Dirk Johnson - groin strain, seems serious
Kearse - AC sprain, MRI today
Kalu - rotator cuff, will be updated later
T.O. - ankle, MRI today
Rayburn - stinger, lost some strength
Akers - improving, "we'll see"
ohhhhh boy.
Hooray! Good news all around.
Same B.S. as usual...
"Denver played a heckuva football game"
"have to start faster on both sides of the ball"
"we have to do a better job of putting players in position to make plays"
blah blah
"we know the problems and will figure out the answers, I won't necessarily share them with you, but we'll figure out the answers."
basically a whole lot of nothing.
Quote from: MDS on October 31, 2005, 12:10:30 PM
basically a whole lot of nothing.
Quote from: FFatPatt on October 31, 2005, 12:06:04 PM
Dirk Johnson - groin strain, seems serious
Kearse - AC sprain, MRI today
Kalu - rotator cuff, will be updated later
T.O. - ankle, MRI today
Rayburn - stinger, lost some strength
Akers - improving, "we'll see"
I'm not sure I would call that a whole lot of nothing.
the Dirk thing does sound serious. hello Sean Landetta
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2005, 12:14:56 PM
Quote from: MDS on October 31, 2005, 12:10:30 PM
basically a whole lot of nothing.
Quote from: FFatPatt on October 31, 2005, 12:06:04 PM
Dirk Johnson - groin strain, seems serious
Kearse - AC sprain, MRI today
Kalu - rotator cuff, will be updated later
T.O. - ankle, MRI today
Rayburn - stinger, lost some strength
Akers - improving, "we'll see"
I'm not sure I would call that a whole lot of nothing.
what andy said.
anybody hope TO's out for the year?
It's great that we have what could be serious injuries to half of the defensive line.
Quote from: mhunt on October 31, 2005, 12:17:16 PM
anybody hope TO's out for the year?
I really can't bring myself to care one way or the other.
at least it's the zesty half of the d-line
maybe the titans will cut someone for us?
Surely the offense can only get better without TO.
Quote from: General_Failure on October 31, 2005, 12:26:29 PM
Surely the offense can only get better without TO.
I want to see Reno on the depth chart at WR.
they'll HAVE to run the ball more if TO's out, right?
Quote from: mhunt on October 31, 2005, 12:31:48 PM
they'll HAVE to run the ball more if TO's out, right?
I would expect them to throw to Billy McMullen at least 15 times a game.
Quote from: mhunt on October 31, 2005, 12:31:48 PM
they'll HAVE to run the ball more if TO's out, right?
= my reasoning.
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y171/ibescotty/landeta-soul-gaze.jpg)
they wont be able to run it very well if TO is out. Every defense will stack the line every play. Greg Lewis and Reggie Brown are not going to draw many double teams.
Quote from: MURP on October 31, 2005, 12:38:54 PM
they wont be able to run it very well if TO is out. Every defense will stack the line every play. Greg Lewis and Reggie Brown are not going to draw many double teams.
Oh horseshtein. We ran the ball just fine in 2003 without TO. Christ people have short memories.
Surely they're better run blockers than TO. We have to improve somehow with him off the field.
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2005, 12:40:02 PM
Quote from: MURP on October 31, 2005, 12:38:54 PM
they wont be able to run it very well if TO is out. Every defense will stack the line every play. Greg Lewis and Reggie Brown are not going to draw many double teams.
Oh horseshtein. We ran the ball just fine in 2003 without TO. Christ people have short memories.
MURP sucks as a lead blocker. He's no Ritchie.
Quote from: General_Failure on October 31, 2005, 12:41:01 PM
MURP sucks as a lead blocker. He's no Ritchie.
Yeah, well that is a valid point. Now cramit.
You cram it, skinslover.
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2005, 12:40:02 PM
Quote from: MURP on October 31, 2005, 12:38:54 PM
they wont be able to run it very well if TO is out. Every defense will stack the line every play. Greg Lewis and Reggie Brown are not going to draw many double teams.
Oh horseshtein. We ran the ball just fine in 2003 without TO. Christ people have short memories.
they didnt go to the Superbowl in 2003 either.
Quote from: MURP on October 31, 2005, 12:42:27 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2005, 12:40:02 PM
Quote from: MURP on October 31, 2005, 12:38:54 PM
they wont be able to run it very well if TO is out. Every defense will stack the line every play. Greg Lewis and Reggie Brown are not going to draw many double teams.
Oh horseshtein. We ran the ball just fine in 2003 without TO. Christ people have short memories.
they didnt go to the Superbowl in 2003 either.
Why was that? Because Westbrook was hurt. Not because we didn't have TO. No threat of the run meant that the Panthers could pin their ears back and get after McNabb every single down... sound familiar? Losing TO means more running game by necessity which mean less pressure on McNabb, which means better balance and overall offensive attack. I love TO's pretty little 91-yard TDs as much as the next guy, but a quick-strike/three-and-out offense isn't gonna win us many games.
Westbrook was hurt, which partially led to McNabb getting hurt. The 2003 team was pretty darn good before that.
It's ridiculous to think you have to lose your best offensive player to be better. TO isnt calling the plays. TO isnt throwing passes that land at his feet. If the offense if forced to run without TO than just imagine what they could do if they did run with TO. That is Reids choice.
You hate TO and want to blame him for Reid not calling runs. Thats your little thing. Im not gonna argue about it, the whole thing is just stupid.
You're probably right, but I wish you weren't.
It's the Patirck Ewing/Drew Bledsoe Theory in action. The team gets better when the best player goes down.
except Brady was the best player.
Maybe McMullen is the best player.
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2005, 12:58:54 PM
It's the Patirck Ewing/Drew Bledsoe Theory in action. The team gets better when the best player goes down.
Eric Lindros
i need a "thing".....is blind homerism available?
Quote from: Sun_Mo on October 31, 2005, 01:00:32 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2005, 12:58:54 PM
It's the Patirck Ewing/Drew Bledsoe Theory in action. The team gets better when the best player goes down.
Eric Lindros
There are endless examples. The point is the same. The team is forced to play better and usually does.
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2005, 12:58:54 PM
It's the Patirck Ewing/Drew Bledsoe Theory in action. The team gets better when the best player goes down.
I'm sure the guys up in Minnesota wholeheartedly agree with you.
Quote from: FFatPatt on October 31, 2005, 01:00:29 PM
Maybe McMullen is the best player.
Stud McMullen. buy your jersey now.
Quote from: MURP on October 31, 2005, 01:02:48 PM
Quote from: FFatPatt on October 31, 2005, 01:00:29 PM
Maybe McMullen is the best player.
