SI.Com: Dr Z's Preseason Rankings (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/specials/preview/2005/scout.report/)
There's a nice Reid interview that I never heard before, regarding his philosophy on handling the off-season controversy,
Quote"Holdouts, and contract disputes, in sports have been happening forever," Reid said. "DiMaggio had them his whole career. It seems no matter how much you pay great athletes, there's always some kind of problem. More money, more problems. And the more success [a team] has, the more money issues it's going to have. It goes back all the way to Babe Ruth."
The lesson? "Normally," Reid said, "things work themselves out. If you allow things to get chaotic, there will be chaos. If you don't, there won't be."
There's gonna be some hooting, hollaring & sister-banging down South this week.
(http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/specials/preview/2005/scout.report/cover0905.jpg)
10-6?
:-D
What a fargin idiot.
You have to be farging kidding me.
What is with the downright suckfest over Carolina this year? I swear! The Eagles almost beat them with Koy Detmer, no Westbrook and zesty WRs in the NFCCG...with a defense that had 1/3 of the guys on the IR. :-D
Their defense is teh bestest evar!
:flipoff
Meh, it was Seattle last year.
Gayness!! :boo :boo
Colts over Patriots? Yeah, right. Dallas at 10-6? I give them 9 wins MAX and that's assuming Bledsoe isn't killed by week 5.
I think Carolina is going to be good.
They're the team the Birds will face and get revenge on in the NFCCG.
Instead of seeing Ricky Midget Jr. jersey-popping and shoving Thrash and Pinky to the ground...we're going to see TO shoving him to the ground and then scoring 3 TDs.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on August 30, 2005, 07:55:49 PM
I think Carolina is going to be good.
Good doesn't = better than the Eagles and the rest of the NFC.
Hence why I have them losing to the Eagles in the NFCCG
They'll be the #2 seed, I think
Quote from: MadMarchHare on August 30, 2005, 07:49:09 PM
Meh, it was Seattle last year.
What I was thinking. They beat the 49ers and Cardinals a bunch to get all the way back to 7-9. Wowzers. Whatever, its better when everyone writes us off and then we just wind up in the Superbowl again.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on August 30, 2005, 07:57:05 PM
Hence why I have them losing to the Eagles in the NFCCG
They'll be the #2 seed, I think
Funny how the reason the panthers sucked last year was because of their injuries, yet not many folks like to talk about the reason the Eagles lost the NFCCG....injuries.
look out for the skins
I actually agree with Dr. Dylan about the Skins.
4-12 sounds about right with that pathetic offense of theirs.
Send Gibbs back to pit road where he belongs, I say!
:-D
The thing about Carolina is many of there key players have significant injury history, they are not nearly as deep as the birds. I agree with Phreak they will be good but not good enough to beat the Eagles. Really I don't see any team as a major threat to the Eagles, if I could I would reserve SB tickets now. I truly in my heart believe they are going to win it all this season provided there are no catostropic injuries.
yo nice sponser dook
a future pro bowler and he eats children
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 30, 2005, 08:28:36 PM
yo nice sponser dook
a future pro bowler and he eats children
Is he related to Mike Tyson?
Quote from: MDS on August 30, 2005, 07:57:36 PM
Quote from: MadMarchHare on August 30, 2005, 07:49:09 PM
Meh, it was Seattle last year.
What I was thinking. They beat the 49ers and Cardinals a bunch to get all the way back to 7-9. Wowzers. Whatever, its better when everyone writes us off and then we just wind up in the Superbowl again.
If I recall did not the niners collapse in the second half. They had like a 20 point lead and yaked.
Carolina has to prove they can stop the Falcons with Vick first. They haven't been able to do it.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on August 30, 2005, 07:57:05 PM
Hence why I have them losing to the Eagles in the NFCCG
They'll be the #2 seed, I think
If they stay healthy they are definitely the second best team in the NFC...followed closely by ATL. Giants are the second best team in the NFC-E, 10-6 or 9-7 for them wouldn't surprise me at all. Dallas defense will be better this year, their offense doesn't seem to be improved in the least 9-7 is very possible. However we match up well with them. taterskins...will fold their tent by week four.
