We do not need a blocking TE

by NickPampani on Apr 29, 2009 8:45 PM EDT Comment 18 comments

Right now the way this team is set up we simply do not need a blocking TE. the best fit for this team is a TE that will cause match up problems like Witten does at Dallas and that is Ingram.

Right now with our offense we have:

Westbrook who needs a CB to cover him

Jackson who needs a corner to cover him

Maclin who is fast enough to where they need a corner to cover him

Curtis causes match up problems with safeties due to his speed

from there you add in what we hope McCoy could do and the mis matches he brings (and hope he does better at that than booker did)

all we need than is Ingram to distract a baker or two and split the field and be yet another weapon out there.

Now we look at the running game. well with so much speed on the field for us we most likely will see alot of nickel which means 6 men in the box instead of 7 plus Shawn Andrews back and the addition of Peters and Stacy. Lets be hounest if you dont practice run blocking you get worse and by the looks of our play calling Big John and Tra Thomas didn't do much of that. Now you add in something we didnt have all last year in Weaver and then you take Ingram who has the size and strength and pair him up with what people say is one of the best O-line coaches in football.

all in all this draft has brought the Offense Andy Reid has always wanted. We can now spreed the field, open up the Defence and exploit that with the run game.

0 recs | Comment 18 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

wow

im so pumped for next season!

by SJfootball5688 on Apr 29, 2009 9:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I completely agree

I never really saw a need for the “blocking” TE since andy had never really used TE’s to block anyway … i think the addition of ingram is great and i think if he does well in the camps and preseason could have a very good rookie season … I also think the addition of weaver does a lot of things for us … it gives us a powerful fullback that has great hands and is fast enough to outrun linebackers … he made patrick willis look like a fool last year when he burned him for a 62 yard TD … lets hope Ingram can make some big plays for us and Weaver can make big plays like he did last year … im so excited for next season!!!

by jdcvr6 on Apr 29, 2009 9:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

do what i do

when ever someone mentions getting a blocking TE tell them we did in the Peters trade, after all it is true, best blocking TE in the game ever, don’t know about the receiving part, but he can sure block (for those of you who are confused, Peters came into the League as a TE)

by sports00fan00 on Apr 29, 2009 9:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

undrafted TE

by NickPampani on Apr 29, 2009 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

probably why he was undrafted

http://www.libertyballers.com/

by Remis on Apr 29, 2009 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah he mightve been a little too big for a TE LOL

by Manoovi on Apr 29, 2009 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How can you agree with that?

We can’t assume a defense is going to do certain things. I am not saying we need a “blocking” TE, rather a TE that has the ability to block well. Bottom line, when you need to gain yards on the ground, you can’t rely on a defense to back off just because we have speed recievers, etc. I want everyone to relive 4th and goal against the Bears last season. Whose fault was it that we got stopped behind the line? It was a missed assignment/failure of blocking by the TE.

by soman319 on Apr 29, 2009 10:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Because they’re either going to cover our 800 receivers and/or tight ends AND Westbrook AND Weaver (Andy Reid is going to set an NFL record by not running the ball once this year) and TRY and penetrate our beastly O-line, or they’re going to send more people in than we can block and McNabb will read and pick their defense apart. It’s pretty simple, really. Our O-line is stacked and we’ve got nothing but speed EVERYWHERE. This can get really scary for other teams.

I am the people's troll :3™

by yomjoseki on Apr 29, 2009 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

please tell me that was all sarcastic? please?

by soman319 on Apr 29, 2009 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

thank you

and no team is going to keep on playing one defense if it isnt working and if we are passing all over a D what will they do? they will put another DB in there.

Plus i believe ingam, a lot like whats his name in san Fran, will learn how to block he just never was taught because he was basically a speed receiver in college

by NickPampani on Apr 29, 2009 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

please, PLEASE

do not compare ingram to vernon “huge bust” davis in anything other than athletic ability.

davis is the epitome of wasted talent.

http://poorsportsblog.blogspot.com/

by PoorSports on Apr 30, 2009 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i wasnt agreeing with that ...

i was agreeing with the idea that i dont this is crucial to have a great blocking TE i believe ingram has all the physical tools to become a good blocker but i know for a fact that the same defense will not be played over and over

by jdcvr6 on Apr 29, 2009 10:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

We're assuming a lot, why not....

Assume they can teach Celek to block a bit? Supposedly he’s gained some weight, after his showing in the NFCCG he’s clearly the #1, the only thing standing between him and serious $$ is not blocking like Schobel. That’s pretty motivating. That’s less of a stretch than assuming Shawn’s head’s OK, Stacy’s knee’s OK, and Jason’s “heart” is OK.

by since1961 on Apr 29, 2009 10:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

you dont think we tried to teach celek that. he know this and we know that but we also know that Schobel isnt the answer and we needed to find a 3rd TE and when we came across a Steel in the 5th round we took it and guess what it looks like he is going to start at some point in this season.

