Chris Russo: There Will Be Hell to Pay if Eagles Lose Super Bowl

Agree or disagree?

Philadelphia Eagles running back Saquon Barkley (26) celebrates his touchdown with offensive tackle Lane Johnson (65) against the Washington Commanders in the NFC Championship game at Lincoln Financial Field. / Eric Hartline-Imagn Images

It's Wednesday of Super Bowl week which means it's time for First Take to debate if the Chiefs or Eagles would be bigger failures if they lose Sunday night's game. Chris "Mad Dog" Russo was ready with an answer.

"The Eagles, if they lose this game after they lost to the Chiefs two years ago and they brought Barkley in, that's two in three years with that fanbase, there'd be some hell to pay," Russo said. "I think this is a big game for the Eagles. If they lose this game there's going to be a lot of people in Philadelphia who thought this was not a successful season. Nobody in Kansas City is going to think that."

"If [the Eagles] lose this game ... there'd be some hell to pay." —@MadDogUnleashed 👀

"[The Chiefs] have an opportunity for a three-peat, something that hasn't been done in NFL history." —@damienwoody 😤 pic.twitter.com/Q2KNK8g2QS

— First Take (@FirstTake) February 5, 2025

Let's set aside the ridiculous notion that any team that loses a championship game is a failure. Especially when the two sides playing are so evenly matched. What Russo is saying is strange because if the Chiefs fall short of a historic three-peat, won't they be the ones who view it as a bigger letdown?

The argument would be that they could fall back on their very recent and very robust success. It's not Philadelphia is just happy to be there and coming up short twice in three years to the same team will sting. Yet when the person ending your Super Bowl run is Patrick Mahomes and the team doing it is putting together an unprecedented dynasty, doesn't that help at least explain why the Eagles weren't able to reach the mountaintop?

---

More of the Latest Around the NFL

feed