NFL 2015

[Dak]

Because I get my perspective from ESPN. Your belief that they don't look burnt out is as amusing as blaming Sanchez when Foles was playing no better, and both are playing in a "QB Proof System".

Yes, tough opponents (that good teams beat), a bad secondary that didn't look as bad earlier in the season either....until they lost a step. Doesn't take much in the NFL.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Because I get my perspective from ESPN. Your belief that they don't look burnt out is as amusing as blaming Sanchez when Foles was playing no better, and both are playing in a "QB Proof System".

Clearly you do, as Kelly has never stated that he has a "quaterback proof" system. You're literally quoting talking heads when you reference that and nobody from the Eagles organization.

Yes, tough opponents (that good teams beat), a bad secondary that didn't look as bad earlier in the season either....until they lost a step. Doesn't take much in the NFL.

Fuck, you just keep making yourself sound dumber and dumber. The Eagles gave up 427 yards to Kirk Cousins Week 3, 375 yards to Austin Davis week 5, and 329 yards to Carson Palmer week 8. You obviously didn't watch most their games, you obviously didn't even bother to research the stats, and you're obviously basing your argument on talking heads and watch 2-3 Eagles games.

Furthermore, you avoided my question. When did Kelly claim that his system was "player proof" or "quarterback proof"? If you can't answer that, you should just shut up.

You also conveniently ignored the fact that the Eagles are .500 in December under Kelly, which means thus far he's average.

 

[Dak]

Clearly you do, as Kelly has never stated that he has a "quaterback proof" system. You're literally quoting talking heads when you reference that and nobody from the Eagles organization.

Furthermore, you avoided my question. When did Kelly claim that his system was "player proof" or "quarterback proof"? If you can't answer that, you should just shut up.

I've been capitalizing it and putting it in scare quotes because I don't believe it and never did (and after last season, neither does anyone else). But the talking heads have been in love with Kelly from day one, and those are words from the Kelly loverboys. So no, I don't get my perspective from the talking heads, but you can't help but hear them.

Fuck, you just keep making yourself sound dumber and dumber. The Eagles gave up 427 yards to Kirk Cousins Week 3, 375 yards to Austin Davis week 5, and 329 yards to Carson Palmer week 8. You obviously didn't watch most their games, you obviously didn't even bother to research the stats, and you're obviously basing your argument on talking heads and watch 2-3 Eagles games.

Talking heads love Kelly and his system. Carson Palmer is a really good QB and Austin put up over 300 on Dallas as well. In the cases of both Davis and Cousins, you had players with very little tape to go on who did fairly well in their first few starts until the tape gave DCs enough to work with.

The Dallas secondary held Andrew Luck to 109 yards, guess that means they were phenomenal in 2014. #logic

You also conveniently ignored the fact that the Eagles are .500 in December under Kelly, which means thus far he's average.

And I did say he is average (or, "good"). In fact, I'll say he's above average. But don't trot out .500 In December without acknowledging the wins his team has managed were against poor quality opponents and a Romoless Cowboys team that still almost won.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I've been capitalizing it and putting it in scare quotes because I don't believe it and never did (and after last season, neither does anyone else). But the talking heads have been in love with Kelly from day one, and those are words from the Kelly loverboys. So no, I don't get my perspective from the talking heads, but you can't help but hear them.

If you agree it's media driven bullshit, then just drop it from the conversation. It makes you look childish and uninformed.

Talking heads love Kelly and his system. Carson Palmer is a really good QB and Austin put up over 300 on Dallas as well. In the cases of both Davis and Cousins, you had players with very little tape to go on who did fairly well in their first few starts until the tape gave DCs enough to work with.

Ah I see, when the Eagles allowed big games early in the season, you scratch together some sorry explanation. When they let by a lot of yards at the end of the year, it was because they were tired. Look, you obviously came up with your conclusion before looking at the facts and are now twisting like a pretzel to make the facts fit your argument. You need to learn to admit when your wrong; or maybe you should pause for a moment and consider that your battling to defend the quality of a secondary that contained Cary Williams, Nate Allen and Bradley Fletcher as starters.

