link (http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/sports/13714456.htm)
QuoteEagles' ground swell
Eagles coach says balance important on offense
By LES BOWEN
bowenl@phillynews.com
MOBILE, Ala. - Like you, Andy Reid has been watching the NFL playoffs. And it hasn't escaped his notice that all the teams playing last weekend in the conference championships featured balanced offenses that run the ball effectively.
The Eagles' coach isn't looking to radically change his team's approach, but he did acknowledge yesterday that success in the post-Terrell Owens era is going to require more of an emphasis on the ground game.
"We've got to get back to what we did a few years ago, where we were running it close to 50 percent of the time," Reid said yesterday as he prepared to leave Mobile, after watching 3 days of Senior Bowl practice. "The more you can keep it close to 50-50, the more you keep people honest defensively."
The Eagles' mix was more than 70-30 in favor of passing through the first half of last season, before Reid dismissed Owens and before quarterback Donovan McNabb finally sat down for sports-hernia surgery. The Eagles ran the ball more down the stretch, when they had fewer weapons.
Reid's Eagles have never really been 50-50 pass-run; the closest they've come was in 2002, the last time they had a 1,000-yard rusher (Duce Staley, 1,029 yards on 269 carries). That year they ran the ball 489 times (including 63 runs by McNabb, many of them designed as passing plays), and threw it 548 times. The last two seasons, the Eagles have run the ball fewer than 400 times (376 in 2004, just 365 last season) and thrown it considerably more than 500 (547 in 2004, a whopping 620 last season).
Reid and his coaching staff attended Senior Bowl practices for the first time since they began their run of four successive NFC Championship Game appearances in 2002. With a host of needs to fill following their first losing season since 1999, The Eagles will draft 14th overall this April. They haven't chosen that high since they took Corey Simon with the sixth pick in 2000. Reid isn't about to share his thoughts on where the Eagles might go with that first selection, but he did say that for him, watching the playoffs has reinforced something - "it's very obvious that you have to rush the passer and protect the quarterback."
Asked if this meant he would be looking hard at his offensive and defensive lines high in the draft and in free agency, Reid said: "I'll always start there." He also acknowledged that when your first pick is 14th instead of 29th or 30th, it's a little easier to trade up into the top 10, should you want to do that.
Defensively, the Eagles need a pass-rushing end to complement Jevon Kearse and could use a better push up the middle from the defensive-tackle position. The two bulwarks of the offensive line, left tackle Tra Thomas and right tackle Jon Runyan, are over 30; Runyan, 32, will be an unrestricted free agent, and says the Eagles have so far shown no interest in signing him. Thomas, 31, is coming off back surgery and an overall terrible season, which began with him missing the entire offseason while dealing with a blood-clot problem.
But before free agency starts, Reid would like to resolve the Owens situation. He has given T.O.'s agent, Drew Rosenhaus, permission to seek a trade for the All-Pro wide receiver. In March, the Eagles would owe Owens a $5 million roster bonus, which they have no intention of paying, so most observers think a trade is unlikely, since a team that waits for Owens to be released won't have to give up anything, or assume his contract, calling for 5 more years and about another $35 million. Rosenhaus, asked yesterday if anything was happening on the Owens front, said: "Nothing that I want to talk about."
Reid said there have been nibbles.
"There are some people interested out there. We'll see how things go," he said.
The Eagles have made two significant changes since Reid last spoke with reporters, the week the season ended. Offensive coordinator Brad Childress left the team to become the Vikings' head coach, and was replaced by former assistant head coach Marty Mornhinweg. And personnel chief Tom Heckert gained the title of general manager, the Eagles fending off a Vikings effort to hire Heckert.
When Childress did not hire any Eagles assistants in Minnesota, Childress and other NFL sources said Reid had asked Childress not to raid the Eagles' staff. Reid said yesterday that he didn't want assistants leaving unless they were going to be promoted to coordinator status. Apparently, only linebackers coach Steve Spagnuolo had such an opportunity - Childress was interested in Spagnuolo running his defense. Reid said yesterday he would not stand in the way of Spagnuolo getting a coordinator's job, but at the time Childress was hiring, St. Louis had expressed an interest in talking to Eagles defensive coordinator Jim Johnson about the Rams' head-coaching job. If Johnson were to leave, Reid would want Spagnuolo to succeed him, he said, so he didn't want Spagnuolo going to Minnesota while Johnson's status was unclear.