And assuming what? am i assuming that defenses are going to play nickel when there is alot of speed on the field…. gee now i look like an ass. how about the idea that we took LJ smith who wasnt a great bloker and last year he was the best Blocking TE on our team or the idea that we took Jamal Jackson and made him a top 10 Center or the idea that since Reid has came to Philly we have sent a o-lineman to the pro bawl every year and most years 2. am i assuming too much when i say we will teach a big physical guy to block decent… once again i made myself look ike an ass there… i better shut up now

by NickPampani on Apr 29, 2009 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Two points of contention

I don’t think we need a blocking TE as much as we need a tight end who can be a good blocker. If the only way to do that is to get a “blocking TE,” then I still think we need to do so. Would you really be concerned if they cut Schobel in place of some guy who is not known as a great receiving TE? So matter your argument, it would not hurt to have a blocking TE over Schobel.

In the meantime, here are two primary arguments. First, you are making it sound like we have all this extra speed. DIdn’t we go into last year gushing over all the speed on this roster? Didn’t we have major problems converting in short yardage situations last year? Didn’t we have a hard time scoring once we got to the 5? What speed was added that makes a difference in those scenarios? I heard this same argument last year about all this speed that we had and it did not translate to a major improvement in red zone or short yardage efficiency? And as far as I know, we really only added one “speed” player to the mix, Maclin, who may not even be on the field in short yardage or goal line scenarios.

My second and bigger argument is on your assumption that teams will never rush more than 4 linemen and/or learn how to jam these receivers at the line. No matter your respect for McNabb, he is just as prone to the blitz as any QB. He is going to rush throws in that scenario just like any QB. So, even if a team fears our speed, it does not mean they will not blitz or devise schemes to slow us down. If we are killing the blitz with the pass, great! And I do agree with you that we have the speed to make that happen, a lot. I don’t agree that the Eagles should just assume it will ALWAYS happen. It is better to be prepared for the times when the blitz is getting there or we are not scorching the D by picking and choosing our way. (See Cincy, Baltimore games last year). That is when you need to keep in some extra protection.

Even if Celek/Ingram can be taught to block, it won’t happen over night. It is not like Celek could block last year. Over two years he hadn’t been taught to be block so I would not expect to see gigantic improvements. And you should expect even less out of Ingram at this point. If he blocks like a maniac, great! That does not mean you should not have a back up plan.

by Dawk on Apr 30, 2009 11:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i am not saying they will only rush 4 i am saying that there will be less people in the box so they could cover more speed… BIG DIFFERANCE

second we have alot more speed than we did last year. first off we have KC back while last year we really didnt and that injury takes along time to heal. second Maclin is ALOT faster than reggie brown. Ingram is faster than both celek and LJ and probly even some of our recivers. than you ad in McCoy who i believ is fater than Buck. i know last year we were all talking about booker just like this and that is why i was hessatent to add in McCoy for sure but lets assume he plays decent, that adds more speed than buck.

assuming all this we can say that linebackers can cover maybe McCoy and if they are really agile and fast you can add ingram.

point being we are much different than last year.

by NickPampani on Apr 30, 2009 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Still not convinced

I really only see the KC argument holding any water. But if you want to use that one then I will say you also have to assume one of your speed guys will get hurt at some point during this season.

I don’t t see McCoy being on the field in short yardage scenarios. At least not often. That will be Westbrook time. If you use them both, then you can only have three receivers on the field, including your tight ends. So, again, i don’t see the defense needing to adjust all that much. Then if you have McCoy or Westbrook split out, then Ingram, Celek, and/or Avant are not on the field. Does that really give you that much more of a mismatch than we have already seen with Westbrook splitting out in the past? It will some of the time but good defenses will learn how to defend that over time.

Yes, Maclin is faster than Brown. But Brown was not a big part of the receiving equation last year. So, again, I don’t see it as a huge improvement in short yardage scenarios. I also don’t think we can truly expect Maclin to be a huge part of the offense right away. That being said, he is not likely on the field in short yardage scenarios.

Finally, counting in Ingram in this scenario is also a crapshoot. We just don’t know how quickly he will adapt to being a tight end in an NFL offense. I love the pick, I just don’t think you build your roster with the assumption he rocks at all aspects TE from Day 1.

I’ll leave it at this. I do agree we have more speed and the offense will be better. I do agree that all the reasons you have raised will make us better in short yardage and/or goal line scenarios. But why limit your improvement? I just don’t want our options to be limited to “spread out all that speed and let Donovan pick it apart.” I want the option of putting a two TE set on the field and either passing or throwing out of it. It is just one more thing a defensive coordinator has to account for and one more thing to try if something else is not working. So, having a TE who happens to be a good blocker helps. To make this argument even more salient, why does it hurt to get a blocking TE? Cut Schobel, get a tough nosed, blocking TE, who can also catch. Then you and I both win. Deal?

by Dawk on Apr 30, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Middle of the field vs. Red Zone

We don’t need one in the middle of the field. We will spread teams out and beat them with speed.

However, when you get in the red zone, and the field is condensed and you can use quickness as opposed to speed) or power … it would not hurt to have someone down there who is raw power.

The Peters/third tackle idea is a good one in this regard.

Long story short, with Weaver on board too, I’d love it if we could just mash it in from the 4 … getting held to field goal attempts when you’re that close is usually big in a close game (and all but 3 of the Eagles’ 15 losses the past two seasons have been one-score games)

Past few years our problem has been red zone, I’d just like to see the improvement there. It may be that we already have the personnel to do that … but that’s where my hopes for a TE who could block were rooted.

Still waiting for the Eagles to Bring It Home For Jerome

by D3Keith on May 2, 2009 5:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs