Superbowl

[Major Malphunktion]

So?
T.O. Plays?
Rodney Harrison rips that Eagles bigmouth's head off and eats his brains on national TV?
MVP?
Emmit retires...but Why during SB week?
Sir Paul drops his pants and claims wardrobe malfunction?
Breakdowns?

Mine:
QB- even. Brady more big game experience, Donovan more natural ability.
RB- Pats-Dillion 1600+ yards, leads rushing in the playoffs and is hungry for his first year in the post season.Dillion is the key to the game in my opinion.
WR's-Pats, if TO does not play and isn't 100% There is no dropoff of talent between 1-5 in the Pats WR's. No big play TO type, but no suckage either.
TE-Pats now. With the Eagles injury, I have to give it to the pats. They have been quiet of late as offensive weapons, and more like extra blockers, but both starters can catch.Watson would have been runnerup as rookie of the year if he didn't get hurt in week 2. Can't wait to see him play next year.
Pats OL Vs. Eagles DL- Eagles 3 sacks. What they really need to do to screw up Brady is knockdowns. See Miami game.
Pats DL vs Eagles OL-Pats,even without Seymour. J.Green will replace Seymour, and is one of the most underrated members of the Pats. Contain and hurry, forget the sacks-make him throw bad passes.
DB-Eagles
LBs-Pats-Bruschi, Vrabel, Willie. Interesting that all three used to play line.
ST-Pats-one word Adam.Prediction- TD for Adam again.
Coaching-Pats

This should be a kickass game.

[BobJustBob]

American Dad!

[Jason McMaster]

I don't think I could dislike either team more.

[Nick Walter]

I think this superbowl is going to be a bit of a yawn. I don't think the Eagles match up well to the Patriots. Not in a position-vs-position way like some sportwriters have been doing and overdoing but in general levels of discipline and canniness. I'm not doubting that the Eagles are a very talented team but then the Steelers were too and they got spanked. New England has proven they can invent and execute a scheme to beat pretty much anybody.

[Midnight Son]

Just play the fucking game. I'm not going to watch one minute of pre game show....

[Bill Dungsroman]

I love listening to sports wonks fall down their own rabbit hole of hype and overanalysis. "The Patriots don't have any playmakers! They don't have a TO or a Westbrook (I love it when they use "a" in front of athlete names)!" Yeah, they really only have one playmaker, I guess: their entire defense.

[BaconTastesGood]

I don't think the Eagles match up well to the Patriots.

This is one of the more interesting aspects of the Eagles. On paper, they kind of suck, yet somehow they keep winning. The only real stars they have are probably Dawkins and McNabb. Everyone else are good to very good (except their receivers) but no definitive stars (yes, the whole secondary are very good, but not superstars). Not sure how effective TO will be coming back.

So can Reid somehow magically pull off a win when he's not supposed to, or will Belichick crush them mightily for his first SB win that doesn't come down to a Vinatieri FG?

I'd love for Dillon to get the MVP with 195 yards rushing. Or better yet, have Troy Brown get the MVP for 1 INT for a TD, 4 recs for 87 yards, and 100 punt return yards.

[Supertanker]

We never really watch the game anyway, but I like to watch the event. It is also the only show where our viewing habits reverse - people chat and wander off for snacks during play, but all run back into the room when the ads start.

This will be the first year we have the HDTV, too.

[Jason Levine]

I love listening to sports wonks fall down their own rabbit hole of hype and overanalysis. "The Patriots don't have any playmakers! They don't have a TO or a Westbrook (I love it when they use "a" in front of athlete names)!" Yeah, they really only have one playmaker, I guess: their entire defense.

I'd say their linebackers are all playmakers. In fact, collectively, I think it's the best linebacking group in the league, and, individually, Vrabel's play has made him one of the elite linebackers (yeah, he's an Ohio State guy and I'm biased, but still).

[Bub, Andrew]

Is it just me, or do the Patriots remind anyone else of the Lombardi era Packers? Not in terms of gameplans (Belichik is inventive, Lombardi preferred to perfect a few plays and run them over and over again), but in terms of attitude, professionalism, execution, and the way the MVP is really the team not individual players.

[Jason McCullough]

Jason's call: Patriots in a walk. I base this on the newspaper photo of the totally-professional Patriots QB showing up in a suit, while McNabb was all in a Hawaiian shirt and fucking around with a handycam.

And yeah, the sports press is so big-name RB, QB, and CB obsessed it's pathetic. Hey world - you don't win super bowls with shitty lines.


Not in terms of gameplans (Belichik is inventive, Lombardi preferred to perfect a few plays and run them over and over again), but in terms of attitude, professionalism, execution, and the way the MVP is really the team not individual players.

Yeah, this is why I liked the first couple of years of the new OU football dynasty so much, in spite of my loathing for corrupt college football & OU's idiotic football fans in general.

[Warlord of Mars]

I'm one of the few bucking the trend and calling an Eagles victory. I think some people aren't giving them enough credit. I've watched them dominate the hell out of some teams, especially when Donovan has been spot on. Brady doesn't have the ability to take over a game like he does.

[Bill Dungsroman]

I'm one of the few bucking the trend and calling an Eagles victory. I think some people aren't giving them enough credit. I've watched them dominate the hell out of some teams, especially when Donovan has been spot on. Brady doesn't have the ability to take over a game like he does.

While it's certainly not out of the question for the Eagles to win, it's just hard for me to picture it. Yeah, McNabb and the Eagles smoked some teams last year, but they had a pretty soft schedule (thanks to their division), mostly. They were hard pressed to score over 20 against any team with a good defense (19 against the Bears, 15 against the Ravens, 3 against the Steelers). Brady's ability seems forever arguable (not to me - the touch he put on those two deeps balls against the Steelers rival any throws made in the postseason) but one thing he has over Donovan: if McNabb is off, it's hard for him to get back on. Brady runs at a more even keel and when he does make a mistake (a rarity in the postseason), it doesn't usually knock him too far off his game.

To me though, it comes down to coaching and mistakes. I just think Belicheck can outcoach Reid (but I think more of Reid this season than I have in the past - he made some bold, awesome decisions in the playoffs this year, especially in the NFC championship game), and the Eagles are more prone to mistakes than the Pats (well, who isn't?). I hope TO plays - I mean, actually plays and doesn't just act as a decoy all game long. It will be a hell of a lot more fun. The Eagles need to have TO in to make a few key plays, they have to stop Corey Dillon (if Dillon has over 50 yards by the first half, the game is over), and they cannot turn the ball over more than once.

[Jakub]

Pats, easy.

It comes down to Brady.

It's not really Brady - I don't think he's that good and his confidence stems only from having a wicked team around him - but losing Brady would shake the Patriots up. Who, off the top of his head, can even name their backup?

Dillon's going to have more of an individual effect on the game and so will at least 2 or 3 defensive players. But I think Brady is the linchpin because he's been the constant.

Atlanta would have more of a chance of winning. Vick would be more difficult for the Pats to contain than the relatively normal offense of the Eagles will be. The Steelers, with Maddox, would have been a better match. The Pats defense WILL get tired if run at - they're human. If it wasn't for Dillon, I'd risk going down by a touchdown into the 2nd half by running it most of the time just to wear the Pats into submission.

(because I would be the best coach in football, really).

[BaconTastesGood]

It's not really Brady - I don't think he's that good and his confidence stems only from having a wicked team around him

...and having proven repeatedly he can drive his team down the field when he HAS to, even when he has a whole crop of #2 receivers and, until this year, a back that was pretty much back up material.


but losing Brady would shake the Patriots up. Who, off the top of his head, can even name their backup?

(Rohan Davey)

I mean, who was Bledsoe's backup? Who was Trent Green's backup with the Rams? People at least remembered Brady from his Michigan days, NO ONE remembered Kurt Warner from his, uh, Gateway Conference days.

While Brady is key, I still think they could win with many others. The problem, of course, is that their last Super Bowls came down to one last drive (and a bad kick by Kasay in the last one) and Brady really made the difference there. But this Super Bowl SHOULD be the one where Brady isn't needed. In theory.

[extarbags]

T.O. is playing. I think we (Eagles) actually have a chance here, although we're definitely underdogs. I don't know, I just think people are counting us out a little too early. Guess we'll see.

If nothing else, though, it should be a really excellent game.


no definitive stars

Owens? Westbrook?

Akers?

[Major Malphunktion]

Vick vs. pats- last time the pats played atlanta they had a team record high 7 sacks. Screw containment, just hit him. His arm is practically a non-factor at this point.

Ah the Brady isn't that good arguement.
What exactly does he not have? Deep Ball? Short ball? Medium ball? Vision? Brains? Risk Taker? Pocket presence?Leadership? Running. that's it. Even then, when he QB sneaks he always gets that yard needed. Hell, he has even punted,and cought a pass.
He doesn't have gaudy stats. this year he didn't need to, and they still pounded most teams for more than 14 points a game. give it to Dillon, give it to Dillon, ok, they stopped that, deep strike, give it to dillon rinse repeat.
All I know is in 2001, if we had Bledsoe all season they wouldn't have made the playoffs , nevermind the superbowl.
I want no other QB in the game.

[BaconTastesGood]

no definitive stars

Owens? Westbrook?


Owens, when healthy, sure, but is he really going to be able to make cuts like he needs to? As for Westbrook -- he's good, and he's versatile, but he's not even one of the top 10 backs in the league.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Vick vs. pats- last time the pats played atlanta they had a team record high 7 sacks. Screw containment, just hit him. His arm is practically a non-factor at this point.

Ah the Brady isn't that good arguement.
What exactly does he not have? Deep Ball? Short ball? Medium ball? Vision? Brains? Risk Taker? Pocket presence?Leadership? Running. that's it. Even then, when he QB sneaks he always gets that yard needed. Hell, he has even punted,and cought a pass.
He doesn't have gaudy stats. this year he didn't need to, and they still pounded most teams for more than 14 points a game. give it to Dillon, give it to Dillon, ok, they stopped that, deep strike, give it to dillon rinse repeat.
All I know is in 2001, if we had Bledsoe all season they wouldn't have made the playoffs , nevermind the superbowl.
I want no other QB in the game.
FINALLY. Why doesn't anyone believe me? Tom Brady is this era's Joe Montana. As you said: leadership, poise (I knew Ben Roethlisberger was doomed when people started throwing around the "P" word), touch, smarts. His deep ball is damned good, although he doesn't have a big arm. Neither did Joe. He benefits from an awesome system. First, I hate this argument as a detractor from Brady's talent and ability. People make it sound like Belicheck simply asks Brady to make one decision (or none, like his playbook reads YOU THROW HERE with a large red arrow at Branch in the flat), that any decent QB could do it. I contend that, with what I've seen, a good QB could win games and even make the playoffs in the system, but it's Brady that has them holding 2 rings and going for the 3rd. He doesn't have the talent around him that Joe did (arguable to some degree), and again that's attributed to the system. The system doesn't put the ball square in the hands of pretty-good-but-not-great WRs, Brady's aim does. Second, I'm pretty sure Joe worked in a good system, only an utterly revolutionary one that changed the face of football forever.

