitt Smith and the running game. If they didn't have such a good combined pass offense and defense, they would have never won a Superbowl. Conversely, many teams that didn't have the good running attacks have won Superbowls.

Never made that claim. You stated that a backup was better than a starter -nonsense as usual.

I said a Sam Rayburn was better in run defense than Darwin Walker. This seemed to be a universally understood truth -- that is, until you posted. I did not say he was a better player than Darwin Walker.

The fact is that it goes against their prior stance of not being interested in players over 30. You can argue semantics if you want.

Another comprehension problem on your side. I agreed that losing Hollis was a mistake. I mentioned there is a trend of Eagles free agents 30 and over tend not to be offered deals. The Eagles have made exceptions (Dawkins, Runyan). They have no problem signing 30+ players from OTHER teams on very short-term deals, like Spikes, or Shawn Barber, or Levon Kirkland, or Ed Jasper. Their own players are unwilling to accept these deals. I did not however endorse the trade of Walker for Spikes. That wasn't the subject of this discussion. It turns out Hollis wasn't even a free agent, he was traded.

No, I've just disproven your weak attempt at a theory.

No, what you've done for the most part is either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstand/misrepresent my argument and attack that understanding/representation. It takes a little more than just saying you've done something, to have done it.

More like you didn't answer because you don't have a more viable alternative. And neither do the Eagles.

No, I responded to your presentation of the question initially with a correction of your 'false truth' -- that I must believe Rayburn will be the starter based on my assessment of my abilities. I responded with that correction because I was troubled by the fact that you hadn't absorbed even the most fundamental point about my opinion of Sam Rayburn. I've since answered your question after straightening that out for the benefit of those following along (bless their hearts).

Sorry, but you haven't shown jack to support your claims. I've offered facts to counter them. If you can't produce any quality information then it's a lot of baseless opinion and noise.

Well I certainly haven't shown the empirical evidence that proves Superbowl winners are always among the NFL's best teams in the passing game (offense and defense), and not always among the NFL's best teams in the running game (offense and defense). I acknowledged that. It was a lot of work, it's been repeated by others, and I probably won't go through it again just to prove what everyone but you already seems to understand.

The claim I have supported, that Walker isn't a good run defender, or the Eagles' best was done with knowledge of what the Eagles like to do with their defense since Jim Johnson has become the defensive coordinator and Reid has become the GM. It was done with examples of players who, like Walker, weren't the Eagles strongest against the run but played the majority of snaps precisely because they excelled against the pass.

 

[Stash]

Let's ignore for a moment something that is obvious to everyone but you -- that I never said that the team that is better at passing and defending the pass wins every game. Ignoring that for a moment, allow me to point out for the second time why this game does not support any argument that the running game is more important. In a game in which the Eagles were thoroughly dominated in the running game, combined defense and offense, they lost by 3 points on the road.

No, I guess it was "selective reasoning" then. You theory only applies to situations when it actually occurs, right? Brilliance.

Combined pass defense and offense is more important than Emmitt Smith and the running game. If they didn't have such a good combined pass offense and defense, they would have never won a Superbowl. Conversely, many teams that didn't have the good running attacks have won Superbowls.

I'm from Missouri - show me. You haven't yet.

I said a Sam Rayburn was better in run defense than Darwin Walker. This seemed to be a universally understood truth -- that is, until you posted. I did not say he was a better player than Darwin Walker.

Again - show me your "universally understood truth".

Another comprehension problem on your side. I agreed that losing Hollis was a mistake. I mentioned there is a trend of Eagles free agents 30 and over tend not to be offered deals. The Eagles have made exceptions (Dawkins, Runyan). They have no problem signing 30+ players from OTHER teams on very short-term deals, like Spikes, or Shawn Barber, or Levon Kirkland, or Ed Jasper. Their own players are unwilling to accept these deals. I did not however endorse the trade of Walker for Spikes. That wasn't the subject of this discussion. It turns out Hollis wasn't even a free agent, he was traded.

Oh, so they won't keep their own 30 year olds, they just sign other team's. Got it. Great "strategy".

No, what you've done for the most part is either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstand/misrepresent my argument and attack that understanding/representation. It takes a little more than just saying you've done something, to have done it.

Hardly. I've poked gaping holes in whatever inane points you tried to make. And then you tapdance around the fact and claim to be saying anything else.

No, I responded to your presentation of the question initially with a correction of your 'false truth' -- that I must believe Rayburn will be the starter based on my assessment of my abilities. I responded with that correction because I was troubled by the fact that you hadn't absorbed even the most fundamental point about my opinion of Sam Rayburn. I've since answered your question after straightening that out for the benefit of those following along (bless their hearts).

And who was your candidate again when you finally responded? Monte Reagor? Fresh off a serious car accident after getting run over for years in Indianapolis? At 285 lbs I'm sure he's that 'rock' they need in the middle. Net loss.

