Panthers vs. Eagles: Jan-18-2004 NFC Championship

[Kev]

You said "The winner would be the team who screwed up the least."

In the regular season the Colts had only 20 total turnovers (2nd best in the league) and Philly had 22 (5th best). Sure, the regular season stats mean nothing in the playoffs as far as victories go, but this goes a long way to show at least that the Eagle's 5 turnovers in one game wasn't characteristic of this team. If anything you'd expect Carolina to be the ones to be screwing up, with their -5 net turnover differential. I'll give you that the New England game wasn't a fluke though, since they were 3rd in the league in takeaways.

Don't get me started on the Packers, they didn't even deserve to be in the playoffs in the first place after the Vikings choked.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Kev
You said "The winner would be the team who screwed up the least."

In the regular season the Colts had only 20 total turnovers (2nd best in the league) and Philly had 22 (5th best). Sure, the regular season stats mean nothing in the playoffs as far as victories go, but this goes a long way to show at least that the Eagle's 5 turnovers in one game wasn't characteristic of this team. If anything you'd expect Carolina to be the ones to be screwing up, with their -5 net turnover differential. I'll give you that the New England game wasn't a fluke though, since they were 3rd in the league in takeaways.

Don't get me started on the Packers, they didn't even deserve to be in the playoffs in the first place after the Vikings choked.

Well I'll give you that. If the Colts weren't playing a team with a great D like the Pats they probably wouldn't be screwing up much so if they played the Eagles or the Rams they would have dominated. But I do think they would have had problems with the Panthers.

That said, the best teams from each conference won, why would you prefer to have two lessor teams playing for the Championship?

 

[hpkeeper]

Originally posted by: Kev
You said "The winner would be the team who screwed up the least."

In the regular season the Colts had only 20 total turnovers (2nd best in the league) and Philly had 22 (5th best). Sure, the regular season stats mean nothing in the playoffs as far as victories go, but this goes a long way to show at least that the Eagle's 5 turnovers in one game wasn't characteristic of this team. If anything you'd expect Carolina to be the ones to be screwing up, with their -5 net turnover differential. I'll give you that the New England game wasn't a fluke though, since they were 3rd in the league in takeaways.

Don't get me started on the Packers, they didn't even deserve to be in the playoffs in the first place after the Vikings choked.

Even if those aren't regular season statistics... what are they're statistics vs. the Panthers? hell, 5 of those 22 turnovers could have come from the last time they met. What do Overall statistics have to do with anything? just because they had few turnovers doesn't mean that when they did have them they didn't come in large numbers.

 

[meccaboy858]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Kev
You said "The winner would be the team who screwed up the least."

In the regular season the Colts had only 20 total turnovers (2nd best in the league) and Philly had 22 (5th best). Sure, the regular season stats mean nothing in the playoffs as far as victories go, but this goes a long way to show at least that the Eagle's 5 turnovers in one game wasn't characteristic of this team. If anything you'd expect Carolina to be the ones to be screwing up, with their -5 net turnover differential. I'll give you that the New England game wasn't a fluke though, since they were 3rd in the league in takeaways.

Don't get me started on the Packers, they didn't even deserve to be in the playoffs in the first place after the Vikings choked.

Well I'll give you that. If the Colts weren't playing a team with a great D like the Pats they probably wouldn't be screwing up much so if they played the Eagles or the Rams they would have dominated. But I do think they would have had problems with the Panthers.

That said, the best teams from each conference won, why would you prefer to have two lessor teams playing for the Championship?

Sorry to jump in this so late, but as great as the Pats D is, it didn't hurt to much that they had home field with their own version of the frozen tundra up there. I don't think Manning would have played nearly as bad anywhere else but in NE, he's done so the whole season, even against the Patriots earlier in the year. Just shows you how much important home field can be. But then again the Panthers showed that it might not matter much also. 😕