EAGLES (1 Viewer)

[renesauz]

As a lifelong Eagle fan, this has been one of the strangest seasons I can remember in while. I was confused as to why so many people (both pro anylysts and FBG's) were so down on them earlier this year considering that so much of the team was intact from the Super Bowl year, and that injuries and the T.O disaster easily explained away the 2005 season.

Some things to consider now:

- Eagles are still a very YOUNG team.

- All but 2 or 3 (of the least important) starters are locked up through next year, and most of the critical players and the "non-skill position" players (offensive lineman) are locked up for many years.

- They've won four NFC titles in five years, and made 4 NFC Championship games in the last 6 years (maybe five if they can again this year)

- A huge knock on them early this season was the recievers. Reggie Brown is only a second year player, and already an impact player at a time when he SHOULD be struggling (Historicly, second year WR's disapear). Avant and Baskett both look very promising. If they keep Stallworth, this will be one of the NFL's deeper recieiving corps next year!

- McNabb is still fairly young. He's injury prone, but Philly has shown an outstanding propensity to aquire and have ready a capable backup, or TWO! With a strong O-Line, the QB doesn't have to be brilliant anyway.

- Run defense was inconsistant this year, but the D-lineman are mostly young, and improving.

-Eagles still are in a terrific salary cap position, with plenty of cap space to play with for the next several years, unlike most teams after enjoying several years at or near the top.

I'm not trying to be another annoying Eagles fan, but this team has been strong for years, and shows no signs of stopping anytime soon. The only thing they are missing from being considered a "dynasty" is a ring or two.

Consider the Falcons game. Philly rested virtually every starter, and several backups. They pulled so many people out of the game that a couple of reserves had to play out of position, on both offense and defense (backup tackle played gaurd, another gaurd switched sides, a reserve linebacker played DE). The Falcons were actually trying to win the game, and the Eagles STILL won. I know the Falcons aren't that good right now, but they are hardly bottom of the barrel either.

Any thoughts, or am I looking through rose-colored glasses?

 

[-OZ-]

As a lifelong Eagle fan, this has been one of the strangest seasons I can remember in while. I was confused as to why so many people (both pro anylysts and FBG's) were so down on them earlier this year considering that so much of the team was intact from the Super Bowl year, and that injuries and the T.O disaster easily explained away the 2005 season.Some things to consider now:- Eagles are still a very YOUNG team.- All but 2 or 3 (of the least important) starters are locked up through next year, and most of the critical players and the "non-skill position" players (offensive lineman) are locked up for many years.- They've won four NFC titles in five years, and made 4 NFC Championship games in the last 6 years (maybe five if they can again this year)- A huge knock on them early this season was the recievers. Reggie Brown is only a second year player, and already an impact player at a time when he SHOULD be struggling (Historicly, second year WR's disapear). Avant and Baskett both look very promising. If they keep Stallworth, this will be one of the NFL's deeper recieiving corps next year!- McNabb is still fairly young. He's injury prone, but Philly has shown an outstanding propensity to aquire and have ready a capable backup, or TWO! With a strong O-Line, the QB doesn't have to be brilliant anyway.- Run defense was inconsistant this year, but the D-lineman are mostly young, and improving.-Eagles still are in a terrific salary cap position, with plenty of cap space to play with for the next several years, unlike most teams after enjoying several years at or near the top.I'm not trying to be another annoying Eagles fan, but this team has been strong for years, and shows no signs of stopping anytime soon. The only thing they are missing from being considered a "dynasty" is a ring or two.Consider the Falcons game. Philly rested virtually every starter, and several backups. They pulled so many people out of the game that a couple of reserves had to play out of position, on both offense and defense (backup tackle played gaurd, another gaurd switched sides, a reserve linebacker played DE). The Falcons were actually trying to win the game, and the Eagles STILL won. I know the Falcons aren't that good right now, but they are hardly bottom of the barrel either.Any thoughts, or am I looking through rose-colored glasses?

The Eagles have done very well recently and will probably remain a contender for awhile. I like Reggie Brown enough, but he's probably 4th best out of his class. Avant and Baskett have talent, but are mere depth. A good group, but your best receiver is your RB.I also like the DL. Overall, a good young team. Missing the key to a dynasty - SB rings. I'm also not convinced they're better for the long haul than Chicago or New Orleans. Certainly have a better recent history, but without rings or at least a few SB appearances, who cares?

 

[Mighty Mice]

Huge Eagles fan and Banner/Lurie/Reid fan here with a coment or two...

- All but 2 or 3 (of the least important) starters are locked up through next year, and most of the critical players and the "non-skill position" players (offensive lineman) are locked up for many years.

Yeah, the extension of Herremans this week was a solid move. They actually have 21 out of 22 starters inked through next year. The only one not signed is Stallworth. And the depth on the team is really excellent.

The only thing they are missing from being considered a "dynasty" is a ring or two.?

