Andy bashers take a holiday
Andy Reid's day in Minneapolis was typical.
Andy bashers take a holiday
Rich Hofmann, Daily News Sports Columnist
At the point where Westbrook caught the 71-yard screen pass for a touchdown, the Eagles has called about 68 percent passes and 32 percent runs. When they are losing, these are the kinds of numbers that get Reid barbecued. It is only a few play calls away from the sainted concept of balance, but people here insist that those play calls are the holy grail. Well, he wasn't balanced yesterday. So why aren't the Balance Police out in force?
Because it was never about the play-calling, except in the most extreme cases. It is about the players. Most of all,this was about a defense that tightened up at halftime and smothered Minnesota. On the other side of the ball, it was about Eagles receivers holding on to the ball and, especially, it was about Donovan McNabb delivering the ball under pressure. He did turn it over twice, and that can get you beat against a better offensive team, but McNabb played a tough game and absorbed a lot of punishment and functioned well overall.
It is the players, not the play-calls.
Comments (101)
It IS the play calls and, you said it yurself, the PLAYER SELECTION. Buckhalter was the more effective runner. He galloped to a yard eating twenty yards and, true to REid's nature, IS NEVEr HEARD FROM AGAIN THE REST OF ThE GAME. This is why games that are won by the Eagles are made harder than necessary because of stupid decisions NOT to use the more effective player in certain situations. It was obvious that Westbrook couldn't carry the heavy duty load himself. (WEstbrook is NOT very good between the tackles) and that Buckhalter should have been given a fair share of carries. Westbrook should be used to carry plays designed to be run outside, Buckhalter is the more effective between the tackles runner yet, is sparingly used. Why? not only do we have to implore these jerks to use more running plays, now we have to tell them (from our perspective, which I think is FAR superior to THEIR perspective) WHICH players to use in WHICH situations. Coach Reid, USE BUCKHALTER MORE.— essell
Comment removed.- It's not the play calling? Go watch the Bears, Bengals and Redskins games again and if you don't see it, watch them again. Focus on plays called on 3rd down and in the red zone. Btw, Reid/Marty are responsible for who is on the field while on offense too. If someone can't catch or block, bench them.
- Kjuggs, Reid the GM landed those players that you cite as the reason for success. Are you one of the Didinger/Cataldi followers who blasted his talent evaluation ability? As far as Reid the coach...he may not have a SB, but his play-off record is better than say, a guy like Tony Dungy (9-10, and he went one and done 6 of 13 appearances). AR, on the other hand, is 9-6 and has NEVER been one and done). I know we'd all like a SB, but that is not the measure...if you use that ill-conceived logic, Barry Switzer was a better coach than Marv Levy or George Allen. The same holds true for McNabb as far as that as a measurement...Peyton Manning (14-7 and one and done 5 of 8 years). McNabb is 7-5 and was never one and done...oh and his TD/INT is 18/12 with an 80.1 rating compared to Manning's 21/17 and 84.6 rating. Not quite the W/L (injuries and opportunitues) but comparable...once again the SB is not the defining one...if it were Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are superior to Dan Fouts or Dan Marino. Even a WIPinhead is not that blind.— Justanothervoice
- Good game, but he looks so slovenly. Doesn't he know how to dress up and look the part ? Come on Andy, and lose some weight too. You're giving your heart some real stress.— Big Ragu
- Rich the journo has to insult the philly.com readers even though he depends on them for his paycheck. in case you missed the game, Rich - they almost lost. only the westbrook run threat opened Avant and Celek on those big 3rd down conversions. where do you think the LB's would have been if they didnt have to respect the run game. educated yourself— jamesiri
- What I love about Philly is the depth of knowledge in the fan base. It's a tough town to play in for a number of reasons but mostly because the fans care so much and know so much about the team and the game. Rich, there are fans who love to bash for the sake of bashing, but these comments show an analysis that goes beyond "it's not the play calls it's the players." Your analysis is right to a point but the comments I see here are from people who know what they're talking about and want the Iggles to win. I know I fall into that category. Andy Reid is a good to very good coach but a liability when it comes to gameday strategy and adjustments. I'm not sure whether he has helped or hindered McNabb's growth as a QB. Go Iggles!!!— igglefaninsf