The Dallas secondary held Andrew Luck to 109 yards, guess that means they were phenomenal in 2014. #logic

I gave numerous games to illustrate how bad the Eagles pass defense was throughout the season and you come up and you respond with this stupidity? Seriously, you embarrass yourself when you throw out this pitiful, misguided and inaccurate appeal to logic. If you would prefer a more holistic statistic, the Eagles defense was 31st in pass defense and 27th in Passing Yards Per Attempt.

And I did say he is average (or, "good"). In fact, I'll say he's above average. But don't trot out .500 In December without acknowledging the wins his team has managed were against poor quality opponents and a Romoless Cowboys team that still almost won.

In 2013, the Eagles beat the Lions, Bears and Cowboys, none of whom were great, but all of whom were competing for playoff spots at the time. Those are average NFL teams, not "poor quality opponents." The only victory over a poor quality opponent was the Giants game last season.

 

[Dak]

Ah I see, when the Eagles allowed big games early in the season, you scratch together some sorry explanation. When they let by a lot of yards at the end of the year, it was because they were tired. Look, you obviously came up with your conclusion before looking at the facts and are now twisting like a pretzel to make the facts fit your argument. You need to learn to admit when your wrong; or maybe you should pause for a moment and consider that your battling to defend the quality of a secondary that contained Cary Williams, Nate Allen and Bradley Fletcher as starters.

Somewhere along the way you got the idea that I thought that the Eagles had a good secondary that started playing more poorly as time went on. I never suggested anything like that. It's not some unique Eagles hater perspective that the more plays a defense is on the field, the more tired it will be, and that the effect is cumulative throughout the season. Sure, the secondary was bad, but offering up cherry picked stats like games against guys with little to no tape, and against an ex-Pro Bowl MVP QB isn't going to somehow disprove the "more plays=more tired" math. Hell, giving it up to anyone wouldn't.

I gave numerous games to illustrate how bad the Eagles pass defense was throughout the season and you come up and you respond with this stupidity? Seriously, you embarrass yourself when you throw out this pitiful, misguided and inaccurate appeal to logic. If you would prefer a more holistic statistic, the Eagles defense was 31st in pass defense and 27th in Passing Yards Per Attempt.

Stats without context don't tell the whole story, and acting like Carson Palmer is a scrub on a shit team shows poor contextual grasp.

In 2013, the Eagles beat the Lions, Bears and Cowboys, none of whom were great, but all of whom were competing for playoff spots at the time. Those are average NFL teams, not "poor quality opponents." The only victory over a poor quality opponent was the Giants game last season.

Ok fine. Average. The Eagles could beat average teams or teams without their starting QBs. Not good teams. And not the Redskins.

Talking about 2015 again: Maxwell is an upgrade. Bradford is an upgrade if healthy. Other than RB depth, where else exactly have the Eagles improved the roster in the last two years? In terms of talent, swapping out McCoy for Murray or Maclin for Agholor aren't roster improvements.

I think the Eagles will be the only competition for the division with the Cowboys in 2015, but the Dallas team that went 12-4 appears to have improved in every area except RB, and the Eagles appear to stayed mostly static. Maxwell isn't going to save the secondary by himself, and the Oline that reeeeeally needs to protect Bradford has been weakened.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Somewhere along the way you got the idea that I thought that the Eagles had a good secondary that started playing more poorly as time went on. I never suggested anything like that. It's not some unique Eagles hater perspective that the more plays a defense is on the field, the more tired it will be, and that the effect is cumulative throughout the season. Sure, the secondary was bad, but offering up cherry picked stats like games against guys with little to no tape, and against an ex-Pro Bowl MVP QB isn't going to somehow disprove the "more plays=more tired" math. Hell, giving it up to anyone wouldn't.

I don't have to prove shit. You're the one who made the assertion and have thus far failed to back it up in the least. The burden of proof is on you.

Stats without context don't tell the whole story, and acting like Carson Palmer is a scrub on a shit team shows poor contextual grasp.

in addition to poor reasoning and argumentation skills, you lack reading comprehension skills. When did I say Palmer was a scrub? I simply listed the Eagles three poorest defensive showings from the first 8 weeks. If we went further into the season Aaron Rodgers would be on the list.

Ok fine. Average. The Eagles could beat average teams or teams without their starting QBs. Not good teams. And not the Redskins.

