With Portis injured and TO making a mockery of Dallas

[skinsrule05 30]

One thing that I hate about this Eagles VS Cowboys argument is I am a huge McNAbb fan. I love the way the guy plays and I think he is a real leader.

 

I like McNabb as well for his talent. I can say he is definitely the most talented QB in the division (assuming he is healthy & still mobile) but I can honestly say he has never shown me he is a leader. When it is big game time he either chokes or relies on someone else to win it.

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

I like McNabb as well for his talent. I can say he is definitely the most talented QB in the division (assuming he is healthy & still mobile) but I can honestly say he has never shown me he is a leader. When it is big game time he either chokes or relies on someone else to win it.

Oh, I dunno about that. He led a pretty craptastic team from a horrible 3-13 record to the playoffs for 5 straight years, and then led them to the SB two years ago. I guess he did that on talent alone If so, I'll take the talent

[Sho Nuff 719]

Oh, I dunno about that. He led a pretty craptastic team from a horrible 3-13 record to the playoffs for 5 straight years, and then led them to the SB two years ago. I guess he did that on talent alone If so, I'll take the talent

 

Helps that they went from bad defenses to top 10 defenses every year in that span. Hell top 5 every year except 2003.

[skinsrule05 30]

Oh, I dunno about that. He led a pretty craptastic team from a horrible 3-13 record to the playoffs for 5 straight years, and then led them to the SB two years ago. I guess he did that on talent alone If so, I'll take the talent

 

It was not his talent alone. I would say T.O. and the defense (all the yrs), had a big part in the wins. Just not his leadership.

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

Sure defense played a huge part. I just find it funny that since people can't harp on McNabb's personality or talent, they resort to some intangible like leadership.

 

And TO didn't help them get to the SB BTW.

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

I just find it funny that since people can't harp on McNabb's personality or talent, they resort to some intangible like leadership.

 

And TO didn't help them get to the SB BTW.

 

I find it funny that you take it so personally when anyone questions your precious McNabb. I personally think he has not always shown the best leadership skills but I don't know why you would care that much.

 

And the whole T.O. thing....you are starting to sound like a jealous little b!tch. Are you sure you weren't dating T.O. and he cheated on you? That's what it's starting to sound like.

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

And the whole T.O. thing....you are starting to sound like a jealous little b!tch. Are you sure you weren't dating T.O. and he cheated on you? That's what it's starting to sound like.

Who's jealous? I say TO didn't help the Eagles get to the SB, and if you bothered to know anything you would know I'm right, or the person who calls me names and acts childish?

[ffdomino 0]

Can McNabb do it though...

 

...being less mobile?

...in the new (Coughlin, Gibbs, and Parcells) NFC East?

...with the worst WR squad he has ever had?

...with only a pass catching running game?

...with no scapegoats (see:TO)?

...with the Madden and Chunky Soup curse still lingering?

...with half the team still divided on the whole TO thing (some players still see Donovan as too "corporate")?

[Cruzer 1,992]

And TO didn't help them get to the SB BTW.

that's crap, don't be silly.

 

the iggs won their first 7 games that year and 13 of their first 14. TO didn't get hurt unitl week 15 - by then home field thru-out was all wrapped up.

[ffdomino 0]

that's crap, don't be silly.

 

the iggs won their first 7 games that year and 13 of their first 14. TO didn't get hurt unitl week 15 - by then home field thru-out was all wrapped up.

 

Todd Pinkston could have easily picked up those 1200 yards and 14 TDs if TO was not on the feild...

[Gabriel Balcavienga 0]

thanks for the entertainment d'ohmer!

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

home field thru-out was all wrapped up.

And how did that help them the previous years?

 

thanks for the entertainment d'ohmer!

[Cruzer 1,992]

And how did that help them the previous years?

it didn't the previous years - choked like a bunch of gutless poosays. but the 04' team was different, it had a swager to it that was largely contributed to TO. also, they caught about as easy a conference opponent as one could ask for - the falcons clearly had no business being on the field with the iggs. and his impending return also jazzed up not only his teammates, but the entire city it seemed.

[Force of Two 0]

Can McNabb do it though...

 

...being less mobile?

...in the new (Coughlin, Gibbs, and Parcells) NFC East?

...with the worst WR squad he has ever had?

