Best SB Winner Since 2010

[Nabbs4u]

Quote

It's kind of ridiculous to say you expected Wentz to have a much better performance or to say that his play in any way limited your chances of winning. 

 

 

Never said better said

Quote

but let's not act like Wentz wasn't having a 33-7 type year/ MVP Candidate and capable too. He could of easily done the same!

You can spit numbers all you want but to suggest Foles who went from Average QB play to Phenomenal can't be duplicated even though Wentz was playing at a Elite level (which he was) to Phenomenal, is absurd. Like stupidly absurd.

I know it's easier suggesting Foles run was basically (Luck, Magical, Unattainable by another) to justify your loss, but in the End ,in no way shape or form you will ever convince me the 2017 Eagles were " better" without Carson Wentz. You can take that pipe and smoke it somewhere else.

Not happening! Caught the naysayers sleeping sure, better you're on crack. 

[///mcompact]

Well, let's use the logic.  If we're to assume that Wentz would've played better than Foles in the SB, then how many more points than 41 would the Eagles have scored?  Would the Eagles have scored 48 points? 51? 55?  Foles played lights in the last two games of the post season.  Had Foles bombed in the playoffs, then I'd be right there with everyone saying "Wentz would've given them a waaay better chance in those games." 

[thebestever6]

Seattle with that defense along with the wilson lynch combo was unstoppable.  I think Pete Carol is a terrible coach. They carried him to 2 superbowls and won against a historically great offense.  They were also a run away from beating the Patriots.

Seattle had the most dominant 4 or 5 year team I've ever seen.

[lancerman]

1 hour ago, Nabbs4u said:

 

 

Never said better said

You can spit numbers all you want but to suggest Foles who went from Average QB play to Phenomenal can't be duplicated even though Wentz was playing at a Elite level (which he was) to Phenomenal, is absurd. Like stupidly absurd.

I know it's easier suggesting Foles run was basically (Luck, Magical, Unattainable by another) to justify your loss, but in the End ,in no way shape or form you will ever convince me the 2017 Eagles were " better" without Carson Wentz. You can take that pipe and smoke it somewhere else.

Not happening! Caught the naysayers sleeping sure, better you're on crack. 

Duplication isn't the point. The point is even if Wentz went in the playoffs and upped his game, he still likely isn't going to have a better performance than Foles. And if he does it's going to be splitting hairs.

So just disengenous to act like the Eagles were operating at a handicap. They played as well if not better than anyone could have expected them to play. It's highly unlikely Wentz was going to surpass Foles performance. It's stupid to suggest otherwise.

[Nabbs4u]

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

2 hours ago, Nabbs4u said:

Never said better said

You can spit numbers all you want but to suggest Foles who went from Average QB play to Phenomenal can't be duplicated even though Wentz was playing at a Elite level (which he was) to Phenomenal, is absurd. Like stupidly absurd.

I know it's easier suggesting Foles run was basically (Luck, Magical, Unattainable by another) to justify your loss, but in the End ,in no way shape or form you will ever convince me the 2017 Eagles were " better" without Carson Wentz. You can take that pipe and smoke it somewhere else.

Not happening! Caught the naysayers sleeping sure, better you're on crack. 

Duplication isn't the point. The point is even if Wentz went in the playoffs and upped his game, he still likely isn't going to have a better performance than Foles. And if he does it's going to be splitting hairs.

So just disengenous to act like the Eagles were operating at a handicap. They played as well if not better than anyone could have expected them to play. It's highly unlikely Wentz was going to surpass Foles performance. It's stupid to suggest otherwise.

Once again Who besides you for the 3rd time is saying Surpass? I've said duplicate.

Once again you're suggesting it's acceptable and understandable that a QB like Foles can step up his game but impossible for Wentz. That's fundamentally flawed thinking no matter how you slice it.

Luckily for the Eagles , it doesn't matter. They still won. So in the End no one will care. 

[lancerman]

37 minutes ago, Nabbs4u said:

Once again Who besides you for the 3rd time is saying Surpass? I've said duplicate.

Once again you're suggesting it's acceptable and understandable that a QB like Foles can step up his game but impossible for Wentz. That's fundamentally flawed thinking no matter how you slice it.

Luckily for the Eagles , it doesn't matter. They still won. So in the End no one will care. 

Actually the person who made the original post that people were responding to you CLEARLY implied that the Eagles won despite the QB. There was only one way to read this post. The discussion didn't start with you. You jumped in and then somewhere a long the way changed the argument to something it wasn't. So cut the attitude over it. 

The original post that was being responded to clearly was implying that his reasoning for saying the Eagles was because they won despite a QB injury. And I and others pointed out that when a QB plays as well as Foles you can't claim that playing with a back up was a deterrent because it's ridiculous to say anybody else would have come in and played better. 

I'm sorry you saw that and got butthurt and felt the need to turn it into an argument about Wentz.

[lancerman]

8 hours ago, oksterling said:

The team that won it all witha backup qb and a bunch of injuries is hard to choose over. Imagine if they were healthy.

For the record, here was the post everyone was responding to. It's pretty hard to say this wasn't implying that the QB being a back up was a detriment to the team's success. 

[Nabbs4u]

5 hours ago, lancerman said:

14 hours ago, oksterling said:

The team that won it all witha backup qb and a bunch of injuries is hard to choose over. Imagine if they were healthy.

