I'm no NFL coach but....

[BurnThePhilFans]

There is NO POSSIBLE EXCUSE for not using Hixon on kick returns throughout the postseason. We face a 1 game elimination from here on out and this guy is a beast in the return game. Time to give him some double duty... Don't be a fool Tom!

[feefifoefum]

There is NO POSSIBLE EXCUSE for not using Hixon on kick returns throughout the postseason. We face a 1 game elimination from here on out and this guy is a beast in the return game. Time to give him some double duty... Don't be a fool Tom!

 

I agree 100%.

 

 

[Lubeck]

Moss has shown nothing on the returns so if they stick with him, which I think they will, it will be a problem.

 

Giving Hixon return duties is an injury risk of course, but he has shown a consistent ability to give big returns. And if he has big returns he personally will be more pumped for lack of better word.

[BurnThePhilFans]

With Hixon we would start at around the 40 I bet... We haven't come close to that with anybody else

[rphguy]

who called you a coach but?

[fishgutmartyr]

I can give you an excuse in two words: Jason Sehorn.

 

You want your starting WR injured on a kickoff? I don't.

[Nesta]

I can give you an excuse in two words: Jason Sehorn.

 

You want your starting WR injured on a kickoff? I don't.

 

Plenty of players get hurt playing wr as well. You play to win. That means putting your best returner in on ko's.

[WolfA4]

Plenty of players get hurt playing wr as well. You play to win. That means putting your best returner in on ko's.

Yeah but they get hurt doing their job instead of collarteral duty whichcould be avoided.

[Nesta]

Yeah but they get hurt doing their job instead of collarteral duty whichcould be avoided.

 

I think ko's are more important than 'collateral' duty. Hixon is a threat to take it to the house. In both games we lost to Dal/Phi that field position or 7 points could've made a big difference in the outcome. In the playoffs, it could mean everything. They say 'leave it all on the field', and that should include specials, so it makes no sense to reserve our best kick returner for fear of an injury.

[Ditto]

Moss will get the hang of it.

[TrashTalker92]

what about the other side of the special team??? i swear to my goldfish, our kicker can't kick anything near the endzone if his life was depended on it...

 

every freaking kickoff the other team return to the 30 - 40 .. it's disgusting

[xxi-xxv]

Moss did not do kickoffs last week, Bradshaw did and he did a decent job, Assuming all three running backs are healthy I am fime with my 3rd rb being the KR as opposed to my starting WR. Now in regards to punts, well IMO thats where we are really missing Hixon. He started to really come on in that capacity and the Giants miss that.

 

Moss will be a non factor as usual.

[fishgutmartyr]

Plenty of players get hurt playing wr as well. You play to win. That means putting your best returner in on ko's.

 

All right, what do we do at wide receiver if Hixon aggravates his ankle on a KO? Put in Manningham?

 

I think ko's are more important than 'collateral' duty. Hixon is a threat to take it to the house. In both games we lost to Dal/Phi that field position or 7 points could've made a big difference in the outcome. In the playoffs, it could mean everything. They say 'leave it all on the field', and that should include specials, so it makes no sense to reserve our best kick returner for fear of an injury.

 

I made this field position argument a few weeks ago regarding the defense in the Eagles game, and you insisted that the defense did its job. NOW it's important? Have you no shame, man? :lol:

[Nesta]

All right, what do we do at wide receiver if Hixon aggravates his ankle on a KO? Put in Manningham?

 

 

 

I made this field position argument a few weeks ago regarding the defense in the Eagles game, and you insisted that the defense did its job. NOW it's important? Have you no shame, man? :lol:

 

What do we do if Hixon aggravates his ankle on a pass route?

I'm just saying it's do or die time. Caution isn't going to win in the playoffs.

 

lol yeah and if you remember I said field position is very important. I only made the case that specials and the offense also played a part in the field position.

That reminds me, did the defense do its job when they held Carolina to a fg try at the end of regulation?

[fishgutmartyr]

What do we do if Hixon aggravates his ankle on a pass route?

I'm just saying it's do or die time. Caution isn't going to win in the playoffs.

 

lol yeah and if you remember I said field position is very important. I only made the case that specials and the offense also played a part in the field position.

That reminds me, did the defense do its job when they held Carolina to a fg try at the end of regulation?

It is do or die time, but let's not get reckless. I don't know why we have McQuarters receiving punts, but we do have guys like Manningham and Ware, or Bradshaw for that matter, that could do the job. I just don't want to go balls out in the division game only to be without a #1 in the championship.

 

They did do their job at the end of regulation. They held enough to make that last attempt very difficult, and burned up the clock so they didn't have time to get further down the field. They did a great job that whole game.

[Nesta]

It is do or die time, but let's not get reckless. I don't know why we have McQuarters receiving punts, but we do have guys like Manningham and Ware, or Bradshaw for that matter, that could do the job. I just don't want to go balls out in the division game only to be without a #1 in the championship.

