I think a Patriot win elevates them above those teams. The Patriots are doing this in the salary cap era. Its astounding.Both teams are coming off of fairly dominating performances. A win by New England here has to set them in the dynasty class of the 'Niner and Cowboy teams of the 80's/90's. The Eagles finally had a championship game appearance pay off and they're looking to start a run of their own.
GO EAGLES!!!
Did I mention, "I hope you're not betting money on it" :rotflmao:Did I mention, I am taking the EAGLES!!!!!
Don't throw out the analysis. So you have a bias.I can't wait for the game, as a fan I honestly throw all the analysis out the door for the next two weeks. I won't argue with anyone that points out why and how the Patriots should win, but it simply won't matter to me, I believe we'll find a way to get it done.
I don't. By bringing in the "salary cap", I assume we're talking about player turnover. Who have the Patriots lost since 2001? They've upgraded at running back (Corey Dillon over Antowain Smith), wide receiver (Deion Branch & David Givens over some scrubs) and safety (Rodney Harrison over Lawyer Milloy). The loss of Ted Washington was a big hole that they've filled through the draft (Wilfork) and free-agency (Traylor). Bruschi signing under his market value certainly doesn't hurt.Milloy was right in what he recently said about the Patriots, but I don't think that it's a negative towards their franchise. How Belichick gets these guys to play above themselves, as a unit, is what I find astounding.I think a Patriot win elevates them above those teams.Both teams are coming off of fairly dominating performances. A win by New England here has to set them in the dynasty class of the 'Niner and Cowboy teams of the 80's/90's. The Eagles finally had a championship game appearance pay off and they're looking to start a run of their own.
GO EAGLES!!!
Not sure about that, maybe with a healthy T.O. but McNabb is playing shorthanded with Stinkston, an aspiring pro wrestler Freddie Mitchell, and super gnat Greg Lewis. McNabb has to win this one with his legs.I think the Brady vs McNabb matchup is worthy of being considered one of the best Super Bowl QB matchups of all time.
Well, I think the 1990s Yankee teams were amazing and yes they would probably destroy and champ in some hypothetical free agency period in the far future.However, the accomplishment of an organization as a whole to get the same results but in a free agency era elevates them to me. Its ok if others disagree.I don't. By bringing in the "salary cap", I assume we're talking about player turnover. Who have the Patriots lost since 2001? They've upgraded at running back (Corey Dillon over Antowain Smith), wide receiver (Deion Branch & David Givens over some scrubs) and safety (Rodney Harrison over Lawyer Milloy). The loss of Ted Washington was a big hole that they've filled through the draft (Wilfork) and free-agency (Traylor). Bruschi signing under his market value certainly doesn't hurt.Milloy was right in what he recently said about the Patriots, but I don't think that it's a negative towards their franchise. How Belichick gets these guys to play above themselves, as a unit, is what I find astounding.I think a Patriot win elevates them above those teams.Both teams are coming off of fairly dominating performances. A win by New England here has to set them in the dynasty class of the 'Niner and Cowboy teams of the 80's/90's. The Eagles finally had a championship game appearance pay off and they're looking to start a run of their own.
GO EAGLES!!!
You're right, Tom Brady's 28 rushing yards this year are little.McNabb will or can win it with his legs? I saw during the Eagle/Falcon game where McNabb run on a 3rd 'n long play, but he ran out of bounds, about 2-yards short of the 1st down. Even the announcers said that McNabb could/should have gotten the first down. He doesn't do the little things that a Tom Brady does so, okay you take the Eagles, less Owens (ESPN's "Mort" says unless there is a miracle he WILL NOT play) and I'll take the Pats.
2-8-PHI37 (9:33) D.McNabb right end ran ob at PHI 43 for 6 yards. 3-2-PHI43 (9:03) D.McNabb pass to C.Lewis to ATL 45 for 12 yards (C.Hall). They were up 20-10 at the time, it was 2nd and long, and the resulting 3rd and 2 was converted. Going for the first down was completely unnecessary, not a sure thing by any stretch, and would have meant risking a turnover or injury. McNabb made the right play and the smart play.I saw during the Eagle/Falcon game where McNabb run on a 3rd 'n long play, but he ran out of bounds, about 2-yards short of the 1st down. Even the announcers said that McNabb could/should have gotten the first down.
