Congrats to the Pats . . .

[rickortreat]

The fact that they couldn't capitalize on the Eagles mistakes, going 3 and out every time they got a turnover tells me they're not the better team.

They couldn't score at will, and being spotted 4 turnovers they still only won by 3 points.

I'm not bitter,  although I regret the Eagles didn't win.  It's simply regrettable that they made so many serious uncharateristic mistakes in their biggest game in decades.  I had hoped that Donovan had overcome those bad habits that used to cost the team victories over the past few years.  If you look at the picks the first one was innexcuseable.  The last one was overthrown and tipped by the reciever.  All of them were unforced.  Just bad throws that Donovan makes from time to time.   This year he made so few of these that I though he had matured enough, no one else ever passed for over 30 touchdowns and less than 10 picks.  

I give the Patriots defense great credit for creating the conditions that led to the picks.  No team put as much pressure on the Eagles offense, and no one was able to stop Westbrook from running effectively.  

It comes down to how you define better.  If you say they won and that makes them better, then saying they're a better team is a tautological argument and means nothing.  In a quantitative sense, the Patriots aren't a better team. The Eagles defense stopped the Pats as many times as the Eagles were stopped by the Pats.  On offense the Pats did not have a dominant performance and made fewer yards.

If they played again next weekend, the Eagles might very well win.  But that's not the way these things work.  As I see it the Eagles are very close to being the better team.  Apart from the mistakes, the Eagles need another running back so they can do a better job of controlling the line of scrimmage.  And the next time Mick Vrable lines up as a tight end, some lineman should lay him out!

The Patriots are the champs until the end of next season.  Then we'll get to see who plays for the Super Bowl XL.  I kind of like the idea of the Eagles winnning the 40th SuperBowl.  Much more memorable than 39.  

[westkoast]

The fact that they couldn't capitalize on the Eagles mistakes, going 3 and out every time they got a turnover tells me they're not the better team.

They couldn't score at will, and being spotted 4 turnovers they still only won by 3 points.

I'm not bitter,  although I regret the Eagles didn't win.  It's simply regrettable that they made so many serious uncharateristic mistakes in their biggest game in decades.  I had hoped that Donovan had overcome those bad habits that used to cost the team victories over the past few years.  If you look at the picks the first one was innexcuseable.  The last one was overthrown and tipped by the reciever.  All of them were unforced.  Just bad throws that Donovan makes from time to time.   This year he made so few of these that I though he had matured enough, no one else ever passed for over 30 touchdowns and less than 10 picks. 

I give the Patriots defense great credit for creating the conditions that led to the picks.  No team put as much pressure on the Eagles offense, and no one was able to stop Westbrook from running effectively. 

It comes down to how you define better.  If you say they won and that makes them better, then saying they're a better team is a tautological argument and means nothing.  In a quantitative sense, the Patriots aren't a better team. The Eagles defense stopped the Pats as many times as the Eagles were stopped by the Pats.  On offense the Pats did not have a dominant performance and made fewer yards.

If they played again next weekend, the Eagles might very well win.  But that's not the way these things work.  As I see it the Eagles are very close to being the better team.  Apart from the mistakes, the Eagles need another running back so they can do a better job of controlling the line of scrimmage.  And the next time Mick Vrable lines up as a tight end, some lineman should lay him out!

The Patriots are the champs until the end of next season.  Then we'll get to see who plays for the Super Bowl XL.  I kind of like the idea of the Eagles winnning the 40th SuperBowl.  Much more memorable than 39.

Rick the fact that the Patriots are the superbowl champs says they are the better team......You can play the what if game all night.  At the end of the day the Patriots are a dynasty and the Eagles are hanging out with my Raiders in superbowl loserville speaking with the mayor Jim Kelly.

[rickortreat]

The difference is the Eagles are on their way up.  They are significantly better than their competition in the NFC.

This loss will deter them no more than their previous failures in the NFC comference championships, which they went to 4 times before breaking through.

Now they will be perenial Super Bowl contenders.  And with plenty of money under the cap to resign their free agents and a decent player or two, they'll come back stronger than ever.

And, the Patriots are loosing their offensive and defensive coordinators, and other teams will try to raid them for their good players.  New England does a good job of manageing their cap, but that will mean that they may have to let players go, like Philly did with Hugh Douglass and Jermiah Trotter.

Barring injury the Eagles are a virtual lock to get back to the Supe.  Not so sure about New England.  The Raiders sucked ass this year and they will next year too.

