week? They ran the ball and got the lead and then got WRs open and were able to run the ball more. Why can't they just do this every week. They ran the ball late last year even when it didn't work and still went on a hot streak. Just run the F-ING BALL!

BTW, I'm still cautiously optimistic. The Eagles caught the Giants on a horrible day. They'll probably regroup and start playing well again. They have too many good players to keep this up. And there are still at least a handful of teams that are better than the Eagles right now. But they always improve in the second half. We'll see.

Coulda shoulda woulda...

We beat the Raiders, who knows what happens in Washington or this week. We only know what we have at the moment, at I like what I see right now.

Here's another number that doesn't lie dude. They ran the ball somewhere around the league average last year starting at Thanksgiving. They won every game until they stopped running the ball against a crappy Skins team and they lost. Then they started running the ball again and won their next 3. They also got the lead today by running the ball with a guy that had 4 carries on the season up to that point. We are coming up on SB 44 or 45. How many of those teams that won had a rinky dink once in a while running game like the Eagles usually do in September and October?

You're giving me the impression that you think we are all of inferior knowledge of the sport by saying "why don't you obsessed people get it?" I think that is a little bit silly IMO. I played football for 10 years and coached a few years too. I consider myself reasonably knowledgeable of the sport. But I don't think I'm smarter than you or anyone else on the forum. We're just exchanging opinions here. Executing helps. But it's not unreasonable to think that a balanced attack can lead to success. I don't have a problem with coming out passing and trying to get a lead. But if you do it every week, the other team will be ready for it. Look what happened when they mixed in a few runs early today.

Why wouldn't you run the ball against the Raiders and give guys like Seymour a chance to win the game? They are good against the pass and bad against the run. Why would you take that approach? AR has admitted that he should run the ball more on multiple occasions. He just chooses not to while calling the game. Sorry for the rant. Just making my point. No hostility intended.

The problem is you're looking at the run stats at the end of the game. You're not looking at the running stats until they have what they consider to be a comfortable lead, which is when they then go to the run game. You also have to look at individual matchups, what they see on film, what the other team gives them, etc... It's not as simple as, "They ran today so they won."

This town is abnormally obsessed with running. It's like when you go to a Flyers game and they're abnormally obsessed with shooting. "Shoot it!!!!" they yell every time a Flyer gets the puck. I think Mike Richards, Claude Giroux, etc... know better than the average fan whether a pass or a shot is better in a given situation, just like the winningest coach in franchise history understands better than the average fan and writer whether a run or pass is better in a given situation.

I think my last rant should have explained that I understand that running the ball doesn't automatically make you win the game. But if passing almost every down isn't working, you need to try something else. If you have a balanced attack, it is obviously harder for the defense to predict what you'll do next and react to it. The defensive line can't go balls out after the QB every play. The safeties can't just sit back in coverage all day. Play action is also more effective. I understand the concept of individual match ups. I understand that running the ball can protect a lead. If someone like the Raiders sucks against the run, you should try to run the ball. I don't feel I'm run happy or unreasonable. I like AR, for a lot of reasons but he needs to run the ball more often.

If you have Peyton Manning or Brady and Moss or Brees or whatever, you can rationalize passing the ball a lot. Why do those teams still run the ball more than us over the years? McNabb has some good qualities but it is clear he is a streaky passer especially on short passes. When he's having a bad day and not getting good protection, you need to run the ball more IMO.

Honestly, if you really watched that game, you have to be cautiously optimistic over the way we played.

The Giants looked like Detroit. Our return game was on. Our receivers were wide open. There was no pressure on the QB. Eli was horrible.

Great great win. We did what we were supposed to do. But...

It was too easy. You have to question if it was us being great or the Giants being terrible.

(Probably a little of both)