Stud McMullen. buy your jersey now.
Better run and get them off the gas station clearance racks while you can.
Quote from: mhunt on October 31, 2005, 01:01:36 PM
i need a "thing".....is blind homerism available?
Try rhyming. Nobody really does that yet.
Quote from: mhunt on October 31, 2005, 01:01:36 PM
i need a "thing".....is blind homerism available?
On a
completely unrelated note, why haven't we heard from PG this morning?
God, if it's this bad here, what's the EMB look like?
Sorry for referencing "It whom should not be named"
Quote from: FFatPatt on October 31, 2005, 01:09:15 PM
Quote from: mhunt on October 31, 2005, 01:01:36 PM
i need a "thing".....is blind homerism available?
On a completely unrelated note, why haven't we heard from PG this morning?
You just
had to ask, didn't you?
I want answers, dammit, and she occasionally has them.
Quote from: FFatPatt on October 31, 2005, 01:09:15 PM
On a completely unrelated note, why haven't we heard from PG this morning?
I was going to ask about this earlier. I always wonder what the super-homers do after games like this. Sadly, PG doesn't seem to want to give us any insight.
On the bright side, she's not giving us shtein for being less homerish than she is.
(http://us.ent4.yimg.com/tv.yahoo.com/images/he/photo/tv_pix/fox/the_simpsons/_group_photos/nancy_cartwright24.jpg)
Quote from: mhunt on October 31, 2005, 12:17:16 PM
anybody hope TO's out for the year?
Yeah...sure...the only offensive player with any fire in him and the only one that can get down the field. You guys are idiots.
I'm a homer, perhaps I can provide some insight into the way I see it...
The Eagles are 4-3 with only a single divisional loss. It's not like the team all the sudden sucks so it is possible they rip of a six game win streak (or more). Irregardless, the next three games are obviously extremely important. I see no reason to get all worked up about a non-conference loss in the middle of the season.
Quote from: Wingspan on October 31, 2005, 01:37:40 PM
(http://us.ent4.yimg.com/tv.yahoo.com/images/he/photo/tv_pix/fox/the_simpsons/_group_photos/nancy_cartwright24.jpg)
Clearly I've missed an episode. I don't believe I'll ever regret it, either.
You've never seen the Pieman episode? Sucker.
Quote from: Tomahawk on October 31, 2005, 01:41:41 PM
I'm a sheepfarger, perhaps I can provide some insight into the way I see it...
The Eagles are 4-3 with only a single divisional loss. It's not like the team all the sudden sucks so it is possible they rip of a six game win streak (or more). Irregardless, the next three games are obviously extremely important. I see no reason to get all worked up about a non-conference loss in the middle of the season.
In the last 5 games, the Eagles have been outscored 150-111, despite going 3-2 in those games. I would say the team DOES "all of the sudden suck", at least in comparison to last year's Super Bowl team.
Keep in mind that the 2004 Eagles gave up 20 or more points a total of twice during the season, one of which was a blowout against the Cowboys where they allowed a couple of scores by playing prevent defense.
This year's team has given up 20 or more 4 times just 7 games into the season, including 30 or more THREE TIMES. If that doesn't "suck", I don't know what does.
yea bench TO because reid calls more pass plays than run. fargin nice logic there dildos.
Quote from: mussa on October 31, 2005, 01:55:55 PM
yea bench TO because reid calls more pass plays than run. fargin nice logic there dildos.
My thoughts exactly!
Quote from: mussa on October 31, 2005, 01:55:55 PM
yea bench TO because reid calls more pass plays than run. fargin nice logic there dildos.
Did anyone here suggest benching TO? I know you're all mentally challenged and whatnot, but you should probably take a deep breath and think before you post.
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2005, 01:56:56 PM
Quote from: mussa on October 31, 2005, 01:55:55 PM
yea bench TO because reid calls more pass plays than run. fargin nice logic there dildos.
Did anyone here suggest benching TO? I know you're all mentally challenged and whatnot, but you should probably take a deep breath and think before you post.
Actually, someone suggested on the 1st page that they'd be happy if TO was out for the year. Almost the same as wishing he'd be benched.
look whos talking. injured..benched whats the difference? hes not on the field playing? how about that...is that kosher for you douche?
explain to me how having TO NOT PLAYING would make us a better team?
Different thing entirely, and you know it. Benching someone is a decision by the coaching staff to reprimand a player. That is typically not good for a team. A player being hurt and out for the year can help rally a team to come together and play well. Benching someone will almost NEVER ccomplish that.
That's great that you are all impressed with TO's bullshtein. I'm not. This team will be better when he is gone.
Quote from: FFatPatt on October 31, 2005, 01:50:28 PM
Quote from: Tomahawk on October 31, 2005, 01:41:41 PM
I'm a sheepfarger, perhaps I can provide some insight into the way I see it...
The Eagles are 4-3 with only a single divisional loss. It's not like the team all the sudden sucks so it is possible they rip of a six game win streak (or more). Irregardless, the next three games are obviously extremely important. I see no reason to get all worked up about a non-conference loss in the middle of the season.
In the last 5 games, the Eagles have been outscored 150-111, despite going 3-2 in those games. I would say the team DOES "all of the sudden suck", at least in comparison to last year's Super Bowl team.
Keep in mind that the 2004 Eagles gave up 20 or more points a total of twice during the season, one of which was a blowout against the Cowboys where they allowed a couple of scores by playing prevent defense.
This year's team has given up 20 or more 4 times just 7 games into the season, including 30 or more THREE TIMES. If that doesn't "suck", I don't know what does.
It just means that they're not playing well because they haven't gelled yet. The need some Dr. Scholl's inserts for their cleats, then watch out!
The defense is capable of playing lights out. They can get "it" back.
Quote from: Tomahawk on October 31, 2005, 02:02:48 PM
The defense is capable of playing lights out. They can get "it" back.
I see no evidence of that. They've played ONE game that could be considered 'lights out' and even in that game they blew a lead and allowed the Chargers to be in a position to put them away. This defense is average at best and pretty farging bad at worst.
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2005, 02:02:09 PM
Different thing entirely, and you know it. Benching someone is a decision by the coaching staff to reprimand a player. That is typically not good for a team. A player being hurt and out for the year can help rally a team to come together and play well. Benching someone will almost NEVER ccomplish that.
That's great that you are all impressed with TO's bullshtein. I'm not. This team will be better when he is gone.
How? With Lewis and Pinkston at WR? Yeah...that'll work.
I don't expect you TO slobbers to agree with me. So I'm not going to sit here and try to convince you. But I am completely confident in saying that without TO next year we will as many, if not more, games than we will this year.
