Loss to Denver and Big at 52 to 20-Andy Reid

The Philadelphia Eagles took an obvious pounding yesterday.  Late in the third quarter Troy Aikman said it well.  The Eagles play was so bad that nobody on the field looked as though they wanted to be there.

There were three series in the first half that were critical in this awful game.

1) and 2).  Philadelphia settled  for field goals when behind by 7 to 0 and again by 14 to 3.  The score was 14 to 6 rather than tied.

3) The press was on Chip Kelley for punting late in the first half with fourth down on the Denver 40 and the Eagles behind 14 to 13.  They said that Peyton Manning and Company might get a quick score.  That is of course exactly what happened.  It was still logical for the Eagles to punt.  No good coach, especially in the first half,  makes a decision based on a refusal to challenge his defense.  That is too critical to victory against any team.

Next week at New York better be a victory.  The Philadelphia fans are getting restless, and right so.


Andy Reid at Kansas City is 4-0.  At Philadelphia in 1999, he did not get his fourth win until the 15th game.   It was a 24 to 9 great defensive effort over the New England Patriots.  The Eagles also won their the last game  38 to 31 over the St Louis Rams.  Though it was a great win, the Rams were coasting on their way to a Super Bowl victory, 23 to 16 over the Tennessee Titans.   The Rams had the BYE week and the home advantage locked up before the game.  Andy Reid will improve by a wide margin over his first year at Philadelphia. The final two games of 1999 were at Veterans Stadium.


Schlitz Beer

Schiltz was a nationally known beer and a big seller in Philadelphia.   Headquartered  in Milwaukee, it had at one time eight regional locations across the United States.  Drinkers could get Schlitz at any neighborhood tavern or fancy restaurant.   Labeled smartly, bottles had a brown background and the name written in white on the front.  I liked it because the foam looked good in a glass and was somehow well controlled.  Bartenders or servers had far less chance of the beer spilling over.

That’s why I never understood why owners seldom had the beer on draft.  As an example, the defunct Cedar Cafe at Bridge and Pratt did most if its business  in tap.  Three sets of spigots contained eight different brands of draft.  The cafe sold Schiltz,  Budweiser, and Rolling Rock in bottles.

There were three advertising slogans and a song.

–The Beer that Made Milwaukee Famous simply because it tastes so good;

–Schiltz, Milwaukee, and the World;

–When You’re out of Schlitz, You’re Out of Beer.

The Song:

Let’s get together with a glass of Schlitz, A friendly glass of Schlitz. Brewed with pride and just a kiss of the hops, To put real gusto into every drop. So let’s get together with a glass of Schlitz, A friendly glass of Schlitz. Real gusto in a great, light beer.

Schiltz joined the Light Beer market right after Miller’s and Budweiser.  As an indirect reference to both companies it stated  “…It took Schlitz to bring the taste to Light” Schiltz Brewing Company also sold Old Milwaukee and Old Milwaukee Light.  That working class city has a rich history.  Hence the commercial stated…”It has a Taste as Great as its Name.”

Anheuser Busch, Miller’s, Pabst, Coor’s have eliminated and bought out Schlitz and other beers.

Analysis of Senator Dirksen’s Nominating Speech for Barry Goldwater

Senator Dirksen won the approval of Liberals and Moderates of both parties through his support of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, which President Johnson signed in early July. This was about a week before the Republican National Convention in San Francisco. The Senator was standing right next to LBJ during the signing ceremony. Just about everyone knew the without Dirksen’s support there would have been no law. 

Though basically conservative, Everett Dirksen was not irresponsible.  Once he believed a liberal bill was proper, Dirksen would give it his support.  Some people, generally liberals just found him more difficult to convince.  This  was the case with the 1964 Landmark Civil Right Act        

After getting approval from Liberals,  Dirksen lost it a week later by announcing his support of Senator Barry Goldwater for the Republican Nomination for President.  He also stated he would give the Nominating Speech at the Convention.  Goldwater was one of the 27 Senators who voted against the Civil Right Bill.  Goldwater stated that he believed the sections prohibiting  discrimination on employment and public accommodations were unconstitutional.

