Skip to main content

Arizona Cardinals 21 Philadelphia Eagles 17

It's pretty amazing for as much talent as they have, how the Eagles can play as they have this year. Well, I should specify, how the Eagles have played in 4th quarters this year. If games ended after three quarters, Philadelphia would be 8-1, with their only loss coming to Buffalo. BUT, since it is a four quarter game and with their loss to the Cardinals yesterday, the Eagles are 3-6. That's right, they've blown 4th quarter leads in five games this year, five of their six losses and five of their nine total. In all four of their losses at home (1-4 at home), they've had the lead going into the 4th quarter and blown it.

Going into today, a lot of the blame by the media was laid squarely on quarterback Michael Vick's shoulders. However, news came today that Vick had suffered two broken ribs in the game and played through it, having to sit out just one play. Also, even if he hadn't have broken a couple ribs, while he didn't play particularly well, he cannot be solely to blame for the Eagles loss.

First off, I have to give SOME credit to Philly's defense. They played well enough to win, but did allow too many big plays, especially in the passing game and on 3rd down. Larry Fitzgerald had a field day against the Eagles' secondary. Although, Fitzgerald did make some spectacular catches and I'm not sure any secondary could have stopped him yesterday.

The special teams played well also, so the majority of the blame should be placed on the offense. Also, with standout receiver DeSean Jackson being benched by Andy Reid for missing a team meeting and Philly's other Pro Bowl-type receiver, Jeremy Maclin, being limited due to an early-game injury, this made things all the more difficult for the Eagles' offense to get into much of a rhythm. Vick wasn't very accurate and the Eagles' offensive line didn't protect him very well. However, unlike many analysts, I put the majority of the blame on head coach Andy Reid's shoulders and here's why. Vick was getting hit left and right and seemed rattled fairly early in the game. Also, playing without the before-mentioned Jackson or Maclin (for some of the game), this made Vick even more vulnerable to getting rushed, hit and either sacked or forcing up a ball. But, get this... The Eagles rushed for 166 yards in the game on 24 attempts for an average of 6.9 yards a carry. LeSean McCoy ran the ball just 14 times for 81 yards (5.8 p/) and a touchdown. Vick added another 79 yards on 8 yards (9.9 p/). Ronnie Brown and Dion Lewis also got in a carry a piece for a combined 6 yards (3.0 p/). So, why on earth didn't Reid run the football more than he did? He called for 24 rushes and 34 pass attempts. Heck, he called for fewer rushes than that, because a bulk of Vick's 8 carries weren't drawn up that way by Reid. So, why not stick with what had been a very productive rushing attack and then feed off of that with some playaction to get the back-up receivers more time to get open, as they aren't nearly as explosive as Jackson or Maclin? Vick didn't play well, but the playcalling was dreadful.

Also, Philadelphia committed too many mistakes. They were penalized 11 times for 97 yards. Again, that illustrates a lack of preparation by the coaches.

While the season isn't necessarily over for the Eagles, they'll likely need to win their final 7 games in order to have a shot at the playoffs. There's an outside chance they could finish 6-1 and get a wildcard bid, but that's unlikely. Game 1 of the final stretch comes on Sunday night against the Giants in New York. At this point, Michael Vick is listed as questionable. Considering he played through most of the game on Sunday with broken ribs and needing the win Sunday night, I have a hunch he's going to play. In any case, Philadelphia needs to get their heads out of their rumps very soon or else, instead of playing for a playoff berth, they'll be in the running for a top ten draft pick.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"