Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

The nightmare in Philadelphia


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Tampa won one with Gruden.

From what I've read, it sounds like a combination of Doug Peterson (and Jim Schwartz) doing an amazing job, Nick Foles getting hot at the right time and in some cases just plain luck.

And then they basically dismantled everything they'd built

Strangely enough, an Eagles forum is reporting that the Iggles are trying to reaquire Foles from da Bears.  Life is weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Tampa won one with Gruden.

From what I've read, it sounds like a combination of Doug Peterson (and Jim Schwartz) doing an amazing job, Nick Foles getting hot at the right time and in some cases just plain luck.

And then they basically dismantled everything they'd built.


I doubt it’s really that simple. If it was, Peterson wouldn’t have flamed out so fast.

I know it’s popular to say “boo math nerds - yay football guys”, but most of these “football guys” are pretty dumb too.

My guess is the eagles had some good stuff going on but it came from the wrong personalities.

Plus, they had some lucky breaks (as you said).

Edited by Tbe
  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Tbe said:


I doubt it’s really that simple. If it was, Peterson wouldn’t have flamed out so fast.

I know it’s popular to say “boo math nerds - yay football guys”, but most of these “football guys” are pretty dumb too.

My guess is the eagles had some good stuff going on but it came from the wrong personalities.

Plus, they had some lucky breaks (as you said).

I'm fine with using analytics as a supplement, but it's no replacement for people who actually know what they're watching.

And yes, there are flukes and lucky breaks. That's why I respect sustained success over a flash in the pan (hell, even Marty had that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Florio, the part about tension between football people and analytics people is a common thing (link)

The article points to tensions between football and analytics, a dynamic hardly unique to the Eagles. One unnamed source described the team’s analytics department to TheAthletic.com as a “clandestine, Black Ops department that doesn’t answer to anybody except the owner.”

That’s how it currently works in plenty of NFL front offices. And it’s why so many coaches have embraced analytics. If they don’t, the analytics employees tell ownership that, if the coach had done what the analytics called for, the team would have won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's Florio's summary of the full article...

The Eagles reportedly treated former coach Doug Pederson like “a baby,” according to unnamed sources who claim that Pederson was beaten down by relentless second guessing. In 2019, for example, after a Thursday night win at Green Bay, Pederson was grilled by owner Jeffrey Lurie (an analytics aficionado) over the fact that Pederson hadn’t called more passes.

“[Pederson] was ridiculed and criticized for every decision,” an unnamed source told TheAthletic.com. “If you won by three, it wasn’t enough. If you lost on a last-second field goal, you’re the worst coach in history.”

Said another unnamed source, “The fact that Doug had the success he did with all the poo going on in the building, sometimes I look at our Super Bowl rings, and I’m like, ‘Holy cow, I don’t know how we did it.'”

Per the report, the undermining of Pederson began in only his second season, which ended with a Super Bowl victory. Prior to the start of the 2017 campaign, word spread through the organization of a three-hour meeting between Lurie and defensive coordinator Jim Schwartz. Multiple unnamed sources told TheAthletic.com that “there was a feeling around the team that Lurie was vetting an in-house replacement for Pederson in the event the Eagles got off to a slow start.”

The article points to tensions between football and analytics, a dynamic hardly unique to the Eagles. One unnamed source described the team’s analytics department to TheAthletic.com as a “clandestine, Black Ops department that doesn’t answer to anybody except the owner.”

That’s how it currently works in plenty of NFL front offices. And it’s why so many coaches have embraced analytics. If they don’t, the analytics employees tell ownership that, if the coach had done what the analytics called for, the team would have won.

Complicating matters in Philly is that owner Jeffrey Lurie is very involved in the draft preparations, and he always has been. But that’s his right, as the owner of the team, to be as involved or uninvolved as he wants. With most if not all owners finding a way to state preferences when it comes to huge decisions, it’s better if those owners actually have put in the work.

In Philadephia, enough work was put in to win a Super Bowl. That’s the good news. The bad news is that things have collapsed quickly. Chances are that the failures in Philadelphia bear plenty of fingerprints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot send enough bags of poo to that team and mostly their fanbase!

I skipped my sisters wedding in 2003 to stay home, drink Carolina Pale Ale I used to be able to buy for 4.49/6pack with a few bowls.

The poo they did to our fans that were brave/stupid enough to go into that mesh pit of fat hairy belly snow beasts and their toothless women makes me hate them more than even our own division rivals. 

Fug that team and their fans!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Can't go along with that at all.

I want this team to be perennial contenders.

Trust me, the glitz and elation of winning one does not quench the thirst. It only changes one's perspective a bit.

I have been a St. Louis Blues fan since 1969.  We have suffered through good and bad seasons, been a pretty consistent playoff team, had teams that entered the playoffs as a team everyone had their eyes on, and sometimes got on a run that took us deep into the playoffs.  In 1969-70 we were in the Cup Finals, but in those days the 1967 expansion teams were guaranteed a spot in the Finals against one of the old guard.  We were the expansion division finalists for three years, with 69-70 being the last.  It was our last appearance in the Cup finals until 2019.

Then on June 12, 2019 we won game 7 in Boston to skate with the Stanley Cup for the first time.  I still get a lump in my throat when I see the dying seconds of that game, when Doc Emrick (the announcer) says with 12+ seconds left "and the Blues at the bench realize they are going to be champions."

I will always treasure that championship, and it brings a smile to my face to this day. 

I still wanted to win it again last year, and this year, and next year.  I still have the usual ups and downs with the team's performance.  The team winning it created at least two differences:  1) I don't carry around the thought that just once before I die, I want to see them win the Cup, and 2) I know what it feels like to watch them win it, and I want that feeling again. It is no longer an abstract concept.

Edited by Sgt Schultz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

Trust me, the glitz and elation of winning one does not quench the thirst. It only changes one's perspective a bit.

I have been a St. Louis Blues fan since 1969.  We have suffered through good and bad seasons, been a pretty consistent playoff team, had teams that entered the playoffs as a team everyone had their eyes on, and sometimes got on a run that took us deep into the playoffs.  In 1969-70 we were in the Cup Finals, but in those days the 1967 expansion teams were guaranteed a spot in the Finals against one of the old guard.  We were the expansion division finalists for three years, with 69-70 being the last.  It was our last appearance in the Cup finals until 2019.

Then on June 12, 2019 we won game 7 in Boston to skate with the Stanley Cup for the first time.  I still get a lump in my throat when I see the dying seconds of that game, when Doc Emrick (the announcer) says with 12+ seconds left "and the Blues at the bench realize they are going to be champions."

I will always treasure that championship, and it brings a smile to my face to this day. 

I still wanted to win it again last year, and this year, and next year.  I still have the usual ups and downs with the team's performance.  The team winning it created at least two differences:  1) I don't carry around the thought that just once before I die, I want to see them win the Cup, and 2) I know what it feels like to watch them win it, and I want that feeling again. It is no longer an abstract concept.

Oh, I get it.

And I also know the same people who say "if we just win one, I'll be happy forever" will be the same ones just a few years later loudly complaining about how the team sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Oh, I get it.

And I also know the same people who say "if we just win one, I'll be happy forever" will be the same ones just a few years later loudly complaining about how the team sucks.

Not necessarily. I've been a Carolina Hurricanes fan for a long time and while we went nearly a full decade without making the playoffs, I didn't bitch because we won the Stanley Cup in 2006.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...