PDA

View Full Version : Christl on Eagles game



motife
10-04-2006, 06:12 PM
Great players win games, and bad players lose games
Posted: Oct. 3, 2006
Cliff Christl
E-MAIL

It's not only quarterbacks that can make the difference between a winning team and a losing team.

Wide receiver Steve Smith, one of the biggest playmakers in the game, was inactive the first two weeks of the season with a hamstring injury and Carolina lost twice by a total of 17 points. In the two games since Smith returned, he has drawn enough attention to create opportunities for the offense, made plays and the Panthers have won two games by a total of five points.

With Smith, Carolina has a chance to win the NFC championship and get to the Super Bowl. Without him, despite some studs on its defensive line, the Panthers probably would fall short of making the playoffs.

Running back Clinton Portis, one of the top three or four running backs in the league and one of Washington's two playmakers along with wide receiver Santana Moss, injured his shoulder in the exhibition season, played sparingly in the opener and the Redskins' offense struggled and scored just 16 points in a loss to Minnesota. With Portis inactive the next week against Dallas, the Redskins looked even worse on offense, scored a mere 10 points and lost again.

Portis returned the next week, scored two touchdowns, including a 30-yard run with one second left in the first half, and the Redskins scored 31 points and won. On Sunday, Portis rushed for more than 100 yards, the Redskins scored 36 and beat one of the best defensive teams in the league, the Jacksonville Jaguars.

Again, with Portis, the Redskins are a playoff contender and maybe more. Without him, they probably aren't a .500 team.

Running back Brian Westbrook maybe doesn't mean as much to the Philadelphia Eagles as Smith does to Carolina or Portis to Washington. Westbrook plays with a better quarterback in Donovan McNabb. And Westbrook is an unusual back in that he's more dangerous as a receiver than a runner. But he, too, is one of those rare players that opposing defenses have to design their scheme around and account for on every play.

"He's made for big plays," is how Dallas coach Bill Parcells once described Westbrook.

When the Eagles went to the Super Bowl in 2004, they had three of the biggest playmakers in the game: McNabb, Westbrook and wide receiver Terrell Owens.

Last year, the Eagles lost Owens after seven games; McNabb after nine, although he wasn't the same quarterback after suffering a painful chest injury in the opener and a sports hernia in the third week; and Westbrook at halftime of the 11th game.

The Eagles started out 4-2 and were tied for the lead in the NFC East at that point. After their playmakers started falling by the wayside, they crumbled and finished 6-10. Over the last five games, including the one in which Westbrook was lost for the season, the Eagles were 1-4.

So forget the 11½-point spread before Monday's game against Philadelphia. Once Westbrook became a late scratch, the Packers had a real shot at winning and that was bore out in the first half when they took a 9-7 lead.

Keep in mind, the Eagles also were without perhaps their biggest playmaker on defense, end Jevon Kearse, and Lito Sheppard, a Pro Bowl cornerback in 2004, although he slipped so badly last year that Pro Football Weekly, with assistance from general managers, personnel directors and scouts, didn't rate him among the top 25 players at the position coming into this season. Still, the Eagles were down to a third-string cornerback, 5-foot-9, 170-pound Joselio Hanson, who wasn't even in the league last year.

The Eagles also lost Donte' Stallworth, their biggest threat at wide receiver, in the second half.

Yes, the Eagles are solid across the offensive line, unlike the Packers with their rookie guards. Even without Kearse, they have better depth on the defensive line, although their starting ends now are no better than the tandem of Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila and Aaron Kampman, and their best tackle, Darwin Walker, is no better than Ryan Pickett. And the Eagles might have the best safety tandem in the league.

But the team they fielded Monday night - minus Westbrook, minus Kearse, minus a starting corner and his top backup - wouldn't be a threat to win the Super Bowl any more than last year's Eagles were.

Still, the Packers couldn't score a touchdown. Even though Westbrook's backup, Correll Buckhalter, gave them two gifts with fumbles inside the Packers' 5-yard line, they couldn't seize the opportunity.

So the Eagles' one remaining playmaker, McNabb, was able to keep a scoring drive alive with runs of 14 and 12 yards in third-and-10 situations; and threw strikes for touchdowns covering 45 and 30 yards to wide receiver Greg Lewis, who is third on the Eagles' pecking order at wide receiver.

