A Paradox and a Prediction

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." --Ralph Waldo Emerson

Two days before kickoff and here's where I am:

1. The Eagles of 2007 are better than the Eagles of 2006.
2. I felt more optimistic about the Eagles of 2006 than I do about the Eagles of 2007.
3. This makes no sense.

Last year I was convinced -- I knew -- that the Eagles were going to be better than everyone else believed (present company excepted).  I laughed my way through a fantasy football draft as I picked up Eagles players several rounds after they should have been gone.  I railed against the national "experts" who all proclaimed the window was closed as they jumped on the Cowboys or Redskins bandwagons.  I even started a blog dedicated to the idea that they were all wrong and the Eagles were going to be a very good team. 

I'm not going to claim I foresaw the wild ride the team went on last year, but the core points were proven.  McNabb is still a great quarterback, there's plenty of talent on this team, Reid still knows how to coach, and -- most importantly -- the window argument was bogus. 

Something's different this year, though.  I still think they're going to be a very good team, but my excitement over that prospect is tempered with ... something.  I'm not even sure what it is, but I have a few theories:

The poor preseason theory (30%).  I know the preseason doesn't matter.  But while it wasn't an unmitigated disaster, it still wasn't great.  The good points were that Kevin Kolb looked remarkably advanced for a rookie and no one got hurt.  The bad points included:

1. Abysmal first-half performances against the Ravens and Steelers.
2. Evidence that linebacker could continue to be an area of concern for some time.
3. A gimpy Dawkins.
4. Problems with the running game.
5. Continued poor play from the return and coverage teams.
6. Missed connections that suggest Curtis doesn't have Stallworth's extra fifth gear.
7. Questions about depth at key positions, notably right guard.
8. Occasional-to-frequent poor tackling.
9. Jon Dorenbos.
10. Name your own favorite issue here.

And I was even one of the people who didn't think Kearse looked all that bad out there.

Again, I know the preseason doesn't matter.  I've been repeating that to myself every day for a month now.  But would I feel better about the team if they'd shown a little more in that game against the Steelers?  Yeah, I think so.

The defense must prove it theory (25%).  Last year, all we heard about before the season was how the Eagles were ready to roll out maybe their best defense of the Jim Johnson era.  Didn't happen.  After a strong start, things went downhill in a big way.

This year, everyone is being reeeeally careful about not spouting any of that crap before the games begin.  Here's Dawkins in a story on Thursday:

"There's no way to possibly know," Dawkins said. "I hope people will be drastically surprised by the speed we play at."

I like the changes that have been made.  I think Bunkley is going to be a revelation as everyone gets to reap the benefits of playing with a defensive tackle who must be double-teamed.  But last year at this time I also thought Bunkley was going to a monster after watching him beat up on second and third-team guards all preseason, so we'll have to wait and see.

The "popular pick" theory (20%).  If most national experts generally are wrong about this stuff...  And most national experts are on the Eagles' bandwagon...  Is that a good sign?  I don't think so. (No offense to our good friends at USA Today.)

The "what about Don" theory (15%).  Sooner or later he has to stay healthy for a full season, right?  He's due.  Right?  Isn't he?

The Philadelphia theory (10%).  This crap always happens to us.  The recent collapse of the Phillies just demonstrates once again that some how, some way, these guys will find a way to lose.  Look, I'm not proud of it either, but I'm a Philly fan, so there you @$#%!ing go. 

-------------------------------

So where does that leave us for Sunday?  Honestly, for as much as I (and my alter-ego) think the Packers are going to be an improved team, this game really doesn't come down to what they do.  If the Eagles play like they should, with an offense led by the recovered McNabb and explosive Westbrook, then they really should take care of business.  Even if there are a couple of bust-ups in the secondary or linebacker area, that shouldn't be enough to make a difference as long as the Eagles take care of the football and don't give away free points off turnovers.

The Eagles should be 4-0 after their initial run against Green Bay, Washington, Detroit and the Giants, but I don't think it's going to happen that way.  There are going to be growing pains and I think they're going to lose a game they should win somewhere in that stretch (it won't be against Detroit). 

With that said, taken individually, these are all games they should win and it would be a fool's errand to try to guess when the toe stub will come:

Eagles - 27
Packers - 20

Bonus prediction - Akers 2-for-3 on field goals. 

Comments

[BenZ]

that's exactly how I see it, right down to the percentages. Of course, I'm not from Philadelphia, (I'm an Eagles fan because my family came from that area,) but I understand the Philadelphia malaise very well. At some point, Philly's gonna have a champion and you're all gonna need to have something else to complain about. There's always the weather.

[McTumms]

NFL Total Access is totally hit-or-miss (usually miss, but its occasional hits make it worthwhile). Last year, Terrell Davis talked about how players view the season: divide it into quarters, and try to win each quarter. Even if you split two, you're 10-6 and in the playoffs. Over the years, I've noticed that the first quarter of the season doesn't mean a whole lot. Some teams play well early and fade; others struggle before hitting their stride. It happens every year. The important thing is not to get into too deep a hole early and get better as the season wears on--because teams that can really turn it on at playoff time are fairly rare. So, regardless of how Sunday goes--I'm saying we win--take the result with a grain of salt. Remember 1994.

I say all this because we really don't know what this defense is going to look like, and it could be rough going early. I can't believe it won't be different than it was in the preseason. They played Gaither like they did Trotter and Gocong like a traditional SAM. No way either continues. Gaither isn't going to blow up the A gaps effectively, and if they wanted an Emmons-like player on the strong side, Bradley would have had a legitimate shot to win the job. I have some ideas about what they may end up doing with Gocong, but suffice to say, it won't be what's on the preseason tape.

I agree that Kearse was better in the preseason than people have said. Watch the sequence of plays deep in the Steeler end before the Mikell fumble recovery. Kearse was doubled, yet quick and effective. In fact, watch the snaps from that game in slow motion--God, I love TiVo--and you'll see that he's usually the first guy out of his stance. Also, is anyone surprised he sucks against the run? We knew that when we signed him.

The offense just needs to stay healthy.