In my estimation ....1. The 2004 Patriots are a bit better than the 2003 version and a lot better than the 2001 version. Their 14-2 record with the bullseye on their back combined with their amazing playoff run so far means that, in my eyes, if they win this title they may be the best team in the NFL since the Redskins in 1991. It's just amazing at how versatile they are ... and that's a testament to the players just as much as the coaching. This is no "blue-collar" team -- there's incredible talent on all sides of the ball.2. The 2004 Eagles are stronger than the 2003 Panthers, but I don't think they're as strong as the 2001 Rams. That Rams offense truly was unstoppable unless you could get them to turn the ball over. It's tough to say that about many other teams in league history.3. I think the 2004 Eagles are the strongest in this run. Easy to say, since they've finally gotten over the hump. But if T.O. is healthy, it's tough to put any of the previous teams ahead of them, as downfield receiving was likely their biggest weakness in the previous 3 years.Given this, that's 2 to 1 in favor of the Patriots. I think they take this one, 31-17, even if T.O. is playing.Discussion points:How does this Patriots team measure up to their 2001 and 2003 clubs?How do the 2004 Eagles measure up as an opponent compared to the 2003 Panthers and 2001 Rams?How do the 2004 Eagles measure up compared to their previous incarnations that lost the NFC title game?
I shoot in a dart league on Sunday's, and the drunks at the bar thought NE would be a 7+ favorite (Some were sold on double digits ). I said 6. Close enough.Patriots are the betting favorite.Patriots -6.5; o/u 46.5http://www2.pinnaclesports.com/vwGuestLine...portSubType=NFL
Saw it for a few seconds and was responding when I saw it was gone!Just wondering ... since you are removing week 17 from both the Eagles and Patriots, shouldn't you remove all similar weeks from previous teams as well? It just seems like we give an unfair advantage to this year's teams by taking out a "bad" game, if teams in prior years did the same thing.I have a key stat I have not released before that is 12-2 in this game over the past 14 years.I deleted it because I think I'll just put it in with my overall analysis which will come later once the mystery over Terrell Owens' playing time gets a little clearer.No sense in scattering my analysis over several posts in this thread. I'll keep it to one post.
You could do it in theory, if you wanted to refine the data.But for one, where do you get the data? pro-football-reference.com only goes back to 1995 for Jim Kelly's game-by-game numbers, for example. How can I tell if he sat out week 16 in his super bowl years, or played the first half, or went the whole way? For example, I know from the game recap that Tom Brady was pulled in the third quarter in week 17 this year. In ten years, that information will be lost.Saw it for a few seconds and was responding when I saw it was gone!Just wondering ... since you are removing week 17 from both the Eagles and Patriots, shouldn't you remove all similar weeks from previous teams as well? It just seems like we give an unfair advantage to this year's teams by taking out a "bad" game, if teams in prior years did the same thing.I have a key stat I have not released before that is 12-2 in this game over the past 14 years.I deleted it because I think I'll just put it in with my overall analysis which will come later once the mystery over Terrell Owens' playing time gets a little clearer.No sense in scattering my analysis over several posts in this thread. I'll keep it to one post.
Good point.So in this case should we use all 16 games for all Super Bowl teams? What do you think?You could do it in theory, if you wanted to refine the data.But for one, where do you get the data? pro-football-reference.com only goes back to 1995 for Jim Kelly's game-by-game numbers, for example. How can I tell if he sat out week 16 in his super bowl years, or played the first half, or went the whole way? For example, I know from the game recap that Tom Brady was pulled in the third quarter in week 17 this year. In ten years, that information will be lost.Saw it for a few seconds and was responding when I saw it was gone!Just wondering ... since you are removing week 17 from both the Eagles and Patriots, shouldn't you remove all similar weeks from previous teams as well? It just seems like we give an unfair advantage to this year's teams by taking out a "bad" game, if teams in prior years did the same thing.I have a key stat I have not released before that is 12-2 in this game over the past 14 years.I deleted it because I think I'll just put it in with my overall analysis which will come later once the mystery over Terrell Owens' playing time gets a little clearer.No sense in scattering my analysis over several posts in this thread. I'll keep it to one post.
