After rewatching the game this evening, there were at least some positives. We've already cataloged the ugly, but some good things included:
1) We got pressure on Wentz - and pretty consistently. He's one of the bigger, stronger guys who is tough to bring down, and unlike Kirk, has great awareness of pressure in the pocket. But we did apply pressure and missed at least 4 or 5 sacks in addition to when we did get to him.
2) This D is, at least in the opener, a lot more aggressive. I hope that continues.
3) The secondary looks vastly improved. Breeland looked like the Breeland of a couple seasons ago, Norman was pretty good, Fuller played well overall, and the safety play was pretty tight. We are still vulnerable on mid-range throws down the middle - I wish we'd figure that out. Way too many 3rd down conversions on 10-20 yard passes right down the pike.
4) We had more INT opportunities on Sunday than I can remember in a single game in years. I counted at least 5 balls that probably should've been picks and another 4-5 that we had chances on. If we'd gotten 2 or 3 more INTs (which was quite possible), we win that game.
I don't have much to highlight on offense. It was pretty ugly. You could see the *potential* of the Kirk-Pryor connection, but they both played terribly flawed games. Grant had a decent game. Fat Rob ran hard despite not much running room. Reed, to me, looked rusty and/or afraid to mix it up. That may have been the least physical game I've seen him play. The other thing that jumped out at me was the frequent lack of a safety valve receiver when the Eagles started blitzing the hell out of us in the 4th quarter. When they are sending the house, obviously someone needs to be there for the open short pass. There often was no option for Cousins.
Anyway - the game was actually more competitive on 2nd watching than it seemed on Sunday. We need to rebound against the Rams and I think if the D plays the way it did Sunday and we get a consistent and competent from the offense, we will be fine.