PDA

View Full Version : Members Espn NFL live declaring eagles "team to beat"



appodictic
05-22-2012, 04:13 PM
Also today Eli was ranked the third best QB in NFC east.

It is nice to see that the giants haters are more resilient then the whack teams they love.

here is my prediction Vick is done. They want to act like he can make another run. he can't hes done. He is not getting better, he is getting worse. He wont make it though the season standing up because although he is brave he is stupid and he will end his own career scrambling for three extra yards. Even if he does make it though the season I bet he will land on the bench and the eagirls will move on.

sharick88
05-22-2012, 04:21 PM
Honestly, why give a ****? They pass out drugs at BSPN just before they go on air. Don't let those fools pee in your cheerios with their poor takes

flamethrower
05-22-2012, 04:29 PM
They never pick the Giants. Why? Because of the fact that they are trying not to be Biased towards East Coast teams. Yet, they always pick a team from the East Coast, and in the North part to win it all. They can't pick the Giants. Because if they do. It shows. I bet they picked the Patriots to win the AFC also.

jax5338
05-22-2012, 04:47 PM
Also today Eli was ranked the third best QB in NFC east.

It is nice to see that the giants haters are more resilient then the whack teams they love.

here is my prediction Vick is done. They want to act like he can make another run. he can't hes done. He is not getting better, he is getting worse. He wont make it though the season standing up because although he is brave he is stupid and he will end his own career scrambling for three extra yards. Even if he does make it though the season I bet he will land on the bench and the eagirls will move on.


who were the brilliant analysts that did these rankings?

GMENAGAIN
05-22-2012, 05:41 PM
Nice . . . the kiss of death

XxBigWhitxX
05-22-2012, 05:44 PM
ok I'm ot gonna be mad that they didn't pick the Giants because they NEVER do. but Eli the 3rd best!?

greenca190
05-22-2012, 06:39 PM
They never pick the Giants. Why? Because of the fact that they are trying not to be Biased towards East Coast teams. Yet, they always pick a team from the East Coast, and in the North part to win it all. They can't pick the Giants. Because if they do. It shows. I bet they picked the Patriots to win the AFC also.


Holy crap. This is one of the worst posts I've ever seen.

They don't want to seem east coast bias, so they pick east coast teams? Whaaaaaat?

ShakeNBake
05-22-2012, 06:48 PM
They never pick the Giants. Why? Because of the fact that they are trying not to be Biased towards East Coast teams. Yet, they always pick a team from the East Coast, and in the North part to win it all. They can't pick the Giants. Because if they do. It shows. I bet they picked the Patriots to win the AFC also.


<font color="#FF0000">This makes so much sense</font>

GiantLife615
05-22-2012, 07:05 PM
They never pick the Giants. Why? Because of the fact that they are trying not to be Biased towards East Coast teams. Yet, they always pick a team from the East Coast, and in the North part to win it all. They can't pick the Giants. Because if they do. It shows. I bet they picked the Patriots to win the AFC also.


<font color="#ff0000">This makes so much sense</font>


Yeah I read it a couple times, trying to see what I was missing. Makes no sense to me either.

derekunion28
05-22-2012, 07:22 PM
i sometimes maybe never allways could possabally get it right sorta

Ntegrase96
05-22-2012, 07:48 PM
I don't really disagree too much with the assessment that the Eagles are the team to beat this year.

Obviously the Giants are the champs, but the Eagles made a strong showing toward the end of last year and had the strongest off season IMO.


That said, it seems like no one has noticed that the eagles have finished worse and worse over the last few years. They're not exactly trending up.

BlueBlitzer
05-22-2012, 08:41 PM
Instead of " All In " and " Finish " , TC should put up a sign that reads " ESPN's right, you're all a bunch of 3rd rate Bast--ds "

Drez
05-22-2012, 08:43 PM
I don't really disagree too much with the assessment that the Eagles are the team to beat this year.

Obviously the Giants are the champs, but the Eagles made a strong showing toward the end of last year and had the strongest off season IMO.


That said, it seems like no one has noticed that the eagles have finished worse and worse over the last few years. They're not exactly trending up.

The Giants had a pretty strong finish to their season, too. We did win our last 6 games. I'd say an even stronger one. Winning the Super Bowl and all, you know.

I don't think the Eagles have had a much better off season than any of the other East teams, at least not us.

Roswell777
05-22-2012, 08:51 PM
I don't really disagree too much with the assessment that the Eagles are the team to beat this year.

Obviously the Giants are the champs, but the Eagles made a strong showing toward the end of last year and had the strongest off season IMO.


That said, it seems like no one has noticed that the eagles have finished worse and worse over the last few years. They're not exactly trending up.

The Giants had a pretty strong finish to their season, too. We did win our last 6 games. I'd say an even stronger one. Winning the Super Bowl and all, you know.

I don't think the Eagles have had a much better off season than any of the other East teams, at least not us.


I completely agree. You can't have a stronger finish than the team that wins it all.

Ntegrase96
05-22-2012, 09:06 PM
I don't really disagree too much with the assessment that the Eagles are the team to beat this year.

Obviously the Giants are the champs, but the Eagles made a strong showing toward the end of last year and had the strongest off season IMO.


That said, it seems like no one has noticed that the eagles have finished worse and worse over the last few years. They're not exactly trending up.

The Giants had a pretty strong finish to their season, too. We did win our last 6 games. I'd say an even stronger one. Winning the Super Bowl and all, you know.

I don't think the Eagles have had a much better off season than any of the other East teams, at least not us.


I completely agree. You can't have a stronger finish than the team that wins it all.

True! But how many times does the superbowl winning team not recapture that same drive they had the previous year? Meanwhile, as another thread has pointed out, the Eagles haven't had a championship in 52 years... roughly around the time people were still ****ing outdoors.

The Eagles were the team to beat last year-- it just took them a while to gel and it seems like they have now. Also, they had the best record in the NFCE, which had a game separate the third place team from the first place team.

Roswell777
05-22-2012, 09:12 PM
I don't really disagree too much with the assessment that the Eagles are the team to beat this year.

Obviously the Giants are the champs, but the Eagles made a strong showing toward the end of last year and had the strongest off season IMO.


That said, it seems like no one has noticed that the eagles have finished worse and worse over the last few years. They're not exactly trending up.

The Giants had a pretty strong finish to their season, too. We did win our last 6 games. I'd say an even stronger one. Winning the Super Bowl and all, you know.

I don't think the Eagles have had a much better off season than any of the other East teams, at least not us.


I completely agree. You can't have a stronger finish than the team that wins it all.

True! But how many times does the superbowl winning team not recapture that same drive they had the previous year? Meanwhile, as another thread has pointed out, the Eagles haven't had a championship in 52 years... roughly around the time people were still ****ing outdoors.

The Eagles were the team to beat last year-- it just took them a while to gel and it seems like they have now. Also, they had the best record in the NFCE, which had a game separate the third place team from the first place team.


I agree with you that they locked up a lot of their young talent to long term deals, but I feel like losing Peters and Samuel is going to figure into this somehow.

Ntegrase96
05-22-2012, 09:14 PM
I don't really disagree too much with the assessment that the Eagles are the team to beat this year.

Obviously the Giants are the champs, but the Eagles made a strong showing toward the end of last year and had the strongest off season IMO.


That said, it seems like no one has noticed that the eagles have finished worse and worse over the last few years. They're not exactly trending up.

The Giants had a pretty strong finish to their season, too. We did win our last 6 games. I'd say an even stronger one. Winning the Super Bowl and all, you know.

I don't think the Eagles have had a much better off season than any of the other East teams, at least not us.


I completely agree. You can't have a stronger finish than the team that wins it all.

