[phightin]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Do you read what other people actually say???

Yes and I'm able to respond with logic and reason to counter ridiculous comments. I'm glad it angers you though.

I NEVER said the Eagles have problems scoring points. I actually said they have an explosive offense. They score most of their points via the big play which I dont like against better teams as better teams tend to not allow the big plays near as much.

That would depend on the team and the defense they're going up against. The bottom line is points are points no matter how you add it up. You love baseball to football analogies so it's almost like the disproven manufacturing runs is better than hitting homers theory. And FYI against the Vikings secondary right now probably the Saints too I like the Eagles chances of going down field.

When did I say the NFC North was better than the NFC East top to bottom??? I said the NFC East doesnt know how to play defense. Check out the scores of some of the games. The top 2 teams in the NFC East are 2-4 against teams from other divisions with winning records the NFC North top 2 teams are 4-4 against teams from other divisions with winning records. Its a very small sample size but its our only way to campare the divisions at this point. The truth of the matter which may hard for you to accept is the Eagles have been beating up on bad teams most of the year. You cant get to the Super Bowl by beating up on bad teams. Competition level gets higher and teams that look great tend to look pretty average.

First off you're original quote was the ONLY THING the NFC East has proven to me this year is that they don't know how to play defense key word ONLY. I've checked out the scores from the games but you should check out more importantly the wins and losses of the various teams each has played. If you're going to hold the NFC East to such a lower standard than be prepared to be countered on a bs argument.

Secondly, the whole notion of judging such a small sample size and holding the eagles to a lower standard because of winning the games they should have won and losing to good teams makes sense because???? Again, I'll ask you to justify the vikings loses over the eagles, and again you won't be able to because the matter of fact is the vikings losses, besides the cardinals who still are above average at best, are all terrible compared to theirs. They lost to terrible teams and there's no way to justify or work around it, and yes the steelers are terrible. I would rather have a team going into the playoffs that has won all the games they should have then one who has been flat out destroyed by some terrible ones.

And you can't get to the super bowl by only beating up on weak teams during the season?? Ummm I dunno but there was a team last year that went 9-7 in what was probably the weakest division in football. Umm can you tell me if they made the playoffs last year??? Did they end up going to the super bowl I'm not sure. Here's the link though so you can see how ridiculous you look... again... Arizona Cardinals Schedule - NFL Football - ESPN

The cardinals last year actually remind somewhat of the eagles this year in that they won all the games except for a couple they should have won and lost others to good teams. They did pretty well for themselves if I remember correctly.


[QUOTE]You said the Packers, Eagles, and Cowboys are the teams to beat in the NFC which makes little to no sense. Saints are 5-1 vs top 10 teams, Vikings are 3-0 vs top 10 teams and Cardinals are 1-1 vs top 10 teams. Eagles are 1-3, Cowboys are 3-1, Packers are 2-2. [QUOTE]

And the Vikings have lost to teams with a combined win loss total of 31-33 while the saints have lost two weeks in a row, one of which was to a terrible team and the other, oh god forbid prepare yourself for this before you explode with anger jbergey...a team from the NFC East...oh no. And the cardinals I won't even argue cause it would be a waste of time. The Eagles meanwhile have lost to teams with a combined win loss total of 40-20. Meaning 1. not only have the eagles out performed the Vikings and Saint when they had to throughout the season but they have had a tough road along the way and 2. Their schedule was considerably more difficult than the vikings maybe even the saints too although I would have to check on that.

[QUOTE]Why is that important? Who do you think is in the playoffs? Top 10 teams or teams like the Bears and Panthers? Most teams tend to play their best against higher quality opponents. If a team cant beat top competition what suddenly makes them able to beat top competition now? I guess maybe I am way out of line but Id like the Eagles be able to win a game against a top team to consider them a Super Bowl contender. It's not as if McNabb and Reid have proven to be a successful playoff combination where we can just throw stats out the window. [QUOTE]

Throw stats ou the window here's one for you to chew on...Andy Reid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reid's Post season record is an impressive 10-7. While the super bowl has eluded them you can't argue that he and mcnabb have done well in the playoffs. They've never lost a first round game, and besides the Patriots and Steelers there really isn't a team this decade who has had the kind of success on a consistent basis both in the regular post season than the eagles have. Their expected to win a super bowl everytime they make it now because of what they've accomplished on a consistent basis while the vikings need to be able to beat them first as they never do in the playoffs if you're going to talk about post season success. And congrats on having Reid's right hand man as your head coach.

I can tell you have never played competetive sports as you dont appear to appear to grasp the mental side of it.

I won't waste my time again responding to personal insults by explaining my athletic background and what I've accomplished as an athlete and now a coach. I coach collegiately for a living, that's my full time job. I'm not sure what you do or have ever done but I've been to an NCAA Final 4 both as a player and coach if that means anything. Were you one of the high school football/baseball heroes that weren't athletic/talented to continue to play at a higher level? There seems like a lot of anger and vindiction with this comment.