Comparing the Eagles Offense: 2004 vs. 2010

Use your ← → (arrows) to browse

Michael Vick

Michael Vick gets the slight nod at quarterback over the 2004 version of Donovan McNabb, but can he keep up the hot pace? (Photo: Ryan Messick)

The Eagles 2010 offense is putting up some big numbers and drawing comparisons to the 2004 version that made it all the way to the Super Bowl before losing to the Patriots.  Here’s a position-by-position comparison between 2004 and 2010′s offenses. Take a look and place your own vote on the poll on the last page.


2004: Donovan McNabb – During the Super Bowl season, McNabb ahd one of his best years as an Eagle, racking up 3,875 yards while throwing 31 touchdowns and 8 interceptions. McNabb completed 64 percent of his passes for a 104.7 rating and ran for 220 yards and three touchdowns.  McNabb played 15 games, as the Birds didn’t have anything at stake in Week 17. Number five’s per game averages were: 20-31 for 258 yards, 2.06 touchdowns and .53 interceptions.

2010: Michael Vick – His projections are impressive, as Vick is on pace for 2,991 yards, 20 touchdowns and just 3 interceptions.  Vick is connecting on 64 percent of his passes and has a rating of 105.7.  He’s also on pace to run for 622 yards and 8 scores.  He’s on pace to start and finish just 11 games, making the per-game averages important in the comparison.  If you combine the season opener, in which Vick played the second half and the first Redskins game, in which he left during the first half with an injury, you get the following averages: 21-34 for 280 yards, 1.88 touchdowns and .25 interceptions.

Edge: The way Vick is playing, you have to give him the slight advantage.  His lack of interceptions has been one of the most impressive parts of his game, and he’s using his legs more effectively than McNabb did in 2004.  Vick also has guided the Eagles to a 42 percent conversion rate on third downs – 5 points better than the 37 percent Philadelphia converted in 2004.  The big question, though, is whether Vick can keep it up.  He’s taking a pounding and hasn’t played football day-in and day-out as a starter since 2006.

Brian Westbrook hadn't yet hit his prime in 2004, while LeSean McCoy is currently putting together a breakout season. (Image Credit:

Running Back

2004: Brian Westbrook – Westbrook was just 25 in 2004, about two seasons short of hitting his highest numbers.  Westbrook ran for 812 yards and 3 touchdowns on 177 carries while catching 73 passes for 703 yards and 6 scores. He played in 13 games, missing some time with injuries.  His backup was Dorsey Levens, who ran for 410 yards and 4 touchdowns.

2010: LeSean McCoy – The 22-year-old is on pace for 224 carries, 1,097 yards and 9 touchdowns on the ground.  He’s projected to catch 89 passes for 712 yards and 3 scores.  He also hasn’t missed any games due to injury, having played through numerous ailments including fractured ribs.  This is one of the more surprising decisions in the analysis, but McCoy is putting up better numbers than Westbrook did in 2004.  McCoy is on pace for a season that rivals Westbrook’s 2006 and 2007 campaigns.  His backup, Jerome Harrison, hasn’t played much as an Eagle with 15 carries for 137 yards through five games.

Edge: It’s controversial, but McCoy in 2010 is better than Westbrook in 2004 – the numbers show it.  McCoy isn’t quite to the level of Westbrook would hit a couple of years after the Super Bowl, but he’s better than Westbrook was during the Super Bowl year.

Use your ← → (arrows) to browse
Next Eagles Game View full schedule »
Sunday, Sep 77 Sep1:00Jacksonville JaguarsBuy Tickets
Dick's Sporting Goods presents "Hell Week":

Tags: Andy Reid Brad Childress Brian Westbrook DeSean Jackson Donovan McNabb Eagles Eagles Offense Jeremy Maclin LeSean McCoy Marty Mornhinweg Michael Vick Philadelphia Eagles Terrell Owens

  • Pingback: Eagle Pictures|Eagles – God Bless The USA · Eagle Pictures

  • JMP4222

    This article is misleading. Don’t start booking superbowl vacations yet. The 2010 offense is better than 2004, granted. However the 2010 defense is awful in comparison to a great JJ 2004 defense. Our 2010 Offense had better be able to put up 30+ points a game, because they (defense) are going to give up 29 points per game. I’ve been an eagles fan too long and know better than to get excited now. The 2010 offense must continue to move the ball and score with long drives that wear out defenses (and keep our terrible defense off the field), not rely on the big play game that was feast/famine under donovan, maintain a good run/pass ratio, and allow Vick to stay in the pocket to throw with protection yet exploit defenses with his natural scrambling ability.

    The 2010 defense, well….they have to do something, anything. Make a tackle, get to the QB, stop RB’s with consistency. They tend to play decent first half ball and then fall apart in the 2nd half. It is not a good defense though, too small upfront and at LB – Brandon Graham was not a great selection (should have gone for a higher end Safety) as Parker has outplayed him this season. To get to the Big Show, you need a complete team, not a flash in the pan offense and a mediocre at best defense. Look at the Patriots dismantling of the NYJets. Is there a better coached team in the league. And I hate the Patriots (but respect the spit out of them).

  • Pingback: Comparing the Eagles Offense: 2004 vs. 2010 | PhilaPhans

  • Ryan Messick

    I’ll actually be writing soon about the defense. Things are very different in the NFL now than they were in the past, and what you need on defense is different as well, I believe. Stay tuned for that article…