True! But how many times does the superbowl winning team not recapture that same drive they had the previous year? Meanwhile, as another thread has pointed out, the Eagles haven't had a championship in 52 years... roughly around the time people were still ****ing outdoors.

The Eagles were the team to beat last year-- it just took them a while to gel and it seems like they have now. Also, they had the best record in the NFCE, which had a game separate the third place team from the first place team.


I agree with you that they locked up a lot of their young talent to long term deals, but I feel like losing Peters and Samuel is going to figure into this somehow.

I forgot about losing Peters. That's going to hurt in the NFCE.

Roswell777
05-22-2012, 09:18 PM
I don't really disagree too much with the assessment that the Eagles are the team to beat this year.

Obviously the Giants are the champs, but the Eagles made a strong showing toward the end of last year and had the strongest off season IMO.


That said, it seems like no one has noticed that the eagles have finished worse and worse over the last few years. They're not exactly trending up.

The Giants had a pretty strong finish to their season, too. We did win our last 6 games. I'd say an even stronger one. Winning the Super Bowl and all, you know.

I don't think the Eagles have had a much better off season than any of the other East teams, at least not us.


I completely agree. You can't have a stronger finish than the team that wins it all.

True! But how many times does the superbowl winning team not recapture that same drive they had the previous year? Meanwhile, as another thread has pointed out, the Eagles haven't had a championship in 52 years... roughly around the time people were still ****ing outdoors.

The Eagles were the team to beat last year-- it just took them a while to gel and it seems like they have now. Also, they had the best record in the NFCE, which had a game separate the third place team from the first place team.


I agree with you that they locked up a lot of their young talent to long term deals, but I feel like losing Peters and Samuel is going to figure into this somehow.

I forgot about losing Peters. That's going to hurt in the NFCE.


The Eagles are lucky Vick is a lefty and it's the RT that has his back. But still, losing Peters is a huge blow to their offense.

And Samuel makes plays. He was good for a pick or two in a big spot.

flamethrower
05-22-2012, 09:59 PM
They never pick the Giants. Why? Because of the fact that they are trying not to be Biased towards East Coast teams. Yet, they always pick a team from the East Coast, and in the North part to win it all. They can't pick the Giants. Because if they do. It shows. I bet they picked the Patriots to win the AFC also.


Holy crap. This is one of the worst posts I've ever seen.

They don't want to seem east coast bias, so they pick east coast teams? Whaaaaaat?What I was saying. Was that the Giants will never be picked by ESPN. They want the Patriots to win it all. They are still mad that the Giants beat the Patriots a few years back. They were really on that 19-0 bandwagon. They don't like the Giants. The only time they ever picked the Giants to do anything. They were disapointed.

jjj45
05-22-2012, 10:45 PM
I don't really disagree too much with the assessment that the Eagles are the team to beat this year.

the Eagles made a strong showing toward the end of last year
If you mean by beating a bunch of crap teams then okay, yeah.

Don't understand why that "strong finish" thing keeps getting thrown around.

greenca190
05-23-2012, 10:18 AM
They never pick the Giants. Why? Because of the fact that they are trying not to be Biased towards East Coast teams. Yet, they always pick a team from the East Coast, and in the North part to win it all. They can't pick the Giants. Because if they do. It shows. I bet they picked the Patriots to win the AFC also.


Holy crap. This is one of the worst posts I've ever seen.

They don't want to seem east coast bias, so they pick east coast teams? Whaaaaaat?What I was saying. Was that the Giants will never be picked by ESPN. They want the Patriots to win it all. They are still mad that the Giants beat the Patriots a few years back. They were really on that 19-0 bandwagon. They don't like the Giants. The only time they ever picked the Giants to do anything. They were disapointed.


