HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2008 Philadelphia Eagles: Part Wait..What?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-09-2008, 09:19 PM
  #151
TheDrizzle81
Registered User
 
TheDrizzle81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Marlton NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,357
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to TheDrizzle81
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikedifr View Post
Exactly. The receivers would be fine if the team were actually running the ball. Reid is the problem in that regard, not the receivers.

Didinger brought up a stat several weeks ago that the Eagles are 30-5 or something like that when they run more than pass over Reid's tenure here. He is such a pigheaded ******* though and doesnt realize this.
add 2 wins to that stat. the giants game was just beautiful. the way they ran the ball and the TOP was amazing. Thats how you win.

TheDrizzle81 is offline  
Old
12-09-2008, 09:23 PM
  #152
mikedifr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDrizzle81 View Post
add 2 wins to that stat. the giants game was just beautiful. the way they ran the ball and the TOP was amazing. Thats how you win.
Exactly. The only team I have ever seen control the clock well with passing is NE.

mikedifr is offline  
Old
12-09-2008, 09:44 PM
  #153
TheDrizzle81
Registered User
 
TheDrizzle81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Marlton NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,357
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to TheDrizzle81
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikedifr View Post
Exactly. The only team I have ever seen control the clock well with passing is NE.
And honestly I think McNabb is more effective when they run more, takes pressure off him, and i think allows him to run more. When defenses focus on westbrook and have the recievers covered, they forget about ol number 5.

TheDrizzle81 is offline  
Old
12-09-2008, 10:32 PM
  #154
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikedifr View Post
Exactly. The only team I have ever seen control the clock well with passing is NE.
Meh, they didn't really control the clock...they just ran up the score until they ran into a team that could pass rush and pound the ball themselves.

Jester is offline  
Old
12-09-2008, 10:33 PM
  #155
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDrizzle81 View Post
And honestly I think McNabb is more effective when they run more, takes pressure off him, and i think allows him to run more. When defenses focus on westbrook and have the recievers covered, they forget about ol number 5.
There isn't a QB in the world who isn't better with a good running game. It draws safeties and linebackers up towards the line of scrimmage, allows play-action to be more effective, and generally opens things up. Of course, it's also symbiotic, a good passing game can open up the running game by pushing the defense away from the line of scrimmage.

Jester is offline  
Old
12-10-2008, 08:36 AM
  #156
mikedifr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Meh, they didn't really control the clock...they just ran up the score until they ran into a team that could pass rush and pound the ball themselves.
Yeah, last year they did because the best QB in the league already, finally had actual weapons around him and look what happened. Unfortunately that dork Eli Manning did something that McNabb has yet to do, step up and make a huge drive when needed to win in an important game....

Before last year, and even parts of last year, there were times when NE would eat up like 6-7 minutes of clock time with 90% passes....the dink and dunk approach, as compared to the Eagles who since 2004 have decided to be a quick strike offense as opposed to an efficient time of possession type offense thanks to that moron Reid. Other than a year or two of Brady's reign there, they have been predominantly a passing team....using the pass to set up the run as you say below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
There isn't a QB in the world who isn't better with a good running game. It draws safeties and linebackers up towards the line of scrimmage, allows play-action to be more effective, and generally opens things up. Of course, it's also symbiotic, a good passing game can open up the running game by pushing the defense away from the line of scrimmage.
I dont disagree with this.

mikedifr is offline  
Old
12-10-2008, 09:54 AM
  #157
CantSeeColors
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Country: Seychelles
Posts: 5,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikedifr View Post
Yeah, last year they did because the best QB in the league already, finally had actual weapons around him and look what happened. Unfortunately that dork Eli Manning did something that McNabb has yet to do, step up and make a huge drive when needed to win in an important game....
First you criticize McNabb's carelessness in a few games this year, then you're praising that crazy pass Eli threw? The helmet catch was the epitome of Favreish recklessness by the QB. Eli didn't lead that team to the SB all by himself. He was simply good enough to win when combined with a great defense and a good rushing game, something McNabb is equally capable of doing when the coaching staff decides they want to do things the right way.

CantSeeColors is offline  
Old
12-10-2008, 09:57 AM
  #158
mikedifr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CantSeeColors View Post
First you criticize McNabb's carelessness in a few games this year, then you're praising that crazy pass Eli threw? The helmet catch was the epitome of Favreish recklessness by the QB. Eli didn't lead that team to the SB all by himself. He was simply good enough to win when combined with a great defense and a good rushing game, something McNabb is equally capable of doing when the coaching staff decides they want to do things the right way.
Eli and the Giants had the ball with a chance to win and drove the team up the field at the end of the game in the superbowl against NE.

What did McNabb do at the end of the game with a chance to win, in the superbowl against NE?

I am not claiming Eli is better than McNabb overall, but he came through when he needed to and make a huge play, something McNabb had the chance to do and didnt.

That "Favreish" recklessness has won 2 QBs a superbowl now...

mikedifr is offline  
Old
12-10-2008, 10:01 AM
  #159
CantSeeColors
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Country: Seychelles
Posts: 5,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikedifr View Post
Eli and the Giants had the ball with a chance to win and drove the team up the field at the end of the game in the superbowl against NE.

What did McNabb do at the end of the game with a chance to win, in the superbowl against NE?

I am not claiming Eli is better than McNabb overall, but he came through when he needed to and make a huge play, something McNabb had the chance to do and didnt.

That "Favreish" recklessness has won 2 QBs a superbowl now...
Honestly I don't remember too much from that game anymore, but blame the coaches for not installing a hurry-up offense before you blame McNabb. If you're going to bring up an interception McNabb may or may not have thrown (honestly I don't remember much of that game), I'll counter by pointing out the ball Eli threw directly to Asante Samuel on that game winning drive that somehow fell out of his hands. Maybe the Eagles would have won too if they could have been so lucky. As far as I can see, the only difference between the Giants win last year and the Eagles loss in 2004 is luck.

So Favre won two Super Bowls, Eli wins one with similar passing, and you're arguing that McNabb needs to be less reckless? That's interesting.

CantSeeColors is offline  
Old
12-10-2008, 10:20 AM
  #160
mikedifr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CantSeeColors View Post
Honestly I don't remember too much from that game anymore, but blame the coaches for not installing a hurry-up offense before you blame McNabb. If you're going to bring up an interception McNabb may or may not have thrown (honestly I don't remember much of that game), I'll counter by pointing out the ball Eli threw directly to Asante Samuel on that game winning drive that somehow fell out of his hands. Maybe the Eagles would have won too if they could have been so lucky. As far as I can see, the only difference between the Giants win last year and the Eagles loss in 2004 is luck.

So Favre won two Super Bowls, Eli wins one with similar passing, and you're arguing that McNabb needs to be less reckless? That's interesting.
McNabb didnt throw an interception at the end of the SB that I remember, he couldnt even move 10 yards up the field...he had 3 the rest of the game though.....

McNabb - Superbowl
TD Int Comp% Rating
3 3 58.8 75.4

Eli Manning SUperbowl
2 1 55.9 87.3

Other than completion %, Eli had the better game by a small margin. The whole issue goes back to NOT losing the game. A QB doesnt always have to win the game for you, but he cant lose it either. I would bet that few, if any, QBs have won a superbowl while throwing 3 interceptions in the game. The only one I believe he ended on an interception was the St Louis conference championship.

Favre won one superbowl and made it to another but didnt win. Eli won one superbowl.

I am talking about something specific and you are broadening the scope. If anything, not being wreckless has been a McNabb stregth over his career, although I would like to see him take a little more risk sometimes. My comment about him being wreckless was specificly related to the several weeks leading up to the last two games in which he has played much better, and was a response to the comment about how many passes he was throwing The point was that regardless of how many passes were thrown (58 against the bengals but all other games were in the 30-40 range he usually falls in) it is inexcusable to throw that many interceptions. I dont care who the coach is, who called the plays, what the system was, what the plays were. DONT MAKE STUPID THROWS.

