Congrats to the Pats . . .

[rickortreat]

yeah three Super Bowls in four years.  The year they missed they didn't even make the playoffs!

They only played one of those games against Eagles and their play didn't convince me they were the better team.  

No, they did not play better.  They did make fewer mistakes.  

They did not stop the Eagles. The Eagles stopped themselves.  Get it?

I liked your comment about the Laker teams and how the one with more talent was not the better team.  But in this case, the Patriots are not better, becasue they didn't play better.

Did they gain more yards?  No.
Did their quarterback throw for more yards? No.
Diverse offense- Yes.  They were able to run more effectively than the Eagles. But so what, they still had fewer yards.
More poise?  At least at QB they sure did.
Yes they won. Ces't la vie.
Better over the past 4 years?  Not by their record, although since the opponenents are different we'll weight that lower.  But the Eagles did win more games over the same period.

Perrenial loosers?  We'll see.  They're not done yet.  

I will say this:  It is a shame for the Eagles that they didn't win this one, because they are built to be a pro football dynasty. (Just like the Pats) Better players, better facilities, better fans, better helmets.  Years from now, when Donovan's career is over, and some drunks are debateing in a bar who's better, this loss may make Brady appear to be the better Quarterback and the Patriots a better team.  The Eagles will be back and Donovan will be the reason why, but no matter what he does from this time forward, he will look back on Super Bowl 39 as a wasted opportunity.


+3 in turnovers and the team wins by 3 points sucks ass!  That's not a better team thats a lucky team.    

[jn]

Rick,

Let's review shall we?  

The Patriots didn't cause the turnovers you say?  Ummmm... no. They caused them by having the right players in the right spot to make the play AND they made the play when they got the chance.  They also caused them by covering the primary receiver forcing to McNabb to make a snap decision to throw elsewhere.  In fact look at the on turnover by the Pats.  The Eagles sure as shyte didn't cause the botched exchange between Brady and Faulk.  And unlike McNabb they didn't continue to make the same mistake over and over.  

The Eagles had more passing yards? So what?  The Pats more than DOUBLED the Eagles in rushing.  Plus toss in the fact that the Eagles gained about 40 yards on the crossing pass to Owens because Freddie Mitchell TACKLED Owens' defender!  If you think the better team is the one that more effectively cheats maybe you should start watching pro wrestling.  

More enjoyment for the fans?  Well then, much as it pains me to say it, the Green Bay Packers are the best team in football.  Since the town has nothing else going on and the fans are actually shareholders in the team then clearly no one else could have as much emotionally invested in the team and therefore they must get the most out of it.  Of course you've state that all your arguments are FACT so I'm very curious to see the machine you've invented to measure the amount of pleasure various fans get from watching their respective squads.

How entertaining someone is determines who the better team is?  Well then clearly Indy is the best team.  What could be more entertaining than that massive offensive output and go for broke game plan? The 98 Vikes scored the most points in history so therefore they're the greatest team ever right?  

Losing over and over in big games makes you a lesser team. Period.  

I could go on and on.  





 

[rickortreat]

Please do.

As a matter of fact,  I'd like your opinion along with WOW's of the HBO program Inside the NFL and how pro- Eagles they were.

As for your assertions about McNabb's interception and their cause.  The first one should never have been thrown into double coverage and was his mistake not the Patriots defense.

The second one, Bruschi's first interception, I can't see what Donovan was doing, and the radio announcer said that he shouldn't have thrown that ball there. Again, McNabb did it himself, not the Patriots.  I mean he threw Bruschi the ball like he was the receiver.

The third one, where they needed to score a field goal to send the game into overtime, wasn't even McNabb's fault.  He threw the ball right to LJ Smith (maybe a little high) and he tipped the ball right to Harrison.  Had he caught the ball, it would have been a first down for the Eagles instead of the end of the game.

The Eagles didn't just have more passing yards, they had more total yards.  More first downs.  As many touchdowns. I liked Freddie's illegal pick, he backed up his trash talk and pasted that d-back pretty good didn't he!  Also for sheer entertainment value, what about Freddies Mohawk Afro?

