Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

BTW, whatever happened to Bill Lyon? I always used to like his articles at the Inky (online, at least), and thought they were pretty on the money.

He retired a couple years ago.

The Eagles called 39 passes and 27 runs in a game in which they led for the final 55 minutes. Does that make any sense?

Bob Ford: It's a win, but not much more

decent John Smallwood piece

les bowen's article today basically called out reid without pulling punches:

The Eagles, of course, ran the ball only seven times in the second half, for 29 yards, but that wasn't because they were having great passing success; Donovan McNabb was 9-for-14 for 96 yards in the second half. It was mostly because they are coached by Reid, who thought having McNabb try to throw was a great way to run out the clock.


Who knew?


That the Eagles' best hope for a red-zone touchdown Sunday was to throw the ball to Matt Schobel, over and over? Finally, he and Donovan McNabb actually connected for a touchdown. Fans can only dream of the day when repeatedly trying a scoring play involving Brian Westbrook might occur to someone in the brain trust.


Obscure stat


For the third year in a row, after notching that win coming off the bye that everybody always makes such a big deal about, the Eagles have gone on to lose the very next game.

I read both of these morning, and they each brought a smile to my face.

I'm especially digging Les Bowen these days. He's really taking the gloves off.

Bowen stands in total contrast to another writer with whom I shared an interesting email exchange. I asked why he wasn't criticizing Reid, and he responded by saying he was doing what his editor wanted. Then I asked if he could put me in touch with his editor because I would like to formally request more negative coverage of Andy Reid's repeated coaching blunders. I also told him that I understood that you cannot criticize the Gold Standard without some sort of retribution from Banner (see Eckel, Mark), and he responded by calling me a conspiracy theorist. He also told me that I don't know how the journalism profession works, Howard Eskin is not a journalist (so his ass-kissing for scoops does not apply), and I should refer to his column ripping on Reid from several weeks ago if I wanted to see criticism.

Weak.

Les Bowen for President!

Hofmann, I presume?

Well, it sure wasn't Donnellon.

Out of (rapidly declining) respect for the individual, I will refrain from mentioning his name.

Interesting that as much as they don't care for Asskiss, they still mention his name.

Here's Hoffman's 'criticism'

However, now that I am an unabashed Les Bowen fan-boy, I can tell you that Les is a very cool dude.

A few years ago, he wrote a training camp story where he mentioned that Brian Mitchell had a great jambalaya recipe. I emailed him and asked for it, and he asked for my address and sent me the Eagles Media Guide (where the recipe was oddly featured).

The dude loves jambalaya and hates Reid. He gets my vote.

bass, I brought up Eskin in the conversation to prove my point.

Point - thought he somehow brought his name up, since the media went to great lengths to omit his name during the Manuel fiasco.

And he really should have laid the criticism on Reid for his refusal to deviate from the gameplan against the Giants (instead of trying to deviate McNabb from his septum) instead of pointing out (obviously) that Westbrook is invaluable and Reid made the right choice to sit him out.

did anyone read Hoffman's article today? What a complete motard.

He basically credits Reid's playcalling as genius and that the ONLY failure really is McNabb. Oddly, in the same article,

Weird, most of my post seems lost.

REPEAT ATTEMPT:

Did anyone read Hoffman's article today? What a complete motard.

He basically credits Reid's playcalling as genius and that the ONLY failure really is McNabb. Oddly, in the same article,

grrr....

did anyone read Hoffman's article today? What a complete motard.

He basically credits Reid's playcalling as genius and that the ONLY failure really is McNabb. Oddly, in the same article, link, he basically says that the major misses that McNabb made could also be legitimately blamed on the WRs.

Let's see, Mr. Ass, who forgot that you need a punt returner for a game and lost that one? Oh yeah, Reid. Who basically left a LT debuting at his position to face one of the more polished DE's in the game without support and let his QB get killed 12 times over? Oh yeah, Reid. Who calls a 70/30 pass/run to the point where defenses aren't kept honest by the threat of running? Oh yeah, Reid. What team averages nearly 4.5 YPC yet refuses to run? Oh yeah, Reid's. What team WRs still have trouble with press coverage and he won't upgrade any of them to get a marquee WR? Oh yeah, Reid's.

Is this guy watching the Vikings and thinks Taveris is Donovan?

That article is one of the biggest wastes of bandwidth I've seen in a long time.

So it has something to do with the knee, but only something. This is about a veteran quarterback learning a new way after all of these years. Again, he is close. Again, he needs to be better. To re-use the analogy of an old power pitcher who doesn't have the same fastball anymore and has to rely more on guts and guile seems appropriate here. It doesn't always work, but you do it to maximize your remaining abilities.

Well, gee, dullard, what do you think he's been trying to do before the injury? That whole bru-ha-ha about him not running anymore?

It's like for every argument that he has against McNabb, he has a counter that defeats the purpose of him saying anything in the first place.

To be fair, Jules, he did criticize Reid for that failing in GB.

But if you look at his articles (even here), he continues to gloss over the Giants game, which (if anything) was one of Reid's worst games in years.

If I were Hoffman's editor, I would force him to write a piece without using the word "close."

I think he's averaging about 5.4 uses of "close" per article.

We really need to come up with a separate thread to point out Hoffman's tomfoolery.


The Seahawks, who are 2nd in the league in sacks, are projected to get 53 this season, which would put them at a higher total than in previous years. In fact, the #s for sacks have been going up over the years.

Even beyond that, some teams aren't looking at sacks so much as they're looking at defensive stops, or at least the Cowboys had that philosophy (not sure if they're into it now).

BTW, even though Carolina has only 4 (FOUR!) sacks this year, you can't count that all up to phantom holding calls.

"His" tomfoolery. Yeesh. This was the first part:

This article states that it's harder for teams to get sacks because of all the holding calls that haven't been called. Two things make this noteworthy - 1) Kimo Von whatever said that it's because OLinemen are coached better, and Hoffman states "that is one opinion", and 2) he states that sacks are dropping in the league based on the phantom holds, and says that Eagles games are an exception, and not the rule.

You guys really have a hard-on for Rich Hofmann.

What I didn't like about the article is where is the evidence?

He said holding calls are down by 1/3 this year and last year. However, he didn't provide any proof that there have been fewer sacks...makes the whole article a bit pointless.

1 2 3  4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12