Kc's defense is improved some but i dont think they had to improve that much to be a very good team.
We stopped the Raiders run game damn good today but next week is Different. LJ and Priest with there o line is one hall of alot better then the faiders.
Akers is hurt .
We are in there house.
They beat the raiders by 6 in the Ass-Hole
Will Walker be back????
Tony G. is a very good tight End. Ok so he is damn good got to give them Props
I THINK WE TAKE THEM EASY....
On To 3-1
Quote from: EaglesRock on September 25, 2005, 11:51:43 PM
I THINK WE TAKE THEM EASY....
On To 3-1
I don't, in fact, I'm praying they beat Denver tomorrow night. Teams that have big MNF wins almost always have a let down the next week. Not too mention the shorter week of preparation/rest they'll have. As far as the game goes, I think it will come down to who wins the turnover battle.
I don't think it's going to be easy at all but I still think the Eagles win. They better, I'm flying halfway across the country to watch 'em.
Chiefs O vs Eagles D
Lito and Sheldon will have no problem containing Eddie Kennison and Chris Horn. Dhani Jones vs Tony Gonzales scares the ish outta me though.
The thing about this game is that the Eagles will be able to stack the line and try and stop the run because the Chiefs lack a legitimate downfield threat on the outside. Of course I don't expect the defense to shut down the Chiefs running game like they did the Raiders but I think that if they can keep Johnson/Holmes less than a combined 150 yards then the defense is doing it's job. Yeah, it sounds rediculous but I think that's what they need to do.
The front 4 needs to generate pressure on the QB. The Chiefs o-line is tremendous at run blocking but average imo at pass protection. They are the exact opposite of the Eagles line.
Eagles O vs Chiefs D
The Chiefs linebackers are what worry me the most which is a complete 180 from last year because they were not a very strong unit. But Derrick Johnson is an absolute beast. He is strong and fast and will give Westbrook fits. I think in order for Westy to have some success they are going to have to motion him out of the backfield and use him as a receiver.
The Chiefs secondary is improved from last year but they still aren't that great. Last week they did a good job against the Raiders but one td was called back on a bogus PI call in the endzone. The Jets had them beat all day but Pennington either threw a bad pass or Jet recievers dropped the ball.
Special Teams
This is the one area where the Chiefs have a distinct advantage. Dante Hall must be contained because if he breaks one loose then the flood gates will be open. Normally I'd say the Eagles have the edge in the kicking game but given Akers' injury the Chiefs get the edge here too. Lawrence Tynes was on the verge of being cut during preseason so it's not like he's all that. But so far during the season he's been pretty solid. I beleive he did have a kick blocked in week 1 though.
That being said, this is a resiliant Eagles team and an experienced team. I think they'll win in a squeaker 24-23.
I'm with SD. It's crucial they win tomorrow night. 3-0 going back home on a short week where they expect to win, is a potential letdown spot.
Also the Broncos is a big division game, so that also poses as a letdown factor for the next week in an out of conference game.
This one realy scares the shtein out of me. KC at home under any condition is tough. Need to stop the run as Green has not been lighting it up, so far. Very limited WR crew.
I highly doubt that Dhani Jones will be covering Tony G. all the time. He might be matched up on him occasionally, but I'm sure that Jim Johnson will cover him like he used to cover Shockey - with a safety and a CB.
Gonzalez is their only receiving threat. Kennison and the other bums they have at WR can be covered by Lito and Sheldon and Hood. So I believe JJ will have Lewis and whichever CB is not on a WR out on Gonzalez.
Run defense next week is a MUST. Stop Priest & Huggies and you force Green to throw. The Chefs OL is banged up too.
It's going to be a tough game, guys.
If Donovan plays next week like he did yesterday we lose this game in embarrassing fashion.
If Donovan plays next week like he played the first half yesterday..we'll be in trouble. He played great in the second half...
1st half: 11/24 99 yards 0 TD 1 INT
2nd half: 19/28 266 yards 2 TD 0 INT
i think theyll lose simply because its a tough place to play against a good team...much like the atlanta game...you cant win every game and this is one of their losses
however if thet gut check it and pull out a win...look out...this could be a special season
I agree. I wouldn't be shocked if it was a loss, but i think they call pull it out. The thing here is that KC is on short week too. Hopefully they beat Denver tonight and they get in a trap situation.
I would prepare Mike McMahon this week though. And like I said they need to run the ball ALOT more this week. Big Red better gameplan it from today until Sunday.
QuoteAnd like I said they need to run the ball ALOT more this week. Big Red better gameplan it from today until Sunday.
Chances of this happening, I'd say, is about 5%...and that's only if McNabb can barely walk or move.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on September 26, 2005, 08:34:23 AM
I agree. I wouldn't be shocked if it was a loss, but i think they call pull it out. The thing here is that KC is on short week too. Hopefully they beat Denver tonight and they get in a trap situation.
I would prepare Mike McMahon this week though. And like I said they need to run the ball ALOT more this week. Big Red better gameplan it from today until Sunday.
yeah, you can't have your injured QB throwing the ball 50+ times, plus, you want to keep the ball from KC's offense as much as you can.
My question is this. Facing the choice between having to run more or starting McMahon and passing to his heart's content, what does Andy Reid do?
Or does he keep McNabb in next week and still pass 70% of the time?
Reid would run more if he were forced to put in one of his backup QBs. With McNabb, it'll still be 2 passes for every 1 run.
Yeah, I'm afraid I agree with you there. Gross.
I think we all have to be realistic...this is going to be a tough game. A non-division game without our kicker and not to over analyze but if Donovan needs a week off, now would be it. I admire him the way he plays through pain but is he doing the team, and himself, more harm by playing?