But isn't new England in the north east...?

flamethrower
05-23-2012, 11:21 AM
Yes they are. Ain't BSPN in the North East mostly? Yes it is. Connecticut is Patriots county. Been that way since Brady won their first title.

bigblue58
05-23-2012, 11:43 AM
The only thing that surprises me about this is that anyone would actually listen to those morons or care what they think!
ESPN is made up of two kinds of "experts"......Those who never played the game and ex-athletes who talk a better game than they ever played!

sharick88
05-23-2012, 12:58 PM
The only thing that surprises me about this is that anyone would actually listen to those morons or care what they think!
ESPN is made up of two kinds of "experts"......Those who never played the game and ex-athletes who talk a better game than they ever played!
I agree with this. The only person this does not apply to is Jerry Rice.

Morehead State
05-23-2012, 01:46 PM
Yes they are. Ain't BSPN in the North East mostly? Yes it is. Connecticut is Patriots county. Been that way since Brady won their first title.
</P>


I live in the area. Bristol CT is Giants country.</P>


And the location of ESPN's studio has nothing to do with anything anyway. You guys crack me up with the supposed "anti-Giants" bias at ESPN or any other media outlet.</P>


Its pure fantasy.</P>

dezzzR
05-23-2012, 02:06 PM
Yes they are. Ain't BSPN in the North East mostly? Yes it is. Connecticut is Patriots county. Been that way since Brady won their first title.
</p>


I live in the area. Bristol CT is Giants country.</p>


And the location of ESPN's studio has nothing to do with anything anyway. You guys crack me up with the supposed "anti-Giants" bias at ESPN or any other media outlet.</p>


Its pure fantasy.</p>I wouldnt say there is an "anti Giants" biased, but they definitely favor other teams, imo.
Like the Pats, Cowboys, Packers, Eagles.

Morehead State
05-23-2012, 02:45 PM
Yes they are. Ain't BSPN in the North East mostly? Yes it is. Connecticut is Patriots county. Been that way since Brady won their first title.
</P>


I live in the area. Bristol CT is Giants country.</P>


And the location of ESPN's studio has nothing to do with anything anyway. You guys crack me up with the supposed "anti-Giants" bias at ESPN or any other media outlet.</P>


Its pure fantasy.</P>


I wouldnt say there is an "anti Giants" biased, but they definitely favor other teams, imo.
Like the Pats, Cowboys, Packers, Eagles.
</P>


Why?</P>


ESPN analists will hitch their wagon to the "sexy" pick. Or to the "sexy" team. We aren't that sexy.</P>


I am but they're not.</P>

NYFan221
05-23-2012, 02:57 PM
Instead of " All In " and " Finish " , TC should put up a sign that reads " ESPN's right, you're all a bunch of 3rd rate Bast--ds "

I like this idea. I doubt they pay any attention to stuff like this though, cause all that matters is what happens on the field, not what the talking heads predict before a snap of football is played.

flamethrower
05-24-2012, 03:14 PM
Yes they are. Ain't BSPN in the North East mostly? Yes it is. Connecticut is Patriots county. Been that way since Brady won their first title.
</p>


I live in the area. Bristol CT is Giants country.</p>


And the location of ESPN's studio has nothing to do with anything anyway. You guys crack me up with the supposed "anti-Giants" bias at ESPN or any other media outlet.</p>


Its pure fantasy.</p>I was referring to BSPN. Their offices are there. That was why I said Connecticut. Because BSPN hates the Giants team. Always have. Always will. When they start their NFL talk. I change the channel. Because after baseball scores, and basketball scores they get real biased.

Ntegrase96
05-24-2012, 05:38 PM
I don't really disagree too much with the assessment that the Eagles are the team to beat this year.

the Eagles made a strong showing toward the end of last year
If you mean by beating a bunch of crap teams then okay, yeah.

Don't understand why that "strong finish" thing keeps getting thrown around.


The 'dream team' didn't have much of an offseason last year, a hurt michael vick, and a plethora of other excuses I can make that seem pretty empty.

Excuses are lame, but sometimes have their validity. I'm not saying those are the reasons the eagles stunk it up in the first half of the season, but it's impossible to ignore the improvements that team made in the last quarter of the season.

