falcons superior to philly? why? the three afc teams (given that owens is out) I can totally understand. although it seems the colts being better is irrelevant right now ...
but atlanta? based on what? their "dynamic qb"? the guy only passed over 220 yards once, and didn't crack 100 last night. In case you didn't notice, that team was two wins less than philly, got stomped for 56 against kc and got shut out versus tampa. it also almost lost to both NO and carolina (whom incidentally, philly stomped when the cats were relatively healthy).
The eagles were superior to them in offense and defense, and in terms of points scored, significantly better. the eagles are also right up there with them in terms of sacks and turn over ratio.
They have a mobile, yet more developed qb. say what you will about mitchell, pinkston and lews, but price, finneran et al don't seem much better. eagles db's are better, special teams are better.
the falcons will score on the eagles, but the vikes O ain't chopped liver, and they didn't exactly light up.
Let's not forget that viks has about as many turnovers as td's this year and gets sacked a lot.
and the eagles special teams are not what the rams are.
it might be tight, but seriosuly, by what metric are the falcons better other than some nebulous reference to the vick factor? (incidentally, the eagles beat them once -- and the eagles are relatively better this year then that year)
it simply ain't logical, unless its a hunch.
I'll put it this way -- as an eagles fan, I am particulary aware of the limitations that a running, athletic qb backed by a very good/great defense brings. I've seen it with randall, I've seen it with the early donovan years. It does end up having its limitations. its not as if the eagles d doesn't practice against a guy like that everyday in practice.