Looking at this team compared to 2004 & 2017.

[RememberTheKoy]

4 games into the season.  That would be a quarter of the way through the season in the pre-17 game era.  But still a good point to look at where this team is to the last team to start 4-0 (2004) and the more recent team that achieved the highest level of success for the franchise (2017).  TO was a different animal.  

 

2004 Team 4-0

W1 Giants 31-17

W2 Vikings MNF 27-16

W3 @ Lions 30-13

W4 @ Bears 19-9

McNabb (28 years old): 68.1%, 1,168 yards, 9 TDs, 1 INT, 110.5 QB Rating, 36 rushing yards & 2 rushing TDs.

TO (31 years old): 26 rec, 364 yards & 6 TDs

Westbrook (25 years old): 351 rushing yards, 0 TD, 24 rec, 206 receiving yards and 0 TD.

LJ Smith (24 years old): 10 rec, 150 yards & 2 TDs.  

 

2017 Team 3-1

W1 @ Redskins 30-17

W2 @ Chiefs 20-27

W3 Giants 27-24

@ Chargers 26-24

Wentz (25 years old): 60.5%, 1,058 yards, 6 TD, 2 INT, 90.5 QB Rating, 97 rushing yards & 0 rushing TD.  

Alshon ( 27 years old): 17 rec, 215 yards & 2 TDs.

Blount (31 years old): 249 rushing yards, 1 TD, 3 rec, 21 receiving yards & 1 receiving TD. 

Ertz (27 years old): 26 rec, 326 yards & 1 TD.

 

2022 Team 4-0

W1 @ Lions 38-35

W2 Vikings MNF 24-7

W3 @ Redskins 24-8

W4 Jaguars 29-21

Hurts (24 years old): 66.7%, 1,120 yards, 4 TDs, 2 INT, 99.6 QB Rating, 205 rushing yards & 4 rushing TDs.

AJ Brown (25 years old): 25 rec, 404 yards &  1 TD.

Sanders (25 years old): 356 rushing yards, 3 rushing TDs, 8 rec, 35 receiving yards and 0 receiving TDs. 

Goedert (27 years old): 16 rec, 240 yards & 1 TD.

 

[opa-opa]

So far it seems like the 2004 team is the more dominant one, at least defensively.

[RememberTheKoy]

That 2004 team was so stacked. One of the better teams to not win a Super Bowl. 

[EaglePhan1986]

If only this team had a star QB like the other teams 

[time2rock]

8 hours ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

If only this team had a star QB like the other teams 

My sarcasm detector is broken … 

[KINGnabb]

This team is on the heels of the 2004 team as far as Dominating the opponents thus far but the 2004 was just too strong.   The 7-0 streak was historic.   They lost  to the Steelers and went 6-0 after that.  The 2004 Eagles Clinched the Division with a whole month left in the season also went perfect 6-0 in the NFC East.   What I liked about the 2017 Super Bowl team was they had a long 9 game winning streak.  One thing about our Super Bowl Teams are they all had long winning streaks:

1980 - 8 Game Winning Streak, 3 Game winning streak to start season

2004 - 7 Straight out the game, 6 Straight Back end

2017 - 9 Straight Wins, 3 Straight Back end

*2003 Season the Eagles won 9 Straight and made the NFC Title Game.  

Plus they all won the Division during those Streak Years.   This year they're already at 4-0.   They need to get to 7-0 before I can really believe are they near the 2004 team honestly

[Utebird]

11 hours ago, RememberTheKoy said:

That 2004 team was so stacked. One of the better teams to not win a Super Bowl. 

Yup, that team was also down Shawn Andrews who broke his leg game 1 definite upgrade over artis hicks 

Buckhalter tore his knee in camp, though a vet Levens did ok.

Then Chad Lewis was out for Bowl after breaking his foot on his 2nd TD in NFCCG.

Those are 3 big losses that could have been the difference in a win.

 

[RememberTheKoy]

2 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Yup, that team was also down Shawn Andrews who broke his leg game 1 definite upgrade over artis hicks 

Buckhalter tore his knee in camp, though a vet Levens did ok.

Then Chad Lewis was out for Bowl after breaking his foot on his 2nd TD in NFCCG.

Those are 3 big losses that could have been the difference in a win.

 

 

Jon Ritchie too went out for the year in the Lions game if I remember correctly. 

[beto_eagles]

It's really nice that this team is way younger. Makes me hopeful that it can be another sustained era of success. IMO it all depends on Hurts keeping it up. 

[jsb235]

These next two games are crucial. If they can get two wins and move to 6-0, the Cowboys and Giants could easily lose their next two games to move to 3-3, giving us a three-game lead. (The Giants could easily lose their next 4 games.)

After our bye, our toughest games appear to be Green Bay, Tennessee and the Cowboys, but the first two games are at home and the Cowboys game isn't until week 16.

Meanwhile the Cowboys have to go to Green Bay, Minnesota, Jacksonville and Tennessee. So I would classify five of their remaining games as difficult, and four of the five are on the road (we are their fifth tough game.) We have also played two of the "tough" games in Jacksonville and Minnesota and won both (those games were at home.)

If we can win our next two, and the Cowboys lose this week, I don't see them having a realistic chance to catch us.

 

[JamesK]

2004 was a great team.  Solid offensively.  Great OL.  Westbrook, Owens, and McNabb were very formidable. Great defensively too.  Great DL, good LBs, and great secondary.   The WRs--even with TO--is the spot where the current team is much better (IMHO).   

Ironically, I think the 2004 team was probably better than the 2017 team that won the Superbowl.

