Skip to main content

Chicago Bears 30 Philadelphia Eagles 24

I don't have much to say about this game. It was like deja vu for the Eagles. In all five losses this year, it's been the same thing for them. They turn the ball over, commit untimely penalties, play awful red zone defense, give up chunks of yards via the run, abandon the running game, don't protect their quarterback, etc. This happened against Atlanta, New York (Giants), San Francisco, Buffalo and now Chicago.

The Bears dominated both lines of scrimmage. Chicago quarterback Jay Cutler has been sacked more than any quarterback in the time he's spent with the Bears. Last night? He didn't get sacked once and rarely felt any pressure. The line also opened up several large holes for tailbacks Matt Forte and Marion Barber. Cutler was clutch on third down, especially in the red zone. The Bears defense also pressured Michael Vick all game and laid the wood to him on several occasions. Whether or not he's able to walk today is 50/50.

Outside of that, Philly made too many mistakes. They got called with roughing the passer on a 3rd and goal, pass interference on a 3rd down in the red zone, etc. Michael Vick threw an interception when the Eagles were in field goal range. That wasn't the worst turnover, though. After tying Chicago 10-10 late in the 2nd quarter, DeSean Jackson fumbled the ball on a punt return at the Eagles 10-yard line, which led to a go-ahead touchdown for the Bears just before halftime. Both Jackson and Jeremy Maclin dropped two big catches which hit them right in the hands.

Up next for Philly are the Arizona Cardinals. Should Philly win? If the game were played on paper, then yes, without question, but then again, if games were played on paper, Philly would have won most of their eight games to this point and with the loss last night, have fallen to 3-5 and will likely need to go 7-1 to have any shot at a wild card berth.

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!"