...with only a pass catching running game?

...with no scapegoats (see:TO)?

...with the Madden and Chunky Soup curse still lingering?

...with half the team still divided on the whole TO thing (some players still see Donovan as too "corporate")?

 

1)He isnt any less mobile and appears to be in better shape than he has been in years

 

2) So what!...

 

3) Torrance Small and Charles Johnson were worse

 

4) Running Game is still a question but it has been for several years other than 2003

 

5) No scapegoats...Give me a break...who was his scapegoat before 2004?

 

6) Madden Curse/Chunky Soup Curse....So you believe in the boogeyman in your closet too?

 

7) There hasnt been any evidence of that this year take the fishing trip somewhere else

 

Kudos to several people who dont hate on this guy and look at him for what he has done....Though Im a Birds fan, I still dont think that they have enough yet to take the Division however its not unpossible......

 

The Giants I dont think will be able to stop the run, Washington made alot of moves but not all of them really tell me that they are going to be anything that great and the Boys have some deficiencies on the OLine...

 

Eagles have obvious problems with skilled spots on offense and will need to have creative gameplanning (something I dont think has been Andys forte in the past) and or they are going to have to strike gold with young guys.

 

But you people are discounting them are really neglecting those 1st 10 games of the season when they should able to bolt out of the gates at 7-3 or 8-2

[ffdomino 0]

And how did that help them the previous years?

 

Washington Redskins

2001 8 and 8 2nd NFC East --

2002 7 and 9 3rd NFC East --

2003 5 and 11 3rd NFC East --

2004 6 and 10 4th NFC East --

 

Dallas Cowboys

2001 5 and 11 5th NFC East --

2002 5 and 11 4th NFC East --

2003 10 and 6 2nd NFC East Lost Wild Card Playoffs (Panthers)

2004 6 and 10 3rd NFC East --

2005 9 and 7 3rd NFC East --

 

NY Giants

2001 7 and 9 3rd NFC East --

2002 10 and 6 2nd NFC East Lost Wild Card Playoffs (49ers)

2003 4 and 12 4th NFC East --

2004 6 and 10 2nd NFC East --

 

I count 3 times an NFC East team has gone above .500. That is how McNabb was able to get far. The rest of the division sucked...seriously sucked. It is also why when McNabb made it into the playoffs he never won it all. It is harder to play real teams.....

 

I do have to say that I do not hate on McNabb as much as you would believe. He is the best QB in that division by far but I do not think he will be able to overcome the lack of offensive talent this year.

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

it didn't the previous years - choked like a bunch of gutless poosays. but the 04' team was different, it had a swager to it that was largely contributed to TO. also, they caught about as easy a conference opponent as one could ask for - the falcons clearly had no business being on the field with the iggs. and his impending return also jazzed up not only his teammates, but the entire city it seemed.

Right, and Tampa Bay never won when the temp was below 50 degrees Hey, it sucks they lost those previous Championship games, but in no way did homefield advantage play any part, so that argument goes right out the window.

 

As for the Falcons, they can't determine who they play, that had nothing to do with TO.

 

Swagger

 

Again, TO didn't help them get to the SB.

 

Washington Redskins

2001 8 and 8 2nd NFC East --

2002 7 and 9 3rd NFC East --

2003 5 and 11 3rd NFC East --

2004 6 and 10 4th NFC East --

 

Dallas Cowboys

2001 5 and 11 5th NFC East --

2002 5 and 11 4th NFC East --

2003 10 and 6 2nd NFC East Lost Wild Card Playoffs (Panthers)

2004 6 and 10 3rd NFC East --

2005 9 and 7 3rd NFC East --

 

NY Giants

2001 7 and 9 3rd NFC East --

2002 10 and 6 2nd NFC East Lost Wild Card Playoffs (49ers)

2003 4 and 12 4th NFC East --

2004 6 and 10 2nd NFC East --

 

I count 3 times an NFC East team has gone above .500. That is how McNabb was able to get far. The rest of the division sucked...seriously sucked. It is also why when McNabb made it into the playoffs he never won it all. It is harder to play real teams.....

Uh, not sure what point you're trying to make here. I guess you're just saying that Dallas, Washington and NY sucked. Yeah they did.

 

But this still has nothing to do with TO getting the Eagles to the SB.

