As per the great people and editors at ESPN.com:
Pos. Name Team
WR Terrell Owens* Dallas
WR Larry Fitzgerald* Arizona
WR Donald Driver Green Bay
WR Torry Holt St. Louis
OT Flozell Adams* Dallas
OT Walter Jones* Seattle
OT Chris Samuels Washington
OG Leonard Davis* Dallas
OG Steve Hutchinson* Minnesota
OG Shawn Andrews Philadelphia
C Andre Gurode* Dallas
C Matt Birk Minnesota
TE Jason Witten* Dallas
TE Chris Cooley Washington
QB Brett Favre* Green Bay
QB Matt Hasselbeck Seattle
QB Tony Romo Dallas
RB Adrian Peterson* Minnesota
RB Marion Barber Dallas
RB Bryant Westbrook Philadelphia
FB Tony Richardson* Minnesota
beautiful!
is Trent Cole at least an alternate?
PS....SEVEN offensive players for Dallas on there? wtf?
THe fact that Barber got more votes then Westbrook is a joke.
Otherwise...pretty much a good representation of how the NFC has been this year.
michael westbrook?
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f98/SD_Eagle5/clayton-1.gif)
I am totally mystified about why so many people have difficulty remembering Brian Westbrook's name. It is a simple, normal name, and he is a far more notable player than the other Westbrooks that have played in the NFL.
Barber getting more votes doesn't even begin to be as egregious as Peterson getting more. Sure, he looks good this season. But Westbrook has been dominant for years. It always pissed me off when they talked up Reggie Bush over Westbrook. Prove it first. Westbrook should be the starter, and maybe the only Eagle who makes it. Maybe Cole too.
The Pro Bowl is a joke, just like every other all star game.
I dont even watch it.
No Sean Taylor in the Pro Bowl?
Balderdash.
Wow - edited... he did make it.
Sean Taylor is dead. Someone shot him in the penis. How can he possibly play in that game?
Just throw his corpse out there, you won't even notice a difference in his coverage skills.
Trent Cole - 65 tackles, 12.5 sacks and 4 FF.
Osi Umenyiora - 43 tackles, 12 sacks and 4 FF.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on December 18, 2007, 10:50:43 PM
Just throw his corpse out there, you won't even notice a difference in his coverage skills.
Ha. Just noticed this.
Excellent. :yay
Quote from: MadMarchHare on December 18, 2007, 10:50:43 PM
Just throw his corpse out there, you won't even notice a difference in his coverage skills.
Actually, I think you would notice a difference. Recievers weren't afraid to run at a living, breathing Sean Taylor because they knew he had horrible coverage skills and was an even worse open field tackler. Throw his dead corpse out on the field though and no one's going to want to come within 20 yards of that thing......what with all the flies and the smell and everything.
Therefore, ST corpse >>>>>>>>>>> pass defense than ST alive.
I hope the NFC starts the game with 10 guys on defense, and Tom Brady throws a deep bomb to Randy Moss for a TD.
Any word on whether Considine will replace Taylor on the roster?
Quote from: FastFreddie on December 19, 2007, 11:35:20 AM
I hope the NFC starts the game with 10 guys on defense, and Tom Brady throws a deep bomb to Randy Moss for a TD.
Any word on whether Considine will replace Taylor on the roster?
In order for that to happen, the Pats need to lose in the AFC title game. Only the Hoody would be dick enough to do it.
and considering no one ever shows up for the game we may have John Beck or DeMarcus Russell starting for the AFC.
Trent Cole got robbed. He should be the starting DE
Westbrook, Cole and Andrews deserve it. Nobody else is close. Maybe Sheldon Brown
Funny thing is if Westbrook was on any other team I can see him being MVP of the league. He's in his prime and is underused. Its a bloody crime
he has 337 touches on offense, which is tied with LT...i don't think he's underused
Quote from: SunMo on December 19, 2007, 04:58:06 PM
he has 337 touches on offense, which is tied with LT...i don't think he's underused
underused as a RB....but I Think its just the run game is underused in the correct situations thing.
He shouldn't have closed to 100 catches. He should have roughly half that and those catches should be translated into runs.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 19, 2007, 05:02:34 PM
He shouldn't have closed to 100 catches. He should have roughly half that and those catches should be translated into runs.