Everett Dirksen, with his deep guttural voice, was a wonderful speaker.  Audiences felt as if he was speaking to them individually.

Mr. Chairman, Delegates, Alternates, and my fellow countrymen:

In a few days we shall return home. We shall have had the energizing fellowship of a spirited convention. We shall carry back with us a set of principles we have adopted declaring where we stand. We shall have selected the leaders to command our forces and we shall be prepared to march to victory. Let neither doubt nor defeatism impair our forces or our strength. Beyond the rough terrain of the intervening months before November, there lies the sweet, green valley of victory — and it can be ours.

Dirksen could really turn a phase.  He talked of the work ahead in what he knew would be a losing campaign.  Therefore a rousing speech was very important.  

In that spirit, let me tell you simply and briefly about a man. He is the grandson of a peddler — a peddler who was a proud, honorable and spirited man, who left his ancestral country in Europe at an early age and came to this land over a century ago. He arrived nine years before the Civil War. Almost immediately he set cross country to make a home on the high frontier of the West. There he peddled his wares among mining camps, among lumbering camps, and the people of this western land. When he came, there were but 31 states in the Union. He was a merchant and became a frontier leader. And it is about his grandson that I would speak to you this afternoon — and that grandson’s name is Barry Goldwater.

Dirksen was talking about Goldwater’s heritage invoking both the hope of immigrants from abroad and the pioneer spirit of the American West.

I want to speak of him as the whole man, moving forward toward whatever destiny may provide. There is today a strange cynicism that has fastened upon our thinking. It may be a kind of sadistic sport to hear a statement made and then to hear somebody go back into history and unleash an attack because the statement of the act was not consistent with something that happened 10, 12, or 15 years ago. That doesn’t bother me because my appraisal and your appraisal of an individual must not be fragmented — instead of thinking of the whole man, impelled by conviction to do and to say at a given time what he believes must be said or done.

Senator Goldwater was the first nominee who came from the American West.  Often the establishment,  the Eastern GOP, viewed him with suspicion.  He was also quite outspoken.  Any would be critic could  take one of his statements out of context and make him look warlike or uncaring.   The real Barry Goldwater  was a man of great compassion and social concern.  

It is a common experience that quoting only a part of what a man has said has become truly a favorite indoor sport. By this standard — By this standard no man ever lived, no hero was ever born, who by some utterance, some vote, some opinion can’t lead destiny.

I believe the time has come to think of the whole man in terms of a more tolerant spirit and to consider his actions, his works, his attributes measured against the problems and duties and the responsibilities which loom upon the horizon, both at home and abroad.

Voting for a person based on what action they might take can be a risky business. Once elected, candidates can change their proposals.  What is required to push an agenda can change just with time.  Dirksen here is stating we should judge a person by his philosophy, overall agenda, and his moral integrity.   Changing specifics is fine; changing philosophy  arouses suspicion.         

Consider his moral courage — the courage of this settler’s grandson. When a poll was taken some years ago to select the five greatest Senators no longer serving or living to grace the unfilled ovals in the Senate Reception Room, who do you think was selected: Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, Daniel Webster, Robert Marion La Follette, and Robert Alonzo Taft! Their common attribute was courage in facing the challenges of their day. Each one took to heart what came from the vaults of the heavens when the Lord talked to Joshua and said that he took over that ancient host, “Have I not commanded thee? Be strong and of good courage; neither be thou dismayed, neither be thou afraid.” That was the Lord’s command, that to Joshua be courageous.

This statement is pure hyperbole and Dirksen invokes a faith based proposal which has no place in politics.   Both Senator LaFollette and Senator Taft never used nor believed in using religion to further their political ambition.   Once a reporter asked Taft about his religious beliefs.  Taft, with his characteristic bluntness, told the reporter that this was not a proper question.       

