Am I the only one who wants the Eagles to win?

skinpride1 · Post by **skinpride1** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 8:18 pm

how many have the boys been in 8 or 9

ejay183 · Post by **ejay183** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 8:38 pm

I read an article in the early part of the season about the order of franchises and the most regular season wins, I think it was on the NFL site or the Redskins site. If you want to get techinally, the Skins have 5 world titles, because the Skins won 2 world championships before it was called the Superbowl.

Primetime42 · Post by **Primetime42** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 8:53 pm

8 NFC Titles, 5 Super Bowl Rings

Brandon777 · Post by **Brandon777** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 9:00 pm

Am I the only one who wants the Eagles to win?

Yep.

JPM36 · Post by **JPM36** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 10:21 pm

I hate Philly, I hope they never win a championship in my lifetime.

Go Pats.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 10:44 pm

Yes.

Philly has the most obnoxious, arrogant swagger since the Pats of last year.

Honestly, I hope that both teams lose.

But since I live in reality, I'm going to have to go with the Pats.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:13 am

ejay183 wrote:I read an article in the early part of the season about the order of franchises and the most regular season wins, ...

I am sure we can take their word for it. My goodness!

What THEY meant by the order of franchises is the ORDER in which they were created.

Da Chicago Bears, Green Bay Packers and New York Giants are the ONLY franchises older than the Washington Redskins, which started in glorious 1932. The Redskins are the fourth oldest team in the league. We can start an argument about the lowly Detroit Lions if you wish but strictly speaking Detroit Lions really started as such in 1934. They were called the Portsmouth Spartans before that time (nothing to do with Detroit or the Lions).

Ah! and by the way, the good news about your message is that older teams may have the most regular season wins. You were right on that.

Bad news are that they would have the MOST loses as well. Surprise, surprise. :shock:

Please look at the stats of each team:

Washington:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/t ... sindex.htm
Chicago:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/t ... iindex.htm
Green Bay:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/t ... bindex.htm
New York Giants:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/t ... gindex.htm

For the record, again, the Washington Redskins is the greatest team in the history of football. It also has the best fans, the best logos, the best band and the best cheerleaders. Please read for downright enjoyment:

The Redskins Book
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... ok/toc.htm :wink:

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:18 am

Redskin in Canada wrote:We can start an argument about the lowly Detroit Lions if you wish but strictly speaking Detroit Lions really started as such in 1934. They were called the Portsmouth Spartans before that time (nothing to do with Detroit or the Lions).

Well, you are expressing a bit of a double standard here, as the Redskins were the Boston Braves (after the baseball team) in 1932, which has nothing to do with Washinton or the Redskins. They became the Boston Redskins the next year, and then moved to Washington in 1937.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:57 pm

cvillehog wrote:Well, you are expressing a bit of a double standard here, as the Redskins were the Boston Braves (after the baseball team) in 1932, which has nothing to do with Washinton or the Redskins. They became the Boston Redskins the next year, and then moved to Washington in 1937.

Some teams, like the Colts move from one city (Baltimore) to another (indianapolis) and they are the same team. Other teams such as Browns move from one city (Cleveland) to another city (Baltimore) and become a different team. The Skins never truly changed who they were. In fact, some people feel tha we could come back to become the Braves again and we would still be the same team. It all depends how things are done.

Remember that Ejay wrote in his post that the Redskins were the fourth "best" franchise based on a a quote from an article that truly meant oldest. My point was to clarify why he felt the other franchises were better, nothing else.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 4:00 pm

FanfromAnnapolis wrote:Yes.
Philly has the most obnoxious, arrogant swagger since the Pats of last year.

We agree.

BUT... What's up with your signature?

Draft a QB, trade Portis, sign Gardner to a big deal, get Moss, retrade for Bailey!!!

redskincity · Post by **redskincity** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 5:46 pm

Yes and I am suppose to support the NFC. ](*,)

welch · Post by **welch** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:46 pm

...Yes, you are the first.

I always root for:

- the NFC over the AFC.

- the NFC East over the other divisions

I will probably root for the Eagles, in spite of all the valid reasons mentioned here. Just because they represent the NFC East, which by heritage should play knock-down "smash mouth" football, old-time Allen/Gibbs football.

On the other hand, I like the style of the Patriots. They play the way an NFL team should play. They make the plays when it matters.

So, although I have a slight leaning toward the Eagles, I'll hope for a good game.