[Force of Two 0]

Right, and Tampa Bay never won when the temp was below 50 degrees Hey, it sucks they lost those previous Championship games, but in no way did homefield advantage play any part, so that argument goes right out the window.

 

As for the Falcons, they can't determine who they play, that had nothing to do with TO.

 

Swagger

 

Again, TO didn't help them get to the SB.

Uh, not sure what point you're trying to make here. I guess you're just saying that Dallas, Washington and NY sucked. Yeah they did.

 

But this still has nothing to do with TO getting the Eagles to the SB.

 

Dont say TO didnt help the Birds get there...it just makes you look bitter as if you dont want to give him any credit at all for what he did...I hated last year too but dont minimize what he did as compared to what we were obviously lacking in 2002-2003 (we werent supposed to win in 2001)

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

Dont say TO didnt help the Birds get there...it just makes you look bitter as if you dont want to give him any credit at all for what he did...I hated last year too but dont minimize what he did as compared to what we were obviously lacking in 2002-2003 (we werent supposed to win in 2001)

Whoa, back up here. I'm just stating fact for all those that wanna think that without TO the Eagles can't get back to the SB, including our own fans. When you look at it objectively, TO really didn't do anything to get this team to the SB, sorry that's a fact.

 

If the facts make me look bitter so be it. And I am not minimizing what he did in 2004, never have, he had a great year! He just wasn't instrumental in getting the Eagles to the SB.

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

Dont say TO didnt help the Birds get there...it just makes you look bitter as if you dont want to give him any credit at all for what he did...

 

Ding, ding, ding! Correct. Exactly what I was thinking.

 

Simpson your own fellow fans think you're wrong.

 

I do remember the talk that came from Eagles fans too when T.O. came to the team originally. That stud WR was going to put them over the top and win the superbowl for Philly. That's all they needed......and even though I'm not a fan I believed it too. T.O. was all they needed. But it didn't work out that way and now you're mad about it and won't let go. Live and learn. You don't have to worry about him messing with your locker room ever again.

[sirensong 111]

simpson, i understand that your hope that TO destroys the cowboys' season as badly as he destroyed the your own team's. hell, i've said before that if we win the SB this year, the trophy will be tainted.

 

but you're really, really reaching in this thread.

 

TO doesn't travel with the team? that's a longstanding parcells rule: no inactives on the team charter.

 

the bike helmet stunt making a mockery of camp? TO pointed this out as a way of dealing with the frustration of not being on the field. true or not, the boys seem to be handling this much better than the eagles did--we're moving on without him, and somehow managing not to get into fistfights and media wars with him.

 

the eagles as the cream of the division? seriously, dude...that's pure, unadulterated homerism. a few years ago, when it actually was the case, i acknowledged it. but objectively, every team in the east has overtaken them. NY and dallas has made the best personnel moves, and washington has made the best coaching move. philly is far from the favorite in this division, and will have to scrap just to be competitive.

 

do i want TO back on the field? sure, provided he produces. but honestly, we're building a team that can win without the guy.

 

and finally, jarvis is right...

 

...you're starting to sound like you're talking about an ex-girlfriend.

[ffdomino 0]

If I recall correctly, TO played better in the Superbowl than McNabb did...but that is my perception. Considering TO was not suppose to play too.

[Cruzer 1,992]

Right, and Tampa Bay never won when the temp was below 50 degrees Hey, it sucks they lost those previous Championship games, but in no way did homefield advantage play any part, so that argument goes right out the window.

it's no less retarded for you to boast that it didn't have an effect than for me to say it did.

 

atlanta was/is a different team on the artificial turf of the dome. there is nothing going out the window but your absurd assumption TO had nothing to do with the iggs making it to the SB.

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

Well it appears that since I've taken away everybody's arguments, they now attack me.

 

I do remember the talk that came from Eagles fans too when T.O. came to the team originally. That stud WR was going to put them over the top and win the superbowl for Philly. That's all they needed......and even though I'm not a fan I believed it too. T.O. was all they needed. But it didn't work out that way and now you're mad about it and won't let go. Live and learn. You don't have to worry about him messing with your locker room ever again.

Sure, many fans thought this about TO, but they also thought we'd go to the SB in 2002 and 2003 as well.

 

But it didn't work out that way and now you're mad about it and won't let go. Live and learn. You don't have to worry about him messing with your locker room ever again.

