Quotable: Reid's Introspection

Phil Sheridan had an interesting piece over the weekend depicting a more candid Andy Reid after his offense decimated the Cardinals on Thanksgiving. Here's one highlight:

At this point, Reuben Frank of the Burlington County Times suggested that Reid was much more likely to drop the running game when it started slowly than to drop the passing game - ever.

(Frank has covered the team since 1987 and is as good as anyone in the universe at finding illuminating and unusual statistics. That explains why Reid reacted as he did, with a smile and a concession.)

"You're probably right," Reid said. "I don't know how to answer that. You're probably right. You're probably going to throw a stat out of your little book at me and I'm going to just agree with you and move on."

 

Comments

[theKrisheim]

id really like a whole new set of reporters covering this team

as sick as we are about 10 years of reid and mcnabb, i am sick of the same reporters doing the "reporting"

guys like marc eckel and reuben, to a lesser degree, seem less and less objective about the big picture because of the personal interactions theyve had about the team during their time here

[Kulp]

From Didinger's little book:

Since the 2000 season, the Eagles are 52-10 in games in which they have more rushing attempts than their opponents. They are 35-39-1 when they have fewer rushes. Games in which they have 30 or more rushing attempts, they are 37-5. Games in which they have 20 rushes or fewer, they are 9-23-1. This season, they are 5-0 in games when they have more rushing attempts than their opponent. They are 1-5-1 when they don’t.

Hard to ignore.

[joe l]

Kulp - do those stats account for running out the clock in the fourth quarter?

[Kulp]

I've heard the running out the clock argument, but I think that's really missing the point. Are those numbers going to be tilted slightly because of a handful of games the Eagles won by blowout? Sure.

What about the stats when they run less though? The Eagles haven't been drubbed too often in the last decade, so what is the excuse for the 33 games they actually called fewer than 20 running plays?

Whether you support Andy Reid or not, this idea that the offense does not need to be balanced is absurd. Every great team in the modern era has had balance, and the teams that did not never got over the hump.

http://csnphilly.com/pages/landing_homepage?blockID=19168&feedID=729

[Jeffrey]

I used to have a 'that's just Andy being Andy' attitude about Reid's antipathy toward the run. For a few years, I couldn't argue with the results so I didn't
Now, obviously, I can and do.
Maybe I'm just fed up with Reid overall, but to admit to a major flaw in your offensive philosophy then shrug it off? That's just inexcusable.

[joe l]

It's become painfully obvious that Reid holds his _system_ above wins and losses or individual season results. Virtually every move he makes is an effort to prove that system correct. For Andy, the fact that the Eagles ran the ball more in a win against Arizona is besides the fact. Consider myself pessimistic that any strategic lesson was learned on Thursday night.

[Joe Manning]

I agree about the reporters thing.

Marc Eckel might be even more annoying than Andy Reid. The most negative guy ever.

[Bob L]

The "running out the clock" might cause to be the data to be a little skewed, but only if the Eagles actually run the ball when running down a clock. Experience has shown that they are even too stubborn to do this correctly.

[Mark]

I've found Ray Didi to be the one and only place I turn to for Eagles op-ed pieces. His statistics are so good, you simply cannot dispute some of the man's arguments.

[EricStAngelo]

And Didi does it all with class.