|
|
|
|
#1
08-14-2007, 07:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: *Official* Philadelphia E-A-G-L-E-S Thread (2007-2008)
[ QUOTE ]
McNabb is the third best quarterback in the NFL and best in the NFC. Westbrook is the third best back in the NFC. That doesn't mean either of those things will happen, but they are not in the least bit far-fetched. [/ QUOTE ] I like McNabb a lot, but you have to admit that the Eagles have played surprisingly well without him when hes injured. Either their backups are great or McNabb maybe isn't as good as we all think. Oh and regardless of that, Drew Brees needs to be in that conversation. 
|
|
#2
08-14-2007, 07:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: *Official* Philadelphia E-A-G-L-E-S Thread (2007-2008)
[ QUOTE ]
I like McNabb a lot, but you have to admit that the Eagles have played surprisingly well without him when hes injured. Either their backups are great or McNabb maybe isn't as good as we all think. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, that 2005 sure was a banner year for the Eagles. Seriously though, in 2002 (AJ Feeley), the team was still carried by the defense. That was the last year the Eagles had a better defense than offense. McNabb and the offense made the leap in 2003, and have been better than the defense every year since except the irrelevant 2005 season that never happened. McNabb was good back in 2002, but not nearly as good as he is now, and the defense carried AJ. Last year, Garcia inherited a really, really good team that was just running bad under McNabb. Garcia played great, sure, but any moderately good quarterback could have won a bunch of games with that team. [ QUOTE ] Oh and regardless of that, Drew Brees needs to be in that conversation. [/ QUOTE ] Brees is right there with Bulger and McNabb. Bulger really had a great year last year, and McNabb was having a great year till...yeah. They're some order of 1-2-3 in the NFC, and there's a solid dropoff after them until Hasselbeck.
|
|
#3
08-14-2007, 08:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: *Official* Philadelphia E-A-G-L-E-S Thread (2007-2008)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I like McNabb a lot, but you have to admit that the Eagles have played surprisingly well without him when hes injured. Either their backups are great or McNabb maybe isn't as good as we all think. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, that 2005 sure was a banner year for the Eagles. Seriously though, in 2002 (AJ Feeley), the team was still carried by the defense. That was the last year the Eagles had a better defense than offense. McNabb and the offense made the leap in 2003, and have been better than the defense every year since except the irrelevant 2005 season that never happened. McNabb was good back in 2002, but not nearly as good as he is now, and the defense carried AJ. Last year, Garcia inherited a really, really good team that was just running bad under McNabb. Garcia played great, sure, but any moderately good quarterback could have won a bunch of games with that team. [ QUOTE ] Oh and regardless of that, Drew Brees needs to be in that conversation. [/ QUOTE ] Brees is right there with Bulger and McNabb. Bulger really had a great year last year, and McNabb was having a great year till...yeah. They're some order of 1-2-3 in the NFC, and there's a solid dropoff after them until Hasselbeck. [/ QUOTE ] nfl.com game logs only go back to 2001, so I must start the analysis there.... 2001- McNabb played all 16 games and went 11-5 2002- Eagles went 7-3 with McNabb. They then went 5-1 without McNabb(and the loss was in week 17 which may have been meaningless...I'm not sure) 2003- McNabb played every game and went 12-4 2004- McNabb played 15 games and went 13-2. They lost the one game he didn't play. 2005- McNabb played 9 games and went 4-5. They went 2-5 without him. 2006- McNabb played 10 games and went 5-5. They went 5-1 wihtout him. So basically there were 3 seasons in which McNabb missed significant time: 2002, 2005, and 2006. In those years they went 16-13 with him and 12-7 without him. Bottom line: The Eagles have shown virtually no change record wise when playing with Mcnabb when compared to playing without him. Furthermore, there is a significant sample size in these seasons(29 games with him and 19 without him) that it can't be deemed short term luck totally. With all that said, I like him a lot both as a player and a person and would love to have him on any of my teams.