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2005, 12:44:52 PM
Quote from: MURP on October 31, 2005, 12:42:27 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2005, 12:40:02 PM
Quote from: MURP on October 31, 2005, 12:38:54 PM
they wont be able to run it very well if TO is out. Every defense will stack the line every play. Greg Lewis and Reggie Brown are not going to draw many double teams.
Oh horseshtein. We ran the ball just fine in 2003 without TO. Christ people have short memories.
they didnt go to the Superbowl in 2003 either.
Why was that? Because Westbrook was hurt. Not because we didn't have TO. No threat of the run meant that the Panthers could pin their ears back and get after McNabb every single down... sound familiar? Losing TO means more running game by necessity which mean less pressure on McNabb, which means better balance and overall offensive attack. I love TO's pretty little 91-yard TDs as much as the next guy, but a quick-strike/three-and-out offense isn't gonna win us many games.
so your blaming TO for Reids callplaying. summers eve dude
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2005, 02:04:16 PM
Quote from: Tomahawk on October 31, 2005, 02:02:48 PM
The defense is capable of playing lights out. They can get "it" back.
I see no evidence of that. They've played ONE game that could be considered 'lights out' and even in that game they blew a lead and allowed the Chargers to be in a position to put them away. This defense is average at best and pretty farging bad at worst.
I know the players on defense are capable of playing much better football than they have been.
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2005, 02:08:26 PM
So I'm not going to sit here and try to convince you.
Yes you are. Who are you kidding?
Quote from: mussa on October 31, 2005, 02:08:43 PM
so your blaming TO for Reids callplaying. summers eve dude
So you
're saying that you haven't noticed that since TO's arrival Reid has called more and more and more passing plays? Or maybe you think that's a coincidence? Either way, it means you
're and idiot.
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2005, 02:10:09 PM
Quote from: mussa on October 31, 2005, 02:08:43 PM
so your blaming TO for Reids callplaying. summers eve dude
So you're saying that you haven't noticed that since TO's arrival Reid has called more and more and more passing plays? Or maybe you think that's a coincidence? Either way, it means you're and idiot.
It's beyond me why you would rather see TO injured so Reid would run more, than just to have Reid run more in the first place.
Did you notice that the offensive line can't run block to save their lives? Apparently not.
andyour making it sound like its TO's fault that Andy Reid or whoever is calling the plays can't farging adjust to McNabb gimpiness. don't hate the player, hate the call player.
Quote from: MURP on October 31, 2005, 02:11:49 PM
It's beyond me why you would rather see TO injured so Reid would run more, than just to have Reid run more in the first place.
If I thought for one second that Reid would 'just run more' I would (and have) scream for it until my face turned blue. Clearly, that isn't going to happen. In an ideal world TO could exist on this team and the offense could still function in a nrmal balanced way. In the real world, that ain't the case.
Quote from: The Waco Kid on October 31, 2005, 02:11:54 PM
Did you notice that the offensive line can't run block to save their lives? Apparently not.
maybe if they did more than once every 30 plays they would develop some rythem
Quote from: The Waco Kid on October 31, 2005, 02:11:54 PM
Did you notice that the offensive line can't run block to save their lives? Apparently not.
How can anyone tell? 8-15 rushes per game isn't even close to enough attempts to be able to tell. But nice try.
I'm sure Westbrook would have done well against that 9 man front. Run into Fraley and pick up a cool two yards! :yay
Quote from: General_Failure on October 31, 2005, 02:18:11 PM
I'm sure Westbrook would have done well against that 9 man front. Run into Fraley and pick up a cool two yards! :yay
Except every once in a while, he gets through. And then he's gone. I mean, in my dreams that's how it happens.
Well we should rush 50 times a game just so see if he ever breaks one. It can't be any worse than passing 50 times a game. Then everyone will be happy when we go three and out and our two most expensive offensive toys did nothing.
Uh, when a team blitzes 7, 8 or 9 guys running at the blitz is the easiest way to nuetralize it. They weren't run-blitzing. They were trying to get to McNabb. Period.
I fell like I'm in bizarro world here. This board is full of people who know and understand football and yet everyone is trying to put on a happy face about this team. What the farg?
Watch it with the use of that pronoun "everyone," jerk.
im all for more run, look what it did yesterday in the 3rd quarter...we scored two touchdowns cause we opened up the playcalling and kept the blitzers at bay. TO was a big part of that. TO needs to be on the field.
the easiest way to nuetralize the broncos blitzing would have been for McNabb to complete some of his passes. Which would have meant him actually throwing a pass that didnt hit the ground 5 feet in front of a WR. Yes FF I havnt forgotten our hernia discussion.
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2005, 02:22:23 PM
Uh, when a team blitzes 7, 8 or 9 guys running at the blitz is the easiest way to nuetralize it. They weren't run-blitzing. They were trying to get to McNabb. Period.
I fell like I'm in bizarro world here. This board is full of people who know and understand football and yet everyone is trying to put on a happy face about this team. What the farg?
it's like when there's a missing person, and everybody says they are hoping for the best and that the person can be found, but deep down, everyone knows, the person is dead.
the hernia def has something to do with his accuracy, but we all know that when hes rushed, his accuracy is shtein, injured or not. soooooooooo when injured and getting blizted, Reids calling play action pass plays when sports center is advertising pass happy philly and McNabbs getting hammerd. sounds ghey to me.
Quote from: MURP on October 31, 2005, 02:24:52 PM
the easiest way to nuetralize the broncos blitzing would have been for McNabb to complete some of his passes.
We disagree. Reid needed to run the ball, or openly switch to max protect. Everyone knows what McNabb can and can't do. Handle the blitz by passing out of it falls squarely into the latter.
Quote from: Diomedes on October 31, 2005, 02:30:22 PM
Everyone knows what McNabb can and can't do. Handle the blitz by passing out of it falls squarely into the latter.
Yep, even when he's healthy.
Quote from: Diomedes on October 31, 2005, 02:30:22 PM
We disagree. Reid needed to run the ball, or openly switch to max protect. Everyone knows what McNabb can and can't do. Handle the blitz by passing out of it falls squarely into the latter.
Thank god someone else is seeing the same things I'm seeing. Jesus.
Jesus clearly has nothing to do with this.
no doubt Reid needs to run the ball, but as RJS said before, that wont happen until TO is hurt. Since their is no way that Reid will ever run the ball, McNabb needed to actually be able to hit a WR with a half decent pass. Ya know, something a highschool QB can do.
So, you're saying McNabb just sucks in general and that his injury has very little to do with it, right?
What would we do around here if we didn't talk in circles?
So, you're saying you're a grade AA douche bucket?
