all i have to say is this: Baby Jesus smiles when the Igloos loose! :D

Joe, last week McNabb accounted for something like 98% of the Eagles' offence. This week he got hurt, and no-one stepped up. They dropped balls, they let him get sacked again and again, and through most of the game the Eagles played without intensity. The lowpoint had to be that second Panthers touchdown, when three or four Eagles defenders jumped the ball-carrier around the five-yard line, and he still got the touchdown.

I don't think we should lay this loss on McNabb. Uninspired coaching, lethargic play by the Eagles, and a good effort by the Panthers. I wasn't surprised. I've never been an Eagles fan, precisely because they never win the big games.

And sure, the Colts were having a career bad day, but the Patriots weren't covering themselves with glory - they went to the well five times and came back with five fieldgoals in a row. That record is sort of like the Bull Durham record of having the most hits in the minor leagues. Can they win the Superbowl on fieldgoals?

I pretty much agree with Patrick. The Eagles live or die on the health of Donovan McNabb. Everything they said after the game about needing to get talent at more positions during the off-season is accurate.

As an aside, I felt like their receivers were playing at their best last year when Feeley (who, ahem, graduated the same year that I did from the University of Oregon) was tossing the ball. Nothing seemed to rattle him. I watched almost every damned Eagles game this year, and it was painful to watch McNabb sometimes. He sometimes seems to forget that he's skilled.

Andy Reid drives me nuts. He's a serviceable coach. Good, but not great or inspiring. He did become a little less risk-averse as the season wore on, but you still don't get the sense that he's a champion.

As an outsider in a sea of Iggles fans, I am dreading work tomorrow. There will be a ridiculous amount of theatrical breast-beating and self-pity. I actually was a little bit afraid that had the Eagles won, it would cause irreversible damage to Philadelphia's psychological commitment to failure.

Rush is still wrong -- McNabb is a talented quarterback. But I think after the hit that injured him, he wasn't himself, and the team collapsed.

I can't account for the rest of the Eagles' poor play today -- heartsick as I am over it (yes, I'm an Eagles fan), though, I think the Eagles played above their heads most of the season. They're still weak at wide receiver, and the defense couldn't stop the run all year. McNabb did just enough to win in 13 games this year, and he might have done enough to win this one had he not gotten knocked out.

"Rush is still wrong -- McNabb is a talented quarterback."

Uhhhhh, Rush never said McNabb was untalented, and as a member of the NFL talent is kind of a given.

He said the media hyped him up for race reasons.

Who the hell knows if they is true?

Of course they hype him up, they do that to everybody! So what? Did they do it to promote black athletes? I don't think the "black people" really needed any help in the athletic prestige department, so my gut says Rush is wrong though he may very well be right. But McNabb being talented is irrelevant...

Dustin, stop. McNabb is a next-generation QB who is revolutionizing the position. Rush is a moron blowhard who had to drag race into it. Way to keep conservativism anchored in racist nonsense, Rush.

The media pumped up black QBs in the late 80s/early 90s and by the time Rush made his comment, we had seen years of mediocre black QBs such as Rodney Peete and Kordell Stewart.

McNabb is a next-generation QB who is revolutionizing the position.

Last four quarterbacks to win the Super Bowl: Kurt Warner, Trent Dilfer, Tom Brady, and Brad Johnson. They have fewer rushing yards combined than McNabb in the last four years. Running might get you on SportsCenter, but the most important ability for a quarterback is still being able to throw accurately in the pocket.

As for Joe's question, no, I don't think you have anything to apologize for. The Eagles receivers dropped six passes, and the last two interceptions were not his fault. With his rib injury he couldn't run around, and when he can't run he's just another guy.

And the Colts didn't lose because "the team just had a bad game all around", they lost because the Patriots are a better team.

Actually, I was shocked the Colts were still in the game late. They kept having chances to climb back in, and kept blowing them. Fumbles. Dropped passes. Poor defense. It was painful.

The Petriots are very good ideed, and they have to be the favourites in the Super Bowl. But the Colts could have won that game if they had played the way they are capable of playing.

Interesting point indeed about the last 4 championship team QBs! Makes one wonder just how much one could do with a "Moneyball" type analysis applied to football stats - aspects of the QB position do appear to be overvalued in the market.