Well I certainly haven't shown the empirical evidence that proves Superbowl winners are always among the NFL's best teams in the passing game (offense and defense), and not always among the NFL's best teams in the running game (offense and defense). I acknowledged that. It was a lot of work, it's been repeated by others, and I probably won't go through it again just to prove what everyone but you already seems to understand.

You've shown bupkiss. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Just a lot of talking in circles. That may pass for knowledge over at Eagles Central where "we'll get 'em next year", but I see it for the pointless dribble and waste of bandwith that is is.

The claim I have supported, that Walker isn't a good run defender, or the Eagles' best was done with knowledge of what the Eagles like to do with their defense since Jim Johnson has become the defensive coordinator and Reid has become the GM. It was done with examples of players who, like Walker, weren't the Eagles strongest against the run but played the majority of snaps precisely because they excelled against the pass.

I'd like to see where you've "supported" a single thing you've said?

I guess for you - and your Eagles - it's OK to get run over every year and be 'next year's champs'.

Commitment to mediocrity I guess......

:trophy:

 

[Stash]

I almost fell out of my chair when I saw someone calling Darwin Walker a run-stopping DT. Then I saw who posted it. I can't believe some people still go after old bait like that.

Yawn.

More of the typical "he's only good when he's an Eagle mentality" that I see from every Eagles fan.

If Darwin Walker was still in Philadelphia he'd be "awesome" and a "monster in the middle". But since he's moved on, he's "no good" anymore.

Just like every other player the Eagles traded, lost, or failed to re-sign.

Same old story in the "City of Brotherly Love"......

Maybe you should tell us all how good Kevin Curtis is and how lousy Stallworth was?

Or how about how great Kelly Holcomb is and how Garcia is overrated or over the hill?

:suxiggle:

 

[Blue&Silver]

Yawn.

More of the typical "he's only good when he's an Eagle mentality" that I see from every Eagles fan.

If Darwin Walker was still in Philadelphia he'd be "awesome" and a "monster in the middle". But since he's moved on, he's "no good" anymore.

Just like every other player the Eagles traded, lost, or failed to re-sign.

Same old story in the "City of Brotherly Love"......

Maybe you should tell us all how good Kevin Curtis is and how lousy Stallworth was?

Or how about how great Kelly Holcomb is and how Garcia is overrated or over the hill?

:suxiggle:

I'm not a Eagles fan, but live in the area. I can tell you Walker was the City whipping boy. He wasn't a fan favorite to say the least. In my opinion he was unfairly criticized by fans, and media. He was a good pass rushing DT that's better suited coming off the bench, not starting and playing 60 snaps a game.

He always seemed to show up when we played them though.

 

[superpunk]

I'm not a Eagles fan, but live in the area. I can tell you Walker was the City whipping boy. He wasn't a fan favorite to say the least. In my opinion he was unfairly criticized by fans, and media. He was a good pass rushing DT that's better suited coming off the bench, not starting and playing 60 snaps a game.

He always seemed to show up when we played them though.

It's easier to criticize a 30 year old player when your run defense is getting trashed than it is to trash your future "star" DTs that have only recently been drafted.

That said, while they were getting gashed, Walker was still on the field. Unless Jim Johnson is a masochist, that doesn't bode well for what's behind Walker.

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

TKO should be an upgrade if he remains healthy ...but that's all any player can do to be effective.

He'll fit quite nicely to Jim Johnson's DL scheme.

 

[Big Dakota]

Wonder what they gave up for him?

Good move

 

[Smashmouth24]

Yawn.

More of the typical "he's only good when he's an Eagle mentality" that I see from every Eagles fan.

If Darwin Walker was still in Philadelphia he'd be "awesome" and a "monster in the middle". But since he's moved on, he's "no good" anymore.

Just like every other player the Eagles traded, lost, or failed to re-sign.

Same old story in the "City of Brotherly Love"......

Maybe you should tell us all how good Kevin Curtis is and how lousy Stallworth was?

Or how about how great Kelly Holcomb is and how Garcia is overrated or over the hill?

:suxiggle:

You'll have to search long and hard to find someone that thinks Darwin Walker is a run-stuffing defensive tackle. On the other hand, you could find many people that know he is a pass-rushing defensive tackle in a matter of seconds.

Allow me to diagnose your thought process. You think stopping the run is more important than stopping the pass. You see the Eagles trade a starting defensive tackle. In your world, you need to believe that defensive tackle was the Eagles "best run-stuffer" because it maximizes their loss. But you don't have pull such ideas out of thin air, against all evidence to the contrary, to point out how losing Walker hurts the Eagles. It has nothing to do with stopping the run. The Eagles value defending the pass more than anything else and they just traded their most proven pass-defending defensive tackle.