After a full week of hype about how good Michael Vick was, doubts about Donovan McNabb's mobility and a lot of BS from the Atlanta media, it was the Eagle's defense that answered all of the questions and led them to victory. While Donovan McNabb left no doubts about his recovery and his mobility, Bobby Taylor's 39 yard interception return for a touchdown left no doubt who the stars of the show were.

The Eagles sacked Vick 3 times, battered and bruised him numerous times and Brian Dawkins practically collapsed his ribs with a hit that knocked him into next Tuesday. While they bent at times, giving up almost 300 yards in passing, they held Vick's rushing yards down and forced the Falcons, to abandon their strong running game and pass.

How about them Iggles?! The only question left now is who the next victim will be? Who would you rather see the Eagles play next: San Francisco or Tampa Bay?

In a week where a number of different opinions are flying about the game this weekend against the Packers, I have a bad feeling that should we win, we might just have a let down in the championship game again like last year. Any thoughts?

I'm slightly less worried than last year.

Here's what I remember about last year: The Bucs were really clicking on all cylinders, while the Eagles were struggling to reintegrate an understandably tentative McNabb, trying to maintain the intensity after the emotional win streak under Detmer and Feeley (against inferior defenses; they didn't play a decent defense the whole second half of the season until the Giants, and then they lost). The Bucs were more desperate to end their losing streak to the Eagles than the Eagles were to maintain it; while I don't think the Birds fell into the trap of thinking "we own those guys," it's just easier to hype yourself up to beat someone that you haven't previously been able to than to get amped to win yet another game against some team.

This year, I'm actually a bit more worried about the Packers than about either the Rams or the Panthers, though the Pack defense should be susceptible to the multi-pronged passing attack if our receivers can catch the ball well enough in these temps. Receivers prone to the dropsies (Pinkston? Anyone? Anyone?) are probably worse in the cold, dry weather. Not having Westbrook is a big downer, but I think Duce is rarin' to rise to the challenge and try to reassert his place as the dominant RB.

I think that the Rams here is a tough but doable matchup. The Eagles gave up a bunch of yards but ultimately prevailed against teams with big-name RBs several times down the stretch: Packers, Saints, Panthers, Dolphins. Young Bulger is prone to mistakes, and I think that will be especially true when surrounded by 60,000 fans feverish at the thought of getting to the Superbowl. The Rams got humiliated the last time they went outdoors, and in fact all four of their losses were away at outdoor stadiums; the outdoors away games that they did win included squeakers over Chicago and Arizona (where it's not even cold), and a 6-point win over Cleveland after Kelly Holcomb spotted them 14 points on interceptions in the first half.

The Panthers here is, I think, an unlikely scenario - I just don't think they have the playoff chops to beat St. Louis in the dome for the first time in over a year. However, they played great last week (no turnovers or penalties - can you believe that?), and if the Rams have a let-down, they could definitely take advantage. However, I don't think that they will be able to play perfectly three weeks in a row, and would be very beatable by the time they get here.

Call me an optimist, but this may be the year... for getting there. I don't think anybody's going to beat the Pats, though.

__________________
Thomas Taylor

Interested in NP tech, kids and snark? Follow me on Twitter.