True that Rush didn't really diss McNabb he simply said that he was given more credit for their victories than he deserved and that the defense was the strength of the team. Michael Ervin agreed with him, actually. Fact is this game was consistant with that view.

McNabb is good but he's no Randall Cunningham. With Randall or McNabb the Eagles have to play tough D to win. They didn't. The DeShaun run was all you had to see to know who had the will to win and who didn't.

Back to the Bias:
Rush today made a running gag out of the media's coverage of the two games. Two excellent QBs lay an egg in the biggest game of the year. They have almost identical stats in their losing efforts. The white quarterback stood up and took all the blame and the press pretty much agreed with him; while giving much credit to the Pats. On the otherhand McNabb may be despondent but he didn't have the class to say "blame me". The press took the cue and now is blaming everyone but McNabb. The receivers dropped passes, he was injured, the play calling sucked. All true but poor routes and poor planning could be used to defend Peyton as well but they aren't.

You have to be blind to not see the reverse bias. I don't think it matters much to either Manning or McNabb. They'll probably both be back for another shot soon. It's just one more example of how a liberal press corp is incapable of separating their social agenda from reporting events.

Someone listed the last 4 Quarterbacks to win Superbowls and anyone who knows football will say these guys are middle of the line QBs--no super stars...which is what made the stat interesting. Then someone followed with the comment that perhaps stats have nothing to do with winning superbowls, meaning they assumed Superstar McNabb has superstar numbers.

Did you know that the 4 quarterbacks listed all have a better QB rating than McNabb? In fact, McNabb has never completed more than 60% of his passes in any one season. Yet from the media and reading some posts here...everyone thinks he is a super star why?

Someone stated to me there are intangibles and that McNabb wins. Ok. But didn't the last 4 Qbs win the big one? Funny too that not only is he the highest paid QB in the league, he is the highest paid player. Yet his QB rating puts him in 17th place in the league.

Chris, in McNabb's defence, there is more involved here than stats (which may be why there isn't a Moneyball analysis of football). McNabb only completed 57% of his passes this year, but my admittedly limited knowledge of the Eagles suggests he was the most important player on the team for several reasons. He's big and tough and he wants to win. He also is a running threat in a big way (as in the Green Bay game), which has to be factored into defence plans.

The Eagles are just light in talent in several areas, chiefly receivers, and their secondary looks like it needs some work, too. I realize they pay him big bucks and he should take the responsibility and not blame receivers. But we can blame the receivers, at least some of the time - what do you think his completion percentage would be if he had someone to pass to who could hold onto the ball?

I was actually rather impressed with the Colts defense. Sure, they couldn't hold the Patriots out in midfield, but with their backs to the end zone they stopped them 5 times--a much better result than I expected given the poor defense against the Chiefs. However, I believe the Patriots won on defense--my impression was that most or all of Manning's interceptions came when he was scrambling from the pass rush.

No doubt Patrick that McNabb is probably the most important member of his team although I credit his defense for their winning record. Agreed, his running ability makes the rival team have to use an extra player to spy him on defense. And he perhaps would have a higher completion rating with star wide recievers.

But the question is: What is it that makes the media call him a superstar?

Stats? Stats are awful. (funny he made it to the probowl this year too).

Passing? No, he is known to be shaky in the pocket and his accuracy is bad (which may or may not be receivers).

Running? Sure but then again, he is sacked more often and fumbles the ball more often than a star drop back passer. And who was the last rushing QB to make it to the superbowl? Steve Young was a scrambler but they didnt win the superbowl till he became a drop back passer.

Will and Hunger to win? Name a QB in the league who doesnt have this strong desire.

Wins? Someone just named the last 4 QBs to have gone to the Superbowl--2 of which are no longer starters in the league and all 4 with better stats.

Again--I am curious as to what it is that makes him a superstar?

Chris, I'll take a stab.

It may be a combination of consistently exciting plays (those magic feet) and his strength amidst a team that has so many thin areas (magnifies him). People wonder what he could do with a better team around him, and project his accomplishments forward to that when evaluating him.

Is that a mistake? It might be.

