Best SB Winner Since 2010

[Kip Smithers]

2 hours ago, Bolts223 said:

In the context of this argument, you are basically arguing that an almost entirely different defense wouldn't make any difference and that game would still be a shootout. 

As far as DVOA, there is obviously some margin of error - but the overall point is the Eagles didn't exactly have some kind of historical O-line. It played great against a team that had one of the worst edge rusher situations in the league along with a secondary that was allowing big plays left and right. (Why Butler wasn't playing I still have no idea)

 

 

 

What are you not getting, they played great against practically everyone. This was not an isolated game. Rams, Vikings, Denver, Carolina, Arizona. They had the best o-line in the league quite easily anybody that watched football all year would tell you that. 

In the grand scheme of things, yes they wouldn’t have made a difference. The Eagles would still score over 30 points in my opinion.

[Bolts223]

8 hours ago, Kip Smithers said:

What are you not getting, they played great against practically everyone. This was not an isolated game. Rams, Vikings, Denver, Carolina, Arizona. They had the best o-line in the league quite easily anybody that watched football all year would tell you that. 

In the grand scheme of things, yes they wouldn’t have made a difference. The Eagles would still score over 30 points in my opinion.

They definitely had games where they didn't play well.

The Seahawks and Chiefs games were definitely games in which the o-line did not play well at all. Wentz was sacked SIX TIMES against the Chiefs.

In the Seahawks, Giants (First game), Panthers, Redskins (Second game) and 49ers games they also gave up 3 sacks or more.

I'm sorry, but this isn't some historic O-line we are talking about.

 

[Kip Smithers]

56 minutes ago, Bolts223 said:

They definitely had games where they didn't play well.

The Seahawks and Chiefs games were definitely games in which the o-line did not play well at all. Wentz was sacked SIX TIMES against the Chiefs.

In the Seahawks, Giants (First game), Panthers, Redskins (Second game) and 49ers games they also gave up 3 sacks or more.

I'm sorry, but this isn't some historic O-line we are talking about.

 

Historic, no. Best in the league, you’re damn right.

Sure you can pick out games where they weren’t playing all that well but in large part they dominated particularly as the season progressed. Those games where they supposedly didn’t play well in your eyes due to “sacks allowed” happened very early in the year. Seattle was an anomaly because they conceded more pressure in that game any other by far. 

I don’t understand, you saw them destroy some of the best defenses in the league and you still think that those Pats somehow would’ve bucked the trend because it’s an upgrade on what the Eagles actually faced in the SB even though the Eagles faced better defenses than the 2014 Pats and had no issue putting up say least 30 on those better defenses. But The 2014 Pats which was a good defense would’ve slowed them down!

[Bolts223]

18 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said:

Historic, no. Best in the league, you’re damn right.

Sure you can pick out games where they weren’t playing all that well but in large part they dominated particularly as the season progressed. Those games where they supposedly didn’t play well in your eyes due to “sacks allowed” happened very early in the year. Seattle was an anomaly because they conceded more pressure in that game any other by far. 

I don’t understand, you saw them destroy some of the best defenses in the league and you still think that those Pats somehow would’ve bucked the trend because it’s an upgrade on what the Eagles actually faced in the SB even though the Eagles faced better defenses than the 2014 Pats and had no issue putting up say least 30 on those better defenses. But The 2014 Pats which was a good defense would’ve slowed them down!

1) Slowing them down means holding them to less than 33 points - which is not at all a stretch.

2) I can point to other games where the Eagles offense was slowed down or even completely shut down in some cases.

3) The league in 2014 was just flat out more competitive and stronger than it was this past year. Neither the 2017 Eagles or Patriots make the SB in 2014 IMO.

[Kip Smithers]

40 minutes ago, Bolts223 said:

1) Slowing them down means holding them to less than 33 points - which is not at all a stretch.

2) I can point to other games where the Eagles offense was slowed down or even completely shut down in some cases.

3) The league in 2014 was just flat out more competitive and stronger than it was this past year. Neither the 2017 Eagles or Patriots make the SB in 2014 IMO.

And it’s not a stretch to say they score over 33. So what’s your point? They were shut down relatively speaking twice the whole year. Seattle, Atlanta and a meaningless last regular season game. Big whoop. It’s a 16-20 game season, you aren’t gonna be perfect all the way through . It doesn’t make them less dominant. 