Other than the first game where he beat up on the St Louis Rams and the Dallas game which was clearly a fluke on both sides, he then went the next 10 games with 10 TDs and 10 Ints......that is TERRIBLE, especially for someone who was always great at protecting the ball.

I am not claiming Reid's innocence in any of this, he is terrible, but seriously.....3 interceptions against the Bengals??? THE BENGALS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look, I am giving him credit for playing very well the last two weeks, but even the McNabb supporters have to admit he was playing terrible for about 10 weeks there

mikedifr is offline  
Old
12-10-2008, 10:40 AM
  #161
CantSeeColors
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Country: Seychelles
Posts: 5,472
vCash: 500
I would say he really only had those two bad weeks. He wasn't great other times, but not bad. Yes, he played poorly in those two games, I won't deny that. But, as you have said yourself in this thread, we all have our bad days. Beyond that, how is the guy supposed to succeed when he's got no running game to back him up? He could have played better, but Reid's failure to address RB depth was the real problem in those games.

If we're specifically talking about this past SB and Eli "not losing the game," that really comes down to Samuel's drop, no? Funny how things come down to luck so often. Of course, playing in Philadelphia, it's never on McNabb's side.

CantSeeColors is offline  
Old
12-10-2008, 10:44 AM
  #162
mikedifr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CantSeeColors View Post
I would say he really only had those two bad weeks. He wasn't great other times, but not bad. Yes, he played poorly in those two games, I won't deny that. But, as you have said yourself in this thread, we all have our bad days. Beyond that, how is the guy supposed to succeed when he's got no running game to back him up? He could have played better, but Reid's failure to address RB depth was the real problem in those games.

If we're specifically talking about this past SB and Eli "not losing the game," that really comes down to Samuel's drop, no? Funny how things come down to luck so often. Of course, playing in Philadelphia, it's never on McNabb's side.
Well, lets agree that he was somewhere in between being bad for 10 weeks like I said, and the 2 weeks like you say......We agree that Reid is the bigger issue and the team needs to run the ball, no question there.

Correct me if I am wrong, but werent you on the same side as me when it came to McNabb two years ago when I first had this battle on here?????

mikedifr is offline  
Old
12-10-2008, 12:10 PM
  #163
CantSeeColors
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Country: Seychelles
Posts: 5,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikedifr View Post
Well, lets agree that he was somewhere in between being bad for 10 weeks like I said, and the 2 weeks like you say......We agree that Reid is the bigger issue and the team needs to run the ball, no question there.

Correct me if I am wrong, but werent you on the same side as me when it came to McNabb two years ago when I first had this battle on here?????
I think I was at some point, yes. Lately I feel like people just put too much emphasis on individual players (any of them, not just the QB). Players have such narrow skillsets in football that all a GM needs to do is find a guy who does that one little thing very very well and find a coach who can put those various abilities in the right place on the field. Obviously that's a gross oversimplification, but after observing the rapid rise and fall of so many great players it seems to me that it's really just a big chess match out there with pieces that happen to breathe. The fact that McNabb has been able to perform at a relatively high level for a decade has made me believe he's been worthy of my respect. I still don't think he's a match for Reid's philosophies, but given the right offense and playcaller, I think he could still win a super bowl.

