Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Eagles have been unlucky so far...

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

  • The Eagles have been unlucky so far...

    Yes the Birds have been the victim of self inflicted wounds, but I submit they have also been incredibly unlucky.

    In the Giants game: about 7 key outcomes ALL had to break against the Birds for them to lose that game. And all 7 did, from She-li completing a pass he ducked and chucked on for a first down, to the Holy-Roller II in the end zone to kick start NY.

    In the Saints game: Moats. Avant on the sideline. Gaither's gaff. And about 10 perfect throws by Brees.

    Yesterday: Avant. The fact BOTH INT's by Barber went for 6 (no way the buc O scores a TD on our D in my mind with that kid at QB. No chance). McDougle gets a key sack and the QB ducks into an unintentional facemask. And of course THE SECOND LONGEST FG IN NFL HISTORY. To win at the gun.

    Plus: How many FUMBLES have been recovered by the OPPONENT that we caused on D?

    Plus: How many opponents have MISSED A FG vs. PHILLY ALL YEAR??? I can't remember one!!!!! Almost half a year, and nobody missed a FG against us? I recall the GB kicked boomed a 50 yarder too.

    Even in the wins, there has been bad breaks: vs. Dallas--the bad spot on the Bledsoe sneak on 4th down (he missed by almost a full yard).

    These things tend to even out over the year. Some breaks are coming our way soon.

  • #2
    lets hope!

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes, Dave Rayner's missed 54-yarder is the only field goal that's been missed against the Eagles all year.

      Comment


      • #4
        It could be argued that if the players played a little better and the coaches coached a little better, they wouldn't need to depend on luck to win these games.
        www.disciplerocks.com

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by saratoga
          It could be argued that if the players played a little better and the coaches coached a little better, they wouldn't need to depend on luck to win these games.
          I Refuse to argue this topic for I bow down to defeat! President Saratoga! Really true. But I do see why you say it can be argued- If the Iggs and Coaches played a bit better- and with all the Unlucky things they'd been thru- Maybe they needed a bit of "positive" luck too... Right?
          http://www.myspace.com/r3nj

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by saratoga
            It could be argued that if the players played a little better and the coaches coached a little better, they wouldn't need to depend on luck to win these games.
            Well obviously. But acknowledging the role that randomness plays helps get a more accurate picture of how well a team is playing. After all, every team makes mistakes, and every teams makes some major mistakes. For all the mistakes the Eagles made Sunday, and there were a TON of them, they still played well enough to overcome them and win the game, and they were undone by an INCREDIBLY unlikely event that they had no control over. The Giants game hung on an even thinner razor's edge. If you've played to a point where victory is 95% assured, are you really "depending" on luck to win? I'd say the Bears (vs. Cards) and Giants (vs. Eagles) are better examples of teams that depended on luck to win.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by IMK
              Originally posted by saratoga
              It could be argued that if the players played a little better and the coaches coached a little better, they wouldn't need to depend on luck to win these games.
              Well obviously. But acknowledging the role that randomness plays helps get a more accurate picture of how well a team is playing. After all, every team makes mistakes, and every teams makes some major mistakes. For all the mistakes the Eagles made Sunday, and there were a TON of them, they still played well enough to overcome them and win the game, and they were undone by an INCREDIBLY unlikely event that they had no control over. The Giants game hung on an even thinner razor's edge. If you've played to a point where victory is 95% assured, are you really "depending" on luck to win? I'd say the Bears (vs. Cards) and Giants (vs. Eagles) are better examples of teams that depended on luck to win.
              I concur-- the Vagiants needed a "perfect" storm to win that game-- and damn if it didn't blow in.

              ((And that does not excuse ANY of the boneheaded plays that the Eagles themselves made, change almost any one of the 7 or 8, and that perfect storm gets stalled by a high pressure system)))

              Comment


              • #8
                Luck is why I no longer bet on this game. It is just too hard to predict events when a ball is jumped on by Lewis, but it somehow slides out from under him for a Vagant to score a TD. The shpe of the ball allows for the creulest results from fumbles.
                Pedro

                Comment


                • #9
                  Luck tends to even out over a season, reason to remain optimistic about the Eagles. Nevertheless, they do seem to be making more boneheaded mistakes this year than during most of Reid's tenure. Their discipline won them games in the past that they should have lost. Their lack of discipline this year has lost them games they should have won. I still believe that they will turn it around.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X