Quote from: FFatPatt on October 31, 2005, 02:34:11 PM
So, you're saying McNabb just sucks in general and that his injury has very little to do with it, right?
No. What he's saying is that since Reid is constitutionally incapable of calling rushing plays, we should expect McNabb to do something he's constitutionally incapable of himself: pass his way out of a blitz.
Quote from: FFatPatt on October 31, 2005, 02:34:11 PM
So, you're saying McNabb just sucks in general and that his injury has very little to do with it, right?
I dont think McNabb sucks in general. I think McNabb's accuracy is streaky and can downright suck at times. It was like that before he ever had this hernia. Does anyone disagree with that?
Quote from: Diomedes on October 31, 2005, 02:37:05 PM
No. What he's saying is that since Reid is constitutionally incapable of calling rushing plays, we should expect McNabb to do something he's constitutionally incapable of himself: pass his way out of a blitz.
Dear god. Well put.
Quote from: MURP on October 31, 2005, 02:33:09 PM
no doubt Reid needs to run the ball, but as RJS said before, that wont happen until TO is hurt. Since their is no way that Reid will ever run the ball, McNabb needed to actually be able to hit a WR with a half decent pass. Ya know, something a highschool QB can do.
i totally agree with you that he has been streaky and not real accurate his entire career. however, last year he was awesome, for whatever reason. so while i think some of his throws have to do with his tendency to be inaccurate, i refuse to believe that this injury is not affecting him when he throws. that one throw to TO, the one where Aikman really got on him, just looked like a guy who couldn't move his body to throw the ball and was trying to use arm only.
Im not gonna say the injury doesnt affect him at all, but I dont think it is enough to say it is the end all of his problems. I offer you this example:
vs the Chargers- Check out the TD pass from McNabb to TO. If you can make that pass at all you can make the others.
Quote from: MURP on October 31, 2005, 02:37:21 PM
Quote from: FFatPatt on October 31, 2005, 02:34:11 PM
So, you're saying McNabb just sucks in general and that his injury has very little to do with it, right?
I dont think McNabb sucks in general. I think McNabb's accuracy is streaky and can downright suck at times. It was like that before he ever had this hernia. Does anyone disagree with that?
Yes, I do. He has improved every year, and his accuracy was much better last year. He's missed on many, many more relatively easy passes since his sports hernia than he did all year last year.
I absolutely think the injury is a very big part of McNabb's relative ineffectiveness.
Quote from: MURP on October 31, 2005, 02:37:21 PMI dont think McNabb sucks in general. I think McNabb's accuracy is streaky and can downright suck at times. It was like that before he ever had this hernia. Does anyone disagree with that?
No.
Quote from: MURP on October 31, 2005, 02:41:38 PM
Im not gonna say the injury doesnt affect him at all, but I dont think it is enough to say it is the end all of his problems. I offer you this example:
vs the Chargers- Check out the TD pass from McNabb to TO. If you can make that pass at all you can make the others.
that's a good example. the one thing that sticks in my head is the quote from McNabb that sometimes he can do anything he wants and other times the injury flares up and it limits him. the one constant for this season is that he has been terribly inaccurate in the 1st quarter of games or longer. i think it takes him that long to get comfortable with his pain.
Quote from: Sun_Mo on October 31, 2005, 02:44:48 PMi think it takes him that long to get comfortable with his pain.
I'm sick of hearing this, but clearly the evidence in support is legion. So from now on, McNabb should be on the field getting his butt kicked for the equivalent of a quarter before the game. Make him run and throw his ass off before kick off, hit him several times, so he can get the zesty shtein shtein out.
Quote from: FFatPatt on October 31, 2005, 02:41:43 PM
Yes, I do. He has improved every year,
that is simply not true FF. Yeah, he had a career year last season. It was a great one, but check the numbers.
1999 Philadelphia Eagles 12 6 216 106
49.1 2000 Philadelphia Eagles 16 16 569 330
58.0 2001 Philadelphia Eagles 16 16 493 285
57.8 2002 Philadelphia Eagles 10 10 361 211
58.4 2003 Philadelphia Eagles 16 16 478 275
57.5 2004 Philadelphia Eagles 15 15 469 300
64.0 2005 Philadelphia Eagles 7 7 288 170
59.0His completion percentage did not improve every year. In fact his 59% this year with a hernia so far is better then every other year besides 2004. Again, I think the hernia plays a role in his problems, but the guy has thrown quite a few amazing passes this year.
Quote from: Sun_Mo on October 31, 2005, 02:44:48 PM
that's a good example. the one thing that sticks in my head is the quote from McNabb that sometimes he can do anything he wants and other times the injury flares up and it limits him. the one constant for this season is that he has been terribly inaccurate in the 1st quarter of games or longer. i think it takes him that long to get comfortable with his pain.
EXACTLY!!Jeezus, numbskulls... my whole point is that the injury extremely limits McNabb very often. I didn't say that it made him completely incapable of ever making any great plays, only that it is as much to blame for many of the not-so-great ones as his relative inaccuracy even when healthy is. The injury makes his 'off' streaks horrendous and his good streaks only decent, rather than unstoppable. The NFL has a lot of talent in it, and it doesn't take much reduction in ability to knock someone down from an elite player to an average one. Donovan's no better than average now, and he's elite when healthy.
PERIOD. You're wrong if you disagree.
Quote from: MURP on October 31, 2005, 02:37:21 PM
Quote from: FFatPatt on October 31, 2005, 02:34:11 PM
So, you're saying McNabb just sucks in general and that his injury has very little to do with it, right?
I dont think McNabb sucks in general. I think McNabb's accuracy is streaky and can downright suck at times. It was like that before he ever had this hernia. Does anyone disagree with that?
well last year he hit something like 63.0 which is pretty damn good for him. Not to mention i dont think he had 7 INTs all of last season much less in 7 games. Is he Joe Montana, no but last year he was hitting most mid to long range passes. We all know his 1-5 yard passes all hit the dirt. He was a much better last year than 2 years ago, but this year he cant hit the short, mid or long range passes @ all. I think the hernia has him totally distraught in making decisions. Even if this team does win 10 games they arent realistically going anywhere.
Quote from: Diomedes on October 31, 2005, 02:47:58 PM
Quote from: Sun_Mo on October 31, 2005, 02:44:48 PMi think it takes him that long to get comfortable with his pain.
I'm sick of hearing this, but clearly the evidence in support is legion. So from now on, McNabb should be on the field getting his butt kicked for the equivalent of a quarter before the game. Make him run and throw his ass off before kick off, hit him several times, so he can get the zesty shtein shtein out.