CantSeeColors is offline  
Old
12-10-2008, 12:45 PM
  #164
mikedifr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CantSeeColors View Post
I think I was at some point, yes. Lately I feel like people just put too much emphasis on individual players (any of them, not just the QB). Players have such narrow skillsets in football that all a GM needs to do is find a guy who does that one little thing very very well and find a coach who can put those various abilities in the right place on the field. Obviously that's a gross oversimplification, but after observing the rapid rise and fall of so many great players it seems to me that it's really just a big chess match out there with pieces that happen to breathe. The fact that McNabb has been able to perform at a relatively high level for a decade has made me believe he's been worthy of my respect. I still don't think he's a match for Reid's philosophies, but given the right offense and playcaller, I think he could still win a super bowl.
I dont disagree at all.....The west coast offense, or in this case Reid's bastardized version of it, is certainly not the right fit for McNabb. Never has been and never will be. His skillset does not fit this type of offense. Reid has been a major problem since he has been here in my opinion and I want him gone more than even McNabb.

Can McNabb be more effective in another system?? Maybe. Wouldnt surprise me in the least....

Can McNabb win a superbowl given the right offense and playcaller?? Maybe. I have my doubts from what I have seen from him over his career....

The point I have always tried to make regarding McNabb that people usually miss (which is most likely my fault cause I present so much ******** at once when having this debate) is that when I say he CANT win a superbowl, what I really mean is I dont think he is a guy that is going to carry you to the superbowl and be "THE MAN"

What I mean by that, and where my comparisons to Brady and Favre come from, are that I dont think McNabb can win the SB being without a doubt the single best player on the team, as he has been most of his career here in Philly There is no question in my mind that Brady and Favre were the best players on their teams and the ones that made those teams go. Montana, regardless of all the weapons he had in SF was the one that made that team tick. He had that great legendary drive down the field against the Bengals to win the game and almost single handedly took the Chiefs to the superbowl. On the other hand, teams like Pittsburgh and Baltimore, it wasnt the QB that made them go, it was the running game and defense. Their QBs were just asked NOT to lose the game and be efficient.

In 2004, McNabb was NOT the best player on the team. TO was. TO brought the swagger, the attitude, the fear to the opposition. He wasnt a leader in the truest definition of a leader, but he is the guy that carried the team. A team that was on the brink every year up until then was finally put over the top with him coming here.

I question McNabb's mental capacity to be that guy, not his physical ability, for many reason that I have mentioned countless times on here........The same criticsm was always made of Lindros. He didnt want to be the man, he just wanted to be "one of the boys"

Take a look at what Romo said when he was called out by TO. He basically took the blame for it and moved on....where as McNabb seems to get so sensitive about things all the time.

McNabb might be very capable of winning a superbowl similar to how Elway did....(i.e. No longer the man being asked to carry the team) with a stud running back and great defense. However, that is not how it has been during his career here. Other than 2004, he was clearly far and away the best player on the team and was asked to carry them to the promised land. It hasnt happened and I dont ever see it happening.

They have had the oppotunity here to build around him...Westbrook is now arguably the best player on this team and the one that carries them, however, the moron that calls the shots does not know how to do anything other than "Ask McNabb to win the game" and certainly is an even worse GM.

EDIT: I was just watching Daily News Live and they were saying on there that one of the reasons for more running plays the past couple of weeks is because they do not trust McNabb right now to make the big throws. They mentioned that a lot of his passes were in the dirt against NYG and that 12 of his 19 completions were check downs or little passes to the running back or TEs. Baldinger seemed think that while he was better, he is still concered that he isnt playing like McNabb can.

Now I didnt see the Giants game, but it seems like I am not the only criticizing his play so far this season.


Last edited by mikedifr: 12-10-2008 at 04:20 PM.
mikedifr is offline  
Old
12-10-2008, 06:36 PM
  #165
CantSeeColors
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Country: Seychelles
Posts: 5,472
vCash: 500
I don't really disagree with any of that, but how many QBs can really make those throws consistently? The Mannings (maybe only one of them), Brady, Brees, and maybe a few others. Very few super bowl winning QBs have actually been the leaders on their team. Eli wasn't (even though he's the face now), Roflisberger wasn't, I can't even remember who it was on that Tampa team (but I'm willing to guess the defense was their big thing), Brady wasn't his first time around, Dilfer wasn't, Elway wasn't, Aikman probably wasn't as much as Emmitt and Irvin. Since the '92 season the only QBs who really carried their teams to super bowl victories have been Young, Favre, maybe Warner, two of Brady's, and maybe Peyton (although I'd say no since they didn't break through until their defense stopped being a sieve). And all of them had someone great to help them if they couldn't cut it on a given day. McNabb hasn't had that very much. Could he be better? Sure. But he could also be much, much worse. The Eagles are a few terrible coaching decisions from being something like 11-3 right now. McNabb shouldn't have to make up for Reid's failures.