Meantime many of the Eagles are headed to Hawaii to play in the pro-bowl.  More of them than the inferior but fortunate New England Patsies.
 

[westkoast]

Ok Rick, while you are correct they are still a good team and still have a good shot to return to the superbowl........that still does not make them the better team.  Maybe they will be the better team next year but right now, they are not the better team or they would be the champs.

I wouldnt use who is going to the pro bowl and who isnt as a gauge on how good THE TEAM is.

 

[rickortreat]

The number of pro-bowlers on a team is a reflection of the talent on that team.  Since football is a TEAM sport, a pro-bowler is someone who consitently plays at a high level for his team.

Of course teams are more than the sum of their parts, and even the best players can have off games now and again.

Pro-bowl selections are done by media and coaches as far as I know, and although they make plently of mistakes, collectively their judgement is pretty good.  A team not noticed by the media may have pro-bowl worthy players who aren't selected, but the Patriots have been a media focus for at least 4 years.  

The Eagles have twice as many pro-bowlers as the Patriots.  That in itself doen't make them a better team, but it implies that at least at those positions they are better unless their countrpart is also on the pro-bowl.

There are four players at the same positions on the teams.  Vinatieri & Ackers - Kickers and Brady & McNabb at QB.  Clearly Brady was better in the Supe, but McNabb had better numbers over the season.

Brady is better IMO, because of his ability to stay poised under pressure, at least for now.  

[westkoast]

The number of pro-bowlers on a team is a reflection of the talent on that team.  Since football is a TEAM sport, a pro-bowler is someone who consitently plays at a high level for his team.

Of course teams are more than the sum of their parts, and even the best players can have off games now and again.

Pro-bowl selections are done by media and coaches as far as I know, and although they make plently of mistakes, collectively their judgement is pretty good.  A team not noticed by the media may have pro-bowl worthy players who aren't selected, but the Patriots have been a media focus for at least 4 years.  

The Eagles have twice as many pro-bowlers as the Patriots.  That in itself doen't make them a better team, but it implies that at least at those positions they are better unless their countrpart is also on the pro-bowl.

There are four players at the same positions on the teams.  Vinatieri & Ackers - Kickers and Brady & McNabb at QB.  Clearly Brady was better in the Supe, but McNabb had better numbers over the season.

Brady is better IMO, because of his ability to stay poised under pressure, at least for now.

So what does 3 titles in 4 years reflect?  I think it says a whole lot more than the number of Pro-bowl selections this year.  

Dont mistake me for a Pats fan.....im just not a hardcore Eagles fan.  I really really really wanted to see them win and was rooting all the way but I have to keep it real.  To put it in 3rd grade math terms...... Pats > Eagles

[rickortreat]

If you want to really put into third grade math terms it would be Eagles <_ Patriots.

Since if you add up all the ways to evalute teams players and personel, the Eagles outscore the Patriots, with the exception of the three Championships.

If in your feeble mind it helps you to think of the Patriots as being better so be it.  Everyone else seems to realize that the Eagles were right there with them.  

[westkoast]

If you want to really put into third grade math terms it would be Eagles <_ Patriots.

Since if you add up all the ways to evalute teams players and personel, the Eagles outscore the Patriots, with the exception of the three Championships.

If in your feeble mind it helps you to think of the Patriots as being better so be it.  Everyone else seems to realize that the Eagles were right there with them.

No they dont Rick lol...ITS ONLY YOU!  Who has agreed with you in this thread other than yourself?  What sportscasters have you seen saying that the Eagles are the better team?  None.  If the Eagles were the better team they would have won.  Plain and simple.  You are so bitter its sickening.  From here on out any comment you make about any other sports fan being bias holds no weight.  The better team won the game.  Whats so hard to understand about that?

LOL @ feeble mind.  I heard Bill Cosby is starting a new show 'Eagles fans say the darnest things'

[rickortreat]

I don't need anyone else to vindicate my opinions which are straightforward and logical.  You on the other hand, haven't made any logical statements whatsoever.   You're simply stating your opinion without providing any reasons.  By this point, everyone else is most likely bored with this thread, where I respond to your idiotic statements with logical reasons, and you persist with your original statement.

Your whole argument boils down to The Patriots won so they're the better team.

That is a tautilogical argument- look up the word and expand your understanding.

By that standard any time a team wins they're better than the team the defeated.  Yet as any moron knows, teams can play each other again and again and in many instances the team that lost before has won.  Therefore "better" is a temporal statement which can change as quickly as a rematch.  The Patriots won on Sunday. That does not make them the better team today, but it does make them NFL Champions.  Can you undertand the difference?

