January 03, 2024
With 4:18 left in what would eventually be a loss to the then 3-12 Arizona Cardinals, the score tied, and facing a 1st and 10 from the Cardinals' 20 yard line, the Philadelphia Eagles' offense blew a chance to score a touchdown and escape with a win. The basic sequence went like so:
The above sequence took about five minutes in real time, which we cut up below. In case you want to relive the experience, click here to view it all on YouTube:
The Eagles then kicked a field goal, and yada yada yada took their fourth loss in five games, lost control of the NFC East, and dropped from the 2 seed in the NFC to the 5 seed.
In the aftermath of the Eagles' loss, both Nick Sirianni and Brian Johnson were asked about that sequence. During his postgame presser, Sirianni disagreed that they were conservative play calls.
"I don't think that's a conservative there," he said. "If they're blitzing a bunch of gaps right there, you're running a gap scheme that has a chance to hit for big yards, and we needed to get back into it. We could have thrown there, too. We chose to go [with quarterback runs]. It didn't hit, but I think sometimes with the gap scheme stuff you do you have to do some different things to cancel out gaps if they're bringing everything out, so that's why we went that way. It didn't work.
"The screen, we're 3rd and [19], you're going to have a hard time converting and we have to get ourselves in range — the wind was blowing into our faces a little bit on that side earlier in the game — so we needed to get into better range to make sure we took a three point lead there. And hey, they went down and scored and we didn't win the game."
The next day, Sirianni was asked about that sequence again, and he referred to the quarterback runs as aggressive play calls, while throwing in the obligatory "it didn't work so it was bad" cliché.
"You think through different things and different scenarios," he said. "We did feel like there was aggression in the play call to be able to run the run that we ran. But when something like that doesn't work out, you think to yourself, well, should have done it the other way, right? And that's just the mud you drag yourself through as a coach. Sometimes the decisions work. Sometimes they don't work, and when they don't work, when you're not the one out there, you know, playing, you think to yourself, what could we have done differently in that scenario, and of course the different thought process would have been to pass in that scenario."
Let's go step-by-step through that series, shall we?
Mailata's hold was out in the open and easy to see. And in fact, the officials could have just as easily flagged Landon Dickerson for a fairly obvious hold as well. Mailata and the offensive line have largely avoided criticism for their part in this sequence because of what followed. While Mailata and Dickerson were trying get D'Andre Swift free for a positive gain and things happen when you're trying to make a play, you simply cannot hold on a run play in that situation, especially on a run to the edge where it's going to be easier to see.
But beyond the hold on the play, this sequence was emblematic of the team's failure to mash opponents in their four-minute offense. A year ago, the Eagles got leads and in the second half imposed their will with the run game. We saw some of that early in the season against the Vikings and Buccaneers, but that ability to physically dominate opponents and close them out late has not been part of this team's identity since.
Let's first start with the way the Eagles think during these situations.
"When you get in those type of four-minute situations, there are three different things that you're managing at that point," Brian Johnson said. "I think the first is obviously down and distance. You're managing the clock. Obviously, you want to try to not give them the ball back, and then you're managing the kick line. All three of those things really come into play."
And so, the Eagles ran a play on 1st and 20 that (a) was likely get some yards, (b) would burn some clock, and (c) would give them some room for error ahead of whatever they felt was Jake Elliott's range. Honestly, the 1st and 20 call wasn't that bad. You can see the logic. It was on 2nd and 16 where the play calling really went off the rails.
"Second and 16, Budda Baker makes a fantastic play," Johnson said. "It was a play that had a chance to be really, really big and be a big hit. Credit to Budda Baker. He made a fantastic play on that particular play."
Here's the end zone view:
— Jimmy Kempski (@jimmy_kemp51810) January 3, 2024
Cam Jurgens blocks two guys, Jason Kelce neutralizes 95 on the back side, Lane Johnson has 92 blocked, a pulling Landon Dickerson gets a good block on 18, and 34 wants no part of Mailata.
I would imagine that the offensive staff would've preferred Hurts to press the hole harder, and if he did maybe this play does indeed go for a long gain, especially with Baker attacking the B gap and the Eagles running outside. Of course, it's been rare for the staff to criticize Hurts publicly, and they certainly weren't going to put that play on him especially since he had a very good game otherwise. Baker does indeed make a good play despite picking the wrong gap, and sure, this play could've been a big hit if the Cardinals only had 10 guys on the field.
Ultimately, when the Eagles' offensive line executes a play this well and it still loses 3 yards it's pretty hard to defend the call. But, Johnson did.
