Eagles / Giants Week 3

[Northern Eagle]

Not sure why Blount was taken out at that point. Note though that Smallwood put up nearly identical numbers.

After the game, I thought it was a good move to try and get the other guys involved, it will benefit us moving forward to get Blount, Smallwood and Clement in a rhythm (now that Sproles is going to miss the rest of the season) which is Pederson's desired approach anyway, by committee - as opposed to relying mainly on one guy. But he must avoid the traps he falls into sometimes where he abandons the run entirely, and that's when we get in trouble.

 

[Northern Eagle]

how are they going to draft Barkley if they keep winning games?

Saquon was awesome Saturday night. If we want any chance at him, we're going to have to trade into the Top 5. As good as he is, I wouldn't do that either. I would rather we look for our Travis Frederick instead of chasing the shiny toy we can't get anyway.

 

[old duke]

Who knows what Howie can do? Now if we wind up picking in the late 20s, not a chance, but if we're in the bottom half, who knows what kind of package he can create? If he can't gt Barley, he may be able to move up to get Guice, which is not a bad consolation prize.

 

[I miss Dawkins]

The Giants defense is legit, and our offensive line didn't come to play.

honestly, I thought the biggest problem was defense. They allowed over 400 yards. Eli, after being sacked bad the first 2 games, knew he was going to get pounded this week also and they made a conscious effort to get rid of the ball fast. Whether it was on target, at their feet or what - he got rid of the ball fast, early and made a living on that inside slant route. And the NYG receivers were getting that inside step on our guys and making the catch constantly. We did well stopping the run. But we just couldn't get pressure on Eli. The few times Eli held onto it longer or tried to go longer, he got intercepted. It was a good game plan and we never adjusted to it. The ONLY reason it was not worse, is that our odd commitment to running the game kept them off the field more in the first half. We owned the time of posses 3:1 early on. But if you go back and look at it - Eli was moving the ball well on the first 2 drives as well. This could have been ugly.

The thing that really bewildered me was how they kept forcing smallwood early when he was constantly getting nothing, and Blount was POUNDING it with success. Why not stay with what is working!!!????? This, imho, will be the death of us. You have to stay with something that is working - NOT JUST FORCE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO!! This is what forced me from being a Reid supporter, to a Reid hater. I'm not there with Doug yet, because I see him do a lot of other things right (like recognizing weaknesses at WR and doing something about it - which Reid would not do). But there was no reason to force smallwood as much as they did and abandon Blount earlier. If we stayed with Blount more - we would not have killed as many drives as we did, maintained a better TOP and not let NYG back in the game.

In my opinion, smallwood was very ineffective in the first half and his stats are not reflective to his success or flow of the game. Blount is the one that was truly more effective. He found yards when it seemed like there were none. Smallwood did not.

 

[Northern Eagle]

honestly, I thought the biggest problem was defense. They allowed over 400 yards. Eli, after being sacked bad the first 2 games, knew he was going to get pounded this week also and they made a conscious effort to get rid of the ball fast. Whether it was on target, at their feet or what - he got rid of the ball fast, early and made a living on that inside slant route. And the NYG receivers were getting that inside step on our guys and making the catch constantly. We did well stopping the run. But we just couldn't get pressure on Eli. The few times Eli held onto it longer or tried to go longer, he got intercepted. It was a good game plan and we never adjusted to it. The ONLY reason it was not worse, is that our odd commitment to running the game kept them off the field more in the first half. We owned the time of posses 3:1 early on. But if you go back and look at it - Eli was moving the ball well on the first 2 drives as well. This could have been ugly.

The thing that really bewildered me was how they kept forcing smallwood early when he was constantly getting nothing, and Blount was POUNDING it with success. Why not stay with what is working!!!????? This, imho, will be the death of us. You have to stay with something that is working - NOT JUST FORCE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO!! This is what forced me from being a Reid supporter, to a Reid hater. I'm not there with Doug yet, because I see him do a lot of other things right (like recognizing weaknesses at WR and doing something about it - which Reid would not do). But there was no reason to force smallwood as much as they did and abandon Blount earlier. If we stayed with Blount more - we would not have killed as many drives as we did, maintained a better TOP and not let NYG back in the game.

In my opinion, smallwood was very ineffective in the first half and his stats are not reflective to his success or flow of the game. Blount is the one that was truly more effective. He found yards when it seemed like there were none. Smallwood did not.

I agree with you that Pederson should have stuck with Blount longer, the Giants had no answer for him in the first half. But I also believe this was one of those situations where hopefully, by getting the other guys involved, it will establish confidence and rhythm moving forward later in the season which will make the run game overall more effective.

Pederson may not have stuck with the hot hand, but he did stick with the running game where even Clement contributed with the game-tying TD. The key is now sticking to it and not getting Wentz killed by having him throw 50+ times a game because he abandons the run game when one guy isn't working.

 

[DutchBird]

honestly, I thought the biggest problem was defense. They allowed over 400 yards. Eli, after being sacked bad the first 2 games, knew he was going to get pounded this week also and they made a conscious effort to get rid of the ball fast. Whether it was on target, at their feet or what - he got rid of the ball fast, early and made a living on that inside slant route. And the NYG receivers were getting that inside step on our guys and making the catch constantly. We did well stopping the run. But we just couldn't get pressure on Eli. The few times Eli held onto it longer or tried to go longer, he got intercepted. It was a good game plan and we never adjusted to it. The ONLY reason it was not worse, is that our odd commitment to running the game kept them off the field more in the first half. We owned the time of posses 3:1 early on. But if you go back and look at it - Eli was moving the ball well on the first 2 drives as well. This could have been ugly.

Again, deliberate game plan by NYG - if the average is getting the ball out in 1.89 seconds it is almost impossible to get pressure, adding extra protection and that combined with defensive injuries forcing us to play off-coverage, and then Hicks and Cox getting injured.

The thing that really bewildered me was how they kept forcing smallwood early when he was constantly getting nothing, and Blount was POUNDING it with success. Why not stay with what is working!!!????? This, imho, will be the death of us. You have to stay with something that is working - NOT JUST FORCE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO!!

Did you actually look at what happened, rather than go with impressions. Smallwood was hardly getting stonewalled, and Blount more than you think.

To put it in numbers:

1st quarter
Blount: 3, 17, 8 yards
Smallwood: 1 yard
Sproles: 11 yards

2nd quarter:
Blount: 4, 1 (TD), 2
Smallwood: 3, 2, 14, 8, 5
Sproles: -1
Clement: 0

3rd quarter:
Blount: 20, 5, 1, 0, 0
Clement: 2
Smallwood: 4

4th quarter
Smallwood: 23, 15, 2, 2, 20, 9
Clement: 7, -3, 15
Blount: 6

Concluding:

Smallwood gained more yards on the same amount of carries as Blount did (so higher average). Blount runs of 5+ yards: 5. Smallwood runs of 5+ yards: 7. Blount had 2 runs of 10+ yards, Smallwood had 4.

Blount was hardly phased out. Note also that Smallwood saw an increasing amount of the ball AFTER Sproles went down. Not surprising, as Smallwood is a much greater receiving threat than Blount.

AGAIN:

Through THREE GAMES Pederson has actually stuck with what is working.

This is what forced me from being a Reid supporter, to a Reid hater. I'm not there with Doug yet, because I see him do a lot of other things right (like recognizing weaknesses at WR and doing something about it - which Reid would not do). But there was no reason to force smallwood as much as they did and abandon Blount earlier. If we stayed with Blount more - we would not have killed as many drives as we did, maintained a better TOP and not let NYG back in the game.

In my opinion, smallwood was very ineffective in the first half and his stats are not reflective to his success or flow of the game. Blount is the one that was truly more effective. He found yards when it seemed like there were none. Smallwood did not.

Except that the stats and the game itself show something completely different - though the optics favour Blount due to his running style. You also ignore the Sproles injury, which automatically means that Smallwood will feature more, as he is the only other fairly reliable pass-catching RB we have on the team.

So basically, what you are arguing is complete BS.

 

[PhillyGreen]

IIRC I think Smallwood had to bounce some of his best runs to the outside after he was stuffed at the line. He just is not as big and as strong as Blount. Blount had carries in that first drive in the third quarter and did not touch the ball again until late. I think that was just stupid because you can see the Giants linebacker visibly limping most of the game. I think we blow them out if he pounds Blount more.

I am please by Pederson's commitment to the run. I think the way he planned it out was poor IMO.