[Tom Ohle]

Go pats! It's been nice having a lifelong of cheering for the pats finally pay off. Let's hope they keep it up

[VegasRobb]

Wouldn't mind seeing the Eagles pull out a win, but I'm not picking against the Patriots.

And Tom Brady is a good quarterback. Super Bowl week is so tedious that radio talk shows start talking about how Peyton Manning and Brady are just products of a system.

[Warlord of Mars]

Yeah, McNabb and the Eagles smoked some teams last year, but they had a pretty soft schedule (thanks to their division), mostly.

The whole NFC was the picture of parity. I think the spread of talent was more evident, whereas the good teams in the AFC had a romp through softer teams. Miami was almost a guaranteed win to play against. I don't think the Patriots were as tested as the Eagles were. I still stand by my prediction. People are giving the Patriots too much credit.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Yeah, McNabb and the Eagles smoked some teams last year, but they had a pretty soft schedule (thanks to their division), mostly.

The whole NFC was the picture of parity. I think the spread of talent was more evident, whereas the good teams in the AFC had a romp through softer teams. Miami was almost a guaranteed win to play against. I don't think the Patriots were as tested as the Eagles were. I still stand by my prediction. People are giving the Patriots too much credit.
Your post intrigues me. The NFC was easier as a conference, yet the NFC-homed Eagles had it tougher? Looking at both teams' schedules, it only slightly favors the Eagles, however. I don't see a rompage inequality, save Philly's weird slump at the end against the Skins and Dallas. Funny you mention guaranteed-win Miami, the only team besides Pittsburgh that the Pats lost to.

I look at it this way: McNabb and the Eagles have played bad in the playoffs. Brady and the Pats never have, they've always played better, and have played their best in the Superbowls. The Patriots beat the league's best offense in the divisional playoffs and the league's best defense in the AFC championship game. What's left?

[MikeTwain]

Jason's call: Patriots in a walk. I base this on the newspaper photo of the totally-professional Patriots QB showing up in a suit, while McNabb was all in a Hawaiian shirt and fucking around with a handycam.

Yeah because it's really important for sports figures to wear a suit to the Superbowl.

You are the biggest killjoy (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=killjoy) man. Relax a bit. The man just made it to the big game after blowing it 3 times! Damn right he's gonna tool around with a camcorder.

:roll:

[Jason Levine]

Flashback to the last Eagles appearance in the Super Bowl. Dick Vermeil clamped the team with a strict curfew and they wore there ties and jackets, etc. Meanwhile, the Raiders acted like, well, the Raiders and took full advantage of the game's New Orleans site. And, of course, the Raiders completely smoked the Eagles in the game.

Of course, for the Patriots, this all business as usual now, and it kind of makes sense for them to take a business-like approach. We know that team is going to be too tight.

Meanwhile, I think it's a good thing for McNabb to show his teammates that he's loose and having fun. I give the Eagles a much better chance if they act loose and play the same way.

[Woolen Horde]

Jeezus, where is everyone? It's fuckin' tied late in the 3rd quarter. No Super Bore this year.

[Bob Cherub]

Good Super Bowl but in the end, NE experience and coaching staff makes Philly look frazzled.

- Terrible clock management by Philly.
- McNabb makes 3-4 really poor throws that could have been the difference.
- Rodney Harrison catches more balls from McNabb than Freddie Mitchell.

[hido]

Nice clock mgmt. Did Philly think there were five quarters? I was going batshit and I don't even care about the Eagles. I imagine about half of Philly just had a heart attack/stroke/nervous breakdown watching the last five minutes of that game.

[BooTx]

Yeah they let the clock run from 4:00 to nearly 2:30 without doing a damn thing. A couple spiked balls could have landed them an extra minute in the end, easily. Not that it really mattered; New England molested The Eagles near the endzone on the final series.

[extarbags]

Yeah, my stomach was in my throat for at least the last six minutes, but:

- We did a fucking *lot* better than anyone thought we would.
- We had them sweating down to literally the last minute.
- If McNabb had been at the top of his game instead of being off in the first quarter and positively rattled in the fourth, we would have won.
- We are going to win the Super Bowl next year, against New England or anybody else.

[XPav]

Was it just me, or was the camera direction really bad? There were a couple times when the camera zoomed so far in that no one had any idea what was going on, and a few times where they totally screwed the audio up.

[Major Malphunktion]

BINGO


We win again!
That was one of the best games I've ever seen.
At least the Eagles showed up, unlike Pitt or Indy. For the first time in years, I actually thought the Pats might loose. I think one of the guys I watched with is still recovering.

XPav- Looked ok on the HD feed, but there were a couple of commericials that were cut in have vertically- very strange. Alot of dropouts , and they upcut the local feed almost every time.

Oh, best damn halftime show ever. For once they got it right.

[GMicek]

The pre-game rollout of various groups was completely lame.

What was with the coin toss? It didn't even look like it flipped.

[Wholly Schmidt]

The pre-game rollout of various groups was completely lame.

What was with the coin toss? It didn't even look like it flipped.
I don't think it did. We were watching it really closely actually cause my friend was like "Who's that little kid they got? He's so tiny, I'll bet he won't even flip the coin," and then he didn't.

[extarbags]

The pre-game rollout of various groups was completely lame.

What was with the coin toss? It didn't even look like it flipped.

It absolutely didn't. The kid basically threw it flatly up into the air two inches and then it fell flat on the ground.

Also, consider this: I guess you can't really give the MVP nod to someone on the losing team, but if there was an award for Most Valuable Player That Didn't Get Used Enough and That's a Big Part of Why His Team Lost (MVPTDGUEaTaBPoWHTL), T.O. deserves it.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Yeah, my stomach was in my throat for at least the last six minutes, but:

- We did a fucking *lot* better than anyone thought we would.
Having Owens out there playing definitely helped in that arena.


- We had them sweating down to literally the last minute.
No argument, but that's hardly something new. I think the Panthers did a better job of it last year. Pinning the Eagles on their own 4 is not a very close second. I mean, that ensuing pick wasn't too shocking.


- If McNabb had been at the top of his game instead of being off in the first quarter and positively rattled in the fourth, we would have won.
I don't want to pick on you too much bags, so I'll leave this one alone.


- We are going to win the Super Bowl next year, against New England or anybody else.
Okay! But you'll have to beat the Niners in the NFC champs game PALLY. [/Superfan 99]

[Brian Minsker]

I thought it was a fairly sloppy game on both sides of the ball for both teams. The Patriots had a good stretch in the second half when they increased the lead to 10, but there were an awful lot of stupid penalties. The Eagles clock management was incredibly bad. It was a good game in that the score was close, but I found the poor execution by both teams disappointing given how well both had performed up until this game.

I also thought almost all of the commercials this year were pretty lame, with only a couple that seemed worth their $2.4 million/30 seconds (or whatever the price was). I liked the Mustang convertible one, and I thought the first monkey one was good but lost its impact when they milked the joke for three more ads.

[Mattc0m]

My feelings

* First Quarter was lame. A great job by both defenses, however. But, after a slow start, we saw some good scores by both teams. My favorite was that TD that went up the middle from Donovan and went inches away from 2 people covering the receiver.

* Eagles did very well outside of their turnovers. If they weren't turning over, the were making good plays.

* NE I felt did a decent job, but nothing over the top. They just took what Eagles gave them and came out on top.

* I'm really confused at some of the Eagle's decisions. Spending a timeout in the second half for no good reason, then taking their time when there was less than 4 minutes left. I felt like screaming out "hurry the fuck up!" a few times.

I was voting for the Eagles only out of my sort of "rooting for the underdog". Its good to see the Patriots go down in history, though. I was rooting for them on the last two Super Bowls.

Now, outside the Superbowl.

* I really liked the Fed Ex commerical that put in "the 10 things needed for a good Super Bowl commerical". That was probably my favorite. The business-finding website was also good.

* Maybe this is just a local thing, but I saw a lot of advertisements for drug supplements. I'm confused how companies like this can afford a Super Bowl commerical. I understand that some are successful, but the commericals were compartively low quality, and I don't see a company like that having millions of dollars in its advertising budget.

* Simpsons is getting a bit lame. There was some good jokes, but it goes so sloowww in comparison to Family Guy and the new American Dad. I really wish we still had Futurama, so we can get some new characters and their own observations. Yes, we get that Homer is a frickin' idiot. We've been aware of this for years. Now its just getting insulting. It also seemed to feature a lot more gore that ever before.

* American Dad was so awesome. I can't put words to it. This show is going to rock. It did seem to be really pushing the boundaries, though. I was surprised that you could get that stuff on TV. Maybe I just haven't watched enough TV, but it seemed a lot more "out there" than Family Guy. Maybe its just that gold fish.

Thats about it, hehe. I had a good Super Bowl. A lot of good food.

[extarbags]

- If McNabb had been at the top of his game instead of being off in the first quarter and positively rattled in the fourth, we would have won.
I don't want to pick on you too much bags, so I'll leave this one alone.


ROOFLES

Dude, did you not see that would-be TD pass to Westbrook that didn't happen because of a bad throw? Normally, McNabb would have made that. That alone would have put us up by four, even if he still made the rest of those bad throws, we still didn't pass to T.O. enough, etc.

[Ben]

Westbrook isn't getting nearly enough blame for the tremendously horrible decision to catch that ball at the 4. It didn't cost them the game or anything, they would've lost anyway, but jeez. What did he think was going to happen? The Eagles did a really shitty job of clock management throughout.

[JAGuarinc]

Some nice points from Clayton's column at ESPN:


The loss was baffling to the Eagles. Critics wondered about the lack of urgency during the Eagles' fourth-quarter touchdown drive that resulted in a 30-yard touchdown pass to Greg Lewis with 1:55 left. Down by 10 points with 5:40 left in regulation, McNabb and the Eagles didn't go into a no-huddle offense. The Eagles ate up too much clock on that 13-play, 79-yard touchdown drive.

"I don't know what happened," Eagles tight end L.J. Smith said.

The Eagles were unable to explain their clock management at the end of the game.

"Well, we were trying to hurry up," Eagles coach Andy Reid said. "It was the way things worked out."

Durrrrrrrrr... oops!


The beleaguered Eagles coach took even more criticism at the end of the first half. The Eagles, with the scored tied 7-7, had the ball at their 19-yard line with 1:10 left. Donovan McNabb completed a 10-yard pass to Todd Pinkston, but Reid didn't call a timeout. The clock went from 43 seconds to 17. McNabb hit Pinkston for a 15-yard completion, and Reid called his first timeout of the half.

Suddenly, the Eagles were at their 41-yard line when maybe they could have gotten in range for a David Akers field goal. Instead, they ended up having two unused timeouts and had to answer questions from the media.