Mad? Bitter? Can't let go I could care less about TO. If we go back to the beginning of the thread, I feel that as of right now the division is a toss-up between the Giants and the Eagles. That's all. But all the TO haters and lovers needed to come out and make this a YOU HATE TO, GET OVER IT thread, when that wasn't the intent at all. Sadly, it seems rather than acknowledge the problems that TO is causing, many would rather blast me instead. That's fine. The division is still a toss up b/t the Giants and the Eagles.

 

it's no less retarded for you to boast that it didn't have an effect than for me to say it did.

Okay, you can change your tune now, I just like shooting down every argument everyone tries to come up with.

 

If I recall correctly, TO played better in the Superbowl than McNabb did...but that is my perception. Considering TO was not suppose to play too.

He played phenomenally. Great game

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Ding, ding, ding! Correct. Exactly what I was thinking.

 

Simpson your own fellow fans think you're wrong.

 

He's just pumped because it is August, which is the peak of Philly smacktalk. The rest of the division is well versed in February smack talk.

 

For the record I think the Giants are the class of the division at this moment, and the Eagles have no answer for them. And I am still waiting for an answer to the question of how the Eagles have improved since last year. They have the same weaknesses today that they had 5 years ago, the main one being a cheap owner.

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

Well it appears that since I've taken away everybody's arguments, they now attack me.

Sure, many fans thought this about TO, but they also thought we'd go to the SB in 2002 and 2003 as well.

Mad? Bitter? Can't let go I could care less about TO. If we go back to the beginning of the thread, I feel that as of right now the division is a toss-up between the Giants and the Eagles. That's all. But all the TO haters and lovers needed to come out and make this a YOU HATE TO, GET OVER IT thread, when that wasn't the intent at all. Sadly, it seems rather than acknowledge the problems that TO is causing, many would rather blast me instead. That's fine. The division is still a toss up b/t the Giants and the Eagles.

Okay, you can change your tune now, I just like shooting down every argument everyone tries to come up with.

He played phenomenally. Great game

 

You are obviously delusional.

 

Have a nice day.

[ffdomino 0]

I love the "they have done it in the past they can do it again" argument.

 

By that logic, the Eagles have choked in the playoffs and they will do it again...

 

For the record I think the Giants are the class of the division at this moment, and the Eagles have no answer for them. And I am still waiting for an answer to the question of how the Eagles have improved since last year. They have the same weaknesses today that they had 5 years ago, the main one being a cheap owner.

 

I think the Redskins (full stregnth that is) are the division winners. Any injuries at all though and I would have to give it to the Giants. The Skins are as deep as an empty baby pool...

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

You are obviously delusional.

 

Have a nice day.

Contine with the name calling when you have nothing else. Tried and true tactic that never gets old

 

Thanks, you too

[shasha 0]

This is so stupid it made me laugh out loud.

 

Thank you.

Please elaborate on what part of it was stupid.

 

I believe that they even stated as much in interviews, they had been pretty much undefeated for 4 seasons straight in the division and all of a sudden they lost all 6 games and you had 2 other teams in the playoffs. Unless you just started watching football the last 2 seasons you would know that the NFC East was a joke for several years and the Eagles were the class of the division having gone the the NFC Championship game 4 years straight. The Giants were the only team in that division that wasn't bottom feeding garbage and in 2 years time they went from first to worst. After that many years you get used to walking through the losers and take it for granted, consciously or subconsciously.

 

I guess that knowing the facts and drawing a logical conclusion would be considered stupid.

 

And to set the record straight here, I am not, nor have I ever been an Eagles fan, I just call it how I see it.

[shasha 0]

Whoa! Do you really want to get into this conversation? All things being equal, both teams having crappy receivers to throw to......Tom Brady vs. Donovan McNabb?

 

I think the results speak....no....scream for themselves. One of them is a proven winner and one is not.

Compare the last 5 seasons and the Eagles have the highest winning percentage in the league. Sure the Pats have more rings, but it isn't like the Eagles haven't been to 4 NFC Championships and one SB in that time either. And to say something about last season, well that is stupid since McNabb played only half the year and was hurt in week 1. It would be a pretty weak argument.