Already in 12 short years in the Senate of the United States, Barry Goldwater has repeatedly cast votes that won him no applause, that did nothing for his political advancement, but it did show the blazing courage of the man — in refusing to take the easy course.

Barry Goldwater often took stands that were not in agreement with pubic opinion or even his fellow Republicans.   He called President Eisenhower’s 1957 Budget a Dime Store New Deal.  In September of 1963, only 19 Senators to opposed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and Barry Goldwater was one of them. Eleven months later, right before the Republican Convention, only 27 Senators opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Bills.  Goldwater voted against the  Nuclear  Test Ban Treat based on logistical requirements of our National Defense.  He voted against the Civil Rights Bill feeling portions of it were unconstitutional.  He did not use McCarthyite tactics and charge the Bills’ supporters with Left Wing Sympathies.  Regardless of  any honest disagreement, this was still a courageous vote.

In the days and years ahead, as we assess the fevers abroad and we appraise the problems at home, it will take courage of a high order to make the decisions and to withstand the beckoning of the multitude to go down an unsound path. The peddler’s grandson has the courage and it is a part of the whole man.

In other words, Presidents or Member of Congress should proceed according to their own judgement and not merely follow the polls.  Our leaders should always explain driving forces of each  decision.  There is a curious two way interplay between the two and the key element is trust.  This has always been a problem.  Elected officials should be sensitive to public opinion and respect the voters need to know the how and why of each action.  The public should demand of leaders the reasons for hard decisions.  Our elected officials cannot always reflect the will of the people.    

Secondly, he has a conscience. How commonly we think of conscience as a still, small accusing voice when one is set suddenly upon a certain act or a course of conduct. But it is something more than that. It’s always there to monitor the morals and the conduct and the action of any man. It is like a fixed star in the firmament to light the way. What is deemed snap judgment is more often than not a judgment arrested by the acute conscience which operates faster than reason. And whether it be in the domain of peace or rearmament or the scrapping of weapons or internal security or domestic affairs, the peddler’s grandson has a conscience to chart his course — and when he committed the fruit of his conscience to paper four years ago, in that volume The Conscience of a Conservative, over two and a half million copies were printed and sold as a great, incredible testament to the interests of the American people.

Conscience should stem from reason not impede it.  A person can do what he or she believes to be the right stance.  Without adequate knowledge and research,  a decision stemming only from conscience can be very dangerous.  It connotates impulsive behavior and a self righteous attitude. Conscience is a very  personal  and not a one size fits all idea.   A person must be flexible enough and try to accomplish what is possible.

Courage and conscience are a part of the whole man. Now whether in commerce or industry, in finance or in public service, there is such a thing as competence. What is it but the right touch, the right vision, in the right way, at the right time. What man could be a jet pilot without it? But Barry Goldwater — and listen — Barry Goldwater has demonstrated it over and over again in every activity.

Senator Goldwater did operate a supply airplane in WWII.  Senator Dirksen may have used the words conscience rather than principles  because the opposition  was painting Senator Goldwater as a cold uncaring man.   Dirksen did not make much sense in this part of the speech.

As chief of state, of staff for the Arizona National Guard, he desegregated that Guard after World War II, long before civil rights became a burning issue in this country. He brought integration to his own business enterprises. For his own employees he provided a five day week and life insurance and all those benefits that go with it. All this was done without fanfare or the blathering of trumpets. And in an age, my friends, of self-congratulated do-gooders, he was a good doer!

This was a point that Republicans should have made known to the public.  Senator Goldwater in his personal life and in his business actually implemented many programs that Liberals had proposed for years.  The key  is that Barry Goldwater did this without the coercion of the federal government.  He had genuine empathy for people and their problems.  If people  had more of Senator Goldwater’s compassion, social concern, honesty,  the United States would be a far better country to live.  Sadly. most of don’t bother to understand each other.

