Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Super Bowl XXXIX Review...
Been a busy few days. Work, my wife studying for the bar … I haven’t had much time to think about Super Bowl XXXIX. Here is my long-awaited Super Bowl review…
After OD’ing on Fox’s Super Bowl coverage on Sunday I settled in to watch the game with my wife. After mulling over what I saw, here are my thoughts…
-I hate to be one of those bloggers who begins posts by saying: “As I predicted…” But … As I predicted the game was won … well, lost … on the Eagles inability to take the fight to the Pats front seven. The Pats got pressure and stuffed the running game all night long, forcing McNabb to air it out against a decent secondary that made a few big plays.
-What went right for the Eagles? Well, the defense played very well. They were aggressive, fast and kept the Patriots offensive unit (for the most part) bottled up. Deion Branch had a heck of a game, but the Eagles did do a good job on the rest of the Pats wideouts. Aside from Branch (who was usually in the slot covered by the third or fourth corner), Brady couldn’t get much going in the game. The Eagles also held Corey Dillon in check. Remember the Eagles inability to can the running game of the opposition? They held one of the best backs in the NFL to under 100 yards. Good job.
-T.O. went right. T.O. went very right. I was stunned to see him play and play as well as he did: 9 catches, 122 yards ain’t bad. He seemed to shake off his ankle injury and play great football. If the Eagles had won, T.O. would have been the MVP.
-I know everyone wants to blame McNabb for the Eagles loss, but give the guy a break: he threw 51 passes and had pressure all game long. Sure he made some bad throws (his first two picks were momentum killers), but he did so without any sort of a running game to keep the Pats honest. I think the Eagles lost for two reasons:
1. Unimaginative playcalling. The Eagles did some fun stuff in the post-season to spread the ball: tosses to Westbrook crossing behind the backfield, etc. There was nothing imaginative about the game called by the Eagles on Sunday. I would have expected a little more misdirection to keep the Pats on their heels and cautious.
2. No running game. Again, I hate to be an “As I predicted…” blogger, but as I predicted this was the game were the Eagles desperately needed Correll Buckhalter. I love Westbrook, but he can carry only 50-60% of the load in the backfield. You need someone back there splitting duties with him. I like Dorsey Levens, but I don’t think he’s the long-term answer here. The Eagles needed a 1B runner to keep the Pats honest. If they had been able to establish a running game they could have kept the ball a little longer and the Eagles D wouldn’t have gotten ground down in the fourth quarter as it did.
Actully, there is three things…
3. What in the heck was up with the Eagles inability to run a two-minute drill. Was this coaching? Did the Eagles not have an adequate 2-minute plan? Or was this McNabb’s fault: did he have a lack of urgency on the field? I’m not sure where the blame lies, but they needed to be faster than they were.
So what does this mean? First off, this is just he beginning for the Eagles. This team will be good for a long, long time: they have lots of cap room, lots of talent and no competition. Who can challenge them? Green Bay and St. Louis are declining teams. Minnesota? Not with Coach Collapse holding the clipboard. They’ll always lack the mental toughness needed. Seattle is too soft. Tampa is a lost cause and Carolina needs to rebound from this season. As for the Giants, Redskins and Cowboys, the less said the better. Those teams have sacrificial lambs written all over them. Aside from the Falcons, the Eagles have no peer in the NFC. This could be another 13-3 campaign in 2005 for the Birds.
Second, the city of Philadelphia shouldn’t worry: sure, the Phillies might finish fourth in 2005 and there is no hockey and the Sixers might be caught in Allen Iverson limbo forever, but the Eagles will be an elite team well into the 2005 and 2006 campaigns. Let’s just get a B-back for Westbrook and prepare for the ’05 season.
Tomorrow: back to baseball. Our old friend.
After OD’ing on Fox’s Super Bowl coverage on Sunday I settled in to watch the game with my wife. After mulling over what I saw, here are my thoughts…
-I hate to be one of those bloggers who begins posts by saying: “As I predicted…” But … As I predicted the game was won … well, lost … on the Eagles inability to take the fight to the Pats front seven. The Pats got pressure and stuffed the running game all night long, forcing McNabb to air it out against a decent secondary that made a few big plays.
-What went right for the Eagles? Well, the defense played very well. They were aggressive, fast and kept the Patriots offensive unit (for the most part) bottled up. Deion Branch had a heck of a game, but the Eagles did do a good job on the rest of the Pats wideouts. Aside from Branch (who was usually in the slot covered by the third or fourth corner), Brady couldn’t get much going in the game. The Eagles also held Corey Dillon in check. Remember the Eagles inability to can the running game of the opposition? They held one of the best backs in the NFL to under 100 yards. Good job.
-T.O. went right. T.O. went very right. I was stunned to see him play and play as well as he did: 9 catches, 122 yards ain’t bad. He seemed to shake off his ankle injury and play great football. If the Eagles had won, T.O. would have been the MVP.
-I know everyone wants to blame McNabb for the Eagles loss, but give the guy a break: he threw 51 passes and had pressure all game long. Sure he made some bad throws (his first two picks were momentum killers), but he did so without any sort of a running game to keep the Pats honest. I think the Eagles lost for two reasons:
1. Unimaginative playcalling. The Eagles did some fun stuff in the post-season to spread the ball: tosses to Westbrook crossing behind the backfield, etc. There was nothing imaginative about the game called by the Eagles on Sunday. I would have expected a little more misdirection to keep the Pats on their heels and cautious.
2. No running game. Again, I hate to be an “As I predicted…” blogger, but as I predicted this was the game were the Eagles desperately needed Correll Buckhalter. I love Westbrook, but he can carry only 50-60% of the load in the backfield. You need someone back there splitting duties with him. I like Dorsey Levens, but I don’t think he’s the long-term answer here. The Eagles needed a 1B runner to keep the Pats honest. If they had been able to establish a running game they could have kept the ball a little longer and the Eagles D wouldn’t have gotten ground down in the fourth quarter as it did.
Actully, there is three things…
3. What in the heck was up with the Eagles inability to run a two-minute drill. Was this coaching? Did the Eagles not have an adequate 2-minute plan? Or was this McNabb’s fault: did he have a lack of urgency on the field? I’m not sure where the blame lies, but they needed to be faster than they were.
So what does this mean? First off, this is just he beginning for the Eagles. This team will be good for a long, long time: they have lots of cap room, lots of talent and no competition. Who can challenge them? Green Bay and St. Louis are declining teams. Minnesota? Not with Coach Collapse holding the clipboard. They’ll always lack the mental toughness needed. Seattle is too soft. Tampa is a lost cause and Carolina needs to rebound from this season. As for the Giants, Redskins and Cowboys, the less said the better. Those teams have sacrificial lambs written all over them. Aside from the Falcons, the Eagles have no peer in the NFC. This could be another 13-3 campaign in 2005 for the Birds.
Second, the city of Philadelphia shouldn’t worry: sure, the Phillies might finish fourth in 2005 and there is no hockey and the Sixers might be caught in Allen Iverson limbo forever, but the Eagles will be an elite team well into the 2005 and 2006 campaigns. Let’s just get a B-back for Westbrook and prepare for the ’05 season.
Tomorrow: back to baseball. Our old friend.
Comments:
Post a Comment