 

[DutchBird]

IIRC I think Smallwood had to bounce some of his best runs to the outside after he was stuffed at the line. He just is not as big and as strong as Blount. Blount had carries in that first drive in the third quarter and did not touch the ball again until late. I think that was just stupid because you can see the Giants linebacker visibly limping most of the game. I think we blow them out if he pounds Blount more.

I am please by Pederson's commitment to the run. I think the way he planned it out was poor IMO.

Note how Blount by the end of the 3rd quarter was stuffed on a number of runs? And the other gains were limited?

Pederson mentioned yesterday in his PC that the Giants changed up how they played the run in the third quarter - and that the Eagles had to use a whole new play package to counter that. That might have something to do with it. I also think that if Sproles had not gotten injured, many of Smallwood's runs would have been replaced by Sproles run.

BTW, based on the Fran Duffy highlights (and Sheil Kapadia's All-22) a good number of the Smallwood runs came up the middle, just as Blounts. It was Vernon that was liming mostly, IIRC.

 

[I miss Dawkins]

Dutch, I said that NYG game planned to get the ball out fast. It was obvious watching the game. It neutralized the pressure. Eli made a living that game on the inside slant route. Yes, that was game planned.

It was obvious to anyone watching the game that blount was being very effective in the first half, and smallwood was not. They utilized smallwood instead of using blount more.

I completely disagree that they stayed with what was working. They stayed with what they wanted to do. Fortunately for them, smallwood became more effective in the 4th QTR. And fortunately for them, a 61 yard field goal saves the game and we are not discussing why we lost. Because NYG had over 400 yards of offense on us. They went from having HALF our yardage early on to DOUBLE our yardage. A big part of this, outside of the obvious defensive inability to stop it, was the offense not sustaining drives in the 2nd half and keeping NYG's offense off the field.

For you to say they stayed with what was working, is wrong. In the global scheme - the run game, yes. But that doesn't tell the story. That's like saying a team stays with the passing game, despite passing it to a WR that is constantly dropping it instead of a hot receiver catching everything that goes his way. I'm glad smallwood stepped up in the 4th QTR. It was clear Doug planned to run the ball this game. But if he had stayed with Blount more, I don't think the 61 yard FG would have even been necessary.

 

[I miss Dawkins]

And didn't you just last week make this huge argument about how we can't run the ball, and that is why Blount didn't get a carry?????? This week just showed who is full of BS.

 

[DutchBird]

Dutch, I said that NYG game planned to get the ball out fast. It was obvious watching the game. It neutralized the pressure. Eli made a living that game on the inside slant route. Yes, that was game planned.

It was obvious to anyone watching the game that blount was being very effective in the first half, and smallwood was not. They utilized smallwood instead of using blount more.

Smallwood came in mostly after Sproles went out (IIRC one carry before that)! Which is logical.

O yeah, and yards/carries by the end of the 1st half:

Blount: 6 carries, 35 yards, 1 TD.
Smallwood: 5 carries for 32 yards.

So Blount had MORE carries, for roughly an even average.

So again, your narrative is BS. Smallwood was equally effective as Blount in the first half.

I completely disagree that they stayed with what was working. They stayed with what they wanted to do. Fortunately for them, smallwood became more effective in the 4th QTR. And fortunately for them, a 61 yard field goal saves the game and we are not discussing why we lost. Because NYG had over 400 yards of offense on us. They went from having HALF our yardage early on to DOUBLE our yardage. A big part of this, outside of the obvious defensive inability to stop it, was the offense not sustaining drives in the 2nd half and keeping NYG's offense off the field.

Not sustaining drives issue in the 2nd half (plays includes plays with penaltie):

1st drive: 8 plays, 4 minutes 49 seconds, 41 yards, missed FG. 3 runs, Blount as the sole runner!!!

2nd drive: 8 plays, 3 minutes 35 sec, 54 yards, TD, 2 runs, Blount as sole runner, for 0 yards!!

3rd drive: 3 plays, 1 minute 28 seconds, 6 yards, 2 runs, Clement and Smallwood as runner. END of 3rd quarter. - THE ONLY 3 AND OUT

4th drive: 1 play, 6 seconds, ERTZ fumble

5th drive: 7 plays, 3 minutes 1 second, 3 runs, (Clement and Smallwood).

