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!

     

I wasn't too impressed with Steichen's play calling


top dawg
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Jon Snow said:

Their inexperience showed last night.  Reid showed them why he's still one of the best coaches in the league.  He took them to the woodshed in the 2nd half.

Sums up the game.  The Chiefs dominated on offense in the 2nd half and the Eagles had no answer on defense.

Edited by Shocker
  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Dude they were 14-3 with that offense and took KC to the damn wire last night.   If you have the players and scheme its a damn hard offense to stop

We nearly went undefeated and had a really hard offense to stop with Cam Newton and Mike Shula. Imagine somebody hiring Mike Shula to HC after that thinking they were getting some wunderkind. Not saying Steichen and Shula are the same, just something to think about.

I saw a lot of great plays made by Eagles players last night, I didn’t necessarily see them outscheme the Chiefs. I have the same problem with Hurts, and Olsen pointed it out a little. He chucked up a couple bombs that were basically just betting that AJ Brown would play the ball better than the coverage. One was a TD, one was nearly a pick. I saw several plays where both Hurts and the play design were bailed out by Goedert or a WR making spectacular grabs in coverage.

  • Pie 4
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Day1PanthersFan said:

We were 12-4 and took Prime Patriots down to the wire also 

I don't want an offense that can almost win, we have had that, I want an offense that can actually win the superbowl

No more moral victories and happy to be there , it's victory or nothing!!!!!

Let's start with some consist almost wins and work on the actual SB titles if we get there. 

I too want a few SB trophies to brag about.  But to get them you must be able to get there and keep getting there because brother that is the ultimate goal. Building a team to win it all 1 season is a short sighted and often chosen route by a lot of teams. But very few can carry that over to the following season.  Why is that?

The reality is extremely hard to do in the salary cap era. Players move on to better contracts and coaches move on the promotions elsewhere.  In essence you start over.

Every coach will tell you that he coaches a different team every season. There may be a lot of the same players and coaches but only this year's class has a chance to lift the trophy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Shocker said:

Sums up the game.  The Chiefs dominated on offense in the 2nd half and the Eagles had no answer on defense.

The most under rated element of that game was the Chief's offensive line. Brilliant performance. They didn't give up a sack. Between Mahomes and the RB's they averaged just over 6 yards per run. Even if you take out the QB scrambling, they still averaged over 5.5 yds per rushing attempt.

 If an O-line is not giving up QB sacks/pressures, and that team is averaging 6 yards per rushing attempt, then they're going to be hard to contain on offense for 4 quarters.

 

Edited by SCO96
  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, UNCrules2187 said:

Not gonna lie, feels like a weird thread when the Eagles O put up 35 points, 25 first downs, and 400+ yards with the only turnover being their QB just flat out dropping the ball. The Eagles D cost them that game.

The Eagles scored a grand total of three points in the second half...until the very end. The OL that dominated all season, for what ever reason, was a no show in the second half. Hurts had no time to do anything in the second half. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hogan said:

The Eagles scored a grand total of three points in the second half...until the very end. The OL that dominated all season, for what ever reason, was a no show in the second half. Hurts had no time to do anything in the second half. 

The very end equals over 5 minutes left in the game? You do realize they only had three possessions in the second half save the one with 8 seconds left and no time outs and 64 yards needed? One drive was a three and out, other two were for 60 and 75 yards. I’m not sure how you pin the loss on the eagles offense in the second half when it was their second ranked defense that led the league in sacks not bringing down mahomes once the entire game, allowing 6 yards per carry and their special teams allowing the longest punt return in Super Bowl history. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, X-Clown said:

The very end equals over 5 minutes left in the game? You do realize they only had three possessions in the second half save the one with 8 seconds left and no time outs and 64 yards needed? One drive was a three and out, other two were for 60 and 75 yards. I’m not sure how you pin the loss on the eagles offense in the second half when it was their second ranked defense that led the league in sacks not bringing down mahomes once the entire game, allowing 6 yards per carry and their special teams allowing the longest punt return in Super Bowl history. 

They had their foot on the necks of KC near the end of the first half, and likely could have gone a long ways icing the Chiefs right there. If they could have just figured out one drive, just one effective drive in the second half, it's likely game over. 

Mahomes is Mahomes. It's not a surprise that he nullified all that noise. Even Philly's defense couldn't stand the pressure; that's why you have to take them out offensively if you're able, and Philly had the firepower to do it, notwithstanding their defense. The fact is is that they got out-coached. If you give Reid and Bienemy (not to mention Spagnuolo) the Eagles in the same situation with five minutes left in the first half, notwithstanding the fumble, I bet they would've led the Eagles to victory.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, top dawg said:

They had their foot on the necks of KC near the end of the first half, and likely could have gone a long ways icing the Chiefs right there. If they could have just figured out one drive, just one effective drive in the second half, it's likely game over. 

Mahomes is Mahomes. It's not a surprise that he nullified all that noise. Even Philly's defense couldn't stand the pressure; that's why you have to take them out offensively if you're able, and Philly had the firepower to do it, notwithstanding their defense. The fact is is that they got out-coached. If you give Reid and Bienemy (not to mention Spagnuolo) the Eagles in the same situation with five minutes left in the first half, notwithstanding the fumble, I bet they would've led the Eagles to victory.

So Steichen is a bum even though the offense scored 35 points is what you’re saying. Good take Skip. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, X-Clown said:

Neither is watching the game, apparently

You can say what you want; bottom line is that Siriani and Steichen (and Gannon) got out-coached. You don't realistically go into the game saying that you're going to stop Mahomes, especially with the O-line that they have. The plan is to limit him just enough to allow your offense to win the game for you. The defense gave the offense an opportunity to win, and they just didn't do it, despite having KC on the ropes. 

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

    • Not one single pick that is asking me why we drafted a guy in the first place. It was a guy we needed and/or a guy that had certain traits making them stand out. Best of all, I feel everyone we drafted are capable of stepping onto the field this year and have a meaningful role (even Kuwatch on special teams). Obviously, nothing is guaranteed but I'm not seeing any huge flags on guys because they're risky projects or massive overreaches.
    • 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...