That would make perfect sense if excessive exercise didn't cause him to blow liquid all over Fraley's ass. Get him tired and worked in before the game and he may find a rhythm earlier, but he'll be barfing and winded later.
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2005, 02:50:47 PMGet him tired and worked in before the game and he may find a rhythm earlier, but he'll be barfing and winded later.
Cry me a river. I wasn't the one who got tired during the Super Bowl.
No, you're the one that got drunk.
Fair enough. But at least I didn't puke.
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2005, 02:54:57 PM
Quote from: General_Failure on October 31, 2005, 02:53:12 PM
No, you're the one that got drunk.
Yeah. The 'one.'
Look, a lot of people threw up that night, but McNabb is still 'the one.' So now Dio is 'the one' that got drunk. So eat it, skinslover.
Even if McNabb hasn't improved every year, as I initially stated, the light certainly went on last year for him(in no small part to T.O. joining the team and Westbrook's role in the passing game increasing). I just can't understand how any Eagles fan that religiously watches this team could think that McNabb's mediocre play this season is more a function of his mediocre skill/talent and less a function of his injury. It's quite obvious it's the other way around.
P.S. How would McNabb's numbers look if you take out the games before the hernia, especially the San Fran game?
Quote from: General_Failure on October 31, 2005, 02:56:14 PM
Look, a lot of people threw up that night, but McNabb is still 'the one.' So now Dio is 'the one' that got drunk. So eat it, skinslover.
Your points hold no value. You don't get to decide who the one is, he just is, and money ain't on Dio.
Nice work with the Skinslover quip, though. Originality is in short supply around here.
Wait, so for some of you, McNabb all of a sudden sucks now? Is that it?
I see.
::)
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2005, 03:01:36 PMand money ain't on Dio.
Smart money on
Dio is for him to be "teh Zero." The edgier bet is "teh Null."
Quote from: FFatPatt on October 31, 2005, 02:57:16 PM
I just can't understand how any Eagles fan that religiously watches this team could think that McNabb's mediocre play this season is more a function of his mediocre skill/talent and less a function of his injury. It's quite obvious it's the other way around.
I showed that McNabb can still make awesome passes. See Chargers game. Or see the beautiful lob to TO in the Denver game. I showed that other than last season, Donovan has had some accuracy issues in every single season he has been in the NFL. Everybody knows it. I have showed McNabbs stats that show this season he is playing about where he did every other year in the NFL besides his career year last season. Thats is stats, video, past history repeating. I dont think I need to show anything else to back up my thoughts. And yes I even said I do think the hernia is having some affect. It certainly affects his ability to run with the ball.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on October 31, 2005, 03:02:40 PM
Wait, so for some of you, McNabb all of a sudden sucks now? Is that it?
I see.
::)
No, get it right... McNabb has really kind of sucked all along. Nothing sudden. The hernia means almost nothing.
P.S. What were McNabb's numbers in 2003 AFTER the thumb healed? I actually think he definitely improved from 2002 --> 2003 as well as 2003 --> 2004. Even if he was going to be no better in 2005 than 2004, that would still be great in comparison to what the injury(ies) have made him.
I see how it is going to be. FF and Romey are going to twist words and make it out like Im saying McNabb has always been a bad QB. Good one. You guys could join Bush in the White House with that type of spin.
Quote from: MURP on October 31, 2005, 03:11:20 PM
You guys could join Bush in the White House with that type of spin.
Or they could just join everyone else on every message board ever who does the exact same thing to try and win arguements rather than using stats/facts/punching.
It's the hip message board thing to do.
Having vented that bit of sarcasm, I do mostly agree with FF on his assessment of McNabb and the injury. But in 2003 when McNabb was nursing his injury, Reid was smart enough to turn to the run, he seems to have forgotten how to do that. That's all it would take to right this ship, and clearly it isn't going to happen. Hooray!
Quote from: MURP on October 31, 2005, 03:11:20 PM
I see how it is going to be. FF and Romey are going to twist words and make it out like Im saying McNabb has always been a bad QB. Good one. You guys could join Bush in the White House with that type of spin.
That's more insulting to Romey than to me, but insulting regardless.
I didn't twist your words at all. You are saying that McNabb has been streaky all along, and you are downplaying the effect his injury is having on his play. I am saying that you might be right about him being streaky, but that the injury is unquestionably, obviously, beyond-a-hint-of-doubt, the #1, big-time, primo, main cause of McNabb's bad streaks turning from slightly-off-target passes to complete garbage.
The injury is making a
HUGE difference. You are denying that. Stop denying it, and I might just stop repeating the information which I think to be ridiculously blatantly obvious over and over and over and over again.
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2005, 03:14:41 PM
I do mostly agree with FF on his assessment of McNabb and the injury. But in 2003 when McNabb was nursing his injury, Reid was smart enough to turn to the run, he seems to have forgotten how to do that. That's all it would take to right this ship, and clearly it isn't going to happen. Hooray!
The big differences there were....
1. In 2003, McNabb was healing, so Reid knew he wouldn't have to rely on the run the rest of the season. In 2005, McNabb has ZERO CHANCE OF IMPROVING WITHOUT SURGERY, and Reid wouldn't dare go run-first for a whole season.
2. In 2003, the team had three capable backs with three very different styles. This kept the defenses off-balance. In 2005, they have no one who can wear down a defense at all.
3. In 2003, the team had a joke of a WR corps. In 2005, (now matter how much you hate him) they have T.O.
etc etc
Quote from: mhunt on October 31, 2005, 12:17:16 PM
anybody hope TO's out for the year?
Reno will be devastated.
Quote from: FFatPatt on October 31, 2005, 03:16:09 PM
The injury is making a HUGE difference. You are denying that.
I've already shown that McNabb is having a year that is about on course with every other season he has had other than his career year.
Quote from: FFatPatt on October 31, 2005, 03:23:06 PM
The big differences there were....
1. In 2003, McNabb was healing, so Reid knew he wouldn't have to rely on the run the rest of the season. In 2005, McNabb has ZERO CHANCE OF IMPROVING WITHOUT SURGERY, and Reid wouldn't dare go run-first for a whole season.
2. In 2003, the team had three capable backs with three very different styles. This kept the defenses off-balance. In 2005, they have no one who can wear down a defense at all.
3. In 2003, the team had a joke of a WR corps. In 2005, (now matter how much you hate him) they have T.O.
etc etc
1. Agreed.
2. I would be willing to bet that beefy Lamar Gordon and Westbrook could do a lot of damage and wearing down, so I don't agree with your point here at all.
3. Agreed. Which gets back to my original point about TO being hurt actually improving our offensive play calling and forcing this team to actually play well rather than relying on the occasional big play.