- Are you kidding paytoplay? They needed Buckhalter for what exactly? To call more passing plays? They could have used a Tight End or Fullback , according to the package, to do that job and still ran Buck more. Stop making excuses for those incompetents. The Eagles won DESPITE incompetent playcalling, not because of it.— essell
- I love it, the man's never lost an entry playoff game and you bashers still don't get it. December (and January) his teams are ready - that's when you want to be ready. If you want to be around beyond the first generation of success, you have to backfill - as players move on you need to infuse your roster with youth, sometimes at the expense of September success, but by December the young’ns get it. What's more, your regime might survive past its initial success, look at Noll’s Steelers , Jimmy Johnson’s Cowboys and Walsh’s 49ers, when their guys got old they fell off a cliff. It’s also why you bargain tough so you don’t pay premium salary for past excellence. You wind up with too much cap tied up in too few productive players. Hell, Reid’s got a whole new defense since his start. He’s not going anywhere.— robinlupe
- So if you want to excuse Andy Reid the coach you have to place blame on Andy Reid the GM. Is that the argument a Reid supporter wants to make?— geoffrobinson
- Rich.. Your "out of bounds" as usual... Andy made a very respectable attempt to balance between run and pass. Just because it wasn't a 50/50 ratio doesn't mean there wasn't balance. The idea is to include the running game in the offense which was done. What game were you watching?— raindarr
- Rich.. Your "out of bounds" as usual... Andy made a very respectable attempt to balance between run and pass. Just because it wasn't a 50/50 ratio doesn't mean there wasn't balance. The idea is to include the running game in the offense which was done. What game were you watching?— raindarr
- It's always sad when the average fan knows more about the game than someone who gets paid to cover it. The unstated premise of Mr. Hofmann's post is that the Eagles offense had a strong game against the Vikings--it did not. Of the 26 points scored, 7 were attributable to the defense directly, 3 to a turnover caused by the defense, and 3 to special teams (a long punt return by DeSean Jackson). So the Eagles offense is only fully responsible for 13 points--barely average. So, now, what exactly is your point, Mr. Hofmann?— MarkP
- MarkP...the Ravens got five TO's, one for a TD, too. Have a great running game and only managed two TD's (thanks to another ED Reed return). Offense, Special Teams, Defense...it's a team game. Nit pick, nitpick. I bet you are one of those "Ray Didinger said" types! Offense had 350 yards in offense in the game...NFL average is 248...For perspective, the Eagles were the #9 team on offense for the year at....350.5 YPG! And of the top 10, #1-3, 5 and 8 (in case you can't count, that's 5 teams) did not make the play-offs. Defense and Turnovers, baby. BTW, the #3 defense in the NFL was your Eagles. What's truly sad is a fan who claims knowledge when, alas, none exists. Keep listening to WIP! What's sad is folks who make blanket statements without searching for any specifics.— Justanothervoice
- Rich, you cannot say "it's the players and not the play calls" and have any credibility. If balance isn't important than why huddle away from the opposition? Why hold up plastic cards to shield your face when calling in plays? Why use hand signals? Why not just tell the opposition what you're going to do if all that matters is your players' execution? I'll tell you why - because you want to keep the opposition guessing. You need to maintain the element of surprise. You need balance so as not to become predictable. Running once in a while on 3rd and one, or 3rd and inches, would be better play-calling. Having a bruising fullback - or at least another running back that is used more than twice a game - would also help, as opposed to stupid personnel decisions such as franchising LJ and using Cielek as your go-to TE or trading down out of the first round two years in a row, or losing Spagnuolo to the Giants. Reid has potential as well as weaknesses. Sportswriters need to be held to a standard which demands acknowledgement of that fact until Reid proves otherwise. Play-calling, better recently, was brutal earlier this year and caused losses. Because conditions warrant passing in one game (dome, Vike's strong run defense and weak pass offense) it does not support the conclusion that play-calling isn't important, Rich. I'm sure if AR thought it was trivial, he would let you do it.— Scoop
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners:
Powered By:
