Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

Trust me, ... nothing irrational, just tired of hearing how great McNabb is/was.

Who's been better?

But yeah, it is time for a change. For better or worse.

Love seein' some piss n vinegar out in the bleeds.

Apathy kills and admitedly, where the actual SEASON goes- im drowning in it.

But on the "Time for Change" theme that has everyone on the same page, I think this offseason I'm lookin fwd to more than ANY since they held the no.2 overall pick and a new era was afoot.

Apathy til about Feb.

Exactly Bassil, ... this franchise hasn't exactly been blessed with "franchise calibur" QB's over the years. Kind of a weak stance for an argumentative comparison.

(Unless you consider the Bubby Brister era.) j/k

HOW-EH-VAH, can you call someone with his resume an underachiever if you don't think he can read a defense? With the slop at WR he's played with?

I don't put much stock into QB ratings, because a QB has to depend heavily upon the help around him to succeed, as well as the coach.

Brady's career rating before this year hasn't been all that special.

BTW, I just read today that the Eagles are 1 game out of the NFC wild card and the top seed (the Giants) is only two games ahead of them.

Stupid, crappy NFC.

HOW-EH-VAH, can you call someone with his resume an underachiever if you don't think he can read a defense? With the slop at WR he's played with?

That's really the question. when you start hating a guy so much, the hate even starts contradicting itself.

How can a guy be an underachiever when he's had so much success despite living his life as a functioning retard?

How can a guy choke by vomiting in the huddle (after getting speared by Bruschi) when he throws a 40 yard TD pass the next play?

Unless you consider the Bubby Brister era.

I still have that song in my head:
I'll be home for Christmas,
You can count on me,
Playoffs no after Eddie Murray's toe,
And Bubby's I-N-T...

Dean-O, I know being the best QB (or coach) this franchise has ever seen doesn't really mean much, but he's got a good winning % and he's been able to engineer good drives at big times.

It's pointless to argue, because we all feel that a change of scenery will do all of them good (and I still think the HC needs it as well).

How can a guy choke by vomiting in the huddle (after getting speared by Bruschi) when he throws a 40 yard TD pass the next play?

Let's not forget that's as much a failing on the HC as it is a success for the QB.

Brady's career rating before this year hasn't been all that special.

Not being argumentative towards you SKR.

That's why I pointed to the intangibles. Stats are not everything. I'E.: Stepping up to met the challenge, execution in clutch situations, willing to set aside personal perspectives for what is best to the team.

That's what I'm looking for in my franchise QB.

With regard to Brady, (and no internet help), aside from this season, can someome name his number two WR from any of the years of the Pats recent Super Bowl runs? ... And where are they now?)

Deion Branch. I think he is in Seattle now.

Bassil, yes, the Eagles have realized a great regular season winning % with Reid / McNabb. Please remind me how many times the back-up QB took the reigns to lead the team through the playoff stretch.

Hulk, ... I could be mistaken but Branch was his #1. (Perhaps not on the official depth chart, but he was his "go-to-guy.")

Was "She" there part of that time?

With regard to Brady, (and no internet help), aside from this season, can someome name his number two WR from any of the years of the Pats recent Super Bowl runs? ... And where are they now?)

Bethel Johnson and Troy Brown come to mind, and I believe both are out of football, though Brown could stay in NE and not have to pay for a meal in his life.

Dean-o,

David Givens was his number 1# that year and in the previous Super Bowls. Branch was Brady's favorite target but nonetheless, statistically and depth chart wise Givens was the #1. Brady's worse receiver is still a number #1 on the Birds.

Jus sayin'.

Stats are not everything. I'E.: Stepping up to met the challenge, execution in clutch situations, willing to set aside personal perspectives for what is best to the team.

That's what I'm looking for in my franchise QB.

Hey, me too. Where we seem to differ is that I think McNabb has shown those intangibles at many times throughout his career.

I know you're about to point to his game-ending INTs, so let's just skip it. I've taken those into consideration as well.

We're also comparing McNabb to maybe the best clutch QB in history.

If you look strictly at the career close and late numbers, McNabb has an 82 rating, Manning has an 85.3, and Brady has an 85.7.

Of the 3, McNabb TD/INT ration blows the other two away.

The fact is the Eagles offense over the past 9 years (for the most part) has been McNabb. If he plays well the Eagles win. If he plays poorly, the Eagles lose.

Just the way it goes.

The reason McNabb has been labeled a "choker" by some (a designation I strongly disagree with) is because he's had such a tremendous track record getting to "chokable" games.

McNabb is always in the playoffs. he always wins a playoff game. when he has an off game, the Eagles lose and it's always a season ending loss because of where their seasons finish when he's healthy.

We've reached the point of diminishing returns on a diminished player at this point, but I refuse to re-write history with him.

The fact is the Eagles offense over the past 9 years (for the most part) has been McNabb.

i'd argue that westbrook and (for his one year) owens have been the difference.

when the eagles have played without either, the results have been unimpressive.

i'd argue that westbrook and (for his one year) owens have been the difference.

when the eagles have played without either, the results have been unimpressive.

The Eagles played great without Owens and went to the Super Bowl without Owens.

Westbrook, at this point, is much more important to the Eagles than McNabb.

to add to that thought a little more, this offense has performed well with capable back-up qb's, like garcia and feeley, when they've has westbrook back there, but mcnabb without him, not so much.

The Eagles played great without Owens and went to the Super Bowl without Owens.

yes, without owens but with westbrook. look, i'm not necessarily blaming mcnabb for that, you can't ask a qb to perform at a high level without any weapons. my point is that in the reid era in general (not just recently), no mcnabb and this offense can still function. no westbrook, they don't.

McNabb's only played a very, very handful of games without Westbrook.

He lost without him against the Giants this season. He won without him against the Packers last year. He won without him in 2004. In 2003 he won against the Falcons without him. Those are all the games McNabb has played without Westbrook since he had a tole on the team.

Westbrook, at this point, is much more important to the Eagles than McNabb.

may be the understatement of the year.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  23 24