"I don't remember that at all, to be honest with you," Reid said of the halftime question.

I'm gonna cut Andy a lot of slack. It's not like he's the head of a bunch of coaches or has a ton of assistants helping him out in a big important game or anything. Oh wait...

[bago]

Now that I'm clean.... You know what I mean....

[Brian Koontz]

The Eagles had a very strange game.

Two Eagles players went down with cramps. Kearse temporarily, Pinkston needed IV.

Between this and the time management issue some journalist should investigate.

Westbrook's catch wasn't particularly bad. Force of habit can be difficult to overcome. I see that sort of thing in less dramatic situations often.

When mysterious things weren't happening, the Eagles played very well. Their receivers did a great job.

[Major Malphunktion]

Brian you cought on- Adam V. was poisoning thier gatorade.

I think it is more like this- they were seen partying all week, and were dehydrated.

[extarbags]

Westbrook's catch wasn't particularly bad. Force of habit can be difficult to overcome. I see that sort of thing in less dramatic situations often.

Absolutely right. The blame goes to McNabb for throwing that ball in the first place... it's not Westbrook's job to decide what ball to catch. If it's thrown to him, he catches it if he can. Things like that are decisions the quarterback makes.

[Jakub]

It's funny, my friend Kyle and I were playing ESPN NFL 2K5 before the game and did a Pats-Eagles match-up in one of the matches.

I'd been having considerable success running the ball against Kyle, but I was utterly unable to do it with Westbrook. In fact, I ended up losing yards so many times I started referring to him as "Westbitch".

Funny, that name stuck for the Super Bowl matchup :/

[Bill Dungsroman]

- If McNabb had been at the top of his game instead of being off in the first quarter and positively rattled in the fourth, we would have won.
I don't want to pick on you too much bags, so I'll leave this one alone.


ROOFLES

Dude, did you not see that would-be TD pass to Westbrook that didn't happen because of a bad throw? Normally, McNabb would have made that. That alone would have put us up by four, even if he still made the rest of those bad throws, we still didn't pass to T.O. enough, etc.
Bags.

BAGS.

The Eagles lost. I...I hate to be the one to tell you.

If Brady hadn't fumbled near the goal line, the Pats may have won by 10 - I mean, 3 still, accounting for your "if." Do you think the Patriots would have played their last possession so safe if they were down 4? Could the Patriots have moved the ball easily on the beleaguered Eagles' D to score the winning TD? Yes, the Eagles almost won. So did the Panthers, Rams, and Titans. It's great they hung in there and only lost by 3. They had more opportunities than that one play to get ahead or even tie, and they blew all of them. The Eagles played the worst 2-minute drills at the end of both halves that I've seen in any close Superbowl game. It's comforting to console yourself with the fact that if one play was different, the Eagles would have won, but that play didn't occur in a vacuum. The game would not have played the exact same way if the Eagles had taken the lead.

[extarbags]

All I'm saying is that it was presumed by many that the Patriots were simply a better team, and that they would destroy us. Instead, I think it's clear to anyone who watched the game last night, but especially to anyone who's been watching the Eagles at all this season, that they are *not* a better team, that they only barely edged us out, and that we were not playing up to the standard that we set with this season/postseason. Therefore, don't be surprised to see us take it next time.

[TimElhajj]

Ah, looks like the Bambino mystique has floated on downtown to Philly. :)

[extarbags]

?

Also, is it me, or are the Patriots the whitest god damned team in the league? Even the very few black guys they have are about the whitest black guys you'll ever see whose first name doesn't rhyme with "blondie."

[Jason Levine]

?

Also, is it me, or are the Patriots the whitest god damned team in the league? Even the very few black guys they have are about the whitest black guys you'll ever see whose first name doesn't rhyme with "blondie."

? The only reason I can see for thinking this is that their two prominent linebackers, Bruschi and Vrabel are white.

[fire]

Can anyone provide a link to the Ameriquest cat-slaughter commercial?

[Squirrel Killer]

Instead, I think it's clear to anyone who watched the game last night, but especially to anyone who's been watching the Eagles at all this season, that they are *not* a better team

<cough> scoreboard </cough>

Excuse me. :wink:

[forgeforsaken]

I hate this 'the better team didn't win' mentality. Yeah the Eagles had an off game, but the Pats weren't exactly playing to their best either. I was actually kind of surprised at the level of play of both teams. Look how both these teams played in the playoffs v. the superbowl.

[Bub, Andrew]

The Eagles have more marquee-style talent, maybe, but it's silly to call them the "better team" when the Eagles were the ones who made more mistakes, failed to capitalize on opportunities, made huge coaching mistakes, didn't play as well as a team and lost the game.

But yeah, you're right, the Eagles will come back next year most likely. Hopefully wiser.

[Mark Asher]

I thought McNabb was terrible for the most part. He did nothing with his legs and his passing was crappy. If the guy isn't going to generate some yardage with scrambles the Eagles might as well get another QB who can throw with more accuracy. He's never been a good pocket passer. I doubt he ever will be.

Both defenses played well. It wasn't a particulary exciting game -- the Eagles killed the 4th quarter drama with their "no-hurry" offense. That was one of the most baffling things I've seen in a big game.

Westbrook is a good player, but the Eagles are lacking in the rushing game. He's not a premier rusher. They really needed someone to generate a rushing attack and they didn't have anyone to turn to.

I was impressed with the way Owens played. He had a big game when no one was sure he could even be effective.

And yeah, the commercials were lame this year. Oh well, football's done now. On to the Stanley Cup playoffs!

[Wholly Schmidt]

Thanks Mark, cause I wasn't bummed enough about Philly's game, now I can cry myself to sleep in my Flyers jersey.

[Bill Dungsroman]

All I'm saying is that it was presumed by many that the Patriots were simply a better team, and that they would destroy us.
I didn't. And wow, that's not all what you're saying.


Instead, I think it's clear to anyone who watched the game last night, but especially to anyone who's been watching the Eagles at all this season, that they are *not* a better team,
Seriously, dude. Seriously. Nobody outside of Philadelphia's city limits is saying that. No offense, but it's a dumb thing to say. The team that lost to a team getting its third Superbowl win in four years is the better team? It's great that you're a big Philly fan, no shame there, but wow. The rules of professional sports are thus: if the team that is favored to win wins, there is no basis left to call the losing team (that was expected to lose) better.


that they only barely edged us out,
Yeah but...they won.


and that we were not playing up to the standard that we set with this season/postseason.
Yeah...neither did they. Neither team had their A game going most of the game. That's football, that's sports for you. It gives you or any fan of a losing team a measure of consolation and rationalization, but that's it. There is no asterisk next to this victory. Nobody cheated, the refs didn't screw up a key play. Both teams played a little clunkier than they should have, but the Patriots scored more points and kept the Eagles from scoring the winning points at the end. They won, they deserved to win, it was legal and legitimate.


Therefore, don't be surprised to see us take it next time.
I've yet to be surprised to see the Eagles in the playoffs since McNabb took them there the first time. And I wouldn't be surprised to see them win it at some point. I doubt they will next year, unless they break a long-running trend that has the losing Superbowl team be lucky to even make the playoffs the following year.

And your bizarre What's-With-Them-Whitey-Patriots? thing is, well, bizarre to say the least. Jason Levine is right, the only reason could possibly be because of Vrabel and Bruschi. Offensive lines are often all white guys. The secondary is all black dudes. The WR corps are all black dudes, really black dudes to counter your peripheral, even stranger, argument.

[Toddy]

I thought McNabb was terrible for the most part. He did nothing with his legs and his passing was crappy. If the guy isn't going to generate some yardage with scrambles the Eagles might as well get another QB who can throw with more accuracy. He's never been a good pocket passer. I doubt he ever will be.

Man, ain't that the truth. If you're going to go with an offensive plan like the Eagles have been using, what's the point of having a guy like McNabb at the most important position? Then again, what sort of offense could McNabb truly run effectively? He doesn't scramble particularly well anymore. His arm is no hell, and neither is his vision.

Swap QBs yesterday and the Eagles win that game, maybe going away. And I don't think Brady is the second coming of Joe Montana, either. There are at least six or seven QBs in the league today who would be better options for the Eagles than McNabb.

As for next year, I think the Eagles will drop back in the pack. Competition in the NFC will be stronger, that you can almost guarantee. I mean, how could it be any worse than it was this past season?

[extarbags]

I didn't say the Eagles were a better team. I said that the Patriots were not a better team. Meaning that they're about evenly matched, and that the game could have gone either way.

And Bill, I'm not saying there's an asterisk next to the win or that it was illegitimate or anything like that, only that three points isn't the kind of decisive slam-it-down-your-throat victory that most people seemed to be predicting.

And I guess I don't know what to say about the white thing. They just seemed to have a lot more white guys than I'm used to seeing. Maybe it's an AFC thing?

[BaconTastesGood]

And I guess I don't know what to say about the white thing. They just seemed to have a lot more white guys than I'm used to seeing. Maybe it's an AFC thing?

Good lord, that is about the goddamnedest thing I've seen in a while.

The entire Pats secondary and WR corps are black. Their starting and backup RBs are black. Their starting DL is black. This leaves a total of two white linebackers and a white OL -- um, yeah, that's pretty normal.

Almost every freaking team in the league basically works out like that. The big difference is that Philly has a blacker OL (Jesus, did someone just make me type '"blacker OL"?). (And even then, Philly has a white center and RT).

So Philly out-blacks NE in the QB department, OL (3/5 vs. 1/5), and by one guy in the front defensive seven (Simoneau vs. Bruschi/Johnson). Oooof, yeah, killer racial divide there.

If you're going to make such crazy statements, at least use a team that really IS white -- the Atlanta Falcons (huh-wha-that's not possible, they have a BLACK QUARTERBACK!!!!!!!111). That's right, the Falcons of the Deep South even have a *shhhh* white wide receiver that was a starter until last year (and Vick's previous go to guy).

Get this -- they have, just like the Pats, TWO white linebackers -- in a 4-3!!! OMG! And TWO WHITE DEFENSIVE ENDS!!!111 Their entire OL except RG is white. Of course, a wide receiver named White, but that doesn't count.

So, by all counts, Atlanta is whiter than New England...whoda thunk it?

And because New England currently does not have any of its black players serving jail sentences for, I dunno, drug conspiracy charges or murder for hire, I guess they're "more white"? Is that what you're saying? God for-fucking-bid that you have black athletes NOT embroiled in some off-field bullshit, only to be called "white" as a result.

[Lenkenobi]

I thought McNabb was terrible for the most part. He did nothing with his legs and his passing was crappy. If the guy isn't going to generate some yardage with scrambles the Eagles might as well get another QB who can throw with more accuracy. He's never been a good pocket passer. I doubt he ever will be.