Quote from: daigglesfaninva on August 31, 2005, 12:24:29 AM
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on August 30, 2005, 07:57:05 PM
Hence why I have them losing to the Eagles in the NFCCG
They'll be the #2 seed, I think
If they stay healthy they are definitely the second best team in the NFC...followed closely by ATL. Giants are the second best team in the NFC-E, 10-6 or 9-7 for them wouldn't surprise me at all. Dallas defense will be better this year, their offense doesn't seem to be improved in the least 9-7 is very possible. However we match up well with them. taterskins...will fold their tent by week four.
I agree with you except we disagree on who the #2 team in the NFC-E is...
I've got Dallas as the #2 squad. They're not much better than the Eli's, but I think they have them by a slight margin.
I know Bledsoe resembles a real-life statue. But I give him the nod over Eli because of experience. Plus I like Julius Jones and if he can carry the load, it will help Dallas protect Drew despite their OL being shoddy.
The only two things I am sure of though is the Eagles will dominate the divison again and the taterskins will shrink like a sack when you get into icy cold water.
Quote from: hkHog on August 30, 2005, 09:05:52 PM
Quote from: The Waco Kid on August 30, 2005, 07:53:30 PM
Gayness!! :boo :boo
Yeah, just like T.O.! :-D
Hello. I am a taterskins fan and hungry hungry hippo. I like to laugh at my own jokes. I appear on other teams' message boards before the season starts, then quickly disappear when the taterskins go in the tank.
Carolina? Well, maybe if the whole team uses roids again...
Quote from: PhillyGirl on August 30, 2005, 07:58:10 PM
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on August 30, 2005, 07:57:05 PM
Hence why I have them losing to the Eagles in the NFCCG
They'll be the #2 seed, I think
Funny how the reason the panthers sucked last year was because of their injuries, yet not many folks like to talk about the reason the Eagles lost the NFCCG....injuries.
The Eagles lost that NFCCG for two reasons: 1 - Injuries 2 - I failed to remain focused!! :paranoid
SI is so credible they're network cnnsi went under while Foxsports and ESPN/news/classic/2/8 the ocho are still on TV. SI is probably only still in business because of the swimsuit issue. Peter King should injest Merrill Hoge and then shoot himself in the face IMHO.
Quote from: JailBird-man on August 31, 2005, 10:22:14 AM
Peter King should injest Merrill Hoge and then shoot himself in the face IMHO.
:-D
Quote from: hkHog on August 30, 2005, 09:05:52 PM
Quote from: The Waco Kid on August 30, 2005, 07:53:30 PM
Gayness!! :boo :boo
Yeah, just like T.O.! :-D
I'm sorry...how many wins has your pathetic team picked up since the year 2000? What's that? Huh? Oh...not very many. Oh, so the Cowboys get more wins than the Skins? Who'd have thunk it. Idiot.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on August 30, 2005, 07:55:49 PM
Instead of seeing Ricky Midget Jr. jersey-popping and shoving Thrash and Pinky to the ground...we're going to see TO shoving him to the ground and then scoring 3 TDs.
Or Reggie Brown, since Manning's now their nickle CB :-D
Ok, I'm a little more confused than normal. How in the hell does Doc Z look at that schedule and guesstimate that there are six games that the Eagles will lose?? Which six games can he possibly be trying to predict losses for? The guy is farking nuts!
(http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2005/images/08/31/tx_sicover.jpg)
:-D :-D :-D :-D
good. no way in hell I want SI putting the Eagles on the cover
did they pick the patriots last year?
Fox predictions last year (http://www.concretefield.com/forum/index.php?topic=11717.0)
Peter Kingp (http://www.concretefield.com/forum/index.php?topic=11970.0)
i think these guys pick teams other than the Pats and Eagles because they want to distinguish themselves by making the "sleeper" pick. It's easy to pick the Eagles or Pats but they want people to pay attention to them.
Dr. Z is so smart. Check out the bold.
QuoteTricks behind the picks
The somewhat-fuzzy logic behind my '05 predictions
Posted: Thursday September 1, 2005 11:52AM; Updated: Thursday September 1, 2005 12:42PM
Last year I provided capsule analyses of the teams I listed in my forecast in Sports Illustrated's preseason NFL Issue. This year I'm doing the same. See, some things never change. Except that I'm providing the projected record in parens (like this), which is an attempt to further illuminate the darkness. An asterisk denotes ... I'll bet you've already guessed it ... a wild-card team.
NFC EAST
1. EAGLES (10-6)
In 2004 I predicted Terrell Owens would cause big problems early in the season. I missed it by about 10 months. Now I'm not sure. He might even stay quiet for the better part of the campaign, after Andy Reid gave him his "here's the way it's gonna be" lecture. They wouldn't have made the Super Bowl without T.O. Now all the psych majors are saying there's no way they can make it with him. Every other department is fairly solid, especially that terrific secondary, with a great coordinator to get them in the best schemes. But should T.O. go in the tank, the Iggles will be left with one of the weaker secondaries in the league. Thus, I take the mid-ground and cop out at 10-6.
2. COWBOYS (10-6*)
In 2004 Vinny Testaverde was sacked 34 times. That's a good statistic, because the number is right around the league average and Vinny, as we know, was a lot slower than the average quarterback. Can the line set up a wall for Drew Bledsoe, who likes to hold the ball? I think so, and that, of course, is the issue, because the Cowboys' defense will be active and opportunistic and will force turnovers.
3. GIANTS (5-11)
I don't really think they're this bad, just as I don't think the taterskins are as bad as my 4-12 for them indicates. What happens, and I've already explained this a few times, is that I get the schedule out and play it out, game by game, and whatever comes up ... well, that's what I go with, unless it looks too ridiculous, then I adjust it by a game or so. I'm afraid I don't think Eli Manning is there yet. I just can't see New York beating a good team on the road under Eli, actually any team on the road, except for maybe the Niners. If the O-line were great, well then OK, maybe Eli would come around faster than we think. But it's just average.
4. taterskinS (4-12)
I know this is a vicious prediction, and since Washington has some of the most dedicated e-mailers in the land, I expect to hear from an army of them next week, just as I did last year when I picked the Skins ... what ... 5-11 or something like that? GreggWilliams' defense shouldn't let this happen, but it was good last year, too, and so what? I think the Patrick Ramsey-Mark Brunell-Jason Campbell merry-go-round is a bad situation and the sign of a deeper problem -- namely that this team doesn't quite know what it's doing.
TO was on defense last year?
Urge to stab rising.
phatty, it's quite obvious how losing TO makes the secondary weaker, what's so strange about that?
lmfao...that is just classic.
T.O.'s going to join Robert Redd on defense tonight. What a team player!
Why does everybody, specifically Dr. Z (douchebag), insist the Eagles would not have made the Super Bowl without Owens. If I'm not mistaken, the Eagles made three consecutive championship games without him, and he certainly didn't help win a single playoff game last season.
To say the Eagles would not have made the playoffs without T.O. is downright ludicrous.
Quote from: Tomahawk on September 01, 2005, 03:55:31 PM
Why does everybody, specifically Dr. Z (douchebag), insist the Eagles would not have made the Super Bowl without Owens. If I'm not mistaken, the Eagles made three consecutive championship games without him, and he certainly didn't help win a single playoff game last season.
To say the Eagles would not have made the playoffs without T.O. is downright ludicrous.
well his 1200 yards and 14 Tds were a bit of a help in getting there
he basically played the entire regular season.
Two main points:
Quote from: Tomahawk on September 01, 2005, 03:55:31 PM
the Eagles made three consecutive championship games without him,
and he certainly didn't help win a single playoff game last season.
they got that far without him before. Homefield advantage twice, NFCCG thrice, all of the playoofs last year without him.