Quote from: MURP on October 31, 2005, 03:11:20 PM
I see how it is going to be. FF and Romey are going to twist words and make it out like Im saying McNabb has always been a bad QB. Good one. You guys could join Bush in the White House with that type of spin.
LOL. You're giving me way too much credit here, bro.
I'm still so hungover, I can barely function let alone twist anything anyone says.
:-D
The hernia was discovered after the Oakland game, right? Might have been suffered before that, but let's assume not.
Since then...
93/162 (57.4%), 1070 yds, 7 TD, 5 INT, 78.1 rating (last 4 games)
He played a phenominal KC game fresh off the news of the injury, but since then...
60/114 (52.6%), 701 yds, 4 TD, 4 INT, 68.6 rating (last 3 games)
Say what you want about his past, his streakiness, his completion percentage, etc, but his overall performance is much worse than usual, and it's because of the injury. If you disagree with me, you're simply just wrong.
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2005, 03:30:21 PM
2. I would be willing to bet that beefy Lamar Gordon and Westbrook could do a lot of damage and wearing down, so I don't agree with your point here at all.
I should have phrased it that we have no one proven to be able to wear down a defense. By the way, this also factors in the fullback situation, as Ritchie in 2003 did an excellent job.
Quote from: FFatPatt on October 31, 2005, 03:38:37 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2005, 03:30:21 PM
2. I would be willing to bet that beefy Lamar Gordon and Westbrook could do a lot of damage and wearing down, so I don't agree with your point here at all.
I should have phrased it that we have no one proven to be able to wear down a defense. By the way, this also factors in the fullback situation, as Ritchie in 2003 did an excellent job.
Yeah. Not having Ritchie is a farging farce and puts a serious damper on my diabolical plot to force the Eagles to run more.
Quote from: MURP on October 31, 2005, 02:37:21 PM
Quote from: FFatPatt on October 31, 2005, 02:34:11 PM
So, you're saying McNabb just sucks in general and that his injury has very little to do with it, right?
I dont think McNabb sucks in general. I think McNabb's accuracy is streaky and can downright suck at times. It was like that before he ever had this hernia. Does anyone disagree with that?
yes and no.
going back to the midpoint of 2003 (the giants game where he hit a career low of 39.1%) through the first few games this season. which is a pretty big sampling. his accuracy was greatly improved overall, and very seldomly has a patheticly innaccurate game (sub 50%).
Quote2003
wk8 - W - 73.9%
wk9 - W - 63.6
wk10 - W - 48.4 (bad weather monday night game vs green bay)
wk11 - W - 80.0
wk12 - W - 64.0
wk13 - W - 69.2
wk14 - W - 52.9
wk15 - W - 55.6
wk16 - L - 63.0
wk17 - W - 71.9
p1 - W - 53.8
p2 - L - 45.5 (hurt, did not finish game)
2004
wk1 - W - 72.2
wk2 - W - 67.9
wk3 - W - 69.0
wk4 - W - 63.2
wk5 - bye
wk6 - W - 53.8
wk7 - W - 65.1
wk8 - W - 54.5
wk9 - L - 62.5
wk10 - W - 55.6
wk11 - W - 69.2
wk12 - W - 66.7
wk13 - W - 74.4
wk14 - W - 55.3
wk15 - W - 57.1
wk16 - L - 100.0 (rams game, played 1 series)
wk17 - dnp
p1 - W - 63.6
p2 - W - 65.4
sb - 58.8
2005
wk1 - L - 53.3
wk2 - W - 79.3
wk3 - W - 57.7
wk4 - W - 68.8
wk5 - L - 50.0
wk6 - bye
wk7 - 64.8
wk8 - L - 35.3
incidentally, most of his sub 60% games came against either washington, dallas, or carolina.
i dont think you can evaluate mcnabb on what happened pre 2003 at this point. it's ancient history. another interesting stat was that yesterday, was only the 3rd time in mcnabbs career that he lost a game while his YPA was over 8.00 out of 22 games with a YPA over 8.
Well, his YPA wouldn't have been over 8 if T.O. didn't take that short little pass 91 yards to the house.
Which wouldn't have happened if there was any kind of defense beyond the line of scrimmage.
Quote from: FFatPatt on October 31, 2005, 03:37:11 PM
The hernia was discovered after the Oakland game, right? Might have been suffered before that, but let's assume not.
why assume not? The team said it surfaced in training camp.
Fine. You're simply not watching the same games I am if you don't think this injury is severely hampering McNabb.
I don't think the injury is what is making McNabb bad, I think it is all mental. You can tell when the man is in pain and he showed no signs of that yesterday. I think he's afraid of getting hit and he's getting happy feet. Where the injury comes in is he panics more than usual which gives him worse happy feet than usual and makes his throws worse than usual.
So, let me get this straight... the injury isn't making McNabb bad, but his body's natural protective instincts are heightened because of the injury, and he is therefore playing a little scared and not as well.
Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but either way, it's because of the injury, no?
Well yes in a way it is, but I don't think the pain is the issue. The pain can't be corrected. The mental side of it can. That is why I believe that McNabb can get back to a pro bowl level. He just needs to stop being afraid of getting crushed. Maybe if Andy ran the ball more he'd get more comfortable back there.
The bad and the good news* is that we'll probably have all season to find out if McNabb is capable of adjusting to this injury or if the physical pain and/or mental uncertainty from the injury is too great to allow him to play very well.
*(depending on how you look at the situation)
McNabb sucks.
Burn him.
The thing that sucks is that if we miss the playoffs it's better to miss it by 5 games than by 1 game. I don't think we'll miss the playoffs, but if we do get to a point this season where the season is officially labelled as a disaster, then I'd want the higher draft pick. We need a LOT of help for next season, and if the Eagles get cheap and sell their usual BS then this team is going nowhere next season.
your saying the Eagles will be ok next year if they draft #10 instead of #20?
you know what sucks.
we'll argue on here all week...then andy will call 15 straight pass plays to start the skins game...then we'll argue some more next week.
Quote from: mhunt on October 31, 2005, 04:14:49 PM
you know what sucks.
we'll argue on here all week...then andy will call 15 straight pass plays to start the skins game...then we'll argue some more next week.
He'll start the Skins game with a run play, but the next 4-5 will be pass plays.
It amazes me when people suggest the Eagles are cheap.
They consistently spend every penny they have in salary cap numbers, yet somehow they're cheap.
Can someone please explain this to me because I'm really at a loss to understand this contradiction.
but this week he said he had to do a better job and doggonit i buleave him
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on October 31, 2005, 04:16:01 PM
It amazes me when people suggest the Eagles are cheap.
