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

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 is 3-1 in his career without Westbrook (since Westbrook has had a real role on the team). He's also won about 3 games in which Westbrook has been hurt and left the game early.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but your perception just isn't accurate here.

At this point, Westbrook is a much better player than McNabb but up until late last season, Westbrook was still a scatback who was a great weapon, but just a cog in the wheel.

"...until late last season, Westbrook was still a scatback who was a great weapon, but just a cog in the wheel"

Are you suggesting that last year Westbrook was just a "game manager" from the RB position?

Yes. He managed the 3 runs he was given each game and begged for more like an orphan for porridge.

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

*grits teeth*

I'm not trying to be a dick, but your perception just isn't accurate here.

is my perception that the offence collapsed in the panthers playoff game accurate? there was certainly blame to go around, particularly at the wide receiver position, but again, my point is that in the prime of his career, mcnabb wasn't a difference maker, while westbrook's absence likely was.

f-d, let me put it another way:

they're both coming out of college the same year, and you have a chance to draft either guy. knowing their respective strengths and weaknesses, who do you draft?

i'm going with westbrook (not by a huge margin, mind you)

3 runs a game... gotta set up playaction some how.

is my perception that the offence collapsed in the panthers playoff game accurate? there was certainly blame to go around, particularly at the wide receiver position, but again, my point is that in the prime of his career, mcnabb wasn't a difference maker, while westbrook's absence likely was.

The Panthers game was 1 game. They won a game before that (entirely on McNabb) to get to that game. For their careers (including playoffs), That makes McNabb 4-2 without Westbrook. There still isn't a trend.

McNabb has had no problems without Westbrook. Just doesn't play out. You also have to remember that McNabb went to the playoffs 3 times before Westbrook even had a role on the team.

To say McNabb wasn't a difference maker in the prime of his career is one of the strangest comments I've ever read on this board. Honestly.

f-d, let me put it another way:

they're both coming out of college the same year, and you have a chance to draft either guy. knowing their respective strengths and weaknesses, who do you draft?

i'm going with westbrook (not by a huge margin, mind you)

McNabb and it's not close.

I love Westbrook and think he's one of the very best in the game right now, but it's a QB league.

Based on Westbrook's play to this point in his career, he would have taken 1 team to the playoffs without a great supporting cast.

It's not his fault, but a running back is fairly easy to shut down if he's all you have a worry about (see Gore, Frank).

McNabb didn't have any weapons and was able to win because he could beat you in a number of different ways and had the ball in his hands every snap.

QBs also typically contribute for a longer period of time.

To say McNabb wasn't a difference maker in the prime of his career is one of the strangest comments I've ever read on this board. Honestly.

especially weird considering i never said that. what i said was that he wasn't a difference maker in that game .

i also never said he wasn't important to the offense. just my opinion that all things being equal, if i had to win one game, i'd rather have westbrook than mcnabb, with both players in their prime.

I can't stress enough that right now...today...Westbrook is in the prime of his career and McNabb is a diminished player.

I'm not going to take part in the revisionist history, though.

If this team didn't take McNabb in the 1999 draft, Reid wouldn't even be here right now. Reid inherited a pretty good defense and McNabb made chicken salad out of chicken shit for for the majority of his career.

especially weird considering i never said that. what i said was that he wasn't a difference maker in that game .

i also never said he wasn't important to the offense. just my opinion that all things being equal, if i had to win one game, i'd rather have westbrook than mcnabb, with both players in their prime.

Your wording was really confusing there, but I get you now.

Still, I guess we should all thank Science we have all those other games to judge him and not just the single game you pointed out.

I love Westbrook and think he's one of the very best in the game right now, but it's a QB league.

agreed, but rb's with westbrook's particular skill set are on another level in terms of impact.

maybe my perception has been skewed by watching this offense run in the last calender year with westbrook and a competent back up, vs mcnabb sans westbrook.

Here's what I don't get and it's a microcosm of my problem with the McNabb haters (specific to the discussion Flesh and I are having right now).

You'll point to the Carolina game as an example of McNabb failing in large part because he didn't have Westbrook. That was a game in which he was beaten up in the pocket, threw 3 picks, and was injured/left the game.

The defense got absolutely mauled in that game. The receivers got mauled in a way I've never seen. 1 of his INTs bounced off Thrash's chest, a second INT came as a result of Pinkston getting thrown to the ground on a timing route, and a third came as a result of Pinkston stopping a route short because he was afraid of getting hit again.

That's a game you throw out as an example of what this offense looks like with McNabb has to play without Westbrook.

However, you completely overlook the week before in which McNabb threw for 250 yards and 2 TD, ran 11 times for a playoff record 105 yards, and brought the Eagles back for an overtime victory after the D gave up two first quarter scores against the Packers. He also made one of the most clutch throws in playoff history to force the overtime.

People always point to the game McNabb loses and call him out for whatever reason, but fail to recognize the clutch plays, throws, and games he had to make to get there.

FD - quick q: Does the 2004 team get to the SB if Owens isn't on the team?

Still, I guess we should all thank Science we have all those other games to judge him and not just the single game you pointed out.

you may have a point there, but i bring up that game because:

1) though it was only one game, it was of extremely elevated importance, where the cream is supposed to rise to the top

2) the offence was completely and utterly shut down, not just stifled.

2) in that most important game i think (in retrospect, i admit), the eagles would have been better played better with westbrook, not mcnabb, if i had to choose to sit one.

FD - quick q: Does the 2004 team get to the SB if Owens isn't on the team?

Absolutely.

2004 was a year in which there were 3, count 'em, 3 teams with 8 - 8 records who made the playoffs.

The #2 seed was a dome team who had never won anything outdoors in cold weather, and was only 11 - 5, to boot.

It's highly likely the Eagles would have made the SB that year, although they wouldn't have been as prolific a team throughout the regular season.

I'll clarify that by saying it's completely impossible to tell, but Owens biggest contribution that year might have been the swagger that ended up carrying them when he was hurt.

FD - How? Because of the weak NFC?

I don't see how this team sans Owens makes the SB.

Game effort, but you're spitting into the wind F-D.

Those that have already made up their minds won't change, even when presented with a well-reasoned argument that contradicts their version of the "truth."

We all agree it's time for #5 and the Birds to part company.

And at this point, I'm really hoping it happens, that he has a bounce back season on a contender and Corn-Kolb is exposed as the next Dave Klingler/Andre Ware/Timmy Change run-and-gun QB that posts gaudy #s in college which don't translate in the pros.

It's highly likely the Eagles would have made the SB that year, although they wouldn't have been as prolific a team throughout the regular season.

Kinda my opinion, too.

That was the first year they went to the playoffs and didn't see a real buzzsaw kind of defense in a long time.

FD - How? Because of the weak NFC?

I don't see how this team sans Owens makes the SB.

Well, my first clue is "because they did". They won both playoff games without him.

My second was already posted above by Zak, but the NFC was historically bad that year. Historically.

I'll clarify that by saying it's completely impossible to tell, but Owens biggest contribution that year might have been the swagger that ended up carrying them when he was hurt.

That's what I was getting at - this team is a different team without him (and the swagger was helping them the minute he was announced as being traded), and while it may be tough to quantify, it definitely helped to boost a team after a tough loss.

JMO

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