Quote from: 4and26 on September 26, 2005, 10:10:20 AM
I think we all have to be realistic...this is going to be a tough game. A non-division game without our kicker and not to over analyze but if Donovan needs a week off, now would be it. I admire him the way he plays through pain but is he doing the team, and himself, more harm by playing?
if he can't injure it anymore, i'm ok with him playing,
IF AR will protect him and not force him to throw the ball 50+ times.
mcnabb will play. he may or may not be 100%
the eagles will have a 3:2 pass/run ratio.
the eagles will win.
and everyone can keep on bitching because reid wont do what they like which of course it leads to "reid will keep winning in spite of himself".
wah wah wah
christ, when the birds dont win by 30 people shtein themselves thinking the world is ending.
Quote from: Wingspan on September 26, 2005, 10:28:55 AM
mcnabb will play. he may or may not be 100%
the eagles will have a 3:2 pass/run ratio.
the eagles will win.
and everyone can keep on bitching because reid wont do what they like which of course it leads to "reid will keep winning in spite of himself".
wah wah wah
christ, when the birds dont win by 30 people shtein themselves thinking the world is ending.
you can't deny that Reid didn't do Donovan any favors yesterday by having him throw 50+ times with a strained abdomin.
it was obvious in the 1st half that Donovan was not right and was really inaccurate. you either have to put in Koy there or adjust the play-calling to help Donovan out.
Actually, Reid did do him a favor by throwing 50 times.
Reid won't run the ball until McNabb's in rhythm. By having him throw all those passes, McNabb, who's undoubtedly streaky, was able to find his groove in the 4th quarter.
Quote from: Sun_Mo on September 26, 2005, 10:45:15 AM
you can't deny that Reid didn't do Donovan any favors yesterday by having him throw 50+ times with a strained abdomin.
it was obvious in the 1st half that Donovan was not right and was really inaccurate. you either have to put in Koy there or adjust the play-calling to help Donovan out.
Agreed. I was SCREAMING all game (I have no voice to prove it) to run the ball. The one time they finally mix in some run plays, they scored the first TD. ::) Reid pisses me off CONSTANTLY with this and I have been screaming about it since 2003.
Quote from: Sun_Mo on September 26, 2005, 10:45:15 AM
Quote from: Wingspan on September 26, 2005, 10:28:55 AM
mcnabb will play. he may or may not be 100%
the eagles will have a 3:2 pass/run ratio.
the eagles will win.
and everyone can keep on bitching because reid wont do what they like which of course it leads to "reid will keep winning in spite of himself".
wah wah wah
christ, when the birds dont win by 30 people shtein themselves thinking the world is ending.
you can't deny that Reid didn't do Donovan any favors yesterday by having him throw 50+ times with a strained abdomin.
it was obvious in the 1st half that Donovan was not right and was really inaccurate. you either have to put in Koy there or adjust the play-calling to help Donovan out.
wrong.
reid adjust his playcalling, you can kiss any success in the 2nd half goodbye. reid adjust his playcalling: kiss the 65 yard pass to the sideline goodbye.
and koy BLOWS.
the people who constantly bitch about the playcalling are not seeing things on the whole, his philosophys and playcalling situations do adjust. but when they are not executed there is nothing he can do about it. reid is a pass first offense, when the pass doesnt work, the run wont work. but people seem to want the run-run-pass-punt offense now. if you go back through last season, on 2nd and 10 or shorter, reid runs at least 50% of the time.
2nd 10 or longer he's forced to pass.
it's there, you just have to see that reid calls plays based on where they are now, not what they did the play before.
Quote from: Wingspan on September 26, 2005, 10:58:06 AM
wrong.
reid adjust his playcalling, you can kiss any success in the 2nd half goodbye. reid adjust his playcalling: kiss the 65 yard pass to the sideline goodbye.
and koy BLOWS.
the people who constantly bitch about the playcalling are not seeing things on the whole, his philosophys and playcalling situations do adjust. but when they are not executed there is nothing he can do about it. reid is a pass first offense, when the pass doesnt work, the run wont work. but people seem to want the run-run-pass-punt offense now. if you go back through last season, on 2nd and 10 or shorter, reid runs at least 50% of the time.
2nd 10 or longer he's forced to pass.
it's there, you just have to see that reid calls plays based on where they are now, not what they did the play before.
ok, Andy Reid's perfect. nice arguement.
Quote from: Sun_Mo on September 26, 2005, 11:08:12 AM
Quote from: Wingspan on September 26, 2005, 10:58:06 AM
wrong.
reid adjust his playcalling, you can kiss any success in the 2nd half goodbye. reid adjust his playcalling: kiss the 65 yard pass to the sideline goodbye.
and koy BLOWS.
the people who constantly bitch about the playcalling are not seeing things on the whole, his philosophys and playcalling situations do adjust. but when they are not executed there is nothing he can do about it. reid is a pass first offense, when the pass doesnt work, the run wont work. but people seem to want the run-run-pass-punt offense now. if you go back through last season, on 2nd and 10 or shorter, reid runs at least 50% of the time.
2nd 10 or longer he's forced to pass.
it's there, you just have to see that reid calls plays based on where they are now, not what they did the play before.
ok, Andy Reid's perfect. nice arguement.
yeah, thats EXACTLY what i said. good interpretation. :yay
I'm with Sarge... I have concerns about this game, because KC has looked very, very strong this season. Maybe it's just they have a good defense, and it's altered my perception of what's supposed to happen.
McNabb will play. Why would we not give 100% to a game that has to be fought and well played to win? I don't see AR or McNabb rolling over and saying, "Well we can't win them all, so let's take this week off." Westbrook must run more, but I also expect to see him catching quite a bit. And Akers? Well, let's hope they're able to get each time they pass the 30, and not have to rely on FGs.
I'm not flying across the country to see them, but I did drop some mighty coin for my 40 yard line, 8 rows off the field behind the Eagles bench tickets. :yay
KC is good, but you know the saying. No one is as bad as they look, and no one is a good as they look. The Chiefs are good, but not Superbowl contenders yet. Their defense IMO still has a lot to be desired. I guess we'll see this week. I know some people here will accept a loss to the Chiefs with it being a tough game, but I'm going to be extremely disappointed if we come out with a loss. Eagles are the better team and I expect nothing less than a win.