They consistently spend every penny they have in salary cap numbers, yet somehow they're cheap.
Can someone please explain this to me because I'm really at a loss to understand this contradiction.
they're 12 mill under the cap right now, you big dummy. ;D
Quote from: Sun_Mo on October 31, 2005, 04:16:38 PM
but this week he said he had to do a better job and doggonit i buleave him
yes, this week he really WILL put the players in a better position to make plays!
Your mom's under my cap right now, huntie.
Wow, it took a full day of arguing for us to get our first your mom joke out. Is it possible that I'm having a positive influence on this place?
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on October 31, 2005, 04:16:01 PM
It amazes me when people suggest the Eagles are cheap.
They consistently spend every penny they have in salary cap numbers, yet somehow they're cheap.
Can someone please explain this to me because I'm really at a loss to understand this contradiction.
i understand what you are saying. but you have to admit, if they end the year with this much cap room and they are playing this poorly, that looks really bad on their part.
i am SO printing this topic now!
Quote from: mhunt on October 31, 2005, 04:14:49 PM
you know what sucks.
we'll argue on here all week...then andy will call 15 straight pass plays to start the skins game...then we'll argue some more next week.
(http://philadelphia.comcastsportsnet.com/images/content/eagles/020105-reid.jpg)
"Dance puppets.... DANCE!!"
Jesus, he has lost weight. Look at those jowls.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on October 31, 2005, 04:16:01 PM
It amazes me when people suggest the Eagles are cheap.
They consistently spend every penny they have in salary cap numbers, yet somehow they're cheap.
Can someone please explain this to me because I'm really at a loss to understand this contradiction.
All of that money is spent extended player contracts. Besides last year year with TO and Kearse name me some big-time players this team brings in.
They simply don't.
Quote from: mhunt on October 31, 2005, 04:18:47 PM
i am SO printing this topic now!
I can't think of any better use for ink or paper.
at least we have the Sixers to look forward to :puke
i mean, at least we have Phillies hot stove to look forward to :puke:
i mean, at least we have the Flyers to look forward to :bash
The Flyers giving up 8 goals is akin to the Eagles giving up 7 touchdowns.
So how do you people feel about Landeta coming back? If Dirk is out for a while then he'll probably be back.
he's probably the only decent choice.
I feel like I'm frightened of his ability to stare into my soul.
Quote from: TO is GOD on October 31, 2005, 04:20:44 PM
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on October 31, 2005, 04:16:01 PM
It amazes me when people suggest the Eagles are cheap.
They consistently spend every penny they have in salary cap numbers, yet somehow they're cheap.
Can someone please explain this to me because I'm really at a loss to understand this contradiction.
All of that money is spent extended player contracts. Besides last year year with TO and Kearse name me some big-time players this team brings in.
They simply don't.
Besides Kearse and T.O. name a big time player that was worth being signed by the Eagles.
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2005, 04:41:12 PM
I feel like I'm frightened of his ability to stare into my soul.
Le silence éternel de ces espaces infinis m'effraie. - Pascal
Quote from: Diomedes on October 31, 2005, 04:43:47 PM
Le silence éternel de ces espaces infinis m'effraie. - Pascal
"The eternal silence of these infinite spaces terrifies me."
The fact that you were able to pull that exceptionally appropriate quote out so quickly impresses me.
You two are soulmates.
Their kid would almost certainly be the anti-christ.
Quote from: Tomahawk on October 31, 2005, 04:42:25 PM
Quote from: TO is GOD on October 31, 2005, 04:20:44 PM
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on October 31, 2005, 04:16:01 PM
It amazes me when people suggest the Eagles are cheap.
They consistently spend every penny they have in salary cap numbers, yet somehow they're cheap.
Can someone please explain this to me because I'm really at a loss to understand this contradiction.
All of that money is spent extended player contracts. Besides last year year with TO and Kearse name me some big-time players this team brings in.
They simply don't.
Besides Kearse and T.O. name a big time player that was worth being signed by the Eagles.
Plaxico Burress, KGB(may or may not have chose the Eagles), Laveranues Coles, Sam Adams are some names. I'll need a list because I can't remember from 2002 and 2001 exactly.
I just don't think Dio would be a very good parent, what with his rabid hatred of children and whatnot.
editing queer
Quote from: TO is GOD on October 31, 2005, 04:53:18 PMPlaxico Burress, KGB(may or may not have chose the Eagles), Laveranues Coles, Sam Adams are some names. I'll need a list because I can't remember from 2002 and 2001 exactly.
You're smoking crack. What has Sam Adams or KGB done for anyone lately? What, for that matter, has Coles done lately? Burress is doing nicely with Elisha, but was he really gonna be #2 to TO? You're smoking crack.
What Dio said. Incidentally, they did acquire Runyan via free agency, but that was probably before you became a "fan" of the team.
That was before we signed TO though so if we got Coles then we wouldn't have TO right now.
Also KGB is over or around 10 sacks every year. He may not stand out, but he has more sacks than Kearse does, and would've been cheaper than Kearse. Adams would be great here right now. He's not a pro bowler but he could help our d-line.
I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for indulging your original nonsensical post with a response.
You asked for names we could've signed and I gave you them. The point is the Eagles always settle for the less-talented and cheaper players. On top of that they let their own players walk. Trotter, Simon, Barber, Emmons, Burgess, Ike Ree
All you could come up with was Runyan. :-D
Of course you could always just resort to trash someone's fandom.
They resigned the idiot Trotter, the guy you retards love, and somehow they're still cheap.
They didn't sign him originally, and it still pisses me off because it hurt is that season. Then when he comes back a few years later it's only because he practically begged Andy for a job and they gave him a petty spot on special teams.
Quote from: TO is GOD on October 31, 2005, 05:23:16 PM
They didn't sign him originally, and it still pisses me off
wah.
If memory serves, we did try to get KGB, and he opted to stay in GB.
Quote from: TO is GOD on October 31, 2005, 05:01:38 PM
That was before we signed TO though so if we got Coles then we wouldn't have TO right now.
Also KGB is over or around 10 sacks every year. He may not stand out, but he has more sacks than Kearse does, and would've been cheaper than Kearse. Adams would be great here right now. He's not a pro bowler but he could help our d-line.
1. KGB openly stated that he re-signed with GB for less than what Philly was offering. He also hinted that he used the Eagles as leverage with the Packers.
2. I was one who wanted KGB but I am glad they did not get him. He stinks and it was an overreaction to losing Hugh on my part.
