kanezfan11 wrote:Yea, don't know about one play making him be over Harrison, I have him about equal with Holt for this year though.
Waikele Waverunners wrote:I also wouldn't put him above Harrison. I'd have him with Horn about the 4-5th WR
Horn at 4-5th WR? Give me a break, IMO, he's not top 10 or on the low end of it.
I think the fact that Joe Horn is 5th in yardage over the last 4 years warrants him being a top 10 WR, definitely not top 5, but top 10 easy. Those ahead of him are Holt, Moss, Harrison, TO in that order.
TO will be a solid WR, it's just a matter of if he'll move back to the elite 3 or 4. If I can get him I most definitely will. That would give me TO, Randy, and Ward.
kanezfan11 wrote:Yea, don't know about one play making him be over Harrison, I have him about equal with Holt for this year though.
Waikele Waverunners wrote:I also wouldn't put him above Harrison. I'd have him with Horn about the 4-5th WR
Horn at 4-5th WR? Give me a break, IMO, he's not top 10 or on the low end of it.
I think the fact that Joe Horn is 5th in yardage over the last 4 years warrants him being a top 10 WR, definitely not top 5, but top 10 easy. Those ahead of him are Holt, Moss, Harrison, TO in that order.
Canadian_Cheesehead wrote:I guess I can see what you're saying. I would personally rather have my team be better, rather than successful in comparison to low expectations.
What the man is saying is that the Cowboys had a much better year than anyone expected. A year that by just making the playoffs is deemed successful. They are in rebuilding mode. And if they can make the playoffs while they are doing this it makes them that much more SUCCESSFULL. And if at the end of this rebuilding they win the super bowl they will still be considered a success. Of course if they get through all this rebuilding and they don't win a super bowl.....Well then they'll just be considered the Eagles.
So they weren't the best...and may have ended the worst. SO WHAT!
If they don't win a Superbowl it is highly unlikely they'll be considered as good as the Eagles are now, as the Eagles have been to the NFC Championship three times, some might use that as a negative b/c they never made it to the Superbowl, but that would be like saying the Bills teams that lost 4 consecutive Superbowl's were bad teams.
I ain't no suit-wearin' businessman like you... you know I'm just a gangsta I suppose... - Avon Barksdale
the bills were one of the most dominant teams of that decade, comparing the eagles and the bills is a complete insult to the bills. The eagles were embarassed at home in their new stadium last year where they were basically shut out except for a 50 yrd FG by akers. The year before that they were shut out except for the first minute and 21 seconds by the Bucs. Sucess will always be measured by performance compared to expectations and with that being said the eagles have underachieved for the last two years.
Canadian_Cheesehead wrote:If they don't win a Superbowl it is highly unlikely they'll be considered as good as the Eagles are now, as the Eagles have been to the NFC Championship three times, some might use that as a negative b/c they never made it to the Superbowl, but that would be like saying the Bills teams that lost 4 consecutive Superbowl's were bad teams.
The difference is the Bills went to 4 consecutive SUPER BOWLS. The Eagles have been to 3 consecutive championship games. If the Eagles don't win a super bowl within this window they will be considered a failure by most. The last 2 seasons have already been considered failures.
Also, no one has said the Eagles are bad teams. I think the consensus thinks the Eagles ahve a great team. If they didn't have a great team then they couldn't really be considered failures for not making it to the super bowl. Since they do have a very good team they are considered failures for the choke show they put on every year. It's not really the same thing as the Bills cause with the Bills we're at least talking super bowls. But even so I bet alot of people consider the Bills failures for not winning at least one of those super bowls. The Eagles aren't even in the same class.
And the whole thing about the cowboys being considered the Eagles that was a little joke, kind of. If at the end of this rebuilding process the Cowboys don't win a super bowl and end up in another rebuilding process then they will be considered failures (at least in my eyes). Which is what the Eagles are considered right now. Whether they make the NFC championship game or not. If they don't win the super bowl before it's all over the Eagles will be FAILURES!!
So they weren't the best...and may have ended the worst. SO WHAT!
bagobonez wrote:You know the point I'm trying to make. Obviously there wasn't a single team that was happy besides the New England Patriots last year, because every team's goal is to win the Super Bowl.
The point is that the Eagles were heavily favored to win it all, and Dallas was heavily favored to go 5-11 again.
Dallas overachieved, Philly underachieved. THAT's my point.
36-10. The score the last time the Eagles played the Cowgirls. enough said.
So what? The Cowboys beat them earlier in the year when fat ass Andy Reid thought he was so genius that he'd try the sneak onside kick to start the game, and then Randall Williams returned it for a TD and that ended up being the difference. Just before kickoff I was telling my brother and my cousin to "watch for the sneak onside kick! Andy Reid does it every friggin' year!" and sure enough look what happened.
Yeah, so Philadelphia beat them 36-10 later on. Most of the Eagles points were scored real late in the game when Dallas new it was hopeless. Dallas was strong early in the year and Philly was weak, and then later on Dallas was weak and Philly was strong.
Bottom line is, neither team made it to the Super Bowl so they both suck.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by nola_saint » Sat Aug 21, 2004 3:03 pm 