I know some people here will accept a loss to the Chiefs with it being a tough game, but I'm going to be extremely disappointed if we come out with a loss. Eagles are the better team and I expect nothing less than a win.
then you gotta be thinking 15-1...because this is easily their toughest game the rest of the way
You can't tell if it's the hardest game simply by opponents. We have to see what type of spots the Eagles and other teams are in as the season goes on.
But...this is the most complete team left on our schedule. IGY is right on that.
It's the best team on the schedule, yes. Still isn't an excuse to lose.
Quote from: ice grillin you on September 26, 2005, 04:15:03 PM
I know some people here will accept a loss to the Chiefs with it being a tough game, but I'm going to be extremely disappointed if we come out with a loss. Eagles are the better team and I expect nothing less than a win.
then you gotta be thinking 15-1...because this is easily their toughest game the rest of the way
Without a doubt.
Even before Atlanta... this was the toughest game on the schedule, IMO. Even "last year's" Chiefs would have presented a tough game simply because the Chiefs are just so damn tough at Arrowhead. It's been that wasy for years.
Had we been going into this game with everyone relatively healthy (especially McNabb), then I would have a lot less doubt about this game because I do feel that their D is a little overrated right now. But as we all know, when McNabb's not totally right physically... you just don't know how he's gonna play. For that reason, I think AR needs to help him out a little bit and try to keep the dogs off him a little bit by running the ball more. I mean, McNabb's been injured since what, the 2nd series of the year(?) and we've thrown the ball 45, 39 and 51 times so far this year.
But, if McNabb is out there giving another one of those gutty performances and he's getting it done, I like our chances because no matter what, I don't think they can run the score up on our D.
speaking of the schedule...has there ever been one where a team will face more statuesque qbs...its amazing...bring the heat jj
green
bledsoe
brees
brunnel
manning
hasselbeck
bulger
warner
'The heat' looked pretty luke warm yesterday.
Brees and Hasselbeck can both move pretty well. Brunell still a little bit.
Bledsoe is cemented to the turf though.
brees maybe a little...very little.....and even when he does he cant throw on the run...bottom line is none of them are going to hurt you with their feet
have you seen brunnel lately...he cant move at all
plummer is the only qb left that can do that...and farve with whatever he has left....which isnt much
Hell... I saw Manning take off for a few 1st downs last night against the Chargers.
Hell... I saw Manning take off for a few 1st downs last night against the Chargers
ok my bad i take it all back....eagles defense is gonna be on its heels the rest of the year
you people love to argue dont you
Quote from: ice grillin you on September 26, 2005, 04:42:55 PM
brees maybe a little...very little.....and even when he does he cant throw on the run...bottom line is none of them are going to hurt you with their feet
have you seen brunnel lately...he cant move at all
plummer is the only qb left that can do that...and farve with whatever he has left....which isnt much
Brunell can move, what the hell are you talking about? Did you watch monday night? He's no Mcnabb, Vick or Culpepper, but he can move and scramble.
Brunell can
this is a total trap game for the chiefs. as usual, people refuse to see this on both sides.
the cheifs play tonight on the road, their 2nd division game on the road in 2 weeks. (Oakland, Denver)
the play the eagles, then head to a bye, and were 1-3 vs the nfc last year.
this may be the toughest on paper for the eagles.
but the cheifs are in a bad bad spot for this game.
eagles come out on top of this one. especially if tonights game is a tough one.
He can move better than half the QBs in this league, I'll tell you that. Like I said he's no Vick, Mcnabb or Culpepper, but he can still move. If you think he's some type of a statue you haven't been watching him play lately. He's always been able to scramble. Especially with the Jags. He's a shell of himself now, but he still has a little juice left.
the Eagles aren't a trap game for anybody. they are one of the top teams, with one of the top QB's with a WR that everybody loves to hate. the Eagles get a teams top effort just like the Patriots, Steelers or Colts would.
Quote from: Avenger on September 26, 2005, 04:53:21 PM
He can move better than half the QBs in this league, I'll tell you that. Like I said he's no Vick, Mcnabb or Culpepper, but he can still move. If you think he's some type of a statue you haven't been watching him play lately. He's always been able to scramble. Especially with the Jags. He's a shell of himself now, but he still has a little juice left.
Yes, I have seen Brunell play.
Yes, I know he's no McNabb, Vick or Culpepper
Yes, I know he's always been able to scramble.
Yes, I am still laughing that you say he still has juice left.
movement for brunell=a slide step
sometimes hell get really crazy and step up two or three yards in the pocket
Quote from: ice grillin you on September 26, 2005, 05:05:30 PM
movement for brunell=a slide step
sometimes hell get really crazy and step up two or three yards in the pocket
:-D :-D :-D
Quote from: ice grillin you on September 26, 2005, 05:05:30 PM
movement for brunell=a slide step
sometimes hell get really crazy and step up two or three yards in the pocket
He ran for like 30 yards on one play @ Dallas when the Skins were faced with 3rd and long.
Brunell is a terrible QB, but I can name 15 QBs that he can scramble better than.
Quote from: ice grillin you on September 26, 2005, 05:05:30 PM
movement for brunell=a slide step
sometimes hell get really crazy and step up two or three yards in the pocket
You should have seen him in his prime. That motherfarger could run, bro.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on September 26, 2005, 06:13:43 PM
You should have seen him in his prime. That motherfarger could run, bro.
Yes, we're all aware of that.
We're not talking about his prime though, are we?
His mobility is slightly above the average QB. Better than average means he is pretty mobile.
It's an out-of-conference game on the road. Am I the only one that wouldn't mind seeing Koy get the start in this one so that Donovan can heal up for the Cowgirls??
Quote from: PhillyGirl on September 26, 2005, 06:37:01 PM
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on September 26, 2005, 06:13:43 PM
You should have seen him in his prime. That motherfarger could run, bro.
Yes, we're all aware of that.
We're not talking about his prime though, are we?
Ummm... apparently I was even if you weren't. You see, when I said he COULD run in his prime, I meant 10 years ago, not now.
See how that works?
