Archived

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

BKLYNYG

NFC East Team of the Decade

Team of the Decade  

311 members have voted

  1. 1. Team of the Decade

    • Giants
      89
    • Eagles
      214
    • Boys
      4
    • Skins
      4


Recommended Posts

What do you mean "WHO CARES?" Isn't the whole point of this thread is to talk about the NFC East's 2000s teams?? Wtf?

You really are retarded, I'm saying the players weren't the same and they weren't as good those 2 years. They could've gotten older and worse or older and better.

Ok, I will.

The 2004 Eagles are way better than the 2008 Giants

The 2004 Eagles are way better than the 2008 Giants

The 2004 Eagles are way better than the 2008 Giants

The 2004 Eagles are way better than the 2008 Giants

The 2004 Eagles are way better than the 2008 Giants

The 2004 Eagles are way better than the 2008 Giants

The 2004 Eagles are way better than the 2008 Giants

The 2004 Eagles are way better than the 2008 Giants

The 2004 Eagles are way better than the 2008 Giants

The 2004 Eagles are way better than the 2008 Giants

Correct

Yeah, thats factual, considering the '08 Giants haven't stepped onto the field yet. Next time you tell someone they're retarded, try not to look so retarded yourself. And guess what, Brainiac? Free Agency has made sure that no teams will remain exactly the same every year, and it's been that way for close to 20 years now. Its just another piss poor excuse on your part :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then why couldn't they beat the Patriots? The 2008 Giants beat the Patriots.

I can play this game too

The 1986 Giants would beat any Eagles team from any season ever! And it wouldn't even be close!

The 1986 Giants would beat any Eagles team from any season ever! And it wouldn't even be close!

The 1986 Giants would beat any Eagles team from any season ever! And it wouldn't even be close!

The 1986 Giants would beat any Eagles team from any season ever! And it wouldn't even be close!

The 1986 Giants would beat any Eagles team from any season ever! And it wouldn't even be close!

The 1986 Giants would beat any Eagles team from any season ever! And it wouldn't even be close!

The 1986 Giants would beat any Eagles team from any season ever! And it wouldn't even be close!

The 1986 Giants would beat any Eagles team from any season ever! And it wouldn't even be close!

The 1986 Giants would beat any Eagles team from any season ever! And it wouldn't even be close!

And this is relevent... how?

90 Giants too...

:-)

I think you two are seriously confused. The irrelevance of the 86 Giants and the 90 Giants on this argument is that we're talking about the

THIS F'ING DECADE, YOU DUMMIES!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, thats factual, considering the '08 Giants haven't stepped onto the field yet. Next time you tell someone they're retarded, try not to look so retarded yourself. And guess what, Brainiac? Free Agency has made sure that no teams will remain exactly the same every year, and it's been that way for close to 20 years now. Its just another piss poor excuse on your part :rolleyes:

Oh ok, my bad, I had no idea the Giants won the Super Bowl in Feb, 2007. My fault, I thought they won it in Feb, 2008. Opps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who cares what team would beat the other team from this or that year...the whole thing is winning the superbowl, something we havent done....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you two are seriously confused. The irrelevance of the 86 Giants and the 90 Giants on this argument is that we're talking about the

THIS F'ING DECADE, YOU DUMMIES!

You missed the point of my post as well, it's completely irelevent. Who cares if you think a team from one year could beat another, it didn't happen. It's like saying "I can kick your butt cause I said so!"

It means absolutely nothing. Opinions are like a** holes, everybody has one. What we can talk about is what actually happens and based on results the 2004 Eagles are more like the 2000 Giants then the 2007 Giants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
who cares what team would beat the other team from this or that year...the whole thing is winning the superbowl, something we havent done....

It pains me to say this but I do think that within the next 10-15 years the Eagles WILL win a superbowl. I'll be suprised if they don't. They have a FO that cares about winning and it's the free agency era. It could happen next year, it could happen the year after, it could happen in five years but i'll be shocked if it doesn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It pains me to say this but I do think that within the next 10-15 years the Eagles WILL win a superbowl. I'll be suprised if they don't. They have a FO that cares about winning and it's the free agency era. It could happen next year, it could happen the year after, it could happen in five years but i'll be shocked if it doesn't happen.

do you remember the movie back to school with rodney dangerfield?..there was a scene when sam kinison starts to scream and yell and rant and rave and at the end rodney says "i like that teacher. he really seems to care.......about what i have no idea"...

thats kinda how i feel about this front office...they scream and yell that they care, yet they rarely do EVERYTHING that is needed to win consistantly...the do alot, just very rarely go over the top to get it done...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do you remember the movie back to school with rodney dangerfield?..there was a scene when sam kinison starts to scream and yell and rant and rave and at the end rodney says "i like that teacher. he really seems to care.......about what i have no idea"...

thats kinda how i feel about this front office...they scream and yell that they care, yet they rarely do EVERYTHING that is needed to win consistantly...the do alot, just very rarely go over the top to get it done...

Neither do the Patriots though. Teams that go over the top *cough* Washignton *cough* generally lose big. I do sort of agree with you in a way because in 2002, and 2003 they needed to get a big name WR and they probably could have and they didn't. But in 04 they did go out and get Owens it just didn't work out. They spent a lot of money on Kearse too, and this off season they spent a lot of money on Samuels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It pains me to say this but I do think that within the next 10-15 years the Eagles WILL win a superbowl. I'll be suprised if they don't. They have a FO that cares about winning and it's the free agency era. It could happen next year, it could happen the year after, it could happen in five years but i'll be shocked if it doesn't happen.

:o Wow...Didn't expect that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither do the Patriots though. Teams that go over the top *cough* Washignton *cough* generally lose big. I do sort of agree with you in a way because in 2002, and 2003 they needed to get a big name WR and they probably could have and they didn't. But in 04 they did go out and get Owens it just didn't work out. They spent a lot of money on Kearse too, and this off season they spent a lot of money on Samuels.

But they still need a WR other than Curtis, and they haven't had one worth a damn since TO. To me, that speaks volumes. It's almost as if they are setting McNabb up to fail, because look what he did when Owens was there. They were unstoppable

Samuel was not a necessary addition IMO, even though he's an above average player. Just not worth the money he was given, as so few FA's are.

I think Philly will win a SB within the next 5 years or so, but I truly do not believe that McNabb will be the QB to lead them there. Not anymore. I'm not even sure the guy to do it is even on the roster yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It pains me to say this but I do think that within the next 10-15 years the Eagles WILL win a superbowl. I'll be suprised if they don't. They have a FO that cares about winning and it's the free agency era. It could happen next year, it could happen the year after, it could happen in five years but i'll be shocked if it doesn't happen.

What the Eagles haven't done is catch lightning in a bottle in the postseason, the way a team needs to do to win the stinkin' thing.

Another problem they have is the glaring fact that they refuse to change how they evaluate certain positions. And they refuse to put rookies on the field in meaningful games barring injury.

Reid has done alot of good for this franchise, but his stubborn streak has cost them many times as well, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony- WTF are you talking about?

Oh wait, I've been through this with you before and realized that you're dumber than anyone else on here. Won't waste my time again with a dude that get's periods when someone says something about the Giants.

Like I said, you feel so damn confident in your squad than let's put that money up. If not, then go back in your shell and speak when spoken to

Let me quote you again you retarded waste of Oxygen:

3rd. Let me tell you about your D Line and FACTS back this up chump. Your line was horrendous at times against the run. You actually finished below us against the run in total defense. Maybe I should put down the pipe after I beat your arse with it for talking dumb

That's what my post was about. Not this season, not anything else. Just the stupid statement that you made and seem to still think is true. What's the definition of insanity again?

You know, I'm glad that I'm dumber than anyone on here. Since a logical argument isn't your strong suit, why not attack me that way, maybe you'll actually win one. Oh wait, didn't you just try to trash Carson that same way? Ever think that ugly reflection in the mirror is the moron and everyone else is sane?

I find it funny that someone who's having a meltdown in front of everyone is saying that someone else is having their period when you're the one acting like a girl at a John Mayer concert. Aren't you having a little meltdown right now because no one will back you up that the Eagles are the team of the decade?

What do you want to wager, tough guy? That the Giants were so awful against the run last year like you said? I'll gladly take that bet you waste of DNA.

Les, why rely on facts when an asinine position serves you better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This answer depends if you're a championships are all that matters person. Giants had a great run last year (and 2000) but nothing in the middle really with some very bad seasons and playoffs (the loss to the 49ers, no playoff win since 2000 before last year if I'm not mistaken).

Eagles were obviously consistently better for many years, but didn't get it done with a championship.

No possible way to go with Dallas or Skins.

It's close, but I don't think of the Giants as a team of the decade for the NFC East by any means...just the team of last year, and even there I really just think of them as the team of the "playoffs". Dallas was actually the best NFC east team last year, but blew it come playoff time. When the Eagles had their run, they were clearly the best team in the NFC East without much contest, so I still go with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But they still need a WR other than Curtis, and they haven't had one worth a damn since TO. To me, that speaks volumes. It's almost as if they are setting McNabb up to fail, because look what he did when Owens was there. They were unstoppable

Samuel was not a necessary addition IMO, even though he's an above average player. Just not worth the money he was given, as so few FA's are.

I think Philly will win a SB within the next 5 years or so, but I truly do not believe that McNabb will be the QB to lead them there. Not anymore. I'm not even sure the guy to do it is even on the roster yet.

McNabb could do it if he had absolutely the best team but I don't think that will happen so I also doubt it will be him. Andy Reid's gotta learn to be more flexible as well. He's gotta put his young talent on the field as an eagles poster pointed out and he has to learn to rely more on the running game, and not just use it to fill a quota.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me quote you again you retarded waste of Oxygen:

That's what my post was about. Not this season, not anything else. Just the stupid statement that you made and seem to still think is true. What's the definition of insanity again?

You know, I'm glad that I'm dumber than anyone on here. Since a logical argument isn't your strong suit, why not attack me that way, maybe you'll actually win one. Oh wait, didn't you just try to trash Carson that same way? Ever think that ugly reflection in the mirror is the moron and everyone else is sane?

I find it funny that someone who's having a meltdown in front of everyone is saying that someone else is having their period when you're the one acting like a girl at a John Mayer concert. Aren't you having a little meltdown right now because no one will back you up that the Eagles are the team of the decade?

What do you want to wager, tough guy? That the Giants were so awful against the run last year like you said? I'll gladly take that bet you waste of DNA.

Les, why rely on facts when an asinine position serves you better?

First, who the hell is John Mayer? How is no one else backing me up when there are Giants fans on here as well as eagles fans that are saying the Eagles are the team of the decade? the guy who started the thread who's Giant fan even gave it up to the eagles so what are you talking about? I see you mentioned Carson in here huh? Who are you- Virgil to his Rick Flair.... Stedman to his Oprah perhaps? T.O. to his Romo even? Shux, let me just come out and ask then- Are you his lil beyotch or something? I'm a grown man you hemaphrodite and i don't need anyone in here to back me up on anything. It's a damn message board not a gang war or something you fat slob. You probably look like that piece of cancer that was on John McClains face

A meltdown??? Is that a serious question? I'm on here everyday talking real football talk and then occasionally I'll get into it with people on here all out of fun. It's never that serious to me but I guess it is to you huh?

See, why you sit on here and pout like a homosexual who can't get accepted in Morehouse College- I'm having a good time on here Kickin' it with fans from all over here. I'm cool with BK, Rich, Gmoney (Gmen4eva) and Duke21. All of whom are Giant fans. There are times on here when we talk serious football talk and then there are times when we try our hardest to ish on each other. Speaking of which- Duke21 got me with the Showing of the Lombardi trophy, lol..

Anyway, back to Tanya- If I'm a retard9 and you're still trying to explain things to me, what does that make you? If i'm such an assinine then why are you responding? If I'm such a waste of DNA then why are you responding? If anything, that condom was a waste of $3.00 the night you were conceived and your family should be suing the brand

If you could read- you'd see what I was referring to as far as the bet goes you RuPaul impersonatin', Elton John ball hangin', Pauly Shore fan piece of crap! I wish you would just go bungee jumping and purposefully forget the chord!!

(ok- that last part was a meltdown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
who cares what team would beat the other team from this or that year...the whole thing is winning the superbowl, something we havent done....

why?

Yeah it's pretty damn important, I agree. But to say that winning the SB is the be all and end all of football seems pretty damn arbitrary to me. Let's take any random 2 teams that happen to make it to the Superbowl (not going to name names), one gets there through consistent wins, good coaching, great talent, and have been dominating other teams on their way there, while the other team gets there as a wild card, sneaks into the playoffs, gets more than a few lucky breaks, and ends up with a Superbowl win, what makes the 2nd team a better team? Team 1 wins 9 out of 10 times, but it just so happened that the scale tipped the other way this 1 game, why is this one game the ultimate measure of how good a team is?

If you were to field a team for another SB game, which team would you choose, the 1st or the 2nd?

Again, Yes I agree winning the SB is important, but is it the only thing that matters in the discussion of how good a team is? Or how good the players on that teams are? Are all the quarterbacks in the league who have won a superbowl better quarterbacks than McNabb?

