Brandon Graham: Starter
by JimmyK on Aug 24, 2010 1:34 PM EDT
Email
PrintThe Eagles have done what many of us thought they would eventually do - They've moved Brandon Graham up to the first team, according to Jordan Raanan of csnphilly.com. There are now two rookie starters as Graham joins Nate Allen, and the average age of the projected defensive starters is now 25.8. Graham has been very impressive both in practice and out on the field during the first two preseason games. He is expected to start this Friday in Kansas City in place of Juqua Parker.
91 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Geez, I’ve heard of being a tripod, but come on. Thats not even fair.
Let the beasting begin.
by TransplantedFan on Aug 24, 2010 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Nah. He’s just wearing those for protection. He can put slippers on later. For her pleasure.
Let the beasting begin.
by TransplantedFan on Aug 24, 2010 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions
From the look on his face...
It looks like that gets him excited
by HankM on Aug 24, 2010 3:25 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
From what I've seen
and read, Graham is raw and will miss assignments, but has proved he can get to the passer against starting NFL linemen. That’s something which can’t be taught. It’s why we drafted him.
Consider that he has a sack and a TFL in the game against Cinci (not a bad team at all), and pressured the QB on several plays. That was in a half. If he puts in 16 games like that, he’s the defensive rookie of the year, hands down.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Bear Bryant
WOW...
…this is HUGE on so many fronts. First of all, for AR and crew to be starting TWO rookies is amazing. Second, that he took the place of a player that had 9 sacks last year is a testament to what he has shown so far. This kid’s star is rising.
Wow, that was faster than I expected.
Hope Brandon does well enough through the rest of the preseason that he can solidify that starting position, J Parker would be a nice curve ball that McD could throw at an opposing offense.
Brennan Huff: I have a belly full of white dog crap in me, and now you lay this shit on me?
I think Graham and Cole are going to go a long way towards making this pass defense better. It was ludicrous how little pressure we got on the Qb last year.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
The point should be made and has been said that a lot of our QB pressure and sacks came from blitzes. It’s extremely helpful and less predictible for the opposing offense if we can get consistent pressure from the front 4. Graham’s gonna help with that a lot.
by SJPhillyVT on Aug 24, 2010 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
According to FO
the Birds DL ranked #9 against the run and #8 against the pass. The defense as a whole ranked as the #6 defense in all football, ranking #5 against the pass and #13 against the run.
Most assume our D wasn’t that good last year, because
1) our offense wasn’t controlling the ball and therefore our D had a lot of plays.
2) We played Dal 3 times and NO once, both of whom were in the top 3 offenses last year, and
3) The final 2 games we played (against the #2 Offense in the NFL) we looked horrible due to matchup problems and a few other problems.
I’m not saying we were an incredibly good defense last year, but I am saying we were well above average and should be again this year. If Graham is anywhere near as good as he looked this past Friday, we might have a top 5 D by any measure this year.
This is why, by the way, I’m quite confident we’ll do better than 8-8 this year. If this D is that good, we’ll win 8 games even if our offense stinks.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Bear Bryant
Last year, we were a middle-of-the-pack defense. Our rush defense was very good(9th) but our pass defense was ranked 17th in the NFL and we were 19th in points. Out of 16 games, we played 9 games against teams that were .500 or better. 25.0 ppg was the average of what our defense gave up against those teams. Pretty atrocious.
Albeit, we did suffer a lot of injuries to the defense last year and played with absolute trash at FS. I expect a huge improvement this year.
You guys just gave totally conflicting numbers...
“The defense as a whole ranked as the #6 defense in all football, ranking #5 against the pass and #13 against the run.”
“Our rush defense was very good(9th) but our pass defense was ranked 17th in the NFL.”
FO ranking
is not OPINION, but rather on analysis of the facts. I don’t hold with everything they do, but it is not correct to say they are opinion. Rather, they delve a little deeper than simply total yards, total points, and total sacks. They consider down and distance, field position, and etc.
I don’t mind you taking exception with their conclusions, but your statement about opinion vs. fact is nonsense.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Bear Bryant
so it doesn't get lost in the argument
1) our offense wasn’t controlling the ball and therefore our D had a lot of plays.
This is bigger than any other factor. Our D was on the field A LOT and more than it should have been.
Just look at the first preseason game where our D had 2 series of 3 and outs in the first quarter because our offense was able to sustain drives. The offense will be a huge factor in how the defense performs this year.
They call me The Professor.
Someone analyzing facts then giving their own ranking is an opinion. The Eagles being ranked 17th in the NFL because they gave up 3462 yards in the air is fact.
Dude
there are a number of ways to look at raw numbers. One way is to say “hmmm, in total yards, the eagles were 17th, therefore they must be the 17th best defense in the NFL.” I am not saying that is not a valid way to look at it, however that is not the only way.
Take one simple way of examining the information: factor in turnovers generated. Team A gives up 3462 yards and generates 0 turnovers. Team B gives up 3461 yards and generates 15 turnovers. I think you would agree that team B has had a better defense, even though they are ranked below team A in terms of total yards. Note that both total yards and turnovers are facts.
I accept that the Eagles gave up the 17th most yards in the NFL last year, however there were other things they did other than give up yards. What FO does is attempt to take these factors and using the facts generate a reliable mathematical model to factor in all the things the defense did. This involves yards and a lot of other stuff.
You can agree or disagree with their methodology, but when you claim the one fact you spout is relevant and everything else is only opinion, you do not do yourself any favors in the way you come accross. Unless you contend that total yards is the only way in which you can evaluate a defense, you must consider other facts in combination with yards.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Bear Bryant
I never said their analysis is flawed or anything like that. I just wanted to make the point, that no matter how good their research and examinations are, giving a ranking at the end is still their opinion. They have a lot of good stuff. I’m not disputing that.
My basic point is
that they are trying to weigh the facts in their rankings. You are weighing the facts, too. It is your opinion that total yards is the only way to evaluate defenses. I disagree. I believe I understand your opinion, and I respect what you base it on. However it seems to me that your opinion that yards is the only way to evaluate a defense is just that, an opinion.
I only got into this level of detail because I strongly disagreed with your statement that what you relied on is fact, while the other was opinion. I have tried to demonstrate that you are forming an opinion based on one fact, while at FO they are forming their opinions based on many facts. Your opinion might, indeed, be more correct. But to say your opinion is a fact while other’s is just an opinion is wrong.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Bear Bryant
I understand where you’re coming from dude.
It is your opinion that total yards is the only way to evaluate defenses.
Never said that, but yards is definitely the biggest part of evaluating a defense.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. Turnovers, Red zone defense and points allowed are much more important. Yards are so easily manipulated by outside factors.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Aug 24, 2010 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Redzone defense and points allowed are interconnected with yards allowed. The lesser yards you allow —> the lesser amount of time opponents are in the redzone. The lesser time your opponents are in the redzone —> the lesser points you allow.
eh
The lesser yards you allow —> the lesser amount of time opponents are in the redzone.
that’s a logical DNF. Opposing teams can be in the red zone all day without accumulating much yardage.
It’s true that they’re all related, but I’d rather have my defense give up 400 yards and 17 points than 250 yards and 24 points.
In the end, it’s all about points. You don’t win by accumulating more yards than the other team. You win by accumulating more points, and the relationship between yards and points isn’t so strong that you can simply look at yards allowed to get a legitimate gauge on points allowed.
Except that in today’s NFL you can pretty much move the ball effortlessly between the 20’s. The defense can’t touch receivers or the QB. Give up FGs, not TDs and you are a top 10 defense. Yards are a crap shoot.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Aug 24, 2010 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s true that they’re all related, but I’d rather have my defense give up 400 yards and 17 points than 250 yards and 24 points.
Except it’s extremely unrealistic that a team would average either of those stat lines for a season.
It is all about points. It all starts with not giving up yardage so teams don’t get those points. That was my point. 12 of the top 15 teams in PPG allowed last season was also top 15 in yards allowed.
obviously it's unrealistic
it’s just an example to illustrate a point, c’mon man. I’m saying i’d prefer a defense that gives up more yards and fewer points to the opposite scenario.
That’s why the team with the fewest yards allowed is known as having the best defense, not the fewest points allowed.
i disagree vehemently with this moniker. I think the defense that allows the fewest points per minute of play is the best defense. I think measuring a defense’s total value by most other metrics other than points produced per minute of play is almost pointless (pun!).
12 of the top 15 teams in PPG allowed last season was also top 15 in yards allowed.