Johnson declined an interview in St. Louis. Childress hired Tampa Bay defensive-backs coach Mike Tomlin as his defensive coordinator.
"Steve's a guy [Childress] was interested in. He's a good football coach and will be a good coordinator," Reid said. "It didn't quite work out timingwise."
When Heckert was promoted, Eagles sources indicated there would be no change in the team's power structure, that Reid would retain ultimate decision-making power. The question of whether Reid needs to relinquish some control might have gained relevance with his mentor, Mike Holmgren, finally getting the Seattle Seahawks to the Super Bowl after giving up his GM duties.
Reid said yesterday that he didn't particularly take a lesson from Seattle's situation, but that Heckert "has a little more responsibility" now. He indicated that Heckert would deal with player agents, along with team president Joe Banner, and Banner's assistant, Howie Roseman. In the past, agents dealing with the Eagles haven't indicated much involvement in talks by Heckert.
Reid said he had called and left a message but hadn't been able to speak with Holmgren since the Seahawks' thrashing of Carolina in Sunday's NFC title game.
"What they did in Seattle, it worked for them, obviously, they're in the Super Bowl," Reid said. "That doesn't mean it has to be that way everywhere."
Of course, decision-making responsibilities weren't the only difference this season between the mentor and the pupil. Holmgren's version of the West Coast offense produced the NFL's leading rusher, Shaun Alexander, who ran for 1,880 yards - 448 more yards than all the Eagles' rushers combined.
Quote from: MURP on January 26, 2006, 02:42:54 PM
"We've got to get back to what we did a few years ago, where we were running it close to 50 percent of the time," Reid said yesterday as he prepared to leave Mobile, after watching 3 days of Senior Bowl practice. "The more you can keep it close to 50-50, the more you keep people honest defensively."
Cliche or not, I'll believe it when I see it.
with their OT situation, it's a no-brainer to me that they take a tackle with their 1st pick.
two words: lendale white
Quote from: Die-Hard on January 26, 2006, 02:46:26 PM
Quote from: MURP on January 26, 2006, 02:42:54 PM
"We've got to get back to what we did a few years ago, where we were running it close to 50 percent of the time," Reid said yesterday as he prepared to leave Mobile, after watching 3 days of Senior Bowl practice. "The more you can keep it close to 50-50, the more you keep people honest defensively."
Cliche or not, I'll believe it when I see it.
yeah really.
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 26, 2006, 02:47:34 PM
two words: lendale white
one word: why?
i think initially, i'd be excited to see us take him, but then reality would hit. there are far too many more needs now to be taking a rb in the first.
Maybe he'll trade up for Mario Williams.
two words:
draft defense
Quote from: Mad-Lad on January 26, 2006, 02:52:46 PM
two words:
draft defense
yes, after they take a tackle
i think initially, i'd be excited to see us take him, but then reality would hit. there are far too many more needs now to be taking a rb in the first.
more of a guarantee he will be a player...who on defense at 14 can you be certain wont be a flop...defensive lineman especially ends...which is what a lot of people are pushing for are very hard to grade
plus a rb will play and contribute right away
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 26, 2006, 02:57:56 PM
i think initially, i'd be excited to see us take him, but then reality would hit. there are far too many more needs now to be taking a rb in the first.
more of a guarantee he will be a player...who on defense at 14 can you be certain wont be a flop...defensive lineman especially ends...which is what a lot of people are pushing for are very hard to grade
plus a rb will play and contribute right away
Westbrooks fat new deal and Moats being drafted last year should "guarentee" that Lendale wont be our pick. I still think we should have taken Stephan Jackson instead of trading up for Andrews.
moats was a wasted pick...they tried to strong arm westbrook by drafting him and it didnt work...moats and westbrook in the same backfield is overkill
yup, they used a 3rd round pick on a negotiating tool, WASTE
Or insurance, depending on how you look at it.
PS: I'm officially on board with drafting defense. AFTER they draft Lendale White, that is.
Quote from: Sun_Mo on January 26, 2006, 03:04:57 PM
yup, they used a 3rd round pick on a negotiating tool, WASTE
they used a 2nd rounder on a LB who sits on the bench.
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 26, 2006, 03:03:08 PM
moats was a wasted pick...they tried to strong arm westbrook by drafting him and it didnt work...moats and westbrook in the same backfield is overkill
Having two guys who are exactly the same size, and undersized at that is stupid. I agree with that. And I agree that we should drafted a bigger back, but its impossible to do that in the first. I would seriously question Reid he takes White....even more than I am now.
Quote from: Mad-Lad on January 26, 2006, 03:07:29 PM
Quote from: Sun_Mo on January 26, 2006, 03:04:57 PM
yup, they used a 3rd round pick on a negotiating tool, WASTE
they used a 2nd rounder on a LB who sits on the bench.
yeah, i never expected him to start his rookie year. the thinking with him is that he'd be a starter eventually.
for the record
in not on some draft lendale white or bust ish...but if hes there id love to get him...thats is if they have addressed defense in the FA market which of course is more of a sure thing...if they arent successful there then id have no problem taking a defender in that spot provided he isnt a white linebacker from south dakota...id be down with a OT as well depending on how the chips fall
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 26, 2006, 03:13:30 PM
id have no problem taking a defender in that spot provided he isnt a white linebacker from south dakota
Come on, IGY this guys looks like a player.
http://www.usdcoyotes.com/sports/football/bio.asp?PLAYER_ID=1409
named Scout Team Defensive MVP
Draft Hedden!
Quote from: Die-Hard on January 26, 2006, 03:01:07 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 26, 2006, 02:57:56 PM
i think initially, i'd be excited to see us take him, but then reality would hit. there are far too many more needs now to be taking a rb in the first.
more of a guarantee he will be a player...who on defense at 14 can you be certain wont be a flop...defensive lineman especially ends...which is what a lot of people are pushing for are very hard to grade
plus a rb will play and contribute right away
Westbrooks fat new deal and Moats being drafted last year should "guarentee" that Lendale wont be our pick. I still think we should have taken Stephan Jackson instead of trading up for Andrews.
I honestly thought I was the only guy on this board who that that same thing.
jackson over the future probowler and hall of famer andrews...blasephemy
from reading the various eagle message boards after andrews was picked and up until the end of his first training camp i swear i thought his first name was road grater
No, that's just an honorary title. He going for his phd in running people over from Randy Moss U.
jeez maybe moats was the best vailable player at that spot to them. or maybe they were planning on a westbrook replacement for the future, i don't know? i am excited about moats and westbrook. throw a power back in their and thats a hell of a 3 headed monster.
If he trades up for Mario Williams I'll take back every bad thing I ever said about their drafts.
Moats was a wasted pick. Which I've been saying for a year. How can anyone be excited about having not one, but two, Eric Metcalfs on the team?
I like the Moats pick. #1 if it was used to get Westbrook to sign it did the job. #2. If Westbrook is hurt they still have an extremely quick back on the roster who can create matchup problems. Moats averaged 5.1 ypc on an offense that had an overall inexperienced line and Mike fricken McMahon at QB. Its not hard to find worse bench RB's in the NFL.
Take away 3 rushes by Moats and he averaged about 1.1 yards per carry.
If they needed to use a second round pick to get Westbrook to sign... well that's just pathetic. And on top of that, the deal that Westbrook got didn't really save the team a ton of money so if Moats was their 'leverage' it didn't even work. One scat back per team, please.
You choose to penalize Moats for having the ability to take it to the house. Makes a lot of sense.
I penalize Moats for not being able to play linebacker.
Quote from: MURP on January 26, 2006, 06:32:01 PM
You choose to penalize Moats for having the ability to take it to the house. Makes a lot of sense.
That's bullshtein and you know it. This team doesn't need another running back who can 'take it to the house.' It needs now what it needed last year at this time. A running back who has any chance whatsoever of getting tough yards. Just imagine if Moats couldn't 'tkae it to the house.' He'd be JJ Arrington. So once every 15 carries he gains yardage whoppdee farging doo. No matter how you spin it, it was a retarded pick.
Buck was supposed to be the big back. He blew out his knee like we all knew he would and then they signed Moats. Wah.
Those of you who are calling Moats a wasted pick are nuts. It is easy to say that he was a negotiating tool, but if you look a little more in depth at the Moats vs. Westbrook argument then you'd see that it isn't exactly like that. Not to mention, so what if you have to wRBs who are similar in stature? Is there an NFL law restricting the amount of small RBs you canhave on the roster?