In 2014, maybe Philly lose to Seattle. That’s it. I don’t see any other team in the NFC beating them. Rodgers was hobbled and Philly are just a more complete version of Dallas. Seattle were a great team, and they had the defense and the QB to cause Philly problems.

[lancerman]

2 hours ago, Kip Smithers said:

And it’s not a stretch to say they score over 33. So what’s your point? They were shut down relatively speaking twice the whole year. Seattle, Atlanta and a meaningless last regular season game. Big whoop. It’s a 16-20 game season, you aren’t gonna be perfect all the way through . It doesn’t make them less dominant. 

In 2014, maybe Philly lose to Seattle. That’s it. I don’t see any other team in the NFC beating them. Rodgers was hobbled and Philly are just a more complete version of Dallas. Seattle were a great team, and they had the defense and the QB to cause Philly problems.

LOL no 2014 was a much more difficult year. In the NFC ALONE

-The Seahawks who you conceded

-Green Bay with Rodgers on an MVP year, healthy Jordy, strong overall receiving corp, Eddie Lacy having his best year, and an actual competent defense. 

- Dallas with an even better offensive line than the Eagles, Murray having a career year, Romo playing good enough that he was in MVP consideration for a spell, and a better WR than anybody on the Eagles. 

You are comically overhyping the Eagles and their offensive line. Their is no metric that puts their offensive line even in the top of the league this year, let alone to make it historical.

Like I said, recency bias. The 2014 Patriots had a very similar offense and would have actually had the guy who was their best receiver over the last few years. Then everybody they add on defense. So if they get one more score or one more stop they win. 

Honestly, they probably don't make it out of the NFC. NFC was a joke this year. Atlanta took a step back, Vikings had a good defense, but Keenum crapped the bed against the Eagles (and lets be honest, Vikings wouldn't be there if Rodgers wasn't injured), Seahawks have been getting worse every year, the Rams still aren't there yet. It was a weak year. 

[Kip Smithers]

46 minutes ago, lancerman said:

LOL no 2014 was a much more difficult year. In the NFC ALONE

-The Seahawks who you conceded

-Green Bay with Rodgers on an MVP year, healthy Jordy, strong overall receiving corp, Eddie Lacy having his best year, and an actual competent defense. 

- Dallas with an even better offensive line than the Eagles, Murray having a career year, Romo playing good enough that he was in MVP consideration for a spell, and a better WR than anybody on the Eagles. 

You are comically overhyping the Eagles and their offensive line. Their is no metric that puts their offensive line even in the top of the league this year, let alone to make it historical.

Like I said, recency bias. The 2014 Patriots had a very similar offense and would have actually had the guy who was their best receiver over the last few years. Then everybody they add on defense. So if they get one more score or one more stop they win. 

Honestly, they probably don't make it out of the NFC. NFC was a joke this year. Atlanta took a step back, Vikings had a good defense, but Keenum crapped the bed against the Eagles (and lets be honest, Vikings wouldn't be there if Rodgers wasn't injured), Seahawks have been getting worse every year, the Rams still aren't there yet. It was a weak year. 

I agree it was a tougher in 2014 in the NFC but not by much. Seattle is the best I agree. But after that it could be anyone Eagles, Packers, Saints, Cowboys, Vikings. Remember Rodgers got injured and he wasn’t the same. 

Carson Wentz was the MVP before he got hurt, you forget that. 

Dallas were a better line (not by much), and they had Murray who was slowing down as weeks went on because they were soooo dependant on him. Eagles have  3 RBs they could rotate. And yes they may not have the 2014 Dez they had a well rounded offense that could attack you in a lot of ways. They had a better offensive staff. Stop looking at it simply 1v1. 

No metric? PFF says so. There’s the metric you’re clamouring for. If that’s not enough for you, most would objective performance observers would say so. Started of slowly and morphed into a dominant unit.

It wasn’t a comically weak year for the NFC. Weaker, perhaps. Keenum playing poorly vs Eagles (which Phillys defense had NOTHING to do with apparently) doesn’t negate his play. Vikings had an elite defenses and a good offense. Saints were a very good balanced team and then the Eagles.

Youre not getting it. I never said the Eagles would definitely win, heck I don’t think I even said they’d win. So you saying “all it takes is one more stop” is besides the point. I said it’d still be a SHOOTOUT regardless of the upgrades on defense.

[Soko]

4 hours ago, Kip Smithers said:

They were shut down relatively speaking twice the whole year.