Cutler and Stafford were playing against the Eagles. Brees was playing when the Eagles lost on the last play of a playoff game. Stop acting like these guys were more "burnt out" than anyone else unless you have some evidence to back it up.

Talking about 2015 again: Maxwell is an upgrade. Bradford is an upgrade if healthy. Other than RB depth, where else exactly have the Eagles improved the roster in the last two years? In terms of talent, swapping out McCoy for Murray or Maclin for Agholor aren't roster improvements.

Again, it comes down to scheme fit. McCoy is more gifted than Murray, but he also jumps around a lot looking for big plays and that's not what Kelly wants. Murray and Mathews are more decisive N/S runners. Collectively, they have the ability to be more productive than McCoy.

Overall, with all the roster changes, I have less of a grasp on this Eagles team than any other that I can remember.

Will Aghalor be an upgrade on Maclin? It's hard to say. i think he's more gifted, but he's also a rookie. TBD. Thurmond and Carroll over Fletcher and Allen? I hope, but TBD.

QB will be better if Bradford stays healthy. ILB will be better if everyone stays healthy. Of course, that's more "ifs" than you want.

I think the Eagles will be the only competition for the division with the Cowboys in 2015, but the Dallas team that went 12-4 appears to have improved in every area except RB, and the Eagles appear to stayed mostly static. Maxwell isn't going to save the secondary by himself, and the Oline that reeeeeally needs to protect Bradford has been weakened.

I agree the Cowboys are the favorites and the Eagles are their primary competition. I feel pretty good about the o-line. Our tackles and center are elite.

 

[Dak]

I don't have to prove shit. You're the one who made the assertion and have thus far failed to back it up in the least. The burden of proof is on you.

Fine. Running more plays does not make players more tired?

in addition to poor reasoning and argumentation skills, you lack reading comprehension skills. When did I say Palmer was a scrub? I simply listed the Eagles three poorest defensive showings from the first 8 weeks. If we went further into the season Aaron Rodgers would be on the list.

Every test on RC I have taken (including the GRE) puts me in the 95-99% percentiles, so any error in interpretation is probably due to poor communication on your end. Quality QBs often put up ~300 yards against even good defenses in the current era because of the advantages the current iteration of rules offer to offenses. Carson Palmer isn't elite but he is a quality QB. Particularly compared to Cousins and Davis. Saying your defense is crap because Rodgers or Palmer threw for ~300 yards is extremely weak. OTOH, if Brandon Weeden had done so, that might provide a stronger argument. By listing two backup (ie subpar) QBs along with Palmer, the implicit connection is they are all not very good, yet had success against a secondary that "wasn't even tired yet". I have explained why that isn't a good argument.

Cutler and Stafford were playing against the Eagles. Brees was playing when the Eagles lost on the last play of a playoff game. Stop acting like these guys were more "burnt out" than anyone else unless you have some evidence to back it up.

And Cutler and Stafford don't normally put up good games in crunchtime situations either. Opposing defenses get tired in a game if they can't get hurry up offenses off the field, that is one of the reasons (but not the only one) for running it. More plays = more tired. Ball control offense does a similar thing but substitutes time for plays. I don't need to have VO2MAX measurements or HR-RPE ratios from Brandon Fletcher or some other absurd standard of evidence to prove this.

Again, it comes down to scheme fit. McCoy is more gifted than Murray, but he also jumps around a lot looking for big plays and that's not what Kelly wants. Murray and Mathews are more decisive N/S runners. Collectively, they have the ability to be more productive than McCoy.

Overall, with all the roster changes, I have less of a grasp on this Eagles team than any other that I can remember.

Will Aghalor be an upgrade on Maclin? It's hard to say. i think he's more gifted, but he's also a rookie. TBD. Thurmond and Carroll over Fletcher and Allen? I hope, but TBD.

QB will be better if Bradford stays healthy. ILB will be better if everyone stays healthy. Of course, that's more "ifs" than you want.

I agree the Cowboys are the favorites and the Eagles are their primary competition. I feel pretty good about the o-line. Our tackles and center are elite.

The secondary may have played like garbage as a whole, but I'm skeptical about Fletcher, especially since the Pats picked him up. Very rarely do they misjudge talent. Maybe a scheme issue?