Quote from: PhillyandBCEagles on September 26, 2005, 06:54:30 PM
It's an out-of-conference game on the road. Am I the only one that wouldn't mind seeing Koy get the start in this one so that Donovan can heal up for the Cowgirls??
Plane ticket from NC to KC = $250.00
Tickets to the game = $60.00
Kicking your ass for suggesting that = Priceless
;)
They're having some gay pre-deployment family day cruise aboard my ship on the 1st that my roommates are required to attend, so there's zero chance I can make this game. :boom
Oh well, soon enough I'll be able to make plenty.... :)
This is going to be a very tough game and I would really like to see them win it. If they don't I won't be too upset. They will have a new kicker and a banged up QB. I agree with IGY though if they win this game look out for the rest of the season.
Quote from: PhillyandBCEagles on September 26, 2005, 06:54:30 PM
It's an out-of-conference game on the road. Am I the only one that wouldn't mind seeing Koy get the start in this one so that Donovan can heal up for the Cowgirls??
Yes.
Throwing away a game, just because it's an out-of-conference road game, is just wrong. As IGY and others have said, on paper this is the toughest opponent left in the season. We win this one, and the Eagles know they are for real and ride that all the way to Detroit.
I think this team will be very focused going to Arrowhead.
Quote from: Larry on September 26, 2005, 09:12:30 PM
I think this team will be very focused going to Arrowhead.
That's the thing right there. Through 3 games I don't think we've seen a completely focused Eagles team. I'm not counting the 9ers game because they could have won that game blindfolded. But against the Falcons and Raiders this team (offense) just wasn't on the same page for most of the game. The defense has been consistant each week so I'm not worried about them at all. I think JJ will have them ready to go as he always does. But the offense just hasn't gotten into it yet so hopefully this is the week where they pull it together and make the big plays when they need to while being efficient and consistant throughout the majority of the game.
I think the first offensive series is going to be huge for this game. If the Eagles come out and move the ball, even if they don't score, then I think they'll be fine. But they can't go 3 and out. They've at least got to move the sticks a couple of times and get off to a good start.
What's scary is, this team is #1 in the NFL in total offense with 444 yards/game. And that's with McNabb being off-kilter for a game and a half. I think it's the little mistakes that has been foiling us (the turnovers in the redzone, the sacks, the missed FGs).
Quote from: DemonchildrenOnTurf on September 26, 2005, 09:05:11 PM
Quote from: PhillyandBCEagles on September 26, 2005, 06:54:30 PM
It's an out-of-conference game on the road. Am I the only one that wouldn't mind seeing Koy get the start in this one so that Donovan can heal up for the Cowgirls??
Yes.
Throwing away a game, just because it's an out-of-conference road game, is just wrong. As IGY and others have said, on paper this is the toughest opponent left in the season. We win this one, and the Eagles know they are for real and ride that all the way to Detroit.
Starting McMahon (should have said him instead of Koy) if McNabb isn't 100% doesn't equal throwing away the game. If we don't feel that we can win a game with McMahon starting (or Koy if he is the #2 in terms of starters) then he shouldn't be on the roster.
Our defense is scary this year. I think if we shut down the run like we did last week we are taking away the chiefs main offensive weapon. Now TE is a big concern for me. We let the Raiders TE's get first downs(as we have let TE's take advantage of us alot last year). Tony Gonzalez is the best in the business. We are going to have to put Dawkins on him and have Brown and Shepard 1 on 1 with their receivers. I def. think they can handle them. I'd rather have them take a shot with the receivers deep, than have Gonzo making an ass out of our linebackers all day. But still a 6ft what 4-5 inch Gonzo against Dawkins isn't too favorable for Dawk. His only real chance is putting a good lick on Gonzo at the point the ball gets to him. Dawks the best in the business, but this is a big mismatch IMO. Although Ive also noticed in the past that Gonzo has a tendency to get frustrated easily and sometimes gives up. Pressure on Green = bad throws, some big hits on Gonzo early I think we can rattle him. How else do you think they are going to deal with him?
Dawk gives up the same size disadvantage to Shockey, and has largely controlled him. Size won't be the issue.
Gonzales being way better than Shockey might though :-\
Uh, is KC getting smoked tonight? ???
KC looks terrible. They are good, but overrated. Eagles should bury them on sunday. Trent Green is a statue.
Trent Green...so far 0 TD passes this season.
That's good for Trent Green. I expected negative TD passes.
Quote from: The Waco Kid on September 26, 2005, 11:54:30 PM
Trent Green...so far 0 TD passes this season.
Well there went that! A late, meaningless TD pass.
Denver exposed Kansas City a little bit tonight.
Willie Roaf was out again with his hamstring injury and their OT's played horrible. Jordan Black was abused at LT and Trevor Pryce had his way with every single Chiefs OL on that field. They lined him up at all 4 DL positions and they could not block him at all.
The Chiefs OL looked very bad.
Hell, even when they played Oakland they were struggling to run the ball without Roaf.
Priest Holmes also looks like he's lost a step. He used to hit that edge or cut it upfield and have 5-10 yards before you could think about bringing him down. Now he struggles to hit that edge a little bit.
Samie Parker, despite a nice grab on that TD, is not very good. Their only decent WR is Kennison.
So the Eagles will probably devote a lot of attention to Gonzalez and let Kennison/Parker be covered man up.
This is a winnable game. I just hope McNabb doesn't get killed.
KC's defense is also undisciplined. How many times did that bootleg kill them? Their DEs crashed down every time and it killed them.
KC looks terrible. They are good, but overrated. Eagles should bury them on sunday
what happened last night has no bearing on what will happen sunday...the mere fact that kc is a different monster at home changes everything...but in general the nfl changes so much from one sunday to the next that its useless to say the eagles are gonna kill the chiefs cause kc looked terrible last night
KC never does well in Denver. Last night has no bearing on next week's game. If anything, KC will come out more prepared.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 27, 2005, 08:29:04 AM
KC never does well in Denver. Last night has no bearing on next week's game. If anything, KC will come out more prepared.
Agreed and the Monday Night loser has a good winning % the next week.I was hoping they would win.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 27, 2005, 08:29:04 AM
KC never does well in Denver. Last night has no bearing on next week's game. If anything, KC will come out more prepared.
My thoughts to, except I think last night's game does have bearing on Sunday's game. They lose big on national TV, and get to go home to Arrowhead. I think it motivates them more to show everyone, especially the home crowd, they they don't suck as much as they did last night. How to do that? Beat the best team in the NFC.
I'm concerned, but still think the Eagles can win this game. But it will take discipline, and good game plan, and maybe a lucky bounce or two going Philly's way.
RJS & Ice-Grillin, are you dudes on the KC tourism board or something? Defense is defense and KC's sucked. KCs wideout were herendous. Trent Green is a statue. We beat the shtein out them in KC a few years ago when Priest was in his prime.
Last time I checked Arrowhead wasn't the Frozen Tundra. If the Chefs can't get up for a game against a div rival on Monday night what makes you think they'll be so good on short rest? Oh I forgot Arrowhead is a "magical" stadium.
I was really rooting for a KC win lastnight, most teams coming off a big MNF win have a let down the next week. Oh well, guess I'll hold out hope that their confidence is low after the beatdown lastnight. Phreak made an excellent point about Holmes, he just doesn't look the same. Defensively the Chiefs seem to struggle with teams that run the WCO -- so that's good.
Quote from: JailBird-man on September 27, 2005, 10:19:19 AM
RJS & Ice-Grillin, are you dudes on the KC tourism board or something? Defense is defense and KC's sucked. KCs wideout were herendous. Trent Green is a statue. We beat the shtein out them in KC a few years ago when Priest was in his prime.
Last time I checked Arrowhead wasn't the Frozen Tundra. If the Chefs can't get up for a game against a div rival on Monday night what makes you think they'll be so good on short rest? Oh I forgot Arrowhead is a "magical" stadium.
Yes. In fact I am on the KC tourism board. I'm a man of many parts.
i dont get all the man love for KC.
what exactly makes them so good other than their RB's and Gonzo? since 2000, they have had 1 winning season. 1.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 27, 2005, 10:48:49 AM
Quote from: JailBird-man on September 27, 2005, 10:19:19 AM
RJS & Ice-Grillin, are you dudes on the KC tourism board or something? Defense is defense and KC's sucked. KCs wideout were herendous. Trent Green is a statue. We beat the shtein out them in KC a few years ago when Priest was in his prime.
Last time I checked Arrowhead wasn't the Frozen Tundra. If the Chefs can't get up for a game against a div rival on Monday night what makes you think they'll be so good on short rest? Oh I forgot Arrowhead is a "magical" stadium.
Yes. In fact I am on the KC tourism board. I'm a man of many parts.
So you're a hermaphrodite or something?
eagles win every game from here on out...
Or something.
yeah, you're something alright
Quote from: ice grillin you on September 27, 2005, 01:06:46 PM
eagles win every game from here on out...
They're not gonna win every game, I just don't think we need to tremble at the feet of the Mighty Chefs. I'm not sure which part of the match-ups you're scared of. The birds have a great road record over the last 5 or so years. Including beating them last time there. :nyuk
no ones trembling...its no different than the atlanta game....if they win i wouldnt be surprised...but its a really tough game and i think it will be one of their losses
if atlanta had laid an egg against seattle the week before the eagle game instead of the week after youd have been saying the same thing about atlanta that youre are saying about the chiefs now...
all im sayin is after what happened last night my opinion of this game has not changed at all...i said before the season that this was a loss and im still saying it
Can anyone tell me where the map of what game is being broadcast is? I want to see if the Eagles are on in NNJ after the Gints game.
so dawkins can take gonzalez?
i think after last nights game we mimic the blitz's denver was throwing at green. hes horrible when pressured. our d-backs will eat those passes up if we get alot of pressure on him. but we have to force them to throw, take the early lead and stop the running game. i think we can do it.
we have to set westbrook up in good situations. hes our playmaker until mcnabb gets healthy and can throw the ball to everyone else.
Quote from: mussa on September 27, 2005, 02:18:09 PM
so dawkins can take gonzalez?
Are you kidding me ??? Win or lose this may be Gonnerias last game :boom
KC can come out more prepared, but it shouldn't be the difference in the ball game. They just aren't as good as the Eagles. I know the best team doesn't always win, but that is usually when the better team comes out unprepared and gets pushed around. I don't expect the Eagles to play like that.
QuoteChiefs | Sims Out for Week 4
Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:45:23 -0700
Kansas City Chiefs DT Ryan Sims (foot) will not play in Week 4 due to a foot injury.
QuoteChiefs | Roaf Questionable for Week 4
Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:46:10 -0700
Kansas City Chiefs OT William Roaf (hamstring) is listed as questionable for Week 4 due to a hamstring injury.
if Roaf can't play, that is a big blow to KC, the backup, Black, couldn't block anybody on Monday night.
They did say, during the MNF game, that Roaf would be ready for this week.
Just an FYI....I still think he'll play.
Quote from: PhillyGirl on September 28, 2005, 05:11:26 PM
They did say, during the MNF game, that Roaf would be ready for this week.
Just an FYI....I still think he'll play.
Their O-line was awful against the Broncos so even if Roaf is at 50% they'll probably let him play. Sims being out really isn't a big blow, he's been a bust since he's been drafted.
Just saw a blurb on ESPNEWS saying that Roaf is OUT for this week.
Yup, just came to post that Waco Kid.
I was doing my FF lineup and I have Trent Green. This is what they told me:
QuoteRoaf has missed the last two games and it's worth noting that the Chiefs have a bye in week five. Thus, if they elect to rest him on Sunday he would get five full weeks off to ensure the hamstring injury doesn't linger. If in fact the Chiefs go that route, we have no choice but to recommend that you sit Trent Green against the Eagles. Without Roaf in week three, Green was running scared all night against the Broncos, and the Eagles are known to blitz occasionally. :-D :-D :-D
LOL.
