And here's a point the people who think TO tanked the Eagles success(in a bubble they might be right at least partially) never mention. Do they believe the Eagles would have had the same success in 04 and more success after if TO had never arrived? Because the fact that TO destroyed you also means he's responsible for the 04 NFC title. I feel people are asking the "wrong if" instead of wondering why the Eagles didn't win a Super Bowl they should be asking how they made 4 conference title games in a row(company they share with mostly dynasties)? Given the Eagles roster compared to the rest of the league I think the team exceeded them.
When people blame Andy Reid's Time Management, TO or anyone else they are implying that roster should have achieved more when I think that's really hard to argue. Like with the Bills and their four straight Super Bow losses you see a roster with hall of famers at almost all the skill positions and the all time leading sack leader and quite a few other quality stars. They almost beat the Giants and the teams they faced in the years after were some of the most stacked ever(read somewhere a few teams the 91 Redskins were the best NFL team ever even over 07 Patriots). WHY should the Eagles have won those Super Bowls.
a)Their defense wasn't that below what we see in a champ(Hawkins in HOF and I think Kearse might go in though I'm sticking more through my memory of how he was viewed) but still was inferior to not just your Bucs, Ravens and Pats but even the great teams for whom defense was the weaker side. Rams, Raiders and Panthers not only are all going to end up with more defensive HOF'ers than the Eagles(Rakders are about to get their second next year and this is a team that's famous for their offense) but their best were better than Dawkins and Kearse. I'm going to make a bold claim and correct me I'm wrong but the more I look into it the Eagles honestly might have one of the worst defensive rosters to make the Super Bowl in the 00s(roster wise I don't mean stats). Only team I can say that clearly had a worse defense was the Seahawks, and every time you think of an offensive focused team they had a lot of great players. Colts had Freeney and a bunch of notables like Mathis and Bob Sanders. Saints had Harper(who is a HOFer on paper but won't get in because he was such a shit stain they went out of the way to change to rules to prevent him from getting in) and Sharper. Even the Cardinals who I recall were close to defense probably had no HOFers but they were really deep with talented players(who were young at the time), lots of good players who made a few Pro Bowls.
So that's 19th out of 20 confrence champions in defense. And since I was curious brought that same logic into the 2010s and only the 16 Falcons had a less star studded roster(this years Chiefs might have looked worse but it's close and too early to even get a feel for that).
So what about offense? They got T.O(who was only in 1 playoff game for the team and wasn't healthy in it) and McNabb who was barely a top 5 QB in the most pass friendly HC in the league(could be forgetting someone). People say McNabb's a borderline HOF'er but you could argue the SB is circular logic cause(if a player isn't a Dilfer type) their reputation is largely determined by how the team does. I will say this seeing how Mahomes and even Alex Smith did without McNabb makes McNabb's numbers seem less impressive. If you're hung up on the era being easier for defense look back to what TO did for the Niners and Cowboys. Think McNabb's better than Garcia and Romo but point is TO was a star because of things he'd done before playing with a lot of life insurance barring, the insurance helps but the product is still what it is). The 04 Eagles didn't have any depth.
In terms of Westbrook he was good but I noticed at least half the NFL have 1 guy(sometimes more) who is at or above rushing stats that used to be earth shattering in the 14 game era from the late 90s and early 2000s. It eas hard not to have a running back be the offensive star of your team the way things were and not put up all time numbers. The paragraph below is one very long sentence.
Chargers had Tomlinson, Cardinals had James, Sehawks had Alexander, Chiefs had Priest Holmes and Larry Johnson, the Ravens had Jamal Lewis, Titans had Eddie George, Giants had Tiki Barber, the Falcons had Dunn, Titans had Eddie George, Niners had Frank Gore, Bengals and Pats had Cory Dillon, Rams had Steven Jackson Jaguars had Fred Taylor AND M Jones Drew, Redskins had Clinton Portis, the Bears had Thomas Jones and the Packers, the Saints had Ricky Williams and Duece McAllister, the Panthers had DeAngelo Williams and McGhaee had the appropriately named Anham Green.
Named like over 20 running backs who were stars for well over the majority of the league. EVERY SINGLE ONE of these guys put up better numbers than Brian Westbrook most of them by a healthy margin. Even possible I forget someone! Ignoring those from the 90s(who Westbrook compares much better with) who were fading and those from the 2010s who weren't good yet number could be higher. Westbrook is flat out bad when you compare him to what the stars of most NFL franchises produced year in and year out(there's like 5 or 6 I think). Yet the(somewhat valid) excuse of being on a team that unusually favored passing(Edgerring James on the pass happy Indianopolis Colts a team that had people to actually throw the ball TO managed nearly twice Westbrooks rushing yards in about the same length career puts the difference in perspective).
Reason Westbrook is remembered as a star is cause he was the best Eagles running back for a period of 20 years but pretty much everywhere had at least one if not several backs who were better across not just the 2000s but decades before and after. He is also an incredibly nice person whose personality likely would have taken him places regardless. But truth is Westbrook is remembered as a strength on this team cause he was the third best offensive player on the team. There were worse ones on winning teams elevated for similar reasons, Addai, Willie Parker, Antowain Smith and Reggie Bush(who tbh is pretty much what Westbrook was). A few teams like the NIners(inclduing the 07 Patriots) relied on a few running backs when they didn't have someone who could carry the load themselves. Usually this came at gaps when there wasn't a clear starter rather than as a strategy(based on how many teams tend to focus on back for most carries). I'm not saying Westbrook was bad or anything, IMO he's probably the best of the names in this paragraph. Westbrook was clearly the starter on his own team but he certainly below average if not near the bottom of the list of starters. Then again Westbrook made the Pro Bowl twice((likely because he was a dual threat and team success) and it's hard to be in that convo if you're not average. He compared better some years than others but as a whole he 's at the bottom in terms of teams top rushers the last few decades.
Westbrook(though it's partially explained cause AR didn't like running) didn't run for 7000 yards in 120 games. Faulk and lots of other dual purpos backs also put up great running stats while also putting up better receiving numbers.
Anyhow off my whole "Westbrook was overrated rant", LJ Smith actually stacks up well with the Pats TE from those early(who isn't even the most famous Graham who plays his position) teams. Feel like in the 2010s TE became like RB where their role became more and important and all of a sudden a majority of teams had incredible tight ends(think there's like about 10 TE's who you could make an argument for All decade 2nd team for right now). Vaguely remember(was a kid) a time where TE's was more of a assistance position like FB and the TE was almost always not as good a pass catcher as the receiver. Last few years the TE's tended to be the number one option. In the recent past, it's the opposite!. Point is I don't think it really mattered the way it does today(LJ Smith and Daniel Graham to Gronk).
I think the fascination with that team is because it was such a media focus back in the day. It's kind of weird to see how innocent the 2000s were where that was considered a big news story. The "why does my coworker being treated better than me relative to our success" debate happens millions of times every single day. Look at the drama AB causes during his typical day compared to that?
