Defending his play calling last Sunday:

Cameron remains convinced it was the proper strategy, albeit not the best execution. He emphasized that the last sequence was longer than the 4th-and-1 listed in the official stat book, perhaps as long as two-and-half yards to gain the first down.

"I really felt good about the calls that we made," Cameron said. "If that was a legit third-and-1, we probably would have run the football or had the chance to. I like the idea of our quarterback having the ball in his hands, five potential receivers and the possibility of him to scramble and improvise versus running the football into two unblocked guys."

Maybe I'm just angry still and venting at Cam (in fact, I am). But I have a number of issues with this statement:

1) Apparently in Cam-land, running is proper on 3rd and 1, but nothing longer.

2) Cam's play design for a 3rd and short run involves leaving two guys unblocked at the LOS.

3) "or had the chance to"? Does that mean you would have thought about running, and been really happy that the "chance" was there, but in the end would have written a lovely thank you note to the Eagles expressing gratitude for giving you a chance to run but explaining that you had to turn it down for a more exciting passing opportunity?

4) Definition of insanity. Cam admits that the execution was poor. But he still made the fifth call after watching the execution fall apart on the first four. That sounds like poor execution of the OC job to me.

I hate this guy.