Both the Chargers and Eagles began the season as favorites in their divisions and popular picks to reach the Super Bowl in February. Both are now 4-7 and facing much criticism from their own fan bases. Which franchise's poor season has been more surprising?
The Chargers' struggles have been more shocking to me.
Philly added a lot of parts -- coaches in very unfamiliar roles and players in new schemes. That's always risky in a team sport like this, and especially so with a bizarre offseason via the lockout. Chemistry is fickle and adding a bunch of free agents means it will take a while for it to work right. Plus there were concerns about keeping Michael Vick healthy. And they faced a pretty tough schedule to boot.
But the Chargers, save for a few coaching defections, had plenty of continuity, were in a weak division, had a franchise QB and were expected to have Antonio Gates, Vincent Jackson and Marcus McNeill for a full season. Sure, they had some holes, but they at least looked like an offensive juggernaut that could win by scoring in bunches.
For Philip Rivers to be this bad, for this long, and for them to lose consistently in the manner they have definitely shocked me.
No doubt it's Philadelphia.
Of course it's somewhat surprising to see Philip Rivers play so poorly, but the Chargers didn't make the playoffs last season and expectations for them were based on projections that the rest of the division would be bad.
The Eagles were a good team that spent like Kim Kardashian at Gucci in free agency and wound up with knock-off goods. Philadelphia's management and coaches pretty much said it's Super Bowl or bust, and we've already got the answer with five games remaining.
The bigger question now is which of the two will finish with a worse record and a better draft pick?
It's San Diego for me.
The Chargers in 2010 were first in offense and defense and appeared to be a special teams "quick fix" (welcome Coach Rich Bisaccia) away from Super Bowl contention. For all of the "Dream Team" talk, Philadelphia had more holes to fill, and it was legitimate to question whether Michael Vick could have the same success. No such question of Philip Rivers existed.
