Skip to main content

Why?

As some of you may know, I'm a die hard Philadelphia Eagles fan. Today is a sad day for the franchise. Donovan McNabb has been traded to Washington. There goes any shot at winning a Super Bowl in the next three years. In the NFL you need to win now. McNabb was unquestionably their best shot at winning now. They have the other pieces on offense with McCoy, Jackson, Celek, and Maclin. All they had to do was improve the defense and they were set. Now, the best they can be this year is 8-8. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a losing record. Even if Kolb turns out to be a good quarterback, he will struggle this year. When the other pieces are in place you don't rebuild. To quote John Clayton:

"As for the Eagles, who were 11-5 last season, the pressure falls on the unproven quarterback Kevin Kolb," writes Clayton. "With this being his first year as the full-time starter, we can expect a two- or three-win drop in the Eagles' record because first-year starters have difficulty winning close games. The Packers experienced that after they traded Favre to the New York Jets for a second-round choice in 2008. Even though Aaron Rodgers threw for more than 4,000 yards in 2008, he struggled in the fourth quarter of close games, and the Packers dropped from 13-3 to 6-10."

Eagles fans have NO IDEA how good they've had it with McNabb. They are one of the worst fan bases in all of sports. At least they care, but gosh, you just ran one of the ten best quarterbacks in the league off of your team...a guy who has taken you to 5 NFC Championship games and a Super Bowl. The guy with the third highest winning percentage of any active quarterback in the NFL behind Payton Manning and Tom Brady. The guy with the lowest rate of interceptions per pass attempt in NFL history...when he's only 34. It's a horrible decision that I am not happy about. My hope for the upcoming season is gone. Let's go Mets.
Labels:

Comments

  1. dannyApril 5, 2010 at 1:28 PM

    First, let me express my horror that you're a Mets fan. Here I thought you loved Jesus...

    I hear what you're saying about McNabb, but I guess the question is whether or not the Eagles would really be a Super Bowl contender in the next couple years with him. I'm not a McNabb basher, but I honestly don't think they're winning the Super Bowl any time soon with him, unless something drastically changes.

    That said, you're not winning it with Kolb in the next year or two, either. Is he good enough to win it within 3-5 years? Maybe. I doubt it, but maybe...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Marcus MaherApril 5, 2010 at 2:03 PM

    Sometimes I express horror at being a Mets fan so I understand.

    I guess I don't agree. It's only two years ago that they went to the NFC Championship Game and were a drive away from going to the Super Bowl. Last year they were one win away from the number 2 seed in the NFC. Their other skill position players are a year older and wiser and still all 25 or under. I really do think that they can contend as they have year in year out for the past decade. Maybe I was being overly optimistic...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Marcus MaherApril 5, 2010 at 2:10 PM

    You know, I'm a fan of the Mets, Sabres, and Eagles. Maybe I need to find some new teams.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

More Calvinist than Calvin?

I'm working on a paper on the topic of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Occasionally on this topic (or the subtopic of election) you will hear people through out the barb at strong Calvinists that they're 'being more Calvinist than Calvin.' After having read Calvin carefully on the issue I don't think that there's any validity to that charge. I don't see a material difference here between Calvin and say John Piper. Here are several quotes from the Institutes to prove my point. 'All events are governed by God's secret plan.' I.xvi.2 'Governing heaven and earth by his providence, he also so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.' I.xvi.3 'Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him.' I.xvi.3 Calvin explicitly rejects a limited providence, 'one that by a general motion revolves and drives the system of the universe, with its several parts, but which does not specifc
17 comments
Read more

Dating Galatians and Harmonization with Acts

We've gotten to the point where how we date Galatians and where we fit it into the narrative of Acts will affect our interpretation in a significant manner. The first question that we have to address is, which visit to Jerusalem is Paul recounting in Galatians 2:1-10 ? Is it the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27-30 or the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 ? First, I think it's worthwhile to point out that it's not all that obvious. Scholars are divided on this issue (even Evangelical scholars). In favor of the theory of Galatians 2:1-10 referring to the Acts 11 visit are the following: This visit clearly is prompted by a revelation by the Holy Spirit. The Acts 15 gathering seems to be a public gathering, where the one described in Galatians is private. Paul never alludes to a letter sent to the diaspora churches which could have definitively won the case for him. The issue of food laws was already decided by James. Why would men coming from him in Galatians 2:11-14 be advocat
19 comments
Read more

Galatians 2:11-14: The circumcision group

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (TNIV) There's an important issue that we need to wrestle with in this passage, and it's the question of whether or not the people from James and the circumcision group are the same group. I am not inclined to think that they are. The ensuing discussion is drawn from Longenecker's commentary pp 73-5
Post a Comment
Read more