SortingNews takes on Giants & Eagles

[HapHaszard]

Giants
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=163564

PLAYOFF PROGNOSIS: Most signs point to a quick exit. The team lost six of its last eight games and is missing key players because of injuries. The biggest concerns are QB Eli Manning, who has been inaccurate and mistake-prone and doesn't appear capable of leading the team, and the defense. Without LE Michael Strahan (foot), the pass rush has been nonexistent, which in turn has put enormous strain on a weak secondary. The only saving grace is RB Tiki Barber. If he's on his game, the Giants have a chance against the Eagles' vulnerable run defense.

Eagles

PLAYOFF PROGNOSIS: The Eagles are the NFC's hottest and perhaps most dangerous team. They enter the postseason as healthy as they have been all season. Coach Andy Reid and coordinator Marty Mornhinweg have tailored the offense to maximize QB Jeff Garcia's ability. It looks more like a true West Coast attack and replaces the big-play approach under QB Donovan McNabb. RB Michael Westbrook needs to continue his recent sensational play as a runner and receiver. The run defense has been better of late, with WLB Omar Gaither and Ts Mike Patterson and Darwin Walker playing key roles.

[Henry]

I find it interesting that last year, we had almost exactly the same season as the Eagles are having, yet had to settle for the #6 spot in the playoffs. I wonder how we would have fared at #3.

The Cowboys actually had a worse season this year than last year, yet moved from out of the playoffs completely to the #5 spot.

And I can't believe the Giants got a spot at all. Over the past 14 years of Redskin futility, we've had four 8+ win seasons and missed the playoffs every single time. During that span the Giants and Cowboys have both made the playoffs with 8 wins.

It's not so much a complaint. Just an observation.

[HapHaszard]

I find it interesting that last year, we had almost exactly the same season as the Eagles are having, yet had to settle for the #6 spot in the playoffs. I wonder how we would have fared at #3.

The Cowboys actually had a worse season this year than last year, yet moved from out of the playoffs completely to the #5 spot.

And I can't believe the Giants got a spot at all. Over the past 14 years of Redskin futility, we've had four 8+ win seasons and missed the playoffs every single time. During that span the Giants and Cowboys have both made the playoffs with 8 wins.

Different year I guess, lot of weaker teams this year in the NFC.

[bubba9497]

I'm still ticked over the 2pt conversion call @ TB

cost us the East & #2 seed :doh:

[Henry]

Different year I guess, lot of weaker teams this year in the NFC.

Yep. We just picked a bad year to be good. I guess you run the risk of that when you're only good once every six years ...

[Alabama Man]

I'm still ticked over the 2pt conversion call @ TB

cost us the East & #2 seed :doh:

But thats not something to get upset over anyway. Looking at a game, or entire season and forming a conclusion based on one play is redundant. You can always argue that a team should be able to beat another team, with things like bad calls and crazy plays included. If they can't win, it wasn't going to get much further anyway. This is speaking on all teams, and not particular the skins right there.

Aside from the fact that I believed the skins were quite fraudalent last year, if for nothing more then that a leopard can't change it's spots that quickly. Illustrated by the fact that things quickly tapered off again the following season. Riding a winning streak against some fairly weak teams as a rallying cry for success into the playoffs was a set up to be let down.

[Henry]

Riding a winning streak against some fairly weak teams as a rallying cry for success into the playoffs was a set up to be let down.

Indeed. :)

[Alabama Man]

Yeah, I already considered you, or someone else would take that in this direction. And all I can say is I have seen the Eagles take there level of play to a higher level then what I saw from the redskins last year. It's only gonna take two more weeks to see who was right. And if we start comparing teams, they each played, I'd much rather see the Seahawks of last year then the Saints or the Bears in their house this year.

[Henry]

Yeah, I already considered you, or someone else would take that in this direction. And all I can say is I have seen the Eagles take there level of play to a higher level then what I saw from the redskins last year.

Ah. So the Eagles are better this year than the Redskins last year cuz, gosh darn it, you say so.

I can't argue with that logic. :)

It's only gonna take two more weeks to see who was right. And if we start comparing teams, they each played, I'd much rather see the Seahawks of last year then the Saints or the Bears in their house this year.

Saints/Bears vs. last years' Seahawks is debateable I guess, but I'd much rather see the 8-8 Giants at home this year than ANYTHING last year. I can't believe you'd even attempt to argue your road is tougher as the #3 team than ours was as the #6 team. Not to mention the fact that you got to rest your starters against the Falcons, while we were afforded no such luxury.

But hey, use that 'gosh darn it, you say so' approach. That's been really convincing so far.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Ah. So the Eagles are better this year than the Redskins last year cuz, gosh darn it, you say so.

I can't argue with that logic. :)



Saints/Bears vs. last years' Seahawks is debateable I guess, but I'd much rather see the 8-8 Giants at home this year than ANYTHING last year. I can't believe you'd even attempt to argue your road is tougher as the #3 team than ours was as the #6 team. Not to mention the fact that you got to rest your starters against the Falcons, while we were afforded no such luxury.

But hey, use that 'gosh darn it, you say so' approach. That's been really convincing so far.

I don't know...playing at Seattle last year was pretty tough...ask any other team that did it!

I would much rather play NO or Chicago this year than last year's Super Bowl runners-up.

I think the Seattle team of last year would be the class of this year's NFC...now see if that sentence doesn't confuse you! :laugh:

[jrockster21]

I think the Seattle team of last year would be the class of this year's NFC...now see if that doesn't confuse you!


Seattle last year would have cleaned up this year, no question at all that they'd be in the superbowl again. They might have a slightly tougher time with the Bears, but not by much.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Seattle last year would have cleaned up this year, no question at all that they'd be in the superbowl again. They might have a slightly tougher time with the Bears, but not by much.

I agree. Though I would have loved to see that match up last year as well (once they beat us).

The fact that they got to play Carolina (who was running out of gas at the time) basically cashed their ticket to the Super Bowl.

I think the 2005 Seahawks vs. the 2006 Bears would be interesting. Based on Chicago's D lately though, I think Seattle would score and then Grossman would throw the ball away at some point.

Seattle was a complete team last year...good D (especially at home), great offense.

[jrockster21]

I agree. Though I would have loved to see that match up last year as well (once they beat us).

The fact that they got to play Carolina (who was running out of gas at the time) basically cashed their ticket to the Super Bowl.

I think the 2005 Seahawks vs. the 2006 Bears would be interesting. Based on Chicago's D lately though, I think Seattle would score and then Grossman would throw the ball away at some point.

Seattle was a complete team last year...good D (especially at home), great offense.

:doh: That's right, they did play Carolina. Man...I'm out of it this week!! :laugh:

[TD_washingtonredskins]

:doh: That's right, they did play Carolina. Man...I'm out of it this week!! :laugh:

Yeah, but that game was not even worth watching.

The Bears/Seahawks would have been a good showdown last year.

I think we could see Seattle make a run again this year...there's something to be said for having experience in the playoffs...I wouldn't be shocked to see Philly win vs. NY and then win @ NO (hey, we did it...they can DEFINITELY do it) and then lose vs. Seattle (who would have beaten the 'Boys and Bears).

[bubba9497]

Ah. So the Eagles are better this year than the Redskins last year cuz, gosh darn it, you say so.

I can't argue with that logic. :)

.


his opinion is unbiased


remember only Skin fans are homers :)

[HapHaszard]

I think we could see Seattle make a run again this year...there's something to be said for having experience in the playoffs...I wouldn't be shocked to see Philly win vs. NY and then win @ NO (hey, we did it...they can DEFINITELY do it) and then lose vs. Seattle (who would have beaten the 'Boys and Bears).
I'm having trouble seeing Philly beat NO, but what the hell, I thought we were going to go deep into the playoffs this year. I have difficulty seeing the Giants win against Philly but its possible I guess. If it happens it will the the upset of the playoffs. Tom we will have to pull down from the clouds and Westbrook will have solved the iraq problem by himself. (there won't be any iraq's left.) :laugh:

[Henry]

his opinion is unbiased


remember only Skin fans are homers :)

Well, the entire argument is one not worth having. Both teams made what I consider incredible runs to close out the season. Maybe one is slightly more incredible than the other. I don't know, and I don't think it really matters.

Though I'm not the one attempting to belittle the accomplishments of a playoff team here.

[Pocono]

"RB Michael Westbrook needs to continue his recent sensational play as a runner and receiver. The run defense has been better of late, with WLB Omar Gaither and Ts Mike Patterson and Darwin Walker playing key roles."

Michael Westbrook?????????

[Who Del]

Well, the entire argument is one not worth having. Both teams made what I consider incredible runs to close out the season. Maybe one is slightly more incredible than the other. I don't know, and I don't think it really matters.

Though I'm not the one attempting to belittle the accomplishments of a playoff team here.

Neither run will mean anything if they are both finished with no Lombardi. Thats just how I see it though.

The Redskins didn't get one so whats there really to be excited about?

The Eagles have a huge mountain to climb if they're going to get a trophy.

