The Vikings game really cost us

[sfphillyfan]

You honestly think this is how sports works? The Raiders won every single divisional game this year. Don't you think everyone in that organization would rather be the Seahawks?

If we took the Eagles out of this equation, I would say that the Chargers a bunch of chokers too. They consistently get into the playoffs as one of the hottest teams around and completely choke on a dick as soon as the lights get brighter and the games get bigger. Just because it's the Eagles doesn't mean the same logic doesn't apply.

If you honestly believe that the Wild Card, Div, Conference and Super Bowl games aren't bigger in ascending order, you are in like a .000001% minority.

It's not ludicrous to say the Eagles choke more the bigger the game. If you wanna say that some random game in November is big because it helps you get into the playoffs, that's fine. But that doesn't make the first part of this paragraph untrue.

[Vote for Kalas]

Again, its a two tiered system....one tier for the teams that make the playoffs and another tier for all those that do not. Big games must be won to make it.

If the claim was true the Eagles choke in big games, then we would never or randomly (like Seattle this year) make the playoffs. Reid has made it, what, 9 out of 12 years. That is not random.

Once in that playoff tier, yes the games get bigger as I said because it is one and done and you are that much closer to the ring...

But again facts show the Eagles have NOT choked always in the playoff tier either...if true they would not have gotten past the first round, not reached 5 NFCCG and 1 SB and not had ~10 playoff wins....

Have they choked before? Sure, 2003 vs Panthers is the best example IMO. Do they choke always? No way....is every loss a choke? Not IMO

[sfphillyfan]

We lost 3 out of 4 NFCCGs that we were favored in. That's the definition of choking in my book. I don't even include the SB because we were outgunned in that one and underdogs. If any other team in our conference did that, we'd be all over them for being chokers. if the Cowboys did that, we would be so gleeful bringing that up, we'd all get whiplash.

If you wanna say that we won a lot of big games during the regular season and divisional games.... ok. sure.

But the bigger the game, the smaller we show up. That's a problem for me.

[Ike]

But to get to a SB and consistently get to the playoffs and win playoff games means NOT choking in big games....so I guess I am a bit confused

Or is there only 1 big game in your definition?

Yes... when you get to the point where the Birds have been for 10 years we should at the very least have 1. To me this team is a let down every year they don't win the SB.

Now... for a franchise like Buffalo, or AZ a few years ago they are, and would just be happy to win a playoff game... or just make the playoffs. If you've been there 9 times in 12 years you should expect a little more.. well.. at least I do.

[Ike]

We lost 3 out of 4 NFCCGs that we were favored in. That's the definition of choking in my book. I don't even include the SB because we were outgunned in that one and underdogs. If any other team in our conference did that, we'd be all over them for being chokers. if the Cowboys did that, we would be so gleeful bringing that up, we'd all get whiplash.

If you wanna say that we won a lot of big games during the regular season and divisional games.... ok. sure.

But the bigger the game, the smaller we show up. That's a problem for me.

This...

[leifdawg]

Yes... when you get to the point where the Birds have been for 10 years we should at the very least have 1. To me this team is a let down every year they don't win the SB.

Now... for a franchise like Buffalo, or AZ a few years ago they are, and would just be happy to win a playoff game... or just make the playoffs. If you've been there 9 times in 12 years you should expect a little more.. well.. at least I do.

Excellent post.

[balto-eaglefan]

I have no idea how good Joe Montana was in week 1 throughout his career but I sure as hell know he was great in Super Bowls.

He was 7-5 in game 1's. Link here.

Through 1987, he was 2-5 in game 1's, but the Niners had won 2 Super Bowls by then. Link here.

Nobody remembers that the Niners lost 2 NFCCG's under Montana (yep that's 6 NFCCG appearances total), nor that they went one-and-done in the playoffs 3 times with him at QB. Looking back, it doesn't seem possible that he could've ever lost any playoff games, but there you go. Winning the SB a couple of times has that effect on what you remember.

[Blitz]

We lost 3 out of 4 NFCCGs that we were favored in. That's the definition of choking in my book. I don't even include the SB because we were outgunned in that one and underdogs. If any other team in our conference did that, we'd be all over them for being chokers. if the Cowboys did that, we would be so gleeful bringing that up, we'd all get whiplash.

If you wanna say that we won a lot of big games during the regular season and divisional games.... ok. sure.

But the bigger the game, the smaller we show up. That's a problem for me.

I agree. But the worse part of that is if Reid changes things just a little we easily could be two time SB champs. The Bucs game still sticks in my craw.

I don't necessarily think not winning the SB equals failure but losing four out of five NFCCG does equal failure to me.

Yes... when you get to the point where the Birds have been for 10 years we should at the very least have 1. To me this team is a let down every year they don't win the SB.

Now... for a franchise like Buffalo, or AZ a few years ago they are, and would just be happy to win a playoff game... or just make the playoffs. If you've been there 9 times in 12 years you should expect a little more.. well.. at least I do.

This is how I feel now. Just getting to the playoffs to lose is not enough anymore. I really do appreciate Reid but after 12 years TAKE THE NEXT STEP ALREADY!!

I love the smilie!!

[sonnyj]

It's not failure. It's disappointment. Failure is what we saw for long stretches between and 1962 and 1978, then again from 83 to 88, and yet again just before Reid took over.

[sfphillyfan]

It's not failure. It's disappointment. Failure is what we saw for long stretches between and 1962 and 1978, then again from 83 to 88, and yet again just before Reid took over.

doesn't this fall under 6 of one, half dozen of another.

I understand where you're coming from. My frame of reference for failure is the Marion Campbell era. (To me, worse than the Kotite era.)

But if your goal (and this is what you sell every year to the fanbase) is to get to /win the Super Bowl, then not reaching that goal is a failure.

Take the Rams for example. Everyone knew they weren't going anywhere this year. Yet they made some strides towards being a Super Bowl team and they've got to be happy about that, even if it isn't their ultimate goal.

But after 12 years of making strides, it's about time we got there. I fully understand that you can't make knee jerk reactions and fire coaches a couple years in. I've always thought a new coach should have a 5 year plan.) But for the life of me, I don't understand how Andy Reid or Jeff Fisher can be stagnant for so many years and keep the same job. I'm not saying they're bad coaches. It's just that sometimes a change does everyone good. Revitalizes both coach and team.