 

4 hours ago, Kip Smithers said:

Seattle, Atlanta and a meaningless last regular season game. 

Please, keep educating us...

[lancerman]

40 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said:

I agree it was a tougher in 2014 in the NFC but not by much. Seattle is the best I agree. But after that it could be anyone Eagles, Packers, Saints, Cowboys, Vikings. Remember Rodgers got injured and he wasn’t the same. 

Carson Wentz was the MVP before he got hurt, you forget that. 

Dallas were a better line (not by much), and they had Murray who was slowing down as weeks went on because they were soooo dependant on him. Eagles have  3 RBs they could rotate. And yes they may not have the 2014 Dez they had a well rounded offense that could attack you in a lot of ways. They had a better offensive staff. Stop looking at it simply 1v1. 

No metric? PFF says so. There’s the metric you’re clamouring for. If that’s not enough for you, most would objective performance observers would say so. Started of slowly and morphed into a dominant unit.

It wasn’t a comically weak year for the NFC. Weaker, perhaps. Keenum playing poorly vs Eagles (which Phillys defense had NOTHING to do with apparently) doesn’t negate his play. Vikings had an elite defenses and a good offense. Saints were a very good balanced team and then the Eagles.

Youre not getting it. I never said the Eagles would definitely win, heck I don’t think I even said they’d win. So you saying “all it takes is one more stop” is besides the point. I said it’d still be a SHOOTOUT regardless of the upgrades on defense.

1. The Packers almost beat that Seattle team, the Patriots did beat that Seattle team, and the Cowboys almost beat that Packers team, all 4 of those teams were in the ballpark. 

2. Wentz WAS NOT the MVP before he got injured. That's just something people who were upset about what happened keep telling themselves. Brady was ahead of Wentz in every statistic besides TD's  by a solid margin when Wentz got injured. Better percentage, better average, better rating, fewer interceptions. Brady also had the worse team, worse running game, and worse defense. The only thing Wentz had pretty much all year over Brady was TD's and his team was one game ahead. And before Wentz went down they were tied record wise. Pretty much everyone had Brady ahead by that point. IF Wentz kept his pace he may have overtaken Brady by the end of the season. But he absolutely was not the MVP before he was injured. Honestly it really wasn't close. If the MVP vote happened the day Wentz went down, then Brady would have won in a landslide because of how far ahead of Wentz he was in nearly every stat. 

3. Okay I don't really read PFF, but DVOA doesn't have them anywhere near the top. 

4. It was pretty weak. Rodgers was down, Atlanta took a step back, Seattle's entire Legion of Boom was injured, the Cowboys were a circus with the Zeke situation, the Giants who were highly touted completely fell apart. The Vikings would have been lucky to get anything but a wildcard if not for Rodgers injury. The fact is Keenum did play poorly and it cost his team dearly. And honestly, Keenum's struggles (whether you want to give more credit to the Eagles defense) had more to do with the blowout you keep mentioning. Comparatively it was a very weak year.

 

[Bolts223]

3 hours ago, lancerman said:

1. The Packers almost beat that Seattle team, the Patriots did beat that Seattle team, and the Cowboys almost beat that Packers team, all 4 of those teams were in the ballpark. 

2. Wentz WAS NOT the MVP before he got injured. That's just something people who were upset about what happened keep telling themselves. Brady was ahead of Wentz in every statistic besides TD's  by a solid margin when Wentz got injured. Better percentage, better average, better rating, fewer interceptions. Brady also had the worse team, worse running game, and worse defense. The only thing Wentz had pretty much all year over Brady was TD's and his team was one game ahead. And before Wentz went down they were tied record wise. Pretty much everyone had Brady ahead by that point. IF Wentz kept his pace he may have overtaken Brady by the end of the season. But he absolutely was not the MVP before he was injured. Honestly it really wasn't close. If the MVP vote happened the day Wentz went down, then Brady would have won in a landslide because of how far ahead of Wentz he was in nearly every stat. 

3. Okay I don't really read PFF, but DVOA doesn't have them anywhere near the top. 

4. It was pretty weak. Rodgers was down, Atlanta took a step back, Seattle's entire Legion of Boom was injured, the Cowboys were a circus with the Zeke situation, the Giants who were highly touted completely fell apart. The Vikings would have been lucky to get anything but a wildcard if not for Rodgers injury. The fact is Keenum did play poorly and it cost his team dearly. And honestly, Keenum's struggles (whether you want to give more credit to the Eagles defense) had more to do with the blowout you keep mentioning. Comparatively it was a very weak year.