There is only one thing that matters at the end of the season and we all know what that is.

[jrockster21]

Neither run will mean anything if they are both finished with no Lombardi. Thats just how I see it though.

The Redskins didn't get one so whats there really to be excited about?

The Eagles have a huge mountain to climb if they're going to get a trophy.

There is only one thing that matters at the end of the season and we all know what that is.


Jeff Garcia is not good enough to take you too the promised land. Sorry, but at the very best, all Eagles fans have to look forward to is another loss in the NFCCG. :2cents:

[HapHaszard]

"

Michael Westbrook?????????
You have to realize that these articles are written by news reporters who cover the teams, Paul Woody does the Redskin articles.

[Who Del]

I'm not expecting a Super Bowl. While I agree that the NFC is so weak any team can end up there. I do not think that team is the Eagles. I think it will be one of the top two seeds. I can see the Eagles pulling a Redskins and winning a close one the first game then just running out of gas in the next one.

[Henry]

I don't think any NFC team has a chance this year, honestly.

[Westbrook36]

Let's get our excuses handy in case the Eagles make the Superbowl.

2004: WORST NFC EVER!!
2005: GREAT NFC!
2006: WORST NFC EVER!!

[jrockster21]

I'm not expecting a Super Bowl. While I agree that the NFC is so weak any team can end up there. I do not think that team is the Eagles. I think it will be one of the top two seeds. I can see the Eagles pulling a Redskins and winning a close one the first game then just running out of gas in the next one.


To be honest, the Iggs probably have a better chance to make the SB than I'm giving them, because they have the hot hand right now. However we were as fired up as you can be last year, but failed to make it past the divisional round. I just think Garcia doesn't have what it takes; and the Iggs are an injury to the fragile Westbrook away from being mediocre.

[jrockster21]

Let's get our excuses handy in case the Eagles make the Superbowl.

2004: WORST NFC EVER!!
2005: GREAT NFC!
2006: WORST NFC EVER!!


:laugh: You are too much... :laugh:

[Henry]

Let's get our excuses handy in case the Eagles make the Superbowl.

2004: WORST NFC EVER!!
2005: GREAT NFC!
2006: WORST NFC EVER!!

If the Eagles capitalize on a weak conference, more power to 'em. That doesn't change the fact that the NFC is an unusually weak conference this year. The #2 seed in the entire conference is 10-6. And since the NFL went to a 16-game schedule in 1978 no other NFC has failed to produce at least two 11-win teams. It's only happened once in the AFC: 1989, when the Broncos (the only team to finish higher than 9-6-1 in the entire conference) got crushed by the 49ers 55-10.

[jrockster21]

If the Eagles capitalize on a weak conference, more power to 'em. That doesn't change the fact that the NFC is an unusually weak conference this year. The #2 seed in the entire conference is 10-6. And since the NFL went to a 16-game schedule in 1978 no other NFC has failed to produce at least two 11-win teams. It's only happened once in the AFC: 1989, when the Broncos (the only team to finish higher than 9-6-1 in the entire conference) got crushed by the 49ers 55-10.

Eh...don't even bother with facts. Westy makes 80% of his posts for only one reason - to stir **** up. He's an inciter, plain and simple. :whoknows:

[Westbrook36]

Henry, come on, old chap. In 2004, it was the same thing. Weakest conference ever. But something crazy happened. In the middle of these two historic seasons of ineptitude, the Skins went 10-6 and won a playoff game; thus, 2005 was not the norm. THIS was the strong NFC! Teams rosters were obviously retooled, but then decimated before this year.

You can flip flop the teams from last year with this year and no one can tell me there is much of a difference except the 6 seed last year being stronger but the 3 seed this year is stronger than last year.

Chicago and Seattle is a toss up. Ditto Carolina and New Orleans.

Regardless, there isn't so much variation that makes it clear. But, to your average Skins fan, the 2005 Redskins team would be the clear favorite amongst this sorry group of NFC teams.

[jrockster21]

Henry, come on, old chap. In 2004, it was the same thing. Weakest conference ever. But something crazy happened. In the middle of these two historic seasons of ineptitude, the Skins went 10-6 and won a playoff game; thus, 2005 was not the norm. THIS was the strong NFC! Teams rosters were obviously retooled, but then decimated before this year.

In 2004 the argument was the NFC East was weak. However the NFC had four teams with winning records out of 12, and only 3 10 win teams. Only an Eagle fan would see that as not a weak conference. :laugh: Correction, only Westy would see it that way.

