Part 8 of a 9-part series in which Sharkey and the ManInBlack preview the NFL Season, all the way through the Super Bowl.  Today, they preview the NFC East, where they disagree on basically everything.

ManInBlack says:

If you listen to most of the talking heads and many of scribes, the NFC East is the toughest division in football.  They’ll tell you any of the four teams can win the division (true), nobody comes close to this division for rivalries (false), and that whoever wins this division is the “team to beat” (laughably false).  But I’ll agree that it is probably the most solid division all the way through.  Lets take a look.

I’m going to piss Sharkey off right away by declaring the New York Giants the last-place team in this division.  Its not that I think the Giants are bad, its just that I don’t think they’re better than any of the other teams.  Their running game has sputtered, and I’ve never believed Eli Manning can single-handedly carry this team.  I have them at a respectable but underwhelming 8-8.

Which means every other team in this division will end up with a winning record.  The most unsurprising of which would be the Dallas Cowboys, the “sexy” pick to go to the Super Bowl this year.  I’m not sure why.  They might be a very good team in the regular season, but in the playoffs, they have yet to overcome the Romo Choke.  Still, I have them going 10-6, most likely with a division championship.

So if the Giants are last and the Cowboys are first, that leaves the Philadelphia Eagles smack-dab in the middle.  I know people are really high on Kevin Kolb, which I find baffling.  He just doesn’t have the body of work to say he’s the guy to get this team over the hump.  They traded away their franchise QB and their franchise RB.  Optimistically, I’ll put them at 9-7.

And what of the team that has aquired that franchise QB from Philly?  The Washington Redskins have finally found their proven quarterback.  They added a platoon of pro-bowl running backs and super-talented ne’er-do-well Albert Haynesworth.  Oh, and they’re going to be coached by Mike Shanahan, who last time I checked was one of the best in the game.  Sharkey will disagree but I am ready to declare the Redskins a playoff team at 10-6.

Sharkey Says:

There’s no chance the Giants finish last in this division.  I’m not going to turn this response into an all-Giants event, so I’ll say this quickly.  Eli Manning is good enough, but I’m used to people believing otherwise.  He has a Super Bowl MVP, and is coming off a 4000+ yard season with a 93 QB rating.  The Giants were Top 10 in the NFL last year in yards per game, points per game, and passing yards per game, while finishing 17th in rushing per game, and 30th in points allowed.

The defense will be better this year, and the Giants will be much improved because of it.  I have them finishing 10-6, and making the playoffs.

The Cowboys finished 11-5 last year, and improved a lot this offseason, and you have them going 10-6?  I don’t see it.  I hate Dallas, and I still don’t buy into Tony Romo as a bigtime QB, but he certainly is an elite regular season QB.  This team will finish 13-3 this year, and compete for homefield advantage.

I also had the Eagles at 9-7, although I think I believe in Kevin Kolb a little more than you do.  Maybe not.  Either I believe in him less than I think, or you believe in him more than you think; otherwise, its impossible for me to say he’s the real thing, you to say that’s baffling, and then both of us to say the Eagles finish 9-7.

The Redskins we disagree on tremendously.  10-6?  You’re insane.  Yes, McNabb is a huge step up, but why is everyone so quick to anoint Mike Shanahan as a great coach all of a sudden?  What has he done exactly since John Elway retired and Terrell Davis got injured?  He was 47-17 with Elway & a healthy TD, and went 7-1 in the playoffs and won two Super Bowls.  Since 1999, Shanahan has a 93-69 record, and a 1-4 playoff record.  That’s a .574 winning percentage, which is good, but in the NFL, it’s not great.

To put that in perspective, Mike McCarthy, Sean Payton, Mike Sherman, Wade Phillips, Andy Reid, Mike Martz, and Barry Switzer all have higher career winning percentages.

Shanahan is getting the same hype in Washington that Norv Turner, Marty Schottenheimer, Steve Spurrier, and Joe Gibbs all got in the last fifteen years, and that didn’t work out for any of them.

McNabb has a decent line, three aging RBs in Clinton Portis, Larry Johnson, and Willie Parker (look for Ryan Torain to end up with the most carries this season), and a 2nd WR battle between Malcolm Kelly and Devin Thomas.  He wasn’t a miracle worker on a constantly stacked Philadelphia team, there’s no reason to believe he suddenly will be on a team that has significantly less talent at literally every single position.

The Redskins will go 6-10 this year.

ManInBlack says:

There’s “no chance” the Giants finish last in the division?  What exactly makes you so sure?  Just because you’re so down on the ‘skins (which I’ll get to in a moment)?  The Giants finished 8-8 last year and I haven’t seen much improvement.  The defense, as far as points allowed, pretty much has to get better, yes.  And maybe Eli will prove me wrong and put up another great season.  But looking at their schedule and the improvement around the division, I can definitely imagine them falling to fourth.