In the NBA teams play 7 games to determine the Champion, which reflects that simple logic.  In the NFL because of the violence of the game, a 7 game series is impratical.

I have no bitterness about the Patriots winning.  My life doesn't depend on how well the teams I follow do.  Whether they win or not makes no difference whatsover to me, unless I put money on the team.  I get enjoyment out of watching them play, and seeing improvement in their performance over time.  Something a front-running bandwagon fan would never understand.

[westkoast]

I don't need anyone else to vindicate my opinions which are straightforward and logical.  You on the other hand, haven't made any logical statements whatsoever.   You're simply stating your opinion without providing any reasons.  By this point, everyone else is most likely bored with this thread, where I respond to your idiotic statements with logical reasons, and you persist with your original statement.

Your whole argument boils down to The Patriots won so they're the better team.

That is a tautilogical argument- look up the word and expand your understanding.

By that standard any time a team wins they're better than the team the defeated.  Yet as any moron knows, teams can play each other again and again and in many instances the team that lost before has won.  Therefore "better" is a temporal statement which can change as quickly as a rematch.  The Patriots won on Sunday. That does not make them the better team today, but it does make them NFL Champions.  Can you undertand the difference?

In the NBA teams play 7 games to determine the Champion, which reflects that simple logic.  In the NFL because of the violence of the game, a 7 game series is impratical.

I have no bitterness about the Patriots winning.  My life doesn't depend on how well the teams I follow do.  Whether they win or not makes no difference whatsover to me, unless I put money on the team.  I get enjoyment out of watching them play, and seeing improvement in their performance over time.  Something a front-running bandwagon fan would never understand.

Explain to me how my reason is illogical?  Ive repeated it over and over again.  The Pats are the better team because they won the Superbowl.  Did they not beat the Eagles on Sunday?  I say the Pats are better because they beat the Eagles and you turn around and reply saying the Eagles are better because they have more pro-bowlers.  Then you say the Pats arent better then the Eagles because they didnt score off the turnovers.  Ok?  That is very logical thinking.  A team that lost in the final game is better because the Patriots dont have more pro bowlers and didnt score off 2 turnovers.  Yet my point saying that this team has won 3 of the last 4 championships is moot and illogical.

Your big words, your mumbo jumbo, and your long winded paragraphs do not change the fact that they met heads up in a championship game and lost.  We are not talking about the regular season or are we talking about other sports where teams face off many times a year.  We are talking about an all or nothing championship game.  There is no rematch.  There is no next series.  There is no best of 3.  The season is over and the Eagles lost to the better team.  Again if the Eagles were the better team they would have won.

You know why no one is replying?  Because Im saying what everyone else is thining.  THE BETTER TEAM WON.

[rickortreat]

I'm sorry that my thinking is "over your head"  I have explained it as well as a possibly can.  

Apparently trying to help you to conceptualize on a higher level is akin to teaching a pig to dance.

Your reason is not logical because it is based on the assumption that because a team wins that team is better.  

"Better" is a qualitative statement, an assesment of a comparison between two or more things.  You defined better as meaning the team that won.  That's not my definition of better, the correct definition is winner.  If you can't distinguish between the two, saying that a team is better because they won makes sense.  However, I can, which is why I said the better team did not win.

The Patriots are not a better team simply because they won.  As I see it they're not the better team at all.  They didn't outperform the Eagles on the field, they outscored them by a small margin- too small to establish them as being the better team.

To your way of thinking the better team can never loose a game.  Is that really what you think?  

[westkoast]

Rick give it up.  All this high and mighty 'My way of thinking' bs you are spewing is just that....bs.  Get off your high horse.  Just because you want to make up some deep well thought out reason to justify the loss does not make it true.  Your team lost to the better team.  ONLY you think that your team is the better of the two.  If they were in fact better Rick, why did they not win?  They had the ball down by 3 marching towards the opposite end of the field and came up short.  What about the potential touchdown that McNabb thru to the wrong guy?  The better team won Rick.  The core of this Patriots team has won 3 championships together.  This wasnt a win by luck, they outplayed the Eagles.  

Rick are you saying that the best team never wins?  Or is it just that the best team only wins when its the team you want to win?  I do like how you are at least trying to act like you are being objective.  The only problem is that the bitter taste of loosing the superbowl in your mouth is tainting the words you are saying.

"Better" is a qualitative statement, an assesment of a comparison between two or more things. You defined better as meaning the team that won. That's not my definition of better, the correct definition is winner.