On defense, they sacked the elusive Michael Vick four times and intercepted him once, and held the NFL's No. 1 rushing team to 99 yards on the ground and a season-low 202 total yards.
So much for the great Michael Vick. I hope they keep showing his highlights from this game, with Eagles ALL OVER HIM, and Vick generally looking clueless trying to find a receiver down field.The Eagles D quietly has been dominating. There's no arguing that, as they have given up the fewest points per game in the league. I hope everyone keeps saying the Eagles have no chance, they will be surprised at what happens in two weeks.Vick could attest that there was nothing soft about this Eagles' defense. He was held to 26 yards rushing and 136 yards passing. The 162 yards of total offense was his lowest of the season.
Cracker...I would have to argue with your point here. Though the records are true but they are deceiving. NE beat Clev,Balit,Cincy,Rams and lost to Steelers ... The Eagles beat Clev,Balti and lost to the Steeelers,Cincy,Rams but the loses to the Rams and Cincy came in wks 16-17 when their starters didn't play so basically they were both 2-1 against common opponents.Five common opponents this year.New England: 4-1, combined score 161-102Philly: 2-3, combined score 69-126
That's not the way to beat the Pats IMO. Want to beat the Patriots offense? Scheme to beat your own defense, then scheme to change your team to beat that offense. The Pats' only offensive tendency is that they change their offensive identity dramatically from weak to weak to beat the opposing defense. Same thing on defense, really. The reason the Pats can scheme so well is they have so many tweeners on defense, 2-3 TEs on offense who can catch the ball and block, WRs who can all catch the ball, a couple RBs who can run, block and catch, and Tom Brady. They can really take on any game plan necessary to beat a given opponent. Going into the Pittsburgh game, people said the Pats were going to have to play smashmouth football and beat the Steelers at their own game. Everyone knew what the Steelers were going to do, and it was a question of whether the Pats could beat it. Guess what? Brady goes over the top twice to Branch, hits a couple huge plays early, and keeps the Steelers D moving all game. But there is a vulnerability. When the Pats stood up the Colts on the goal line on that first and goal from the 2 a couple years ago, they said that the Colts had gone for 4th and 1 x number of times in the past, and that they had run almost every single time. So the Pats played run on the goal line and stopped it. The next time the Pats played the Colts, the same situation came up at midfield. Manning looks at the D, remembers last time, and audibles to a naked boot. The result? A 17 yard run. If you want to beat the most adaptable team in the league, you have to be so good they can't adapt, or be more adaptable yourself. We've seen a couple teams that were very good at what they do, and the Pats were able to prepare for them and then some. I think the only way to neutralize that preparation is to be different when the game comes.I expect Jimmy Johnson to use the added bye week to come up with a scheme to keep the Pats' offense in check.
I think that is his point.....even in the era of the salary cap, they have put together a team where they keep the turnover to a minimum. It's amazing that they have been able to keep all the players they have. There isn't another team in the league that has surfed the cap as well as the Pats. Football is two basic parts now.....surviving the cap is the first part, then executing on the field is the second part.....they have done BOTH better than anyone in the NFL and their post season run has proven it.I don't. By bringing in the "salary cap", I assume we're talking about player turnover. Who have the Patriots lost since 2001? They've upgraded at running back (Corey Dillon over Antowain Smith), wide receiver (Deion Branch & David Givens over some scrubs) and safety (Rodney Harrison over Lawyer Milloy). The loss of Ted Washington was a big hole that they've filled through the draft (Wilfork) and free-agency (Traylor). Bruschi signing under his market value certainly doesn't hurt.Milloy was right in what he recently said about the Patriots, but I don't think that it's a negative towards their franchise. How Belichick gets these guys to play above themselves, as a unit, is what I find astounding.I think a Patriot win elevates them above those teams.Both teams are coming off of fairly dominating performances. A win by New England here has to set them in the dynasty class of the 'Niner and Cowboy teams of the 80's/90's. The Eagles finally had a championship game appearance pay off and they're looking to start a run of their own.
