Skip to main content

Atlanta Falcons 30 Philadelphia Eagles 17

Well, as I wrote earlier in the day, now former defensive coordinator Juan Castillo was the least of the problems for the struggling Eagles. The Atlanta Falcons proved that today. Until the late part of the game, when it was already decided, I can't remember a time when the Eagles' defense was able to stop the Falcons' offense. Atlanta's first drive of the game lasted almost 9 minutes and their second drive propelled them to a 14-0 lead when the Eagles' offense had only possessed the ball for three plays. Philly had to play catch-up seemingly from the first snap of the game on their way to a 30-17 defeat.

Rumor now has it that that head coach Andy Reid is thinking about benching Pro Bowl-quarterback Michael Vick in favor of rookie back-up Nick Foles. Reid must be on a choke collar if he's even thinking about doing that. The Eagles are 3-4, just fired their defensive coordinator a couple weeks ago scapegoating him as the central problem to the team. After a bye week, that defense had a new leader and allowed the Falcons to score on their first six possessions. The Eagles' defense didn't stop Atlanta's offense until the 4th quarter. So much for the Juan Castillo being the club's primary problem. Now it's Vick's turn. While his performance on Sunday against the Falcons wasn't Hall-of-Fame worthy, the guy had a decent game, completing 21 of 35 pass attempts (60.0%) for 191 yards and a touchdown for a quarterback rating of 84.3. He also ran the ball 7 times for 42 yards (6.0 per/). He didn't turn the ball over, which had been one of the team's Achilles heels this season. But I don't care how Andy Reid spins it, when his defense is unable to stop the opposing offense until midway in the 4th quarter, he can't place the blame on his quarterback or on the defensive coordinator he fired a couple weeks ago.

I wrote this following the Eagles loss two weeks ago to Detroit. The main problem with this team wasn't defensive coordinator Juan Castillo and it isn't starting quarterback Michael Vick. The problem is up front, on both the offensive and defensive lines. The Eagles defense had zero sacks in their three games leading up to the one today and if not for sacking Matt Ryan twice during garbage time in the 4th quarter today, would have gone four straight games without one. Ryan had more time to stand around in the pocket and find open receivers than it takes to read "War & Peace." The secondary allowed a number of big plays today, but when there's no pressure being exerted by the front seven on the quarterback, that makes the secondary's job all the more difficult. It honestly looked at times like Atlanta's offense was playing a high school defense.

On the offensive side of the ball, Vick has been pressured and hit more than any other quarterback in the league this year. Sure, some of those hits came at the expense of him holding onto the ball too long, but most of them were because of a young, inexperienced line not blocking well. It isn't just in the passing game that the big uglies aren't doing a sufficient job. Look at Pro-Bowl running back LeSean McCoy's numbers this year. In today's game, he ran the ball 16 times for only 45 yards (2.8 per/). He was initially hit behind the line of scrimmage on six of those sixteen carries (37.5%). This wasn't an aberration. For the year now, LeSean McCoy has rushed the ball 127 times for 504 yards, an average of just 3.97 per carry. Last year, McCoy rushed for 1,309 yards on 273 carries - an average of 4.8 per carry. The year before that, he rushed it 207 times for 1,080 yards - 5.2 per attempt. He's averaging about one yard less per carry this year than the past couple years. It's not like the guy's skills suddenly vanished. He's only 24 years old.

I've got news for Andy Reid. His defense is going to continue getting lit up if the front seven continues to not pressure opposing quarterbacks and his offense is going to continue struggling if the line can't protect the quarterback and/or open lanes for the tailbacks. The way things are going, Reid may have to look in the mirror and fire himself before too long.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=321028021

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!"