They are a matchup problem for the rest of the east.

lawl
05-24-2012, 07:06 PM
I don't really disagree too much with the assessment that the Eagles are the team to beat this year.

Obviously the Giants are the champs, but the Eagles made a strong showing toward the end of last year and had the strongest off season IMO.


That said, it seems like no one has noticed that the eagles have finished worse and worse over the last few years. They're not exactly trending up.

The Giants had a pretty strong finish to their season, too. We did win our last 6 games. I'd say an even stronger one. Winning the Super Bowl and all, you know.

I don't think the Eagles have had a much better off season than any of the other East teams, at least not us.


I completely agree. You can't have a stronger finish than the team that wins it all.

True! But how many times does the superbowl winning team not recapture that same drive they had the previous year? Meanwhile, as another thread has pointed out, the Eagles haven't had a championship in 52 years... roughly around the time people were still ****ing outdoors.

The Eagles were the team to beat last year-- it just took them a while to gel and it seems like they have now. Also, they had the best record in the NFCE, which had a game separate the third place team from the first place team.


I agree with you that they locked up a lot of their young talent to long term deals, but I feel like losing Peters and Samuel is going to figure into this somehow.

I forgot about losing Peters. That's going to hurt in the NFCE.


The Eagles are lucky Vick is a lefty and it's the RT that has his back. But still, losing Peters is a huge blow to their offense.

And Samuel makes plays. He was good for a pick or two in a big spot.

Losing Samuel helps them

BlueBlooded1979
05-24-2012, 07:40 PM
I don't really disagree too much with the assessment that the Eagles are the team to beat this year.

the Eagles made a strong showing toward the end of last year
If you mean by beating a bunch of crap teams then okay, yeah.

Don't understand why that "strong finish" thing keeps getting thrown around.


The 'dream team' didn't have much of an offseason last year, a hurt michael vick, and a plethora of other excuses I can make that seem pretty empty.

Excuses are lame, but sometimes have their validity. I'm not saying those are the reasons the eagles stunk it up in the first half of the season, but it's impossible to ignore the improvements that team made in the last quarter of the season.

They are a matchup problem for the rest of the east.

Excuses have validity ? The Giants put 6 CBs and their MLB on IR last year. Osi and Tuck dealt with injuries.

Are you one of those people that actually believe that Vick will play and entire season effectively? If he runs, he gets hit and he breaks. If doesn't run he takes huge hits and breaks as well. If he tries to avoid the big hit and limits his running he throws picks.

Dallas is a tougher matchup than Philly is. They have a competent QB and a balanced defense.

Drez
05-24-2012, 07:58 PM
I don't really disagree too much with the assessment that the Eagles are the team to beat this year.

the Eagles made a strong showing toward the end of last year
If you mean by beating a bunch of crap teams then okay, yeah.

Don't understand why that "strong finish" thing keeps getting thrown around.


The 'dream team' didn't have much of an offseason last year, a hurt michael vick, and a plethora of other excuses I can make that seem pretty empty.

Excuses are lame, but sometimes have their validity. I'm not saying those are the reasons the eagles stunk it up in the first half of the season, but it's impossible to ignore the improvements that team made in the last quarter of the season.

They are a matchup problem for the rest of the east.
The Niners didn't have an offseason, either. They went from 6-10 to 13-3, beating some good teams in the process. Vick always gets hurt, but I remember Matt Schaub getting hurt, and then the second string QB, and a 5th round rookie leading the Texans to the Divisional Round of the playoffs. Oh, they had a new DC, too. And no offseason.

I also remember hearing something about the Giants having the third most injured defensive unit in the past 10 years. We won the SB.

Drez
05-24-2012, 08:00 PM
I don't really disagree too much with the assessment that the Eagles are the team to beat this year.

Obviously the Giants are the champs, but the Eagles made a strong showing toward the end of last year and had the strongest off season IMO.