Yes, the grandson of that man who came here a 112 years ago from his ancestral home has demonstrated his courage, his conscience, and his competence. But he’s demonstrated more. In an age when gratitude is scant for services rendered, we overlook so often the matter of contribution to the well-being of the party. Yet the whole man can be judged only when you consider his fidelity to his party and his willingness to go forth and help to make it a vital political instrument.

No man traveled and made more speeches in banquets and meetings of civic groups than Barry Goldwater.   He became of the Republican Senatorial Campaign King Pin.  Goldwater worked to elect all Republicans, even those with Liberal leanings such as Jacob Javits, George Aiken, and John Sherman Cooper.  Now Senator Dirksen was asking for their support.  Most of the Eastern Liberals did not support Barry Goldwater for President.   Maintaining a neutral  stance, they did not support  President  Johnson either.  

From the moment he came to the Senate 12 years ago until this good hour, I can name no man — and I make no exception — I can name no man in the Republican Party in this country who day after day and year after year has applied his talents, his zeal to the Republican cause as the grandson of that peddler.

As stated, Senator Goldwater had differences with President Eisenhower.  Ike was simply too far to the left to satisfy conservatives. As stated, he did work hard to elect all Repubilcan Candidates.   This enabled him and his Conservative brothers to have a majority base in the Senate.

No weather was too foul, no journey too long, no sacrifice too great to take him forward on a mission for his party and its candidates. He has raised money and made speeches and has rallied organization support. And I ask you: Who will forget his great speech in a dark hour for his supporters in the 1960 Republican Convention when they were trying to force the nomination on him? And he stood before that convention and spoke to his reporters and asked them to support the Republican Party and its candidates and to stand united. And in the next 90 days, he made 126 speeches in 26 states for the NixonLodge ticket. I haven’t forgotten it and neither have you.

Senator Goldwater withdrew his nomination before the Republican Convention Chicago in 1960 in a very gracious and dignified manner.   He worked very to generate support for the Nixon-Lodge even tough it was disappointing to him.   The Democratic Program, to him, was of course much worse.   Right here, Senator Dirksen was asking Republican for the same support that Barry Goldwater gave them four years earlier.

Courage, conscience, competence, contribution — those are a part of the whole man.

No argument here. Even fair minded people who disagreed with Senator Goldwater attest to it.

In my office in Washington, is a set of silver spurs that I received for my devotion to the party. I doubt whether I deserve the generous inscription on that plaque. But I know it’s for him. He deserves a set of golden spurs for his immeasurable effort — the energy, and sacrifice. Contribution is part of the whole man.

Once again, Senator Dirksen evokes the pioneer spirit.

Now all of us were raised to love our country, to take pride in its glorious history, and to defend it with our lives if necessary. We call it “patriotism” — a word once revered by everybody. Today it’s the fashion to sneer at that word and to label positions of strength as extremism, to find other nations’ points of views better than our own. Perhaps too long the bugles of retreat have sounded! And I put my chips on a man who has that fidelity to his country.

Everett Dirksen is speaking with a sense of romance.  But consider this.    Those opposing  Barry Goldwater are just as patriotic and sincere as he is.

Consider our diplomatic representative in Zanzibar. He’s at the point of a bayonet, marched to the dock, and said get out. In Ghana, where we’re spending over 250 million dollars, they hauled down our flag from the embassy flagpole and desecrated it. A nation like Panama, that could not exist today were it not for the United States and a great Republican Teddy Roosevelt, can fuss and scold at us with impunity. And then along with it, there is that bearded Communist in Cuba who reviles and scolds and castigates the world’s greatest country — and confiscates our property. There is such a thing as the Scripture says about going the first mile — you get no credit for it. That’s the compelled mile. There is such a thing as going the second mile, but there’s also such a thing as a nation’s honor and a nation’s prestige!

The United States has to defend it interests and cannot be concerned with the opinions of other nations.   Our interests should be world peace and the promotions of democracy on other countries.  The does not mean using force to impose our way of government or protect American investments in other countries.

