Iggles Blog Vs. Bounty Bowl Blogstravaganza

Update:  Gabe's response is up on his site.  I haven't read it yet, but probably should before I re-respond.  Look for the next post loaded up rightchere tomorrow morning.

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

There are many, many good Eagles writers out there, but none are more consistently entertaining than Gabe at BountyBowl.com.  (Of course, by "consistently" I mean "during those 48 hour periods in which he posts six times," not the other 28 days on the calendar.)  Every good humorist needs a straight man, so Gabe and I decided we might try one of those email back-and-forth type things for a few days in order to fill some space during the insanely slow portion of the offseason achieve a greater understanding of the Eagles and where they're headed in 2008 -- and beyond! 

The plan is for this to work like one of those Slate Dialogue things, although significantly more low-brow.  Not Deadspin low-brow, necessarily, but somewhere between the two. 

Here's the first post.  I'll link to Gabe's response when it's up on his site.

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

Gabe,

I know we've got a bunch of topics we want to cover here, but let's start with something I've been thinking about for awhile. 

It seems to me the great schism in Eagles fandom this century has focused on the performance of Donovan McNabb.  Either you were "for" McNabb, in that you recognized the man as the best quarterback in (at least) the franchise's modern era and a class act to boot, or you were "against" McNabb, in that you had a stupefying inability to recognize his talents and, quite frankly, wouldn't recognize good quarterback play if it dropped back five steps and bit you on the ass.

We had achieved a nice stasis there for a few years, but I think the events of the last couple seasons have started to bring those two camps together.  I'm not just talking about the on-field stuff, it's the other drama.  The family, the management issues, TO, Pam Oliver, the open flirting with the city of Chicago, the insane pictures of McNabb the Man for All Seasons.  I mean, I really do love the guy.  I'm glad I've had the chance to root for him for so long.  But at some point, it all just started to become a bit much.

We never would have gotten here without the injuries, of course.  They gave us a glimpse of life without McNabb and we saw that it could be ... OK.  Not great.  Not Super Bowl worthy.  But still not terrible.  Kind of like when you're in college and your girlfriend spends a semester abroad.  Maybe you wouldn't have noticed all her annoying little habits if she'd never left and then come back, but since she did .. and since it turns out she is a little nuts after all ... maybe it's time to at least start thinking about looking around a bit.

And let me take this moment to wish you luck on your impending nuptials!

I would go so far as to say that everything that's happened since about 2005 seems to have had the effect of bringing a gradual resolution of the whole McNabb debate into a Unified Theory of Donovan:

1. Heck of a player. 
2. Good guy. 
3. Pretty much down to his last shot in this town. 

(3a. And probably more than a little annoyed that Brett Favre is even THINKING about coming back as the savior of Chicago.  That was totally his idea first.)

Of course, the problem with resolving the McNabb debate is that we need to find something else to argue about.  Fortunately, because this is Philadelphia, we have no shortage of possible topics. 

The leading candidate at this point seems to be the great divide between:

1. Those fans who appreciate the success of the last few years, understand that the overlap between said success and the tenure of Andy Reid is probably not coincidental, and generally evaluate and enjoy each season within its own specific context, versus,
2. Those fans who believe that a quarter century without a championship is quite enough, thank you, and at this point the only metric for "success" is "winning a Super Bowl."  Anything else is a failure -- of the ownership, front office, coaches and team.

Or, to put it in the terms you used by email earlier

"[T]he Eagles have dominated their division (and, arguably, the NFC) for most of the decade, yet have zero championships to show for it.  The Giants got in as a wild-card after a very rocky season last year (and years of middling to minimal success) and won the whole thing.  Who would you rather be?  I might also add that I hate the f*cking Giants.  A lot."

Probably a good time to commend you for annoying so many Giants fans, by the way.  You must be doing something right. 

As to the question above, I'm a serious number one-er.  Winning a Super Bowl in any given season is really, really hard.  As we saw last year, even having the best team in the history of the NFL -- [insert mocking laughter here] -- is no guarantee that your town will end up with a parade.  You need skill, yes, but also mountains of good fortune, both big picture (i.e., injuries) and small (i.e., officiating). 

Also, it helps to cheat.

That doesn't stop the number two-ers from being extremely vocal in opposition to this point.  I think it may in fact be time to propose a new Godwin's Law for Eagles message boards, which states: "The longer a thread continues, the probability of someone mentioning that the Eagles have FAILED to win a SUPER BOWL in CASE YOU HADN'T NOTICED approaches one."

So who would I rather be?  I'll take the Eagles.  And not just because Giants fans are tools. 

Yes, winning a Super Bowl would be awesome.  But it's not going to be historically awesome for that particular Giants team and its fans.  Right now we're all over Tom Coughlin and Eli Manning, but those guys better cash it in soon, because in about four months everyone's going to see just how few clothes that emperor is wearing.  Mark my words, the Giants will end up being just one more of those fluke championship teams, like the Baltimore Ravens, Florida Marlins or Lovett College.

I'll take it even one step further than that.  If you gave me the choice right now of either:  1) winning a Super Bowl next year but seeing Andy Reid leave to go coach at BYU and being replaced by some classless jackass in the mold of Buddy Ryan, or 2) guaranteeing that Reid would stick around for the next five years, continue to do his thing, and maybe we would or maybe we wouldn't get a parade during that time period, I'd absolutely choose door #2.

Shocking?  Not really.  Sports is about more than just the validation that comes from winning a championship. It's about playing the game the way it should be played, treating people the right way, and -- for fans -- rooting for the name on the back of the jersey, not just the front. 

Coaches don't wear jerseys, but the point stands.

</sermon>

Tag.  You're it.