Philadelphia Eagles-Green Bay Packers: Looking at the Positives
There are plenty of things to be upset about in Philadelphia right now. The Eagles lost their first game of the season and had some pretty devastating injuries. However, it wasn’t all bad. Let’s take a look at some of the positive things we can take from the game.
The obvious one is Michael Vick. Quarterbacks get injured all the time in this league, so the importance of legitimate backup on your team can't be underestimated. Vick is a more-than-legitimate option, and we got to see that first hand on Sunday.
There were some doubts about his decision making during the preseason, but Vick was really able to rally the offense after three starters were no longer playing. He brought the Eagles to within a touchdown and made plays all over the field.
Whenever the pocket collapsed on him, he was able to make plays with his feet and racked up over 100 yards rushing on the day. Adding to that, he made some nice plays throwing the ball.
If Kolb is unable to go on Sunday against the Lions, I think everyone is confident that Vick will give the team a very good chance to win.
Another thing I was very high on was the defense as a whole. Yes, they gave up 27 points, but the Packers have a pretty high-powered offense that did a lot of scoring in the preseason.
Aaron Rodgers is now recognized as one of the elite quarterbacks in the league, yet the Eagles defense held him to under 200 yards passing and intercepted him twice. I liked the pressure they were able to bring in registering three sacks against him.
There were a lot of questions surrounding this defense throughout the offseason, but it looked as though they would find much more success than in 2009. I’m pretty happy with their opening performance, despite the loss.
No one likes to lose, but there is still a lot of football to be played this year. The Eagles don’t need to hang their heads because of this game.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?