Who would you take?

ice grillin you · March 23, 2006, 08:20:06 AM

eagles had just as good teams in their conf championship runs as new england had in their superbowl runs...brady elevated his team to over the top levels....mcnabb did not...simple as that

Feva · March 23, 2006, 08:58:31 AM

Quote from: rjs246 on March 23, 2006, 08:17:58 AM
Feva, Brady won two superbowls with Antwain Smith as his running back. The first SB was won with Troy Brown as their best receiver. Their defense had ONE star in Ty Law (unless you count Lawyer Milloy or Bruschi, but Bruschi wasn't the player then that he is now). That team sucked and Tom Brady was the only reason they won. don't tell me he had a good supporting cast. He had shtein.

Tell me that you wouldn't trade Troy Brown, Patton, Givens and Branch for ANY COMBINATION of Pinkston, Thrash, Mitchell, Lewis, Na Brown, Johnson, Small, Freeman and McMullen and I'll shut up.

ice grillin you · March 23, 2006, 09:00:07 AM

Tell me that you wouldn't trade Troy Brown, Patton, Givens and Branch for ANY COMBINATION of Pinkston, Thrash, Mitchell, Lewis, Na Brown, Johnson, Small, Freeman and McMullen and I'll shut up.

hindsight is 20/20...before brady made those guys what they are you wouldnt have said that...it would have been a toss up at best

rjs246 · March 23, 2006, 09:04:46 AM

Tell me that you wouldn't rather have Staley, Buckhalter, Westbrook and Lewis than Antwain Smith, Kevin Faulk and Christian Fauria.

Their receivers were a half-notch better than the Eagles receivers. The difference is that they have a QB who makes them look good. The Eagles have a QB who makes his receivers look lke exactly what they are. If they're good, he makes them look good. If they suck, well, its pretty obvious.

PublicEnemy_81 · March 23, 2006, 09:15:40 AM

Quote from: rjs246 on March 23, 2006, 09:04:46 AM
Tell me that you wouldn't rather have Staley, Buckhalter, Westbrook and Lewis than Antwain Smith, Kevin Faulk and Christian Fauria.

Their receivers were a half-notch better than the Eagles receivers. The difference is that they have a QB who makes them look good. The Eagles have a QB who makes his receivers look lke exactly what they are. If they're good, he makes them look good. If they suck, well, its pretty obvious.

Ahhhh this is the most accurate disciption of D Mac ever. This is what we get for having an FO that thinks they are draft guru's

Feva · March 23, 2006, 09:34:23 AM

Quote from: ice grillin you on March 23, 2006, 09:00:07 AM
Tell me that you wouldn't trade Troy Brown, Patton, Givens and Branch for ANY COMBINATION of Pinkston, Thrash, Mitchell, Lewis, Na Brown, Johnson, Small, Freeman and McMullen and I'll shut up.

hindsight is 20/20...before brady made those guys what they are you wouldnt have said that...it would have been a toss up at best

Quote from: rjs246 on March 23, 2006, 09:04:46 AM
Tell me that you wouldn't rather have Staley, Buckhalter, Westbrook and Lewis than Antwain Smith, Kevin Faulk and Christian Fauria.

Their receivers were a half-notch better than the Eagles receivers. The difference is that they have a QB who makes them look good. The Eagles have a QB who makes his receivers look lke exactly what they are. If they're good, he makes them look good. If they suck, well, its pretty obvious.

So both of you believe that Brady could have turned these guys into something? Or Brady would have won a Super Bowl with these guys where McNabb failed?

ice grillin you · March 23, 2006, 09:48:10 AM

i absolutely believe that...its not like mcnabb missed the playoffs or never won a playoff game with what he had and im saying brady could have went from out of the playoffs to a superbowl...

mcnabb was in conference championship games...and i think the difference btwn the two is just that...one is a good qb and one is great qb

rjs246 · March 23, 2006, 09:54:37 AM

Yep. Brady under pressure is the picture of what you want your QB to be.

Now, don't get me wrong. McNabb has every opportunity to get better with age and many QBs do exactly that and win SBs in their later years. I'm not saying he can't win by any stretch, but Brady, with the Eagles teams that made it to the NFCCGs would have won a Superbowl. I have no doubt.

Feva · March 23, 2006, 09:58:38 AM

If you say so.

rjs246 · March 23, 2006, 09:59:14 AM

I do.

ice grillin you · March 23, 2006, 09:59:18 AM

to be fair to mcnabb...brady also has one of the best coaches of all-time

belichek>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>andy

Feva · March 23, 2006, 10:18:30 AM

Quote from: rjs246 on March 23, 2006, 09:59:14 AM
I do.

I know you do. Don't get it twisted though, it doesn't make you less wrong... just that I don't feel like having this discussion for the 739th time right now. Maybe later.

Feva · March 23, 2006, 10:19:58 AM

Quote from: ice grillin you on March 23, 2006, 09:59:18 AM
to be fair to mcnabb...brady also has one of the best coaches of all-time

belichek>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>andy

I can agree with that... give or take a ">" or two.

rjs246 · March 23, 2006, 10:32:50 AM

Pointless arguments where I am clearly right is what the offseason is all about.

Feva · March 23, 2006, 10:36:29 AM

Quote from: rjs246 on March 23, 2006, 10:32:50 AM
Pointless arguments where I am clearly right is what the offseason is all about.

Well, you'd think we were smack dab in the middle of the reg. season considering how far off base you are right about now.