 

You almost had a point, but than it just peters out when you go beyond the surface. Winning that many games in a 5 year span proves that you are a winner. If I was building a team from the ground up it would be a real hard toss up between those two QB's, both of them are a good choice. But in all honesty I think that McNabbs ability to create with his legs makes him a better pick depending on the rest of the team and the scheme. It isn't like Brady is going to tuck the ball down on 4th and 5 and ever get you those yards if everyone is covered and the protection breaks down.

 

I would trust either one of them to QB my team, both are winners in my book and according to their careers to this point. One has just been in better situations.

 

And lets be realistic here, the AFC has been a much better conference for years now all the way around. You play against better competition all year long and you are going to be a better team. Add a sick defense and solid special teams and you have a superior team all the way around. I can't stand the Pats either, but they had no weaknesses to exploit.

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

Please elaborate on what part of it was stupid.

 

I believe that they even stated as much in interviews, they had been pretty much undefeated for 4 seasons straight in the division and all of a sudden they lost all 6 games and you had 2 other teams in the playoffs. Unless you just started watching football the last 2 seasons you would know that the NFC East was a joke for several years and the Eagles were the class of the division having gone the the NFC Championship game 4 years straight. The Giants were the only team in that division that wasn't bottom feeding garbage and in 2 years time they went from first to worst. After that many years you get used to walking through the losers and take it for granted, consciously or subconsciously.

 

I guess that knowing the facts and drawing a logical conclusion would be considered stupid.

 

And to set the record straight here, I am not, nor have I ever been an Eagles fan, I just call it how I see it.

 

 

Here's what you had originally said...

Yeah, the rest of the division caught up to them and took them by surprise, those games were marked down as W's the day the schedule came out in previous years. I don't see them taking it for granted again this year.

 

Those games were marked down as W's? Where did you ever hear that? Everyone in that division is a rival to Philly on some level or another. Do you think anyone on that coaching staff or locker room was assuming victories? If so I don't know how they've experienced the success that they have. I can understand maybe looking past a weaker opponent at times but every team in your division? If that were the case Andy Reid would've and should've been fired by now.

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

Here's what you had originally said...

 

 

Those games were marked down as W's? Where did you ever hear that? Everyone in that division is a rival to Philly on some level or another. Do you think anyone on that coaching staff or locker room was assuming victories?

You guys are 50/50 here. Some Eagle fans (and I know shasha isn't one) who like to beat their chests probably had them down as W's, but I sure as heck didn't. No matter what year we're talking about, and which team we were playing, our divisional rivals always played us tough. Always.

[mitch moore 0]

Eagles are still cream of the crop in the division.

 

Are we talking about the same team that got swept in the division last year and didn't get any better this year while the other three did?

 

You're crazy.

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

Are we talking about the same team that got swept in the division last year and didn't get any better this year while the other three did?

 

You're crazy.

Please read all the points already discussed, then get back to us when you've caught up.

[Savage Beast 1]

McNabb is the best QB in the division, but he also has the worse supporting staff at the skill positions in the division. Even Mcnabb can't overcome his craptacular offensive supporting cast against the tough NFC East defenses.

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

Compare the last 5 seasons and the Eagles have the highest winning percentage in the league. Sure the Pats have more rings, but it isn't like the Eagles haven't been to 4 NFC Championships and one SB in that time either. And to say something about last season, well that is stupid since McNabb played only half the year and was hurt in week 1. It would be a pretty weak argument.

 

You almost had a point, but than it just peters out when you go beyond the surface. Winning that many games in a 5 year span proves that you are a winner. If I was building a team from the ground up it would be a real hard toss up between those two QB's, both of them are a good choice. But in all honesty I think that McNabbs ability to create with his legs makes him a better pick depending on the rest of the team and the scheme. It isn't like Brady is going to tuck the ball down on 4th and 5 and ever get you those yards if everyone is covered and the protection breaks down.

 

I would trust either one of them to QB my team, both are winners in my book and according to their careers to this point. One has just been in better situations.

 

And lets be realistic here, the AFC has been a much better conference for years now all the way around. You play against better competition all year long and you are going to be a better team. Add a sick defense and solid special teams and you have a superior team all the way around. I can't stand the Pats either, but they had no weaknesses to exploit.

 

Are you kidding me? I'm not sure where to start with this.

 

- You start out by saying the Eagles have the highest winning percentage which makes them better than the Pats but you end by saying the AFC is much more difficult and the Pats play superior competition. OK.... I agree.

 

- I definitely agree that the Eagles have had plenty of success the past few years. I also believe any quarterback would tell you he's not successful unless he's got that ring......even Marino. Tom's got the rings and the rings are everything. If Donovan doesn't get the ring he'll end up being Jim Kelly part 2. By the way, you say the Pats have "more rings"....one ring would be more rings than the Eagles.

 

- If I had to pick a team tomorrow I'd start with Tom Brady. He's a proven winner. You can have McNabb.

 

- Why wouldn't Brady tuck the ball and run for 5? If it was the best option at the time I'll bet he would do it. Or he could just throw a TD.

 

- I would definitely trust one of these 2 QB's. One of them has proven on 3 occasions that he can get it done. The other one hasn't. It's not a tough decision.

 

Your point never reaches the surface so I guess it won't have a chance to peter out.

[mitch moore 0]

Please read all the points already discussed, then get back to us when you've caught up.

 

 

Sorry, didn't know the thread had a moderater, do I have to take a test on the material before I can post?

 

Bottom line, Dallas, Washington and the Ants all got much better, the Beagles, not so much.

 

You better hope Westbrook stays healthy and performs like Barry did on his crappy Lions teams, or you will 0-6 in the division for two straight.

That's the only way Nabby stays healthy, if he has to carry the team again he's going to get killed

 

PS, you're still nutso!

[shasha 0]

- I definitely agree that the Eagles have had plenty of success the past few years. I also believe any quarterback would tell you he's not successful unless he's got that ring......even Marino. Tom's got the rings and the rings are everything. If Donovan doesn't get the ring he'll end up being Jim Kelly part 2. By the way, you say the Pats have "more rings"....one ring would be more rings than the Eagles.

I have to disagree with the rings are the only thing that makes a QB a winner. Brady is not a better QB, he has played on better teams and won more championships. Last time I looked a QB doesn't win the game, it is the team. If it was just the QB than Marino would have atleast 15 rings. He never won a SB, does that mean that Joe Theisman was a better QB? Phil Simms was better? Trent Dilfer?

 

This is too easy.

One of them has proven on 3 occasions that he can get it done. The other one hasn't. It's not a tough decision.

Put Tom Brady on the Saints and tell me that he would win 3 rings. He wouldn't. Hell, put him on about 20 different teams in the league and not only would he not win the SB, he wouldn't make the playoffs on 10 of them. It isn't because he sucks, it is because it is a team sport and he was on the best team in the league. Put McNabb on that team and there is as good a chance that they win 4 or 5 rings, just as much as they win 0.

 

Honestly this discussion has too much speculation and opinion that it could never be argued successfully. But I love arguing so bring it on!

[Meritscholar 0]

Forgive me for going off base, but Im gonna respond to the subject of this post:

 

Cowboys will win the division, with or without TO. They were the hottest team at the end of 2006, and a lot of that had to do with their rookies (Ware et al) and FA's (Bledsoe) learning the system. Their defense is sick with young talent, they have a great 2-headed monster (fantasy be damned) at RB, and if TO is half the player he was in Philly, its still better than anything Philly or Washington is throwing out there. Bledsoe will be the QB this year, and Romo will be a very capable backup should he be needed.

 

The Redskins may be in trouble with Ladell Betts as their go to guy now, though he does have the right body type for Saunders' offense. Chris Cooley may be the best TE in the division (Shockey's overrated and a whiner), especially with Saunders there (hello Gonzo), and their defense is still solid. If Betts can stay healthy and create space for the passing game (i.e heave it 40 yds and hope Santana outruns the CB), they can contend.

 

The Giants are loaded with talent, but have 3 glaring problems: Eli's still afraid to take a hit and throws off his back foot; They have no talent at DT, making them embarrassing against the run; and what little chemistry they have is eroding daily. Finally, they open the season against Indy (H), Philly (A), & Seattle (A) before their Bye week. They'll be 1-2 at best, and complaining even more. They're in trouble. And Im a huge Giants fan, but Im also a realist.