 

They did do their job at the end of regulation. They held enough to make that last attempt very difficult, and burned up the clock so they didn't have time to get further down the field. They did a great job that whole game.

 

Remember, in the Eagles game our worst field position was not due to the defense, but to the poor ko returns.

I don't like McQuarters returning punts, you want to talk reckless, I get scared everytime he's back there.

 

How is it you think they did their job in that game, but not the eagles game? And the drive in the Eagles game was the first of the 3rd quarter, also netting zero pts. Like I said in the other thread, if we had won, everyone would've talked about how that stop was huge. I just believe if a defense gets off the field without giving up pts, they did their job on that drive. Unless ofcourse it's the end of the game, and they need to prevent a first down.

[fishgutmartyr]

Remember, in the Eagles game our worst field position was not due to the defense, but to the poor ko returns.

I don't like McQuarters returning punts, you want to talk reckless, I get scared everytime he's back there.

 

No argument there, we kept him a year longer than we should have.

 

How is it you think they did their job in that game, but not the eagles game? And the drive in the Eagles game was the first of the 3rd quarter, also netting zero pts. Like I said in the other thread, if we had won, everyone would've talked about how that stop was huge. I just believe if a defense gets off the field without giving up pts, they did their job on that drive. Unless ofcourse it's the end of the game, and they need to prevent a first down.

Nesta, you're a freaking pitbull :lol:

 

We're talking about two completely different situations. We needed the time in the third quarter, not just the stop in the Eagles game. The offense would have had the advantage in the third quarter, and it was essential (as proved by the final score) that the ball got in their hands as much as possible. The amount of time taken off the clock killed us much more than the three points (or even 7, if they scored) could. I would have rather they had given up a big play for a touchdown than what they actually did. At least would have had more time to score with the wind to our backs.

 

The Carolina game we needed the stop, since we weren't going to get the ball back with any time on the clock. If they had scored, we would have been screwed.

[Nesta]

Nesta, you're a freaking pitbull :lol:

 

We're talking about two completely different situations. We needed the time in the third quarter, not just the stop in the Eagles game. The offense would have had the advantage in the third quarter, and it was essential (as proved by the final score) that the ball got in their hands as much as possible. The amount of time taken off the clock killed us much more than the three points (or even 7, if they scored) could. I would have rather they had given up a big play for a touchdown than what they actually did. At least would have had more time to score with the wind to our backs.

 

The Carolina game we needed the stop, since we weren't going to get the ball back with any time on the clock. If they had scored, we would have been screwed.

 

lol you brought it up fish.

 

I don't see any difference other than the Eagles game we still had plenty of time left to score. Wind or no wind.

Except of course we won the Carolina game.

[Treehugger]

Moss will get the hang of it.

He has to get the hang of gravity first. Like I said to Chuck at the Minny game; "He runs like he has an inner ear infection".

[fishgutmartyr]

lol you brought it up fish.

 

I don't see any difference other than the Eagles game we still had plenty of time left to score. Wind or no wind.

Except of course we won the Carolina game.

 

Go back to superbowl XXV and tell me how the Bills defense did their job: after all, we only scored 20 points on them. If you tell me that the Giants offense won that game by keeping the Bills offense off the field, then you know how I feel about what the Eagles offense did to us that game.

[Nesta]

Go back to superbowl XXV and tell me how the Bills defense did their job: after all, we only scored 20 points on them. If you tell me that the Giants offense won that game by keeping the Bills offense off the field, then you know how I feel about what the Eagles offense did to us that game.

 

Are you serious? lol

I talk about the same team in a different game in the same season mind you, and it's "two completely different situations", but you go back to 1990 to a different team almost two decades ago to make your point.

 

You and I were discussing one drive fish. One that netted zero points. You already know this.

You already know how I feel about the defenses performance for the whole game.

 

 

[fishgutmartyr]

Are you serious? lol

I talk about the same team in a different game in the same season mind you, and it's "two completely different situations", but you go back to 1990 to a different team almost two decades ago to make your point.

 

You and I were discussing one drive fish. One that netted zero points. You already know this.

You already know how I feel about the defenses performance for the whole game.

 

I brought it up because it is the exact same circumstance as what occurred in the 3rd quarter of the Eagles game. The only difference was that we did what the Eagles managed in the 3rd quarter over the course of an entire game.

 

The Eagles offense played defense BY KEEPING OUR OFFENSE OFF OF THE FIELD. Our defense failed for precisely the same reason the Bills defense failed--they allowed the Eagles to keep the ball, rather than shutting them down earlier in the drive on one of the 3rd down situations they created.

 

Your comment about me pulling up a 20-year old game is a strawman argument--that is a classic example of the situation I'm talking about, and you are quite aware of it. You're trying to muddle things by claiming that the team and year has anything to do with the strategy. You may as well argue that Generals shouldn't study Cannae, because Carthage doesn't exist anymore.

 

If you can't see the difference in defensive goals between not allowing an extremely long drive that takes up most of a period when we have field conditions in our favor and we needed to score more than once; and a situation where we were tied and would not get the ball back with any time on the clock no matter how many points were scored--I don't know what to tell you.

