Jump to content

The NFC East hasn't had a repeat Division winner since 2003/04 season. Will that continue?

aceinthehouse

By aceinthehouse
in NFL General

Recommended Posts

HTTRDynasty

HTTRDynasty

Posted
Posted

It will all come down to injuries.  So, obviously, no one can accurately predict this right now.

If I was making this prediction based on all teams staying healthy, this is how I see the division playing out:

1. Eagles

2. Redskins

3. Cowboys

4. Giants

But again, it's pointless to try to predict, because injuries will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SteelKing728

SteelKing728

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, stl4life07 said:

People need to take that into account rather than looking at history. The only thing that can derail the Eagles is injuries. Also when talking about teams like the Eagles usually in an parity filled league like the NFL, point differential is a key to determine how successful a team will be from one season to the next if not many big losses happen.

Eagles +10.8

Pats +9.4

Jags +8.2

Rams +8.0

Last year those were the teams that were beating their opponents by 2 scores. The Eagles were beating their opponents by double digit points on average. We look at that list outside of the Pats (and they still have Belichick and Brady), all those teams got better during the offseason. So just think about it, those teams were already beating their opponents on average by over a touchdown per game, now they got better during the offseason. So in the case of the Eagles, as I mentioned in my other post, the health of Wentz in particular will be key. If he shows he is back healthy and being himself, along with Jeffery, I dont see the NFCE team overtaking the Eagles in the division. Again I think they will make it more competitive and I dont think the Eagles will win the division by 4 games. I think they will win it by at best 1 but I honestly and thinking 2 games they win it by.

Everybody gets "better" every Offseason. This line of thinking is nothing new, and its wrong every single year.

Anyways, I predict the Cowboys to win the division, even though I think the Eagles have a better roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkippyX

SkippyX

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, CP3MVP said:

The eagles are the first truly great team that division has had in a longtime 

How strange were those 2007-2011 Giants. They won 2 Super Bowls and went 12-4 in 2008 but they did it ugly and with huge drama.

I would call those results great though. I will gladly take 1 more Super Bowl for the Eagles even if it is ugly and drama filled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stl4life07

stl4life07

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SteelKing728 said:

Everybody gets "better" every Offseason. This line of thinking is nothing new, and its wrong every single year.

Anyways, I predict the Cowboys to win the division, even though I think the Eagles have a better roster.

How is it wrong to think a 13-3 team that was beating teams by an average of 10.8 points per game and won a Superbowl who got better during the offseason? Like the Bears got better but it doesnt mean they take the necessary steps people expect them too. If you are talking about that then I agree. A team like the Eagles, that line of thinking isnt wrong. Thats like the Warriors who won 73 games and added KD or just this past year they swept the Cavs in the Finals then added Cousins. In both cases they really didnt lose anyone of significance but they added two superstars in their prime. While their were teams in the NBA who got better, nobody closed the gap significantly or surpassed the Warriors. Like last year the Rockets closed the gap and played the Warriors as tough as I saw anyone did in a few years, but it still wasnt enough. So again teams got better in the NFL but the Eagles are still that same team that won 13 games, beating teams by an average of 10.8 points per game and won a Superbowl that got better during the offseason. Other teams got better that will close the gap some but unless injuries happen I cant see anyone in the NFCE surpassing the Eagles this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SteelKing728

SteelKing728

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, stl4life07 said:

How is it wrong to think a 13-3 team that was beating teams by an average of 10.8 points per game and won a Superbowl who got better during the offseason? Like the Bears got better but it doesnt mean they take the necessary steps people expect them too. If you are talking about that then I agree. A team like the Eagles, that line of thinking isnt wrong. Thats like the Warriors who won 73 games and added KD or just this past year they swept the Cavs in the Finals then added Cousins. In both cases they really didnt lose anyone of significance but they added two superstars in their prime. While their were teams in the NBA who got better, nobody closed the gap significantly or surpassed the Warriors. Like last year the Rockets closed the gap and played the Warriors as tough as I saw anyone did in a few years, but it still wasnt enough. So again teams got better in the NFL but the Eagles are still that same team that won 13 games, beating teams by an average of 10.8 points per game and won a Superbowl that got better during the offseason. Other teams got better that will close the gap some but unless injuries happen I cant see anyone in the NFCE surpassing the Eagles this season.

Contrary to what fans say, teams do not improve every offseason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Soko

Soko

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, stl4life07 said:

How is it wrong to think a 13-3 team that was beating teams by an average of 10.8 points per game and won a Superbowl who got better during the offseason? Like the Bears got better but it doesnt mean they take the necessary steps people expect them too. If you are talking about that then I agree. A team like the Eagles, that line of thinking isnt wrong. Thats like the Warriors who won 73 games and added KD or just this past year they swept the Cavs in the Finals then added Cousins. In both cases they really didnt lose anyone of significance but they added two superstars in their prime. While their were teams in the NBA who got better, nobody closed the gap significantly or surpassed the Warriors. Like last year the Rockets closed the gap and played the Warriors as tough as I saw anyone did in a few years, but it still wasnt enough. So again teams got better in the NFL but the Eagles are still that same team that won 13 games, beating teams by an average of 10.8 points per game and won a Superbowl that got better during the offseason. Other teams got better that will close the gap some but unless injuries happen I cant see anyone in the NFCE surpassing the Eagles this season.

You cannot compare A) the Eagles to the Warriors, B) the Eagles’ offseason to KD/Boogie, or C) basketball talent acquisition vs NFL talent acquisition. 