Too bad Groin Warner is my backup and is out. ::)
No Roaf?
F'ing excellent.
Jordan Black, Chris Bober and Kevin Sampson flat out suck ass.
fwiw the chiefs website still has him listed as questionable
but if espn news is listing him as out...holla!
I think the main reason he is out is what was posted in the yahoo quote I posted. They have a bye week in week 5 and it would give him 5 full weeks to rest up instead of risking further injury rushing him back.
i love how every football "expert" always talk about how much the Eagles blitz. if you listen to guys who actually watch film, like Greg Cosell or R. Diddy the constantly talk about the fact that the Eagles don't blitz as much as everything thinks they do, they just have a high success rate so it appears they blitz more.
Quote from: Sun_Mo on September 29, 2005, 08:51:50 AM
i love how every football "expert" always talk about how much the Eagles blitz. if you listen to guys who actually watch film, like Greg Cosell or R. Diddy the constantly talk about the fact that the Eagles don't blitz as much as everything thinks they do, they just have a high success rate so it appears they blitz more.
It's an easy way for them to glaze over the fact that they don't know ish about the Eagles D.
Quote from: Sun_Mo on September 29, 2005, 08:51:50 AM
i love how every football "expert" always talk about how much the Eagles blitz. if you listen to guys who actually watch film, like Greg Cosell or R. Diddy the constantly talk about the fact that the Eagles don't blitz as much as everything thinks they do, they just have a high success rate so it appears they blitz more.
Yeah, good point. I really enjoy listening to Cosell. I wish he was on more (radio or TV). Very good analyst. One of my favorites.
I think they're going to blitz the ever-living piss out of the Chefs this weekend though. No Roaf, Green shats himself under pressure (see the MNF game) and their WRs eat ass.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on September 29, 2005, 09:06:50 AM
Yeah, good point. I really enjoy listening to Cosell. I wish he was on more (radio or TV). Very good analyst. One of my favorites.
I think they're going to blitz the ever-living piss out of the Chefs this weekend though. No Roaf, Green shats himself under pressure (see the MNF game) and their WRs eat ass.
i agree, the only matchup that makes me nervous is Gonzalez against Lewis or against Dhani. Gonzalez hasn't scored yet this year and the Chiefs will probably look to get him started. Also, if the Eagles are blitzing alot Gonzalez might get a lot of hot read looks.
Tony Gonzalez is not a concern to me. Even if he gets a lot of yards. What concerns me is their running game and whether Kearse can get off the schneid and smash some QBs.
i agree about kearse....he needs to come off that milk carton
Quote from: Sun_Mo on September 29, 2005, 09:31:26 AM
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on September 29, 2005, 09:06:50 AM
Yeah, good point. I really enjoy listening to Cosell. I wish he was on more (radio or TV). Very good analyst. One of my favorites.
I think they're going to blitz the ever-living piss out of the Chefs this weekend though. No Roaf, Green shats himself under pressure (see the MNF game) and their WRs eat ass.
i agree, the only matchup that makes me nervous is Gonzalez against Lewis or against Dhani. Gonzalez hasn't scored yet this year and the Chiefs will probably look to get him started. Also, if the Eagles are blitzing alot Gonzalez might get a lot of hot read looks.
I'm cool with him getting the hot-read passes. They are short and the Birds are good tacklers so they'd limit his yardage.
But I think that we're going to see bracket coverage on him. Not man-up, but Dhani jamming him off the line with Mike Lewis shadowing him over the top.
Dawkins will be able to play in the box this week and blitz and provide run support because Lito and Sheldon can absolutely handle Eddie Kennison and Samie parker.
With no Roaf, I think JJ will go after Green like crazy. he was beaten up by denver becaus ethat Ol could not protect him.
I like our chances this week.,
Guys... crowd or no crowd, the Eagles are going to obliterate the Chefs.
Their defense is horrendous, Green is a statue and the Eagles run defense has been stout lately.
It all adds up to a blowout.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 29, 2005, 09:33:15 AM
Tony Gonzalez is not a concern to me. Even if he gets a lot of yards. What concerns me is their running game and whether Kearse can get off the schneid and smash some QBs.
Agreement orgasms... yuck! :paranoid
We stop their running game... we blow out the Chiefs.
Trent Green is fresh meat. Watch out...i think Kearse will have two sacks and a QB knockout this week! :yay
Tony G is a concern to me. TEs always kill the Eagles.
Quote from: Avenger on September 29, 2005, 04:03:29 PM
Tony G is a concern to me. TEs always kill the Eagles.
which ones have killed the eagles?
which ones have killed the eagles?
doug cosbie
:-D
Quote from: Wingspan on September 29, 2005, 04:10:39 PM
Quote from: Avenger on September 29, 2005, 04:03:29 PM
Tony G is a concern to me. TEs always kill the Eagles.
which ones have killed the eagles?
Shockey, Boo Williams, Anderson last week, Crumpler is the only only one for the Falcons who seems to get them down the field on us.
Quote from: Avenger on September 29, 2005, 04:29:37 PM
Quote from: Wingspan on September 29, 2005, 04:10:39 PM
Quote from: Avenger on September 29, 2005, 04:03:29 PM
Tony G is a concern to me. TEs always kill the Eagles.
which ones have killed the eagles?
Shockey, Boo Williams, Anderson last week, Crumpler is the only only one for the Falcons who seems to get them down the field on us.
:-D :-D :-D
Quote from: Avenger on September 29, 2005, 04:29:37 PM
Quote from: Wingspan on September 29, 2005, 04:10:39 PM
Quote from: Avenger on September 29, 2005, 04:03:29 PM
Tony G is a concern to me. TEs always kill the Eagles.
which ones have killed the eagles?