And, once again, the Packers lost for the same reason that all bad teams lose more than they win.

They had nobody who could make a game-turning play on offense or defense even against a team that was without two of its three best players. And the Packers' worst player was exposed in a way that the Eagles' worst player wasn't.

With Westbrook and Ahman Green out, both teams started backup running backs. Buckhalter cost the Eagles 14 points. Vernand Morency, who was making only his second pro start, cost the Packers 14 points with a fumble and a dropped pass.

That was a wash.

But at cornerback, Ahmad Carroll was burned for the 45-yard touchdown, was called for pass interference to set up the 30-yard touchdown and allowed a 23-yard reception on another scoring drive. Hanson, as much as the Packers tried to pick on him, never allowed the big play that might have turned the game.

Great players win games. Bad players lose games.

When your best players are an aging Brett Favre and Donald Driver and maybe Kampman on defense, you're not going to win many games even against shorthanded opponents. And, once again, one of the Packers' weakest links, Carroll, was exploited on the Eagles' biggest plays.

mraynrand
10-04-2006, 07:30 PM
That's okay,
you can blame the whole thing on Carroll. But I recall there was a play where Jennings was wearing Hanson and interference wasn't called, forsing a kick. There was also play afterplay where Dawkins (or Lewis) was there to provide safety help for Hanson. I also recall a play where Philly receiver Lewis ran free and scored a TD because Woodson didn't stay in man coverage. In week two, Collins gave up a TD with miserable coverage and another huge reception to a receiver for first and goal. He also blew contain on a 26 yard TD run. In Detroit (and against Chicago), Manuel was in terrible position and gave up two TDs to Berrian and Bryson.

So all this begs the question: If Carroll was cut for playing poorly, why haven't the rest of the guys in the secondary been cut, considering they've had just as many bad plays?

red
10-04-2006, 08:01 PM
carroll has had a lot more bad plays then anyone else on the team

i'd say he averages one or two horrible plays a game

this was something the coaches and management have been talking about doing for awhile, he didn't get cut just because he sucked bad monday night. he cut because he always sucks in everysingle game he's played in as a pro. and tuesday they said, enough was enough already.

Brainerd
10-04-2006, 08:34 PM
With Westbrook and Ahman Green out, both teams started backup running backs. Buckhalter cost the Eagles 14 points.
Morency fumbled right back in almost the same place as Buckhalter's second fumble thereby giving the ball back to the Eagles in the red zone. The Eagles scored. Its really stretching reality to say that Buckhalter cost the Eagles 14 points. Based on field position the only thing the second fumble cost the Eagles was a little time.


Vernand Morency, who was making only his second pro start, cost the Packers 14 points with a fumble and a dropped pass.
The Packers were on their own 10 or so yard line after Buckhalter's second fumble. Again, how does he figure 14 points? Is he saying the Packers were going to drive 80 or 90 some yards for a TD after the second fumble? Or is he adding in the 7 points he took away from the Eagles for Buckhalter's second fumble and putting it over here in order to satisfy both sides of his bizarre Cliffy math equation? I'm not sure what he means by the dropped pass unless he means the interception. The only dropped pass for a TD I remember was on DD.


That was a wash.
Only the deluded mind of Cliffy can put 2 and 2 together and sum it to 5.

mraynrand
10-04-2006, 08:40 PM
carroll has had a lot more bad plays then anyone else on the team


I disagree. McCarthy didn't even know at his press conference what the protection was suposed to be for Carroll on the big TD pass. He did admit that Collins may have been late. NO KIDDING. As I said, Collins had three terrible plays against N.O., leading to 21 points for N.O. McCarthy even admits that Collins may have goofed on Carroll's biggest miss, and Woodson *ucked up on the other TD by not maintaining man coverage across the field (McCarthy ducked that one two saying he 'hadn't watched the film'). So this begs more questions. Why is McCarthy cutting guys before watching the film and Why the hell wasn't Collins cut after the N.O. game, after having more terrible and costly screw ups?