Okay, so you’re proving my point — they’re correlated, but not perfectly so. Give me the PPG as a better approximation of defensive value, and realize that 3 of the top 15 in PPG allowed would be underrated by the YPG metric.
PPG isn’t the best — as above, I would prefer points per minute of play combined with turnovers created per minute of play combined with points produced per minute of play.
But it’s better than YPG.
Yards?
What? No way, dude. If the Eagles gave up 10,000 yards on defense, but produced tons of red-zone turnovers and/or field goals, that is way different than giving up touchdowns each and every time. Might I interest you in things such as Defensive Hog Index or Bendability (yards per point allowed)?
Defensive Hog Index
Bendability
By these measures, our defense was rather inefficient – the lowest I’ve ever seen as long as they’ve kept that metric.
by Eagle Fly Free on Aug 24, 2010 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions
10000 yards ondefense, but no points allowed?
tHATS a yerrible defense! The defense steps up for like one play and you call that a good defense? No sirree
by Desean Da Man on Aug 24, 2010 8:52 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
PPGA of 0.0?
I’d say that’s a pretty good season for the defense.
by Eagle Fly Free on Aug 24, 2010 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions
You watched the Eagles all last season right? Did they seem like the #6 ranked defense in all of football?
I did watch the Eagles all season
however I did not watch every play of every game in the NFL. Therefore I cannot say if the Eagles’ defense was better or worse than the Colts’ (to use a random example) just by using my own eyes. I must rely of other sources.
As I have stated before, I do not rely on FO for all of my opinions (for reasons too complicated to get into here). However I find they are one of the places which honestly apply the same methods for all teams, and admit their mistakes and are constantly trying to improve their processes. I admire that, and to save time often simply refer to their rankings without going through a long list of my reservations.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Bear Bryant
Yes the did
They played pretty well. Except for 3-4 games, they played pretty awesome actually.
I'm now Kolb's biggest fan
Yup, except for the 3-4 games against legitimate teams they were pretty awesome against the scrub teams.
That argument is dumb. Dallas beat only one legitimate playoff team (who had nothing to play for at that point), yet I bet you consider their defense stellar?
70 total yard difference in favor of the cowboys. The difference? They allowed 15.6 pts/G compared to the Eagles allowing 21.1.
by SuburbanElite on Aug 24, 2010 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions
They beat us, they beat the Saints… That’s 2.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Aug 25, 2010 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d say the Giants, Falcons, Panthers, Broncos, and 49ers are pretty legitimate teams. They are hardly scrub teams. Sure they didn’t make the playoffs but they aren’t jokes of teams.
by SuburbanElite on Aug 25, 2010 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
First of all...
Dallas beat only one legitimate playoff team (who had nothing to play for at that point), yet I bet you consider their defense stellar?
I didn’t know you could win games playing only one side of the ball.
Our defense gave up 38 points to the Giants in the second game, we played the Falcons without two of their best players in Matt Ryan and Michael Turner, and the Panthers were absolute trash with Delhomme.
Here, let me compare the Cowboys D vs our D from last year, the fair way.
The Eagles played 7 games against teams with top 15 offenses.
vs Saints – 421 yards allowed(48 points)
vs Giants – 356 yards allowed(17 points)
vs Cowboys – 368 yards allowed(20 points)
at Chargers – 331 yards allowed(31 points)
at Giants – 512 yards allowed(38 points)
vs Broncos – 241 yards allowed(27 points)
at Cowboys – 474 yards allowed(24 points)
Total averages – 386.1 yards, 29.3 PPG allowed
The Cowboys played 8 games against teams with top 15 offenses.
vs Giants – 427 yards allowed(33 points)
at Broncos – 337 yards allowed(17 points)
at Eagles – 297 yards allowed(16 points)
at Packers – 283 yards allowed(17 points)
at Giants – 337 yards allowed(31 points)
vs Chargers – 341 yards allowed(20 points)
at Saints – 336 yards allowed(17 points)
vs Eagles – 228 yards allowed(0 points)
BTW, the Saints were still playing for home field advantage in the playoffs.
Total averages – 323.25 yards, 18.9 PPG allowed
Do you still wanna debate the two defenses?
What you’re giving us is the basic basic stats.
