Official Game Thread at Eagles

They should put a skirt on Foles
 
As long as Kelly is coaching in our division we're playing for 2nd. Their whole O line was out and they still put up 30. This is the most talented team we've had in 20+ years and we were the more talented team today and still couldn't win.
 
We won't be playing for second much longer
 
We missed a 30 yarder and they made a 50 yarder and they returned one for a td and we still could have won on the road in the 4th with a quick who has started 5 games

Sent from my XT1049 using Forum Fiend v1.2.9.
 
Anyone watch the game interviews live? Wondering what Gruden said about Baker hit and penalty.
 
Baker's cheapshot is gonna cost him a big fine, and a 1 game suspension. As it should.

Everybody contributed to the loss. The ST brainfart, and Kai's miss are easy and convenient scapegoats.

But the D could have made more plays. And the offense got the ball at the Eagles 41 and couldn't gain an inch to get in field goal range.

****ing Griffin!
 
Ax said:
Baker's cheapshot is gonna cost him a big fine, and a 1 game suspension. As it should.

Everybody contributed to the loss. The ST brainfart, and Kai's miss are easy and convenient scapegoats.

But the D could have made more plays. And the offense got the ball at the Eagles 41 and couldn't gain an inch to get in field goal range.

****ing Griffin!
Click to expand...

Personally, for what it's worth (which isn't much), I put this one at the feet squarely of the Special Teams. The O put up more than enough points to win, the D held at critical times, and didn't let the game get out of hand in the third when the O was struggling a little. ST was an enormous problem, as they were in Week One.
 
Mike Pereira posted this on his Twitter account. I'd like to know the details. What does he mean by added protection? I still think it's bs, but would like to know full rule. Foles was running towards the man with the ball.

"QB's get added protection after an INT.
So for those asking, yes, the hit on Foles was a cheap shot."
@MikePereira
 
Heading out to Redskins Park in about 30 mins to welcome the team home. Definitely an improved team. Also definitely still have some of the same annoyingly fatal flaws. Here's to actually seeing them focus on and correct those this year! Fan support is important. :cheers:
 
DixieFlatline said:
Mike Pereira posted this on his Twitter account. I'd like to know the details. What does he mean by added protection? I still think it's bs, but would like to know full rule. Foles was running towards the man with the ball.

"QB's get added protection after an INT.
So for those asking, yes, the hit on Foles was a cheap shot."
@MikePereira
Click to expand...


I'll be honest in saying that it did look a bit like a cheap shot, but what the heck does he mean by "extra protection"? Is there an actual rule that says a particular "level' of aggression in a hit on a QB that becomes a defender now? Are we really that far down the rabbit hole of wussiness in the NFL?
 
DixieFlatline said:
Mike Pereira posted this on his Twitter account. I'd like to know the details. What does he mean by added protection? I still think it's bs, but would like to know full rule. Foles was running towards the man with the ball.

"QB's get added protection after an INT.
So for those asking, yes, the hit on Foles was a cheap shot."
@MikePereira
Click to expand...

Snydershrugged said:
I'll be honest in saying that it did look a bit like a cheap shot, but what the heck does he mean by "extra protection"? Is there an actual rule that says a particular "level' of aggression in a hit on a QB that becomes a defender now? Are we really that far down the rabbit hole of wussiness in the NFL?
Click to expand...

Yea that twitter quote sounds like a bunch of bull.
Extra protection ? Entirely vague. If you can't define "extra protection" then you shouldn't be able to penalize on it.
 
Snydershrugged said:
I'll be honest in saying that it did look a bit like a cheap shot, but what the heck does he mean by "extra protection"? Is there an actual rule that says a particular "level' of aggression in a hit on a QB that becomes a defender now? Are we really that far down the rabbit hole of wussiness in the NFL?
Click to expand...

He just posted this article. In Redskins-Eagles fight, officials were the winners | FOX Sports

"Let’s go back to the original ruling on the field. It was called an interception, and because Breeland was not down and at the end of the play, Foles got blown up. But you can no longer blow up the quarterback on a change of possession. That was taken out a few years ago."

So, can you not block the QB at all?
 
DixieFlatline said:
He just posted this article. In Redskins-Eagles fight, officials were the winners | FOX Sports

"Let’s go back to the original ruling on the field. It was called an interception, and because Breeland was not down and at the end of the play, Foles got blown up. But you can no longer blow up the quarterback on a change of possession. That was taken out a few years ago."

So, can you not block the QB at all?
Click to expand...

You can engage him to keep him form defending, but blind siding him and completely laying him out is different.
 
But you can sack em after the whistle blows.
 
Miles Monroe said:
You can engage him to keep him form defending, but blind siding him and completely laying him out is different.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how it can be adequately measured though. Who's to say that was a definite "blind side" or not (I say this with the opinion that it was a cheap shot, but should have been a "legal" cheap shot IMHO)

How is the rule worded specifically?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top