Man, ain't that the truth. If you're going to go with an offensive plan like the Eagles have been using, what's the point of having a guy like McNabb at the most important position? Then again, what sort of offense could McNabb truly run effectively? He doesn't scramble particularly well anymore. His arm is no hell, and neither is his vision.

Swap QBs yesterday and the Eagles win that game, maybe going away. And I don't think Brady is the second coming of Joe Montana, either. There are at least six or seven QBs in the league today who would be better options for the Eagles than McNabb.


I'm going to figure that you don't spend too much time watching football because you are from Canada, eh? Therefore, I'll go easy on you.

How many games did McNabb and the Eagles win this year?
Name me three QB's who could do a better job than McNabb in the Eagles offense. Seven? You can name seven?

I'll even get you started since you appear kind of slow...Peyton Manning. Hands down, he is better in the pocket than McNabb.

Tom Brady? Yup. Got me there, too. The fact that his line is top notch helps him out a bit.

But I'm sorry, who were you going to name? Let me try to guess...

Daunte Culpepper....Let's see...can't win big games, fumbles more than a Parkinsons poster boy, and had Randy Moss to make him look good for years. Who did McNabb have up until this season? And guess what happens next year when Moss goes bye-bye?

Mike Vick...The most overrated player in football. I guess you like the Nike commercials, though. He did a great job leading the Falcons in the regular season. Oh wait! That was the defense! Too bad the forward pass is in a QB's job requirements. Otherwise, I'm right there with ya!

Trent Green?...check K.C.'s record and get back to me.

Brett Favre? Maybe 5 years ago. He's turning into an interception machine, nowadays.

As for next year, I think the Eagles will drop back in the pack. Competition in the NFC will be stronger, that you can almost guarantee. I mean, how could it be any worse than it was this past season?

This might be the crowning jewel in your dunce cap of an arguement. Where are the Eagles going to go? Drop back to where? They have massive cap room, and a half dozen early draft picks (including some picks from Miami). Going from worse than shit to shit won't cut it in the playoff race. And that's about the best chance most of those teams have for next year.

Did you watch any TV that featured NFC teams? The Eagles' division is the worst it's been in a decade. That's 6 W's. Six!!!! What? They all become contenders in 2005, right? They'll show the Eagles, right?

The NFC is a terrible conference. It has two, maybe three other teams that deserve to be in the 2005 playoffs. And that is being generous.
If I called out any (insert NFC team here) fans with that, well, you know the deal. You know your team doesn't deserve a playoff berth with a sub .500 record. You know who you are...

And believe me, as long as NFC teams play against quicker, better coached, more talented teams from the AFC, the Eagles will be king of the mountain again, albeit that mountain is a mound of craptastic teams.


On to the Superbowl....

I understand that a lot of you held hands with Joe Buck and Chris Collinsworth as they led you to your pre-arranged Monday morning QB opinions, but clock management wasn't the big problem of the game. But sometimes it does help to have someone whispering into your ear, telling you what you should think and why. It makes life easier. :) :) :)

Who is to say that the Eagles would have gotten that last TD to Lewis any other way? Don't whine about the clock. There was enough time to win or tie the game. A football game is 60 minutes. Both teams had their opportunities. New England did a slightly better job with their chances.

The big problem at the end of the night for the Eagles was the onside kick. I know it might work in your average Madden 2005, but if the defense was going to stop the Pats anyway, why not kick deep, make them punt, and get the ball at the Iggles 40? That's really the only thing I take exception with.


I thought McNabb was terrible for the most part. He did nothing with his legs and his passing was crappy.

I have to examine this gem b/c it started all of this. O.K. Three picks. The last one, I don't really hold against him. They were backed up and under pressure. Now consider the three TDs, and 357 passing yards. With four turnovers, the Eagles still gave the Golden boys of the NFL one hell of a game. What most part are you talking about, Mark? Is 357 yards crappy in your humble opinion? Are you from Canada, too? Maybe you should stick to NFL Blitz or Arena league football if 357 yards and 3 scores is 'crappy'. Your standards are far too high for us mere mortals of the NFL fanbase.

Westbrook bashers??? Thought I'd forgot about you, eh?
100 plus all purpose yards is good. Now repeat after me, geniuses, "It's good."

I especially liked the comparison of the video game. Brilliant analysis there, Professor. "Westbitch?" I laughed until I peed. You should write for MAD TV or that crazy show with Nick and Jessica

My condolences for the loss of Hockey, B.T., but Football might not be your game. Try curling or something easier for now. They have brooms and ice shavings!!! Get back to us when you better understand what good football is all about.

[Brian Koontz]

Brian you cought on- Adam V. was poisoning thier gatorade.

I think it is more like this- they were seen partying all week, and were dehydrated.

I was thinking the team dietitian screwed up, which is, you know, *something to investigate*.

[BaconTastesGood]

Name me three QB's who could do a better job than McNabb in the Eagles offense. Seven? You can name seven?

I can, I can!

Brady, Green (strawman argument about his wins -- look at the defense, then look at the points Green & Co. have put up in an effort to win games), Manning, McNair, Volek, Brees, Delhomme, and Pennington. All of those guys are accurate, solid pocket passers. Oh, and Bulger too.



Did you watch any TV that featured NFC teams? The Eagles' division is the worst it's been in a decade. That's 6 W's. Six!!!! What? They all become contenders in 2005, right? They'll show the Eagles, right?

That's what people say EVERY year about EVERY conference, and there's some team that comes out of nowhere that makes a run of it. The Falcons flat out SUCKED last year and pulled a massive turn around with very little change in personnel.


It has two, maybe three other teams that deserve to be in the 2005 playoffs. And that is being generous.

Panthers and Bucs should make a pretty serious turnaround next year, both suffered injury/cap/personnel problems that should be rectified.


My condolences for the loss of Hockey, B.T., but Football might not be your game. Try curling or something easier for now. They have brooms and ice shavings!!! Get back to us when you better understand what good football is all about.

God I love Eagles fans. Don't you have some snowballs-with-batteries to throw? Or at least a draftee to boo?

[extarbags]

And I guess I don't know what to say about the white thing. They just seemed to have a lot more white guys than I'm used to seeing. Maybe it's an AFC thing?

Good lord, that is about the goddamnedest thing I've seen in a while.

The entire Pats secondary and WR corps are black. Their starting and backup RBs are black. Their starting DL is black. This leaves a total of two white linebackers and a white OL -- um, yeah, that's pretty normal.

Almost every freaking team in the league basically works out like that. The big difference is that Philly has a blacker OL (Jesus, did someone just make me type '"blacker OL"?). (And even then, Philly has a white center and RT).

So Philly out-blacks NE in the QB department, OL (3/5 vs. 1/5), and by one guy in the front defensive seven (Simoneau vs. Bruschi/Johnson). Oooof, yeah, killer racial divide there.

If you're going to make such crazy statements, at least use a team that really IS white -- the Atlanta Falcons (huh-wha-that's not possible, they have a BLACK QUARTERBACK!!!!!!!111). That's right, the Falcons of the Deep South even have a *shhhh* white wide receiver that was a starter until last year (and Vick's previous go to guy).

Get this -- they have, just like the Pats, TWO white linebackers -- in a 4-3!!! OMG! And TWO WHITE DEFENSIVE ENDS!!!111 Their entire OL except RG is white. Of course, a wide receiver named White, but that doesn't count.

So, by all counts, Atlanta is whiter than New England...whoda thunk it?

And because New England currently does not have any of its black players serving jail sentences for, I dunno, drug conspiracy charges or murder for hire, I guess they're "more white"? Is that what you're saying? God for-fucking-bid that you have black athletes NOT embroiled in some off-field bullshit, only to be called "white" as a result.

Jesus, relax, buddy. I didn't dig up stats on this thing, I just noticed more white, visually, than normal. Maybe it's because of the uniforms.

Regardless, they still stood in stark contrast to the almost-all black Eagles.... by the way, which Eagle is currently serving a jail sentence? I didn't hear about that...

[extarbags]

God I love Eagles fans. Don't you have some snowballs-with-batteries to throw? Or at least a draftee to boo?

Har-dee-har-har. For your information, that was just batteries. They weren't hidden in snowballs.

[extarbags]

I'll even get you started since you appear kind of slow...Peyton Manning. Hands down, he is better in the pocket than McNabb.

But then again, look what he pulled off against the Pats. Not too much.


Tom Brady? Yup. Got me there, too. The fact that his line is top notch helps him out a bit.

That's being generous. He's my pick for most overrated. Christ, I could make those passes with that group of guys blocking for me.


I understand that a lot of you held hands with Joe Buck and Chris Collinsworth as they led you to your pre-arranged Monday morning QB opinions, but clock management wasn't the big problem of the game. But sometimes it does help to have someone whispering into your ear, telling you what you should think and why. It makes life easier. :) :) :)

Who is to say that the Eagles would have gotten that last TD to Lewis any other way? Don't whine about the clock. There was enough time to win or tie the game. A football game is 60 minutes. Both teams had their opportunities. New England did a slightly better job with their chances.

The clock management was frustrating, but I agree that it wasn't disastrous. EXCEPT! For when McNabb threw that nice zero-yard completion to Westbrook that took the clock from about 35 to 15 seconds. That was the end of our chances.

[Lenkenobi]

Brady, Green (strawman argument about his wins -- look at the defense, then look at the points Green & Co. have put up in an effort to win games), Manning, McNair, Volek, Brees, Delhomme, and Pennington. All of those guys are accurate, solid pocket passers. Oh, and Bulger too.



I had no idea that all of those QB's could execute the West Coast offense. Wait...they can't.
I already gave you Manning. People think McNair is so great because he is too dumb to not sit out bad injuries. Just because he has two or three broken bones when he goes out on the field doesn't mean that you root for him.

Volek wants the starting job but that damned 'air mcnair' is undead or something. You can't bump him all the way up without a full season under his belt. That's just plain stupid.
Brees was about to lose his job to Rivers in San Diego. I admit he was great at Purdue, but one good season doesn't earn the praise you give him.
Delhomme...C'Mon. The Eagles have played through injuries as well, including losing a starting RB, Offensive Lineman, and WR this season. They still won games. Why couldn't Delhomme?
Chad Pennington needs to complete a full season. My favorite Martin ran the Jets O this year. It wasn't Chad.
It's funny. K.C. d dropped from 29th to 31st in 2003-2004. But its offense went from second in the league to 1st. Hmmm...they were 13-3 in 2003. 7 and 9 in 2004. Don't understand the strawman thing. Maybe you can explain that one further.
Bulger I actually feel bad for. The coach in St. Louis is such a drooling village idiot these days. It's a shame that Bulger will not get the credit he deserves, because he is actually better than 2004's numbers. But he is still no McNabb.

You fogot your boy, Vick BTW...Don't you want to add him?



That's what people say EVERY year about EVERY conference, and there's some team that comes out of nowhere that makes a run of it. The Falcons flat out SUCKED last year and pulled a massive turn around with very little change in personnel.


