hypothetical (not buck)

ice grillin you · August 24, 2005, 04:26:42 PM

briefly describe the eagles season this year without mcnabb...

overall record???
complete implosion?
500?
playoffs??
superbowl??

how would you see it going down

MadMarchHare · August 24, 2005, 04:27:42 PM

I think we could win maybe 9-10 games with McMahon in there. But only because the rest of the NFC sucks really bad.

rjs246 · August 24, 2005, 04:28:39 PM

Based on our schedule (and the general suck of the competition within the division) I think we'd still win the East. 10-6 doesn't seem like too much of a stretch. Playoffs, on the other hand, one and done.

MURP · August 24, 2005, 04:28:58 PM

who knows, depends on how well McMahon would play with the starters. obviously.

Reid is great coach and there are enough studs on the team to take em into the playoffs I think.

MadMarchHare · August 24, 2005, 04:29:37 PM

I'm not so sure about the playoffs being one and done, because the NFC still sucks. A lot. No chance of winning the SB if we got there though.

PhillyPhanInDC · August 24, 2005, 04:30:29 PM

Hypthetically, Buckhalter would shoulder the workload at QB, throwing long bombs to Westy and himself, only when he wasn't busting off 90 yard "big plays".

ice grillin you · August 24, 2005, 04:36:06 PM

I'm not so sure about the playoffs being one and done, because the NFC still sucks. A lot. No chance of winning the SB if we got there though.

so the only real difference btwn mcnabb and mcmahon is in having a chance to win the superbowl

PoopyfaceMcGee · August 24, 2005, 04:36:35 PM

15-1. Super Bowl win.

This team would be better without McNabb. Get Ricky Williams!

But seriously, I think we'd be looking at 9-7 or so. Either miss the playoffs or be a non-factor.

Dillen · August 24, 2005, 04:37:59 PM

Quote from: ice grillin you on August 24, 2005, 04:36:06 PM
I'm not so sure about the playoffs being one and done, because the NFC still sucks. A lot. No chance of winning the SB if we got there though.

so the only real difference btwn mcnabb and mcmahon is in having a chance to win the superbowl

No. If McMahon was the starter the entire time, and Westbrook, or Owens, or LJ went down or were doing bad it would be brutal. McNabb can carry the team on his shoulders.

ice grillin you · August 24, 2005, 04:40:46 PM

i dont know im looking at more like 6-10...7-9

mcnabb>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mcmahon

and thats just their talent level...not counting leadership knowing the offense ect....

rjs246 · August 24, 2005, 04:42:38 PM

Quote from: ice grillin you on August 24, 2005, 04:40:46 PM
i dont know im looking at more like 6-10...7-9

mcnabb>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mcmahon

and thats just their talent level...not counting leadership knowing the offense ect....

I don't think anyone's going to disagree, but I think our defense and leadership would carry us further than 7-9. But with something like that, who knows.

Larry · August 24, 2005, 04:44:41 PM

Nobody knows McMahon's true potential. He's never played with such a talented group.

The results would be variable...We could go 14-2 and lose the first game or back-door our way in and run the table. McMahon is much more daring w/ his passes than McNabb; taking those type of risks can lead you to DelHomme-ville or AJ-ville.

MURP · August 24, 2005, 04:45:35 PM

I think the difference would be in the size of the victories. With McNabb the Eagles can get a handful of blowouts while with McMahon those same games would be quite close. I do think that with Reid and this defense they could obtain a winning record and possibly make the playoffs. I dont think they would go very far in the playoffs though. It wouldnt be the first time a very good team with a so-so QB did something in the postseason.

Sgt PSN · August 24, 2005, 04:46:45 PM

Without McNabb this year would be a lot different than being without McNabb 2 years ago. Love him or hate him, but TO would make Detmer, McMahon or even Bobby effin Hoying look good. The defense would still keep the Eagles in every game and if the QB (regardless of who it is) can play "Trent Dilfer" like football and limit his mistakes while making one or two big plays a game, then the Eagles would be fine. I'd say they could still win 10, possibly even 11 games w/o McNabb.

BobbyT · August 24, 2005, 04:52:37 PM

if McNabb went down early -I'd think another vet QB would be brought in

8-8 at best with McMahon