A) The Eagles aren’t the Warriors. Nobody in the NFL really ever has been close except the 2007 Patriots and even that team lost (I’ll get to that “C”), so they’re not similar enough. The talent gap between the Warriors is glaring - the same can’t be said by an NFL team. I could make the argument (rather easily) that the Falcons, Saints, or Vikings were a better team than Philly on paper at the time of the postseason. Who could claim to even be in the same stratosphere at GS? No one, not even in 2015.

B) The Eagles may have gotten better (largely due to health, not talent acquisition for the most part) but they didn’t add the 2nd or 3rd  best player in the league or one of the best men at his position to their roster. Swapping Vinny Curry for Michael Bennett and Torrey Smith for Mike Wallace isn’t going to do that.

C) Finally, most importantly, you’re comparing apples and oranges. In the NBA, the more talented team with more all stars wins a majority of the time. To take that down you need luck, a GOAT, and lots of help. That isn’t the case in the NFL - in the NFL, lesser talented teams beat more talented teams all the time. Circle back to the 07 Patriots losing to NYG. Football is much more scheme/coach reliant and less so talent oriented. 

Anyway, you aren’t wrong to assume the Eagles are getting better on paper. You’re wrong to assume that a good team that got better will for sure have the same or more success. Good teams and good players regress out of nowhere and most teams can claim they improved over the offseason. The Vikings essentially just swapped career backup-Keenum for Kirk Cousins and an NFI-Floyd for Sheldon Richardson. The Saints lost no one and added some other players to the team. Ditto with the Falcons. The Rams made a huge jump in talent. Are all of these teams going to do better than they did last season? Obviously not. 

The Eagles have a good a chance as repeating as division champs as anyone because of their depth. They can afford some injuries, which most teams can’t. But it’s not a slam dunk. And definitely isn’t anything close to the Warriors situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stl4life07

stl4life07

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

You cannot compare A) the Eagles to the Warriors, B) the Eagles’ offseason to KD/Boogie, or C) basketball talent acquisition vs NFL talent acquisition. 

A) The Eagles aren’t the Warriors. Nobody in the NFL really ever has been close except the 2007 Patriots and even that team lost (I’ll get to that “C”), so they’re not similar enough. The talent gap between the Warriors is glaring - the same can’t be said by an NFL team. I could make the argument (rather easily) that the Falcons, Saints, or Vikings were a better team than Philly on paper at the time of the postseason. Who could claim to even be in the same stratosphere at GS? No one, not even in 2015.

B) The Eagles may have gotten better (largely due to health, not talent acquisition for the most part) but they didn’t add the 2nd or 3rd  best player in the league or one of the best men at his position to their roster. Swapping Vinny Curry for Michael Bennett and Torrey Smith for Mike Wallace isn’t going to do that.

C) Finally, most importantly, you’re comparing apples and oranges. In the NBA, the more talented team with more all stars wins a majority of the time. To take that down you need luck, a GOAT, and lots of help. That isn’t the case in the NFL - in the NFL, lesser talented teams beat more talented teams all the time. Circle back to the 07 Patriots losing to NYG. Football is much more scheme/coach reliant and less so talent oriented. 

Anyway, you aren’t wrong to assume the Eagles are getting better on paper. You’re wrong to assume that a good team that got better will for sure have the same or more success. Good teams and good players regress out of nowhere and most teams can claim they improved over the offseason. The Vikings essentially just swapped career backup-Keenum for Kirk Cousins and an NFI-Floyd for Sheldon Richardson. The Saints lost no one and added some other players to the team. Ditto with the Falcons. The Rams made a huge jump in talent. Are all of these teams going to do better than they did last season? Obviously not. 

The Eagles have a good a chance as repeating as division champs as anyone because of their depth. They can afford some injuries, which most teams can’t. But it’s not a slam dunk. And definitely isn’t anything close to the Warriors situation.

I only used the Warriors as an example of the rich got richer. The best team got even better. So like the Lakers adding LeBron makes the significantly better. They still arent close to the Warriors. Have they gotten closer? Yes, but unless Steph or someone gets hurt, nobody in the West is overtaking them. So in football the x-factor is injuries because its a more physical sport. The Eagles and Rams for that matter have followed the model of the Seahawks when they drafted Wilson and was paying him pennies but getting great production. The Seahawks was able to build a strong foundation around him that led to the Seahawks winning the NFCW 4 out of 5 years, go to 2 Superbowls and really should be sitting here with 2 rings had Carroll not decided to throw the ball from the 1yd line. Yes at that time the NFCW was a tough division. The Cards were rejuvenated with Arians and Warner. The Niners had Harbaugh with Smith then Kaepernick. Heck as frustrated as Rams fans were with Fisher he even had the Rams being successful within the division. So it was tough but the Seahawks were still successful and winning the division because they had the formula that the Eagles and the Rams are following now. The Eagles have the coaching, the talent, and the depth. I get people want to believe in the Cowboys, Giants, and Redskins. I never said the NFCE wouldnt be competitive. its going to take major injuries for the Eagles not to win the division. Thats all I am saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
///mcompact

///mcompact

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Danger said:

Tyron Smith missed 3 games.
Jason Peters missed 9 games.

But "Oh now Tyron Smith is back, we good."
 

LOL, he missed a whole 3 games. 

You guys had a more than capable back-up tackle in Vaitai, Dallas didn't.  One team didn't skip a beat, while the other had their QB demolished over the course of those 3-games.

My memory may be cloudy, but when Lane Johnson was suspended in 2016 for 4 games, and I believe rookie Vaitai stepped-in, didn't Eagles fans claim that missing Lane (in addition to WR's dropping balls) was the reason your team was dropping games? Kinda deja vu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...