Skip to main content

Pittsburgh Steelers 16 Philadelphia Eagles 14

I have to wonder how many heart attacks have occurred amongst die-hard Eagles fans through their team's first five games this season. Including today's game, four of the team's five contests have been decided by a combined six points. If not for a last-second field goal by the Steelers today, the Eagles would have won their fourth game and by a combined five points.

Having watched the game, I'm still not sure how the Eagles were a missed field goal away from winning again. For the majority of the game, they were dominated in all three phases.

On offense, the Eagles were shut out in the first half, before putting forth two solid drives in the second half for their two scores. The rushing game was largely ineffective, although LeSean McCoy wasn't utilized nearly as much as he was last week against the Giants. The passing game wasn't very effective in the first half, but picked up some in the second. Quarterback Michael Vick got pressured early and often, and wound up being sacked three times in the game. While he didn't throw any interceptions for the third consecutive game, he lost two fumbles, one in the end zone for a touchback.

Defensively, while the Eagles didn't allow many big plays and only gave up 16 points for the game, they did allow too many lengthy drives and third-down conversions. Pittsburgh was 6 for 14 on 3rd down and held onto the ball for over 33 minutes in the game. Also, while Steelers' quarterback Ben Roethlisberger did get pressured a handful of times, he was never sacked and the Philly defense never forced any turnovers either.

On special teams, Philly had similar troubles a s they did against New York a week ago, especially with their kickoff coverage.

Looking forward, the Eagles face the 1-3 Detroit Lions at home next week, with the Lions coming off a bye. Just like the then 1-2 Steelers, the Lions will desperately need a win next week. It'll be an interesting match-up, as the Lions' Achilles heel(s) have been their special teams and defense. The Eagles' defense has seemed vulnerable against the run - the Lions weak spot on offense, and Philly hasn't been able to generate consistent pressure on opposing quarterbacks. Both teams have struggled on special teams, especially in covering punts and kicks. How will the two teams strategize? Will the Lions stick with their pass first and run last strategy or try to mix things up by running the ball and opening up the passing game? For Philly, will they attempt to establish LeSean McCoy early and take pressure off Vick or will Reid go to the only gameplan he seems to know - to pass early and often? Regardless, it's a game Philly would love to have. They'd enter their bye week 4-2, with unbeaten Atlanta next on the slate.

It's amazing how sloppily the Eagles have played this season, yet how close they are to being 4-1 and being a top contender in the NFC. Even at 3-2, they're tied for the top spot in the NFC East with New York and they own the tie-breaker with the Giants due to their head-to-head victory against them a week ago. The offensive line needs to continue to improve in protecting Vick. Vick, while he seems to have gotten his interceptions under control, needs to be more protective of the football when running with it. McCoy needs to be utilized more regularly both in the running and passing game. Defensively, the team needs to start getting to the opponents' quarterbacks with more regularity and forcing turnovers. Lastly, one thing that seems to be going unnoticed by Eagles' critics is their special teams. On kickoffs, when the opposing team is able to run the ball back to the 35- to 45-yard line with a great deal of regularity, that places the defense in a very tough spot. A lot of improvements need to be made for the Eagles and in a short time-frame, as they'll be facing a hungry and well-rested Lions team in a week and an unbeaten Atlanta squad following their bye.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=321007023

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!"