In 2005, the NFC wasn't much stronger, but 8 teams had winning records, including 6 10 or more win teams. The NFC East was stronger than it was this year, with two 10 win teams and 3 teams with winning records.

Its painfully obvious how biased you are, Westy. :laugh:

[Westbrook36]

You are right. Do you have any theories on how the teams got strong for the one push in 2005 yet suck again in 2006? Are the teams biased against an obviously strong Skins team in 2005 and decided to be good again? Tampa Bay and the Giants were 10 win teams last year and I wouldn't put them above ANY team in this year's playoffs. The Skins had about 100 yards of offense and won a playoff game! The Giants won their division and couldn't put up a point at home in the playoffs.

Is this what you are propping up as the strong NFC? Get off it.

[jrockster21]

You are right. Do you have any theories on how the teams got strong for the one push in 2005 yet suck again in 2006? Are the teams biased against an obviously strong Skins team in 2005 and decided to be good again? Tampa Bay and the Giants were 10 win teams last year and I wouldn't put them above ANY team in this year's playoffs. The Skins had about 100 yards of offense and won a playoff game! The Giants won their division and couldn't put up a point at home in the playoffs.

Is this what you are propping up as the strong NFC? Get off it.


How can you ignore the obvious? :laugh: Ridiculous. Atlanta was 11-5 in 2004, and they couldn't have touched any of the 2005 playoff teams.

And it was 140 yards of offense, thank you very much! Tampa's squad last year would easily beat Philthy, Dallas, Seattle or New York (of this season) at home.

And please learn how to read...I said the 2005 NFC wasn't much stronger, but there is no reasonable argument you can make that it was weaker or as strong as 2006. None. So please stop trying!! :laugh:


EDIT: But I will say, Philthy's 2004 squad would have dominated 2005 or 2006 just like they dominated 2004.

[Henry]

Henry, come on, old chap. In 2004, it was the same thing. Weakest conference ever. But something crazy happened. In the middle of these two historic seasons of ineptitude, the Skins went 10-6 and won a playoff game; thus, 2005 was not the norm. THIS was the strong NFC! Teams rosters were obviously retooled, but then decimated before this year.

You can flip flop the teams from last year with this year and no one can tell me there is much of a difference except the 6 seed last year being stronger but the 3 seed this year is stronger than last year.

Chicago and Seattle is a toss up. Ditto Carolina and New Orleans.

Regardless, there isn't so much variation that makes it clear. But, to your average Skins fan, the 2005 Redskins team would be the clear favorite amongst this sorry group of NFC teams.

Maybe 2005 was simply typical. Very rarely do more than one 9-or-fewer-win teams make the playoffs. In 2004 both an 8- and a 9-win team did. Same in 2006. There are/were simply not a lot of strong teams in the conference those years. We can argue all day long about who the strongest #1 seeds were from year to year. But when looking at a conference, top-to-bottom, '04 and '06 are weaker than most other years. I don't know why this bothers you so much. The Eagles made the playoffs plenty of other years too.

I'll also admit that the last time the NFC was relatively weak was 1999, when the Redskins won their last division title. The 2005 Redskins, in my opinion, were better than that team too, (as are the 2006 Eagles FWIW) but we got a much better playoff spot that year. It happens.

[Henry]

You are right. Do you have any theories on how the teams got strong for the one push in 2005 yet suck again in 2006? Are the teams biased against an obviously strong Skins team in 2005 and decided to be good again? Tampa Bay and the Giants were 10 win teams last year and I wouldn't put them above ANY team in this year's playoffs. The Skins had about 100 yards of offense and won a playoff game! The Giants won their division and couldn't put up a point at home in the playoffs.

Is this what you are propping up as the strong NFC? Get off it.

Really? You'd put the '06 Giants up against the '05 Giants or Bucs?

[Westbrook36]

I don't think it is weaker. I am making fun of people like you who have to somehow prop up the Skins 2005 above this year by playing the weaker conference game. I think they are equally weak. I know the Skins make the playoffs once or twice a decade, but let it go. Let's not play fantasy geek matchups of the 2005 Skins vs the world!!!

On second thought, I think it will be pretty amusing to hear people say the 2005 Skins would have beat the 2006 Eagles (if they make the SB).

:laugh:

[OWUeagleMD]

Maybe 2005 was simply typical. Very rarely do more than one 9-or-fewer-win teams make the playoffs. In 2004 both an 8- and a 9-win team did. Same in 2006. There are/were simply not a lot of strong teams in the conference those years. We can argue all day long about who the strongest #1 seeds were from year to year. But when looking at a conference, top-to-bottom, '04 and '06 are weaker than most other years. I don't know why this bothers you so much. The Eagles made the playoffs plenty of other years too.

