One of the sad byproducts of the Eagles' Super Bowl triumph has been the move lately to bring Nick Foles down, to discredit him for his achievements, all in the name of Carson Wentz.
It seems a segment of Eagles fans out there - not all, not even most but enough that it's disturbing - believe Foles' postseason success was some lucky bounce of the football, just a bunch of fortunate throws that just happened to somehow settle into the waiting arms of Alshon Jeffery, Zach Ertz and Torrey Smith in the end zone.
Complete coverage of the Philadelphia Eagles and their NFL rivals from NBC Sports Philadelphia.
Here's my favorite tweet from the past 24 hours: "To say someone can't accidentally have a great postseason is a farce, as (Joe) Flacco and Doug Williams have."
Another: "Wentz is so much better than Foles it's not even a conversation. It's not even close."
You can find dozens more on my Twitter timeline, and I find it just really, really sad that there are some Eagles fans out there who can't just enjoy the franchise's first Super Bowl championship without taking sides in some pointless Wentz vs. Foles debate.
The Eagles have two elite quarterbacks.
This is beyond question.
One I believe will be a star in this league for the next decade.
One just won the Super Bowl MVP.
It doesn't have to be one or the other. It doesn't have to be Nick vs. Carson. They're both great people, tremendous teammates, fierce competitors.
But for those who still refuse to give Foles credit for what he achieved, consider this:
Foles is 20-10 as a starter with the Eagles (.667), with a 62.4 percent completion percentage, 59 touchdowns, 20 interceptions, 7.5 yards per completion and a 95.2 passer rating.
Wentz is 18-11 as a starter with the Eagles (.621), with a 61.5 percent completion percentage, 49 touchdowns, 21 interceptions, 6.8 yards per completion and an 88.8 passer rating.
Foles is 6-4 against playoff teams, Wentz is 5-6. Foles has a 91.6 passer rating on third down, Wentz has a 92.1. Foles has completed 27 passes of 40 yards or more, Wentz has completed 15.
Foles has started 30 games, Wentz has started 29. Foles has thrown 86 more passes, thrown for 1,400 more yards, 10 more touchdowns, one less interception.
It's fascinating how similar their Eagles tenures have been. If anything, Foles has a slight statistical edge.
I think where people get confused is the old "eye test." Wentz looks like a superstar. He's a first-round pick. He's incredibly athletic and has certain skills Foles doesn't have. Foles was a third-round pick, he's bounced around the league a little, he's been a backup.
But as Eagles quarterbacks? There's enough of a body of work - roughly two seasons of starts for each - that their production simply can't be labeled an accident or a fluke or happenstance.
Now, what should the Eagles do at quarterback is a different question.
Wentz just turned 25, Foles just turned 29. When you're building a roster, you're going to go with the young guy with a world of upside.
What happens to Foles? I would guess he stays for another year, since there are still so many unknowns with Wentz's health and his readiness for opening day. Then he can hit free agency after the 2018 season and move on.
When all is said and done, Wentz may have five Super Bowl MVPs. But right now all we have is what we have, and that's the most promising young quarterback in the NFL and another guy who just turned in one of the greatest postseasons by any quarterback in NFL history.
We went so long in this city without elite quarterback play. Think about the last 50 years.
Really, other than maybe Roman Gabriel in 1973, Jaws from 1979 through 1981, Randall from 1988 through 1992, and Donovan from, say, 2000 through 2008, we haven't had it at all, other than brief blips from Michael Vick, Jeff Garcia and Foles in 2013.
Now the Eagles have two quarterbacks who everybody in the city can be proud of and can believe in.
This is a time to celebrate. A time to enjoy the afterglow of one of the greatest runs in franchise history. A time to revel in what the Eagles accomplished for once instead of what they're lacking.