Atlanta was the biggest group of fraudulent ass clowns this side of the country in 2004. Everyone knew it. The conference championship proved that. 10 points? Nice work. They won't win the big games while they have Vick at QB. He is not a QB. He might be a good Wingback...As their number one fan, maybe management would listen to you and take him out of the cockpit. They might even throw in season tix for helping them out.



Panthers and Bucs should make a pretty serious turnaround next year, both suffered injury/cap/personnel problems that should be rectified.

Well, maybe they will be two of the three or so teams that deserve to be in the playoffs. Right now though, the Davis situation looks bleak, and the QB/WR problems in T.B. will probably continue.



God I love Eagles fans. Don't you have some snowballs-with-batteries to throw? Or at least a draftee to boo?

HaHa! You left out Santa Claus. In any case, I'd say something mean or typical about Falcons fans, but I really don't think half the city knows there is a football team playing there. Maybe its the dome that throws them off...'gnaw me'en?'

[Mark Asher]

I have to examine this gem b/c it started all of this. O.K. Three picks. The last one, I don't really hold against him. They were backed up and under pressure. Now consider the three TDs, and 357 passing yards. With four turnovers, the Eagles still gave the Golden boys of the NFL one hell of a game. What most part are you talking about, Mark? Is 357 yards crappy in your humble opinion? Are you from Canada, too? Maybe you should stick to NFL Blitz or Arena league football if 357 yards and 3 scores is 'crappy'. Your standards are far too high for us mere mortals of the NFL fanbase.

The guy had three picks, and I'll still stick the last one on him because it was a poor pass. He also had another pick overturned by a penalty. The Pats dropped at least one more pick that was a poor pass. And on McNabb's fumble he didn't protect the ball -- another mistake. He was inaccurate most of the game. Receivers were reaching behind to make grabs, etc.

He had over 300 yards passing but he threw 51 times. You can find a lot of NFL games where the losing QB passes for more than 300 yards. McNabb didn't do anything special in this game. You could have put A.J. Feely back there and had him throw 51 times and he would have put up 300 yards too.

I will say this about McNabb -- he probably had his best season this year as a passing QB. It's too bad he didn't play as well in the Superbowl as he did the rest of the season.

[BaconTastesGood]

I had no idea that all of those QB's could execute the West Coast offense. Wait...they can't.

We dont know, do we? McNabb ran an option in college for God's sakes, and he seems to be doing okay. The idea that McNair or Bulger couldn't handle a Walsh offense is kind of out there. And for the record, Pennington is a West Coast QB all the way.


People think McNair is so great because he is too dumb to not sit out bad injuries.

Actually, no, it's because he was pretty good (2003), good enough to win Co-MVP and put up some gaudy passing stats with the likes of Justin McCareins and Drew Bennett as his receivers.


Brees was about to lose his job to Rivers in San Diego. I admit he was great at Purdue, but one good season doesn't earn the praise you give him.

You mean....like McNabb's one good season? People seem to forget that until this year, McNabb was a very middle of the pack QB.


Delhomme...C'Mon. The Eagles have played through injuries as well, including losing a starting RB, Offensive Lineman, and WR this season. They still won games. Why couldn't Delhomme?

Oh Good God, are you AWARE of how bad the Panthers were injured? They lost their top defensive player (Kris Jenkins), their starting RB (Davis), their backup RB (Foster), their backup backup RB/FB (Hoover) and ended up with their FOURTH string starting for them (Goings). They lost their top WR as well. When you lose your primary starters on defense and offense, it's going to be tough. That they finished as high as they did is a testament to Fox's coaching and Delhomme's resiliency.


Chad Pennington needs to complete a full season. My favorite Martin ran the Jets O this year. It wasn't Chad.

Huh? He's started 34 games. Yeah, he gets injured -- hello, it's the NFL. But he's got a career passer rating of 93.7. Or are you now going to continue stacking the odds in McNabb's favor by saying "Wait, hold on, name another West Coast QB that has started a lot of games and is coached by Andy Reid and that could step right in and win!"


It's funny. K.C. d dropped from 29th to 31st in 2003-2004. But its offense went from second in the league to 1st. Hmmm...they were 13-3 in 2003. 7 and 9 in 2004. Don't understand the strawman thing. Maybe you can explain that one further.

The "strawman" thing is that you're effectively saying Green isn't good because his team doesn't win. The reason his team doesn't win is because they have ZERO defense. The reason they did as well as they did last year can be summed in two words: Dante Hall. Special Teams is what the made difference for them last year, and they didn't have Hall or that lucky streak this year.



You fogot your boy, Vick BTW...Don't you want to add him?

Oh, hell no. I said he was a bust waiting to happen when he got drafted, but revised that after seeing his very strong early career performance under Reeves (he had a pretty damn good first starting season). But since then he's regressed and seems to lack the ability/willingness to learn a new offensive system. It's almost like the coaches have thrown up their hands and just said "Do whatever you want Mike".

I thought it was pretty telling when Peerless Price said in a local interview that the receivers have a hard time running routes because they constantly have to look into the backfield to see if they need to start blocking. He was saying that as a way of giving props to Vick, but it was pretty clear from his tone that he felt that this was a problem.

Maybe that's one of the reasons that the Falcons receivers can't get any separation -- Vick doesn't seem to stick to the called plays.



Atlanta was the biggest group of fraudulent ass clowns this side of the country in 2004. Everyone knew it. The conference championship proved that. 10 points? Nice work. They won't win the big games while they have Vick at QB. He is not a QB. He might be a good Wingback...As their number one fan, maybe management would listen to you and take him out of the cockpit. They might even throw in season tix for helping them out.


Ummm....why am I his #1 fan? I don't think he's all that good, but he's entertaining to watch. Amazing arm strength and speed, but he's the Barry Sanders of QBs.

The reality is that Vick is there to sell tickets. Mora et. al. have to work around Blank's business oriented desire to fill stands, and they know if they go with Volek or Schaub that the fans will leave. Atlanta is not a sports town.



Well, maybe they will be two of the three or so teams that deserve to be in the playoffs. Right now though, the Davis situation looks bleak, and the QB/WR problems in T.B. will probably continue.

Next year they'll have Smith back, and if they can keep Muhsin around, they'll have a pretty good WR corps. With Jenkins back and another fresh draft, they should be able to go 11-5 next year and win the division.

Seattle will probably continue to suck as long as Holmgren/Rhodes are there. The NFC is probably suffering from QB problems way more than the norm. Half the teams don't have entrenched starters or that aren't hurt: Arizona, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, NYG, SF, Seattle, Tampa Bay, and Washington.

Compare that to the AFC where maybe four teams, at most, have serious questions at QB (Titans, Dolphins, Browns, and maybe Bills).

That said, I would say the surprise teams to watch for are Arizona and Washington. If Green can get his QB situation under control and if Washington settles on Ramsey, things could turn around big time. It's a little early for making next year predictions, but I think the NFC can get itself organized again.

TB has issues at QB, but at WR they're okay if they get Galloway back. Clayton would have been rookie of the year if it wasn't for Big Ben, so with Clayton/Galloway/Jurevicious they should be good to go, and ideally they'll start drafting smart again (although with Bruce Allen...I dunno).

I think their biggest problem is if they succumb to the Griese factor -- he's a great pocket passer when given time, but has demonstrated little poise or pocket awareness (ergo his limited stay in Miami). He's Kerry Collins 2.0. He completely lacks intangibles. Simms would be good. I feel bad for Brad Johnson since he didn't play poorly. Maybe he'll end up somewhere next year that needs a solid QB for a Super Bowl run (Ravens?).


HaHa! You left out Santa Claus. In any case, I'd say something mean or typical about Falcons fans

Watch that knee jerking there son, only person that claims I'm a Falcons fan is, uh, you. I LIVE here, doesn't mean I LIKE it here.

[extarbags]

You mean....like McNabb's one good season? People seem to forget that until this year, McNabb was a very middle of the pack QB.

One more time, so everyone can see it:


People seem to forget that until this year, McNabb was a very middle of the pack QB.

You're insane.

[Nick Walter]

How is that insane?

McNabb's QB ratings:

1999 60.01
2000 77.8
2001 84.3
2002 86.0
2003 79.6
2004 104.8

It seems to me that he's jumped up to a great level of a performance this year from a previous level of good performance.

[BaconTastesGood]

1999 60.01
2000 77.8
2001 84.3
2002 86.0
2003 79.6
2004 104.8

It seems to me that he's jumped up to a great level of a performance this year from a previous level of good performance.

Exactly. In 2002 he was in the top 25% based on most metrics except passing yards, where he was 26th in the league -- behind Rodney Peete FFS. In 2003 he dropped to about 16th or so in the league in most metrics.

Well, unless you want to roll out the "he's a winner" thing, but, of course, he's not.

Anyway, McNabb bashing aside, I honestly think that the Eagles are driven by Reid, so win/lose/draw, it's on Reid's shoulders more than anyone else. He has won with Koy Detmer and AJ Feeley as his QBs as well.

The Eagles would rock if they didn't have a QB that chokes in big games or when the pressure is on.*

*I'm just saying that to be an asshole =)

[extarbags]

1999 60.01
2000 77.8
2001 84.3
2002 86.0
2003 79.6
2004 104.8

It seems to me that he's jumped up to a great level of a performance this year from a previous level of good performance.

Exactly. In 2002 he was in the top 25% based on most metrics except passing yards, where he was 26th in the league -- behind Rodney Peete FFS. In 2003 he dropped to about 16th or so in the league in most metrics.

Funny, those stats show *exactly* how good he is. What changed this year, do you think, that might account for that huge boost in his QB rating, given that in the past he was already well-ranked except in passing? Want to take a stab at it? Maybe it's just that he woke up and said to himself, "hey, maybe I'll be a good quarterback this year."

Or maybe, just maybe, it's because he has a fucking decent receiver now.

Edit: I'm sorry, I have to be fair to Todd Pinkston: buddy, you had a great game the other night until you got cramped up. And you've always been able to pull big plays out of your ass sometimes. But let's face it, you haven't been the most reliable, you're not good at dealing with defenders, and until this season (when T.O. pulled a lot of the defense's attention off of you), you had a whole lot of drops. I still love ya, buddy.

[BaconTastesGood]

Funny, those stats show *exactly* how good he is.

Er, yeah, exactly -- note that you even helpfully highlighted my exact statement, which was:


People seem to forget that until this year, McNabb was a very middle of the pack QB.

Emphasis mine. This year he did a great job.


given that in the past he was already well-ranked except in passing?

I'm trying to figure your question out -- he's a quarterback, what other rankings are available OTHER than passing?


Or maybe, just maybe, it's because he has a fucking decent receiver now.

Believe it or not, I don't think TO is quite the fact in McNabb's growth as many thing (note: this is a COMPLIMENT to Donovan). I really do think that McNabb's growth is because the proverbial light did go on -- his receivers weren't the only problem, until this year he had a scattershot arm.