Kind of an important omission, no?

:X

 

[ThisGuy]

The only thing they are missing from being considered a "dynasty" is a ring or two.?

Kind of an important omission, no?





Don't you actually have to win something a few times (even once) to be considered a dynasty?

I thought this was another Madden '07 thread.

 

[TheLastDispatch]

i don't think they're a "dynasty," but i can see your point. theyve been at the top for a while now.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

A few weks ago Eagles fans on this board were rallying to fire Andy Reed and were crying in their beers over the season, now they are a dynasty?

 

[JuniorNB]

Obviously, the absence of a Super Bowl win keeps them from being a dynasty. That being said, with the exception of the "T.O. year", the Eagles consistency over the last six years has been remarkable.

This year, they were picked to finish last in their division by most experts. If said experts had been told that they would play half the year without McNabb, they would have probably been picked to challenge for the number one overall draft pick.

After watching the Bears stink it up last night, and remebering how Philly played earlier in the year at New Orleans, I think an argument could be made that the Eagles have as good of a shot as anyone in the NFC.

 

[renesauz]

A few weks ago Eagles fans on this board were rallying to fire Andy Reed and were crying in their beers over the season, now they are a dynasty?

Eagles fans are an emotional bunch on the whole, but many of us Eagles fans were laughing at those who suggested AR should go.For those who say not a dynasty due to no ring...read my first post again. It's just a term, so I really don't care whether you'd consider what they've done dynastic or not, but I personally don't agree with the idea that a ring is necessary to be one. Dominance over a period of several (more then 3) years is my prerequisite, not titles.

 

[Ghost Rider]

For those who say not a dynasty due to no ring...read my first post again. It's just a term, so I really don't care whether you'd consider what they've done dynastic or not, but I personally don't agree with the idea that a ring is necessary to be one. Dominance over a period of several (more then 3) years is my prerequisite, not titles.

Okay, but true dominance in sports includes championships. And you can't even say that the Eagles have dominated the NFC, since they only have one Super Bowl appearance (so far) to show for all of this so-called dominance you are talking about. I am not trying to take anything away from the Eagles, who have had a helluva run over the last six years, but calling them anything close to a dynasty is a gross overstatement.

 

[suchislife]

A few weks ago Eagles fans on this board were rallying to fire Andy Reed and were crying in their beers over the season, now they are a dynasty?

Eagles fans are an emotional bunch on the whole, but many of us Eagles fans were laughing at those who suggested AR should go.For those who say not a dynasty due to no ring...read my first post again. It's just a term, so I really don't care whether you'd consider what they've done dynastic or not, but I personally don't agree with the idea that a ring is necessary to be one. Dominance over a period of several (more then 3) years is my prerequisite, not titles.

I posted a few times in the Fire Andy Reid thread...not to actually fire him, but I felt he needed to change his philosphy a bit. Over the last month, he's given the playcalling duties to the OC and that's been huge. Now, if only he could change his mind about LB's being an afterthought....And yes, having a Super Bowl ring or 2 would certainly help support a 'Dynasty' theory.

 

[delusional]

A few weks ago Eagles fans on this board were rallying to fire Andy Reed and were crying in their beers over the season, now they are a dynasty?

Eagles fans are an emotional bunch on the whole, but many of us Eagles fans were laughing at those who suggested AR should go.For those who say not a dynasty due to no ring...read my first post again. It's just a term, so I really don't care whether you'd consider what they've done dynastic or not, but I personally don't agree with the idea that a ring is necessary to be one. Dominance over a period of several (more then 3) years is my prerequisite, not titles.

I posted a few times in the Fire Andy Reid thread...not to actually fire him, but I felt he needed to change his philosphy a bit. Over the last month, he's given the playcalling duties to the OC and that's been huge. Now, if only he could change his mind about LB's being an afterthought....And yes, having a Super Bowl ring or 2 would certainly help support a 'Dynasty' theory.

Correct. The big thing was the run pass ratio. Its been reids downfall for years. We had capable backs but because McNabb at head, he insisted on passing the ball nearly every down. Now that he sees how much better the team plays when they run consistently and work the WCO...there should be no reason to abandoned it. That was the main reason people were being vocal about Reid.Right now though as an overall look at the franchise, they have been one of the best regardless of, let me morph into my cowboys persona here, having no rings. There are teams year in and year out that don't even sniff the playoffs. Or they're there one year, not back for another two years etc etc. The eagles have consistently been there ( outside of last year and the massive amount of injuries ). I actually wrote them off after McNabb went down. Wasn't a believer in Garcia but he showed how well this team is built right now. From the o line, to wrs, to rbs. So as a fan you either have A) your team win it one year then flounder for the next couple years or B) have a team that consistently puts together a great team year in year out. I find the eagles to be in the B area and as a fan, i am perfectly happy with that. When you are like that, a superbowl will come eventually.