You don't have to have a Big RB & Small RB. You take the best players on your board. Moats, if he was intended to strong-arm Westbrook, is not a similar player to Westbrook. Reid likes to have his RBs able to be good receivers out of the backfield. Moats never really caught the ball at LaTech. He was a pure runner. So what if he's small?
That is just like saying that Matt McCoy = Mark Simoneau just because they're both smallish white LB's.
Another thing that this article holds that I found interesting:
The comment by Reid about trading up into the to 10. We know Reid will not hesitate to pull the trigger on a deal to trade up. And SalPal was on DNL and him and Bowen agreed that the fact that Reid and his contigent were there and so active in scouting seems to suggest that they are looking for an "impact player". SalPal seems to think it would be on the defensive side of the ball (Mario Williams, maybe?!?).
Their comments were reinforced by Scott Wright from NFLDraftCountdown:
QuoteMarvin Lewis and a couple of Bengals scouts paid a lot of attention to the defensive backs while Philadelphia and Tampa Bay had the largest presence of personnel that I noticed.
Also, no way they take LenDale White. It's going to be an OL or DL.
step 1's admitting you have a problem.
step 2's doing something about it.
I would be pleased if they traded up a few spots and grabbed an elite lineman.
Quote from: FFatPatt on January 26, 2006, 08:57:06 PM
I would be pleased if they traded up a few spots and grabbed an elite lineman.
I'm on the Mario Williams bandwagon. I'd give our 1st and 2nd to get him.
Quote from: rjs246 on January 26, 2006, 06:39:44 PM
Quote from: MURP on January 26, 2006, 06:32:01 PM
You choose to penalize Moats for having the ability to take it to the house. Makes a lot of sense.
That's bullshtein and you know it. This team doesn't need another running back who can 'take it to the house.' It needs now what it needed last year at this time. A running back who has any chance whatsoever of getting tough yards. Just imagine if Moats couldn't 'tkae it to the house.' He'd be JJ Arrington. So once every 15 carries he gains yardage whoppdee farging doo. No matter how you spin it, it was a retarded pick.
Stop hating and get back to reality. If you dont like the pick thats fine, but going all out to make it look bad is just silly. The only person spinning here is you. Moats can and did take it to the house. Why should I imagine that he cant? lol. You make no sense man. You blame Moats for Lamar Gordons inability to get your "tough yards" and Andy Reids lack of using him. again, doesnt make any sense. You act like Moats being able to break away for long runs is a problem, why is that? God forbid the Eagles have a running back who can break 50 yard TD runs, that sucks! I've never heard someone say a team doesnt need another RB who can take it to the house. Get real.
Since you think people are spinning things here are the hard facts: You take Moats 3 longest runs away and he averages 3.2 ypc. You take Westbrooks 3 longest runs away and he averages 3.5 ypc.
Bottom line is that Reid likes to have small, solid, quick RB's on the roster to create matchup problems. If Westbrook is hurt than Moats fills that need as a backup RB. That is logic in an easy to understand matter. I agree that the team needs a power back on the roster and Reid needs to use them, but that has no bearing on the Moats pick and you know it.
Quote from: MURP on January 26, 2006, 11:33:03 PM
Bottom line is that Reid likes to have small, solid, quick RB's on the roster to create matchup problems. If Westbrook is hurt than Moats fills that need as a backup RB. That is logic in an easy to understand matter. I agree that the team needs a power back on the roster and Reid needs to use them, but that has no bearing on the Moats pick and you know it.
That's it right there. You'd be silly to think that drafting Moats wasn't influenced by the Westbrook situation. But at the same time, I think Reid saw an opportunity to make his offense even more versatile. You look around this offense... it's ALL ABOUT matchup problems. From LJ (smaller, quicker pass catching TE; tough cover for LB and CB), Westbrook (quick pass catching RB; tough cover for S or LB), even McNabb (dual threat with the abillity to run). He thrives on finding offensive mismatches. Moats satisfied that as well. We talk all the time about having both Westbrook and Moats on the field at the same time and how difficult that would be to defend. You can't ignore that aspect of it when you talk about why Moats was drafted.