That doesn't even make any sense. That's where he's at his best. If anything he should lose a couple of short-yardage carries (though even this point I've more or less let go of) and those touches should be replaced with punt returns. His touches are basically right where they should be.
So getting the ball in his hands with a three-five yard running start running behind the biggest line in the NFL is less desirable than the asinine swing passes he catches?
Maybe if he ran the ball more opposing defenses would actually be surprised when he caught the ball out of the backfield as opposed to now when they actively game-plan for it?
Nah - that's crazy talk. It's much better to having a running back with 100 receptions than taking 40-50 of those and actually establishing a consistent running game.
Have you ever seen him try to run up the gut when the defense knows it's coming? It isn't pretty.
He's at his best in open space. Why even discuss taking that away from him in favor of having him dance around behind Jackson's ass for a 6 inch gain?
Just because the Eagles don't run-scheme [articularly well that doesn't mean they couldn't use Westbrook better as a running back.
Imagine him on a team that actually runs the ball with authority. Now imagine how productive his pass catching would be if opposing defenses didn't scheme for the same two or three pass plays they have in the package for him.
I'm not saying I don't like him catching the ball. I simply think they could be more productive with him using him in different ways.
Well he doesn't play on another team now, does he? The only 'different' way that they could/should be using him is by letting him field punts.
if you are of the belief that the eagles should run the ball more than you have to be in favor of westbrook getting less catches...unless you think he should get more overall touches
He's projected to have 290 rushes. Is that enough for you guys?
rjs has a fair point...not one i agree with but its a valid argument to say youd rather his touches stay as is....but im with you romey and what im saying is if you think westbrooks touches are fine how they are then you cant be one of those people that screams for andy to run the ball...
i thought rjs was one of those people...but i may be wrong on that
Quote from: rjs246 on December 19, 2007, 07:42:19 PM
Well he doesn't play on another team now, does he? The only 'different' way that they could/should be using him is by letting him field punts.
He's also been known to throw a pass or two. OMGWESTBROOKSHOULDTOTALLYBEOURQBNEXTYEARZ!!
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 19, 2007, 07:50:06 PM
He's projected to have 290 rushes. Is that enough for you guys?
Let me check my preseason notes/goals for this year......................
................Yeah, actually I was hoping for something in the 294 range so that's just not gonna cut it.
290 rushes for him is fine with me. AND I want Reid to run the ball more. (Though really, I just want him to run the ball more effectively.)
I want them to run the ball more, but I think that they should run the ball with another back more often than they do. There are a plethora of examples of multi-back systems that have been used effectively over the past several years and I think that the different styles of running can be beneficial to an offense. Take some short yardage carries away from Westbrook and give them to a different running back. Then add those carries back to Westbrook in different scenarios.
If Westbrook gets 250-300 rushes, and 70+ catches that's great. Let him return punts too and I'm happy as a pig in shtein. But add an adequate complimentary back who gets 100-110 or so effective touches, and that's ideal in my book. More carries for the team doesn't mean that they ALL have to go to Westbrook. Nor should they.
Mostly, I want Westbrook to get his touches where he's most effective and I want another back to be around who can be competent and be utilized a lot more than the backups are now. And I want Andy Reid to understand how to control time of possession with the ground game.
Quote from: rjs246 on December 19, 2007, 08:02:34 PM
If Westbrook gets 250-300 rushes, and 70+ catches that's great. Let him return punts too and I'm happy as a pig in shtein. But add an adequate complimentary back who gets 100-110 or so effective touches, and that's ideal in my book. More carries for the team doesn't mean that they ALL have to go to Westbrook. Nor should they.
Money Post. You stole the words right off of my keyboard. The idea of Reid running the ball 400 times a year though is humorous at best.
No one here suggested that Westbrook run the ball 400 times. I suggested they take 50 of the retarded pass plays that the opposing team keys on and hand him the ball in the backfield instead.
Even with the anomalous 32 carry game against the Dolphins he's still not average close to 20 carries again. In my exceedingly humble opinion that's simply not enough carries for an elite back to get in the NFL, especially with the sort of offensive line the Eagles have.