I'll also admit that the last time the NFC was relatively weak was 1999, when the Redskins won their last division title. The 2005 Redskins, in my opinion, were better than that team too, but we got a much better playoff spot that year. It happens.[/QUOTE]

I think the '99 Redskins were a far superior team to the '05 Redskins.

[Who Del]

To be honest, the Iggs probably have a better chance to make the SB than I'm giving them, because they have the hot hand right now. However we were as fired up as you can be last year, but failed to make it past the divisional round. I just think Garcia doesn't have what it takes; and the Iggs are an injury to the fragile Westbrook away from being mediocre.

The biggest question is how long can the Eagles keep up this magical run? I think they're going to hit a wall soon. It's bound to happen sometime. If they can somehow hit that wall when the clock strikes :00 and they have a higher score than the Chargers in the Super Bowl then I'll be very very happy.

And who needs Westbrook when we have... BASKETT!!!

[jrockster21]

I don't think it is weaker. I am making fun of people like you who have to somehow prop up the Skins 2005 above this year by playing the weaker conference game. I think they are equally weak. I know the Skins make the playoffs once or twice a decade, but let it go. Let's not play fantasy geek matchups of the 2005 Skins vs the world!!!

On second thought, I think it will be pretty amusing to hear people say the 2005 Skins would have beat the 2006 Eagles (if they make the SB).

:laugh:


The 05 Skins would have spanked the 06 Eagles in FedEx. The one thing they excelled at was goalline offense; we'd have put up 35 points on you, easy. ESPECIALLY with 200+ rushing yards. It wouldn't have even been mildly close. To say otherwise is completely foolish, and has no base in reality.

[Westbrook36]

Really? You'd put the '06 Giants up against the '05 Giants or Bucs?

I'm sorry. No I wouldn't. The 6 seed this year is bad.

[Henry]

I think the '99 Redskins were a far superior team to the '05 Redskins.

I could give you dozens of reasons why I disagree with you, but that's for another thread. But in my opinion it's not even close.

[Westbrook36]

The 05 Skins would have spanked the 06 Eagles in FedEx. The one thing they excelled at was goalline offense; we'd have put up 35 points on you, easy. ESPECIALLY with 200+ rushing yards. It wouldn't have even been mildly close. To say otherwise is completely foolish, and has no base in reality.

Sigh. This is all you are left with, isn't it? :doh:

I'll stand by your offensive performances over the last few weeks of the regular season and the worst offensive performance in playoff history as my official response to the rubbish you just posted. :laugh:

[Henry]

I don't think it is weaker. I am making fun of people like you who have to somehow prop up the Skins 2005 above this year by playing the weaker conference game. I think they are equally weak. I know the Skins make the playoffs once or twice a decade, but let it go. Let's not play fantasy geek matchups of the 2005 Skins vs the world!!!

On second thought, I think it will be pretty amusing to hear people say the 2005 Skins would have beat the 2006 Eagles (if they make the SB).

:laugh:

I was afraid when I brought it up someone would think I was making excuses or something. I wasn't trying to do that at all. That's why made an attempt to qualify my statements as simple observation rather than a complaint.

You play who you play and if you beat those guys you deserve a trophy. If the Eagles win the SB you won't hear anything but congratulations from me.

[Westbrook36]

If the team that was playing the Eagles in the Superbowl crashed on the way to Miami, killing everyone, I'd come in here on Monday, with a straight face, and say the Eagles are Superbowl Champions.

I'm not joking.

[jrockster21]

Sigh. This is all you are left with, isn't it? :doh:

I'll stand by your offensive performances over the last few weeks of the regular season and the worst offensive performance in playoff history as my official response to the rubbish you just posted. :laugh:


Uhhh...okay, but they only prove my point. We averaged almost 170 yards rushing per game down the stretch last season, with 7 rushing touchdowns. You honestly think the 2005 Redskins would not have run all over the 2006 Eagles? Honestly?? :laugh:

[Westbrook36]

I don't know, jrockster. Portis was banged up come playoff time. Brunnell was a shell of himself. The Eagles have been playing good/great run defense for about 3 weeks now. JJ is the best in the league at taking away one dimension of a team's game. Without much of a passing threat, it could go either way.

See what I just did? It's called give and take. I honestly don't know who would win. Something tells me we might not have seen the best Philly has to offer yet.

I just won't 100 percent buy on that the 2005 Skins would win. I respect the team enough to say I don't know. You know what kind of homer I am. Consider that a compliment.