Twenty centuries ago when the captain of the Roman Guard had the Apostle Paul in thongs1 and was ready to discourage him — that great apostate sales manager said, “I am a Roman citizen!” — and they took off the thongs. It meant something. But we’ve come a long ways, since that time.

Not much sense in the above paragraph.

What oh what has become of that vital thrill, that pride of being an American? We heard so much about American prestige in the 1960 campaign. It was a phony issue — believe me. But that was four years ago. The time is here for America to retrieve her selfishness. I cling back to the firmness of the grandson of that peddler, Barry Goldwater! But it will be a…

The “pride of America” and “retrieve her selfishness” had very bad implications.  On the home front, it suggests a lack of  concern for anybody but the wealthy  and a militant foreign policy.  Many of those on the Far Right will agree.   

[Demonstration on convention floor.]

Please. Music. [Gavel pounding.]

(Commentator: Defying all tradition in these matters, Senator Dirksen has mentioned the name prematurely and set off the invest — the demonstration early. Now he’s trying to get it back so he can finish.)

Let me finish. Let me finish this nominating speech and the Chairman is anxious that I complete it and I want to comply. So will you be quiet please?

Here is using forceful language which is appropriate and effective.

I add to all these things — to courage and confidence and contribution and all the rest — the devotion to the Constitution of the United States. That document not only created a balanced government in this country — it did more than that — it was a charter of freedom as well.

Barry Goldwater’s father could come here 112 years ago and share in the benefits and the protection of that great document, which lends itself to the high and low, to the mighty, to the rich, to the poor, and to the humble. It’s been the central core of Republican gospel. One hundred years ago our party met in Maryland in Baltimore .They nominated Lincoln for the second time. What did they put in that platform? Let me read one sentence, the first pledge, “Resolved, That it is the highest duty of every American citizen to maintain against all their enemies the integrity of the union and the permanent authority of the Constitution of the United States.”

Very important here.  The integrity of the union includes but is not limited to military force against other nations or police power to maintain order and apprehend those who violate the law.   Our enemies are also poor social conditions within the United States.  Inadequate housing, education, medical care and other related social issues pose a threat to the security of this country.  As such, the government has a role in the promotion and funding of them.   Military strength is a vital but not the only part of national security.

Do you kn — let me finish. You can’t sit in the Senate of the United States or the House of Representatives without holding up your hand and affirming or taking an oath that you’ll uphold and defend the Constitution and the laws of the country. But what is it — words on parchment? Yes, until human brain and human application gives it meaning and form. Just as is being done by people in judicial robes everywhere in this land almost every day.

Pictures, speeches,  writing about patriotism are important to give a tangible symbol of the what we believe. Yet unless we back these up with the appropriate action, they mean almost nothing.

Is it not then proper for a United States Senator like Barry Goldwater, who has sworn to uphold and defend and to bear true faith to the Constitution, to share a view of his own on the controversial issues — the most controversial — that we’ve had for a long, long time. So it was with him — this grandson of an immigrant peddler. He took his stand on the constitutionality of two titles in the most controversial bill with which I never had anything to do. And in so doing, he exhibited a moral courage not excelled anywhere in any part of the body of which I have any knowledge.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act would not have passed without the support of Senator Dirksen.  He firmly believed that the bill was morally right, politically correct, and a proper action in accordance with the Constitution.   Senator Goldwater felt that the sections prohibiting discrimination in employment and public accommodations were unconstitutional.  BG was one of the 27 Senators to vote against the bill and one of the few Senators outside the Border and Deep South to do so.  Dirksen was asking people to respect Goldwater’s courage despite this deep disagreement.

And along with it, he’s been a soldier and took the oath to his country. He has been a Senator and with equal fidelity, Barry Goldwater would discharge his presidential oath to enforce and execute — execute all the laws of the land and uphold the Constitution and that’s a part of the whole man.

Now let me conclude with one thought. We come then to the last consideration — as we contemplate his courage, his conscience, his competence, his contribution to party service, the pride in his country, his constitutional devotion — and that consideration is the opportunity for an ideological choice for the Republican party and for the country.