"Moneyball" was about taking evaluaiton of baseball talent away from gut feelings, potential, and flashy stats like saves and home runs to the key stats (some invented along the way) that captured things (like batters' On-Base Percentage, pitchers' WHIP, etc.) that made the biggest difference to winning and losing. It's not about the idea that stats are invalid, it's about being able to say which stats are most important, and back that up with hard historical data.

Does McNabb have the "wrong" stats for success? That would be an interesting discussion. Maybe he does. Or maybe improving the team around him really would change everything. Until they do, though, it will be hard to tell if this is a case of "Can't Change Me" or just "When I'm Down" :-)

In the meantime, the debates will be interesting. Great discussion here today, by the way - thanks everyone!

"On the otherhand McNabb may be despondent but he didn't have the class to say "blame me". The press took the cue and now is blaming everyone but McNabb."

Pinkston himself dropped 7 passes and didn't finish a slant route that turned into an INT. Duce dropped two first down passes. The TE dropped a first down pass. Thrash ran a poor route that caused the first INT and then he dropped a potential first down that turned into an interception. Honestly, all three INTs shouldn't have been intercepted. Please mention a game where the receivers played a more pathetic game than this one. Please. In Peyton's case, those four INTs were bad passes. He should have taken the blame because he had no one to blame (You can't blame a liquored up kicker who hasn't missed a FG all year). QB rating means poo. I find it hard to take seriously anyone who saw the game and says that he might have a better completion percentage with star WRs. That's a big duh. If he had receivers who completed their routes, his rating would've been better. McNabb is the worst team in the NFL, just like McGrady is the worst team in the NBA, just like ARod is the worst team in the MLB.

You have to look around those QBs because it wasn't the Qbs themselves that WON those games. Dilfer couldn't find a job the next year. Warner is sitting on the bench now. To me, that shows just how important those other QBs were. Why weren't the Bucs in the playoffs this year? The Eagles defense had more injuries than the Bucs.

"Wins? Someone just named the last 4 QBs to have gone to the Superbowl--2 of which are no longer starters in the league and all 4 with better stats.
Again--I am curious as to what it is that makes him a superstar?"

Again, look around those other QBs. That would show you all you need to know to figure this one out. Just connect the lines. The lesson the Eagles should learn this offseason is they need some receivers and lineman (off & def) with some heart.

To say that Rush didn't diss McNabb is insane. Let someone walk up to you and say "No disrespect, I just feel that you are overrated because of the pigment of your skin and the media" like that has any historical basis whatsoever. Notice Rush didn't say he didn't have any talent just that it isn't those same talents that got him the highest contract in the NFL or those endorsements. McNabb merely walked into the locker room the past four seasons and said "I am highly pigmented, the media loves me, hear me roar" and almost magically the team made it to the NFC Championship game. He didn't happen to break a leg early in a game that he happened to throw 4 TD passes in. Nooooooo, actually it was the media. The media desires that a black QB does well just like historically the same people that own the media just love black people, right? Remember how they just loved Doug Williams so much that he was whitelisted the year after he had won the big one? And how upset the media was that Doug wasn't given a chance after winning the big one? Donovan gets those endorsement deals because the media desires positive blacks in the mold of Uncle Ben, Aunt Jemima, and Sammy Davis. Oh, the Chunky Soup maaaaaaaaaaaaaan!

If you want to say anything racial about McNabb's success, you have to explain why Steve McNair is still underrated as a QB. Look at how he performed vs. New England as compared to Peyton Manning. Remember Tennessee's last play? If that receiver hadn't dropped a ball that hit him right in the stomach the Titans might have won. And McNair is pretty much always injured, sometimes horrifically. He played the whole game against New England on what looked like a torn calf muscle...one of the announcers pointed out that the painkillers were probably wearing off when McNair started to limp in the fourth quarter.

No, if McNabb is overrated it is for the same reason that Michael Vick might be -- because he is a great runner who is extremely exciting and unpredictable to watch play. That brings ratings and attention. But history shows that quarterbacks in the NFL don't win championships with their legs.

does anyone know how many dropped passes that dilfer had in super bowl xxxv...and if so how many were to running backs. i got money on this so please be correct