Plaxico to Eagles ????

chicosbailbond · Post by **chicosbailbond** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 10:18 am

NFL network is reporting that the Eagles are going to offer Plaxico a contract...

Owens and Plaxico with LJ Smith is pretty dang nasty...

I wonder how they will find a way to choke again....

Do you guys think Walt Harris can cover Plax????

I am very scared with Harris as our starting Corner.....

washington53 · Post by **washington53** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 10:54 am

you know that is a pretty scary combination.
but i think Harris is capable of covering him. and wenever he needs help you got sean taylor

SkinsLaVar · Post by **SkinsLaVar** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:07 am

Plaxic0 and T0. What a great combination. They both end in 0 as in 0 suberbowls.

joebagadonuts · Post by **joebagadonuts** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:55 pm

i heard that plaxico doesn't want to go to phili, because he'd be a no. 2 receiver, and he wants to a no. 1. let's hope.

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:23 pm

He's still looking for a long term deal from Minny. If that doesn't happen he'll consider a one year deal in Philly so he can go out and get his huge payday next year.

I don't think he's coming here, but if he does that puts an end to any talk about anyone else even thinking about winning the division.

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:29 pm

General Failure wrote:He's still looking for a long term deal from Minny. If that doesn't happen he'll consider a one year deal in Philly so he can go out and get his huge payday next year.

I don't think he's coming here, but if he does that puts an end to any talk about anyone else even thinking about winning the division.

I think you are forgetting the "Super Bowl loser effect" Whereby the SB-losing team falls apart the next season. Please see the entire last decade as an example.

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:34 pm

You mean like the Patriots have? That's usually a problem for teams that, for a lack of a better term, blow their cap wad on one chance at a championship. The Eagles are in pretty good cap shape and will be for a while still.

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:46 pm

General Failure wrote:You mean like the Patriots have? That's usually a problem for teams that, for a lack of a better term, blow their cap wad on one chance at a championship. The Eagles are in pretty good cap shape and will be for a while still.

Sorry, did the Pats lose the Super Bowl?

Carolina: Lost SB XXXVIII then went 7-9
Oakland: Lost SB XXXVII then went 4-12
St. Louis: Lost SB XXXVI then went 7-9
NY Giants: Lost SB XXXV then went 7-9
Tennesee: Lost SB XXXIV then went 13-3

That's as far back as I can find info on, but out of the last 5 Super Bowl losers, only one has had a winning record the following season, and that was several years ago, and a new trend has emerged since.

Primetime42 · Post by **Primetime42** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:58 pm

cvillehog wrote:
General Failure wrote:You mean like the Patriots have? That's usually a problem for teams that, for a lack of a better term, blow their cap wad on one chance at a championship. The Eagles are in pretty good cap shape and will be for a while still.

Sorry, did the Pats lose the Super Bowl?

Carolina: Lost SB XXXVIII then went 7-9
Oakland: Lost SB XXXVII then went 4-12
St. Louis: Lost SB XXXVI then went 7-9
NY Giants: Lost SB XXXV then went 7-9
Tennesee: Lost SB XXXIV then went 13-3

That's as far back as I can find info on, but out of the last 5 Super Bowl losers, only one has had a winning record the following season, and that was several years ago, and a new trend has emerged since.

Carolina: Injuries killed them, had they made the playoffs, they'd have been a legit threat
Oakland: Old guys turned on their coach. No surprise that leads to 4 wins
St. Louis: Mike Martz
NY Giants: Truthfully were lucky to even get a sniff of a Super Bowl, as evidenced by what happened to them.
Tennessee: The only one in this group that maintained chemistry, team leaders and didn't suffer injuries.

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:02 pm

Winners haven't done too well either. The Pats failed to make the playoffs after their first win. Tampa folded like a wet towell. The Ravens imploded. The Rams were bounced in the first round, I think.

But hey, don't let me stop you from making a really dumb comparison with no basis in reality.

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:07 pm

Primetime42 wrote:
cvillehog wrote:
General Failure wrote:You mean like the Patriots have? That's usually a problem for teams that, for a lack of a better term, blow their cap wad on one chance at a championship. The Eagles are in pretty good cap shape and will be for a while still.

Sorry, did the Pats lose the Super Bowl?

Carolina: Lost SB XXXVIII then went 7-9
Oakland: Lost SB XXXVII then went 4-12
St. Louis: Lost SB XXXVI then went 7-9
NY Giants: Lost SB XXXV then went 7-9
Tennesee: Lost SB XXXIV then went 13-3

That's as far back as I can find info on, but out of the last 5 Super Bowl losers, only one has had a winning record the following season, and that was several years ago, and a new trend has emerged since.

Carolina: Injuries killed them, had they made the playoffs, they'd have been a legit threat
Oakland: Old guys turned on their coach. No surprise that leads to 4 wins
St. Louis: Mike Martz
NY Giants: Truthfully were lucky to even get a sniff of a Super Bowl, as evidenced by what happened to them.
Tennessee: The only one in this group that maintained chemistry, team leaders and didn't suffer injuries.

So, then, the question is: what will Philly's reason (read "excuse") be?

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:08 pm

General Failure wrote:But hey, don't let me stop you from making a really dumb comparison with no basis in reality.

Not a dumb comparison. It's a fact: Super Bowl losers haven't fared very well the year(s) following their loss. There are a variety of reasons for this, but I would point out that most of those teams were considered legitimate contenders going into the next season.

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:11 pm

You guys were considered serious contenders last year, too. I believe Hodge said, until you were mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, that the Skins would win the division.

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:12 pm

General Failure wrote:You guys were considered serious contenders last year, too. I believe Hodge said, until you were mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, that the Skins would win the division.

That's silly because we weren't mathematically eliminated until very late in the season, well after the Eagles secured the division.

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:13 pm

It's Hodge, he's never made much sense.

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:15 pm

General Failure wrote:It's Hodge, he's never made much sense.

Good point. :lol:

Primetime42 · Post by **Primetime42** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:20 pm

You gotta remember what those concussions have done to the poor guy.