Nobody would question the above fine qualities of Senator Goldwater.   The “ideological choice” raises some questions.  Any President must be compromising to accommodate the views of both Houses of Congress.

For twenty years — and you know it as well as I do — the conservative position has hovered — or they have hovered over us, the controversy over the conservative position, like a menacing specter. Simply expressed, it is men that like Bismarck, whose federated Germany withered away, like Britain’s almost nonexistent Liberal Party. We’ve give an inch here, a foot there, a mile there and finally embrace a socialist philosophy that has enervated and debilitated three quarters of the whole globe.

Senator Dirksen is raising the question Senator Robert A. Taft talked about when using the term “creeping socialism.”  A conservative President, Dirksen, either would halt this trend or raise a flag each time the country was going to far to left.   Barry Goldwater would raise a sort of socialist alert.

Gradually — Gradually, the weakening effect and the divisive effect has become noticeable. Those strongly wedded to Republican philosophy have so often sat on their hands on election day or taken a walk. Others, perceiving no difference between our party and the other party, have taken the ADA version straight. Still others with high and fervent hopes have felt the — the gentle hands of time might bring about unity of purpose and action — and that with banners unfurled and trumpets sounding a common note, we could inscribe the great shining “V” of victory upon our Republican shield once more.

Conservatives had for almost 30 years claimed there was no significant differences between the two political parties.  Republicans had merely adopted a watered down version of Liberal programs.   As a result, voters either stayed home or thought why not go full force to the Democratic Party.

But even as the Apostle Paul wrote centuries ago: “For if the trumpet sounds an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” The time has come for a certain sound. The time has come and the chance has come to make a choice. Ask yourselves why is it that this man who certainly has sounded the call to conservatism should be subjected to the abuse which has been heaped upon him. Is it because he favors a clear — a choice that the Democrat Party as now constituted doesn’t dare face? Is it because there is a fear that the American people in their traditional sense of fair play are beginning to grasp the truth that this man utters? Delegates to this convention: Believe me — the tide is turning. And let’s give that philosophy of the peddler’s grandson the chance.

Dirksen defended Goldwater against the foolish charges that Democrats and even some Republicans were hurling.  Senator Barry Goldwater was just giving Americans a real choice, which was something novel.  Anything new automatically raises doubts.  But to Senator Dirksen and Senator Goldwater the proposals were merely a return to the Constitutional Principles. 

So with the platform as our chart in conquer, with a militant son of an immigrant peddler as our leader, let’s give a hundred and ninety million Americans the choice they’ve been waiting for. Let’s place before the people, the cause of a party which was born to preserve the union, and to give sane constitutional government, and to keep government from becoming the master instead of the servant of the people. Let’s rededicate ourselves and our nation.

And I’m honored indeed and I’m proud to nominate my colleague from Arizona to be the Republican nominee for President of the United States

2012-Not the Reson for Andy Reid’s Firing

Since the Super Bowl in 2004, the Philadelphia Eagles played 142 games, 135 for the Regular season and seven from the Playoffs.  Had the Eagles won all or even some of  six of the 142,  Andy Reid would have had a more winning tradition.  With more trophies on the wall,  Reid could have pointed to past success, asked for patience, and tried to rebuild once again.  Of course what might have been is always a wild pitch.  Nevertheless, it has been bugging historians and writers for centuries.  Here are the games. Let’s think about them and I will go into more detail later.

Game 1-The 2008 NFC Championship Game Loss at Arizona 33 to 25;

Game 2-The 2009 Loss at Oakland 13 to 9;

Game 3-The 2009 Loss at Philadelphia to Dallas 20 to 16;

Game 4-The 2010 Loss at Philadelphia to Washington 17 to 12;

Game 5-The 2010 Playoff at Philadelphia to Green Bay 21 to 16;

Game 6-The Eagles were 8-8.  Of the eight losses six were close.  One more win might have made them what the 9-7 New York Giants were in 2012.

