What would you say the odds of the Eagles going undefeated are?

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't take anything worse than 9:1.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Also, I did not take the bet, though ignoring injury potential (a huge if, of course), I change my 2:1 to around 5:2 to 3:1. "

So, you rate it at 3:1, but want a 3x premium? Wimp

[swimfan]

Yes I am.

[Aces McGee]

I was saying that it was unfair to the Eagles, because we can look at what the Bears did for a whole season (forgiving the less impressive wins for the more impressive ones), whereas the Eagles haven't done anything to balance out nearly losing to the Browns.

Anyway, we've sort of moved into a discussion of the definition of "dominant," and while I don't have a percentage of time that a team needs to be favored to be considered such, I would submit that the '85 Bears were "dominant" for two reasons:

a)they had a really really REALLY good defense (one shutout during the regular season; then *two* in the playoffs. NE's 10 in the Super Bowl were the only points they allowed in the postseason).
b)they had Walter Payton

The Eagles defense isn't even close to dominant, and McNabb to T.O. has been a good combo over a small sample size, but I don't think that you can argue that it's better than Payton.

-McGee

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I feel the team is well-coached, and do not need to account for let-down type losses.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wait...just like in the last 3 NFC Championships? I giggle. The Eagles have as much of a shot of going undefeated as the Patriots did...and the Pats are MUCH better coached. So no, it's not going to happen. They're going to lose eventually. Sorry. I'd say they're chances are about 1 in 20 or so.

[swimfan]

I believe it was the lack of offensive personnel than coaching did them in the past 2 years. First championship they were playing a better Rams team and had a shot to win near the close.

Over Reid's career, how many times did they suffer back to back losses, and what's their longest L streak?

1 and 2 respectively; first two games of last year. That would be a well-coached team. I believe the Pats are better coached, but not by much.

[swimfan]

You're right, I misread your statement, sorry. Anyway, sure it's a bit unfair to the Eagles, my logic is to contrast any difference between a known dominant team and the eagles at similar points of season.

The Eagles have a good defense, great in critical red-zone territory. Some may argue luck, some skill/design...but they've shown good red zone numbers for several years.

The Eagles have a good offense, bordering on great with a healthy Westbrook. You're right that it's too small of a sample size to compare to Payton's '85 season, up to this point it's close to his season...however there are the intangibles a good running game brings so I agree.

The Eagles are certainly not as dominant as the '85 Bears; I just think we differ on the definition of 'dominant'.

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you don't consider 7-0 a dominant team?

[/ QUOTE ]

at Philly 31, New York Giants 17
at Philly 27, Minnesota 16
Philly 30, at Detroit 13
Philly 19, at Chicago 9
at Philly 30, Carolina 8
Philly 34, at Cleveland 31 OT
at Philly 15, Baltimore 10

This is not the schedule of a "dominant" team. The Cleveland, Chicago, and Baltimore wins are extremely unimpressive. Detroit and the Giants are inconsistent enough to not make wins over them all that impressive (esp. since the Giant win came in Week 1.)

The only that even vaguely impresses me on that list is that they beat Minnesota.

Sure, they're a very good team, but dominant? Hardly.

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you're giving the Eagles enough credit. Have you watched these games or are you going based on the scores alone?

They absolutely crushed Detroit and NY. Even if those teams showed up ready to play, they still would have lost (though the Giants game would have been somewhat interesting). The Chicago score is incredibly misleading -- if you watch the game tape you'll see that they had no chance. Admittedly, they did not play as well the last two weeks, but you can't blow teams out every week.

To start out a season 7-0 and win your first 5 games by 10 points or more (first time in 35 years this has happened), you have to be a fairly dominant team.

-- Homer

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, I feel the team is well-coached, and do not need to account for let-down type losses.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wait...just like in the last 3 NFC Championships? I giggle. The Eagles have as much of a shot of going undefeated as the Patriots did...and the Pats are MUCH better coached. So no, it's not going to happen. They're going to lose eventually. Sorry. I'd say they're chances are about 1 in 20 or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say only the second NFC Championship Game was a letdown. To review:

Season 1 - This was the first year they made the playoffs, as a wildcard. They won two playoff games, at home against the Bucs and on the road against the Bears, just to get to the championship game. Then they held their own against a Rams team that was expected to win by double digits. IIRC, the final score was 29-24 and the Eagles were driving when the game ended. I wouldn't call this a choke job. In fact, I think this team had the most "heart" of any of the three championship game seasons.

Season 2 - Okay, if you want to talk about a choke job, this is the one. Home-field advantage throughout the playoffs, cruise against the Falcons in the divisional round to setup a game at home, the last game ever at the Vet, against the Bucs, a team we always crushed, in sub 35 weather. That's a choke job and it makes me want to puke every time I think about it.

Season 3 - This team was probably the worst of the three. We gave up 100+ yards on the ground every game, our offense was inept and somehow we still managed to get home-field throughout. We barely beat the Packers in the divisional round (barely isn't a sufficient word actually -- remember 4th and 26? I was there, woohoo!), so it was no surprise to lose to the Panthers in the championship game. Let's face it, the NFC wasn't very good last year. The Eagles were not a dominant and not even a very good team. The NFC just sucked that bad.

So, to review, only one choke job in the three years.

If we lose in the playoffs this year, at home, against [insert any NFC team here, they all blow], it will be a major choke job, far worse than the one against the Bucs even. We are that much better than the other NFC teams this year.

-- Homer

[Lottery Larry]

I can take my $100 by cash or check... :P