 

I never said that the defense screwed up the whole game; just that they really screwed the pooch in that third quarter.

[Nesta]

I brought it up because it is the exact same circumstance as what occurred in the 3rd quarter of the Eagles game. The only difference was that we did what the Eagles managed in the 3rd quarter over the course of an entire game.

 

The Eagles offense played defense BY KEEPING OUR OFFENSE OFF OF THE FIELD. Our defense failed for precisely the same reason the Bills defense failed--they allowed the Eagles to keep the ball, rather than shutting them down earlier in the drive on one of the 3rd down situations they created.

 

Your comment about me pulling up a 20-year old game is a strawman argument--that is a classic example of the situation I'm talking about, and you are quite aware of it. You're trying to muddle things by claiming that the team and year has anything to do with the strategy. You may as well argue that Generals shouldn't study Cannae, because Carthage doesn't exist anymore.

 

If you can't see the difference in defensive goals between not allowing an extremely long drive that takes up most of a period when we have field conditions in our favor and we needed to score more than once; and a situation where we were tied and would not get the ball back with any time on the clock no matter how many points were scored--I don't know what to tell you.

 

I never said that the defense screwed up the whole game; just that they really screwed the pooch in that third quarter.

 

Jesus Christ fish. If you don't see how that's not relative I'm just wasting time discussing it with you. You're comparing what a defense did over an entire game to what one did in a single drive.

 

I'm not trying to muddle a damn thing. If you're confused about what we were talking about, go freshen up with the other post. That one drive did not make it a bad defensive effort fish, the two touchdowns did. That one drive did nothing but eat clock. We had half that quarter, and all of the 4th. Not to mention the wasted first and second.

 

I'm pretty sure you know I made a valid point and you're just being stubborn about the whole damn thing.

Tell me honestly once and for all, if we had won the damn game, would you say the defense 'did their job' on that drive?

Ofcourse you would, and I don't need you to tell me that.

[fishgutmartyr]

All right, let's break it down into that first drive of the second half for both those games.

 

Opening drive of the second half:

 

Giants in Superbowl XXV, down by 2 points. Chewed up the clock for 9:29 before scoring a touchdown. Third down conversions on the drive was 3 for 3.

 

Eagles on 12/7, ahead by 3 points (this is important, because it shows that scoring would have been a plus, but not essential). Chewed clock to the tune of 7:03 with no score. Third down conversions were 3 for 4. They were 75% in 3rd down conversions in that drive, 66% over the whole game. Blocked field goal, special teams salvage something. But all the momentum from the Dockery TD in the first half is gone.

 

Almost half the quarter gone before the offense even touches the ball; a quarter where they needed to score as much as possible while the weather conditions were in their favor. In the flow of this particular game, our 4th quarter was in reality the third insofar as we needed to make our move then. That sets up a sense of urgency in the offense before they even play a down.

 

Don't all excited about the SB touchdown, Nesta. The Bills scored on the next posession and retook the lead. If you were to ask Marv Levy what was more costly about the drive, he would no doubt tell you that it was the amount of time taken off of the clock. If that drive had gone differently (and I mean nothing more than the Giants score a TD sooner), the Bills would have gotten a little more time at the end of the game, and Norwood would have probably had a much easier kick.

 

The Eagles never lost the lead, so it wasn't as critical to score on that possession. As it turned out, they scored on their next six minute drive, so no harm, no foul.

 

The goals of the two offenses were the same: keep the opponent's offense off of the field, although the Giants had the added burden of needing a score. Philly needed to make sure they controlled the clock in the 3rd quarter, since the 4th played to their advantage; while the Giants in SB XXV had to sustain it over most of the game because of the nature of their opponent. That is the only real difference in strategy between the two games.

 

But the fact remains that both offenses were successful in achieving their goals in those first drives, which means the defenses FAILED in achieving theirs: which at that point in both those games was to get the ball in their offense's hands quickly and often.

 

As far as plenty of time, over 21 minutes of possession in the second half by the Eagles says you're mistaken.

 

And the fact is we didn't win the game, the defense couldn't get off of the field for the entire second half, and that first drive set the tone of that half whether they scored or not. If we did manage to pull a win out of that fiasco, it would have meant the offense scored 2 out of the 3 possessions they had in the second half--all it would have meant was that the offense bailed-out the defense in this particular game.

 

I can't even begin to understand how you would consider that drive a defensive success. Certainly not at the point in the game it occurred.

[TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt]

He has to get the hang of gravity first. Like I said to Chuck at the Minny game; "He runs like he has an inner ear infection".

LOLOL....vestibular system to brain....vestibular system to brain....that is a hold on that run...repeat hold on that run....a no GO, all boards are yellow and red, no greens....a Hold on the run and no-Go...T-minus 16 games and forever...Mark. I think the guy is a pure college player with no real hope of being other than a mediocrity in the NFL.