Brainerd
10-04-2006, 08:48 PM
Why is McCarthy cutting guys before watching the film and Why the hell wasn't Collins cut after the N.O. game, after having more terrible and costly screw ups?
I'm not a Carroll supporter but you raise a good question. Lots of crazy stuff going on at 1265. Let's see. Collins was drafted by TT and Carroll was drafted by Sherman. Nah, nevermind, couldn't be that simple.

MJZiggy
10-04-2006, 08:49 PM
There was the suggestion that this decision was made over time. Perhaps looking at his performance in preseason and even into last year, looking for patterns in play and errors made over time and whether the errors were or weren't corrected...

mraynrand
10-04-2006, 08:49 PM
Why is McCarthy cutting guys before watching the film and Why the hell wasn't Collins cut after the N.O. game, after having more terrible and costly screw ups?
I'm not a Carroll supporter but you raise a good question. Lots of crazy stuff going on at 1265. Let's see. Collins was drafted by TT and Carroll was drafted by Sherman. Nah, nevermind, couldn't be that simple.

Certainly I would never draw such a conclusion - right Scott Campbell? :mrgreen:

HarveyWallbangers
10-04-2006, 08:59 PM
Collins has had screwups, but he's looked a hell of a lot better than Carroll. He's also been with the team for just over a year (two for Carroll). Also, he might be a lot more coachable, or he might be learning faster from his mistakes. This is a big-time stretch.

mraynrand
10-04-2006, 09:52 PM
Collins has had screwups, but he's looked a hell of a lot better than Carroll. He's also been with the team for just over a year (two for Carroll). Also, he might be a lot more coachable, or he might be learning faster from his mistakes. This is a big-time stretch.

Collins has one less year under his belt, but is about the same age. He did give up three huge plays that led to 14-21 points in N.O., depending on how much blame you assign for the rushing TD. McCarthy seems to think he may have been out of position on the 43 yard TD, which would exonerate Carroll somewhat. Woodson blew the man coverage leading to another TD. I don't think it's a stretch to say others in the secondary have screwed up in as big a way as Carroll. Morency fumbled and let a pass get intercepted leading to 14 points. He's a scrap heap guy. Why wasn't he cut?

My bottom line is that I don't think this descision is being made in a manner that suggests consistently applied criteria as I wrote in another thread.

pbmax
10-04-2006, 10:08 PM
Why is McCarthy cutting guys before watching the film ...?

Excellent question, hadn't thought of it while reading the transcript.

I can imagine it was, after time, too much to take, but if it was his call, wouldn't he have wanted to see the plays?

ahaha
10-04-2006, 10:27 PM
You don't just cut a first round pick, during the season, for being inconsistent. People that think this was an outrageous decision are basing that judgement on what they see in games. What about practice? What about the meeting rooms? Something else is going on here. There must have been something with the way he prepared and practiced. Something having to do with his attitude maybe? If they were cutting players on attrocious performance in games they would have let go of Manuel by week two.

ahaha
10-04-2006, 10:29 PM
Why is McCarthy cutting guys before watching the film ...?

Excellent question, hadn't thought of it while reading the transcript.

I can imagine it was, after time, too much to take, but if it was his call, wouldn't he have wanted to see the plays?

Because they were already sick of his shit. They were just waiting for an excuse to get rid of him.

Harlan Huckleby
10-04-2006, 10:40 PM
If they were cutting players on attrocious performance in games they would have let go of Manuel by week two.

Both MM and TT made a big point of saying this was not an emotional decision.

Carroll's performance on Monday was an embarassment to TT, all his peers watching.

Logic tells me that both Roman & Carroll would improve the team as backups. The guys they have in those positions now sound more like practice squad grade.

I'm a little puzzled by it all, but maybe Jarred Bush and the others will prove adequate.

FavreChild
10-05-2006, 01:01 AM
Because they were already sick of his shit. They were just waiting for an excuse to get rid of him.

Why was an excuse needed? Why wasn't Carroll cut during TC or the preseason? I doubt there would have been many objectors...

Sorry, but this just reeks of scapegoating. Especially when *no one* in the secondary is excelling, and, in week four, they need wristbands to "get" the playcalling. If a scheme can't be grasped after an entire preseason AND four regular season games, I have a hard time pinning that on the players.

BobDobbs
10-05-2006, 04:23 AM
I don't know that this is scapegoating. Though it may be the case. I think that TT was seriously considering cutting Carroll in camp. Due to the paucity of talent in the backfield he didn't. He realized that he had made a mistake and corrected it now instead of at the end of the season.
But, why not just demote him? He has been excelling as a gunner and he has at least been playing physically. We have cap space so overpaying a bckup is not an issue. If the young guys show something against the Rams then cut him.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that TT decided that Carroll just kept making the same mistakes again and again. After a point you go with someone else. If they are young and make mistakes that they LEARN from then your future backfield will be better. I think this move shows pretty clearly that Thompson doesn't care about winning next week he cares about winning two years from now, This is all just one big scout camp.

I also wanted to address why the rest of the secondary hasn't been cut. Collins has made some mistakes, but he is still young. If he is still making these mistakes or worse over the next two years (a la Carroll) then he has to go. He may still play through this and turn into a player. Woodson doesn't like to tackle or play football all that much. He is not earning a 10 million dollar bonus. But, he's still one of two guys that can actually cover somebody. He can not be cut this year and he will far out play Carroll during his short time here. Manual has no business on the field, but Underwood is hurt and a rookie won't unseat him. He and Barnett were responsible for allowing that draw that McNabb scored on.

Actually if you cut Ahman you've got to cut Manual as well he's horrible and at least you give someone a shot to play. At least we will find out quickly how the rookies play the long pass. Pray for bad weather throughout the season maybe that will stop the deep ball.

Rastak
10-05-2006, 06:14 AM
Why wasn't Carroll cut during TC or the preseason? I doubt there would have been many objectors...

That's what I was wondering, if he was that close to being cut or on that much of thin ice why not just cut him in camp with the last cutdowns?


Maybe they just wanted to give Bush 4 weeks to learn the system, then cut Carroll if he was not excelling.....

Patler
10-05-2006, 06:26 AM
Why wasn't Carroll cut during TC or the preseason? I doubt there would have been many objectors...

That's what I was wondering, if he was that close to being cut or on that much of thin ice why not just cut him in camp with the last cutdowns?


Maybe they just wanted to give Bush 4 weeks to learn the system, then cut Carroll if he was not excelling.....

They had no one else. Blackmon and Dendy were both injured. Hawkins bombed out. Horton had had his chances, but injuries and illness ruined it for him. When Horton and Hawkins were let go they had to pick up Bush, who clearly couldn't be expected to play the first week.

Until Bush was ready to play, and Dendy and Blackmon recovered and ready, Carroll was their best (and only) option. Now, with injuries at RB, WR and LB they don't really have a roster spot to tie up with Carroll while activating Dendy.

BTW, the paper is reporting that Carroll has cleared waivers, so no one wanted him enough to put in a waiver claim. Even Joey Thomas was claimed on waivers last year. I'm sure Carroll will get another chance somewhere, but other teams are willing to take their chance in a free agent "competition" for him.

Rastak
10-05-2006, 06:42 AM
Why wasn't Carroll cut during TC or the preseason? I doubt there would have been many objectors...

That's what I was wondering, if he was that close to being cut or on that much of thin ice why not just cut him in camp with the last cutdowns?


Maybe they just wanted to give Bush 4 weeks to learn the system, then cut Carroll if he was not excelling.....

They had no one else. Blackmon and Dendy were both injured. Hawkins bombed out. Horton had had his chances, but injuries and illness ruined it for him. When Horton and Hawkins were let go they had to pick up Bush, who clearly couldn't be expected to play the first week.

Until Bush was ready to play, and Dendy and Blackmon recovered and ready, Carroll was their best (and only) option. Now, with injuries at RB, WR and LB they don't really have a roster spot to tie up with Carroll while activating Dendy.

BTW, the paper is reporting that Carroll has cleared waivers, so no one wanted him enough to put in a waiver claim. Even Joey Thomas was claimed on waivers last year. I'm sure Carroll will get another chance somewhere, but other teams are willing to take their chance in a free agent "competition" for him.

Good point on the Blackmon injury, that and letting Bush learn the system may very well be the reason they waited, and if they made up their mind a while back they most likely didn't need to see the game film to decide.