New Podcast: Tommy and I discuss the news items from Andy Reid’s presser, and a debate on if you could guarantee one SB, but you’re the Rams for the next decade

You can find the podcast here. (It’s also available on iTunes, just FYI).

So… Eagles fans… You have two options:

  1. You can guarantee a Super Bowl win in 2012, but for the next decade you’re the Rams.  Keep in mind, in the last 5 years, the Rams have a record of 15-65, a winning percentage of .188.  To  put that into perspective, 80 games is half a baseball season.  If you take the Rams’ wins over the last 5 years and project that over of 162 game season, that’s 30 or 31 wins.  There hasn’t been a baseball team that inept since 1899.
  2. You can just let the chips fall where they may.  The Eagles still might win a Super Bowl… or like they haven’t since the Super Bowl was invented… not.

Update: Added caveat: After you make your decision, you get flashed with the device from Men in Black, where you have no recollection of making that decision.  That way, if you choose the SB win, you get to fully enjoy the ups and downs of the season, having no idea that they are going to win it all.

Anyway, we discuss this topic on the podcast, but I’m curious what you think in poll form:


  1. Jim Z. says:

    This is a ridiculous question to pose.

    Most teams that win the Super Bowl do so because they are an elite team that is in playoff contention year-in and year-out.

    Look at the Packers, the Giants, the Saints, the Patriots and the Steelers. All of these teams won Super Bowls recently and have the requisite talent to remain Super Bowl contenders for years.

    There’s really no reason whatsoever to expect that a Super Bowl victory could ever preclude a team from having a sustained run of success.

    If I had to choose based on the way this question is worded, I would choose neither. I would rather have a team like the Giants, Patriots, Packers, or Steelers that wins a Super Bowl not because of a flukey one year miraculous run, but because the talent is such on that team that it is simply an inevitaillity after years of playoff contention.

    Similarly, the reason that the Eagles have never won a Super Bowl is because they simply never had enough talent to be that top team. They’ve never had better than an above-average QB, and their defensive talent has never truly been transcendent in the 2000 Ravens, 2002 Bucs or 1985 Bears mold.

    1. Jimmy Kempski says:


  2. Dan in Philly says:

    I would choose setting the team up so every year you have a chance of winning the Superbowl without the assurance – if you make the playoffs you have a 1/8 or 1/4 chance of getting to the SB (changing if you have the bye), and I will take those odds over assured failure for a decade easily.

    1. DerfDiggy says:

      How have those odds worked for Philly since the inception of the SB?


      Just curious?

  3. corn on the Kolb says:

    No. I firmly believe 1 superbowl would result in a dynasty. I think if Philly could’ve taken one during the TO era, the team stays happy, JJ lives forever, and the giants go 0 and 16 before the lions do.

  4. Mflick says:

    The beauty of sports is not knowing. Guarantees are not worth it. It would be like watching a recording of it, and not really living it.

  5. NYG_slater says:

    hmmm, it would be interesting to know if giant fans would do the same….If we win a super bowl, again, (hehehe) this year, would that make us a dynasty? 3 SBs over 6 years. Although sucking for the following decade would take some of the polish off, Idk…..think i’d let it ride too. Eagles and Giants are in a good position to compete anyway.

    1. If I were a Giants fan, NO EFFING WAY I do that deal. I wouldn’t do it if I were an Eagles fan either, but I’d at least think about it.

      1. NYG_slater says:

        yea, i think you’d have to sweeten the pot and make it 2 straight super bowls for me to really even consider it.

  6. icdogg says:

    I will rephrase the question in a different way. Let’s say in a parallel universe the Eagles had won the Super Bowl in 2004, and then fell apart and averaged less than 3 wins a season since, and still seemed hapless and hopeless. Would we be happier today based on that previous championship, than we are now despite never winning a Super Bowl? I don’t think that I would be.

    1. Todd B says:

      I live in Massachusetts. For me, the answer is a resounding “yes”.

  7. Todd B says:

    I take the SB. I have already expereinced a decade of ineptitude and the ups and downs of an almost-good-enough-but-not-quite season. A SB win would be a nice change of scenery.

  8. Derf Diggy says:

    After the decade do you resume being a playoff team?
    Are we talking about a wholesale regimen change after a decade, or keeping the current Rams level FO for the next 40 years.(ala Jerry & Co.)

    If change is possible…I’m taking the Superbowl Win…a SB win and a decade of futility is worth it every time. I assure you…as a Cowboys fan…I have much experience with this.

    1. I’d take the decade if it followed our 5th SB. lol

  9. Let it ride. because even if we did win there is absolutely zero chance of the rest of that happening.

  10. iskar36 says:

    I let it ride. Honestly, the way the question is phrased, I just think the Superbowl year would be kind of boring if it was guaranteed and known. For me, I would much rather have the ups and down of the season and then it ending with a Superbowl than coasting as a fan because I know the Superbowl is guaranteed at the end of the day.

    1. Ah, OK, well let’s add a little caveat to that then. You make your decision, then you get flashed with the device from Men in Black, where you have no recollection of making that decision.

%d bloggers like this: