As expected, both the Philly and Green Bay media are focused on last year's playoff game and the infamous "4th and 26" play. It's funny, though... The play that people DON'T remember is Sherman's decision to go four it on 4th and Goal right before halftime when Ahman Green stepped on Chad Clifton's foot and fell down short of the end zone. Had the Packers kicked the Field Goal, they would have led 17-7 at halftime. I think that might have been the difference in the game the way both teams were playing. It was such a low scoring game... I guess 4th and 26 is just more fun to talk about. For Eagles fans, anyway...
What Packer fans fail to remember is the fact that Westbrook didn't even play in that game. They also don't remeber the Touchdown that Pinkston caught that was called back. Point is, your right, only a few plays usually decide the outcome of game, but close plays were on both sides.
What about that incredible TD that McNabb threw to Pinkston, when he was almost sacked like 10 times. That game showed that McNabb is a player that can take a team on his shoulders and will them to win. It's a shame that he got hurt early in the NFC championship game, cause I am convinced that had he never got hurt, we would have gotten to the Super Bowl. I mean, he played 2 quarter with torn cartilage in his ribs, you know how painfull it is to throw with that.
Westbrook didn't play because the Eagles had Duce Staley. A better back than Westbrook, if you ask me. But you're right... The Packers got breaks in the game, too.
Don't get me started on the Duce Staley/Brian Westbrook comparisions (see past posts). Should be a great game
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pack Attack)</div><div class='quotemain'>Westbrook didn't play because the Eagles had Duce Staley. A better back than Westbrook, if you ask me.</div> Right on!
i dont really care what anyone says, it was a good play. i dont care that it was lucky either. it was a good play.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrianWestbrook)</div><div class='quotemain'>But having Westbrook would've helped. It's just another thing the defense would have to prepare for</div> Yes it certainly would have been main focus shutting down a ten touch a game guy. He is such a unique and talented player, like a Barry Sanders, that only with several days of game prep would they have found a way to stop him. The game would have been a HUGE blowout if the had Westbrook, I am pretty sure the Packers would have forfeited if faced with the task of shutting down a guy producing 60 yards a game from scrimmage. Now I realize they held him to 1 yard in the regular season game, but certainly they had to be quaking in thier cleats, I mean where talking Brian Westbrook. This is a record breaker, well not any specific records, but i bet he has the most yards of anyone ever named Brian Westbrook, who played in the state of Pennsylvania, and was drafted out of Villanova I am going to try and sleep now, if i can get passed my fear of Brian Westbrook gashing me like he did those packers last year for 1 Yard on 5 carries.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrianWestbrook)</div><div class='quotemain'>But having Westbrook would've helped. It's just another thing the defense would have to prepare for</div> Yes it certainly would have been main focus shutting down a ten touch a game guy. He is such a unique and talented player, like a Barry Sanders, that only with several days of game prep would they have found a way to stop him. The game would have been a HUGE blowout if the had Westbrook, I am pretty sure the Packers would have forfeited if faced with the task of shutting down a guy producing 60 yards a game from scrimmage. Now I realize they held him to 1 yard in the regular season game, but certainly they had to be quaking in thier cleats, I mean where talking Brian Westbrook. This is a record breaker, well not any specific records, but i bet he has the most yards of anyone ever named Brian Westbrook, who played in the state of Pennsylvania, and was drafted out of Villanova I am going to try and sleep now, if i can get passed my fear of Brian Westbrook gashing me like he did those packers last year for 1 Yard on 5 carries.</div> BF1 your lack on knowledge is just shocking sometimes. In that regular season game, Westbrook was just coming of an injury so he didnt really even play. Why dont you ask the Giants (punt return last year) how they feel about Westbrook. He's a a game-changing RB. It's not the # of touches you get, it's what you do with it. Last year he was in the top-3 at yards per touch.
Exactly what I was going to say. The Eagles offense is based on spreading the ball, which is why you won't see many touches. But when he does get it, their is a good chance he'll break a big play.