GO EAGLES!!!
As the season has gone on, it's mind boggling the difference Jermiah Trotter has made for the team. At first it was a novelty that he re-signed for a minimum deal, and then after getting pasted by the Steelers, it was intriguing to see him re-inserted into the starting lineup. But I still wondered what he had left in those knees, because local reports said he couldn't even move laterally at the start of training camp. But he's not only totally revamped the Eagles rushing defense, he's become the leader of the defense again (for those who don't know, Trot was the 2-time team MVP before leaving for the Skins), both in his play and his emotional intensity.Also, for a team that spent the better part of the last two years with half our defensive line injured, to see Derrick Burgess and Hollis Thomas making huge plays as part of the rotation was a thing of infinite beauty.The thing I liked most about the Eagles/Falcons game was that Reid coached to win, instead of the last few years where he coached not to lose. There's a big difference between the two and he proved that he's finally learned his lesson after three years of coming up short. The fake FG and amount of rushing yards proved that he's prepared to do whatever it takes to win. I was also glad to see Atlanta held under 100 yards rushing as a team. That's incredible considering that Vick wanted to run every time he dropped back. IMO that game should have been a shutout, but the refs kept drives alive on close calls. It happens, but for them to beat the Pats it can't happen often. If the Eagles don't leave points on the field then they win. If they turn the ball over and make stupid mistakes they lose. I think both teams are very close and are the class of their conferences. NE has been there before, so here to hoping they take the Eagles lightly.
This is a great post and exactly on point. The Panthers last year did exactly that. The Patriots I'm sure prepared for and schemed to take away the smash mouth running duo of Davis and Foster, as that's how the Panthers won all year and in the playoffs. John Fox turned the tables and aired it out all game with pretty damn good success, especially in the second half. He caught the Pats off guard. The Steelers couldn't really do that because while they had great offensive talent all around, the key to adapability to switch from a run offense to a pass offense is the QB, and there's no way you let a rookie loose 40+ times. NE KNEW what the Steelers had to do to win the game and tried to take it away, and did.Andy Reid has that option. He's not saving Westbrook for next week. He can hand him the ball 30 times if he wants/needs to. He can bring in Dorsey Levens for 15 carries if he wants to. Not sure if that's what he's thinking, but it is an option.Andy Reid is 8-0 after byes in his career. He knows what he's doing. He will have an offensive gameplan that will be effective. It's going to be up to the players to execute it.That's not the way to beat the Pats IMO. Want to beat the Patriots offense? Scheme to beat your own defense, then scheme to change your team to beat that offense. The Pats' only offensive tendency is that they change their offensive identity dramatically from weak to weak to beat the opposing defense. Same thing on defense, really. The reason the Pats can scheme so well is they have so many tweeners on defense, 2-3 TEs on offense who can catch the ball and block, WRs who can all catch the ball, a couple RBs who can run, block and catch, and Tom Brady. They can really take on any game plan necessary to beat a given opponent. Going into the Pittsburgh game, people said the Pats were going to have to play smashmouth football and beat the Steelers at their own game. Everyone knew what the Steelers were going to do, and it was a question of whether the Pats could beat it. Guess what? Brady goes over the top twice to Branch, hits a couple huge plays early, and keeps the Steelers D moving all game. But there is a vulnerability. When the Pats stood up the Colts on the goal line on that first and goal from the 2 a couple years ago, they said that the Colts had gone for 4th and 1 x number of times in the past, and that they had run almost every single time. So the Pats played run on the goal line and stopped it. The next time the Pats played the Colts, the same situation came up at midfield. Manning looks at the D, remembers last time, and audibles to a naked boot. The result? A 17 yard run. If you want to beat the most adaptable team in the league, you have to be so good they can't adapt, or be more adaptable yourself. We've seen a couple teams that were very good at what they do, and the Pats were able to prepare for them and then some. I think the only way to neutralize that preparation is to be different when the game comes.I expect Jimmy Johnson to use the added bye week to come up with a scheme to keep the Pats' offense in check.