Seriously, when talking about "team of the decade", you need to take into consideration the regular season record, other playoff records, not just how many times the teams have gone to and won the last game of the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why?

Yeah it's pretty damn important, I agree. But to say that winning the SB is the be all and end all of football seems pretty damn arbitrary to me. Let's take any random 2 teams that happen to make it to the Superbowl (not going to name names), one gets there through consistent wins, good coaching, great talent, and have been dominating other teams on their way there, while the other team gets there as a wild card, sneaks into the playoffs, gets more than a few lucky breaks, and ends up with a Superbowl win, what makes the 2nd team a better team? Team 1 wins 9 out of 10 times, but it just so happened that the scale tipped the other way this 1 game, why is this one game the ultimate measure of how good a team is?

If you were to field a team for another SB game, which team would you choose, the 1st or the 2nd?

Again, Yes I agree winning the SB is important, but is it the only thing that matters in the discussion of how good a team is? Or how good the players on that teams are? Are all the quarterbacks in the league who have won a superbowl better quarterbacks than McNabb?

Seriously, when talking about "team of the decade", you need to take into consideration the regular season record, other playoff records, not just how many times the teams have gone to and won the last game of the year.

exactly what i said earlier. it's a matter of opinion really unless Tony gets mad and then we have to agree with her

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why?

Yeah it's pretty damn important, I agree. But to say that winning the SB is the be all and end all of football seems pretty damn arbitrary to me. Let's take any random 2 teams that happen to make it to the Superbowl (not going to name names), one gets there through consistent wins, good coaching, great talent, and have been dominating other teams on their way there, while the other team gets there as a wild card, sneaks into the playoffs, gets more than a few lucky breaks, and ends up with a Superbowl win, what makes the 2nd team a better team? Team 1 wins 9 out of 10 times, but it just so happened that the scale tipped the other way this 1 game, why is this one game the ultimate measure of how good a team is?

If you were to field a team for another SB game, which team would you choose, the 1st or the 2nd?

Again, Yes I agree winning the SB is important, but is it the only thing that matters in the discussion of how good a team is? Or how good the players on that teams are? Are all the quarterbacks in the league who have won a superbowl better quarterbacks than McNabb?

Seriously, when talking about "team of the decade", you need to take into consideration the regular season record, other playoff records, not just how many times the teams have gone to and won the last game of the year.

because 2nd place is still a loser in the end...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But to say that winning the SB is the be all and end all of football seems pretty damn arbitrary to me.

Thats what all 32 teams try to do every season, so how can it be arbitrary? Thats the whole point of playing the games. Now some credit has to be given to teams for winning in the regular season, but a lot of folks around here think that the Eagles should be crowned for it, and I think that is why so many of us are disagreeing in this thread. People dont remember regular season wins. They don't mean anywhere near as much as winning a NFCCG game or a SB, at least in my opinion. Therefore, I will never give too much credit for regular season wins because they arent deserving of it.

When the Eagles win a SB, you'll gain a better understanding of what I'm talking about. A SB win will completely change your entire outlook on how things are done. Trust me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
because 2nd place is still a loser in the end...

answer my question:

Team 1 - clearly dominant, consistent the entire season, more talented, better coaching, but lost due to some choking and some unluckiness

Team 2 - got somewhat hot near the end, caught some lucky breaks, ended up winning the big game

which team would you field if there was a Super Bowl rematch?

The answer is your better team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats what all 32 teams try to do every season, so how can it be arbitrary? Thats the whole point of playing the games. Now some credit has to be given to teams for winning in the regular season, but a lot of folks around here think that the Eagles should be crowned for it, and I think that is why so many of us are disagreeing in this thread. People dont remember regular season wins. They don't mean anywhere near as much as winning a NFCCG game or a SB, at least in my opinion. Therefore, I will never give too much credit for regular season wins because they arent deserving of it.

When the Eagles win a SB, you'll gain a better understanding of what I'm talking about. A SB win will completely change your entire outlook on how things are done. Trust me

Not trying to crown the Eagles with anything here. I'm just saying that the Super Bowl is not everything. Which franchise do you think is more successful, one that wins 70% of the games played, sells out all of its games, has a great fan base, but in 10 years does not win a SB, or one that is consistently in the bottom of the league, but one year catches fire and wins the big game, having a 30% win rate for the 10 years but an SB ring to show for it?

It's an exaggeration, but I have a hard time believing that people would automatically crown the 2nd team as the more successful. There's a line in there somewhere, but where?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites