Can We All Finally Agree Donovan Needs To Burn In Hell (even you phreak)

[Diomedes]

Baltimore, lol.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

the phillies traded roy halladay for cliff lee

Why am I always the last to find out?

[Sgt PSN]

i wish i could have the type of optimism that phreak has.  10 years ago i did.  maybe even as recently as 5 years ago i did.  but any optimism i've had about this team has been painstakingly beaten out of me over the years. 

and the thing about it is that i don't even disagree with phreak in the sense that mcnabb "could" win a superbowl "if" the front office gave him all the right players and "if" reid called a solid game and knew how to make in game adjustments. 

that's a lot of coulds and ifs and they are all out of mcnabb's control.

the front office isn't going to change and reid isn't suddenly going to wake up and be a different coach, just like mcnabb isn't going to suddenly stop throwing worm burners. 

this isn't just about mcnabb.  i think there are very few people here who don't think mcnabb "could" win a super bowl under the right circumstances.  trent dilfer proved that to be possible.  however, you can't ignore the fact that mcnabb plays on a team that has failed to give him all of the pieces he needs to win it all. 

i know beyond a shadow of a doubt that lurie is not going to spend what it takes to put together a complete team.  it's been proven over the last decade.  do you really think he would have signed t.o. for market value?  t.o. was dramatically underpaid at 7yrs/49mil.  and once he wanted more money, he was jettisoned from this team faster than igy can get to happy hour at friday's.  and the lack of a cba next year is even more of an excuse for him not to spend the money this year (not that there's been a litter of difference makers available anyway). 

so since we absolutely know beyond a shadow of a doubt that mcnabb cannot with on this team because of the glaring holes at certain positions and because of the horrible play calling, then why not move on?  we know what mcnabb can't do but we have no idea what kolb can do.  might as well find that out now. 

 

 

[ice grillin you]

i dont even know that you can say mcnabb "could" win a ring...you usually reserve that kind of thinking for people who have an unknown value to them....mcnabb has been given a thousand chances to win...six god damn champoionship games...if he could win one he would have imo....the evidence is overwhelming that he CANT win it

[reese125]

Bottom line is I look forward way too much to a new football season. I dont want to go in with a developmental qb, when they already have a top 10-15 qb right there. Many of you might want to see this, but as long as Reid is the coach you might was well have a guy thats knows the system in and out and taken the team to a superbowl before..no matter the pain it may cause. You never know what can happen in any given season. Hell, John Elway was getting ran out of town by the fans and choked his ass off multiple times before he won it at age 37....then his legacy was made. Though the 2 qb's may be different, their careers and numbers are way too similar.

Reid is not going to change his philosophy when he has a new qb that threw the ball 50 times a game in Houston-whether you want to believe it or not.

[ice grillin you]

when they already have a top 10-15

your standards need some raising

as for reid i hated andy before hating andy was in vogue...i hated him in 2002-3....and on a season by season basis he has faults as a coach that probably surpass mcnabbs as a qb...but when you break it down to the championship games its virtually all on mcnabb...he has come up miniscule in all those games...and because of that at the end of the day donovan is the reason they havent won a title..not andy

[Sgt PSN]

i dont even know that you can say mcnabb "could" win a ring...you usually reserve that kind of thinking for people who have an unknown value to them....mcnabb has been given a thousand chances to win...six god damn champoionship games...if he could win one he would have imo....the evidence is overwhelming that he CANT win it

i agree and disagree at the same time

2001 - mcnabb and the team as a whole kind of overachieved that year and lost to a great rams team, in st louis but did play a pretty damn good game. 

2002 - this one was tough to swallow as the eagles had owned the bucs in previous matchups.  i think the obvious difference maker was gruden on the sidelines for tampa.  he's owned reid in the few times they've coached against each other.  not to mention that mcnabb was just coming back from his broken leg and clearly wasn't himself. 

2003 - an abomination of a game in every aspect.  mcnabb sucked balls, the receivers were manhandled and the defense couldn't get off the field on 3rd down. 

2004 - i put a lot of the super bowl loss on mcnabb.  3 ints and the lack of urgency in the 2min offense was painful to watch.  puking didn't help either.  however, this was obviously the best chance for the eagles to win it all and i think that if those eagles and pats teams played each other 10 times, they'd probably come close to splitting.  either 5-5 or 6-4 in favor of the pats.  too bad you only get 1 shot. 

2008 - first the defense couldn't get a stop.  then mcnabb couldn't miss a receiver for about a qtr and a half.  then the defense couldn't hold the lead.  then mcnabb couldn't hit a wide open hank baskett in the middle of the field.  mcnabb isn't the only reason they lost that game, but he had the ball in his hands with enough time to move down field and win the game and his (in)accuracy issues cost them a shot at the winning score. 

i say that mcnabb "could" win a super bowl but it would absolutely require him to play for a team with a suffocating defense that can hold it down for those 3 or 4 consecutive possessions during a game when mcnabb couldn't hit the biggest iceberg in the ocean if he were the titanic.  but that brings me back to my original point.....the front office is never ever ever going to spend the money it would take to assemble the type of team it would take for mcnabb to win a super bowl.  so why not cut ties and everyone move on? 

[ice grillin you]

i dont even know that you can say mcnabb "could" win a ring...you usually reserve that kind of thinking for people who have an unknown value to them....mcnabb has been given a thousand chances to win...six god damn champoionship games...if he could win one he would have imo....the evidence is overwhelming that he CANT win it

i agree and disagree at the same time

2001 - mcnabb and the team as a whole kind of overachieved that year and lost to a great rams team, in st louis but did play a pretty damn good game. 

2002 - this one was tough to swallow as the eagles had owned the bucs in previous matchups.  i think the obvious difference maker was gruden on the sidelines for tampa.  he's owned reid in the few times they've coached against each other.  not to mention that mcnabb was just coming back from his broken leg and clearly wasn't himself. 

2003 - an abomination of a game in every aspect.  mcnabb sucked balls, the receivers were manhandled and the defense couldn't get off the field on 3rd down. 

2004 - i put a lot of the super bowl loss on mcnabb.  3 ints and the lack of urgency in the 2min offense was painful to watch.  puking didn't help either.  however, this was obviously the best chance for the eagles to win it all and i think that if those eagles and pats teams played each other 10 times, they'd probably come close to splitting.  either 5-5 or 6-4 in favor of the pats.  too bad you only get 1 shot. 

2008 - first the defense couldn't get a stop.  then mcnabb couldn't miss a receiver for about a qtr and a half.  then the defense couldn't hold the lead.  then mcnabb couldn't hit a wide open hank baskett in the middle of the field.  mcnabb isn't the only reason they lost that game, but he had the ball in his hands with enough time to move down field and win the game and his (in)accuracy issues cost them a shot at the winning score. 

i say that mcnabb "could" win a super bowl but it would absolutely require him to play for a team with a suffocating defense that can hold it down for those 3 or 4 consecutive possessions during a game when mcnabb couldn't hit the biggest iceberg in the ocean if he were the titanic.  but that brings me back to my original point.....the front office is never ever ever going to spend the money it would take to assemble the type of team it would take for mcnabb to win a super bowl.  so why not cut ties and everyone move on? 

i agree with just about all that...except the end where you say they wont or didnt assemble a team that could win it all...they had numerous teams that could even should have won it all...and they didnt get it done...to me thats on the "leader"

[Sgt PSN]

i think the 2004 team was the only real "complete" team the eagles had that could/should have won a championship.  the 2002 and 2003 teams probably should have at least made the super bowl since they were the most dominant team in the nfc during that period, but i don't know if they could have won a title.  in 2002, the raiders won it all and i believe it was earlier that year that they put an old school ass whooping on the eagles in philly.  it should be noted that gruden coached that raiders team. 

2003 the eagles would have been facing the patriots, but without owens which would not bode well in their favor.  the one thing i loved about that 03 team though was that was the year of the 3 headed monster at running back, which might have been a huge difference maker against that pats team. 

of course, this is all speculation.  what i do know though, is that those teams were weak against the run, mostly due to being weak at linebacker.  and they were also sporting one of the worst starting wr tandems in league history.  they were successful against a very weak nfc for a few years but their record against quality afc teams was putrid and i can't say that i have any reason to believe they would have fared any better against the raiders or pats in the super bowl.     

[Rome]

The Raiders won in 2002?

[Sgt PSN]

should have read "would have won it all".....had they played the eagles in the super bowl that is. 

[ice grillin you]

i think the 2004 team was the only real "complete" team the eagles had that could/should have won a championship.  the 2002 and 2003 teams probably should have at least made the super bowl since they were the most dominant team in the nfc during that period, but i don't know if they could have won a title.  in 2002, the raiders won it all and i believe it was earlier that year that they put an old school ass whooping on the eagles in philly.  it should be noted that gruden coached that raiders team. 

2003 the eagles would have been facing the patriots, but without owens which would not bode well in their favor.  the one thing i loved about that 03 team though was that was the year of the 3 headed monster at running back, which might have been a huge difference maker against that pats team. 

of course, this is all speculation.  what i do know though, is that those teams were weak against the run, mostly due to being weak at linebacker.  and they were also sporting one of the worst starting wr tandems in league history.  they were successful against a very weak nfc for a few years but their record against quality afc teams was putrid and i can't say that i have any reason to believe they would have fared any better against the raiders or pats in the super bowl.     

2004 defense wasnt near complete

their best team was 2002 when they lost to tampa...they definitely should have won the superbowl that year

[MDS]

maybe if they gave donovan some help that year, they would have.

[reese125]

so now youre saying all he needed was help. not because he sucks so bad, but just that he needed help. lets stick to one point and run with it.

but Im sure now you'll say that youre being sarcastic

[ice grillin you]

maybe if they gave donovan some help that year, they would have.

ha