Chiefs 26 Eagles 16

A very tough loss last Thursday to the Kansas City Chiefs.  Here were the key points.

–Former Eagle Quinten Demps returned the opening kickoff 57 yards giving the Chiefs great field position.  The Eagles held KC with a three and out forcing a punt.  This was very impressive.  But

–DeMaris Johnson fumbled the punt return at the five and the Chiefs were in the Red Zone.  Once again, our defense held on three downs and the Chiefs got an easy field goal.  Though the Eagles trailed 3 to 0,  there were reasons to be hopeful.   Philadelphia now had both the football and some momentum.  However,

–On second down, Eric Berry intercepted a pass and returned it for a touchdown.  Chiefs 10 Eagles 0.  Nevertheless,

–the running of Micheal Vick and LeSean McCoy kept the Eagles in the game.  Vick had a 60 yard run.  McCoy made his second long run of the game, 40 yards for touchdown.  Philadelphia now was behind 23 to 16.  After holding the Chiefs to a three and out, the Eagles again got the ball.  Quickly, they moved downfield but the drive short circuited at the Chiefs 31.  Alex Henry now attempted a field goal.  Coupled with a touchdown later on,  this kick would win the the game.  Yet,

–Alex Henry misfired and a future touchdown would only the time the game.  The score held at 23 to 16.  Later on, a good Eagle punt put the Chiefs at their own ten yard line. The Eagles got a sack and the Chiefs had a third and 15 at their own five with 11 minutes remaining in the game.   Alex Smith dropped back and completed a pass for a first down at 22.  Kansas City moved downfield, burned eight minutes off the clock, and kicked a field goal. 

Rapid Huddle Offense

Many people are talking about how good the offense has been in these first two games.   As stated in the previous article, I do not buy that entirely. The Philadelphia Eagles have scored despite the Red Zone failures last week.  There are two critical shortcomings to this hurry huddle offense.

All of us know that clock management is important to the game.  Teams talk of moving the football and “getting the defense off the field.”  Playing defense takes 25% more energy than offense.  Let’s be more specific.  Things change in the last five minutes of both the second and fourth quarter.  For the remaining 50 minutes here it is.  When your team is ahead or tied try to burn as much time off the clock as possible.   Chip Kelly’s offense does not do this.  In last Sunday’s game the Chargers time of possession was 41 minutes.  That’s way too much time for the defense to be playing.

In this situation, there are number of per-determined calls.  Players drill them into heads and memory bank continually.  The game itself has  continuous pressure that never lets up until the final gun.   Every player has bumps, bruises, muscle stretches, and plays in pain.  Head injuries are of course the biggest  problem.  Coupling physical pain with emotional pressure makes forgetfulness at times inevitable..

These points have to be considered with Chip Kelley’s offense.

Losing to Chargers 33 to 30

This past week I was urging fans not to become overly satisfied by the 33 to 27 victory over the Washington Redskins.  After all, the DC team came back with three touchdowns in a situation that made them vulnerable to interceptions.   The Eagles defense virtually ignored the ground game as time wore on with that 33 to 7 lead.  Even so, the Redskins scored three quick touchdowns.

Unfortunately, my fears were justified. The defense yesterday was as bad as I have ever seen; and my memory is churning back more than 40 years.  Stops were the exception; there was no pass rush except for two or three plays.  The defensive linemen not showing up put pressure on the backfield.   Those guys also were just plain flimsy even considering the pass rush, or its absence.

The media and players will tell us how good the offense was; and that’s not true either.  At least twice on first and goal inside the San Diego ten, the Eagles settled for field goals.  There were two misfired passes, one dropped and one overthrown, that cost at least 30 yards each.  Alex Henry missed a 30 yard field goal.   Penalties negated big gains.  No offense can make mistakes on this scale and comprise their half of a winning team.  Coupling this offense with the defensive performance yesterday and wins will really be a novelty.

I could be more precise with this analysis but it hurts too much to look at the rewind.  More later.