Shockey, Boo Williams, Anderson last week, Crumpler is the only only one for the Falcons who seems to get them down the field on us.
have the giants beaten the eagles since shockey was drafted by them other than the 10-7 game at the end of the season his rookie year?
boo williams? you cant be farging serious with that.
anderson didnt win the game, and the falcons have been the eagles in a long while....
you need to re-evaluate your use of discriptive words
Quote from: PhillyGirl on September 29, 2005, 04:38:15 PM
Quote from: Avenger on September 29, 2005, 04:29:37 PM
Quote from: Wingspan on September 29, 2005, 04:10:39 PM
Quote from: Avenger on September 29, 2005, 04:03:29 PM
Tony G is a concern to me. TEs always kill the Eagles.
which ones have killed the eagles?
Shockey, Boo Williams, Anderson last week, Crumpler is the only only one for the Falcons who seems to get them down the field on us.
:-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D
Quote from: SD_Eagle on September 29, 2005, 04:53:35 PM
Quote from: PhillyGirl on September 29, 2005, 04:38:15 PM
Quote from: Avenger on September 29, 2005, 04:29:37 PM
Quote from: Wingspan on September 29, 2005, 04:10:39 PM
Quote from: Avenger on September 29, 2005, 04:03:29 PM
Tony G is a concern to me. TEs always kill the Eagles.
which ones have killed the eagles?
Shockey, Boo Williams, Anderson last week, Crumpler is the only only one for the Falcons who seems to get them down the field on us.
:-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D
:-D :-D :-D
Quote from: Wingspan on September 29, 2005, 04:52:07 PM
Quote from: Avenger on September 29, 2005, 04:29:37 PM
Quote from: Wingspan on September 29, 2005, 04:10:39 PM
Quote from: Avenger on September 29, 2005, 04:03:29 PM
Tony G is a concern to me. TEs always kill the Eagles.
which ones have killed the eagles?
Shockey, Boo Williams, Anderson last week, Crumpler is the only only one for the Falcons who seems to get them down the field on us.
have the giants beaten the eagles since shockey was drafted by them other than the 10-7 game at the end of the season his rookie year?
boo williams? you cant be farging serious with that.
anderson didnt win the game, and the falcons have been the eagles in a long while....
you need to re-evaluate your use of discriptive words
Add Witten to that list as well. He killed us last year @ Dallas. What does winning the games have to do with anything? TEs are definitely a position which are not unable to have good games against the Eagles. So for someone to say TG isn't a threat, when he's the best or 2nd best TE in football is ridiculous.
Well, sure, he's a threat, but he's the ONLY threat at this point. They can stop that run game, and no one on our D fears their pass blocking. It should be ugly.
and I never said the Chiefs would win the game either, so I have no idea why you started talking about other team's records vs the Eagles. I said the Eagles will win, but does that mean players on their teams can't have good games? Of course not, and to imply it like you did is ridiculous as well.
Quote from: Avenger on September 29, 2005, 04:58:26 PM
What does winning the games have to do with anything?
uh...everything.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on September 29, 2005, 05:01:12 PM
Well, sure, he's a threat, but he's the ONLY threat at this point. They can stop that run game, and no one on our D fears their pass blocking. It should be ugly.
No, he's not the only threat at this point. They have a great running game, and while our run defense is good, that doesn't mean we will completely shut down their running game. We very well may, but it isn't a guarantee. On top of that with our lack of a pass rush from the edges this season, it's not a guarantee that even with Roaf out, we'll get a pass rush on them either. If we bring extra guys up to stop the run and don't get a pass rush, TG and Kennison could have great games.
I said I think the Eagles will win, but the Chiefs are one of the best offenses in football every year for a reason. With only one or two threats, that wouldn't be the case. They have multiple threats. If the Eagles went in with your mindset, they'd walk out with their tail between their legs.
Quote from: Wingspan on September 29, 2005, 05:06:58 PM
Quote from: Avenger on September 29, 2005, 04:58:26 PM
What does winning the games have to do with anything?
uh...everything.
But I didn't say the Eagles would lose the game, so your point is moot.
NEXT
Quote from: Avenger on September 29, 2005, 05:09:05 PM
Quote from: Wingspan on September 29, 2005, 05:06:58 PM
Quote from: Avenger on September 29, 2005, 04:58:26 PM
What does winning the games have to do with anything?
uh...everything.
But I didn't say the Eagles would lose the game, so your point is moot.
NEXT
then those didnt reall "kill" the eagles then did they?
it's mooo
:-D
Are you serious?
Someone can kill a us without them winning the game. If Priest rushes for 200 on sunday and the Eagles win, he didn't kill us?
Get back on your meds.
Quote from: Avenger on September 29, 2005, 05:26:49 PM
:-D
Are you serious?
Someone can kill a us without them winning the game. If Priest rushes for 200 on sunday and the Eagles win, he didn't kill us?
Get back on your meds.
A guy could run for 400 yards on the Eagles but if the Eagles won the game it wouldn't mean shtein.
Stats are for losers and the definition of killing another team always, and I mean ALWAYS involves winning. If it didn't they wouldn't keep score.
"Killing" a team means having a very good game... winning or losing is irrelevant.
The involvement of winning may be your definition, but that doesn't say much since you seem to be on another planet with this debate.
Are you telling me you never watched a football game where say the score was 14-14 and one team has a RB that is busting off big run after big run, and you never heard an announcer say something like "Man he is absolutely killing them out there." If not you've never watched football.
When players have good games, it gives their team a better chance to win, as opposed to them having bad games.
It's not rocket science people.
and I should add, your stat comment is laughable.
Are you telling me that if you didn't know the final score ahead of time, and you look at the stats for the Eagles/Chiefs game and you saw Westbrook had 150 yards rushing, TO had 170 yards receiving, Mcnabb had 450 yards passing and 6 TDs, that you wouldn't assume they won the game as opposed to Westbrook having 30 rushing yards, TO having 40 receiving yards and Mcnabb having 150 passing yards and 0 TDs?
Stats are important during games for outcomes.
Stats don't mean shtein.
And you're ugly.
So according to your logic Mcnabb could have an equally good game with 450 passing yards and 6 TDs than 150 passing yards and no TDs.
I'm talking about individuals here. This is how the whole thing started. Someone said TG doesn't scare them. They didn't say the Chiefs didn't scare them. So if you are talking about a team game, this isn't what this particular argument is about. This argument is about individuals.
