classical_hero
In whom I trust
If I bother to follow a team, it would be the Packers.
El Justo said:westbrook is good. however, he is better suited to run on the outside and catch passes while another hopefully more durable, bigger back can get some of those tough inside yards.
buckhalter is indeed fragile. i bet he doesn't even make it out of camp.
moats is good but he's a westbrook clone.
so i guess they'll need to look for another big back to compliment westbrook & moats. maybe dorsey levens will come out of retirement again
El Justo said:hey Sanabas! that's a great suggestion! he'd be a perfect fit i reckon!
Well then I feel sorry for you. You have to begin and end the season with a loss... to the same team!classical_hero said:If I bother to follow a team, it would be the Packers.
Azale said:Never would have gone to the Superbowl either then
Zarn said:As for the Redskins having the best safeties, who exactly is the cover safety?
w/ all due respect, that post is nonsense.Azale said:Are you kidding, TO was the only reciever who could get any kind of seperation against New England. McNabb let his team down a little bit in the Superbowl, not that he could help it. I know you dont like TO, but without him the Eagles would have likely been blown out.
Not to mention the fact that TO in the lineup allowed the Eagles to gain the homefield advantage. A few losses early on and maybe the Giants continue thier run (they were well over .500 before collapsing later in the season), maybe the Packers sneak in there, or the resurgent Panthers.
TO made the Eagles look damn near unbeatable, they dominated the NFC like I have never seen a team dominate its conference...the only team to come close was Dallas in that game where TO went out.
Now, once they had thier homefield advantage, the matchups went thier way. They got a mediocre Minnesota team and a one-dimensional Falcons team. Neither could really hope to beat the Eagles with the way they were built. The Packers (yes, I know what had happened earlier, but they had the running game and the veteran QB needed to handle the Eagles defense) or the Panthers could have beaten the Eagles WITHOUT TO.
Darkness said:It ain't Archuleta, that's for sure...
true - 81 did sort of put the Eagles over the top during his time there. and yes, the Eagles are certainly choke-artists. i shan't argue w/ that!Azale said:In the 3 seasons before Owens, you had a much better running game. I know, I remember...your offense was mediocre sometimes though, and that is what cost you in those NFC Championship games.
Owens put you over the top. Before Owens, the Eagles were being laughed at as the biggest chokers since the SB Bills. They were always second best, losing to the Rams, the Bucs (even though in that game the odds were HEAVILY with them), and the Panthers (which was the biggest shocker and also the worst loss for the Eagles in any of the Championship games IMO).
I wasn't saying he MADE the Eagles what they were all these years, just saying they made them the Superbowl team they were that year. He was a top 5 MVP candidate, it was insane the numbers he was putting up. He also opened up the window on a team whose window was closing, and its shame for Eagles fans that he had to act so stupid. They would have another good 2-3 years if he had kept his mouth shut.
Now I think your team is real trouble.
On offense, McNabb is coming off some serious injuries. He is throwing to a mediocre-until-otherwise Reggie Brown, mediocre-for-alltime Todd Pinkston. He is stuck with secondary options once again in Westbrook & LJ Smith. The running game is gonna suck, mark my words. Westbrook is too small to be more than a Marshall Faulk-wannabe, Moats is also too small, and we all know Buckhalter's problems.
Dawkins is well over 30 and didnt have a stellar season last year, Kearse isn't the same player. I think your defense is still solid, just not capable of carrying the team like it did for years before TO...