And who won the game?  The Patriots did.  They were the better of the two teams on Superbowl sunday.  Why is that hard to understand?

[rickotreat]

It's B.S. to you because you can't understand the distinction.   You don't know how to exchange views or learn.  You're only interest is in proving you're right, and you're not.

Better does not equal winner.  If it does, saying the Patiorts are the better team isn't a statement, it's a definition.  That's not an argument.

I've explained to you why the Patriots are NOT the better team, but you keep on insisting that they are, simply because they won.  

That's not the way language works.  

You keep thinking that I'm bitter as a way of explaining why I dissagree with you.  At first I was annoyed with your posts, now I realize you just can't help yourself.  

By the way I define better- better players, more yards, more enjoyment for their fans, the Eagles are way more entertaining than the Patriots, even though the Patriots won the Super Bowl.

The Patriots are the most boring, unconvincing Super Bowl team ever.  Every time they play in one, they manage to eeek out a victory by making fewer mistakes.  They play conservatively, carefully and and meagerly.

They even respond to their victory in a boring way.  Terrell Owens is more exciting by himself than the entire Patriots team.  

I admit that I respect humility, but these guys take it too far.   Or maybe they realize that they're not really better, just lucky.  They compare very well with the other teams that had dynasties, based on their record, but not by their play.  The Steelers really dominated their oppenents in the Super Bowls they won.  So did the 49ers and even the Cowboys.  Maybe I'm not being fair.  Maybe in this era of free agency you won't get such a difference between two teams.  But this Super Bowl was the closest in years, and that is uncommon.  Only three times have teams in a Super Bowl been tied at the half.  

They didn't win by playing better, so they don't deserve to be called the better team.   A better team really beats their opponent, stopping them from doing what they do, and continuing to do what they do.  The Patriots didn't even cause the interceptions, McNabb just made bad throws. The Patriots didn't even captialize on those mistakes or put the Eagles away.  Probably a smart move by them.  If they tried, they might have lost.  As it was they almost lost anyway.  Four turnovers and they only win by three is pathetic.  

[westkoast]

I would love to sit and read your damn book on why this Superbowl loss was meaningless cuz the Eagles are sooooo much better.  Really I would.  These long winded paragraphs almost made me forget how bitter you are :rolleyes:  My posts are only annoying because they dont paint your team as the better team.  Simply put because they are not.  I explained why they are not:

-Better coaching staff

-Better Quarterback

-More Poise and execution

-More diverse offense

-They won the game

-They have dominated this league 3 of the last 4 years

Entertainment does not equal better team.  While I agree the Eagles are more fun to watch that does not make them the better team.  Everyone is more fun to watch than the Spurs but the Spurs are the best team in the league.

Obviously you going from debating on why or why not the Eagles are the better team to taking personal shots because you are on your high horse explains exactly who is mad.  Im debating who the better team is and you are trying to take personal shots because you think if you type out long winded paragraphs and "challenge" my vocab like you did above that you are right.  You are not.  No one agrees with you except you.  I do find it funny that you are so heated to where you totally change direction inside the thread.  Your bitterness is shinning thru like the sun in Southern California.

They didnt win by playing better?  Did the Patriots defense keep the Eagles from getting to a spot to kick a field goal or score?  I believe they did.  Did the Patriots have less turnovers?  I believe they did.  So again, explain to me how the Patriots did not play better than the Eagles.

[WayOutWest]

By the way I define better- better players, more yards, more enjoyment for their fans, the Eagles are way more entertaining than the Patriots, even though the Patriots won the Super Bowl.

With that logic you should be arguing with a girl.

The Eagles helmets are way cooler.

Pats = 3 CHAMPIONSHIPS in 4 years (on the verge of a dynasty no less).

Eagles = Perenial losers.

What you fail to realize is that a team is sometimes greater than the sum of it's parts.  The Pats are a better team than the Eagles.  The Eagles may have more talent and be more exciting but the Pats are still the better TEAM.

Durring the NVE, Jones, Cambell, Shaq and Kobe era they were the most talented team in the league BY FAR, yet they were not the best team.  Utah would consistently beat them with Stockton, Malone, Hornacek and forgettable role players.  Then the Lakers tweaked the team and made it better with less talent and still got beat by the Spurs.  IMO the greatest playoff team in NBA history, 2001 Lakers, had less talent than the team that lost to Utah in 98 yet they dominated.

Eagles have better parts but the Pats have a better team.  To argue that is just pure stipidity when you have THREE superbowl trophys starring you in the face.