Also, Reid tried to cover his ass personel-wise anyway, with the big back this past year... resigning Buck on the cheap (low-risk, high reward) and after he went down, bringing in Gordon. Us lacking a prescense of a "big back" was not only the result of injury/ineffectiveness, but of Reid's playcalls. I can't tell you how many times on 3rd and short this year I said "We're goin' deep.." only to be proven right about 10 seconds later. Until Reid changes that... drafting LenDale White in the 1st would be the very definition of a wasted pick. In short situations, he'd be nothing but a multi-million dollar decoy.
I don't see how some of you guys can be down on Moats after what he did essentially with the 2nd and 3rd teamers in there. Plus, how can you be so "up" on Westbrook after the guy went down AGAIN with another injury?
I'm not 'up' on Westbrook. I would trade him for another running back in a heartbeat. I'm down on Moats because he doesn't add anything to the team that they didn't already have.
That's great that you guys and andy reid want quick-strike weapons, but look at the teams that do well in the playoffs, not just this year, but most years. Do you see many quick-strike, all or nothing, offenses winning championships? I don't. Most teams have a solid, well rounded offense. The eagles made it to the NFCCG three years in a row with a dink/dunk passing offense and a change of pace running offense that encorporated different running styles to keep defenses honest. Last year the team basically passed their way to the superbowl through a miserably bad NFC and got more or less dominated by a slow and steady offense. (Yes they only lost by three, but New England controlled the pace of the entire game with their offense.)
Andy Reid loves talking about 'weapons', and you guys seem to lap it up. But how about running a balanced offense? How about not relying two speed backs that can't run up the gut to save their lives. 1 yard, 2 yards, 0 yards, 15 yards, 0 yards, -2 yards, 1 yard, 1 yard, 35 yards. 9 rushes, 53 yards looks pretty after the game, but during the game that looks like a lot of third and longs with the occasional big run. That isn't effective offense.
So you guys can have your all or nothing offense. I'd prefer the Steelers offense every single day of the week.
no ones down on him...they just didnt need to pick him...also lets not jump all over his cack cause of some garbage time stats he put up at the end of the year...as rjs said he had exactly two runs the whole year one against the giants and one vs st louis...outside of those he was terrible
RJS,
Who is to say that Moats cannot be part of a grind it out offense? A combination of him, Westbrook and a big back would be just fine.
I don't get why Moats being here is a big deal. Like I said, he showed in college and even some in the pro's that he can be an inside runner. Him being small helps him slip through the cracks.
And it's funny that you'd use the Steelers offense as an example. Who is their #1 back? Willie Parker. What type of back is he? Exactly.
They need Reid to be committed to the run. It doesn't matter WHO the RB is if the OL is opening holes and the playcaller is calling runs.
Willie Parker is a speed back, of course, and while he is important to their offense, he isn't what makes them well balanced. Bettis is what makes them well balanced. Bettis doesn't get the carries that Parker does, but if he isn't the most important piece to their offence I don't know who is. Bettis' style is the reason they went out and got Duce in the first place (and Duce played well for them the few times he was healthy). Bettis' style is the reason that the pundits keep saying that Lendale White would be a perfect draft pcik for them.
If the Easlges get a tough running back to muscle some yards, and rotate Moats and Westbrook, then that's fine, but for them to go into last season with Westbrook, confetti knees, Mahe and a rookie who didn't hit the field until halfway through the year was assinine. Everyone on Earth knew that Buck would get hurt. No one knew if/how much Moats would contirbute because they weren't going to be asking him to run occasionally for a tough yard or two. Westbrook is always hurt and Mahe licks chode for a living. If they had used that pick on a running back with size, they could have worked him in earlier in straightforward 'go-get-us-a-first-down' situations. But instead they wasted the pick on a small speed back, who wouldn't be able to step in when Buck got hurt. Leaving the team in the inevitable position of having no tough runners and having to pick up a waiver wire schmuck when Buck's knees exploded. Poor planning all around and it shows Reid's lack of attention to his own offense's flaws.
i think the point is that the steelers only have ONE willie parker
And the reason that the undrafted, speedy, total unknown in college is a good RB is because of the scheme and the OL.
Which is my whole point - if you OL opens holes it does not matter who is running it. And if your coach calls runs, too.
Pittsburgh isn't in the Sb without Bettis. That's my point.
I don't deny that, which is why I said a trio of Westbrook-Moats and whoever they get to be th "big back" would be fine as long as the OL and the HC get it done.