 

Finally, Philly has no WRs, and a RB that makes Fred Taylor look like Bruce Matthews. Their once proud defense is aging, and they havent replenished it with any great young talent (though serviceable). McNabb is not a game-winner. A great QB sure, but when the game is on the line, Id rather see Brunell (Cowboys MNF game last year) or Eli (Broncos game last year) with the ball. As great as they've been over the past 5 years, the NFL is cyclical, and they're on the wrong side of the Bell Curve.

[shasha 0]

Forgive me for going off base, but Im gonna respond to the subject of this post:

 

Cowboys will win the division, with or without TO. They were the hottest team at the end of 2006, and a lot of that had to do with their rookies (Ware et al) and FA's (Bledsoe) learning the system. Their defense is sick with young talent, they have a great 2-headed monster (fantasy be damned) at RB, and if TO is half the player he was in Philly, its still better than anything Philly or Washington is throwing out there. Bledsoe will be the QB this year, and Romo will be a very capable backup should he be needed.

 

The Redskins may be in trouble with Ladell Betts as their go to guy now, though he does have the right body type for Saunders' offense. Chris Cooley may be the best TE in the division (Shockey's overrated and a whiner), especially with Saunders there (hello Gonzo), and their defense is still solid. If Betts can stay healthy and create space for the passing game (i.e heave it 40 yds and hope Santana outruns the CB), they can contend.

 

The Giants are loaded with talent, but have 3 glaring problems: Eli's still afraid to take a hit and throws off his back foot; They have no talent at DT, making them embarrassing against the run; and what little chemistry they have is eroding daily. Finally, they open the season against Indy (H), Philly (A), & Seattle (A) before their Bye week. They'll be 1-2 at best, and complaining even more. They're in trouble. And Im a huge Giants fan, but Im also a realist.

 

Finally, Philly has no WRs, and a RB that makes Fred Taylor look like Bruce Matthews. Their once proud defense is aging, and they havent replenished it with any great young talent (though serviceable). McNabb is not a game-winner. A great QB sure, but when the game is on the line, Id rather see Brunell (Cowboys MNF game last year) or Eli (Broncos game last year) with the ball. As great as they've been over the past 5 years, the NFL is cyclical, and they're on the wrong side of the Bell Curve.

Good points, but I don't think that Dallas was hotter than Washington who won 5 straight and a wild card game. Plus they swept the Cowboys.

 

The NYG's points are excellent though, they all seemed happy when they were winning, but if they start out slow (which is likely) and the fact that they are already whining could prove to be too much early on to recover. We'll see though, it isn't like they all aren't realisitic and understand that it is a tough start.

 

The Eagles have plenty of young talent on defense, especially on the line. Trotter is still playing lights out (god I hate that guy) and the secondary is still pretty solid. I really think they will be good. I also think that between Mahe, Westbrook, Moats, Buckhwalter and Perry they will have enough depth and diverse talent to keep the running game existent. Moats and Westbrook are almost interchangeable, Perry and Buckhalter are the more traditional and Mahe is a mix of them. They don't have to get 2000 yds rushing, just have enough to keep the defense honest. I think they can do that. They also have an underrated offensive line. The WR's still worry me, but just because they aren't all TO clones doesn't mean they can't be effective. Look at the #1 offense in the league the last few seasons, KC has Eddie Kennison and Gonzo and that is it. They still put up numbers.

[Bert 1,092]

I have to disagree with the rings are the only thing that makes a QB a winner. Brady is not a better QB, he has played on better teams and won more championships. Last time I looked a QB doesn't win the game, it is the team. If it was just the QB than Marino would have atleast 15 rings. He never won a SB, does that mean that Joe Theisman was a better QB? Phil Simms was better? Trent Dilfer?

 

This is too easy.

Put Tom Brady on the Saints and tell me that he would win 3 rings. He wouldn't. Hell, put him on about 20 different teams in the league and not only would he not win the SB, he wouldn't make the playoffs on 10 of them. It isn't because he sucks, it is because it is a team sport and he was on the best team in the league. Put McNabb on that team and there is as good a chance that they win 4 or 5 rings, just as much as they win 0.

 

Honestly this discussion has too much speculation and opinion that it could never be argued successfully. But I love arguing so bring it on!

 

I disagree with you about Brady but you are right about the SB rings. Super Bowl rings are won by teams and by organizations not individual players. And as I have said for a while Philadelphia is the fourth ranked organization in its division.