Whatever, though. Arguing this bullshtein is nonsensical anyway because with the coaches they have Westbrook will never run the ball enough.
as long as the ball is in westy hands around 30 times a game thats around 480 touches for the year. the more the ball is in his hands the better. catches, runs, punts whatever, just get him the ball.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 19, 2007, 08:37:24 PM
No one here suggested that Westbrook run the ball 400 times. I suggested they take 50 of the retarded pass plays that the opposing team keys on and hand him the ball in the backfield instead.
Even with the anomalous 32 carry game against the Dolphins he's still not average close to 20 carries again. In my exceedingly humble opinion that's simply not enough carries for an elite back to get in the NFL, especially with the sort of offensive line the Eagles have.
Whatever, though. Arguing this bullshtein is nonsensical anyway because with the coaches they have Westbrook will never run the ball enough.
Actually, Rome, he's averaging 19.5 yards a carry, which rounds up to 20. Just saying.......
Quote from: rjs246 on December 19, 2007, 08:02:34 PM
If Westbrook gets 250-300 rushes, and 70+ catches that's great. Let him return punts too and I'm happy as a pig in shtein. But add an adequate complimentary back who gets 100-110 or so effective touches, and that's ideal in my book. More carries for the team doesn't mean that they ALL have to go to Westbrook. Nor should they.
you realize there are only so many plays in a season...so if you give someone else 110 touches thats close to 110 touches not going to westbrook...who on earth would you want the best player in the nfl not named LT to get that many fewer opportunities...that makes absolutely no sense
unless youre suggesting 110 less passes and give those plays to a back up running back...which again would be assinine...westbrook is your best player by far why are you looking for another back to take opportunities away from him
to me it comes down to either youre happy with westbrooks distrubution right now or you want him to get more carries
cutting back on westbrooks production is not an option.....thats about as counter productive as you could get
Quote from: PhillyGirl on December 19, 2007, 05:00:38 PM
Quote from: SunMo on December 19, 2007, 04:58:06 PM
he has 337 touches on offense, which is tied with LT...i don't think he's underused
underused as a RB....but I Think its just the run game is underused in the correct situations thing.
Quote from: rjs246 on December 19, 2007, 08:02:34 PM
290 rushes for him is fine with me. AND I want Reid to run the ball more. (Though really, I just want him to run the ball more effectively.)
Mostly, I want Westbrook to get his touches where he's most effective and I want another back to be around who can be competent and be utilized a lot more than the backups are now. And I want Andy Reid to understand how to control time of possession with the ground game.
More detailed than my post, but exactly what I was thinking.
Statistics are fine and dandy but I think it's more about when and where this offense chooses to run. I mean I'll watch them call 4 straight run plays then 4 straight pass plays and it won't work because it's too predictable and doesn't make sense for the game situation.
It all comes down to the in game play calling and that sucks right now for the offense.
Quote from: Phanatic on December 19, 2007, 10:41:32 PM
It all comes down to Reid's in game play calling and that has sucked since he got here.
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 19, 2007, 10:01:49 PM
to me it comes down to either youre happy with westbrooks distrubution right now or you want him to get more carries
Are you not reading? I said I'm happy with his distribution. I want them to run more and run smarter and that would include giving touches to another player. Jesus.
You seem so opposed to the idea of including another back in this offense and see every touch for another player as a touch taken away from Westbrook. That's idiotic. An offense that relies solely on one player leads to what we've seen this year. You want to see MORE of this bullshtein?
im opposed to touches going to anyone other than westbrook...to want to more incorporate a second back into the offense is retarded....you dont hear people in sd saying get michael turner the ball more and no one in st louis complains that stepehen jackson needs help....so why does brian westbrook need another back
it all makes no sense and this infatuation with having a 1b running back is so overrated...they need to run the ball more and they need to do it with the second best running back in the nfl...buck is perfectly fine as a back up running back just as antonio pittman is in...he tony hunt or anyone else does not need to be getting more touches over westbrook...you win with your best players
basically what it comes down to with the running game is that the game plan needs to be changed not the personel
Fine. We agree that they should run more. We don't agree about how they should do it. Doesn't matter because neither of us will ever agree or be happy with Andy's play calling. Over.
Quote from: Phanatic on December 19, 2007, 10:41:32 PM
Statistics are fine and dandy but I think it's more about when and where this offense chooses to run. I mean I'll watch them call 4 straight run plays then 4 straight pass plays and it won't work because it's too predictable and doesn't make sense for the game situation.