CantSeeColors is offline  
Old
12-10-2008, 07:51 PM
  #166
mikedifr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CantSeeColors View Post
I don't really disagree with any of that, but how many QBs can really make those throws consistently? The Mannings (maybe only one of them), Brady, Brees, and maybe a few others. Very few super bowl winning QBs have actually been the leaders on their team. Eli wasn't (even though he's the face now), Roflisberger wasn't, I can't even remember who it was on that Tampa team (but I'm willing to guess the defense was their big thing), Brady wasn't his first time around, Dilfer wasn't, Elway wasn't, Aikman probably wasn't as much as Emmitt and Irvin. Since the '92 season the only QBs who really carried their teams to super bowl victories have been Young, Favre, maybe Warner, two of Brady's, and maybe Peyton (although I'd say no since they didn't break through until their defense stopped being a sieve). And all of them had someone great to help them if they couldn't cut it on a given day. McNabb hasn't had that very much. Could he be better? Sure. But he could also be much, much worse. The Eagles are a few terrible coaching decisions from being something like 11-3 right now. McNabb shouldn't have to make up for Reid's failures.
Thing is McNabb did have a great team around him that one year and he blew it......Not many teams get a second chance at the SB, which is why you need to win it when you are there.

Elway wasnt that kind of guy by time he won the SB but he did lead his team to a couple. I cant even remember who else was on thost Bronco teams but he may have had better players around him than I am remembering. I would add Simms to that list as well.

Aikman, while he had Emmit Smith, Irvin is terribly overrated in my opinion, was great in his own right and was one of the most accurate passers of all time

McNabb shouldnt have to make up for Reid's failures, I agree, but he doesnt have to add to them.....Jimmy Mac won with the Bears. Yes, they had arguably the greatest defense of all time and he had one of the greatest running backs of all time. However, his coach was a complete baffoon when he called the plays so Mac just changed them all the time......I know, I know, that is tough to do with the Eagles.....The other problem is that McNabb shares a brain with his coach. Do you think if Aikman, Young, Montana, Favre, Brady, Simms, etc. didnt like or didnt agree with what their coach was doing, or thought something could be done better they wouldnt speak up??? I am sure they would but McNabb keeps on drinking the Reid kool aid.....They are too loyal too each other and that is a major problem as well.

They may be a few coaching decisions away from a better record, that is what happens every year....Didnt the Giants have a dropped pass by a rookie that changed the whole momentum of the game the other day??? If he catches that we might not win that game. You can say this basically every week unless it is a blow out....

I would take the following QBs over McNabb definitely: Brady, Breese, P. Manning, most likely Rothlesberger (wasnt responsible for the SB, but has turned into a good QB since, having an off year though due to battling through some injuries apparently) Jay Cutler, Kurt Warner, I might even have to say Eli Manning after last year.

You also then need to count young up and coming guys like Matt Ryan and Aaron Rogers who are looking pretty damn good with little experience.