So westbrook was injured befor both games???!?!?! Man he is injury prone, kinda soft. Oh wait we have gone over this.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Eagles4Life)</div><div class='quotemain'>Last year he was in the top-3 at yards per touch.</div> You guys wonder why everyone here thinks you are full of shit....Well, its statements like this.... I did some minor checking on that and the 1st 4 guys I could think of off the top of my head all had better yards per touch averages than Westbrook, you say hes in the top 3, but the 1st 4 I checked were better....I bet I could easily find 20 guys that had a better yards per touch avg....here are the 4 I researched: Eddie Drummond - 18.26 Yards per Touch Allen Rossum - 18.18 Yards per Touch Dante Hall - 17.29 Yards per Touch Antwan Randle El - 11.96 Yards per Touch and bring up the rear, Brian Westbrook - 8.82 Yards per Touch By the way, do you guys own a bullshit factory or do you shovel it all by hand?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Eagles4Life)</div><div class='quotemain'>Last year he was in the top-3 at yards per touch.</div> You guys wonder why everyone here thinks you are full of shit....Well, its statements like this.... I did some minor checking on that and the 1st 4 guys I could think of off the top of my head all had better yards per touch averages than Westbrook, you say hes in the top 3, but the 1st 4 I checked were better....I bet I could easily find 20 guys that had a better yards per touch avg....here are the 4 I researched: Eddie Drummond - 18.26 Yards per Touch Allen Rossum - 18.18 Yards per Touch Dante Hall - 17.29 Yards per Touch Antwan Randle El - 11.96 Yards per Touch and bring up the rear, Brian Westbrook - 8.82 Yards per Touch By the way, do you guys own a bullshit factory or do you shovel it all by hand?</div> None of those guys are full-time players genious. When I said yards per touch, I meant rushing and recieving, not returns. Of course a player that's a full-time returner will have high yards per touch then a RB.
That is ironic. And if you ask me, I didnt want him to leave. However, in this offense he was not going to get the carries he wanted, like he's getting in Pittsburgh. Westbrook is a perfect fit for this offense. I only wish Buckhalter never got hurt, cause that put a dent in our running game. Having a thunder guy (buckhalter) and a lightning guy (westbrook), is the way Andy Reid likes it. Now Levens is the thunder guy. I guess he will have to do.
Westbrook wasn't a full time guy either last year. He had the most yards in the 3-headed monster, but still he wasn't full time. I don't exactly agree with him being top 3, but between running backs maybe he's top 8.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Eagles4Life)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Eagles4Life)</div><div class='quotemain'>Last year he was in the top-3 at yards per touch.</div> You guys wonder why everyone here thinks you are full of shit....Well, its statements like this.... I did some minor checking on that and the 1st 4 guys I could think of off the top of my head all had better yards per touch averages than Westbrook, you say hes in the top 3, but the 1st 4 I checked were better....I bet I could easily find 20 guys that had a better yards per touch avg....here are the 4 I researched: Eddie Drummond - 18.26 Yards per Touch Allen Rossum - 18.18 Yards per Touch Dante Hall - 17.29 Yards per Touch Antwan Randle El - 11.96 Yards per Touch and bring up the rear, Brian Westbrook - 8.82 Yards per Touch By the way, do you guys own a bullshit factory or do you shovel it all by hand?</div> None of those guys are full-time players genious. When I said yards per touch, I meant rushing and recieving, not returns. Of course a player that's a full-time returner will have high yards per touch then a RB.</div> So basically he was the best in yards per touch as long as you only count people who meet very discriminating criteria. He was the best back named brian who played in Pennsylvania, and not counting college players.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pack Attack)</div><div class='quotemain'>Westbrook didn't play because the Eagles had Duce Staley. A better back than Westbrook, if you ask me.</div> Right on!</div> How about now?
One good game does not a better back make... Even Brad Hoover had a breakout game against the Pack once. Hats off to Westbrook for a great game, but it doesn't change my overall opinion. (P.S. Cheers to you for being a Dick! Nice work...)
