McNabb or Feeley? Why?

sixers_610 · Post #1 » by **sixers_610** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:07 am

Personally, I think Feeley should start because McNabb is just frustrating to watch right now. Holding the ball too long and more inaccurate than ever before.

Welfare Fraud · Post #2 » by **Welfare Fraud** » Sun Dec 2, 2007 7:36 am

Feeley for the same reasons.

Plus it seems like Reid/Morningwood are much better play callers with someone other than McNabb in

Welfare Fraud · Post #3 » by **Welfare Fraud** » Sun Dec 2, 2007 9:10 pm

Welfare Fraud wrote:Plus it seems like Reid/Morningwood are much better play callers with someone other than McNabb in

I take that back... that was some of the worst play calling ever in Andy's career. And that's saying something.

sixers_610 · Post #4 » by **sixers_610** » Sun Dec 2, 2007 10:47 pm

Yea, I guess we have our answer. I was wrong.

NLK · Post #5 » by **NLK** » Mon Dec 3, 2007 4:34 am

Personally, I haven't liked the offensive play calling either. (I'm a fan of the Eagles, they're my 2nd Fav. team behind the Bears). I think there's another power struggle between Andy Reid and Marty Morningwig. I thought the Eagles could've ran the ball a bit more to eat up some clock, instead of winging the ball in the cold and rain (maybe wind). I thought Seattle took away the middle of the field, something the Pats didn' do. Feeley and the coaching staff should've seen it immediately, if they're taking photos after possessions. The Game was there for the taking, esp. after B-West's long return into the red zone.

Also, I didn't know why Jim Johnson didn't blitz more often to put pressure on Hasselbeck. I consider him better than average, but not an elite QB, so imo, he can be rattled under pressure and make some bad throws. Defensive calls were bad, though when you have a back that can get out on the outside and go almost untouched for 20+ yards, that tells you that you made a bad call on what defense to play. Personally, I think the Eagles are more suited for a Zone Defense, and on 3rd Downs, go with Gocong and just get in there for the blitz. Overall, it was a total team loss, but AJ's 4 turnovers doesn't help winning the game.

Eagles need a big WR (I thought Baskett would make that jump this year, but hasn't yet), young Secondary, and a few DT/LBs with strength and speed.

Welfare Fraud · Post #6 » by **Welfare Fraud** » Mon Dec 3, 2007 8:21 am

I agree, JJ needs to blitz more. Aside from last week against the Pats they haven't blitzed much this year, maybe for a couple years. The notion that JJ and the Eagles are blitz happy is a myth that just won't die

I love listening to the national media every week say "You know JJ is gonna blitz a lot!!" or "You know JJ is going to come after this young QB to try and rattle him!!"

Feeley played like garbage of epic proportion, but that was all the more reason to not throw it 40+ times. Andy Reid or whoever was calling the plays lost us this game.

Everyone and their mother realizes they need to run the ball more. When we run the ball it works, but AR is one stubborn mother eff.

I'm not saying give the ball the Westbrook more, he's so fragile and doesn't have much stamina so we know that isn't going to happen. But Buckhalter isn't bad, he should get 10-15 carries a game IMO. Maybe more to take the load off Westbrook so he can return punts.

Buckhalter is ridiculously underused, AR must have something against him.

AJKSDHgd7&*@^*ASdlkal;hsld*^@*(^$(*5279as@#%

I can't take much more of Andy Reid. Hopefully he steps down at the end of the season and takes the rest of the coaching staff with him. It's time for a new philosophy. :pray:

IggyTheBEaST · Post #7 » by **IggyTheBEaST** » Mon Dec 3, 2007 7:00 pm

is feeley is so accurate, why does he average 4 picks a game.

Every game he throws a pick on his first play and last game he threw 3 ints to the same freakin guy. Including one where westbrook handed him the game.

IggyTheBEaST · Post #8 » by **IggyTheBEaST** » Mon Dec 3, 2007 7:00 pm

and he literally, threw it away

NLK · Post #9 » by **NLK** » Mon Dec 3, 2007 8:20 pm

Welfare Fraud wrote:Everyone and their mother realizes they need to run the ball more. When we run the ball it works, but AR is one stubborn mother eff.

I'm not saying give the ball the Westbrook more, he's so fragile and doesn't have much stamina so we know that isn't going to happen. But Buckhalter isn't bad, he should get 10-15 carries a game IMO. Maybe more to take the load off Westbrook so he can return punts.

Buckhalter is ridiculously underused, AR must have something against him.

No doubt the RUN game in general is an under-utilized weapon of this Eagles team. IMO, when you have a backup QB in there starting, and your backs are your strength compared to your crew of receivers (aside Curtis & maybe LJ Smith, there ain't much production), its absolutely foolish and asinine to not go with your strengths. I agree, its time for Andy to step down, and its this reasoning why I think there is a new power struggle between Reid and Mornhinweg on offensive play calls. There were issues last year, and I will not be surprised if something happens that gets rid of one of them (esp. if the Eagles miss the playoffs, which they're aren't mathematically out of yet).

sixers_610 · Post #10 » by **sixers_610** » Sat Dec 8, 2007 12:22 am

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/sports/ ... _says.html

Welfare Fraud · Post #11 » by **Welfare Fraud** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:31 pm

I think Andy Reid will be here as long as he wants to be here. I was hoping his situation with his kids would make him step down (terrible thing to think, but I've reached that point of desperation/frustration/agony/etc) but I don't think that's happening

I think McNabb is 50/50.. what Joe Banner says doesn't really matter. He's saying the right thing to keep D Mac's value up, unlike Ed Snider saying Iverson is gone.

Post #12 » by **APerna** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:24 pm

As you've said, I think Reid needs to take more of the blame than McNabb or Feeley. The play-calling has been horrible for two straight weeks. The calling was decent against the Pats, but some of the calls down the stretch were questionable.

We win that game if we don't have that special teams penalty midway through the fourth, the Pats punt and we're able to hold onto the lead.

Welfare Fraud · Post #13 » by **Welfare Fraud** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:36 pm

There's so many games the Eagles should've won... they're much better than a 5-8 team. I know "good teams are supposed to find a way to win", but I'm having a hard time convincing myself that most of the losses aren't because of Big Red.

Every week I can point to something that Andy Reid does/didn't do (play calling or otherwise) that cost us the game... If Reid didn't underestimate the importance of a return game we would've beaten Green Bay in week 1, and there would be an open roster spot (no Reno Mahe) for Tony Hunt to get some touches (of course, that would require us to run the ball).. he was supposed to be the "third and short" back.

We have a dominate run blocking O line, a dominate RB (Westy) and a damn good backup in Buckhalter.. Reid built this team and he still doesn't see it?? Or is he really that stubborn? (yes, he is)

Like Brian Baldinger said on CSN, the Eagles could've run the ball every play against the Giants and scored 28 points. Our O line was kicking their asses.

I didn't agree with the play calling even when we were going far in the playoffs every year. I would think "I don't agree with the play call, but Reid gets us this far so he must know what he's doing. He must see something in the D." Now, I'm not so sure Reid isn't the reason we don't have atleast one championship. It's like we were winning in spite of Andy Reid. Who knows?

Andy Reid is a terrible play caller, and a mediocre GM (some good moves, some bad ones, undervalues too many positions).. he needs to go.

Must.. calm... down.... I could rant all day about Andy Reid (just ask anyone that watches a game with me), but it's not good for my health :lol: