T1B

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:50 pm**

Knee surgery deems him out for the season ... again.

While this isn't unfamiliar territory for Westbrook, he's not exactly the model for RB longevity, either. What is it with Buckhalter's inability to stay healthy?

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:58 pm**

orcinus wrote:Knee surgery deems him out for the season ... again.

While this isn't unfamiliar territory for Westbrook, he's not exactly the model for RB longevity, either. What is it with Buckhalter's inability to stay healthy?

Dude can't take a hit to the knee. No real loss for the Iggles though. They'll probably trade for Lamar Gordon or sign Hambrick but they'll be ok with Westbrook and this guy:

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 2:05 pm**

Buckhalter is apparently one of those guys that's destined to be plagued with "nagging" injuries (s'up Mr. Moss).

Westbrook is better in any event, and Moats will stud it up as his backup, although his size will always be a concern.

I just don't know if somebody Moats size can take the pounding 300+lb NFL players will drop on him.

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 2:39 pm**

KC Paul 3.0 wrote:Jiminphilly, how come the Eagles didn't try to trade for Travis Henry- he would've been a GREAT complement to Brian Westbrook in that offense IMO.

Good question.

I was hoping they would have traded for him but I guess they thought a 3rd rounder was too much for the guy. I seem to remember the Bills wanting a 2nd rounder for him at first which resulted in him not getting traded before the draft this year.

The Eagles do not run the ball that much. Their short passing game is what they use for the 3-4 yard gain so I guess their thinking is that Henry would be overpaid for a change of pace back. (he resigned with the Titans for a nice paycheck).

Based on the success of their offense, I guess what they are doing is working.

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 2:41 pm**

Felix wrote:Buckhalter is apparently one of those guys that's destined to be plagued with "nagging" injuries (s'up Mr. Moss).

Westbrook is better in any event, and Moats will stud it up as his backup, although his size will always be a concern.

I just don't know if somebody Moats size can take the pounding 300+lb NFL players will drop on him.

Moats won't be a replacement to Westbrook (who'll be getting a 3-4 year deal very shortly) but he does allow the Eagles to use Westbrook as a receiver and still keep the LB and safety honest because Moats is so damn fast. Westbrook's versatility is really underrated.

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:20 pm**

jiminphilly wrote:
Moats won't be a replacement to Westbrook......

I'm guessing it was my

Moats will stud it up as his backup

that threw ya there Jim

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:25 pm**

Felix wrote:
jiminphilly wrote:
Moats won't be a replacement to Westbrook......
I'm guessing it was my
Moats will stud it up as his backup
that threw ya there Jim

Then why question if he can take a pounding?

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:31 pm**

jiminphilly wrote:
Felix wrote:
jiminphilly wrote:
Moats won't be a replacement to Westbrook......
I'm guessing it was my
Moats will stud it up as his backup
that threw ya there Jim
Then why question if he can take a pounding?

You seem to be implying that Westbrook is going to play every down of every game. What happens if Westbrook gets hurt? What happens if Westbrook gets tired? Moats will be spelling him occassionally, and that's where I question whether he can take the kind of pounding the NFL dishes out. I've seen Moats play in person and he is incredibly fast. But even in college he was undersized, now in the pros his size becomes even more of a concern--that's all.

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:36 pm**

mvscal wrote:
jiminphilly wrote:but they'll be ok with Westbrook and this guy:
No, they won't. Westbrook sucks. That pussy lost you the Superbowl.

He did? I seem to remember him scoring TD. I would venture to say the 3 turnovers (2 by McNabb, 1 by LJ Smith) and the inability to stop Brady was the reason.

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:39 pm**

Felix wrote:
jiminphilly wrote:
Felix wrote: I'm guessing it was my that threw ya there Jim
Then why question if he can take a pounding?
You seem to be implying that Westbrook is going to play every down of every game. What happens if Westbrook gets hurt? What happens if Westbrook gets tired? Moats will be spelling him occassionally, and that's where I question whether he can take the kind of pounding the NFL dishes out. I've seen Moats play in person and he is incredibly fast. But even in college he was undersized, now in the pros his size becomes even more of a concern--that's all.

If Westbrook goes down for a long period of time, the team is in a lot of trouble. If it's a 1-2 game absence then Moats and the RB they trade/sign will be just fine. Remember, the Eagles don't run the ball all that much so Moats won't be running the ball 25 times a game.

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:46 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Yeah...he did. He's a cupcake who can't get a tough yard if life depended on it.

Just out of curiousity, which Superbowl were you watching?

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:54 pm**

mvscal wrote:
jiminphilly wrote:He did?
Yeah...he did. He's a cupcake who can't get a tough yard if life depended on it.

The SB was over by half time and it had nothing to do with the Eagles inablity to gain a much needed yard. It had everything to do with the the turnovers and Tom Brady looking like Joe Montana incarnate.

I know you have this bias against Westbrook and I don't blame you since the team you follow has the best RB in football. But you under-value Westbrook. He was the only RB in the NFL last year to gain over 700 yards rushing and 700 yard receiving. I hardly think Westbrook sucks.

:roll:

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:02 pm**

The Eagles still have McNabb as their QB. Frequent turnovers are a certainty.

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:04 pm**

mvscal wrote:I was watching the Superbowl where Westbrook gained a miserable 44 yards on 15 carries and could not do shit to help his team control the clock in a close game.

What Superbowl were you watching?

and McNabb's 3 INT's (1 crucial int inside the red zone) was nothing? McNabb choked and the D couldn't make the cruicial stops. What part of "the eagles don't run the ball much" don't you get?

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:05 pm**

Just out of curiosity, how do you control the clock when you are down by 10 points what seemed like the whole game? Philly needed to move the ball and move it fast. Not chew up clock time like they're up by 20.

Jus sayin.

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:06 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:The Eagles still have McNabb as their QB. Frequent turnovers are a certainty.

If they reach the SB probably

but his TD to INT ration last year was spectacular.

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:24 pm**

McNabb certainly has the talent. They should have him stick to longer patterns...his short lateral stuff is still very shaky. Defensive coordinators that see this can really contain him.

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:36 pm**

1-10-PHI26 (7:31) (Shotgun) D.McNabb pass incomplete to T.Pinkston.
2-10-PHI26 (7:26) D.McNabb pass to B.Westbrook to PHI 40 for 14 yards (E.Wilson).
1-10-PHI40 (6:51) D.Levens up the middle to PHI 41 for 1 yard (K.Traylor).
2-9-PHI41 (6:07) D.McNabb pass incomplete to L.Smith.
3-9-PHI41 (6:02) D.McNabb pass to L.Smith to 50 for 9 yards (R.Phifer).
1-10-50 (5:18) D.McNabb pass to B.Westbrook to NE 47 for 3 yards (R.Gay).
2-7-NE47 (4:34) D.McNabb pass incomplete to B.Westbrook.
3-7-NE47 (4:27) (Shotgun) D.McNabb pass to T.Owens pushed ob at NE 17 for 30 yards (R.Harrison). Ball caught on NE45.
PENALTY on NE-R.Colvin, Unnecessary Roughness, 9 yards, enforced at NE 17.
1-8-NE8 (3:57) D.McNabb sacked at NE 24 for -16 yards (M.Vrabel).
2-24-NE24 (3:30) D.McNabb pass intended for T.Owens INTERCEPTED by A.Samuel (R.Harrison) at NE -3. A.Samuel to NE 29 for 32 yards (J.Runyan).
PENALTY on NE-R.Phifer, Illegal Contact, 5 yards, enforced at NE 24 - No Play.
1-10-NE19 (3:14) D.McNabb pass intended for B.Westbrook INTERCEPTED by R.Harrison at NE 4. R.Harrison to NE 3 for -1 yards (J.Thomason). NE37 Shaken up on the play.

Yep, that Westbrook was a real non factor.

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:38 pm**

And let's not forget this drive.

1-10-PHI26 (7:52) D.McNabb pass to B.Westbrook pushed ob at PHI 41 for 15 yards (R.Gay).
1-10-PHI41 (7:26) D.McNabb pass to T.Owens pushed ob at PHI 49 for 8 yards (A.Samuel).
2-2-PHI49 (7:14) B.Westbrook to NE 44 for 7 yards (R.Gay).
1-10-NE44 (6:36) D.McNabb pass to G.Lewis pushed ob at NE 32 for 12 yards (R.Gay).
1-10-NE32 (6:12) D.McNabb pass to T.Owens to NE 25 for 7 yards (R.Harrison).
2-3-NE25 (5:37) B.Westbrook left tackle to NE 21 for 4 yards (T.Bruschi).
1-10-NE21 (4:59) D.McNabb pass incomplete to T.Owens (R.Seymour).
2-10-NE21 (4:54) D.McNabb pass to G.Lewis pushed ob at NE 14 for 7 yards (R.Gay).
3-3-NE14 (4:24) (Shotgun) D.McNabb pass to B.Westbrook to NE 10 for 4 yards (R.Gay).
1-10-NE10 (3:39) D.McNabb pass to B.Westbrook for 10 yards, TOUCHDOWN. PE87 left game w/ cramps.

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:40 pm**

It's not just that Philly can't run the ball...apparently, they haven't wanted to for years. Considering the quality of their defense, they really have been hampered by that lack of balance.

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:42 pm**

mvscal wrote:
jiminphilly wrote:and McNabb's 3 INT's (1 crucial int inside the red zone) was nothing?
And the fact that he was forced to throw because that candy ass bitch, Westbrook, can't run is nothing?

What part of "the eagles don't run the ball much" don't you get?
What part of "the Eagles will never win shit until they can run the ball" don't you get?

Now I know you didn't watch the SB because 2 of the 3 ints had nothing do with with a lack of a running game. They were bad passes by McNabb. The first one was a horribly thrown pass to Westbrook who was open along the sidelines near the goal line. The second was thrown to the wrong side of the receiver and Bruchi intercepted it.

(the 3rd was at the end of the game with a few seconds left..meaningless).

You're falling victim to reading a stat sheet and not watching games.

And while I'll agree that the Eagles should run the ball more (and Westbrook avgd over 4 yards a carry last year) they don't and based on their success (4 NFC championship games, 1 SB appearance) I think they're doing just fine.

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 5:05 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:And let's not forget this drive.

1-10-PHI26 (7:52) D.McNabb pass to B.Westbrook pushed ob at PHI 41 for 15 yards (R.Gay).
1-10-PHI41 (7:26) D.McNabb pass to T.Owens pushed ob at PHI 49 for 8 yards (A.Samuel).
2-2-PHI49 (7:14) B.Westbrook to NE 44 for 7 yards (R.Gay).
1-10-NE44 (6:36) D.McNabb pass to G.Lewis pushed ob at NE 32 for 12 yards (R.Gay).
1-10-NE32 (6:12) D.McNabb pass to T.Owens to NE 25 for 7 yards (R.Harrison).
2-3-NE25 (5:37) B.Westbrook left tackle to NE 21 for 4 yards (T.Bruschi).
1-10-NE21 (4:59) D.McNabb pass incomplete to T.Owens (R.Seymour).
2-10-NE21 (4:54) D.McNabb pass to G.Lewis pushed ob at NE 14 for 7 yards (R.Gay).
3-3-NE14 (4:24) (Shotgun) D.McNabb pass to B.Westbrook to NE 10 for 4 yards (R.Gay).
1-10-NE10 (3:39) D.McNabb pass to B.Westbrook for 10 yards, TOUCHDOWN. PE87 left game w/ cramps.
Way to kick your own ass, moron.

21 plays, 3 rushes...12 yards.

Thank you for demonstrating that you know jack shit about the West Coast offense.

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 5:30 pm**

Westbrook had 22 touches for over 100 yards in that game. He played the Roger Craig role to the hilt. If you're too stupid to realize that...

...well, sucks to be you.

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 5:38 pm**

mvscal wrote:
jiminphilly wrote:Now I know you didn't watch the SB because 2 of the 3 ints had nothing do with with a lack of a running game.
Fuck off, dumbshit. You lost because you ask McNabb to do too much. Period end of fucking story.

Don't believe it? Ask John Elway.

:roll: :roll:

Worst post ever.

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:25 pm**

The Eagles offense consists of McNabb's activity. The WRs run around until he can hit them, or until he's sacked or tucks and runs. That's not going to beat a good defense late in the season.

McNabb played a good game in the SB, but he indeed ran out of gas, and made some costly mistakes. That's bound to happen when he is the sole focus of the offense.

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:31 pm**

mvscal wrote:
jiminphilly wrote:
mvscal wrote: Fuck off, dumbshit. You lost because you ask McNabb to do too much. Period end of fucking story.

Don't believe it? Ask John Elway.

:roll: :roll:

Worst post ever.
We had this discussion before the Superbowl. I told you wouldn't be able to run and you would lose as a result.

Your take was that the Eagles weren't a running team, but they could do it if they had to.

The Eagles couldn't run. They couldn't keep their defense off the field. McNabb wore out and you fucking lost the game.

Events clearly proved that you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about and I did.

I also recall you making the prediction that the Eagles wouldn't be able to even get to the NFC Championship, much less the SB before last year.. to quote you "they're done"

You then said that the Eagles would get blown out but as the scoreboard predicted it was hardly a blow-out.

What other great predictions can you bestow upon us?

I'll be sure to bet the other way.

As for McNabb-- he was worn out b/c he was out of shape. You do know he lost 30 lbs this off season after the coaches thought he was too heavy last year which contributed to him being winded after a long qb run or scramble? McNabb wasn't asked to do to much. They asked him to do exactly what he has always done and unfortunately his inaccuracy in the SB caught up to him and the team. Forget the running game bs.. when you throw 2 meaningful INT's (neither of which were caused by a lack of a running game) and you fumble away the ball you lose. End of story.

The Rams won the SB against the Titans with Faulk averaging 1.7 yards a carry. They only ran the ball a total of 13 times. Do I have to remind you who won the SB.

Keep trying, mvs..

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:39 pm**

While others have won SBs without much of a running game, I still think it's important to run, and in Philly's case, the lack of the running threat definitely hampers their success at the end of the season.

McNabb is capable of some of the most accurate long passing you'll ever see. However, that comes along with some very inaccurate shot and lateral passing. Also, when you show an inclination to run the ball and you succeed, you cause the defense to have to respect that.

There's no balance in the Eagle offense. They were better with TO, because he was an every down threat to catch the ball, and the rest of the receivers put together occasionally drew some attention. Without TO, they're back to the desperate scrambling thing again...

There's no doubt that a running game would help them be more successful. It doesn't even seem as if they're seeking one, though...

T1B

Different year, same Buckhalter

Different year, same Buckhalter

Re: Different year, same Buckhalter

Re: Different year, same Buckhalter

Re: Different year, same Buckhalter

Re: Different year, same Buckhalter