How good are the Patriots?

Al DeFlorio · February 05, 2005, 06:20:23 PM

[Q]Greg Berge Wrote:

[Q2]cornelldavy Wrote:Games aren't played on paper.[/Q]
It would tear.
[/q]
Painful cuts, too.

Avash · February 06, 2005, 11:20:28 PM

To answer the original question, they're pretty good :-)

jeh25 · February 06, 2005, 11:37:27 PM

[Q]

Is there any doubt that they will dismantle the Eagles? [/q]

Yes. There is some doubt.

Seriously however, congrats to the Pats. They're a great team with a top notch organization. Hype aside, they now deserve to be spoken of in the same breath as the 70s Steelers and the 80s Niners.

And hey, there's always next year....

E-A-G-L-E-S. Go Eagles!

Red Man · February 06, 2005, 11:51:19 PM

Props to the birds. To be honest I was suprised at the effort versus the Pats. Birds = 2nd best team in the NFL.

cornelldavy · February 07, 2005, 05:46:55 AM

Man...I really thought the Eagles were going to do it...they had the opportunity: a lead and the talent to hold on, but they beat themselves - too many mistakes against a team that plays nearly mistake-free football. Maybe - hopefully - we'll see a rematch next year. It better not be another 24-year wait before the next Eagles Super Bowl appearance.

::cry::

jtwcornell91 · February 07, 2005, 08:23:22 AM

[Q]cornelldavy Wrote:

Man...I really thought the Eagles were going to do it...they had the opportunity: a lead and the talent to hold on, but they beat themselves - too many mistakes against a team that plays nearly mistake-free football. Maybe - hopefully - we'll see a rematch next year. It better not be another 24-year wait before the next Eagles Super Bowl appearance.[/q]

Yeah, too many turnovers, and poor clock management in the 4th quarter, did them in ultimately.

Was the Eagles-Raider Super Bowl really 24 years ago? Damn, I'm old.

Red Man · February 07, 2005, 09:34:03 AM

McNabb is a good player but if he eliminated 1-2 poor decisions per game he would be a great player. Difference between McNabb and Brady is simply turnovers.

Jordan 04 · February 07, 2005, 09:59:34 AM

[Q]Red Man Wrote:

McNabb is a good player but if he eliminated 1-2 poor decisions per game he would be a great player. Difference between McNabb and Brady is simply turnovers.[/q]

And the dozen or so passes into the ground and behind receivers, rather than hitting them in stride. But I guess that's just status quo with McNabb at this point.

Thank you, Patriots. Fly Eagles Fly? Nah...

[end Giants bias]

The Eagles definitely made it more of a game than I thought and hoped they would. I'm not sure who said it (maybe it was Boomer Esiason on the radio post-game), but he was dead on when he said this game showed the best of McNabb and the worst of McNabb. The TD throw of his back foot, threading 2 Patriots defenders, was pretty darn amazing. But then you have the INT's, the passes into the ground, throws just behind receivers that don't allow them to do anything after the catch, and he also has to share some blame in the most horrific display of time management (and that's saying a lot considering Herm Edwards is a head football coach) on their drive with 6 mins left.

I think McNabb showed why he is still "just" a very, very good quarterback, and not yet a great one. I'm sure he'll be back to the SB for another trip or 2, and this experience will only help him next time around.

RichH · February 07, 2005, 01:28:18 PM

At the risk of revealing how obsessed I am, I actually thought of a way to bring some CU Hockey relevance to this thread. ::nut::

Red Man's main argument struck a chord with me, and I couldn't quite put my finger on why my "bad logic" alarm was going off so loudly, and why I was so quick to discount it. If the 2002-2003 Cornell team taught the nation anything, it was to punch a hole in the myth that a championship-caliber team can't possibly emerge out of a weak conference. That seemed to be a big part of Red Man's argument here. Reading his posts seemed to echo Hockey East and WCHA fans' objections to taking Cornell as a serious contender. "The EZAC is weak and has a horrible non-conference record." "Teams from our conference are more battle-tested!" "If Cornell played in our conference, they'd be lucky to finish 5th."

Unfortunately for us (and Eagles fans), moral victories and respect can't be polished.

Nate 04 · February 07, 2005, 01:33:36 PM

I think this game also showed the Ken Jennings effect. It's a big deal to have been in the championship situation before (Jennings just got so comfortable on Jeapordy, and everyone else was so nervous no one could beat him for a long time). I thought McNabb looked really tight at times when he just couldn't get his passes anywhere near the reciever. And no doubt they really were lost at the end of the game (I think he thought it was still the 3rd quarter...). The Eagles showed they are a great team. The Pats showed they are better than great and that having the experience of being in the Superbowl really benefitted them.

Nate 04 · February 07, 2005, 01:35:51 PM

[Q]Red Man Wrote:

Birds = 2nd best team in the NFL. [/q]

Tell us something, that us non-Patriots fans didn't already know:-D. The real question is how much time was left on the clock before you stopped being nervous that the Eagles were going to pull it out? I'm guessing it was about 13 seconds at the earliest.

11 years and counting that the Bills have not lost a Superbowl!!

jtwcornell91 · February 07, 2005, 01:44:17 PM

Of course, a lot of that was reputation anyway. Going into the Everblades, Cornell and NoDak had the best records in the country, and despite assumptions to the contrary, we had played a much tougher schedule.

Avash · February 07, 2005, 03:23:10 PM

[Q]Nate 04 Wrote:

I think this game also showed the Ken Jennings effect. [/q]

I miss him. When's the Tournament of Champions?! ::nut::

CUlater 89 · February 07, 2005, 11:52:48 PM

[Q]Nate 04 Wrote:

I think this game also showed the Ken Jennings effect. It's a big deal to have been in the championship situation before (Jennings just got so comfortable on Jeapordy, and everyone else was so nervous no one could beat him for a long time). I thought McNabb looked really tight at times when he just couldn't get his passes anywhere near the reciever. And no doubt they really were lost at the end of the game (I think he thought it was still the 3rd quarter...). The Eagles showed they are a great team. The Pats showed they are better than great and that having the experience of being in the Superbowl really benefitted them.[/q]

I didn't think McNabb was nervous (I was at the game a few rows up behind the Eagle bench); in fact, I thought he played as he often has over the last few years. I've followed him closely for the last three years, since he was the QB on my fantasy team, and he's had plenty of games where he makes some great plays and throws but also throws it into the ground or floats it or just puts the receiver in a bad position. Going into the game, I thought he needed to play at an MVP level for the Eagles to win, and had he, they likely would have won. The thing that bothered me was the inability of the Eagles to get him the opportunity to run, on designed plays. Credit the Pats for making sure that didn't happen.