That said, it seems like no one has noticed that the eagles have finished worse and worse over the last few years. They're not exactly trending up.

The Giants had a pretty strong finish to their season, too. We did win our last 6 games. I'd say an even stronger one. Winning the Super Bowl and all, you know.

I don't think the Eagles have had a much better off season than any of the other East teams, at least not us.


I completely agree. You can't have a stronger finish than the team that wins it all.

True! But how many times does the superbowl winning team not recapture that same drive they had the previous year? Meanwhile, as another thread has pointed out, the Eagles haven't had a championship in 52 years... roughly around the time people were still ****ing outdoors.

The Eagles were the team to beat last year-- it just took them a while to gel and it seems like they have now. Also, they had the best record in the NFCE, which had a game separate the third place team from the first place team.


I agree with you that they locked up a lot of their young talent to long term deals, but I feel like losing Peters and Samuel is going to figure into this somehow.

I forgot about losing Peters. That's going to hurt in the NFCE.


The Eagles are lucky Vick is a lefty and it's the RT that has his back. But still, losing Peters is a huge blow to their offense.

And Samuel makes plays. He was good for a pick or two in a big spot.

Losing Samuel helps them
Insofar as them being able to play more man, yes.

Definitely doesn't help them playing against us, though. Samuel just seems to have Eli's number.

Ntegrase96
05-24-2012, 09:54 PM
I don't really disagree too much with the assessment that the Eagles are the team to beat this year.

the Eagles made a strong showing toward the end of last year
If you mean by beating a bunch of crap teams then okay, yeah.

Don't understand why that "strong finish" thing keeps getting thrown around.


The 'dream team' didn't have much of an offseason last year, a hurt michael vick, and a plethora of other excuses I can make that seem pretty empty.

Excuses are lame, but sometimes have their validity. I'm not saying those are the reasons the eagles stunk it up in the first half of the season, but it's impossible to ignore the improvements that team made in the last quarter of the season.

They are a matchup problem for the rest of the east.

Excuses have validity ? The Giants put 6 CBs and their MLB on IR last year. Osi and Tuck dealt with injuries.

Are you one of those people that actually believe that Vick will play and entire season effectively? If he runs, he gets hit and he breaks. If doesn't run he takes huge hits and breaks as well. If he tries to avoid the big hit and limits his running he throws picks.

Dallas is a tougher matchup than Philly is. They have a competent QB and a balanced defense.


Yes. Excuses have validity. They're lame, but if we're making
projections for next year we can examine what went wrong with the
Eagles last year and guess whether or not they'll correct them like
they started to toward the end of the season. In that regard, I don't
see them as 'excuses' per se. More... unbiased realizations.


I
agree Vick won't hold up for an entire season. But that doesn't mean
he'll be as injured as he was before. And the Eagles defense should be
better. They got better toward the end of last year once they started
utilizing Aso correctly, DRC should be in a better position, and they
drafted Brandon Boykins from GA to help fill the hole Samuel left--
I've never thought that highly of Asante. And then they seemingly have
fixed their linebacker situation.

I don't know about Dallas
being a tougher match up than the Eagles for the Giants, but the Eagles
are a nightmare matchup for Dallas and Wash. That could be 4 division
wins right there as much as I hate to say it.

And I agree. The
dallas defense could be pretty darn good this year. Coaching changes, 4
deep at the CB position, one of the better cover safeties in the league
with Brodney Poole, DE Sean Lissemore is coming along as a high motor
Justin Smith type player, Ware is Ware, Dan Connor is an upgrade over
Bradie James/Keith Brooking and is teamed up with old Penn State buddy
Sean Lee.

2013 is our year though, and I firmly believe that.
This team has been going through some very good changes since Garrett's
taken over.

Ntegrase96
05-24-2012, 09:57 PM
I don't really disagree too much with the assessment that the Eagles are the team to beat this year.

the Eagles made a strong showing toward the end of last year
If you mean by beating a bunch of crap teams then okay, yeah.