And the reason that the undrafted, speedy, total unknown in college is a good RB is because of the scheme and the OL
i dont think anyone is questioning that...at least im not...im just saying they didnt need to take moats at that point in the draft...as you said with the right scheme and line ANYONE can run well...so why waste a third on a rb that you already have...when you could have gotten another back off the streets
Phreak, the fact that you are working under the assumption that they will go get a big back shows a HUGE leap of faith on your part. I hope you're right because I can't handle another year of third and longs on every drive because the team can't gain yardage on first and second down.
Which is exactly why they don't need to draft LenDale White. ;)
I'mnot going to blast them for going RB in the 3rd. I wanted Moats and I thought it was a good pick. At that point in time I'm looking for good football players and i think Moats can be one. I'm cool with RB in the 3rd and that's why I didn't trip on the Westbrook pick in '02. Duce was a 3rd rounder and Buck was a 4th.
So, what do you think the chances are that the Eagles will draft LenDale White?
God forbid they draft a big running back who can contribute right away in the first round. Why not draft 3rd and 4th rounders who can ride the pine/get minimal paying time as rookies and delay any potential contribution to the team for another year?
Which is exactly why they don't need to draft LenDale White
i definitely would take white in a second...im saying in your opinion backs can be gotten anywhere...yet you liked the moats pick...doesnt make sense to me
Unfortunately, having all these players who can create "offensive mismatches" for defenses are now creating defensive mismatches against the offense, and the other teams are now realizing it. Smith, Westbrook and Moats are not great at blocking / providing protection for DM. Opposing teams are realizing that and taking advantage. We need a couple of good blocking first, creating second players who can pick up the short two yard, third down plays.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on January 27, 2006, 09:31:58 AM
So, what do you think the chances are that the Eagles will draft LenDale White?
.05%
ss said sometihng intelligent!! That's what was awesome about Duce. Did he bust 50 yarders? No. Did he pick up the blitz and get yards up the middle? Yep.
If the Eagles carry 4 RB's and two of them are Westbrook and Moats, what is the problem? The problem isnt Westbrook or Moats its the other 2 RB's and Reids lack of using the run game. Everyone is quick to forget that Lamar Gordon was on the team. 6'1 225. There was your bigger back and he faded into oblivion.
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 27, 2006, 09:33:58 AM
Which is exactly why they don't need to draft LenDale White
i definitely would take white in a second...im saying in your opinion backs can be gotten anywhere...yet you liked the moats pick...doesnt make sense to me
I'm of the opinion that there is a certain area of the draft when it is OK to go for a RB. While there are studs who come out in the 1st two rounds I realize that. But when yu get to the 3rd round and below, in my opinion, that is where itis OK to start looking at backs. Thats' why I had no beef with the Moats pick. Plus I liked him a lot last year.
I agree with Reid that the OL and DL (and other positions like DB) should be the main focus early. I thought that even before Reid got here. You can't do nothing unless you protect the QB and get after the QB on defense and be able to defend the pass.
So basically I know that backs can be found lower and in UDFA, but I don't mind a 3rd round pick on one because that is the area where you start maybe taking some gambles.
RJS,
I firmly believe Reid knows he needs a bruiser. As much as some folks would like to think so, Reid isn't dumb. He saw the struggles this year. That's why I think that this talk about a getting back to being more balanced as well as him knowing the OL needs help is a precursor to getting the right guy to the big back.
Lamar Gordon, in all of his glory, was a waiver wire pick-up that they only grabbed because Buck's knees said bye bye. The point is they saw no reason to bring in TALENT for that role. He was just a patch. A quick fix. I thought he would be fine, but he wasn't. Its obvious that they need to ACTIVELY bring in someone for that role rather than just accept the leftovers from the rest of the league.
Like I said, Phreak, I hope you're right. But I'll believe it when i see it.
Personally, I favor getting skill position players earlier because the truly great ones are few and far between.
Sure, you get the occasional Terrell Davis in the 6th round, but more often than not, quality offensive and defensive linemen can be had later than quality skill position players.
Quote from: rjs246 on January 27, 2006, 08:14:13 AM
(Yes they only lost by three, but New England controlled the pace of the entire game with their offense.)
thats not true.
the eagles were actually controlling that game into the 3rd quarter. but the early turnovers killed them.
it's was only when new england went pass happy with their 4 and 5 WR sets that sent the eagles backwards. the patriots actually passed more than they ran in the SB.