Eagles 20-7 loss to Rams -- Owens' loss

[kaitykaity]

I'm just surprised nobody here is talking about it.

Are the Eagles done? Or was it a meaningless game for
a team conserving players for the playoffs?

http://www.nj.com/eagles/times/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/110431123124170.xml

For Eagles, no excuses in bad NFC
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
By MARK ECKEL

ST. LOUIS - If you want to use the loss of Terrell Owens as an excuse as to why the Eagles will fail in the playoffs again this year, go ahead.

The truth is, there are no excuses, Owens or no Owens, for the Eagles not to play in their first Super Bowl since the 1980 season.

They will be home for two playoff games. They will be favored by anywhere from a touchdown to two touchdowns over any opponent they will face. They are still far and away the class of the NFC.

Can they lose on one day to a team that plays out of its mind? Sure, but that could have happened with a healthy Owens, too.

... more

[Champ]

1. 1 game 1 loss

Anything can happen in any game. Philadelphia is still the best next to Atlanta, or Green Bay. Minnesota is good too. The NFC comes down to those teams this year.

[MrSlayer]

2. 2nd and 3rd team players played the game.

Reports of the Eagles demise are greatly exaggerated. They are head and shoulders above every team in the NFC even with out T.O..

[kaitykaity]

3. That was what I wanted to know.

Thank you.

;)

[Patiod]

4. Reid not taking any chances having any more players injured

[mvd]

5. That loss doesn't bother me

The previous two where they almost lost did bother me, though. Personally, I would have kept the offensive starters in for a half because of the way they played against the Redskins and Cowboys. I hope Reid's confidence in his players stepping up is justified.