Skip to main content

Cincinnati Bengals 34 Philadelphia Eagles 13

For the ninth time in ten games, the Philadelphia Eagles lost - falling to the Cincinnati Bengals 34-13 Thursday night, to drop their record to 4-10 on the season.

As I was quick to note following last week's win for the Eagles, guided by a solid performance by rookie quarterback Nick Foles, while the guy has shown steady improvement in his starts thus far and potential to be an NFL starting quarterback, it's much too early to accurately evaluate the guy. While it seems like most ESPN talking heads were shouting in their best Leonardio DiCaprio voice from Titanic ("I'm king of the world!") that Nick Foles was the Eagles' savior, I wasn't yet convinced of this.

This is why I'd make for a terrible ESPN personality. I need to see consistency and longevity before I scream to the world that a player will be great or a bust. When Cam Newton got off to the statistically-grand start a year ago, I said it was too early to fully evaluate the guy. When Matthew Stafford put together a great year last year for the playoff-bound Detroit Lions and some were calling him an elite quarterback, I again paused and said it was too early to call the guy such - having only put together one complete and great season. The same has held true this year. While most media personalities are confidently exclaiming that Andrew Luck is the main reason for the Indianapolis Colts' turnaround this year, I'm quick to point out that he leads the league in interceptions, has one of the worst quarterback ratings in the NFL, and is among the worst in completion percentage. With Nick Foles, while yes, he has shown steady improvement in his starts and did lead the Eagles to their first win in what seemed like an eternity to fans of theirs, that performance came against the NFL's worst pass defense. Yes, while it seems that most ESPN "analysts" received their Master's degree in hyperbole, as well as a Bachelor's in fickleness, I don't like to ultimately pass judgment on a player until I'm truly convinced, barring injury, he's going to be a long-term great, a bust, or something in between the two extremes.

So, what did Nick Foles show the world in a Thursday night game following his first win as an NFL starter? Did he continue his trend of displaying improvements behind center? Did the team continue to show overall improvements? Did Foles showcase himself as the team's starter of the future? As I keep saying, it's too early to tell.

While Foles played extremely well against the 32nd ranked pass defense in the league, he didn't fare nearly as well against a top ten defense in the Cincinnati Bengals. In his defense, the pressure was all on him to get things done. Like against Tampa, Philly couldn't run the ball on Cincy. For the game, the Eagles rushed the ball 19 times for 42 yards (2.2 average). Bryce Brown, after two sensational games, has been extremely quiet his past two. Against the Bengals, he rushed the ball 16 times for 34 yards (2.1 average). In having said that, Foles completed only 16 of 33 pass attempts (48.5%) for 182 yards (5.5 per attempt), 1 touchdown, and 1 interception, for a sub-par quarterback rating of 62.9. He completed passes to six difference receivers, with his two main targets again being wideouts Jeremy Maclin and Jason Avants - the pair catching a combined 7 passes for 117 yards. He also lost a fumble. The rest of the offense didn't help Foles either. While he turned the ball over twice, the rest of the offense turned it over three more times on fumble losses.

Even though the Eagles allowed 34 points, the defense played the best of all three units. Also, as one fumble return was taken back for a touchdown, the defense only technically allowed 27 points. This was in large part due to the turnovers, though. Cincinnati's offense only garnered 249 total yards and averaged 3.4 per play. They threw for just 92 yards on 13 of 27 pass attempts (3.4 per attempt) and while they did run for 157 yards, they only averaged 3.8 per carry. The team was just 3 for 6 inside the red zone. In addition to that, the Eagles defense forced two turnovers.

For the time being, I think it's incredible difficult to accurately evaluate the Eagles. They've had more injuries on the offensive line than a dentist has teeth. Their starting quarterback, running back, and wide receiver are out with injuries. They released their biggest force on the defensive line. To say this team doesn't look like the team from week one would be like telling a 4.0 math major that 4 x 4 = 16. However, in saying that, I have seen some improvement on the defensive side of the ball these past couple weeks. It had been quite some time since I've been able to say that. The special teams unit has been placed in neutral these past 2-3 weeks. The offense has been all over the place and while I won't say that this loss fell squarely on the shoulders of Nick Foles and that I now firmly believe he doesn't have potential to be a full-time starter at this level, I'm also not going to say he's guaranteed to be the team's savior and quarterback of the future. For the first time since he became starter, he didn't show any improvements. It will be quite interesting to see how he rebounds a week from Sunday against the playoff-hungry Washington Redskins. It will be a golden opportunity for him to get back on track. While the Redskins' rush defense is solid - ranking 7th in the NFL, their pass defense is horrid - ranking 31st in the league. For the third consecutive week, the Eagles will have an opportunity to play spoiler. They're 1-1 so far in these games. How they fare in their third such outing may depend on the health of Washington quarterback Robert Griffin III.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=321213021

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!"