6th drive: 5 plays, 1 minute 32 seconds, TD, 2 runs (Clement and Smallwood)

7th drive: 9 plays, 2 minutes 17, FG, 4 runs (Blount and 3 Smallwood)

8th drive: 3 plays, 13 secons, FG

So, looking at the 'not sustaining drive' argument

Four ended in scores, one was because of a fumble (first play), one missed FG (in which Blount was wholly ineffective).

Much of the short TOP had to do with actual scoring, and chunck yardage because of penalties (DPI's).

Note BTW that Doug said in a PC that somewhere in the 3rd quarter NY changed the way they defended against the run, and they had to find a way to work around that. By the simple fact that they got it going again later, suggests Doug might have a point.

For you to say they stayed with what was working, is wrong. In the global scheme - the run game, yes. But that doesn't tell the story. That's like saying a team stays with the passing game, despite passing it to a WR that is constantly dropping it instead of a hot receiver catching everything that goes his way. I'm glad smallwood stepped up in the 4th QTR. It was clear Doug planned to run the ball this game. But if he had stayed with Blount more, I don't think the 61 yard FG would have even been necessary.

The actual data says something completely different - Blount and Smallwood's effectiveness was not that different. And again, you are ignoring the fact that many Smallwood carries were likely the result of Sproles getting injured. They would have been Sproles carries.

And didn't you just last week make this huge argument about how we can't run the ball, and that is why Blount didn't get a carry?????? This week just showed who is full of BS.

Yup... and you are the one full of BS.

I never said the Eagles would never be able to run the ball, and should stick to passing so much. I also said that continuing with original r/p ratio would not work for the season as a whole.

I said we were unable to run the ball against KC, while the passing game was working. Therefore it was only logical to stick with the pass.

For what after only 3 weeks (run defense rankings):

Washington: nr 2 run defense
KC: nr 18 run defense

NY: nr 32 run defense (and at the bottom of the pile before we played them).

So we should better have been able to improve our running game. What also helped was Spagnuolo playing nickel defense for much of the game (weak against the run) - as pointed out by Fran Duffy and Barret Brooks. Of course the changing of the OG made a massive difference, as well the O-line itself deciding to actually start run-blocking (something which they implicitly admitted after the game), and which they had not done in the first two games.

You know the ONE BIG DIFFERENCE WITH THE GAME AGAINST KC ?! The O-line actually blocked, created creases and holes, and rarely if ever were defenders in the backfield.

 

[eaglesnut]

Saquon was awesome Saturday night. If we want any chance at him, we're going to have to trade into the Top 5. As good as he is, I wouldn't do that either. I would rather we look for our Travis Frederick instead of chasing the shiny toy we can't get anyway.

Someone should get in a bar fight with Barkley. That could help.

 

[Orlando Eagles]

Someone should get in a bar fight with Barkley. That could help.

Hopefully we play well enough this year that it will have to be a bar fight with a female to make him accesssible to us in the draft.

 

[PhillyGreen]

Note how Blount by the end of the 3rd quarter was stuffed on a number of runs? And the other gains were limited?

Smallwood was getting stuffed as well. He had rushes of 2, 2, and 0 late in the game. The rush where he got stuffed for no gain came right after the 2 minute warning on first down. Blount got that first down on the play before the 2 minute warning by gaining 6 yards on his carry.

Pederson mentioned yesterday in his PC that the Giants changed up how they played the run in the third quarter - and that the Eagles had to use a whole new play package to counter that. That might have something to do with it. I also think that if Sproles had not gotten injured, many of Smallwood's runs would have been replaced by Sproles run.

I am not sure I really trust much of what Pederson says these days. The explanation for going for it on 4th down has now come in a couple different versions. Then I read this explanation about how the Giants changed up on how they played the run in the 3rd quarter and they had to use whole knew play packages to counter that. WTF!?!? that is a stupid argument because I am reading that as to saying he could not create new play packages for Blount.

I actually think the Eagles ran the ball well on Sunday but I feel that we still left a lot of yards on the field. I think running back by committee is flat stupid. I think a primary back needs to be established. When Wentz was under center and Blount was rushing he was running all over the Giants. Then we abruptly switched to something different. I am going to go back over the game but I swear Smallwood bounced some of his best runs to the outside but I can't honestly say it for a fact. So I will watch it again. I could be wrong and will admit it if I am.