It all comes down to the in game play calling and that sucks right now for the offense.
This is where I fall on this too. It's a situational thing. When the defense knows Andy's going to run the ball trying to make a managable 3rd down because he blew his 1st down with an incomplete pass... that's not an effective way to run the offense. Then it makes 3rd down even that much harder because they're now in a 3rd and long when the D is expecting the pass. Just switching up the 1st and 2nd down here and there would help immensely.
his situational playcalling needs help in all areas...both in when to run or pass all the way down to what kind of pass when he does throw
in terms of running the ball tho its more than situationasl that needs to change...he needs to establish a running game as a whole not situationally
I agree... but I think it all falls under the umbrella of becoming less predictable. I mean, if every fan watching knows that Andy's going to open every game with pass, draw, pass... and a pass into the flat on 3rd and short... the opposing defense/coordinators HAS TO know it's coming and will be prepared accordingly.
I also think you're on point with the type of running plays as well. For example, the situation where Andy does occasionally run the ball on 3rd and short, how many times have we seen that pitch back to Westbrook trying to get to the edge? 3rd and short has to be about north and south running. Nothing wrong with the off tackle stuff but you can't have him running sideline to sideline when he has to pick up the 1st.
Quote from: EagleFeva on December 20, 2007, 08:20:15 AM
I agree... but I think it all falls under the umbrella of becoming less predictable. I mean, if every fan watching knows that Andy's going to open every game with pass, draw, pass... and a pass into the flat on 3rd and short... the opposing defense/coordinators HAS TO know it's coming and will be prepared accordingly.
I also think you're on point with the type of running plays as well. For example, the situation where Andy does occasionally run the ball on 3rd and short, how many times have we seen that pitch back to Westbrook trying to get to the edge? 3rd and short has to be about north and south running. Nothing wrong with the off tackle stuff but you can't have him running sideline to sideline when he has to pick up the 1st.
Bingo. I think we can all agree. The problem isn't Brian Westbrook in any way, the problem is Andy Reid and the thick layer of lard that he has encasing his brain.
Quote3rd and short has to be about north and south running. Nothing wrong with the off tackle stuff but you can't have him running sideline to sideline when he has to pick up the 1st.
whats sad about this is the Andy thinks he's playing Jedi mind tricks on opposing coaches by doing this. He probably thinks the whole defense will shift inside, so he can go outside. F that--use your pro-bowl tackle or guard and pound the friggin rock regardless
Quote from: Phanatic on December 19, 2007, 10:41:32 PM
Statistics are fine and dandy but I think it's more about when and where this offense chooses to run. I mean I'll watch them call 4 straight run plays then 4 straight pass plays and it won't work because it's too predictable and doesn't make sense for the game situation.
It all comes down to the in game play calling and that sucks right now for the offense.
I'd like to see the stat on how many drives started with Pass, Run, Pass, Punt (90%?), and also how many times the Eagles have run the ball two downs in a row (.00001%?).
the starts of eagle drives dont get tracked by run/pass but rather by under center/shotgun
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 20, 2007, 06:25:25 AM
im opposed to touches going to anyone other than westbrook...to want to more incorporate a second back into the offense is retarded....you dont hear people in sd saying get michael turner the ball more and no one in st louis complains that stepehen jackson needs help....so why does brian westbrook need another back
More touches for another running back means less passing attempts for McNabb/Kolb/Feeley/whoever. That's the entire point. The o-line the Eagles have is rediculously huge and built to knock people on their asses. And with the recievers that this team has (and has had for 7 of the last 8 years) it should be a run first team.
The Eagles should be doing what Jacksonville is doing. Both teams are built about the same way on offense. I think McNabb is a better QB than Gerrard but neither team has any real playmaking recievers. Both teams do have excellent o-lines though and 2 rb's that compliment each other quite nicely.
Quote
it all makes no sense and this infatuation with having a 1b running back is so overrated...they need to run the ball more and they need to do it with the second best running back in the nfl...buck is perfectly fine as a back up running back just as antonio pittman is in...he tony hunt or anyone else does not need to be getting more touches over westbrook...you win with your best players
If Westbrook is healthy than I don't think anyone in their right mind would give Buck or Hunt more touches than him. That's stupid. 7-10 less passes for McNabb = 7-10 more carries to split among the running backs.
Quote
basically what it comes down to with the running game is that the game plan needs to be changed not the personel
I think you just proved the point that rjs and I have been getting at. So, uh, thanks for that.
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 21, 2007, 12:47:46 PM
the starts of eagle drives dont get tracked by run/pass but rather by under center/shotgun
ha!
we all agree they should run the ball more...where me and rjs disagree is that he thinks westbrooks touches are fine as is (including his amount of receptions) and that they need a second running back to get 100 or so touches...im completely against taking touches away from westbrook and giving them to some imaginary back up running back
QuoteThe Eagles should be doing what Jacksonville is doing. Both teams are built about the same way on offense. I think McNabb is a better QB than Gerrard but neither team has any real playmaking recievers. Both teams do have excellent o-lines though and 2 rb's that compliment each other quite nicely.
It will never happen where this team runs more because this coach practices and utilizes a west coast,
pass first system that will never ever change. Any coach that changes jobs brings their system with him. Although nice, throw that idea out that window real quick
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 21, 2007, 01:06:23 PM
we all agree they should run the ball more...where me and rjs disagree is that he thinks westbrooks touches are fine as is (including his amount of receptions) and that they need a second running back to get 100 or so touches...im completely against taking touches away from westbrook and giving them to some imaginary back up running back
If you have Marion Barber III or even Chester Taylor, I like rjs's idea.
If you have Tony Hunt (who can't pick up a blitz to save his life) and Correll Buckhalter, I think IGY is on point.
I think you should all point loaded revolvers at your temples and pull the farging triggers.
PS: Happy Holidays.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 21, 2007, 02:39:30 PM
I think you should all point loaded revolvers at your temples and pull the farging triggers.
PS: Happy Holidays.
I'll just play QB when the defense is bringing the house and Tony Hunt is supposed to pick up the blitzing LB.
Same thing, with a slightly smaller likelihood of death.
Three pages of arguing over whether Westbrook should get three more touches per game or reallocate those touches to someone else = grounds for homicidal rage.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 21, 2007, 03:04:51 PM
Three pages of arguing over whether Westbrook should get three more touches per game or reallocate those touches to someone else = grounds for homicidal rage.
It wouldn't even be a question if we had a clone of Sean Taylor in our backfield, dead or alive.
Quote from: reese125 on December 21, 2007, 02:11:28 PM
QuoteThe Eagles should be doing what Jacksonville is doing. Both teams are built about the same way on offense. I think McNabb is a better QB than Gerrard but neither team has any real playmaking recievers. Both teams do have excellent o-lines though and 2 rb's that compliment each other quite nicely.
It will never happen where this team runs more because this coach practices and utilizes a west coast, pass first system that will never ever change. Any coach that changes jobs brings their system with him. Although nice, throw that idea out that window real quick
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
I dont know whats more obvious, the fact of what I or anyone else said or the fact you are still wishing for a run first team in a west coast offense
I'm not wishing for a run first team in the WCO. I could care less what type of offense they run as long as they have the right players running it. So what I would really like is for Reid to get the right players for the system he runs. Instead, he has the players for a run first system.........kind of like Jax.
Did I really need to spell it out like that for you?
Trade Westbrook. Send him to a team that will build around him, and use the pick to draft another mediocre receiver. He deserves better than this coach, front office, and offense.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 21, 2007, 03:04:51 PM
Three pages of arguing over whether Westbrook should get three more touches per game or reallocate those touches to someone else = grounds for homicidal rage.
you started it
Shut it bus boy.
Killa's in the Pro Bowl.
... as he should have been to begin with.
Hooray. Someone I don't know that makes more money than 99.9% of the world gets a free trip to paradise to play in an exhibition football game. Care.
I care.
And I'm happy for him.
If they did away the all star game for the 4 major sports I doubt anyone would care
I like the MLB version. The rest are garbage.
Quote from: Munson on January 17, 2008, 03:59:16 AM
I care.
And I'm happy for him.
Me too. But John Harbaugh can still go farg himself.
all all star games suck
All-star games served their purpose in the pre-24/7 news cycle coverage of sports. It was the only way to see certain stars for out-of-towners. Now that you can't really avoid seeing Barry Bonds' engorged head on the teevee or Alex Rodgriguez panting like a three year girl on the interwebs, all-star games are just a giant waste of time. Especially the Pro Bowl.