I might have given the Cowboys a little lower number than I should have, but that’s probably because I hate the Cowboys.  America’s team, my ass.  But I still had them winning the division and I’ll debate the point that they’ve improved all that dramatically in the offseason.  What did they do, exactly?  If you say “they added Dez Bryant”, I’m going to slap you around a little.  Unproven rookie Wide Receivers have the biggest percentage of failure of any position on the field not named quarterback.  But they play New Orleans, at Indy, at Green Bay, and all their division rivals twice…I can see 6 losses in there.

Eagles…I think most people think Kolb is going to come out and throw for 300 yards a game.  That’s not going to happen.  I think he’ll be ok, and their D will be ok, and that’s why I put them just above .500.  They’ll be ok, not great.  That’s all I meant when I said I was baffled by the hype, because it seems like a lot of people (like every Philly fan on earth) think Kolb is going to walk out on Sunday and pass for 500 yards and get them places McNabb never could, which is beyond ridiculous.

Speaking of McNabb…6-10 for the Redskins??  Really??  We’ll start with Mike Shanahan.  You gave some stats (that I’ll show are skewed in a second), but let me give you some.  He’s 146-95 overall which is a .650 winning percentage, 8-5 in the playoffs with a .605.  That means he averaged around 10 wins per season in his career.  In comparison, the “genius” Bill Belichick has a career winning percentage of .626.  Bill Cowher had a .623 winning percentage.  Tom Landry had a .594 winning percentage.  So Shanahan is right up there with some of the most successful coaches of all time, career-wise.

In addition, I take umbrage with a few things you said.  First is that Terrell Davis had anything to do with anything regarding Shanahan’s record.  Davis played, basically, 4 years in the NFL.  The rest of the time he was injured.  That’s the reason he’s not in the Hall of Fame.  But Davis didn’t make Shanahan; Shanahan made Davis.  It was Shanahan’s system that Davis shined in.  Under Shanahan, Davis and Clinton Portis as well as such big names as Tatum Bell, Olandis Gary, Reuben Droughns, and Mike Anderson all were 1000-yard rushers.  You just don’t have 6 different backs of varying (and in some cases limited) ability rush for 1000+ yards.  You just don’t.  Credit that to Shanahan.  So what’s going to happen when he has three older, yes, but still talented RBs to chose from, and a young guy waiting in the wings?  These guys aren’t going to be rushing for entire games; they’re all going to split limited carries based on situation, scheme, and need.  Under Shanahan, don’t be surprised if their run game is much, much improved.

The second thing I have to point out; your musing about Shanahan’s record with and without John Elway.  Of course he’s going to do slightly less better without his uber-stud QB.  Bill Belichik has a lifetime losing record when he’s coached without Tom Brady.  Chuck Noll wasn’t so hot without Terry Bradshaw.  Yet nobody debates their greatness.  But as you yourself pointed out, 93-69 is not terrible.  In fact, its pretty damn good, especially over an extended period of time.

As for McNabb…I really truly believe that most of the Eagles’ gaffs under McNabb came from coaching and clock mismanagement.  McNabb is better than any quarterback the Redskins have had…well maybe ever.  The Redskins aren’t worse in every position than the Eagles; that’s just silly.   Whether they’ll improve as dramatically as I say they will, or end around .500 remains to be seen.  But having them at 6-10?  There’s just no way.

Sharkey Says:

Having a healthy Kenny Phillips this year (he played 6 quarters last year) alone will make the Giants leaps & bounds better.  Adding Antrel Rolle and Keith Bulluck to the defense, and having guys like Osi Umenyiora, Aaron Ross, Michael Boley, and Chris Canty healthy, should also help to improve the D from 30th to somewhere in the low teens.  Also, not every addition is a player.  New defensive coordinator Perry Fewell is changing everything about the Giants, and all reports so far seem to indicate that this is going to be much like the Steve Spagnuolo defenses of 2007 and 2008, not like last year’s disaster of a defense that Bill Sheridan marched out onto the field.

Also, I don’t know how you can say the Giants staying pat while the NFC East improved is bad, and then ask how the Cowboys improved, and also say you don’t buy into the Eagles that much.  Which is it?  Did the Giants not improve while everyone else did, or did nobody improve except your beloved Redskins?

Speaking of, the Redskins are the real argument here.  Or more particularly, right now, Mike Shanahan and Terrell Davis.  Do you really believe that Davis wasn’t that good, or that he was a product of the system?  Are you serious?  If so, then I am no longer worried about arguing the merits of Shanahan and McNabb with you, because it’s clear you don’t really know what you’re talking about.

Terrell Davis was hands down one of the five best running backs of my lifetime, even with his super short career.  He was dynamic.  He was explosive.  And he would have been great no matter who his coach was, and if you don’t believe that, go back and watch some film of what he did on the field… and then go watch film of Tatum Bell, Olandis Gary, and Reuben Droughns.  See the difference?