Now, maybe you think I'm insane, but I would like to point out two interesting stats:



2003 Regular Season - Smith + Westbrook - 64/653/5 TDs
2004 Regular Season - Smith + Westbrook - 107/1080/11 TDs


In addition, in the two games he played without TO he had a 111 quarterback rating, which is higher than his season average. He simply made up for it by distributing the ball a bit more and better.

The difference this year was TO and the availability of Westbrook. A good chunk of McNabb's elevated scores is their heavier reliance on the screen this year. Westbrook almost had as many receptions as TO.

[Bitterman]

I'm not sure the game was actually that close. People might say "it could have gone eaither way" but throughout the game it seemed like the Pats were dominant. The late Philly TD was partially the product of a VERY conservative pats D, set up to stop the big play. I think they were playing it a little TOO loosely, but they managed to eat up some time, which, when combined with terrible clock management, sealed the win.

The game looked fairly close at first, but as soon as the Pats figured out that their offense wasn't working, they changed it. Screens from 4 wide? Crazy, but it worked, and against a team normally good at screen D. Both Eagles TDs came from beating Reid, so if we're comparing "if onlys" then the pats get Wilson back. And maybe Law, too.

Anyway, I'm no expert, but to me the game seemed like it was controlled by the Patriots, with only a few moments where it looked like they lost the initiative. Perhaps the Eagles at the top of their game could beat New England playing below their level, but there isn't really much doubt as to the Pats superiority in this matchup.

[extarbags]

I'm not sure the game was actually that close. People might say "it could have gone eaither way" but throughout the game it seemed like the Pats were dominant.

Did it seem that way to you even when we were winning? Give me a break.

[Squirrel Killer]

I'm not sure the game was actually that close. People might say "it could have gone eaither way" but throughout the game it seemed like the Pats were dominant.

Did it seem that way to you even when we were winning? Give me a break.

Especially when the Eagles were winning... NE marched 73 yards in 8 plays only to be stopped by a fumble, forced a 3 and out, and then Brady went 5-for-6 to tie it up. Not really a dominating way to hold a lead.

[extarbags]

I'm not sure the game was actually that close. People might say "it could have gone eaither way" but throughout the game it seemed like the Pats were dominant.

Did it seem that way to you even when we were winning? Give me a break.

Especially when the Eagles were winning... NE marched 73 yards in 8 plays only to be stopped by a fumble, forced a 3 and out, and then Brady went 5-for-6 to tie it up. Not really a dominating way to hold a lead.

Let me get this straight: the Eagles are up seven to nothing. The Patriots manage to come back and score a touchdown for a tie, and you think to yourself, "wow, the Pats are just crushing those poor guys?"

[Squirrel Killer]

I'm not sure the game was actually that close. People might say "it could have gone eaither way" but throughout the game it seemed like the Pats were dominant.

Did it seem that way to you even when we were winning? Give me a break.

Especially when the Eagles were winning... NE marched 73 yards in 8 plays only to be stopped by a fumble, forced a 3 and out, and then Brady went 5-for-6 to tie it up. Not really a dominating way to hold a lead.

Let me get this straight: the Eagles are up seven to nothing. The Patriots manage to come back and score a touchdown for a tie, and you think to yourself, "wow, the Pats are just crushing those poor guys?"

Dude, it was one score in a game where the over/under was, what, like 48? And given the Eagles' performance in the lead (letting NE march the field, getting stuffed with 3 and out, and letting Brady toss the ball like they were doing drills), even though the Pats were behind, they were kinda kicking Philadelphia's ass during those three series.

[Lenkenobi]

We dont know, do we? The idea that McNair or Bulger couldn't handle a Walsh offense is kind of out there. And for the record, Pennington is a West Coast QB all the way.

Are you saying that the QBs you named might make an impact in Philly, or are you not sure, now? A few posts earlier, you were all about naming 7 QBs who could better fill that position.

When did I say Bulger couldn't hack it? If anything, I gave him credit for being good on a mediocre team. The MVP of the season is about as useful an honor as the ProBowl selection. McNair is out the door. Chad still needs to show me consistency as a player and a leader.



You mean....like McNabb's one good season? People seem to forget that until this year, McNabb was a very middle of the pack QB.


1999 60.01 Eagles were 5-11 First Year of McNabb
2000 77.8 Eagles were 11-5
*2001 84.3 Eagles were 11-5
*2002 86.0 Eagles were 12-4
*2003 79.6 Eagles were 12-4
*2004 104.8 Eagles were 13-3 and in the SuperBowl

*Conference Championships appearances
So they are 64-32 with McNabb at QB. Name one player who had more of an impact in the last 6 years for the Eagles than Donovan. How is this middle of the pack? Are you going by passing stats or team records? Because the W's/L's gets you into the playoffs, not your QB rating.



Oh Good God, are you AWARE of how bad the Panthers were injured? They lost their top defensive player (Kris Jenkins), their starting RB (Davis), their backup RB (Foster), their backup backup RB/FB (Hoover) and ended up with their FOURTH string starting for them (Goings). They lost their top WR as well. When you lose your primary starters on defense and offense, it's going to be tough. That they finished as high as they did is a testament to Fox's coaching and Delhomme's resiliency.

BOO-HOO!!! I lost all my Running backs. You already said that "hello, it's the NFL" when it came to injuries. The NFC was so bad this year that Carolina had a chance to get into the playoffs with a losing record. This stuff doesn't happen in a vaccuum. For as injured as this team was, how bad did the surrounding teams need to be for that to happen?



Huh? He's started 34 games. Yeah, he gets injured -- hello, it's the NFL. But he's got a career passer rating of 93.7. Or are you now going to continue stacking the odds in McNabb's favor by saying "Wait, hold on, name another West Coast QB that has started a lot of games and is coached by Andy Reid and that could step right in and win!"


Check the original post. I asked for QBs to step in and lead the Eagles offense. You said you could name 7.



The "strawman" thing is that you're effectively saying Green isn't good because his team doesn't win. The reason his team doesn't win is because they have ZERO defense. The reason they did as well as they did last year can be summed in two words: Dante Hall. Special Teams is what the made difference for them last year, and they didn't have Hall or that lucky streak this year.


Dante Hall? Luck? No. You need a good QB to lead the team, not just score points. That's why Manning needs to win the conf championship game to be considered great. And for God's sake, Green had Priest Holmes, and his two lookalikes, Blaylock and Johnson AND a fort Knox secure o-line. You and I should have been able to win 12 games with them. Green is no daisy. No daisy at all.


God I love Eagles fans. Don't you have some snowballs-with-batteries to throw? Or at least a draftee to boo?
About Vick...

Oh, hell no. I said he was a bust waiting to happen when he got drafted


Are you sure you are not a closet Philly fan, Pops? :)


Ummm....why am I his #1 fan? I don't think he's all that good, but he's entertaining to watch. Amazing arm strength and speed, but he's the Barry Sanders of QBs.

Not Vick, but Atlanta. You seem to like them enough to use them as an example of the powerhouse that is the NFC. Oh, and Barry Sanders didnt win anything important, so I really like the comparison. :)


That said, I would say the surprise teams to watch for are Arizona and Washington.
They've said that about Washington for the past 5 years. Dan Snyder's a dolt.


Watch that knee jerking there son, only person that claims I'm a Falcons fan is, uh, you. I LIVE here, doesn't mean I LIKE it here.

That's the saddest part of your post. My condolences. Perhaps you should move to a city where the team is interesting and/or a winner.


The Qb position is about leadership. It's not stats. It's leading your team to victories. Other then the NHL goalie, THERE IS NO MORE IMPORTANT POSITION IN PRO SPORTS THAN THE QB! McNabb is an impact player. Deal with it, stupids!

McNabb is a natural leader, he gets better every year, and now he has one of the greatest WRs in NFL history to catch TD passes. The McNabb bashers really have little ground left to stand on anymore. The fact that they continue to spew stupid statements makes it sad for them (and doubly sad for people to have to listen to them)

[Squirrel Killer]

And they wonder why Philly fans have a bad rep... :wink:

[Lenkenobi]

And they wonder why Philly fans have a bad rep... :wink:

HAHA. Dont listen to him. He's a Cowboys Fan!!!


:)

[Jason Levine]

McNabb is a natural leader, he gets better every year, and now he has one of the greatest WRs in NFL history to catch TD passes. The McNabb bashers really have little ground left to stand on anymore. The fact that they continue to spew stupid statements makes it sad for them (and doubly sad for people to have to listen to them)

I agree that he is getting better every year, but my one reservation is that the "scatter arm" mentioned in an earlier post still shows up occasionally, as it did on Sunday at a couple of very inoportune times. Somtimes McNabb just inexplicably throws a very bad ball. Still he has, indeed, kept improving, and for my money he's easily the best QB in the NFC right now, all due props to Mr. Culpepper's outstanding season.

[Major Malphunktion]

Did Philly fans really throw batteries?
Man that is lame.
Of course NE fans kept MNF out of town for a decade by the way we used to act.

[BaconTastesGood]

Are you saying that the QBs you named might make an impact in Philly, or are you not sure, now? A few posts earlier, you were all about naming 7 QBs who could better fill that position.

I'm confident any of those QBs I named could handle that system, my point is that we don't KNOW this since none of them HAVE done it, right?

I mean, shit, when like 20% of your pass are dump offs to a running back, it's not exactly demanding much is it?


The MVP of the season is about as useful an honor as the ProBowl selection.

Dude, MVP is a MUCH bigger deal than the Pro Bowl. MUCH. Can you show me an AP MVP that we look back on and say "Yeah, he kinda sucked, he was overrated"? I can do that with the Pro Bowl rosters all day long. Even for players who won the MVP but have had otherwise questionable careers (Kurt Warner, Randall Cunningham, Terrell Davis, and Rich Gannon), there is NO arguing that during their MVP years they were just dominant at their position.



1999 60.01 Eagles were 5-11 First Year of McNabb
2000 77.8 Eagles were 11-5
*2001 84.3 Eagles were 11-5
*2002 86.0 Eagles were 12-4
*2003 79.6 Eagles were 12-4
*2004 104.8 Eagles were 13-3 and in the SuperBowl


Oddly enough, those years coincide EXACTLY with the arrival of Andy Reid, Brad Childress, and Jim Johnson. Gee, coincidence? Do you think McNabb would have had similar success under, say, Rich Kotite?

Given that the Eagles have been competitive with and without TO, and won even when McNabb was injured, I would argue that the Eagles fortunes changed with the coaching staff, not with the QB.


Name one player who had more of an impact in the last 6 years for the Eagles than Donovan.

That's kind of a loaded question, given that there aren't many Eagles who have been on the team for six years. If I had to say one, it would be Brian Dawkins, but he's been there almost ten years.


Are you going by passing stats or team records? Because the W's/L's gets you into the playoffs, not your QB rating.