My other favorite piece of the argument is when you look at all the QBs that have won the superbowl, whether they were the primary reason or not, other than a few exceptions they are all the anti-McNabb.....(i.e. Not very athletic, not bigger than the linebackers, not very mobile but good pocket passers who for the most part were very efficient and accurate)

mikedifr is offline  
Old
12-10-2008, 08:59 PM
  #167
TheDrizzle81
Registered User
 
TheDrizzle81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Marlton NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,357
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to TheDrizzle81
[QUOTE=the700level.com]With every game from here to the end of the season pretty much being a playoff life-and-death situation, the Eagles defense has taken a page from the NHL tradition of growing playoff beards. Speaking with Comcast SportsNet, Quintin Mikell said that Brian Dawkins came up with the idea of growing out their facial hair as a constant reminder that everything is on the line every day now.

After the way they dismantled the Giants on Sunday, we're looking forward to what this hairy lot does to the Browns this week.
QUOTE]


I will be participating in this lol. just like i did for the phillies and flyers last spring.

TheDrizzle81 is offline  
Old
12-11-2008, 04:27 PM
  #168
Amateur Hour
Registered User
 
Amateur Hour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Negadelphia
Posts: 6,507
vCash: 500
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3763209

This is fantastic. TO is just a jealous gay lover. He is what he is and will forever be that way, it just didn't happen right away this time. Here's to the impending circus that's about to erupt in Dallas, and Jerry Jones helplessly watching what he has created blow up in his Botox-infested face.

Amateur Hour is offline  
Old
12-11-2008, 04:50 PM
  #169
mikedifr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amateur Hour View Post
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3763209

This is fantastic. TO is just a jealous gay lover. He is what he is and will forever be that way, it just didn't happen right away this time. Here's to the impending circus that's about to erupt in Dallas, and Jerry Jones helplessly watching what he has created blow up in his Botox-infested face.
"To be completely honest, I just think Tony is over it; not like, "Screw it.' But I think Tony is over the mind games,'' the player said. "It would help if Tony would stand up to him, but he would never do it. He does a great job of ignoring it and not letting it affect him, and that's why it has worked as good as it has. It's just hard. I think right now everybody is to the point where, "We're going to need him, so let's not piss him off.''

That is all you need to do......ignore him. You know TO is like this. You know he is going to cry, and start trouble...blah...blah....blah

These are grown men we're talking about..............IGNORE HIM

mikedifr is offline  
Old
12-12-2008, 01:19 AM
  #170
The Big Swede
Registered User
 
The Big Swede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Gatineau,Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amateur Hour View Post
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3763209

This is fantastic. TO is just a jealous gay lover. He is what he is and will forever be that way, it just didn't happen right away this time. Here's to the impending circus that's about to erupt in Dallas, and Jerry Jones helplessly watching what he has created blow up in his Botox-infested face.
An idiot will always stay an idiot

Big game coming up against the Browns on MNF

The Big Swede is offline  
Old
12-14-2008, 08:00 AM
  #171
DeadPhish5858
Rumham!
 
DeadPhish5858's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: the Shade
Country: United States
Posts: 13,476
vCash: 200
Send a message via AIM to DeadPhish5858
There are two of us left in my suicide pool. Im taking the Eagles this week. I dont even know who I have left at this point.

DeadPhish5858 is offline  
Old
12-14-2008, 03:18 PM
  #172
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 450
Eagles need 3 wins plus have Carolina lose 3 games (DEN, @NYG, @NO) or one of the following four games to go their way:

SD over TB @ TB
MIN over ATL @ MIN

OAK over TB @ TB
STL over ATL @ ATL

MountainHawk is offline  
Old
12-14-2008, 03:32 PM
  #173
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,690
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Why did Atlanta have to win?

BillyShoe1721 is offline  
Old
12-14-2008, 09:55 PM
  #174
Cleary84
Registered User
 
Cleary84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,424
vCash: 500
So if the Cowgirls win tonight which it looks as though, are we done?

Cleary84 is offline  
Old
12-14-2008, 10:23 PM
  #175
The Big Swede
Registered User
 
The Big Swede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Gatineau,Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyers84 View Post
So if the Cowgirls win tonight which it looks as though, are we done?
Nope

If we win out and one of Atlanta or Tampa Bay looses a game were in

The Big Swede is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:50 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.