As far as the Eagles & Redskins comparisons go, you can’t tell me you think McNabb will be better off with Santana Moss, Joey Galloway, Chris Cooley, Clinton Portis, Mike Sellers, and that offensive line than he would have been with DeSean Jackson, Jeremy Maclin, Brent Celek, LeSean McCoy, and the Eagles line.  It’s simply not true.  The Eagles are better across the board.  Fact.

Basically, what it boils down to is you’re drinking the kool-aid, because you’re not from around here, and you don’t follow the NFC East on a regular basis.  The Redskins look sexy, and you apparently believe Donovan McNabb and Mike Shanahan are enough to turn a 4 win team into a 10 win team in the toughest division in football.

Nevermind your skepticism on the Giants, that’s understandable.  There’s no proof on paper that shows they should be better this year, but they’ll be better.  Your Redskin infatuation is inexcusable, though.

Six wins, seven at the most.  And guaranteed two losses worse than the Giants.  GUARANTEED.

ManInBlack says:

Ok, hold on.  Terrell Davis was one of the top-5 running backs in YOUR LIFETIME?  If I’m not mistaken, you were born in the early 1980s, which means that in your lifetime you’ve seen Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, Curtis Martin, Jerome Bettis, Adrian Peterson, LaDainian Tomlinson, Marshall Faulk, Fred Taylor, Marcus Allen, Thurman Thomas, Edgerrin James, as well as the later careers of the likes of Walter Payton and Tony Dorsett.  All of which have more seasons played, more yards rushed for, and helped their team a hell of a lot more than Terrell Davis.  Top 5 of your lifetime.  I should kick you in your junk for saying something so idiotic.

Would Davis have been successful in another system, on another team?  Sure, probably.  Would he have done as well as he did in Denver?  No….freaking…..way.  There’s no chance.  He’s eligible for the Hall of Fame, you know.  Why isn’t he enshrined?  You’d think one of the top 5 running backs in the past 30 years would have made the cut.  I’m not saying, I’m just saying.

But enough about him.  No use in arguing anymore about an NFL footnote.  I’ll take what you wrote line by line.  Who would I rather have at QB, McNabb or Kolb?  McNabb.  Moss or Jackson?  Jackson probably.  Maclin or Galloway.  Maclin.  Cooley over Celek.  Portis and McCoy are a tie.  McCoy is still learning while Portis is running down.  As for the offensive line, I remember Jason Campbell going half a season without throwing an INT.  You don’t do that if your o-line is garbage.  So don’t tell me the Redskins’ o-line is bad.  There’s not a whole lot there telling me the Eagles are so much better than the Skins.  They have a better WR corps because the Eagles are young and the Skins are old.  But after that, its advantage Skins.

Giants, whatever.  Eagles, ok.  Cowboys, sure.  But I can’t wait to see your face when the Skins not only outperform your expectations, they end up ahead of your Giants in the standings.

Sharkey Says:

I have a feeling this TD debate may best be saved for another post, some other time.  But I’ll just say this.  Yes, I was born in 1982.  I wasn’t considering any of those great backs in the 80s (Payton, Dorsett, and Allen), mostly because I don’t really remember watching them play besides the latter stages of their careers.  Emmitt and Barry are obviously #1 and #2, LDT is special, and Peterson, Martin, Bettis, etc, are all hall of famers.  But Besides Emmitt and Barry, none of the other players you mentioned was able to do anything that Davis couldn’t do.  His career was cut short, which is a damn shame, because he’s just as good as basically everyone you just mentioned.

As far as Washington’s offensive line goes, I didn’t say they were bad or anything.  I just asked if you’d rather have them or have Philadelphia’s?  I’d still prefer Philly’s.  And maybe Campbell went all that time without throwing an INT not because of his O-line, but rather because he’s a pretty good QB.  We both agree on that, which is why we both have Oakland having a fairly successful season this year.  I’m not naive enough to compare Campbell to McNabb, that’s just silly.  At least as far as their career achievements are concerned.  But this 34 year old version of Donovan isn’t nearly as good as you seem to think he is, and he absolutely will not be enough to deliver all these immediate victories to Washington.

When McNabb and Shanahan joined Washington, everyone was on the same bandwagon as you.  The difference is, they’ve all since jumped off, because they realize an old QB and an overrated coach don’t take a team from worst to first in the deepest division in the NFL.

I know fantasy doesn’t equal NFL success, but would you really rather have Clinton Portis and Chris Cooley on your roster than LeSean McCoy and Brent Celek?!  Didn’t think so!  So why do you believe they’re all equal, or that the Redskin guys are slightly better?

Just like the Skins aren’t better than the Giants (like I’ve repeatedly said), the Skins players aren’t better than the Eagles… or, any other teams’ in the NFC East, for that matter.