Charlie24 wrote:You seriously cant compare the Vikings O with the Colts O... Everyone would have to agree that the colts' playcalling was TERRIBLE against the pats (only scored 3 points) but you cant compare manning and co. to culpepper and co. because, at least this year, its no match, regardless of team rankings.
Looks pretty similar to me. Manning had 10 more TDs, and that's the only difference. The Colts' offense was better than the Vikings', but not miles above, as you suggest.
But regardless, I'm not convinced the Pats are a better team than the Eagles. Take that with a grain of salt though, cause I also didn't think the Eagles were better than the Falcons...
Looks pretty similar to me. Manning had 10 more TDs, and that's the only difference. The Colts' offense was better than the Vikings', but not miles above, as you suggest.
Yeah you're right about the quarterbacks look pretty similar ( but those 10 TDs do make a difference ) but I was talking about the whole O meaning the RB's, WR's, TE's, etc... though cant really compare it by final stats cause minny had basically 2 more games than indy
nice research though on those stats
He will play because he is not like John Abraham. He actually cares about something other than money and is going to play at all costs in the biggest game of his career. Will he be effective? Considering that Freddie Mitchel and Todd "I am afraid of Rod Woodson" Pinkston are the eagles receivers, TO will be a factor.
mtryanks12 wrote:Without TO the eagles have a next to zero chance of winning. he'l be in no matter how bad he is, and I'm guessign he'll be liek moss in week 17 or whatever (2/70/2). they'll throw a short screen to him in the red zone, and he'll be picking up shorts for TD's, nto catching long balls.
Yeah, like the Vikes and the Falcon were going to romp the Eagles without TO. First TO is going to be a cancer, which he doesn't become, then the team can't live without him.
I'll admit, it will be difficult for the Eagles to score without TO, and against Belichik, even with him, but its not like the Patriots can abuse any real weakness of the Eagles to score themselves.
Do they pass? I think not. Brady is a great QB, but his WRs against the best secondary in the league will look much different than it did against the horrific Colts, and the much weaker Pitt. secondary.
Do they run? Dillon is a great back, but watching TJ Duckett get stood up by Trotter and the Eagles just controlling the line of scrimmage, it would be a tough battle, no better than the Eagles screening to Westbrook all day.
So how do the Eagles let up points? Turnovers? But they're one of the best at not turning the ball over.
As much as NE's defense must be giving Reid fits, Belichik is trying to figure out a way to score against Johnson, and he'll be just as frustrated.
w/o TO the eagles can still beat every team in the NFl except the pats IMO. the pats are a dynasty, the new york yankees of football in y2k on. TO is the only person that gives the eagles a chance against the pats IMO.
Yanks of 2000 on? Well, that's good for the Eagles, since the Yankees haven't won every World Series.
mtryanks12 wrote:Without TO the eagles have a next to zero chance of winning. he'l be in no matter how bad he is, and I'm guessign he'll be liek moss in week 17 or whatever (2/70/2). they'll throw a short screen to him in the red zone, and he'll be picking up shorts for TD's, nto catching long balls.
Yeah, like the Vikes and the Falcon were going to romp the Eagles without TO. First TO is going to be a cancer, which he doesn't become, then the team can't live without him.
I'll admit, it will be difficult for the Eagles to score without TO, and against Belichik, even with him, but its not like the Patriots can abuse any real weakness of the Eagles to score themselves.
Do they pass? I think not. Brady is a great QB, but his WRs against the best secondary in the league will look much different than it did against the horrific Colts, and the much weaker Pitt. secondary.
Do they run? Dillon is a great back, but watching TJ Duckett get stood up by Trotter and the Eagles just controlling the line of scrimmage, it would be a tough battle, no better than the Eagles screening to Westbrook all day.
So how do the Eagles let up points? Turnovers? But they're one of the best at not turning the ball over.
As much as NE's defense must be giving Reid fits, Belichik is trying to figure out a way to score against Johnson, and he'll be just as frustrated.
w/o TO the eagles can still beat every team in the NFl except the pats IMO. the pats are a dynasty, the new york yankees of football in y2k on. TO is the only person that gives the eagles a chance against the pats IMO.
Yanks of 2000 on? Well, that's good for the Eagles, since the Yankees haven't won every World Series.
I meant the yankees generally throughout baseball history. they have been reigning the MLB since the early 1900's. I was talking abou tht epats from 2000 on, which is when they have been like the yankees since 1920 on.
DisgruntledJetsFan wrote:He will play because he is not like John Abraham. He actually cares about something other than money and is going to play at all costs in the biggest game of his career. Will he be effective? Considering that Freddie Mitchel and Todd "I am afraid of Rod Woodson" Pinkston are the eagles receivers, TO will be a factor.
You could see it in last game, if TO isn't playing (as I'm thoroughly convinced he won't now that the doctor refused to clear him and Reid wanted that just to begin with to play him) Pinkston will not be starting. Greg Lewis will take his place easily, and should. He provides the same deep threat with speed, but he can actually be relied on to run his routes.
Pinkston will be used to try and draw holding penalties on Rodney Harrison, who's physical play style could accidently cripple a frail wuss like Pinkston.
i think the no clearance was more procedural to cover his butt. I think his botch job on grant hill has left that doctor particularly worried.
I doubt TO would sit out if he really thought he could play.
AT any rate, that is specualtion.
As for comparing the vikes O to the colts, I think it is reasonably valid. At no point did I ever say the vikes were better, but they were pretty similar. Culpepper did outthrow manning yards wise. And culpepper was missing moss for a good stretch of games. How would the stats be then? Manning had ten more td's, five of which probably were stolen from james.
My point in all of this, is that the eagles just beat two of the best offensive teams for their respective talents. And realistically, that is all the pats did. The colts were a better offense, but not so much more so. The steelers were a slightly worse rushing team than the falcons. All four teams are/were pretty one dimensional though. I think the eagles and the pats are much more blanced all around. They both have won games with O or D. That is really my point. The pats haven't faced a team like the eagles that can beat you ina couple of ways, and can shut down the run or the pass.
Its gonna be tougher than people think. Remember, they didn't crush carolina last year either. And remember, the eagles won by the bigger margin, and they didn't benefit from 4 turnovers like the pats did.
incidentally, for the guy who said it was unfair to compare the vikes to the colts:
the colts had 404.7 yards of offense per game, 116 rush, 289 pass
the vikings had 396, 114 rush, 282.3 pass
I'd say they are damn similar. 8 yards a game difference? with moss missing? I'd say it is certainly within the realm of discussion.
and for giggles, the eagles also shut down the pack who were:
397.3 total, 119 rush, 278 pass.
The colts weren't so far ahead of people in yards of offense at all.
I don't think that relatively speaking, for the eagles or pats, it was some dissimilar contest. both teams were dome teams, both teams were outside, both had suspect defenses.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Demented Avenger » Tue Jan 25, 2005 8:42 pm 