The Packers cause their fans more heartache than they do to entertain them.  Especially in a depressing, cold bleak place like Green Bay.  How many loosing seasons have they had since their glory days in the 60's?  They've been as bad as the Eagles, and Philly is a much better place to live.

In the final analysis, all sports is is entertainment.  In football, you can't even see all the stuff that goes on in every play, there are usually nine or ten separate battles going on and they only show one or two of them, the QB and the receiver.  The real entertainment comes from all the buzz about the team, it gives people something they can all talk about and the Eagles give more to talk about than any other team in the NFL.

Philly is a tough media town,  they can be brutal on the pro-athletes (such pathetic wannabees.) They even chase athletes out of town at times.  Crap, look at what they were doing to Allen Iverson!  They love the Eagles though.  There's allways something from TO or Freddie or the teams play or the coach. it's like an ongoing soap opera!  In Philly we were all worried that we were going to get a glimpse of Andy Reid in tights!  Yikes!

Admitedly that is very subjective, and I suppose I can't really quantify it to say the Eagles are more entertaining, other than their record over the last five years when they've gone 11-5, 11-5, 12-4, 12-4, 13-3.  The Patriots went 9-7 in 2002 and MISSED the playoffs.  Wow! What a great dynasty! LOL!  

OK, so everything isn't perfect for the Eagles.  This is only their first Super Bowl in all that time, prior to that they couldn't win the NFC chamionship game.  That doesn't compare well with the Patriots 3 SB wins.  

But as I said, the Pats are the most boring dynasty ever.  In a sense they have given New England fans a lot of entertainment over the past few seasons, and winning the big one outweighs the Eagles accomplishments, but even while not winning as much, they give their fans more to talk about than the Patriots do for theirs. And if they do win one next year, Philly is going to have a real sweet party.  

I can't even say the Eagles are a better team than the Pats, you can't take anything away from their accomplishments or their Championships.  But on Sunday, they did not proove they were the better team even though they won.  

[WayOutWest]

But on Sunday, they did not proove they were the better team even though they won.

Pathetic.  Not worth the time anymore.

[Ted]

But on Sunday, they did not proove they were the better team even though they won.

Pathetic.  Not worth the time anymore.

Holy crap Rick, you are so all over the place.

I understand it's painful.

But why put us through the pain of trying to wrap our finite brains around your logic.

"They did not prove they were the better team, even though they won."
"They didn't make the playoffs once in the middle of THREE SUPER BOWL wins, they suck."
"They give their city more to talk about, so they're better."

The fact that Tom Brady doesn't involuntarily dry heave in pressure situations make the Pats a better team by itself. Props to Donovan for scoring that TD. Brady would have done in half the time.

THE EAGLES LOST.

Edit: I think we should be willing to concede the label of "better team" to Rick and the Eagles. What does it really mean? What does it really matter?  In the face of the label THREE-TIME SUPERBOWL CHAMPIONS, Rick's consolation title is meaningless.

[rickortreat]

Easy there.  I didn't say the Eagles were better.  They didn't proove that.

But with +3 in turnovers, to win by only 3 points tells me the Pats aren't a better team.

If the turnovers didn't happen, the Eagles would have been at least tied going ito the final minute.  (Field goal in the 1st)

Had the situation been reversed, and the Eagels got the turnovers, they would have been ahead by several touchdowns.

Even with the critial turnover in the first quarter, they were even at halftime, and had dominated the Patriots offense.

Even with all of that, the Eagles had their share of three and outs as well.  If they were really the better team, they would have scored more and won the game, even with the turnovers.

So, the Pats deserve credit for winning.  They had a better season, and some of their players deserve more recognition than they have.  Mike Vrable did a great job all game putting pressure on McNabb,  and he made Jevon Kearse look silly when he caught that touchdown.  I wonder who beat him out for the Pro-bowl.  Also, Bruschi was all over the field disrupting the Eagles offense and managing to allways be in the right place at the right time.