Nov 4, 2005, 12:45 PM EST
When two teams with identical records meet in a game that marks the midpoint of the NFL season, there is usually a checklist of factors to consider when trying to figure out who is going to win. In the case of this Sunday’s night game between the Redskins and Eagles, that checklist doesn’t tell us much.
Injuries: The healthier club has an advantage, often a large one. In this case, the healthier team is neither. The injury list for the two teams is 26 names long with 14 Eagles and 12 Redskins appearing on it. Although nobody is listed as doubtful nine players are questionable, meaning that there is a 50/50 chance that the likes of Philly’s Donovan McNabb, Terrell Owens, and Jevon Kearse and Washington’s Cornelius Griffin. These are not fringe players.
Coaching: Joe Gibbs has the superior lifetime resume. Andy Reid, having taken his team to the Super Bowl last year, has the edge in the “what have you done lately” department.
Statistics: Not much to go on here, either. The Redskins’ worst statistical weakness, their 25th- ranked run defense, is offset by the fact that the Eagles rarely run the ball.
Momentum: Both teams are coming off of ugly road losses, losing by a combined 54 points. They both have figurative wounds to lick as well as the literal ones.
Stepping back a bit, though, looking at it in the longer term, this may be where we find the key. The Eagles could well be coming into this one with three straight losses with a miracle win on a blocked field goal against San Diego coming in between blowout losses to Dallas and Denver. Their swagger seems to have disappeared.
They may not be in a slump, they may be imploding. Setting the charges, of course, is none other that Owens, who had some, well, head-scratching things to say in an ESPN interview.
ESPN analyst Michael Irvin recently said the Eagles would be undefeated if Favre was the starting quarterback.
Asked for his thoughts on Irvin’s comment, Owens said: “That’s a good assessment, I would agree with that, just with what [Favre] brings to the table.
“A number of commentators will say he’s a warrior, he’s played with injuries. I feel like him being knowledgeable about the quarterback position, I feel like we’d probably be in a better situation.”
It’s not exactly like the QB that the Eagles do have, McNabb, is a wuss who doesn’t know the game. Owens went on to point out McNabb’s third-quarter interception, which came with the Eagles trailing just 28-21, as the reason the Eagles lost last Sunday.
The slams weren’t just for the quarterback. Owens also took one at the entire organization:
Owens also hard harsh things to say about the Eagles for not publically recognizing his 100th career touchdown catch Oct. 23 at home against the Chargers.
“That right there just shows you the type of class and integrity that they claim not to be,” said Owens, who became the sixth receiver in NFL history to reach the milestone. “They claim to be first class and the best organization. It’s an embarrassment. It just shows a lack of class they have. My publicist talked to the head PR guy and they made an excuse they didn’t recognize that was coming up. But that was a blatant lie. Had it been somebody else they probably would have popped fireworks around the stadium.”
The key line is, of course, “It just shows a lack of class they have.” TO has shown that he has a lot of class. Unfortunately, all of it is low.
Certainly, turmoil doesn’t preclude winning. Teams that are winning quarrel all the time, sometimes in public. But it’s a different deal when a team is losing—and make no mistake, the Eagles are in that category. That’s the time when needs to close ranks, shut up and play.
Speaking of shut up and play, ex-Redskin Jeremiah Trotter said in an interview earlier this week that the Redskins had “no heart” and Kearse said that the Redskins were the Eagles “b—ches”.
Apparently, Reid is continuing his laissez-faire approach to Owens and letting TO be TO and did not comment on the comments by Trotter and Kearse. Reid takes the “they’re grown men, let them handle it” philosophy. When you’re winning, that’s the enlightened approach; when you’re not, the inmates are running the asylum.
All that being said, what Kearse said isn’t far from the truth. The Redskins have lost seven straight to the Eagles and most of the games haven’t been close. Have the Redskins improved enough and have the Eagles imploded enough to change this?
The initial gut feeling earlier this week was no. The thought here was that the Eagles would circle the wagons one last time and have enough to beat a good but still shaken Redskins team.
Then, as the week went on, I realized that those weren’t wagons being circled up I-95 but rings being added to the circus. I went to Redskins Park on Wednesday. This is not a shaken group of players and coaches. To a man, they had put the Sunday’s debacle behind them and were focused on the Eagles. There is no false bravado here. We know that well from the team under previous coaches and this is different. The confidence is in the players’ eyes as well as in their words.
Like just about everything for the 2005 Redskins, it won’t be easy. Washington will jump to an early lead, but the Eagles will fight back, perhaps even take the lead. But their lack of a running game won’t allow them to hold it and the Redskins will pull back ahead in the second half. Washington will have to repel one or two late Philly bids to win it.
Redskins 24, Eagles 20
Follow Us On Twitter
- Redskins fail to capitalize on turnovers
- Redskins show more fight but get same result in SanFran
- Is RG3 or the offensive line to blame for struggles?
- Injuries stretch Redskins' secondary thin
- What was behind Morris' 125-yard day vs. 49ers?
- Griffin says Redskins won't quit
- Injury Report: Redskins captain lost for season?
- Room for improvement, Morris moving offense
- Gruden proud of Redskins defense
- Rookie steps up in secondary, despite loss to 49ers