Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty
I know, I love it. Proof their SB run was a fluke....overrated garbage team.
|
The super bowl win was two years ago. Saying that a season two years removed from a super bowl proves that it was a fluke is quite ignorant.
To prove this, lets see the roster turn-over from the super bowl win, and week 17 (today's Viking game)
(To clalify, by gone, I mean either retire, lost to free agency, or currently on IR.)
4 starters on offense from the super bowl, gone.
7 starters from the defense, gone.
Key reserves lost: 6
Now, lets compare this to the Eagles roster changes from the same period.
5 lost on offense.
6 lost on defense.
My hypothesis was wrong. Both teams have the same amount of turnover.
Which leads me to conclude that, the Eagles did better than the Giants at replacing their losses. I will say, as much as this pains me, that the eagles have a ton of playmakers, on both sides of the ball. They can be scary good sometimes. (Cowboys don't scare me as much.)
Orginal point still stands though, it is quite silly to state a late season collapse (a complete and total one at that) proves that the super bowl win two years ago was a fluke.