If you look at similar match ups – for example the Chargers game – the Eagles gave up 4 TDs within the redzone (all were 20yd or less plays) while the Cowboys gave up two. Who gave up more total yards? The Cowboys did, but they limited their opponents to 20 points. That’s the argument we’re trying to get at here, that it’s red zone defense that ultimately matters, not how many yards your team gives up.
by SuburbanElite on Aug 26, 2010 8:40 AM EDT up reply actions
It doesn’t matter if it’s basic or not. The Cowboys had a much better defense than us last year and you will have a hard time proving anyone just a bit knowledgeable, otherwise. You just sound like you’re making excuses.
It doesn’t give you any insight into situational data, which is what the whole argument was about. Raw data = yardage, FO = situational analysis of the data set.
It’s clearly obvious which defense was better and I’m not disputing that, because clearly giving up 250pts rather than 337 points is better. Maybe I replied to the wrong comment originally, but my first was meant to point out that fewest yardage <> best defense.
by SuburbanElite on Aug 26, 2010 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, but sacks and pressure are not the same thing Jimmy, think about those sacks. Most of them came off of the blitz or a special package like the Joker. How often could we get a sack when we rushed 4? Heck we didn’t even hurry the QB when we rushed 4, I don’t care that much about sacks. I care much more about getting consistent pressure on the QB and hitting him to disrupt the overall passing game. If we do that the sacks will come and the turnovers will skyrocket. I am so excited for this defense this year, imagine Asante taking risks with safety help instead of on an island…. that makes this defense a force to be reckoned with.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Aug 24, 2010 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I’d bet the Eagles had their fair share of sacks rushing less than 5, in comparison to the rest of the league.
Could have fooled me, Romo had all day.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Aug 24, 2010 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Bottom line Jimmy, our front 4 pass rush was not good enough, and perhaps more importantly not consistent enough at the end of last year. We got a lot of sacks, but I thought the pressure was really lacking, especially late in the season. With the questions(showed promise, but still questions) in our secondary I think we need to have better than a “good” or “above average” pass rush. We need to fuck shit up.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Aug 24, 2010 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm glad because those youngsters with the ability to play now need the experience
ASAP!
I'm on board with the Eagles rebuilding plan.
I don't expect a winning season.
I don't expect a playoff appearance.
I do expect to see the best players emerge and improve week by week.
I do expect that this team at the end of the year shows that it can knock out teams trying to make the playoffs.
WE ARE REBUILDING
by Lombardi and Broad on Aug 24, 2010 1:51 PM EDT reply actions
Not that much a surprise especially since he got into camp on time, has played fairly well so, and his competition hasn’t shown that much especially Tapp who probably will have a hard time getting on the field come Week 1.
Took him long enough
If it takes him this long I’m worried about how long its going to take him to beat his first OT.
Very cool
I’m glad to see him move up. He has the talent, now maybe he can help out Cole just enough, even with his mistakes, to make this defense great.
I'm now Kolb's biggest fan
Yes the putting in the DE’s for a middle push killed us on those draw plays against the Boys. I hope Laws turns out to be a player this year. To me Dixon has some quicks too. I think they need to mix it up more. Like say third and six Dixon and Laws. Third and eight Teo and Graham with Parker on the end. Just gotta take away those draw plays.
called it in a post before training camp
guarenteed he’d start week one
^Nights Of Cabiria
by RadioheadbeatlesEagles on Aug 24, 2010 9:33 PM EDT reply actions
Well I think we all thought that
by FlyEagles15 on Aug 25, 2010 12:39 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Not to burst your bubble or anything
by FlyEagles15 on Aug 25, 2010 12:40 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Nah, I thought it’d be one of those things where he was going to play more than Juqua but out of respect Andy would still call Parker the starter.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Aug 25, 2010 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Well since nobody else has said it...
Championship!
I Am Better Than Jack Who Some Fool Thinks Is Better Than Asante (IABTJWSFTIBTA)
JIBTA’s actually Jack Ikegwuonu... and he’s f***ing pissed.
36-5-20-JJ Bleeding Green Forever
H
I Am Better Than Jack Who Some Fool Thinks Is Better Than Asante (IABTJWSFTIBTA)
JIBTA’s actually Jack Ikegwuonu... and he’s f***ing pissed.
36-5-20-JJ Bleeding Green Forever
Nooooooooo!
You already had the C! I can’t allow this to be tainted. We’ll get it next time.
So close.
by JimmyK on Aug 25, 2010 9:11 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