Don't understand why that "strong finish" thing keeps getting thrown around.


The 'dream team' didn't have much of an offseason last year, a hurt michael vick, and a plethora of other excuses I can make that seem pretty empty.

Excuses are lame, but sometimes have their validity. I'm not saying those are the reasons the eagles stunk it up in the first half of the season, but it's impossible to ignore the improvements that team made in the last quarter of the season.

They are a matchup problem for the rest of the east.
The Niners didn't have an offseason, either. They went from 6-10 to 13-3, beating some good teams in the process. Vick always gets hurt, but I remember Matt Schaub getting hurt, and then the second string QB, and a 5th round rookie leading the Texans to the Divisional Round of the playoffs. Oh, they had a new DC, too. And no offseason.

I also remember hearing something about the Giants having the third most injured defensive unit in the past 10 years. We won the SB.


I guess I should have been more obvious with the excuses I used. I'm not actually making those excuses, but rather repeating what a lot of Eagles fans have said.

But bottom line is that Eagles team didn't gel until the last quarter of the season. And maybe that's because they had nothing to lose really-- who knows? But for now, I'm assuming it will carry over because... well, it's just an opinion really more than being based on trend.

Ntegrase96
05-24-2012, 10:01 PM
DP

Redeyejedi
05-24-2012, 10:44 PM
I don't really disagree too much with the assessment that the Eagles are the team to beat this year.

Obviously the Giants are the champs, but the Eagles made a strong showing toward the end of last year and had the strongest off season IMO.


That said, it seems like no one has noticed that the eagles have finished worse and worse over the last few years. They're not exactly trending up.

The Giants had a pretty strong finish to their season, too. We did win our last 6 games. I'd say an even stronger one. Winning the Super Bowl and all, you know.

I don't think the Eagles have had a much better off season than any of the other East teams, at least not us.


I completely agree. You can't have a stronger finish than the team that wins it all.

True! But how many times does the superbowl winning team not recapture that same drive they had the previous year? Meanwhile, as another thread has pointed out, the Eagles haven't had a championship in 52 years... roughly around the time people were still ****ing outdoors.

The Eagles were the team to beat last year-- it just took them a while to gel and it seems like they have now. Also, they had the best record in the NFCE, which had a game separate the third place team from the first place team.
The Eagles are talented but their QB cant put 4 games together to win in the playoffs. He will be their downfall

bigblue58
05-25-2012, 07:54 PM
The only thing that surprises me about this is that anyone would actually listen to those morons or care what they think!
ESPN is made up of two kinds of "experts"......Those who never played the game and ex-athletes who talk a better game than they ever played!
I agree with this. The only person this does not apply to is Jerry Rice.

Yes, you're absolutely right...I should have said a MAJORITY of them are ex athletes who talk a better game than they ever played!

Sarcasman
05-25-2012, 11:56 PM
Also today Eli was ranked the third best QB in NFC east.


Where did they rank Vick against the other RBs?

SweetZombieJesus
05-26-2012, 10:54 AM
The Niners didn't have an offseason, either. They went from 6-10 to 13-3, beating some good teams in the process.


The 49ers changed coaching staff -- they didn't pick up or lose any significant players. The Eagles are sticking with the same coach they've had for 13 years and expecting a different result.

greenca190
05-26-2012, 10:59 AM
The only thing that surprises me about this is that anyone would actually listen to those morons or care what they think!
ESPN is made up of two kinds of "experts"......Those who never played the game and ex-athletes who talk a better game than they ever played!
I agree with this. The only person this does not apply to is Jerry Rice.

Yes, you're absolutely right...I should have said a MAJORITY of them are ex athletes who talk a better game than they ever played!

In which case, Jerry Rice was a MUCH better athlete than he will ever be analyst. Have you listened to him on ESPN? He is awful at his job.