He helps, but the team will do fine withouthim after he's gone next season.
Fine isn't good enough.
Quote from: Monster on September 01, 2005, 04:06:40 PM
Fine isn't good enough.
This board wouldn't be the same without you, TOisGod.
Yeah well he didn't win the farging thing for us last year either, so with or without him, we're 'fine.'
Everyone hanging on his jock makes me want to burn shtein.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 01, 2005, 04:08:28 PM
Yeah well he didn't win the farging thing for us last year either, so with or without him, we're 'fine.'
Everyone hanging on his jock makes me want to burn shtein.
To TO's credit, he just came off a broken leg. If he was 100% healthy at least one of those big catches would've been taken to the house. That gives us a parade right there.
With him we are great. Without him we are fine. Fine doesn't win you titles. Greatness does.
I think the Eagles know this and highly value TO on this team. A lot more than people think. They are doing so much for this guy right now to make him feel comfortable. They don't do this kinda stuff for many other players. I think the Eagles know TO is absolutely crucial to their title hopes. We'll see how he plays this season.
Quote from: phattymatty on September 01, 2005, 04:01:57 PM
Quote from: Tomahawk on September 01, 2005, 03:55:31 PM
Why does everybody, specifically Dr. Z (douchebag), insist the Eagles would not have made the Super Bowl without Owens. If I'm not mistaken, the Eagles made three consecutive championship games without him, and he certainly didn't help win a single playoff game last season.
To say the Eagles would not have made the playoffs without T.O. is downright ludicrous.
well his 1200 yards and 14 Tds were a bit of a help in getting there
he basically played the entire regular season.
To say the Eagles would not have made the playoffs without T.O. is downright ludicrous.
The Eagles are undoubtedly a better team with
out Owens. He was the difference in winning most games by double digits as opposed to some of the games being a little closer.
Irregardless, I may be a little biased as I think Owens is a motherfarging meatciclesucking cornhole packing douchebag.
Quote from: Monster on September 01, 2005, 04:09:53 PM
To TO's credit, he just came off a broken leg. If he was 100% healthy at least one of those big catches would've been taken to the house. That gives us a parade right there.
IF a lot of things would've happened, they would've won. There's no guarentee he could've scored if he hadn't ever gotten hurt though.
Of course we're a better offense with him. But I believe 100% that we could win a superbowl with or without hm and for an Eagles fan to believe that we couldn't doesn't make sense to me. This team has proven over and over again under Reid that no one player makes or breaks the team. Even when McNabb, unquestionably the most important player on the team, went out we went 4-1 and locked up hfa.
Philly fans (myself included) are starting to get into panic mode. We've had 4 legit shots and missed on all four. Everyone's looking for that one thing to push us over. You know what I think? There is no one thing. Add Tomlinson to the team. Add the best linbackers, Tackles, Tight End and and #2 Wr in the history of the world and this team still operates the same way. Take away some key components and this team patches up the hole and does what its supposed to do. If TO is on the team the offense is better. If he isn't we still have a legit shot. It's stupid to put so much emphasis on one player.
Quote from: Tomahawk on September 01, 2005, 04:10:23 PM
To say the Eagles would not have made the playoffs without T.O. is downright ludicrous.
The Eagles are undoubtedly a better team without Owens. He was the difference in winning most games by double digits as opposed to some of the games being a little closer.
Irregardless, I may be a little biased as I think Owens is a motherfarging meatciclesucking cornhole packing douchebag.
So doesn't winning by more points mean the team is better?
I'm not saying we wouldn't have made it without him, but to say they're better without Owens is the ludicrous part.
Those 2 sentences you just wrote make no sense being put back to back.
Quote from: Sun_Mo on September 01, 2005, 04:14:52 PM
Quote from: Monster on September 01, 2005, 04:09:53 PM
To TO's credit, he just came off a broken leg. If he was 100% healthy at least one of those big catches would've been taken to the house. That gives us a parade right there.
IF a lot of things would've happened, they would've won. There's no guarentee he could've scored if he hadn't ever gotten hurt though.
I'll give you a guarantee:
The Eagles wouldn't have scored more than 10 points against the Pats if TO wasn't on the team. That is a guarantee. I really don't want to hear about the Eagles being fine without him. Are you guys honestly content with not winning a Superbowl every year? I crave one so bad. Being fine isn't good enough for me. I want to overwhelm and crush every opponent. I want my team to be insanely great. With TO we are not as good, and that is not good enough. We need to be the absolute best we can be.
The Pats could cut Dillon tomorrow and tell everyone that they won 2 Superbowls without him and they are fine. It is the exact same thing. Everyone knows that is absolutely ridiculous though and that it hurts their title chances big-time. The NFC isn't going to stay this bad forever. The Eagles aren't going to be worlds better than every NFC team forever. TO is important, and much more important than a lot of people give him credit for. I think his childish behavior really made some people sour to the point where they don't value his skills as much as they should. Watch 2004 game tape. Did you guys forget how amazing TO was?
Quote from: rjs246 on September 01, 2005, 04:17:31 PM
Of course we're a better offense with him. But I believe 100% that we could win a superbowl with or without hm and for an Eagles fan to believe that we couldn't doesn't make sense to me. This team has proven over and over again under Reid that no one player makes or breaks the team. Even when McNabb, unquestionably the most important player on the team, went out we went 4-1 and locked up hfa.
Philly fans (myself included) are starting to get into panic mode. We've had 4 legit shots and missed on all four. Everyone's looking for that one thing to push us over. You know what I think? There is no one thing. Add Tomlinson to the team. Add the best linbackers, Tackles, Tight End and and #2 Wr in the history of the world and this team still operates the same way. Take away some key components and this team patches up the hole and does what its supposed to do. If TO is on the team the offense is better. If he isn't we still have a legit shot. It's stupid to put so much emphasis on one player.
dood, we're gettin' Tomlinson?
Quote from: phattymatty on September 01, 2005, 04:18:33 PM
Quote from: Tomahawk on September 01, 2005, 04:10:23 PM
To say the Eagles would not have made the playoffs without T.O. is downright ludicrous.
The Eagles are undoubtedly a better team without Owens. He was the difference in winning most games by double digits as opposed to some of the games being a little closer.
Irregardless, I may be a little biased as I think Owens is a motherfarging meatciclesucking cornhole packing douchebag.
So doesn't winning by more points mean the team is better?
I'm not saying we wouldn't have made it without him, but to say they're better without Owens is the ludicrous part.
Those 2 sentences you just wrote make no sense being put back to back.
I did not type the Eagles are better without Owens. I did type that I have a profound hatred for the man though.
Well I'll be damned (seriously, I probably will be). I made a typo. I meant the Eagles are undoubtedly a better team with Owens.
Quote from: Monster on September 01, 2005, 04:09:53 PM
To TO's credit, he just came off a broken leg. If he was 100% healthy at least one of those big catches would've been taken to the house. That gives us a parade right there.
Easy there farging Carnac....
Oh and thanks for the flash about his broken leg I had almost forgotten it was barely publicized ::)
Quote from: rjs246 on September 01, 2005, 04:17:31 PM
Of course we're a better offense with him. But I believe 100% that we could win a superbowl with or without hm and for an Eagles fan to believe that we couldn't doesn't make sense to me. This team has proven over and over again under Reid that no one player makes or breaks the team. Even when McNabb, unquestionably the most important player on the team, went out we went 4-1 and locked up hfa.
Philly fans (myself included) are starting to get into panic mode. We've had 4 legit shots and missed on all four. Everyone's looking for that one thing to push us over. You know what I think? There is no one thing. Add Tomlinson to the team. Add the best linbackers, Tackles, Tight End and and #2 Wr in the history of the world and this team still operates the same way. Take away some key components and this team patches up the hole and does what its supposed to do. If TO is on the team the offense is better. If he isn't we still have a legit shot. It's stupid to put so much emphasis on one player.
Man, that plugging in players thing isn't going to work forever. For one when Mcnabb got hurt we DID miss a beat. Koy and Feeley ripped apart the Niners, but we scored like 10 points against the Rams, and didn't exactly do that great against Seattle. On top of that we didn't win a Superbowl. This isn't about plugging in players and not missing a beat. You can always do that during the regular season. When you lose key players in the playoffs is when it hurts you. Remember Westbrook against Carolina? They exposed that. We destroyed the taterskins without him during the regular season. I've never bought that no player on this team can't be replaced. I think there are at least 4 players that if this team lost them our title hopes would take a huge hit.
In the last 3 years we have lost Mcnabb, Westbrook and TO respectively. Yes, we played ok without them, but most importantly we didn't get where we wanted to go. That is the most important thing.
Quote from: Tomahawk on September 01, 2005, 04:24:40 PM
Well I'll be damned (seriously, I probably will be). I made a typo. I meant the Eagles are undoubtedly a better team with Owens.
that makes a little more sense then. even if you hate the man you have to admit he's good.
Monster, my point is still the same. There is no reason to elevate TO above the other players on this team and say HE and he alone is the key to winning the superbowl. It's stupid and incorrect.
...and my point is still the same.
TO is more key to this team than 50 other players. Not saying those guys aren't important, I'm saying TO is the 3rd most important on this team. You are right. TO alone isn't the key himself to win a title, but the point is we have a much better team with him. The goal is to put the best possible team on the field. Not a team that isn't as good. Without TO we aren't as good. That is my point. I want to see the best team on the field at all times. Why? Because I want to know we have the best possible chance to get a parade in this city.
TO's talent makes us a better team, talent wise. But I have serious concerns about his other traits and how they impact the team. And don't give me any guff about this team not letting TO distract them. That's horseshtein. If you're going to place a higher importance on one player you have to put an equal importance on his jackass character issues, because like it or not, it does have an impact.
We're never going to agree on this so I'm not going to belabor the point any more. Suffice to say I don't like TO and I think that the longer he's on this team the more his bitchy ass is going to negatively affect them, but I will admit that the offense is more dangerous with him. But at what cost? What if he doesn't get that superbowl win this year? What if he stays for another year and keeps acting like a bitch? This team will eventually be worn down by his bullshtein. It happens in every sport at every level of competition and he's just the kind of assbag to do it.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 01, 2005, 04:45:04 PM
TO's talent makes us a better team, talent wise. But I have serious concerns about his other traits and how they impact the team. And don't give me any guff about this team not letting TO distract them. That's horseshtein. If you're going to place a higher importance on one player you have to put an equal importance on his jackass character issues, because like it or not, it does have an impact.
We're never going to agree on this so I'm not going to belabor the point any more. Suffice to say I don't like TO and I think that the longer he's on this team the more his bitchy ass is going to negatively affect them, but I will admit that the offense is more dangerous with him. But at what cost? What if he doesn't get that superbowl win this year? What if he stays for another year and keeps acting like a bitch? This team will eventually be worn down by his bullshtein. It happens in every sport at every level of competition and he's just the kind of assbag to do it.
Then I guess we'll leave it at finding out during the season.
Finding what out? It's already known that T.O.'s a bigger douche than even you.
Maybe if you read his post and then read mine you could come up with that answer. Am I overestimating your intelligence?
Yes, you indeed are overestimating my intelligence. His post has a lot of what I call words in it. Your post contains what I call a lot of retardation in it, to which I can obviously relate; however, I am still unable to decipher what that has to do with anything other than you being a douche.
He thinks TO will negatively hurt the team during the season. I don't. We'll find out if he does during the season.
Was it honestly that complicated?
Quote from: Tomahawk on September 01, 2005, 04:24:40 PM
Well I'll be damned (seriously, I probably will be). I made a typo. I meant the Eagles are undoubtedly a better team with Owens.
I didn't actually read most of this bullshtein, so I'm assuming at least one person couldn't figure that out on their own.