Yeah, that's it, McNabb wins all those games. Not that defense. Uh-huh. when McNabb is blocking, handing off to himself, and covering receivers, I'll believe that he's the guy that made the difference. Right now I'm betting on Reid and his staff.


Check the original post. I asked for QBs to step in and lead the Eagles offense. You said you could name 7.

I did -- and I think all of them could do as well as McNabb, but we don't KNOW that since they HAVEN'T stepped in for McNabb.



Dante Hall? Luck? No. You need a good QB to lead the team, not just score points. That's why Manning needs to win the conf championship game to be considered great.

That's a load of shit. Manning could win the conf championship and then people would say that he has to win the Super Bowl to be considered great (cf. Marino). Manning has been accused of not winning Big Games, even though he won the SEC Championship and hard games against the likes of Tampa, etc. McNabb hasn't won the Big One yet either -- sorry, conference championships don't count (if they did, then Collins is just as good as McNabb by your own metrics).


And for God's sake, Green had Priest Holmes, and his two lookalikes, Blaylock and Johnson AND a fort Knox secure o-line.

And pedestrian receivers. I won't argue that Green has more weapons that Philly, which is a testament, again, to Reid's staff.

But a QB's performance can only be judged on points and turnovers. Green has put up more. Take the KC offense + Philly defense and you would have an amazing team that could win the SB.



Not Vick, but Atlanta. You seem to like them enough to use them as an example of the powerhouse that is the NFC.

Er, no, I said they had a turnaround, which is true. It's an anomalous one btw, and I think they'll regress last year, but my point is that any given team can get their shit together in one off season.



They've said that about Washington for the past 5 years. Dan Snyder's a dolt.

"They" have said that, but not me. I think Gibbs got a wake up call this year, and bringing in Brunell is partly what fucked them. If they had gone with Ramsey instead of the "Experienced vet" they would have made a go of it. Their defense was MIND boggling this year.

With Portis, Coles, and Gardner (if he stays), they have the tools to at least make it into the wildcard.

But this depends entirely on whether Gibbs actually understands coaching these days and cares enough.



That's the saddest part of your post. My condolences. Perhaps you should move to a city where the team is interesting and/or a winner.


I'm not a fan of any team. I've moved too much. I'm a fan of the GAME, which lets me make pretty object analyses of games and players. I'm not a homer for any particular team, but there are players and coaches I root for because I think they're classy.

I love football, it fascinates me. I study it. But I have no "home team" even though I've lived near Tampa, San Diego, San Francisco, Atlanta, and Dallas.


The Qb position is about leadership. It's not stats. It's leading your team to victories. Other then the NHL goalie, THERE IS NO MORE IMPORTANT POSITION IN PRO SPORTS THAN THE QB! McNabb is an impact player. Deal with it, stupids!

I agree 100%. The QB is the most important person on the offense, and intangibles are incredibly important. But he does not win the game by himself. Would Brady have been a "loser" if Vinatieri shanks any of this three SB winning kicks? Would Montana have been a "loser" if Clark drops the pass in the back of the end zone? Is Kelly a "loser" because Norwood went wide right?

QBs make a huge difference, but in the end a huge chunk of the game is out of his hands. Receivers drop balls or can't cross the goal line (hello Dyson). Running backs fumble. Special teams give way to fluke plays.

QB is the most important position, but they do not get the credit for a team's wins. Sorry, deal with it. QBs can get the credit for LOSING a game or choking, sure, but unless we're going back to the one-platoon system and we have QBs lining up at defensive back again, they simply cannot receive the credit for the wins.

Let me put this another way -- if McNabb was QB for San Francisco, is it his fault they suck?


McNabb is a natural leader, he gets better every year, and now he has one of the greatest WRs in NFL history to catch TD passes.

TO one of the ALL TIME greats? Dude. Not to go off on a tangent, but...dude.


The McNabb bashers really have little ground left to stand on anymore. The fact that they continue to spew stupid statements makes it sad for them (and doubly sad for people to have to listen to them)

No, what's said is when people say that McNabb gets the credit for the wins, but when he doesn't win, it's because of the team/clock management. You can't have it both ways. If a QB gets the win, then he gets the losses, and right now McNabb, using your metrics, is just as good as Rich Gannon, Kerry Collins, and Chris Chandler based on "winning the Big Game".

[BaconTastesGood]

I agree that he is getting better every year, but my one reservation is that the "scatter arm" mentioned in an earlier post still shows up occasionally

Even worse is that it tends to show up when he's rattled. This is NOT a good trait for a leader. Observe:


PLAYER RATING BEHIND
McNabb 111 88.3
Manning 121.5 123.5
Brady 92.6 113.2


Manning is rock solid -- he plays pretty much the same away or at home, behind or ahead. Brady plays better when behind. McNabb clearly plays worse when he's behind! Where's that leadership now?

It's also worth noting that McNabb has a higher rate of interceptions in the playoffs than in the regular season, whereas Brady's actually drops. And when McNabb screws up in the playoffs, it's pretty catastrophic. In his conference championships he played atrociously until this year, and in the Super Bowl he didn't play particularly well -- definitely not as well as he did during the regular season.

So while I like McNabb, I don't think he shows the poise necessary to be considered one of the greats. Remember, it's about the intangibles such as leadership and poise, and the data shows that he's lacking that since he chokes in playoff games and has a hard time coming back from behind.

[Lenkenobi]

If you're a fan of no particular team, then it's easy to bash this or that player/team/coach. You've got no particular love for any one team, and that's sadder than being trapped in Atlanta.

I don't know. Maybe you are in the military or something. Maybe that's why you move around so much. I have no idea.

That being said, until you settle down, you will have little to no idea about why fans can't stand guys like yourself when they go off and blurt out cookie cutter observations and drone out stat lines. It's not always a matter of that. If you give Reid credit for the Eagles success (which makes sense), then you have to have confidence in who he uses at QB. You can't have it both ways.


Lenkenobi wrote:
"Are you saying that the QBs you named might make an impact in Philly, or are you not sure, now? A few posts earlier, you were all about naming 7 QBs who could better fill that position."

Bacon wrote...
"I'm confident any of those QBs I named could handle that system, my point is that we don't KNOW this since none of them HAVE done it, right?
I mean, shit, when like 20% of your pass are dump offs to a running back, it's not exactly demanding much is it?"



So how the hell can you say that you can name 7 guys who could do it better than McNabb? Read up on the west coast offense and get back to me.

Where is the reasoning? Stick to your guns, dammit! Don't double back now!

From 1999-2004. Take any year you want. Break it down by year if you like. Name me the most important player for the Eagles by year. The stand-out guy. The guy who made the biggest difference that year.

And Big Red won't work. Players only.

Bacon wrote
"a QB's performance can only be judged on points and turnovers. Green has put up more. Take the KC offense + Philly defense and you would have an amazing team that could win the SB. "


Clearly you have lost sight of the game if you think that players are only as good as their stats. I can see using this type of arguement 200 years from now when the games are sitting on some old dusty tapes in the NFL films Hall of Records. But for God's sake, man, buy a TV and watch some football games! Don't go by your fantasy football cheatsheets.

On second thought, I'm guessing that you do not travel around because of the military. Leadership and morale are two important aspects of the armed forces' mission statements. You're just looking at stats.

Maybe it's passion vs. analysis that is dividing us. I don't know, but I'd have a hard time rooting for anyone if I didnt have love for a home team.
Take a chance. Pick up a flag and fly it! Be with your team from (insert Rich Kotite equivalent) to (insert Andy Reid equivalent) and then get back to me.

[extarbags]

From 1999-2004. Take any year you want. Break it down by year if you like. Name me the most important player for the Eagles by year. The stand-out guy. The guy who made the biggest difference that year.

2000-2002: David Akers

:/

[BaconTastesGood]

If you're a fan of no particular team, then it's easy to bash this or that player/team/coach.

And, likewise, praise this or that player/team/coach. It's called OBJECTIVITY. I'd recommend it to you, but it's obvious that would interfere with your "passion".


I don't know. Maybe you are in the military or something. Maybe that's why you move around so much. I have no idea.

Okay...nice non-sequitur. Oh, I GET IT, you've pretty much fucked the discussion, so let's concentrate on attacking ME now. Gotcha.


you will have little to no idea about why fans can't stand guys like yourself when they go off and blurt out cookie cutter observations and drone out stat lines.

That's not true, I know exactly why fans do that -- jingoistic assholism.


If you give Reid credit for the Eagles success (which makes sense), then you have to have confidence in who he uses at QB. You can't have it both ways.

Great coaches are often poor judges of personnel. They sometimes exhibit loyalty in the face of overwhelming OBJECTIVE data showing they've made the wrong choice. They sometimes let a belief in their system override the obvious fact that some players aren't getting it done.

Parcells, Gibbs, Walsh, and many others have committed this error.

So, yeah, I can have it both ways since the two are unrelated.



From 1999-2004. Take any year you want. Break it down by year if you like. Name me the most important player for the Eagles by year. The stand-out guy. The guy who made the biggest difference that year.

And Big Red won't work. Players only.


I'm not sure I could, since there are many teams where there is no one player that made the difference. Even with the Pats, you could argue that Dillon, Bruschi, and definitely Brown all contributed mightily to their run.

I would say that Vincent, Dawkins, and Douglas were all pivotal at different periods time.


[Clearly you have lost sight of the game if you think that players are only as good as their stats.

No, the stats back up our subjective analysis. I don't think that get players, statistically, are necessarily great players that I'd want. Jeff George comes to mind. Elvis GrBac comes to mind. Ricky Watters comes to mind.

I am 100% with you on the value of intangibles. What I'm saying, and which you refuse to hear, is that QBs are not the SOLE factor behind a team's success. I don't give a shit how good that QB is, but he's not the one running routes or blocking.


But for God's sake, man, buy a TV and watch some football games! Don't go by your fantasy football cheatsheets.

Yeah, attack the poster not the argument!!! It's like Usenet ca. 1994!!!


On second thought, I'm guessing that you do not travel around because of the military. Leadership and morale are two important aspects of the armed forces' mission statements. You're just looking at stats.

:roll:


Maybe it's passion vs. analysis that is dividing us.

I think it's a lot more than that, like the ability to separate the argument from the arguer, step number one. Analysis can amplify or explain the passion.

When people are passionate about how well Montana has played, they can point to his "no interceptions ever thrown in the Super Bowl" stat. They're being emotional but pointing at data to back up their position.

Without that data, it just devolves to "Well, YOU SUCK"..."NO, YOU SUCK!" which seems to be your preferred method of argument.


Take a chance. Pick up a flag and fly it! Be with your team from (insert Rich Kotite equivalent) to (insert Andy Reid equivalent) and then get back to me.

"Stop being so objective, get back to me when we can just scream out our positions and not actually use anything to back up our claims!"