"That was a play we've run over the last couple weeks for some really explosive runs," he said. "Had a 15-yarder, had a 10-yarder earlier in the game on a very similar play. That one, with those guys in that situation, second and 16, you try to catch them off guard playing with a pass call and see if you can pop one and get some yardage to get you into a safe spot to where you can go be super aggressive on third down once you're in comfortable field goal range. We end up losing [three] and that kind of changed the mode and the mindset for the third down play."
In between the 2nd down loss of 3 and the 3rd down give-up play, the Eagles bled the play clock down to 1 second and called a timeout, to the dismay of the crowd.
"So now you get yourself into a 3rd and [19], and you want to put yourself in a position to score points, because that's not obviously an area on the field where you're going to punt the ball and with the way the wind was in that stadium on that side, like we had to get to the kick line," Johnson said.
"That was the 3rd and [19]. Obviously had multiple options on that play call. If you get a pressure look, [the screen] is what we are going to, and if we didn't get a pressure look, then the play would have been something else. The guys executed what we tried to do. Unfortunately, just weren't able to get it done."
At the top of the screen, you can see A.J. Brown's shoulders slump after the give-up call.
— Jimmy Kempski (@jimmy_kemp51810) January 3, 2024
On that play, the Eagles were at the 29 yard line, well within Jake Elliott's range, even with some wind in his face. Basically, the Eagles just didn't want to take a sack and get knocked out of field goal range.
"A sack right there, effectively gives you zero points probably in that case." Johnson said. "So yeah, you want to give yourself the opportunity to score points, and when you have those third and super long situations, they all play very, very differently. I think for example, you take a look at a couple weeks ago, we had a third and 20, and we called a go route. But the ball was just in a completely different area of the field with a different circumstance in terms of how to manage the game. So, points are obviously at a premium at that point, and that was the direction."
Johnson was asked if Sirianni was in his ear telling him to be aggressive/conservative in those situations.
"We have constant communication in terms of the game management and how we want to execute different scenarios and different outcomes that come throughout the course of the game, whether that's two-minute, four minutes, all these different situations that pop up," he said. "It takes everybody in terms of all of these different clock managements and situations that come up throughout the course of the game."
When pressed if Sirianni was in his ear during that sequence, Johnson again pushed the collaborative angle.
"Before we got the penalty, we wanted to try to score," he said. "On the third and 20, we're trying to make sure that we can ensure some points and get a field goal and not put ourselves in a situation where we lose yardage, and you have some safe [play] that's going to get completed and that's going to be a decent play versus whatever looks they show."
Johnson was then asked why the defense's poor play throughout the game wasn't being considered, given that it had conceded three straight touchdowns in the second half.
"I don't know if I can answer that question for you," Johnson said. "I don't know if I can answer that question. But for us, offensively in terms of the situation and what we were trying to accomplish, that was the mode that we were in offensively."
Translation: Johnson either didn't want to put blame for the conservative strategy on 3rd down on Sirianni, and/or he didn't want to criticize the defense.
Earlier in the week, Sirianni sort of answered that question (it's not the question he was asked, to be clear). He harkened back to the Washington game, when the Eagles took a different approach in a very similar situation.
"I know there was earlier in the year against Washington, we scored — we scored fast," he said. "We had that double move to A.J., scored fast and that game ended up going into overtime. And not that you think through that. Again, you try to use clock while still being aggressive. If that was easy, everybody would be able to do that, and so it's not an easy task. I thought it was really important that we got ourselves points, obviously, there, but also get as many first downs as we possibly could and score a touchdown. Hey, it didn't work out that way, and looking at it, we think to ourselves, all right, this didn't work."
In other words, the Eagles were well aware that their defense wasn't likely to get a stop.
When asked if the staff is overthinking things in these types of situations instead of just allowing their elite playmakers to make plays, Johnson borrowed Sirianni's "it didn't work so it was bad" cliché.
"Any time something doesn't work, obviously I think that's a very normal and natural reaction," he said. "But I think we've played situations like that very, very similar, when you talk about third and super long, in field goal range, close to the line, that happens. But to answer your question, any time that something does not work, obviously you kind of go reassess and be as critical as possible and say, I wish or maybe we could have or I could have done something different. And maybe that would have worked and maybe it wouldn't have, but I think that's the nature of the game that we play."
Perhaps more alarming than the offensive sequence itself is that Sirianni and Johnson haven't concluded in a real way that it was a losing strategy.
Follow Jimmy & PhillyVoice on Twitter: @JimmyKempski | thePhillyVoice
Like us on Facebook: PhillyVoice Sports
Add Jimmy's RSS feed to your feed reader
