Andy Reid ...

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

If Detroit looked like the '85 Bears, I don't think the Eagles would have put 35 on the board the other day.

I'll always contend that a team that wants to win won't have Michael Vick as their starting quarterback. It didn't work in Atlanta, and it won't work in Philly. This is a 6-10 team waiting to happen.

P.S. - the Lions have the worst secondary - nay, the worst defense overall - in the entire league. If not for LeSean McCoy having the best game of his career, you're talking about an Eagles loss to the woeful Lions and an 0-2 start. Anybody who actually watched the game the other day (I'm presuming only AntiTrust and myself did based on comments here) would realize that Vick was hardly the reason the Eagles won the game. This isn't baseball; stats can definitely lie.

He got sacked 6 times and there was pressure all day. Hence the 85 bears comment. And if you indeed watched the game you would see that they sent blitz after blitz against them all day long. You did watch the game didnt you?

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

He got sacked 6 times and there was pressure all day. Hence the 85 bears comment. And if you indeed watched the game you would see that they sent blitz after blitz against them all day long. You did watch the game didnt you?

Now I know you didn't watch the game. Blitz after blitz? Really? If they were blitzing so much, wouldn't more than one of the five Detroit sacks or three of the 11 QB hits have been from a non-defensive lineman? Detroit is hardly a blitzing team.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Now I know you didn't watch the game. Blitz after blitz? Really? If they were blitzing so much, wouldn't more than one of the five Detroit sacks or three of the 11 QB hits have been from a non-defensive lineman? Detroit is hardly a blitzing team.

they were throwing zero blitzes out there (blitz more than can be blocked)

You guys could have rushed 3 guys the whole game and still had 5/6 sacks.

[slotdirt]

And that's what they did. The Lions would be retarded to blitz that often because they literally don't have a soul who can cover man-to-man in the back seven. The front four was creating the pressure throughout the game.

And yes, you guys could have had anybody out there playing quarterback and still won.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

And that's what they did. The Lions would be retarded to blitz that often because they literally don't have a soul who can cover man-to-man in the back seven. The front four was creating the pressure throughout the game.

And yes, you guys could have had anybody out there playing quarterback and still won.

you guys have a really nice front four.. and awesome skill players on offense.

there will be improvement in Detriot eventually!

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

And that's what they did. The Lions would be retarded to blitz that often because they literally don't have a soul who can cover man-to-man in the back seven. The front four was creating the pressure throughout the game.

And yes, you guys could have had anybody out there playing quarterback and still won.

Lol

a "zero blitz" is when you throw your safeties in and go all in at the qb. Antitrust is saying that Detroit was indeed blitzing. It doesn't seem like you picked up on that. Reid was also commenting on it after the game.

[slotdirt]

We clearly define "blitz" in so far as applies to NFL terms complete differently. In my world, "blitz" means the defending team is bringing linebackers/safeties/cornerbacks in on the rush in an attempt to outnumber the offensive team's blockers and stop a running back or quarterback behind the line of scrimmage or force the quarterback to make an inaccurate throw. If that is the standard definition of "blitz" in football parlance, then the Lions did very little of that last Sunday. Period. End of story. The Lions statistically were one of the three or four least likely to blitz teams in the entire NFL last season, and last I checked, they still employ the same defensive coordinator.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

We clearly define "blitz" in so far as applies to NFL terms complete differently. In my world, "blitz" means the defending team is bringing linebackers/safeties/cornerbacks in on the rush in an attempt to outnumber the offensive team's blockers and stop a running back or quarterback behind the line of scrimmage or force the quarterback to make an inaccurate throw. If that is the standard definition of "blitz" in football parlance, then the Lions did very little of that last Sunday. Period. End of story. The Lions statistically were one of the three or four least likely to blitz teams in the entire NFL last season, and last I checked, they still employ the same defensive coordinator.

LOL

Maybe you should explain to Andy Reid what a "blitz" is in NFL parlance. I don't know about last season, but he seems to think that Detroit was "blitzing" as well.

http://eaglesmix.com/2010/09/reid-ha...k-and-win.html

From his news conference which was quoted in article:

On the pass protection being a physical or mental issue:

“They came out and obviously they blitzed. There were a few times they went zero blitz and there were more than you could pick up there. Mike did a good job of getting the ball out of there. Other times we had some breakdowns. I think it is a matter of guys playing and getting the reps. I think that is very important right now. Every game helps you become a better offensive line and by guys playing together.”

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Now I know you didn't watch the game. Blitz after blitz? Really? If they were blitzing so much, wouldn't more than one of the five Detroit sacks or three of the 11 QB hits have been from a non-defensive lineman? Detroit is hardly a blitzing team.

No especially with a guy like Vick. Vick was making the bandits miss. He was getting hit by the collapsing pressure. But you knew that.

Regardless, either way, despite the protection issues he played superbly.