Fewell733

that's a great point.

well they lost to the 2007 Giants... really though to compare you need to act as though those same players from the late 2000s were players as they would have been in the early 90s, or vice versa. Jim Ritcher, a great guard, played at around 270 lbs. Jeff Wright at noseguard was around 270 as well. Even Kent Hull was only 284. Those guys would be considered dangerously undersized today. The guys back then that were 310 or over - like Ballard and Glenn Parker - were kind of more like big fat guys rather than the athletes at that size you see today. Fitness science and nutrition has very much changed the players - the size/speed ratio is just drastically different today.

it was a good line, but Kelly took a beating compared to a lot of the other top QBs of the day.

sadly there's a good chance that somebody will probably be out for the season (or would be out long enough to be put on IR) after this week and we won't have to worry about debating who to cut.

there's a point there but I think it has to be pointed out that the coverage was much better on the second pass. The safety read it correctly and pinched in on Watson and Ellison's coverage was better as well. It was an amazing throw and catch. 9 out of 10 times that pass falls incomplete.

Field position (only 10 of their points last week came on long drives) - make them go the length of the field , Don't miss tackles, Don't turn the ball over. Also need to disguise pressure and recognize he roll-out patterns. He does it a lot. Eagles defended it ok, but missed too many tackles.

These kind of comparisons aren't really fair for anyone. Most of the players today are just bigger and better athletes than the ones 15 years ago. Especially on defense and the offensive line. So what do you do? Guess how the players we have now would have been had they had the same training as the guys in the early 90s? I'd say that other than Bruce, Biscuit, Talley and Henry Jones - possibly the whole defense. Offense is tougher to say. Probably not many. But really, the 90s Bills offense is one of the greatest in NFL history. However, would the offense back then have been worse if you subbed in some of the guys we have today - like Levitre, Wood, Evans, TO? Probably not by much.

he blew up that Tampa DB last week on a scramble

from the sound of it he wasn't very impressive in Chicago. Hopefully he got a big wake up call by getting cut. from a Pompei Q&A: "Why do you think Marcus Freeman was cut? --Danny Mack" Marcus Freeman was a dud from the beginning. Bears scouts thought he would be pretty athletic based on his pre-draft testing, but Freeman did not play as athletically as he tested. He has a prototype NFL body, but he doesn't move like a prototype NFL linebacker. What's more, he didn't show a lot of intensity or fire. It wasn't even close with him, and even if the Bears had to put a linebacker on injured reserve, I would doubt if they would bring him back. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...,1879171.column

I was referring to a couple outstanding throws and catches in the Eagles game which might be tough to reproduce week to week - not general offensive production. last week they scored when they had the ball, most of the time, not all of the time. However they usually didn't have to go very far to score. Forcing them to go the length of the field will make a big difference and making tackles that need to be made will make a big difference.

he was a guy I expected that we would draft until we picked up Nic Harris. Bowen seemed to never really recover all that speed from the brutal knee injury. I remember he was lighting it up in training camp last year before he went down.

3 things that will go a long way to limit the Saints scoring - good special teams, good tackling, and avoiding turnovers The vast majority of Saints points against the Eagles came off of short fields caused by turnovers and special teams penalties. Drives turned into touchdown drives by terrible tackling and, admittedly, some truly amazing plays by Brees and his receivers (tough to duplicate week to week). The Eagles strategy wasn't bad on defense, they just really failed to make the tackles they needed to make and the STs and offense put them in very tough spots all game long. A look at the Saints scoring - First Half: Long touchdown drive. Saints move steadily down the field on opening drive of game. (7-0) Special teams - penalty on Eagles punt forces re-punt, which ends up being poor - gives Saints ball around the 50 – drive ends in field goal for Saints. (10-7) Special Teams and Bad Tackling - Special teams penalty by Eagles forces drive start at 1, go three and out, Saints get ball near 50. Big gainer due to poor tackling then a brilliant 25 yard touchdown pass through good coverage. Halftime score is 17-13 Saints Second Half: Special Teams Turnover and Bad Tackling - Eagles fumble opening kickoff, saints recover at Eagles 22. Couple plays get down to the 11. Roll out pass to the fullback, terrible tackling results in touchdown. Should have been a 3 yard gain. Score now 24-13. Turnover - Kolb throws bad interception on 2nd play of drive. Saints ball on Eagles 24 yard line. A few nice plays end in a 8 yard Bell touchdown run. Score now 31-13. Game has gotten out of hand for Eagles quickly. Bad Tackling - Brees bombs it out to Devery Henderson on a 3rd and 11. Ridiculous throw and catch puts the ball at the Eagles 25. Bad tackling on 3rd and 6 keeps drive alive and into goal to go. Eagles stop them, Saints kick field goal (34-13) Special Teams and Bad Tackling - Bad punt gives Saints the ball near the 50. Run the ball effectively ending in a 18 yard Reggie Bush scamper made possible by bad Eagles tackling. (41-20) Turnover - Eagles drive down field, Kolb throws bad interception returned for 98 yard touchdown for Saints. (48-22)

they will cling to their preseason conceptions of teams for as long as they plausibly can.

here's a really good write up on him from CBS sports http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/518588 its long but there is a lot of interesting analysis in there. some highlights - he was considered the smartest play on South Carolina. He's self motivated. He's a good athlete. He's been durable. He has a lot of room for improvement.

ran a sub 5.0 40 at 304 pounds. benched 31 times. Fast and strong. was rated 8th among tackles in the draft by nfldraftscout. Might also be able to play guard. I wouldn't read too much into him being on the Pack's PS as a rookie. Their starter was injured during the game and they probably went with a guy with more experience as the backup. Also most of the sacks they gave up were coverage sacks where Rodgers should've gotten rid of the ball long before taking the sack. Also, we had Bell on our PS last year and he seems to be pretty good.

I figured we'd go with an athlete first and foremost. A guy that has the potential to play either tackle position and get out on running plays. That kind of made me doubt we'd go with a crippled Runyan or the leviathan Walker.

can still go no huddle and burn a lot of time. I don't think I'd change anything other than make sure we run the play clock down a little further. We need to make sure that we get points ourselves and I'm not sure changing our whole approach is a good idea.

any link to that? especially Schouman and McKelvin.

no updates on anybody else's injuries yet. Sounds like they're going to add a tackle, maybe by the end of the day.

I assume the Press conference will address the issue

just got text that Butler is out for year

or is this just routine?

Chris brown says we worked out these 3 guys friday: Joe Klopfenstein Leonard Pope Tony Curtis if Pope is in shape I like him best, then Klopfenstein. Pope looked really fat last year.

in the first drive there was a play where Wood drove Ryan Simms back about five yards before stuffing him into the ground on a 7 yard run. I'm really happy with our interior line so far. As good as its been in a decade.

well, now we REALLY get to see what they're made of