Thoughts from a Cowboys fan...

by TimSchultz36 on Sep 16, 2008 10:05 AM EDT

Short thought: the Eagles are the 2nd best team in the NFC, and have a chance to be the best in the NFC by the end of the year. Still, sometimes it's hard to have perspective on one's own team, particularly after a tough loss. So allow me to give you three positives and three negatives that go beyond the obvious "Desean Jackson is good!" stuff...

Positives:

1) I know Westbrook is your "best player," but the thing that makes your offense potentially elite is the return of McNabb's escapability. It's what allows you to max protect, and even so-so receivers like Baskett can get open with that much time.

2) The Eagles team speed is vastly improved. The organizing principle of the Eagles-especially the D-has always been chaotic pressure. Jackson adds big play speed to the O and ST, and Samuel and a slimmed down Howard add it to the D.

3) This game reminded me of Dallas 45-35 win over the Giants on opening MNF last year. Even though we torched the Giants that night, it showed me that a) Eli was better than before and b) the Giants fought like hell. I think the Eagles have "Giants" potential. Your D will improve with time to gel, and Johnson's defenses tend to improve as the season goes on. Kevin Curtis is miscast as a "number one receiver," but he's probably second only to Welker as a slot type guy. Even though you have no weapons on the TO level, you now have 3 offensive playmakers (Wesbrook, Jackson, Curtis) who cause matchup problems, rather than just one.

Negatives:

1) I still think you will struggle in the Red Zone. McNabb's mobility return will mitigate that to some degree, but small fast receivers have their skill advantage neutralized in tight space. As good as Jackson is, he dropped two catchable passes over the middle. Turn one of those chip shot FG's last night into a TD, it's a different game.

2) You have very little ability to generate pressure without blitzing. Yes, Johnson is the blitz master, and I know Cole is good. But Dallas and the Giants both have elite O lines, and only generating pressure with the blitz limits Johnson's scheme.

3) Dawkins is still really good, but he's no longer good enough to cover TO in the red zone or cover Witten down the field. I'd rather have him than almost any other safety in the league, but he's not the guy with the mix of cornerback and linebacker skills he used to be. And I always thought he was your best defensive player.

At any rate, I hope this was insightful. Good luck to you guys...it's gonna be a great season!

Tweet Comment 4 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Thanks… Good and Honest. I will return the favor in a few minutes

by foos05 on Sep 16, 2008 10:18 AM EDT reply actions

all true

by bsencore on Sep 16, 2008 10:40 AM EDT reply actions

let me add

McNabb’s game is proof that a QB’s “won lost” record is a bit misleading. Some will say “yes, McNabb played well, but his team still lost.” It’s like the pitcher who gives up 3 hits and strikes out 14 only to lose 1-0 after an unearned run. Yes, wins and losses tell you a lot in the long term. But “McNabb fails to win big game!” is just nonsense on stilts.

Obviously, had McNabb lead his team to a TD on the last drive, people would use it as “more evidence that Romo can’t win the big game.” Which is also Hooey.

Three of the 4 best QB’s in the NFL live in the NFC East.

by TimSchultz36 on Sep 16, 2008 11:08 AM EDT reply actions

let me add

yea, but facts are stubborn things. He looked like a deer in the headlights in the last drive. Should have run rather than thrown the million mph worm burner at the receiver; double hitch hand off to BW that lost the game; overthrew BW on east 1st down. At his level you simply gotta do better.

by birdy on Sep 16, 2008 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions