How good are the Patriots?

[Q]Red Man Wrote:

You sound like a jealous Eagles fan and an angry Yankees fan. Weak response [/q]

Actually I'm a NY Giants and Mets fan, but that's besides the point.

I have covered the Eagles for 3 years. If myself from 8 years ago came into the future, and found out now that I was pulling for them, my past self would've kicked my ass. I HATED the Eagles, and everything about their fans, city, etc...

What I've discovered in three years, though, is that it's impossible to hate this team. I totally agree that they are as close to the Patriots as anyone except the Patriots. In fact, their depth and adept handling of the roster may be better. Their coach is as classy as it gets - their coordinators are tremendous - and McNabb is one of the nicest people on earth.

Terrell Owens may be a loon with his end zone stuff ... however, I have found him to be a good guy who causes ZERO problems and does nothing but work his rear end off.

Look at it this way -- people talk about what the Pats have lost .... The Eagles will go into this game without their starting fullback, starting halfback, starting wide receiver, starting tight end, and starting middle linebacker from the beginning of the season - and they absolutely will not miss them (except Owens). The Eagles' depth is nothing short of extraordinary. They have 8 D lineman who play regularly and play well. Linebackers too.

The Pats are a better team and should be favored. But I can attest that the Eagles, as a franchise, are just as admirable, despite not having won the Super Bowl. This doesn't necessarily translate into a win for the Eagles, but it should be pointed out to many of the naysayers here.

I loathe to defend an Eagles fan, but they deserve it. Reid, McNabb and the team deserve it.

And indeed Brian Westbrook is a great talent, but probably no longer a secret. He is MORE valuable to the offense than Terrell Owens - there's not even a doubt about that.

Last year, when the Eagles lost the NFC Championship game, it wasn't just because they didn't have Owens. They lost without Westbrook, McNabb got hurt early in the game, without both starting defensive tackles (Thomas and Burgess), without the current middle linebacker (Trotter), and with rookie cornerbacks filling in for two injured corners. Last year was smoke and mirrors. This team is totally different. The biggest problem, of course, being that they weren't really tested because the NFC stinks.

We'll see. But I'm taking the Eagles +7.

fly eagles fly

Patriots are a great team. I want the Patriots to win, though it's not the same desire as seeing the Sox win. But blow out the Eagles? Don't think so and, for the sake of entertainment value, don't hope so. The majority of these stupid XXXIX (why can't they just say 39?) years, if it wasn't for the cheap sex thrills in the beer commercials, there'd be nothing to watch.

Not to mention this cheap sex thrills in the halftime show

I'm guessing they've told Paul McCartney that he can't rip off his shirt off any time during the performance.

Like the NFL is really shocked and annoyed that Janet Jackson's boob popped out for a couple seconds. The NFL says it is committed to wholesome family fare. The Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders bouncing up and down on the sidelines for 35 years, that's wholesome. Janet undraped for 3.5 seconds, that's unwholesome?

[Q]ben03 Wrote:

Facetime, sorry to nit-pick but the word is drivel (n): as in silly or irrelevant talk.

[/q]


Thank you Ben, I stand corrected. Let me see if I fully understand the word, let me try it in a sentence:

"Correcting one's word usage is drivel."

I am a Mets fan too...painful.

Here is what I will concede. Philly is modeled after New England and trying to become like them (Lorie and Kraft are both massholes and freinds). However Philly can only be described as a poor man's New England and, obviously, the most important difference is the rings.

As for the comparison of the mid 90s Yankees and today's Patriots my point is that the Patriots are doing it with the same pay cap that constraints every other team in the league faces. The yankees did it with a salary that was 1.5x the league average (according to your numbers) in the mid 90s...to put that in a football perspective that is an advatage that would allow a team to afford 5-7 stars (pro-bowlers) that the average competitor could not. Huge, huge, huge advantage. The Cowboy and 49er dynasties had huge payrolls (and they are still paying for those excesses today). The Patriots have no such advantage. The other reason that I compare them to mid 90s Yankees is that the core players are not all stars but they have all bought into the team concept and they win. Jeter = Brady but Bruschi+Harrison+Troy Brown = Brosius+O'neil+Tino M. In my opinion the Patriots are the most impressive professional sports franchise I have seen in a long time. Great role models.

As for the game itself....The Eagles just do not have enough weapons. They have a versatile back who is a poor man's Marshall Faulk and a solid QB who can throw and run. But their receivers will get DESTROYED by the New England secondary and back down. The Eagles defense is strong but if they stop Dillon then Brady will go over the top and kill them....and the Patriots receivers will not shy away from getting hit and they never ever drop balls. The Patriots are strong in all aspects of the game....I just don't see a way the Eagles can beat them.

The Eagles aren't modeled after the Patriots at all, and the only thing about the Patriots that the Eagles want to become is that they are defending Super Bowl champs. The Eagles actually have been in the playoffs each of the past five seasons; the Pats have only made it in three of those seasons. So by that measure, you could say that the Eagles have been successful longer than the Patriots have.

I don't know how you can argue that the Pats' secondary will destroy the Eagles' receivers. Outside of Rodney Harrison, the Pats' secondary is a bunch of backups and actually was in the bottom half of the NFL in passing yards allowed. The Pats' defensive strength is in their linebackers. And Brady going over the top to kill the Eagles is also unlikely, since the Eagles' secondary hasn't been a liability all season, and actually has a Pro Bowl corner and two Pro Bowl safeties. If you don't see a way the Eagles can beat the Patriots, you're deliberately ignoring far too many possibilities.

By the way, I'm going to be in Jacksonville for the game...anyone have a good ticket contact?

Isn't it amazing that the top three teams (by most any "experts'" opinion and most fans' as well) all met or will meet during the course of the year. Obviously Pittsburgh had the upper hand against both the Eagles and the Pats when they met earlier in the year, but those two teams both came together well after the losses. Now they meet in the big game.

Minus Pittsburgh's second game of the season, the Pats' fluke (and I don't see how you can call it much of anything else) against the Dolphins and the Eagle's two losses at the end of the year where scrubs played most of the game, none of the teams have lost a game outside the triumvirate. That's pretty impressive. Clearly these were the top three in the NFL and the playoffs this season is working right as their seasons have been and will be decided playing against each other.

You want to talk about parity? Look at the Men's draw at Australian Open. All four of the semi-finalists (Safin, Roddick, Federer, Hewitt) were #1 in the world at some time. I don't think that's ever happened before.

P.S. should be an exciting match tonight, when Roddick and Hewitt play for a spot in the finals. LIVE tonight on ESPN2 at 3:30am.

Patriots have a bunch of backups? Safety Eugene Wilson was on some people's pro-bowl rosters and Asante Samuel is one of the best young corners in ther game. Their supposed weak link is at the other corner where Law used to play and now played by some guy from LSU (can't remember his name) who has played just fine. ESPN has their pass defense rating at 4th in the AFC (Philly is 4th in the NFC). They shut down the Colts. No touchdowns allowed against the Colts. Your description of the the Patriots secondary as a bunch of back ups is simply wrong. Try watching football on Sundays then you'll be better informed.

There is no question that the Patriots have more playoff appearances and more playoff wins than the Eagles over the last 10 years. They have been in 4 of the last 9 superbowls....

Watch what happens to those skinny little Eagles receivers next Sunday.

As a Giants fan I take some pleasure out of the Patriots success (Belichick).

I'm not denying the Patriots' success, but to go back 10 years is useless. Both teams have been completely overhauled in the past 10 years. Nobody from the '95 Eagles is still on the team, and there's a different coach. The Patriots only have three players from their '95 team still on the roster, and they're on their second coach since then.

The Eagles allowed fewer passing yards and fewer passing TDs than the Patriots this season despite having more passes thrown against them. True, the Patriots had more interceptions (20) than the Eagles (17), but six of the Pats' INTs were by linebackers, not by the secondary.

Yes, Eugene Wilson is a good player, but Asante Samuel still doesn't exactly strike fear in my heart with his one interception this season. And how can you forget the name of Ty Law's rookie backup, Randall Gay?

The win over the Colts was impressive, I'll give you that, but the credit should go not to the secondary, but to the run defense for holding the Colts to under 50 rushing yards, to the offensive game plan for dominating the time of possession, and to the weather for hampering a dome QB.

Besides, hasn't watching the Eagles pound on the Giants for the last four years convinced you that the Eagles can play with any team in the NFL? Or were you not watching football on those Sundays?

You are obviously an Eagles fan therefore you have an agenda and I am sure that you will find way to convince yourself that the Eagles are a better team and a better franchise than the Patriots. The reality is that they have 2 lombardi trophies in their case and most likely will have a third by the end of next weekend. The Eagles simply cannot measure up to that.

You sound like a Red Sox fan circa 2003.

[Q]Red Man Wrote:

You are obviously an Eagles fan therefore you have an agenda[/q]
As a neutral observer of this thread, there only seems to be one person here with some sort of agenda.

Precisely

[Q]Red Man Wrote:
The Eagles just do not have enough weapons. They have a versatile back who is a poor man's Marshall Faulk and a solid QB who can throw and run. But their receivers will get DESTROYED by the New England secondary and back down. The Eagles defense is strong but if they stop Dillon then Brady will go over the top and kill them....and the Patriots receivers will not shy away from getting hit and they never ever drop balls. The Patriots are strong in all aspects of the game....I just don't see a way the Eagles can beat them.
[/q]

You're probably right about the Eagles WR corps, particularly with Pinkston's prediliction towards getting jammed at the line. Add in that TE Chad Lewis is out, and the Eagles passing game would seem to be in serious trouble. But then again, LJ Smith has been a good target as 2nd TE, Westbrook has over 700 yrs receiving and Greg Lewis, while being virtually unknown, is the fastest WR the Eagles have.

However, your statement that Brady will "go over the top and kill them" is just silly. The Eagles secondary has 3 Pro Bowlers. If the Pats can dominate the Eagles anywhere, it will be on the ground. Smashing Dillion and Faulk up the middle could cause real problems for the Eagles linebackers.

[Q]Red Man Wrote:

You are obviously an Eagles fan therefore you have an agenda and I am sure that you will find way to convince yourself that the Eagles are a better team and a better franchise than the Patriots. The reality is that they have 2 lombardi trophies in their case and most likely will have a third by the end of next weekend. The Eagles simply cannot measure up to that.

You sound like a Red Sox fan circa 2003.[/q]


Your amazing powers of deduction are right; I am an Eagles fan. However, I never said that the Eagles were a better team or franchise than the Patriots. The Patriots are favored in the Super Bowl, as they should be. But to say things like, "To compare the Eagles to the Patriots on or off the field is blasphemy," "The Patriots are strong in all aspects of the game....I just don't see a way the Eagles can beat them," and "Is there any doubt that they will dismantle the Eagles?" just sounds ignorant. Of course the Eagles have a chance. The lowly Dolphins beat the Patriots this season; surely the best team in the NFC has a chance to beat them as well.

And if I really wanted to sound like a Red Sox fan circa 2003, I would be whining about Philly's 23-year championship drought in all four major sports (something I hadn't even mentioned) instead of making reasoned arguments as to why the Eagles will likely give the Patriots a game. In fact, I'd say you sound more like a Yankees fan than I sound like a Red Sox fan.

I know you're just arguing with him in his style, Alex, but God knows you couldn't have let the post go without a jab at the Yankees fans- many of whom have sat idly by or supported your side of the "Red Man is irrational" argument.

To be fair, I dislike Red Sox fans and Yankees fans equally. Some are even tolerable in small doses.

In reference to Red Man's first inital post on this topic.....it's Foxboro not Foxborough. :-p

Robin

[Q]Robin Wrote:

In reference to Red Man's first inital post on this topic.....it's Foxboro not Foxborough. :-p

Robin[/q]

[www.foxboroughpolice.com]

The Sixers won in 1983... not 23 years ago...

You ignorant Patriots fans must be the same people who gave McKee a standing O when he ended his season last year again Clarkson. Cocky morans. The Eagles will win because 1. Andy Reid has NEVER lost after a bye week and with Jimi Johnson, will devise a game plan that will force Brady out of the closet, I mean pocket. 2. Brian Westbrook and the rest of the offense is so versatile that absolute Genius/God Billicheck can't devise a specific game plan to shut off the offense as he did with Peyton Manning. The Eagles can run it up the gut, complete 20 yard screen passes and burn you with Greg Lewis. Mcnabb can run... 3. T.O. is not actually a distraction at all. 4. Philadelphia is going nuts and the players have nothing to loose, they got over the hump. 5. McNabb is underrated, Brady is not. 7. New England fans are frauds. 8. The Pats are only favored by so much because there is a change in the betting makeup during the SuperBowl and regular people want to bet on a consistant team. Las Vegas knows that people will blindly pick the Patriots so they created a rediculous line, starting at 6(not 14). 9. Don't you remember what happened to the Best Show on Turf...?

"The old spelling of the town is Foxborough. The modern spelling is Foxboro."

perhaps we are both correct.
I'm usually a stickler for spelling. Sorry to call you out incorrectly.

Robin

[Q]Andrew Wrote:

The Sixers won in 1983... not 23 years ago...

[/q]

I knew that, I think I just put 23 because I had the "3" from '83 in mind. Whether it's 21 or 23 years ago, it's still a long time.

philadelphia is the city with the 4 major sports franchises that has waited the longest since its last national championship.

How many cities (or SSMAs) even have teams in all 4 majors?

NYC (twice over)
Chi
LA
Det
Philly
Den
Phx
Dal
Twin Cities
Miami

Others? I must have missed one.

[Q] Greg Berge Wrote:
How many cities even have teams in all 4 majors?
...LA...
[/Q]
Not anymore, unless you're counting San Diego for football, in which case you'd have to count San Jose hockey for SanFran/Oakland, and then merge DC and Baltimore, and then things might start getting ridiculous I guess....

Boston comes to mind as one you missed

Miami? huh?

EDIT: I *guess* the Panthers count. But they play in Ft Lauderdale, not Miami.

[Q]jeh25 Wrote:

Miami? huh?[/q]

Panthers, Marlins (not for long), Dolphins, Heat

[Q]then merge DC and Baltimore[/Q]

DC has The Nationals now in baseball, so they can legitimately be added to the list.

Atlanta too

They could, but the area doesn't consider the Redskins to be a DC team. When the Nationals were added, they considered it the fifth professional team, after the Capitals, Wizards, Mystics and DC United, because the 'Skins play in Landover, MD. Weird, I know, but I guess they are talking about teams within the city limits.

[Q]Erica Wrote:

They could, but the area doesn't consider the Redskins to be a DC team. When the Nationals were added, they considered it the fifth professional team, after the Capitals, Wizards, Mystics and DC United, because the 'Skins play in Landover, MD. Weird, I know, but I guess they are talking about teams within the city limits.[/q]

cf the Meadowlands...

Another reason to like the Patriots over the Eagles: AFC teams were 44-20 against the NFC this season, a .688 winning percentage that ranks as the best in interconference play since 1979.

The AFC's six playoff teams were 21-3 against NFC opponents this season. Teams from the NFC that made the playoffs were 11-13 against the AFC.

The Patriots were 4-0 against the NFC; Philadelphia was 2-2 against the AFC.

They're not yet referred to as the Landover Redskins, and they have more fans in the Northern Virginia suburbs than the Orioles do. I think they count.

Sorry, but you're way off the mark on Brady. He's one of the coolest, best decision-makers in the game, and it's this quality that's gotten him where he is. When John Wangler graduated at Michigan, they recruited Drew Henson - who was supposed to be the next John Elway - to start at quarterback. Slight glitch, though, in that the previous season's backup - Brady - essentially beat out Henson for the job. This was not the plan, but when Brady was in everything clicked, even though he didn't have Henson's athletic talents. So as not to lose Henson, they platooned them that one year. Even then, no one expected Brady to be anything other than a second-string NFL quarterback someplace. We should have known better.

[Q]Red Man Wrote:



The Patriots were 4-0 against the NFC; Philadelphia was 2-2 against the AFC.
[/q]

Yes, and 1 of those 2 losses was to the Steelers in Week 9, who as you may remember, beat the Pats in Week 8. The 2nd AFC loss was to Cincinnati in Week 17 with all of the Eagles starters sitting.

You're seriously reaching here. You can certainly find pointless stats that fit your biases, but that doesn't mean they have any meaning.

Frankly, I'm just looking forward to an exciting Super Bowl that's still worth watching in the 4th quarter.

The more relavent stat is obviously the one i heard on the radio this morning.

Teams with mascots that are humans (ie. Patriots, Cowboys, Redskins, Packers, etc.) have an 18-8 record against teams with mascots that are animals (ie. Eagles, Dolphins, Colts, Bengals) in the Superbowl. I mean that just tells you everything

[Q]Nate 04 Wrote:
The more relavent stat is obviously the one i heard on the radio this morning.

Teams with mascots that are humans (ie. Patriots, Cowboys, Redskins, Packers, etc.) have an 18-8 record against teams with mascots that are animals (ie. Eagles, Dolphins, Colts, Bengals) in the Superbowl. I mean that just tells you everything [/q]

Does a "Bill" count as a human or an animal? There's an animal on the helmet, but Buffalo Bill was a person. Likewise, is a Giant a really big person or an inhuman mythological monster? Do supernatural beings count as animals?

Teams from the NFC that made the playoffs were 11-13 against the AFC.

Yes you're right.....this is irrelevent. Hello?

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:

Does a "Bill" count as a human or an animal? There's an animal on the helmet, but Buffalo Bill was a person. Likewise, is a Giant a really big person or an inhuman mythological monster? Do supernatural beings count as animals?[/q]

Comparing what I heard on the radio and what i see on nfl.com of past champions, the Bills are included in the animals and Giants are included in human/human-like (I didn't catch what they did call that category). That's the reason I specified animal mascots - the Bills have a (Blue) Buffalo as their mascot.

The guys on the radio (mind you this is Boston Sports Radio 1510, not the best morning sports radio) had a hard time figuring out what the Packers were. They kept going on about how they must be meat packers (and making the obligatory jokes that would go along with that), since "that area" is known for its meat. Now, I may be naive, but isn't Wisconsin known for its cheese and wouldn't those funny shaped hats Packer fans wear be "Cheeseheads", thus wouldn't you sort of deduce that the Packers are called Packers because they are Cheese Packers?

Nobody's considering the fact that when the Eagles were in the Super Bowl 11 years ago, they had a two-touchdown lead at the half...of course, then Dan Marino returned to the game after being rescued by Ace Ventura, and I don't quite recall how that game turned out...but that has to count for something, right?

Everyone knows Dan Marino couldn't win a superbowl. Of course neither have the eagles. I say it must have ended in a tie. That or the credits rolled first, since they didn't want to get the hopes of either of the teams' fans.

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
Do supernatural beings count as animals?[/q]

It's academic John.

Cornell will win the Orangebowl before the 'aints make it to the Superbowl...

[Q]Red Man Wrote:

Teams from the NFC that made the playoffs were 11-13 against the AFC.

Yes you're right.....this is irrelevent. Hello?[/q]

Come on, stop it. You're making Patriots fans look bad and overconfident when really we're not.

That stat IS irrelevant because it turns out that the NFC team that's in the Superbowl had a 0-0 record this year against the AFC team that's in the Superbowl (not counting the preseason!). That's all that matters.

[Q]Nate 04 Wrote:
The guys on the radio (mind you this is Boston Sports Radio 1510, not the best morning sports radio) had a hard time figuring out what the Packers were. They kept going on about how they must be meat packers (and making the obligatory jokes that would go along with that), since "that area" is known for its meat. Now, I may be naive, but isn't Wisconsin known for its cheese and wouldn't those funny shaped hats Packer fans wear be "Cheeseheads", thus wouldn't you sort of deduce that the Packers are called Packers because they are Cheese Packers? [/q]

Given that they were once the Acme Packers, I'm guessing they pack anvils, strap-on rockets, and exploding birdseed.

[Q]Nate 04 Wrote:

Everyone knows Dan Marino couldn't win a superbowl. Of course neither have the eagles. I say it must have ended in a tie. That or the credits rolled first, since they didn't want to get the hopes of either of the teams' fans.[/q]

All I know is Ace kicked the Eagle mascot's ass!

Swoop's been lifting. He told me he wants to throw down with Ace again.

[Q]Red Man Wrote:

Teams from the NFC that made the playoffs were 11-13 against the AFC.

Yes you're right.....this is irrelevent. Hello?[/q]

Let's try a little experiment.

The ECAC is 14-25-3 against HEA.

By your logic, Merrimack will clearly destroy Cornell in the NCAA's.

Hello?

By your logic Merrimack is to the hockey east what the Patriots are to the AFC. That is what you are saying.... Please.

My point is that when you play better competition week in and week out....your a better battle tested team and you are therefore in a better position to survive these 1 andf done tournaments.

The hockey east/ECAC comparison is a good one. How many ECAC teams have made it to the frozen 4 and the finals in the last 5 years. How many Hockey east teams made it. I don't have to look up the answer to tell you which one has had better representation.

Not sure what your problem is with this logic.

Are you guys just Patriots haters....seems like we are seeing a lot of these now.

[Q]Red Man Wrote:

By your logic Merrimack is to the hockey east what the Patriots are to the AFC.[/q]
No, actually, that's your flawed logic that Hayes was spelling out. In a sense, you just disagreed with yourself.

Patriot fans aren't overconfident? Let's take a look at the Sports Guy Bill Simmons and what he says in his daily blog from the Superbowl. This is a guy who claimed he wouldn't get overconfident. These are captions from under pictures (that he admitted to writing)

1. The Eagles line up for their team photo, which I'll be hanging over my fireplace -- along with photos of the 2002 Rams and the 2004 Panthers. Thanks for coming, guys. (Whoops, I sound like a Yankees fan again. Sorry.) By the way, the Eagles were extremely loose during Media Day. As Paul said, "They are the QUINTESSENTIAL happy-to-be-there team." Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger. [sports.espn.go.com]

2. A birds-eye look of the field for Super Bowl XXXIX: Where the Patriots will officially become a dynasty in five days. (Whoops, I sound like a Yankee fan again. Sorry.) [sports.espn.go.com]

From the Boston Herald (the slime of Boston news papers) headline: ‘See you at the victory parade’ [news.bostonherald.com]

Not overconfident. One of my good friends just turned from rooting for the Pats to rooting for the Eagles. 5 years ago, Pats fans would have killed for a championship, now they are turning into cocky brats. See I can say this and if you win the Superbowl, you'll come back saying "see, I told you we would win." But remember we're not talking about who's going to win, just who's becoming overconfident.

Btw, I think both teams are keeping level heads about themselves. It's just the media/Bill Simmons/and a few/some/all of the Patriots fans that are overconfident.

???

Alex, you know I am terrified of mascots. Did you have to?

Sorry...there was never going to be a better time to use that picture.

More data to support my thesis from si.com:

The Patriots love it when an NFC team comes calling. New England has won seven consecutive games against NFC teams, with only Carolina making a game of it (32-29). The Patriots' other six wins during that streak all have been by 10 points or more.

New England was 4-0 against the NFC this season, averaging a fat 28.5 points per game. The Patriots last loss to an NFC team was in Week 4 of 2003 at Washington, the game before New England started its league-record 21-game winning streak.

On the flip side, Philly hasn't fared so well against AFC foes since 2002. The Eagles are 6-6 against the AFC in that span, compared to 31-5 (.861) against teams in their own conference. This season, Philadelphia was outscored 106-62 by its AFC opponents, splitting the four games.

One final piece supporting Red Man's thesis from ESPN.com. I agree with Red Man...People really don't undersatnd how good this team is:

Cruise through past Super Bowls and you won't find too many seasons where the Weaker Conference Team prevailed against the Stronger Conference Team. This season was more skewed than most -- week after week, AFC teams were kicking the crap out of NFC teams. Here was the NFC's final record against the AFC ...


(Drumroll please ... )


20-44.


That's not a misprint.


Twenty-four games under .500! Just for kicks, the record of the six AFC playoff teams against the NFC was 21-3, and the record of the three 9-7 teams in the AFC (Buffalo, Jacksonville and Baltimore) against the NFC was 10-2. So you had nine teams with winning records in the AFC, and they finished a combined 31-5 against the NFC. Those aren't just stats, those are cries for help. Philly didn't just play in a weaker conference, it was a significantly weaker conference.


Compare their schedule against the Pats. Philly played one good team on the road -- Pittsburgh -- and got smoked. They beat four decent teams at home (Minnesota twice, Baltimore once, Green Bay once), and handled one good team (Atlanta) at home in the title game. And that was it. In nearly five months of football, they were only tested six times, five of those at home, and only twice by a team that could even be considered "good."


Now look at the Pats. In eighteen games, they beat one decent team (Baltimore) at home and two more (St. Louis and KC) on the road. They swept the home-and-homes with one good team (Buffalo) and one very good team (the Jets). They beat an excellent team (Indy) twice at home. They lost to the first 15-1 team in AFC history (Pittsburgh) on the road, then exacted revenge on them in the AFC Championship game. In nearly five months of football, they were tested a whopping 11 times, against some of the better teams in the league. Eight of those 11 games weren't even close. Only two of them came down to the final minute.


Just looking at those numbers, wouldn't you conclude that the Patriots are significantly more battle-prepared for this game than the Eagles? And before you make the "It's not Philly's fault that they played in the NFC" argument, that's not the point. They DID play in the NFC.

Well, what more can I say? I guess you're all right; why even play the game? The Patriots are clearly the better team and the Eagles should just get on a plane back to Philly now.

Give me a break. How about we look at the teams' records this season in games that mattered? The Eagles only lost one, to the Steelers (as you mentioned, the first 15-1 team in AFC history), a game in which Brian Westbrook barely played because he was hurt. The Patriots lost two, to the Steelers (ok, that's a push with the Eagles' loss), and to the Dolphins.

If the Dolphins can beat a team in a game in which the other team is trying, then any team can. Something about "any given Sunday."

Games aren't played on paper.

[Q]cornelldavy Wrote:Games aren't played on paper.[/q]It would tear.

[Q]Greg Berge Wrote:

cornelldavy Wrote:Games aren't played on paper.[/Q]
It would tear.
[/q]
Painful cuts, too.

 

___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65