|
|
#4
08-13-2007, 08:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: *Official* Philadelphia E-A-G-L-E-S Thread (2007-2008)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So far from watching the first preseason game against the Ravens: 1)We can't run the ball for sh*t. 2)Didn't like Akers's missed FG because he says he hasn't been kicking well of late and the inconsistent holder doesn't help the cause and the new long snapper. 3)William "don't call me Peterson" James shouldn't be our Nickelback. I don't think he's supposed to be (Mikkel), but if there was a chance, he shouldn't. Nonetheless, anything lower that 10 wins this season (barring injuries) will be a disappointment. Prediction: 12-4, McNabb leading QB in yds, Westbrook leads NFC in yds/touch. Last but not least, <font color="green">E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!</font> [/ QUOTE ] There's a better chance of Bonds being clean than Westbrook in yards and TD's. [/ QUOTE ] i said yards per touch (yds/touch) not touchdowns and yds how's eli?
|
|
#5
08-13-2007, 08:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: *Official* Philadelphia E-A-G-L-E-S Thread (2007-2008)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So far from watching the first preseason game against the Ravens: 1)We can't run the ball for sh*t. 2)Didn't like Akers's missed FG because he says he hasn't been kicking well of late and the inconsistent holder doesn't help the cause and the new long snapper. 3)William "don't call me Peterson" James shouldn't be our Nickelback. I don't think he's supposed to be (Mikkel), but if there was a chance, he shouldn't. Nonetheless, anything lower that 10 wins this season (barring injuries) will be a disappointment. Prediction: 12-4, McNabb leading QB in yds, Westbrook leads NFC in yds/touch. Last but not least, <font color="green">E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!</font> [/ QUOTE ] There's a better chance of Bonds being clean than Westbrook in yards and TD's. [/ QUOTE ] i said yards per touch (yds/touch) not touchdowns and yds how's eli? [/ QUOTE ] He's looking awesome! I fully expect at least 15 TD's and a 50% completion %. (INT's don't count.)
|
|
#6
08-14-2007, 12:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: *Official* Philadelphia E-A-G-L-E-S Thread (2007-2008)
[ QUOTE ]
McNabb is the third best quarterback in the NFL and best in the NFC. [/ QUOTE ] mcnabb is so overrated, he doesnt run as much anymore and aside from the year he had TO, hes never completed 60% of his passes. last year was a pretty sick run before he went down, but when ur qb has 18 tds to only 6 pics in 10 games and youre team is only 5-5, clearly something is wrong... however a good healthy year from mcnabb can prove me wrong and btw id take bulger over mcnabb
|
|
#7
08-14-2007, 10:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: *Official* Philadelphia E-A-G-L-E-S Thread (2007-2008)
[ QUOTE ]
but when ur qb has 18 tds to only 6 pics in 10 games and youre team is only 5-5, clearly something is wrong... [/ QUOTE ] would that something happen to be his teammates and variance? no?
|
|
#8
08-13-2007, 08:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: *Official* Philadelphia E-A-G-L-E-S Thread (2007-2008)
Is this game on national TV tonight? I'd like to see Kolb in the 2nd half.
|
|
#9
08-13-2007, 08:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: *Official* Philadelphia E-A-G-L-E-S Thread (2007-2008)
[ QUOTE ]
Is this game on national TV tonight? I'd like to see Kolb in the 2nd half. [/ QUOTE ] I really wish he got his first snap in Philly, so I could listen to the smattering of boos. I really hope McNabb starts for us for another 6+ years.
|
|
#10
08-13-2007, 09:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: *Official* Philadelphia E-A-G-L-E-S Thread (2007-2008)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Is this game on national TV tonight? I'd like to see Kolb in the 2nd half. [/ QUOTE ] I really wish he got his first snap in Philly, so I could listen to the smattering of boos. I really hope McNabb starts for us for another 6+ years. [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand the point of this post. First of all, it isn't Kolb's fault he got drafted "high". Second of all, you people booed McNabb on draft day and he's fukin awesome. Third of all, whether or not McNabb is one of the best QB's in the league, you should still hope to develop a top-notch backup (or maybe you don't remember as far back as 2006?). Fourth of all, if McNabb stays healthy and plays at this level for the next 6 years, sure, he should start. But if Kolb (or anyone else) does better at some point, you should want the best option in there. But good post. Just loaded with pertinent information.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