[jeffd]

Just to add fuel to the fire: according to Football Outsiders QB rankings (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb.php), the top five quarterbacks this season rated by DPAR (Defense Adjusted Points above Replacement, or how many points your team scored by having that player instead of a replacement calibre player) are:

P. Manning
D. Culpepper
T. Brady
D. McNabb
B. Green

You can view the numbers (and methodology and whatnot) on that site.

JD

[Lenkenobi]

I don't know. Maybe you are in the military or something. Maybe that's why you move around so much. I have no idea.

Okay...nice non-sequitur. Oh, I GET IT, you've pretty much fucked the discussion, so let's concentrate on attacking ME now. Gotcha.


It wasn't an attack. Seriously. It was just speculation. I was trying to reason why you would not have the courage to stand behind any one team as your, "home team." Sorry, did 'courage' insult you?



Great coaches are often poor judges of personnel. They sometimes exhibit loyalty in the face of overwhelming OBJECTIVE data showing they've made the wrong choice. They sometimes let a belief in their system override the obvious fact that some players aren't getting it done.

Parcells, Gibbs, Walsh, and many others have committed this error.

So, yeah, I can have it both ways since the two are unrelated.


But you can name 7 QBs better than McNabb for the Eagles.
Awesome. Send your resume in to the Eagles. They might be hiring.
I'm glad you heard of loyalty, though. It doesn't show up in the stat sheets so I'd understand if ya missed it :p




I would say that Vincent, Dawkins, and Douglas were all pivotal at different periods time.

So you are a defensive guy. I can see that. I can also see that you don't want to give much acknowledgement at all to McNabb. That might weaken your arguement in the readers' eyes? (shrug)



Without that data, it just devolves to "Well, YOU SUCK"..."NO, YOU SUCK!" which seems to be your preferred method of argument.

Wait. Didnt you just say,


Oh, I GET IT, you've pretty much fucked the discussion, so let's concentrate on attacking ME now. Gotcha.


Don't get your panties in a bunch. You are starting to look like a hypocrite.



I am 100% with you on the value of intangibles. What I'm saying, and which you refuse to hear, is that QBs are not the SOLE factor behind a team's success. I don't give a shit how good that QB is, but he's not the one running routes or blocking.

Of course they are not the Sole reason. But don't you think that they are the most important position in football? BTW, you attacked me AGAIN in that last quote. :(



"Stop being so objective, get back to me when we can just scream out our positions and not actually use anything to back up our claims!"

Who is yelling? BTW, if :roll: is right up there with 'dude' on your list of moves, I'd get a new playbook.

[Lenkenobi]

That's kind of useful. Thank you jeffd. I still don't think Culpepper is a better QB than McNabb, but the stats help. :)


Just to add fuel to the fire: according to
Football Outsiders QB rankings (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb.php), the top five quarterbacks this season rated by DPAR (Defense Adjusted Points above Replacement, or how many points your team scored by having that player instead of a replacement calibre player) are:

P. Manning
D. Culpepper
T. Brady
D. McNabb
B. Green

You can view the numbers (and methodology and whatnot) on that site.

JD

[jeffd]

You're welcome. Also, just for kicks - here's the numbers for the past few seasons. They bear out the theory that McNabb was a middle of the pack QB until this year, where his performance was pretty elite.

2003 top 5:
Manning
Green
Hasslebeck
McNair
Culpepper

In 2003 McNabb was ranked 14.

2002 top 5:
Pennington
Gannons
Collins
Manning
Johnson

In 2002, McNabb was ranked 20.

2001 top 5:
Warner
Gannon
McNair
Garcia
Favre

In 2001, McNabb was ranked 18.

Finally, for 2000 top 5:
Manning
Garcia
Culpepper
Collins
Griese

In 2000, McNabb was ranked 17.


That's kind of useful. Thank you jeffd. I still don't think Culpepper is a better QB than McNabb, but the stats help. :)


Just to add fuel to the fire: according to
Football Outsiders QB rankings (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb.php), the top five quarterbacks this season rated by DPAR (Defense Adjusted Points above Replacement, or how many points your team scored by having that player instead of a replacement calibre player) are:

P. Manning
D. Culpepper
T. Brady
D. McNabb
B. Green

You can view the numbers (and methodology and whatnot) on that site.

JD

EDIT: added Culpepper to the 2003 list. Forgot him.

[BaconTastesGood]

It wasn't an attack. Seriously. It was just speculation. I was trying to reason why you would not have the courage to stand behind any one team as your, "home team." Sorry, did 'courage' insult you?

That's like asking if I have the courage to choose a favorite ice cream. Is there something inherently, um, cowardly of not having a preference?



But you can name 7 QBs better than McNabb for the Eagles.
Awesome. Send your resume in to the Eagles. They might be hiring.
I'm glad you heard of loyalty, though. It doesn't show up in the stat sheets so I'd understand if ya missed it :p

Yes, the Eagles know ALL about loyalty. Calling Mr. Harris, Taylor, Vincent, Douglas, Trotter, Staley...

Can you name 7 WRs better than Pinkston or Mitchell? Yes? Well, I guess you're just as guilty of second-guessing as I am. IT'S THE INTERWEB, THIS IS WHAT WE DO.


So you are a defensive guy.

No, you just make me defensive =) That said, the Eagles have been a defensive team during the Reid era, so yeah, I would say that their defense has set the tone.

From 2000 to 2004 the Eagles have averaged being the #3 or #4 best team in points allowed, contrasted with #8/9 for points scored. Defense has set their tone.


I can also see that you don't want to give much acknowledgement at all to McNabb.

Eh? I think McNabb is a good QB, I never said otherwise. I don't think he's one of the best in the league, but I think he's a solid starter and better than probably 2/3rds of the starters in the league. He has flaws, some of them serious, but he's not a BAD QB.

If anything, I think YOU are underrating Reid and his staff (although given their tragic play calling during the SB, I'm curious how they do so well during the regular season).



Of course they are not the Sole reason. But don't you think that they are the most important position in football? BTW, you attacked me AGAIN in that last quote. :(

Awww, not the frowny face! Okay, I'm going to say this in my normal voice, so you can hear how very serious I am (sorry Erik): I was doing tit for tat, which is childish and immature, but this being the Interweb and all and, more importantly, it seemed like you were baiting me, so I went with it.

If you want, we can stop the various psychoanalyses of each other and stick to the facts. This is what I've tried to do, for what it's worth, but then you've ranted that I'm not emotional and just a stat freak. So when I DO get emotional and make fun of your comments, then I'm a loose cannon and a hypocrite apparently.

Pick one, and I'll go with it. Your call.



BTW, if :roll: is right up there with 'dude'

Again, I'm saying this in my normal voice: I don't think what I roll'ed to was even relevant to the discussion. It was basically saying I'm a stat whore and ignoring my argument. I didn't want to IGNORE the statement, but that's the best I could do in a pinch.

In the future, I will ignore personal comments and stick to the facts, as passionless as that may make me.

on your list of moves, I'd get a new playbook.[/quote]

[Lenkenobi]

That's like asking if I have the courage to choose a favorite ice cream. Is there something inherently, um, cowardly of not having a preference?


Don't you have a favorite ice cream? (gasp)
Anyway, I think that you would approach your breakdowns differently if you had a team that you sided with...a team that you can defend when others are throwing around various stats or using cookie cutter reasoning to explain why your team lost.



Yes, the Eagles know ALL about loyalty. Calling Mr. Harris, Taylor, Vincent, Douglas, Trotter, Staley...

Out of those names (excluding the ones who returned this season) the only one I miss is Vincent. And I think he is still semi-injured. Not sure.
*Al Harris can get hit by a car for all I care. He had so many stupid penalities that I wince when I hear his name out of reflex.
*Bobby Taylor couldn't tackle you or me.
*Staley was a fool for leaving the team. Holding out at the beginning of the year and then going to another team so he could run more were bad moves. Did he even play in the conf championship game?
He wanted to run the ball. Hell, he could have ran around the Linc all season and then played in the Super Bowl.

But, I digest. You were the one who brought up coaching loyalty for players.



Can you name 7 WRs better than Pinkston or Mitchell? Yes? Well, I guess you're just as guilty of second-guessing as I am. IT'S THE INTERWEB, THIS IS WHAT WE DO.

Come on, man. Are you drawing comparisons of Pinky and Freddy to McNabb? That's not even right. Different class altogether and you know it. To use your move...dude



I don't think he's one of the best in the league, but I think he's a solid starter and better than probably 2/3rds of the starters in the league. He has flaws, some of them serious, but he's not a BAD QB.

You jumped in with your list of QBs while I was defending #5 from an attack by someone who probably saw one Eagles game the whole year. You stood with him, so you get the business end of these posts just like he did.

I still utterly disagree with your list of QBs.
Brady is better...yes. Manning is better (for now)...yes. Everyone else, no way. None of them have the mobility. Stats don't capture the leadership of Donovan, what he intangibly does for the team, and the headaches he gives to defensive coaches during the year. He gets wins for the team. Not single-handedly, but he gets them. He brings that team together.

If having a mobile, sometime pocket passer is wrong, I don't want to be right. Pocket passing is great if you want to work in two dimensions. I don't want that.

You still didnt answer the question of, "Don't you think they are the most important position on the football team?"



it seemed like you were baiting me, so I went with it.

I don't usually bait. I just like to see how far people can go before they start to lose it.

[VegasRobb]

I didn't get to follow the Eagles alot during the regular season, but I seem to remember previous Eagle teams using the roll-out pass a bit more.

Did they just scrap that this year or just for the playoffs or just in the Super Bowl?

Just like the Patriots kept going to the screen pass to give the Eagles blitzing defense something to think about, the Eagles should have rolled McNabb out a bit more to get him away from the Patriot pass rush.

As for McNabb and where he stands, he reminds me of a Terry Bradshaw, Ken Stabler type of QB. He looks like he should be putting up better numbers than he does, but his teams tend to win regardless. Troy Aikman was too efficient for a comparison.

[Lenkenobi]

I didn't get to follow the Eagles alot during the regular season, but I seem to remember previous Eagle teams using the roll-out pass a bit more.

Did they just scrap that this year or just for the playoffs or just in the Super Bowl?

Just like the Patriots kept going to the screen pass to give the Eagles blitzing defense something to think about, the Eagles should have rolled McNabb out a bit more to get him away from the Patriot pass rush.

As for McNabb and where he stands, he reminds me of a Terry Bradshaw, Ken Stabler type of QB. He looks like he should be putting up better numbers than he does, but his teams tend to win regardless. Troy Aikman was too efficient for a comparison.

There were rollouts and scripted QB runs in the playbook this year, but I think they were using it less and less. But you bring up a great point. I would have loved to see at least one or two roll outs for passes or tuck it and runs in the Super Bowl. I guess we'll wait and see what happens next year.

[Squirrel Killer]

I guess we'll wait and see what happens next year.

Man, if you're making bets on the Eagles reaching the Super Bowl next year already, I'd like in on that action. :wink: