Skip to main content

Philadelphia Eagles 24 Washington Redskins 16

If one thing is for certain about the Philadelphia Eagles this season, it's that they know how to dominate the Washington Redskins for three quarters, only to almost blow the lead in the 4th quarter. This happened in Week 1 of the season and again yesterday, when the Eagles led 24-0 after three quarters, only to see the 'Skins rally to make it 24-16, before RGIII got picked off in the end zone late in the contest to seal the deal for Philly. Regardless of how many nails were bitten late in the game, the win placed the Eagles over the .500 mark for the first time since their 33-27 win against this same Washington team to open the season. At 6-5, and with the Dallas Cowboys having a bye week, the win temporarily places the Eagles atop the NFC East. If Dallas wins on the road against the New York Giants next Sunday, however, Dallas will retake first place in the division via the head-to-head tie-breaker. Unless Dallas helps Philadelphia out along the way, the Eagles may need to win their regular season finale in Dallas to come away with the division title.

As for the game, it was an interesting one to say the least. The Eagles offense, led by Nick Foles, wasn't as efficient as it had been, but was effective enough, and didn't turn the ball over. The defense played bend-but-break to perfection through three quarters, before getting lit up some in the 4th. Lastly, the special teams units were kind of all over the place, but the standout there had to be punter Donnie Jones. He punted the ball six times for an average of 50.7 yards per kick. Four of his six punts were downed inside the 20-yard line. This made it much easier for the Eagles defense to get away with playing bend-but-don't-break.

Offensively, Foles was efficient again. He completed 17 of 26 pass attempts for 298 yards (11.5 per), no touchdowns or interceptions, for a solid rating of 104.3. Surprisingly, he also ran the ball 9 times for 47 yards (5.2 per), and a touchdown. All three of the Eagles touchdowns came by way of the running game. LeSean McCoy added two more, to go along with his 77 yards on 20 carries (3.9 per). While McCoy didn't run the ball as well as he did a week ago against Green Bay, he did also catch 4 passes for 73 additional yards (18.3 per). As far as receivers go, DeSean Jackson led the way with 4 catches for 82 yards (20.5 per).

What's really surprising is the fact Philly's defense gave up 191 rushing yards for the game (5.0 per), 427 overall, yet only allowed 16 points. This was directly attributable to Philly being +2 in the turnover department, forcing Washington to go 0-2 inside the red zone, and the before-mentioned spectacular performance by punter Donnie Jones.

Sunday's win was the third consecutive for the Eagles and their first at home. This next weekend will be their bye week. It'll be interesting to see what that week off does for the health of Michael Vick and the coaching decision by Chip Kelly. With Foles winning three straight starts, I think it'd be quite difficult for Kelly to make the switch to Vick at this current time. However, the offense has been rather effective with both quarterbacks, so I honestly don't think there would be a great shift in its production regardless of the starter or if Kelly decides to use both. The big difference for this team, which has seemed to go unnoticed by many analysts over at ESPN, has been its defense. In the Eagles first four games (1-3), they were outscored 99-138 (24.8 - 34.5 = -9.7). In their past seven games (5-2), Philly has outscored its opponents 177-122 (25.3 - 17.4 = +7.9). The offensive production has been nearly identical from the first four to the last seven games. However, the defense has allowed an average of 17.1 fewer points per game in the Eagles past seven contests - almost half of what they were allowing in their first four.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/phi/philadelphia-eagles

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!"