Why are you arguing with me?
I said what I said. Stats (other than wins and losses) don't mean shtein.
If McNabb wins the game where he throws for 150 and loses the game where he tosses 6 touchdowns, the one he wins is more impressive. What part of that don't you understand?
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on September 29, 2005, 07:10:02 PM
Why are you arguing with me?
I said what I said. Stats (other than wins and losses) don't mean shtein.
If McNabb wins the game where he throws for 150 and loses the game where he tosses 6 touchdowns, the one he wins is more impressive. What part of that don't you understand?
If
Mcnabb wins? I thought the team was called the Eagles, not the Mcnabbs. I told you in my last post this debate isn't about the team, it's about individuals. This particular debate started about
individual performances. Winning and losing had nothing to do with this argument. This recent discussion was about what type of day TG was going to have against the Eagles.
If
Mcnabb had 450 yards and 6 TDs in a loss, it is more impressive than 150 and no TDs and a win
for Mcnabb. It isn't more impressive for the Eagles though, but we aren't talking about the team aspect of the game right now. That is what you don't seem to understand.
Quote from: Avenger on September 29, 2005, 05:26:49 PM
Someone can kill a us without them winning the game. If Priest rushes for 200 on sunday and the Eagles win, he didn't kill us?
no.
eagles win.
why would i care about anything else?
if holmes rushes for 200 yards, and the eagles win 31-14...is holmes gonna say "yeah i killed them"
Quote from: Wingspan on September 29, 2005, 07:14:32 PM
Quote from: Avenger on September 29, 2005, 05:26:49 PM
Someone can kill a us without them winning the game. If Priest rushes for 200 on sunday and the Eagles win, he didn't kill us?
no.
eagles win.
why would i care about anything else?
if holmes rushes for 200 yards, and the eagles win 31-14...is holmes gonna say "yeah i killed them"
Don't even bother. Mr. Fantasy Football thinks stats mean more than wins & losses.
Let him wallow in ignorance.
Meanwhile, I'll sit here and wish that Tom Brady was our quarterback. You know, the guy with three Super Bowl wins and nary a playoff loss. Ever.
When did wins and losses even become a part of this argument? I'm not talking about wins and losses, and I'm not a fantasy football stat geek either. I know wins and losses are the most important thing, but once again this particular debate isn't about wins and losses. Once in a while I would like to go deeper, and talk about individual performances for a change.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on September 29, 2005, 06:38:44 PM
Quote from: Avenger on September 29, 2005, 05:26:49 PM
:-D
Are you serious?
Someone can kill a us without them winning the game. If Priest rushes for 200 on sunday and the Eagles win, he didn't kill us?
Get back on your meds.
A guy could run for 400 yards on the Eagles but if the Eagles won the game it wouldn't mean shtein.
Stats are for losers and the definition of killing another team always, and I mean ALWAYS involves winning. If it didn't they wouldn't keep score.
You brought up the wins & losses in the initial post I responded to.
Try reading instead of typing for a change.
Dope.
No I didn't, Wingspan brought up wins and losses. You tell me to read, don't be a hypocrite. That is what happens when you jump into someone else's debate while trying to be the hero.
If you are too lazy to go back I will quote the post.
Quotehave the giants beaten the eagles since shockey was drafted by them other than the 10-7 game at the end of the season his rookie year?
boo williams? you cant be farging serious with that.
anderson didnt win the game, and the falcons have been the eagles in a long while....
you need to re-evaluate your use of discriptive words
That is when wins and losses was unnecessarily brought into the argument.
My contribution to this thread was to refute your insistence that statistics were more important than wins and losses.
I did that.
So stop backpedaling and own up to it.
Wins and losses are far more important than statistics, and I never said nor tried to imply they weren't. I never even brought up wins and losses into this argument because this argument was about an individual. You don't always have to talk about wins and losses when discussing a game. Some people like myself, are interested in discussing how you think individual players will do without relating it to a win or a loss.
If you don't want to discuss anything but wins and losses then this debate isn't for you, bub. Just because I don't want to talk about wins and losses right now doesn't mean I don't think they are important.
Wins and losses are far more important than statistics
I win.
I have nothing further to contribute here.
Smart move. When you are in a battle you can't win just walk away.
I win yet another debate. :yay
Quote from: Avenger on September 29, 2005, 07:42:36 PM
Smart move. When you are in a battle you can't win just walk away.
I win yet another debate. :yay
You couldn't win a debate with yourself.
Your points were totally refuted and you even admitted I was right. How does that translate into you winning anything other than the "most retarded fargtard" award?
Just shut it, dude. Just walk away and learn from this little asskicking you took. When you talk shtein on here, expect to get called on it.
:-D
You just spent a half an hour trying to get me to admit something I already believed, want me to admit I'm wrong about something I never even said, simply because you weren't intelligent enough to get the whole premise of the debate.
If you had the patience, you wouldn't have forced me to make you look like a fool. It's your fault for not even understanding what the entire debate was about. Yet I still have the composure to refrain from resorting to childish insults like you did.
The 150 yds passing, 0TD game was the one in 2002 against the Giants. And we won, on a Westbrook punt return. Turned the whole season around. I think McNabb was pleased with the outcome there. I know I was.
I was happy with the outcome too, but that has nothing to do with what we were discussing. If you'd like to talk about what it takes to win sundays game, then I'd love to talk about that, but that isn't what we were discussing before.
OK. TO had a very solid night against Hall, yet Hall claimed he "killed" TO. Largely because TO didn't get a TD. Who was right?
Quote from: MadMarchHare on September 29, 2005, 09:47:44 PM
OK. TO had a very solid night against Hall, yet Hall claimed he "killed" TO. Largely because TO didn't get a TD. Who was right?
Neither were right. TO had a solid game, but nothing major. That doesn't mean he got killed, but TO got his yards.
I guess my point is, if Holmes gets 200yds and 3TDs (i.e. kills us), yet we still win, I don't really care.