For the record, here was the post everyone was responding to. It's pretty hard to say this wasn't implying that the QB being a back up was a detriment to the team's success. 

See you picked out QB, My original post referenced the Entirety of our Injuries. At least before you went on and on with your Wentz-Foles agenda.

Next time try not to Cherry Pick 1/2 a post to fit your agenda. Less confusing that way.

 

Quote

 

You could make the argument yes, but let's not act like Wentz wasn't having a 33-7 type year/ MVP Candidate and capable too. He could of easily done the same!

Then add Peters, Sproles, Hicks, Maragos. 

Yes there defenitly in the discussion having a Top 5 Offense and Top 5 Defense at the same time. 

 

 

[Nabbs4u]

10 hours ago, ///mcompact said:

14 hours ago, oksterling said:

The team that won it all witha backup qb and a bunch of injuries is hard to choose over. Imagine if they were healthy.

So you’d pick the “full-strength” 2017 Eagles to beat the 2013 Legion of Boom?

Honestly, No! However I would of Loved to see what Beast Mode would or would not of done vs our Run D. Especially since that Offense fed off Him?

Sure as hell wouldn't of been similar to the Broncos debacle though IMO.

[The Hitch]

On 10/02/2018 at 6:11 AM, Bolts223 said:

I think people remember the 2013 Seahawks as being so dominant mainly because they destroyed the Broncos so badly.

People forget that both the 49ers and Saints were driving with the ball in a 1-score game with under 2 minutes left in both playoff games.

Great team,  but I think people only really remember the Broncos SB and not the other two playoff games.

Thread is best team not best defense though. 

All the posts voting Seattle just say "omg the defense was great"

But defence is only part of the equation. (in any case I think Denver defense was the best this decade, but Manning sucked so not the best team)

 

[Bolts223]

23 minutes ago, The Hitch said:

Thread is best team not best defense though. 

All the posts voting Seattle just say "omg the defense was great"

But defence is only part of the equation. (in any case I think Denver defense was the best this decade, but Manning sucked so not the best team)

 

Read the rest of my posts - I have made it pretty clear that I think the 2016 Patriots were the best team this decade.

And I honestly think most people just remember Seattle completely obliterating Denver in the Super Bowl that year and forget that they were far from dominant in either of the two earlier playoff games that they played before that.

Seattle was a great team, not only one of the best we've seen this decade but one of the best we've seen in this century. That having been said, the SB has really given them an undeserved hype when that game is pretty clearly an outlier when you look at what they did for the rest of that season.

 

[Kip Smithers]

1 hour ago, Bolts223 said:

Read the rest of my posts - I have made it pretty clear that I think the 2016 Patriots were the best team this decade.

And I honestly think most people just remember Seattle completely obliterating Denver in the Super Bowl that year and forget that they were far from dominant in either of the two earlier playoff games that they played before that.

Seattle was a great team, not only one of the best we've seen this decade but one of the best we've seen in this century. That having been said, the SB has really given them an undeserved hype when that game is pretty clearly an outlier when you look at what they did for the rest of that season.

 

They dominated the Saints. Saints didn’t score their first point til the 4th. The game was nowhere near as close as the score line suggested. Against 49ers they went up against a team who was kind of on par with them. And Championship games tend to be competitive. They dominated throughout the season and they dominated in the playoffs aside from one game.

The Pats in 2007 didn’t dominate in the playoffs at all. 

[Jlowe22]

6 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said:

They dominated the Saints. Saints didn’t score their first point til the 4th. The game was nowhere near as close as the score line suggested. Against 49ers they went up against a team who was kind of on par with them. And Championship games tend to be competitive. They dominated throughout the season and they dominated in the playoffs aside from one game.

The Pats in 2007 didn’t dominate in the playoffs at all. 

Seattle's performance against the Saints that year is one of the reasons I pick them.  Saints played them twice that year, and it was probably the two worst offensive games of the Brees/Payton era. 

Although we also played them both times at Seattle, a notoriously hard place to play, and the second time around, we had a real chance of winning the game in the fourth. it was 16-8 at the start of the fourth, and the game was winnable at that point.  It wasn't until the Lynch TD with 2 minutes left that it became practically unwinnable.  

[Kip Smithers]

2 minutes ago, Jlowe22 said:

Seattle's performance against the Saints that year is one of the reasons I pick them.  Saints played them twice that year, and it was probably the two worst offensive games of the Brees/Payton era. 

Although we also played them both times at Seattle, a notoriously hard place to play, and the second time around, we had a real chance of winning the game in the fourth. it was 16-8 at the start of the fourth, and the game was winnable at that point.  It wasn't until the Lynch TD with 2 minutes left that it became practically unwinnable.  

See that the thing it didn’t become a game til the 4th Q. Yes it was 16-8 at one point so yes you had a shot but it was a game that Seattle largely dominated. 

[Jlowe22]

Just now, Kip Smithers said:

See that the thing it didn’t become a game til the 4th Q. Yes it was 16-8 at one point so yes you had a shot but it was a game that Seattle largely dominated. 

Yea, they dominated, I'm only saying it wasn't an un-winnable game until very late in the fourth.  Unlike for example, the SB, which got out of hand and continued snowballing out of control.