 

Just to add to that point, the Cowboys actually did beat that Seattle team in the regular season. IN SEATTLE.

[Kip Smithers]

5 hours ago, lancerman said:

1. The Packers almost beat that Seattle team, the Patriots did beat that Seattle team, and the Cowboys almost beat that Packers team, all 4 of those teams were in the ballpark. 

2. Wentz WAS NOT the MVP before he got injured. That's just something people who were upset about what happened keep telling themselves. Brady was ahead of Wentz in every statistic besides TD's  by a solid margin when Wentz got injured. Better percentage, better average, better rating, fewer interceptions. Brady also had the worse team, worse running game, and worse defense. The only thing Wentz had pretty much all year over Brady was TD's and his team was one game ahead. And before Wentz went down they were tied record wise. Pretty much everyone had Brady ahead by that point. IF Wentz kept his pace he may have overtaken Brady by the end of the season. But he absolutely was not the MVP before he was injured. Honestly it really wasn't close. If the MVP vote happened the day Wentz went down, then Brady would have won in a landslide because of how far ahead of Wentz he was in nearly every stat. 

3. Okay I don't really read PFF, but DVOA doesn't have them anywhere near the top. 

4. It was pretty weak. Rodgers was down, Atlanta took a step back, Seattle's entire Legion of Boom was injured, the Cowboys were a circus with the Zeke situation, the Giants who were highly touted completely fell apart. The Vikings would have been lucky to get anything but a wildcard if not for Rodgers injury. The fact is Keenum did play poorly and it cost his team dearly. And honestly, Keenum's struggles (whether you want to give more credit to the Eagles defense) had more to do with the blowout you keep mentioning. Comparatively it was a very weak year.

 

1. Yeah the Packers almost won due to Russell having the worst game of is career by far. Let’s not put that as a reflection of how good the Packers were at the time as Rodgers was injured. 

2. Whatever, MVP or not he was in the convo. A had a good chance of winning it. Gosh, how sensitive are you. “Brady would’ve won in a landslide”, that’s silly but no surprise there. 

3. They’re both rubbish metrics. DVOA is good for you know, measuring defenses not o-line and you would’ve known it’s rubbjsh if you know read their formula instead of just looking at a table. But I’ll give you a lay up, NFL next Gen stats has them 20th which is ridiculous. They judge it by pressures and if a defender is at 2 yards away from QB. Not very reliable to me. 

4. Rodgers was down in 2017 too. Atlanta I agree took a step back. Vikings were the #2 seed winning 13 games so to dismiss them and say they still wouldn’t have gotten the #2 seed or rather wouldn’t have had a good chance to get it is ridiculous given how we have seen how poor the Packers are without him. So what if he played poorly that game. It happens. It doesn’t make the Vikings any lesser of a team because he had a poor game. Now if he had been playing bad all year and the Vikings had still managed to get 13 wins then fair but he wasn’t. They got blown out because the Foles was playing very well, Vikings defense couldn’t get pressure on Foles and yes the Eagles defense plsyed lights out forcing Keenum to play poorly. Saints, Eagles and Vikings vs Packers, Cowboys and Seattle. It wasn’t that much better. 

[CP3MVP]

The eagles offensive line is apparently  1992 cowboys status

[Kip Smithers]

14 minutes ago, CP3MVP said:

The eagles offensive line is apparently  1992 cowboys status

Patriots defense is also 85 bears status...

[lancerman]

You don’t need to be the 1985 Bears to slow down the Eagles. You need a decent a pass rush (2014 Pats had that) a good run stop (pats had that) abs a strong secondary and linebacker Corp to match up with the Eagles weapons (pats had that). 

[Jeezla]

2 hours ago, lancerman said:

You don’t need to be the 1985 Bears to slow down the Eagles. You need a decent a pass rush (2014 Pats had that) a good run stop (pats had that) abs a strong secondary and linebacker Corp to match up with the Eagles weapons (pats had that). 

The 2017/2018 Vikings had all of that. Didn't help them. There's no defense that can stop perfect throws, and Foles was en fuego after Atlanta with his accuracy and timing, not to mention he was great feeling pressure and moving around the pocket when DL's did get a push (usually against our LT Vaitai).