You know what that is? That's the number of passing yards we had LAST YEAR...We were 8th in the NFL in passing yards--with Mike McMahon and Koy Detmer QBing the team through the second half...
Just think what 16 games of a healthy Donovan can do.
2500 of those yards came when McNabb was still at the helm, Owens was still playing and we couldn't/didn't run the ball ever.
The reason why we were able to pass the ball for over 8000 yards the last two years....Terrell Owens. Sorry buddy, he's gone. I would argue there is going to be a dropoff.
Originally posted by Tiburon41@Apr 2nd '06 @ 8:30 pm Wanna hear a scary number?
3903.
You know what that is?* That's the number of passing yards we had LAST YEAR...We were 8th in the NFL in passing yards--with Mike McMahon and Koy Detmer QBing the team through the second half...
Just think what 16 games of a healthy Donovan can do.
you give anyone enough attempts and your team is going to rank high in passing yards, I wouldnt put too much into those numbers. If the Eagles rely on the passing game, they'll eventually fold, McNabb may get hurt, etc. You can't win when you pass it that often, no matter how many yards you rack up. It makes matters worse if the Eagles stick with the recievers they have right now or choose to draft a reciever.
__________________
When Sean Avery was a child, he made his mother finish his vegetables.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Brooklyn @ May 20th ) [snapback]2006104[/snapback]</div>
you know all the talk about a bruising back...Lendale White would be a sweet pick in the 1st round for the Eagles.
__________________
When Sean Avery was a child, he made his mother finish his vegetables.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Brooklyn @ May 20th ) [snapback]2006104[/snapback]</div>
Originally posted by GoGiants98@Apr 2nd '06 @ 8:55 pm you know all the talk about a bruising back...Lendale White would be a sweet pick in the 1st round for the Eagles.
**** that. The guy is a huge risk. He benched just 2 reps more than the punter and the *** clown refuses to run the 40 because his lard *** would probably go 4.8.
Justice on the other hand. God, I would love for him to fall to us. That dude is a beast. He had a 39 inch vertical. That's a great jump for a WR or CB.
Originally posted by GoGiants98@Apr 2nd '06 @ 10:47 pm you give anyone enough attempts and your team is going to rank high in passing yards, I wouldnt put too much into those numbers. If the Eagles rely on the passing game, they'll eventually fold, McNabb may get hurt, etc. You can't win when you pass it that often, no matter how many yards you rack up. It makes matters worse if the Eagles stick with the recievers they have right now or choose to draft a reciever.
The Giants threw it 586 times last year. My suggestion is only 10 more passes...
Originally posted by Tiburon41@Apr 2nd '06 @ 4:46 pm Westbrook didn't play 16 games in '04 because we had a 7 game lead on the division and decided to sit the whole team (the reason we went 13-3 that year and not 15-1).
He was a healthy scratch against Washington in '02, and in '03, he injured his triceps in what could just be called a freak play. In '05, as I said above, he had the foot injury that could have just as easily been an excuse to sit him out in a lost season.
My contention is that to get him to Faulk's numbers, all you need is 3-4 extra touches a game. He's not a #1 back in the sense of a McGahee, Barber, or Portis, of course not, since the Eagles under Andy Reid will never employ a number one back.
The question here (and another diversion to Marshall Faulk) is that if the Eagles are in fact dedicated to going 55-45 or pretty much anything less than 60-40 pass-to-rush. Westbrook will likely see those extra 3-4 touches per game.
And notice that while he was good in Indy, he became great in St. Louis. Who got the most out of him? That lunatic Mike Martz. Maybe Andy Reid needs to take a few pages from Martz' playbooks and get both Moats and Westbrook involved in that type of role/roles...
ahh, okay, gotcha. it should be noted that indy wasn't a very good team at the time (if i remember correctly) faulk was playing for them. but yeah, martz got the most out of him.
Originally posted by Tiburon41@Apr 2nd '06 @ 4:47 pm
Sheppard had a bad year last year, along with most of the rest of the defense. With Lito, you have to understand, he isn't as good as he looked in '04, nor is he as bad as he looked in '05. They took the wrong CB to the Pro Bowl and the All-NFL team in '04, and hopefully Lito will be able to bounce back to respectability this season.
i agree - i said exactly the same thing. he wasn't as good as his numbers looked in 2004, but he wasn't as bad as last year. but almost every eagle fan on here laughed and derided me for uttering such a ridiculous thing after his 5 int, 172 yard w/ 2 td year.
Originally posted by bizell@Apr 3rd '06 @ 4:20 am i agree - i said exactly the same thing. he wasn't as good as his numbers looked in 2004, but he wasn't as bad as last year. but almost every eagle fan on here laughed and derided me for uttering such a ridiculous thing after his 5 int, 172 yard w/ 2 td year.
Eagles offseason
/07215_206.jpg ":drool:")
Linear Mode