The current team compares very nicely to the 2004 team, and is definitely better defensively than the 2017 team.

[EazyEaglez]

I guess BG would know, but he’s been here a long time and still feels a bit eye opening.

[ManchesterEagle]

15 hours ago, opa-opa said:

So far it seems like the 2004 team is the more dominant one, at least defensively.

 

15 hours ago, RememberTheKoy said:

That 2004 team was so stacked. One of the better teams to not win a Super Bowl. 

 

41 minutes ago, JamesK said:

2004 was a great team.  Sold offensively.  Great OL.  Westbrook, Owens, and McNabb were very formidable. Great defensively too.  Great DL, good LBs, and great secondary.   The WRs--even with TO--is the spot where the current team is much better (IMHO).   

Ironically, I think the 2004 team was probably better than the 2017 team that won the Superbowl.

The current team compares very nicely to the 2004 team, and is definitely better defensively than the 2017 team.

For me it' still too early to work out how good this team is. We will have a better idea I think after the next 2 games.

But the 2004 Eagles for me is the most talented Eagles team I've seen. Dominated all year on both sides. Breezed through the NFC in the playoffs without Owens. 

Lost the Super Bowl, but I think the pressure clearly got to McNabb. Also at the time I remember thinking in the second half that it seemed the Pats on O knew exactly what was coming. Then later spygate emerged. I still think they may have cheated against us.

Either way 2004 the best team for me, even though 2017 worked out much better!

[Bwestbrook36]

5 hours ago, ManchesterEagle said:

Also at the time I remember thinking in the second half that it seemed the Pats on O knew exactly what was coming.

You don't need film to know that Jim Johnson was going to keep blitzing and the way to beat it was short throws and screens. That's the way his defenses always got beat against better QBs. I loved jj but, his scheme got killed by better qbs

[Utebird]

19 hours ago, ManchesterEagle said:

 

 

For me it' still too early to work out how good this team is. We will have a better idea I think after the next 2 games.

But the 2004 Eagles for me is the most talented Eagles team I've seen. Dominated all year on both sides. Breezed through the NFC in the playoffs without Owens. 

Lost the Super Bowl, but I think the pressure clearly got to McNabb. Also at the time I remember thinking in the second half that it seemed the Pats on O knew exactly what was coming. Then later spygate emerged. I still think they may have cheated against us.

Either way 2004 the best team for me, even though 2017 worked out much better!

Yup, I too feel that bill belicheat cheated it's what they do, having said that McNabb didn't help matters, his two previous games he had over 100 rating against them he had 74 and threw two really dumb picks, (3 total) 

He just really choked that game away. Not to mention mention belichick moved Seymour to the nose and Fraley got wrecked the whole game, which led to Jamal Jackson taking his job.

[ilikepargo]

19 hours ago, ManchesterEagle said:

For me it' still too early to work out how good this team is. We will have a better idea I think after the next 2 games.

But the 2004 Eagles for me is the most talented Eagles team I've seen. Dominated all year on both sides. Breezed through the NFC in the playoffs without Owens. 

Lost the Super Bowl, but I think the pressure clearly got to McNabb. Also at the time I remember thinking in the second half that it seemed the Pats on O knew exactly what was coming. Then later spygate emerged. I still think they may have cheated against us.

Either way 2004 the best team for me, even though 2017 worked out much better!

I'd go with this.  2004 was talented and dominant.  2017 had that unstoppable magic.

But I stop after remembering those two.  It's still too early in the season to really know how good this team is, and we haven't exactly faced tough competition.

It's a different season.  We don't have any really great opponents on our schedule.  Dallas and GB are pretty much it.   And we're going to face a lot of teams that are just plain bad.  Will a strong record against this schedule prove this team's greatness?

I'm enjoying it, but I can't make a judgment yet.

[Procus]

The title of this thread is punctuated very nicely

[SkippyX]

2004 was a weird year. Pretty early on it was clear that the NFL only had 3 real teams:

Philly, New England, Pittsburgh.

 

In 2017 it took until the Rams win to determine who the best team was in the NFC (with the Vikings also losing that week)

2017 there were 3 dominant teams in the NFC alone.

 

This year is strange because the Eagles might be one of the 6 best teams but they have a historically easy schedule so they might not be the best but they will have the best record (of course you always have to assume health)

The Eagles could get the bye, roll 2 teams in Philly, and then have a Nick Foles level best day (not saying QB, just play in general) and win the SB.

They still might not be as good as the 2004, 2017, or even the 1980 team.

 

That's OK, the Rams were top 10 range last year, got OBJ for free, traded for Miller, and got lucky and clutch.

I'm fine being a bottom 20 all-time SB winner as long as they win.

[eglz1]

On 10/6/2022 at 2:33 PM, ManchesterEagle said:

 

Lost the Super Bowl, but I think the pressure clearly got to McNabb. Also at the time I remember thinking in the second half that it seemed the Pats on O knew exactly what was coming. Then later spygate emerged. I still think they may have cheated against us.

Either way 2004 the best team for me, even though 2017 worked out much better!

2017 was a great story though. 2004 was somewhat expected, they were known to be one of the top teams. 2017? I don't know what the Vegas odds were preseason but I'll bet they weren't very good for the Eagles.

[Aerolithe_Lion]

On 10/6/2022 at 2:00 PM, EazyEaglez said:

I guess BG would know, but he’s been here a long time and still feels a bit eye opening.

This is pretty accurate. 2017 had a strong defense, but I don’t see this one allowing anyone to throw for 500 yards on them