Eagles finally get what they wanted.
- Thread starter slanidrac16
- Start date
goeagles412
Registered
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I just have to take a step back and grasp everything in this post for a second. First of all, you do realize that stats do not even come close to determining McNabb's performance last week, right? I'm guessing you didn't catch that game, because if you did, you wouldn't be talking about him struggling. He had a heck of a game and made a lot of great throws in the face of pressure. And sure, McNabb's stats for the playoffs aren't great, but they've still won both games! How does it matter? The Giants' defense is better than the Cardinals', and they beat them.
Now, onto the Eli thing. That statement is so incredibly ridiculous and wrong I don't know where to begin. Manning had 2 turnovers. Delhome had 6. 6 freaking turnovers! It's not even a contest. No, Manning didn't play well, but it's not even close, not even remotely close, to the way that Delhomme played. I am in utter amazement that you even tried to make that comparison.
PJ1
ASFN Icon
No, what is utterly ridiculous is you believe our D had nothing to do with the Panthers poor showing. Could the fact that Manning had two turnovers and Delhome had six possibly have something to do with our D that night? Well, according to you the Eagle D is great because of how they shut down the Giants but the Card D is fortunate the other team had a bad game. Can't have it both ways there cheesesteak.
Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, some of you folks sure get defensive at times. You can dish it out but you can't take it. The fact is, Mcnabb made some plays when he had to, but he also missed alot of plays when he had to. He had a 50+ qb rating for crying out loud! It wasn't a bad effort at all times, & at times was great, but overall, it was not scintillating. Spin it all you want. If he has that kind of game vs. the Cards, he will probably lose. The Giants simply could not put points on the board, they undoubtedly will not have that same luxury vs. the Cards.
BTW, I wasn't necessarily equating Eli's outing w/ Delhomme's, at least not as far as t.o.'s are concerned. But the fact of the matter is that Eli played a horrible game! He may not have had all the t.o.'s but he sure had his fair share of very poor decisions & bad throws none the less. The point is, you went up against a vastly inferior qb. Manning has been overrated since day one. Again, you will not have that luxury this week, nor will you have the luxury of going up against a vastly inferior receiving corps.
But time will tell. It should be a great game.
Eagles Fans,
Check out this thread. Oh, and please note, it was started before we had even seen Anquan playing in a Cardinals uniform -
http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/f43/i-hear-a-lot-about-11094.html
Check out this thread. Oh, and please note, it was started before we had even seen Anquan playing in a Cardinals uniform -
http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/f43/i-hear-a-lot-about-11094.html
PACardsFan
ASFN Icon
OK, this thread needs a voice of reason. Being originally from Syracuse & now living in PA, I have been watching McNabb play for about 15 yrs now. I'll be as honest as possible here:
1. McNabb is a HOF QB that keeps his composure even in the noisiest of places.
2. McNabb does not turn the ball over in comparison to other QB's.
3. When he's off, he's off LOW & that explains the low rate of interceptions.
4. He's extremely strong, agile & very elusive for a man his size.
With that being said, one would think that the Eagles would have won a few SB's in his career. But, other than TO, he's never had a great WR & he still doesn't. Jackson is very good, but he's still young. Unless Westbrook has a great game, I expect our D to keep the Eagles offense in check.
The key to this game is the Eagles D & the Cardinals protection of Warner. The Eagles D is stout against the run & their blitzes come from everywhere. Warner is generally very good at responding to blitzes, but the Eagles hide their blitzes better than any team I have ever seen. The BIG question is whether the Eagles can force Warner into Ints & whether any of those ints are pick 6's. The Cardinals have to guard against turnovers that create instant points. If they don't get to Warner, our WR's will hurt the Eagles badly.
I also think we will have more success running the ball than the Giants did. Without Plaxico, the Giants offense was one-dimensional & predictable. We have proven the naysayers wrong in that we DO have the ability to run the ball. Edge has fresh legs & Hightower has his confidence back. Let's not forget that our OL coach is Russ Grimm.
Another key for the Eagles is a fast start. If they jump out to a 10 or 14 pt lead, then it quiets the crowd & also makes Warner vulnerable. Do I think that will happen - No. I expect a great game & one that is very winnable for the Cardinals. The Cardinals coaching staff is every bit as good as the Eagles (and the Eagles have a GREAT staff), and they will have a few tricks up their sleeves that will result in points.
Bottom line, these are two very well coached teams & they are the 2 best teams in the NFC right now. Last weeks games proved that. Expect a close game, but homefield advantage puts the Cardinals in the SB.
Dawkins will be in awe of Q since he's a comic geek.. And Q will deny him on Sunday saying NO!
You must be registered for see images attach
goeagles412
Registered
Wrong. I said they certainly played a role in it, but for the most part, when a QB is as bad as Delhomme was, it's because of the QB not showing up.
goeagles412
Registered
I just don't understand your logic. According to you, McNabb had a bad game, but so did Manning, and that's why the Eagles won. Don't you see hwo that doesn't make sense? I can tell you didn't watch the game because 1) you're using stats to tell how well McNabb played when stats do not fairly represent his level of play in that game, and 2) you fail to point out anything particular as to why he was not very good. What plays did he miss?
And also, by your logic, and some of the other fans in this thread, wouldn't the Giants not being able to put points on the board have something to do with the Eagles defense? I'd say it has a lot to do with the Eagles defense, especially considering the fact that they didn't have Manning giving them 6 turnovers. Either way, some of your logic is flawed. I agree, it should be a very good game. I don't expect a blowout either way.
goeagles412
Registered
Great analysis. I think you look at the game from an un-biased point of view and I can appreciate that. I agree with you on everything except for the Cards' running game. I don't expect the Cards to be able to run the ball better than the Giants. The Giants had about 130 rushing yards, I believe. I don't think the Cards will see much success on the ground. Going against a one-dimensional offense or not, the Eagles stop the run as well as any defense in the league. I also agree with your assessment that a huge part of the game is the Eagles pass rush on Warner. If they get to him, it could be a long day for the Cards' offense. However if they don't, they could struggle. That's an overrated aspect in this game.
I know the Eagles have a good D, what you don't get is that right now so do we.
Yes Dawkins hits hard but no hard than Wilson and Wilson is a lot younger, bigger and faster.
You saw Q have the worst game of his life in Nov. Usually he simply runs over/though LBers. Safeties are another story, road kill is more like it.
You will not see another game like that from Q. Is he a better receiver that Fitz .. Probably no but he is possibly the best football player on the team. You have RB who can play WR, we have a WR who can play RB or QB
Yes Dawkins hits hard but no hard than Wilson and Wilson is a lot younger, bigger and faster.
You saw Q have the worst game of his life in Nov. Usually he simply runs over/though LBers. Safeties are another story, road kill is more like it.
You will not see another game like that from Q. Is he a better receiver that Fitz .. Probably no but he is possibly the best football player on the team. You have RB who can play WR, we have a WR who can play RB or QB
Nor wold any here disagree with you but then we don't need it. 70-90yds for Edge and you are in deep trouble.
We aren't going to beat you on the ground, we just need enough to keep the D honest
goeagles412
Registered
I understand the Cardinals' defense has gotten a lot better. I've acknowledged it, and frankly I'm worried about it. Do I think it's as good as the Eagles' defense? No, but it still concerns me. And with all due respect, I think you have no idea how good Brian Dawkins is. He's an absolute force. He's the best safety in the NFC, hands-down.
goeagles412
Registered
I get your point but the poster I was responding to said he expected the Cards to have more success on the ground than the Giants. I was just disagreeing with him.
You D might be better but then our O is clearly better than yours.
A-Dub is the engine of the Cardinals D
According to NFL Stats Dawkins does have the best stats
But take a look at the stats ranking for the 10 ten DB in the NFC and you will see something shocking [for you]
#3 DRC
#5 Rod Hood
#6 A Wilson [tied]
#6 Antrel Rolle [tied]
However Wilson's stats don't tell the story. He is a beast that teams have to account for. He is why the other stats are good. Team player not me first
But take a look at the stats ranking for the 10 ten DB in the NFC and you will see something shocking [for you]
#3 DRC
#5 Rod Hood
#6 A Wilson [tied]
#6 Antrel Rolle [tied]
However Wilson's stats don't tell the story. He is a beast that teams have to account for. He is why the other stats are good. Team player not me first
PJ1
ASFN Icon
He is solid and hits like a truck(cheap shot often) but can be beat as he is not the best in coverage.
goeagles412
Registered
What? He's not a cheap-shot artist. He struggles in coverage at times but that's not his main job. He's been better with that, anyway.
goeagles412
Registered
What stats are these? I don't get your point. It's not fair to compare a safety's stats to a corner's because generally corners are going to have more broken up passes and interceptions. The Cards have a good defensive backfield, if that's what you're getting at.
You're getting way to sensitive here my friend. I didn't say Mcnabb had a terrible game, but it was hardly a great game. He had 22 completions & 18 incompletions, & 2 int.'s. What plays did he miss? Well, at least 18 of them. His YPA was a paltry 5.4. He had a 58 qb rating, which was about 18 points less than Eli! Stats don't tell the whole story & as I said, Mcnabb to his credit, made some crucial plays. It wasn't a bad game, just not a great one. You lose credibility to claim otherwise.
Did the Eagles defense have something to do w/ the Giants miserable output? Of course! The Eagles have one of the best defenses in the league as aptly shown last week. But let's face it, their performance was exacerbated by the fact that they went up against a less than formidable foe in Eli as well. Your defense will make plays against us no doubt. But you will undoubtedly not have the same measure of success vs. Warner & co.
BTW, You indicate that Eli's performance was largely due to the Eagles defense. An argument can be made for that. Would not the same standard apply to the Cards defense & what they've done to the Falcons & Panthers? You seem to be more than willing to heap praise on the Eagles' defense & appropriately so to some extent, but yet you use a double standard when it comes to the Cards defense & their prowess & what they've done. If you are to be taken seriously, you must use the same standard, not just one that makes your argument. So far in the playoffs, the Cards defense has actually done better than the Eagles in some very key areas.
Ultimately, the true test will be tomorrow. Based on what I have seen, I like our chances. No smoke & mirrors, just reality. But the only reality that will matter at this point is what happens on the field tomorrow. Someone may very well shock the world.
Last edited:
I know but its all the NFL site offered.
Butr yes that's my point, earlier in the season this was not true
PACardsFan
ASFN Icon
I'm not saying that the Cardinals running game is as good as the Giants. It doesn't have to be. I also don't agree with those that say that Eli is inept. The Giant's WR play is so, so inept that it made Eli look awful. Even if the Giants ran for 130 yds, they were stopped twice on 4th & inches. The Eagles just knew that the Giants would run in certain situations, which made their run defense even more stout. The Cardinals will keep the Eagles guessing far more than the Giants did. If the Cardinals rush for even 60 yds, the Eagles will be in trouble.
goeagles412
Registered
No, but you did say that the Cards would have more success running than the Giants did on Sunday. I just don't think that will be the case. I agree with you that the Giants are more one-dimension than the Cards, but I have to say your passing game is what scares me, not your running game. I don't think the Eagles will have a problem shutting down the running game. If the Cards do see some success, that could mean problems.
