Yeah that post was like cordial conversational tone for TheValkyries
That was sarcasm? I only saw true statements.
As the Supreme Fleet General of the Eagles bandwagon i'd expect as much.
@Mr. E, not really saying that the hype is baseless just that it gets annoying. I could see how some people can think that the Eagles will go 14-2. After crushing the powerhouses Jets, Cowboys, Dolphins and Redskins one after the other, they clearly showed how dominating they can be. Also, my problem isn't as much with the Cowboy hype, i mean they have a quaterback in Romo so that's most of the battle. And a team with a qb that good will always be at least relevant. It's the Eagles hype that i can't stand. They have better odds of winning the SB than the Giants, for example. Which is just insane. I have trouble understanding that. Though don't try explaining why because it'll turn into a Giants-Eagles debate, which will accomplish nothing.
They have better odds because they systematically compare to or are (sometimes markedly) better than the Giants at every single position. I don't bandwagon saying the Eagles are the best team in the NFL, or that they're guaranteed a Super Bowl win (If I do it's sarcasm). I do however, strongly believe that they have a high shot at winning their division this year over the Giants.
Even to stray away from the "Let's compare the two" let's look at the fact that the Giants almost didn't even make the playoffs last year, and had a 50/50 game against the 49ers, and most everyone will tell you their Super Bowl victory was nothing truly convincing either. They only showed strength against the Vanilla Falcons and the Green Bay Aaron Rodgers. After this almost disaster of a Season that turned into almost miraculous run, we have to look at the fact that they did lose some big name players this offseason, and the Eagles stayed almost exactly the same except got better. This isn't hype it's just facts. When you play what ifs you have to take everything into account, and the Eagles definitely look like they have the higher potential going into next year, and despite popular belief, that is what odds are based on: potential of future success, not the amount of previous success.
i think the Redskins are the laughing stock, but that's just me
Since the Cowboys last Super Bowl they've been crowned pre-season favorites almost every year and haven't done jack. No one who watches football has expected the Redskins to do anything and they haven't done jack.
That's the difference.
think it was 2002, and they made the playoffs that year too.The Browns went 10-6 one year (2006?) with Derek Anderson at QB, lol.
The Browns went 10-6 one year (2006?) with Derek Anderson at QB, lol.
think it was 2002, and they made the playoffs that year too.
+ a QB that can pull off miracles after playing a whole game looking like he's going blind.
If you question how important quarterback play under pressure is, then consider the following: in 2010, Eli Manning averaged 8.1 yards per attempt when there was no pressure, and 5.8 yards per attempt when there was pressure. In 2011, he stayed the same when there was no pressure, but improved to 8.4 yards per attempt when under pressure. That is part of why Eli went from being ‘good’ to being ‘elite’.
What does Eli have to do to be better than Romo? Well, he has to be better than Romo. A good place to start would be to not consistently lead the league in turnovers. Of course, with two Super Bowl rings most of the talking heads (and a decent number of regular fans) already consider Eli better than Romo anyway, so there's really nothing to argue about here.
Browns... :(
The lowly Manning has an [TD/INT] 0/2 and 0/3 playoff outings for playoff openers for a reason -
he just airs the fucking ball out a lot of the time and hopes for the best.