Agholor and Bradford looked good in the preseason, that doesn't mean a lot, but it's better than looking bad. Gotta wonder when Peters is going to start slipping. 33 is pretty close to the wall for the Oline in general, but especially tackles. Speed rushers like Gregory might give him a problem.

Speaking of Gregory, again it's preseason, but this is looking like the steal of the draft right now. Sacks and drawing holds against 1st teamers.

The Dallas front 7 is looking 10x better than last year, and the "if" is whether or not a pass rush can fix the secondary. Carr and Mo are both in their final years, and I wonder if either are back even if they have a good season. I think the coaches/FO are banking on a pass rush+contract years yielding improved play.

I don't know what's going on with this RBBC thing. The coaching staff gave the obligatory votes of confidence, McFadden sat out most of the offseason, and now they grab Michael off the Seahawks bench. I was never in favor of giving Murray the kind of payday Philly did, but that doesn't mean the team was going to be better off this season without him.

Maybe McFadden stays healthy and gets some of that "meat on the bone". Maybe Randle isn't a total knucklehead. Maybe Michael comes in and shows he shouldn't have been riding a bench behind Beastmode. All that said, I do think any of these guys should be able to average ~4.5 behind this line, and that's enough.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Fine. Running more plays does not make players more tired?

I would need to see evidence that the number of extra plays the Eagles ran impacted their perforamce. Thus far you don't even have correlation to refer to, let alone causation.

Every test on RC I have taken (including the GRE) puts me in the 95-99% percentiles, so any error in interpretation is probably due to poor communication on your end.

As if that ever stopped someone from saying stupid, irrational shit in a football thread. But I scored in the 94th percentile in the GRE verbal reasoning, earned a 4.0 in a prestigious masters program and 3.85 in another, so appealing to your credentials won't work with me.

Quality QBs often put up ~300 yards against even good defenses in the current era because of the advantages the current iteration of rules offer to offenses. Carson Palmer isn't elite but he is a quality QB. Particularly compared to Cousins and Davis. Saying your defense is crap because Rodgers or Palmer threw for ~300 yards is extremely weak. OTOH, if Brandon Weeden had done so, that might provide a stronger argument. By listing two backup (ie subpar) QBs along with Palmer, the implicit connection is they are all not very good, yet had success against a secondary that "wasn't even tired yet". I have explained why that isn't a good argument.

The "implicit connection" was you.

And you haven't explained shit. You're argument is void of anything other than a premise with no supporting evidence. Again, show some evidence to support your claim that the Eagles "tired out" at the end of the season. If their performance more or less correlates with where it was throughout the season, then there's no support for your argument. Rational people drop an argument at this point... or find evidence to back it up. Irrational people cling to it, because they can't accept being wrong.

And Cutler and Stafford don't normally put up good games in crunchtime situations either.

Great, so now you're gonna start finding excuses to selectively eliminate evidence that doesn't confirm your position. Classic idiocy. You're literally defending Austin Davis and dismissing Matt Stafford in the same post. Just think about stupid you look.

Opposing defenses get tired in a game if they can't get hurry up offenses off the field, that is one of the reasons (but not the only one) for running it. More plays = more tired. Ball control offense does a similar thing but substitutes time for plays. I don't need to have VO2MAX measurements or HR-RPE ratios from Brandon Fletcher or some other absurd standard of evidence to prove this.

In that case just shut up. You have no evidence. You don't have a rational argument. You have nothing other than a vague intuition that "players get more tired when they play more" (though you have not identified any thresholds or tipping points at which performance is affected... but why would you? That would require evidence). As always, you've taken a position and held to it with out justification. This is why debating with you is a waste of time.

 

[Dak]

As if that ever stopped someone from saying stupid, irrational shit in a football thread. But I scored in the 94th percentile in the GRE verbal reasoning, earned a 4.0 in a prestigious masters program and 3.85 in another, so appealing to your credentials won't work with me.

Yes, as if.

I would need to see evidence that the number of extra plays the Eagles ran impacted their perforamce. Thus far you don't even have correlation to refer to, let alone causation.
The "implicit connection" was you.

