The Eagles had a great season. They played a great game against the Rams. Even with their best (and cutest) DB, Troy Vincent, hurt, they gave the Rams all they could handle. They kept most of the Rams offense in check (except for Marshall Faulk and Isaac Bruce) and held the Rams to under 30.

I don't think there's a doubt in anyone's mind that the St Louis Rams are the best team in football for 2001-02. None. And given how the Eagles played on Sunday, there's no doubt that we saw the best two teams in the NFL (not just the NFC) playing on the afternoon game on Fox. And given how young the Eagles core group of key players is, and the continued development and improvement of Donovan McNabb, there is no doubt that the Eagles are going to be winning a few Super Bowls before the McNabb-to-Thrash combo is finished playing together.

So, given the notorious pessimism, impatience, anger and general unpleasantness of Philadelphia sports fans, how are they rating this season's Eagles? A successful preview of the coming good times? Or, is the glass half-empty and filled with poison? Are they screaming about the team being chokers, McNabb being a choker because of his early fumble and failure to run during the game?

It'll be an interesting test over the next few days to see how they react.

For a change, they seem ALMOST grateful for the Eagles efforts and achievenment. Fortunately the game wasn't at home in Veteran stadium.

A more interesting test would be to write something that's accurate and intelligent about the Philadelphia fans, for a change.

I think they fans have been pretty understanding. Definitely disappointed. But overall proud of the Iggles.

The Eagles, and their fans, have nothing to hang their heads about. They hung in til the end, beat the spread, and did Philly proud.

To me, that WAS the Super Bowl (and I'm a Pats fan!). Olympic-ly speaking, they win the silver this year.

Imagine if the Eagles didn't spot St-Loo 7 points to open the game? We might have a Patriots/Eagles Super Bowl. How "American" could you get?

Never thought Philly would get as far as they did. But I still believe, with much statistical evidence to back myself up, that step-back-pump-and-fire QBs are the ones that win games in this day and age. I cannot recall the last time a QB that throws-but-mixes-it-up-by-scrambling type has won the whole thing.
The same thing has been played out at the college level for some time as well.
Call it the "West Coast" offense, or "Fun and Gun," or whatever you wish.
Passing teams have an odd habit of beating the teams with QBs that take it upon themselves to scramble out of the pocket.

That said, St Louie and New England both arrived at this spot with QBs that are pure throwers. And Pittsburgh and Philly, having QBs that run or make poor passing decisions, get to begin winter vacations a tad bit earlier.

Anyone else have the same opinion of this odd contrast? If you don't, I expect specific multiple examples to refute my opinion. I'm always opened to changing my mind, provided someone can make a valid claim based upon actual data.