Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interesting Assumption

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Interesting Assumption

    I read alot of different message boards, not only Eagle ones, but some of our rivals as well.

    There seems to be an interesting assumption that the offense will not be as good as 2004, not even close in some people's eyes...I find that to be interesting so I decided to compare the rosters and try to understand what people are basing their assumption on...I evaluated the players on each team, see below:

    2004 QB: McNabb, Detmer, Blake
    2006 QB: McNabb, Garcia, Feeley

    2004 FB: Parry, Tapeh(Rookie), Ritchie (IR)
    2006 FB: Tapeh

    2004 RB: Westy, Mahe, McCoo, Levens, Bucky (IR)
    2006 RB: Westy, Moats, Mahe, Perry, Bucky

    2004 OL: Thomas, Runyan, Mayberry, Fraley, Ephraim, Andrews, Darilek, Scuillo, Allen, Hicks
    2006 OL: Thomas, Runyan, Andrews, Jackson, Herremanns, Young, McCoy, Cole, Justice, Jean-Gilles

    2004 TE: Lewis, LJ, Bartrum
    2006 TE: LJ, Bartrum, Schobel

    2004 WR: Pinky, TO, Lewis, Mitchell, B-Mac
    2006 WR: Stallworth, Brown, Lewis, Avant, Baskett

    Call me crazy, but I think overall the 2006 offense has better personnel especially at the RB, OL, FB and QB positions.

    WR is very close since TO is by far the best guy on either, but the 2006 crew overall is deeper IMO.

    TE is close too; 2004 is probably better by a step since Lewis was such a good blocker, but Schobel/LJ is going to be dangerous downfield IMO.

    The 2004 OL was more experienced perhaps, but the 2006 one is massive and has better depth in waiting.

    I think, once this team gets battle tested together, they will be better than 2004...will the execution be as good? That will be the biggest question IMO...

    Also amazing to see how many changes this team has undergone just since 2004...only 11 guys are left out of that 2004 offensive squad...
    Eliminate distractions, create energy, fear nothing, and attack everything.

    -Andy Reid

  • #2
    I'm already on record as stating that, even though we couldn't replace TO with any one player, overall they have upgraded the roster to the point where this year's offense can be as good, if not better. I think a lot of these people just don't know enough about the overall makeup of the roster to pass the kind of judgement that they do, and they are going to be mistaken in their analysis. Our rivals will be sadly mistaken.

    Comment


    • #3
      It certainly does look like we're better on offense than we were in 2004. But there was a certain swagger in 2004 (because of TO - whether some of you want to admit it or not) that we need to get back in 2006. That 2004 team (And us fans) knew they were going to get the job done that year. It was a birthright. (Until we ran into the patriots... but that's another story.)

      Man I'm really worried about our LBs though. I worry about Trot going down more than I do Westbrook. And LJ Smith better step up this year and stop fumbling the ball while trying to stretch for that extra 1/2 yard. Man that drives me nuts.

      Comment


      • #4
        The only point I would make is that you have to look at the defenses we will face in the division and how that affects the offense's performance.

        How are the defense's this year compared to 2004? Now if you transplant this team to 2004, that is another story.

        Comment


        • #5
          good point, bird. The division sucked in 2004... but we didn't just beat everyone in our division, we beat up everyone in the conference. I feel good about our O this year.

          Comment


          • #6
            that 2004 offense was just lethal. i'm not sure they'll get back that high-octane feeling that made me feel like i was watching Air Coryell in its prime. but this year's crew will be very, very capable.

            as for the L.J. Smith worry -- that's why they got Schoebel! Because L.J. fumbles and his back acts up and sometimes he makes you crazy.
            Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd kill you and everyone you cared about!

            Comment


            • #7
              LJ has 2 CAREER fumbles, with 1 lost. It does not include the one in the Vikings game where Freddy caught in the end zone. So, we'll call it 3 with 1 lost. LJ does not have a fumbling problem.

              This is a knock I see a lot with LJ, and it's unfair and not true. Let's get past this.

              Comment


              • #8
                Ok, LJ doesn't have a fumbling problem. He has a "carrying the ball like a loaf of bread" problem.

                He also lost one in another pretty big game that I remember.
                Canada's #1 Eagles fan.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by sfphillyfan
                  good point, bird. The division sucked in 2004... but we didn't just beat everyone in our division, we beat up everyone in the conference. I feel good about our O this year.
                  true...the advantage the eagles have is that they incoprate a model that spreads the ball around. this really means that the hinge pin for a successful 2006 offensive campaign is Mcnabb and he has looked his best yet. I think they will create a lot of anxiety for opposing defences...if they remain healthy

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by rspurr
                    Ok, LJ doesn't have a fumbling problem. He has a "carrying the ball like a loaf of bread" problem.

                    He also lost one in another pretty big game that I remember.

                    he also has a cranky back. combined, the two issues made it a smart piece of business to go get a guy like schoebel who can step in without the Eagles missing a beat. i liked what i saw from schoebel in preseason.
                    Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd kill you and everyone you cared about!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What most people are forgetting!

                      A 100% healthy Donavan McNabb, with a receiving core that has improved enough, to give him the confidence to throw the ball to anyone at anytime, and expect that they will go and get it!

                      I am curious to see how this plays out sunday, I haven't see enough in the few preseason games that I saw to be able to judge.
                      Never look back, something might be gaining on you!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        ok.. LJ doesnt have a fumbling problem... he has a "potential to fumble all the f'ing time" problem which drives me insane.

                        We got enough worries about the Eagles without seeing him stick out the football all the time.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by sfphillyfan
                          good point, bird. The division sucked in 2004... but we didn't just beat everyone in our division, we beat up everyone in the conference. I feel good about our O this year.
                          The division offenses sucked, but in 2004 they all had decent defenses. Dallas played us scarily close in the second matchup and we know what happened to TO in that game. The Redskins implausibly had the #2 overall defense in the league despite an absolute joke of an offense. The Giants were probably the worst of the bunch, and nowhere near as bad as some of the other teams we played that year.

                          I'm not so convinced the defenses in our division are any better this year other than the Giants. The offenses are much better, so it is a damn good thing we retooled our DL and we'd better hope we don't get too many injuries in the back 7.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X