And you haven't explained shit. You're argument is void of anything other than a premise with no supporting evidence. Again, show some evidence to support your claim that the Eagles "tired out" at the end of the season. If their performance more or less correlates with where it was throughout the season, then there's no support for your argument. Rational people drop an argument at this point... or find evidence to back it up. Irrational people cling to it, because they can't accept being wrong.

Trotting out "you don't drop/find evidence/blah blah" is the same tired thing you trot out every time. Might say you irrationally cling to it. We're really just arguing over burden of proof, and tossing out contextless stats against incontrovertible facts like "more energy expended = less energy left" isn't shifting it back onto me. Yeah I made the original claim, but it's based on the former principle.

You won't even offer a standard of evidence that you want to see beyond the principle. I'm not going to start pulling stats in addition when you probably won't accept them anyways because you don't think that more plays run will make players more tired.

Great, so now you're gonna start finding excuses to selectively eliminate evidence that doesn't confirm your position. Classic idiocy. You're literally defending Austin Davis and dismissing Matt Stafford in the same post. Just think about stupid you look.

It's called context. You're the one throwing out science in the favor of Carson Palmer having a good game. Never mind differences in running game, team styles, etc. etc. But you're quick to reference scheme fit on different topics: Murray is better than McCoy for the scheme. Probably is. Scheme fit is a context for assessing players that go beyond stats. Should I just toss it out as a "vague intuition" that Murray is a one cut runner and McCoy dances? WHERES UR PROOF BRO??!!

You don't have a rational argument. You have nothing other than a vague intuition that "players get more tired when they play more"

Vague intuition? Now who isn't being rational? Either they do or they don't, and obviously you are submitting that they don't.

Here's something on fatigue for soccer players. Given the type of responsibility of an American Football secondary, there should be acceptable overlap.

http://sportsscientists.com/2010/06/football-and-fatigue-discovered/

The most likely is that when you play in the company of other top players, you are forced to cover more distance, sprint more, run faster. The overall level of the match demands that you perform at a higher physiological level, and “drags” you up to that level. There are other studies, for example, that confirm this, by showing that when players from these “lesser” leagues play against players from top leagues, they must run more and faster than they are accustomed to.

So now, the implication should be clear – if you are playing in the World Cup, against some of the greatest players in the world, at the highest level of competition, the physiological demand is maximal (as it would be for Champions League, I’d imagine). Under these circumstances, the risk of fatigue is greater than ever – you take a player who is accustomed to running 2km fast, with 400m sprinting in 75 sprints, and you force them to run 2.5km fast, and sprint 100 times to cover 650m, and that player would struggle over 90 minutes. The fatigue effect, the drop off in sprint performance is thus likely to be even greater. It is the same as saying to a 10km runner who is accustomed to running 3:00/km that they have to start at 2:50/km. By 7km, the effects will be clear!

And this is why physical conditioning is so vital to elite teams. Ultimately, I would be overstating the value of sports science (I am biased, after all) if I said this was decisive to the outcome of matches. It’s not, and there are so many other factors that determine the result. Physical conditioning is but one of them. But what I can say is that if players are NOT conditioned for the demands of the match, then their decline in performance may cost them.

And finally, remember that it doesn’t take much to be shown up by an elite player – if you concede even 1m over a 20 m sprint (5%), then you look like a carthorse alongside a thoroughbred! And fatigue will cost you that 5%! So next time you are watching a match, and you suddenly start seeing players leaving others behind (whereas at the start, it was always an equal contest), you may realise that this could be due to a shift of even 1m over 20m, 5%, and a goal that wins the game may be the result!

I'm going to assume you'd respond that the effects don't accrue throughout a season.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Steeler D looked awful

 

[Dak]

Wish I'd started Edelman also.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Dudes good

 

[Dak]

I failed to check the last injury report, thought he was still out. Cant believe he was dropped lol

 

[mdmatt4ever]

Steeler D looked awful

that was expected. the bad part was the pats D is not projected to be good and the steelers offense was a mess too

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Trotting out "you don't drop/find evidence/blah blah" is the same tired thing you trot out every time. Might say you irrationally cling to it. We're really just arguing over burden of proof, and tossing out contextless stats against incontrovertible facts like "more energy expended = less energy left" isn't shifting it back onto me. Yeah I made the original claim, but it's based on the former principle.

Yes, the burden of proof is on the person attempting to prove the positive claim. I would expect a grad student who scores between the 95th-99th percentile on the GRE to know that. Let's put it simply, you're trying to get me to prove a negative when you can't even supprot a positive assertion. It's a classic appeal to ignorance. Either you are uneducated on the basic principles of argumentation or you are an unethical debater. Sadly, despite the fact that you're asking me to prove a negative, I'm actually providing more evidence than you are. Maybe you should double check those test results. Did you mistake a 59 for a 95?

You won't even offer a standard of evidence that you want to see beyond the principle. I'm not going to start pulling stats in addition when you probably won't accept them anyways because you don't think that more plays run will make players more tired.

I would like to see some evidence that once players reach X number of plays over the average, their performance decreases at a significant rate. Provide me with that "X". Why do the Patriots, who run 5 less plays per game than the Eagles, not burn out while the Eagles do? Why do the Packers, who run 3.5 fewer plays per game, not burn out while the Eagles do? Does something significant happen with those 3.5 extra plays? If you can't answer that question, then just be an adult admit that you never had a point to begin with and need to stop eating the crap the media feeds you.

Or I can keep running circles around you. it's kind of fun.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I like Football and tomorrow is opening day. Can we talk about that?

Giants 20 Cowboys 17 in a wildly sloppy game

 

[rms]

Colts v Bills should be an awesome start to the day..

 

[Dak]

@CF: You aren't even distinguishing offense v defense in your question. The Eagles ran more plays on D than all but like 3-4 teams iirc. So what if it averages out to only ~5 per game more than others on the year. If they got worse, you would see a decline in performance, probably in terms of both plays and/or points over the year. I know they allowed more points later in the year. Haven't checked on plays. But I won't bother because you would just dismiss it as happenstance anyway, like you completely ignored my link. Probably too busy trying to figure out the inverse of 9 and then 5.

@Jimmy: I predicted Cowboys 31 Giants 20 elsewhere. It is almost a trap game though, as banged up and shallow as the Giants roster is right now. Afaiac Dallas needs to dominate this game like they should to send a message.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I didn't even click the link because it was totally irrelevant. You compared soccer- a sport of virtually non-stop movement- save one 20 minute break- over a 115 minute timespan to football- a game of 3-8 second bursts of energy with tons of long breaks over a 190 minute timespan. Totally different sports that affect the body in totally different ways and require totally different types of atheletes

The Eagles allowed 104 points in the first four games. In those games they played the 3rd, 13th, 20th and 31st ranked offenses. In the last four games they allowed 115 points to the 7th, 9th, 10th and 13th ranked offenses. Again, no evidence of their defense "burning out". But you're an idiot, so you'll stick to your position and act like I'm being difficult asking for evidence.

 

[Dak]

I didn't even click the link because it was totally irrelevant.

How'd I know?

The Eagles allowed 104 points in the first four games. In those games they played the 3rd, 13th, 20th and 31st ranked offenses. In the last four games they allowed 115 points to the 7th, 9th, 10th and 13th ranked offenses. Again, no evidence of their defense "burning out". But you're an idiot, so you'll stick to your position and act like I'm being difficult asking for evidence.

And you'll keep generalizing when necessary, and hyper focused cherry picking when necessary, and mentioning big games from the Cousins of the world and ignoring the not-big games of the Lucks, and patting yourself on the back the whole time.

How about an apples to apples comparison, or at least the closest thing available in an NFL season: Division games. Dallas played the Eagles late on the season, so can't use that (although Dallas was worn out on the insane turn around - was funny to watch all the crowing silenced a few weeks later). The Redskins sliced up the Eagles with 2 different not-Andrew-Luck QBs, so no difference there. So that leaves us with the Giants. Although the Eagles in fact won both games, there was a 250+ difference in PYA and -6 adjustment in sacks with basically the same personnel on the field, same schemes, only ~2 months later. Surely the Linc can't be credited with that much of a difference.

It appears your position is:
1. Statistics that back [you] up are irrelevant.
2. The secondary was so bad it couldn't get worse even if getting worse were possible.
3. Getting worse due to fatigue isn't possible.

@Jimmy: Realized after the fact we both had the Giants at 20pts. *Twilight Zone*