Quote from: TO is GOD on October 31, 2005, 05:12:17 PM
You asked for names we could've signed and I gave you them. The point is the Eagles always settle for the less-talented and cheaper players. On top of that they let their own players walk. Trotter, Simon, Barber, Emmons, Burgess, Ike Ree
All you could come up with was Runyan. :-D
Of course you could always just resort to trash someone's fandom.
i love how you use barber and emmons there...two name free agents that contradict your point. especially when neither of those two have done anything signifigant since they signed their new contracts.
Quote from: MURP on October 31, 2005, 05:26:59 PM
Quote from: TO is GOD on October 31, 2005, 05:23:16 PM
They didn't sign him originally, and it still pisses me off
wah.
More like grrr, I don't cry like some people here do.
Quote from: Wingspan on October 31, 2005, 06:20:51 PM
Quote from: TO is GOD on October 31, 2005, 05:12:17 PM
You asked for names we could've signed and I gave you them. The point is the Eagles always settle for the less-talented and cheaper players. On top of that they let their own players walk. Trotter, Simon, Barber, Emmons, Burgess, Ike Ree
All you could come up with was Runyan. :-D
Of course you could always just resort to trash someone's fandom.
i love how you use barber and emmons there...two name free agents that contradict your point. especially when neither of those two have done anything signifigant since they signed their new contracts.
You are missing the point entirely. Firstly Emmons is playing well this year, and I don't care what they are doing on their new respective teams. They played well on this team. You can say the same thing for Trotter. He was mediocre on the Skins, but he is great here. That is all I care about. So don't give me that lame excuse that Barber and Emmons aren't doing anything. They did something here, and now other than Trotter our LBs fargin suck.
Quote from: TO is GOD on October 31, 2005, 06:25:14 PM
Quote from: Wingspan on October 31, 2005, 06:20:51 PM
Quote from: TO is GOD on October 31, 2005, 05:12:17 PM
You asked for names we could've signed and I gave you them. The point is the Eagles always settle for the less-talented and cheaper players. On top of that they let their own players walk. Trotter, Simon, Barber, Emmons, Burgess, Ike Ree
All you could come up with was Runyan. :-D
Of course you could always just resort to trash someone's fandom.
i love how you use barber and emmons there...two name free agents that contradict your point. especially when neither of those two have done anything signifigant since they signed their new contracts.
You are missing the point entirely. Firstly Emmons is playing well this year, and I don't care what they are doing on their new respective teams. They played well on this team. You can say the same thing for Trotter. He was mediocre on the Skins, but he is great here. That is all I care about. So don't give me that lame excuse that Barber and Emmons aren't doing anything. They did something here, and now other than Trotter our LBs fargin suck.
man you are great at missing points.
you used carlos and barber as examples. but yell about them never signing free agents. but those two were free agents.
They sign free agents, but every team signs free agents. It's the quality that is important. Barber was moot. He was let go after one year, and when they signed him they didn't have high hopes for him coming off an injury. Emmons was signed before he turned into the quality LB that he is. Every team makes some nice signings, but the Eagles don't make nearly as much as they should considering their great cap situation and the fact that every year they are so close but not good enough. They never risk denting future plans just a little bit to go out and get one more quality player that could help this team. Every now and then the Eagles will find a player to come in and contribute, but all teams do that.
A circular conversation where no one will concede a point that includes TO_is_a_shteinBAG?! I don't believe it!
Quote from: TO is GOD on October 31, 2005, 06:33:24 PM
They never risk denting future plans just a little bit to go out and get one more quality player that could help this team.
oh really,
TO is GOD?
Didn't I already state earlier besides TO and Kearse? I believe I did.
That still doesn't excuse the most recent offseason where their big FA signing was McMahon. TO and the Freak are signed. Time to move on from that "magical" offseason. Last offseason was the worst offseason ever and it shouldn't have been. The team is now paying for it. They have no d-line depth. They have terrible LBs. They have no o-line depth if god forbid someone goes down.
Don't even act like you expected the Eagles to sign TO and Kearse. No one here did. Why? Because the Eagles never went after the big players. After the one uncharacteristic year they went back to their old ways and it still didn't get us a parade. Which is all I care about.
Buddy Ryan never would have let this shtein happen.
No one has managed to explain the salary cap conundrum to my satisfaction.
You're all on report as of now.
:boom
BTW: I realize they are under by 12M now. My point was, they won't be when it comes time for them to spend the wad just as they have every other year. Also - the reason they usually have this kind of money available has been well documented. Banner's juiced every penny out of the incentives loophole, so of course they're going to have more than most teams.
Also - high ticket free agents don't win you Super Bowls. Smart drafting does. Reid & Heckert have hit some screaming home runs in that regard but they've also whiffed horribly on others. It's the nature of the beast.
Just want to throw this out there....
They're not $12M under.
It's more like $9.5M.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on October 31, 2005, 06:45:07 PM
No one has managed to explain the salary cap conundrum to my satisfaction.
You're all on report as of now.
:boom
BTW: I realize they are under by 12M now. My point was, they won't be when it comes time for them to spend the wad just as they have every other year. Also - the reason they usually have this kind of money available has been well documented. Banner's juiced every penny out of the incentives loophole, so of course they're going to have more than most teams.
Also - high ticket free agents don't win you Super Bowls. Smart drafting does. Reid & Heckert have hit some screaming home runs in that regard but they've also whiffed horribly on others. It's the nature of the beast.
I don't get down on the Eagles for draft busts as much as I do what positions they draft. Freddie Mitchell didn't work out... ok. Some other players didn't turn out to be good... ok. It happens with all teams. What pisses me off sometimes is what positions they target as needs. Though I trust the Eagles will drafts more often than not, and I don't often get angry with their drafts.
I think you win Superbowls with drafts AND free agency. Not one or the other. You need an nice balance of signing
quality players to fill needs and drafting to fill needs and for long-term needs. The Eagles just seem one-sided. This past offseason they relied 100% on the draft to fix their needs, and what do you know? Moats isn't working out. Reggie Brown is hardly contributing anything, and Mccoy can't even get on the field.
They don't have to be the taterskins and sign 5 huge names per year, but a couple wouldn't hurt. Although if the taterskins knew what they were doing then I'm sure they could've made those bust signings work out.
Eagles rookies rarely play at all, so judging 2005's draft class now is pointless and more than a little unfair.
The Eagles have signed free agents in the past when they've felt that in doing so, they would be acquiring upgrades. The thing is, though, last year's team was loaded with Pro Bowlers. There were few players available in free agency that would have been upgrades and even fewer who would have come at a reasonable price.
No, if you're looking for the Eagles to fill their personnel slots with free agents, you're rarely, if ever going to be happy with the results. In my opinion, building through the draft is the best way to build championship teams in the salary cap era.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on October 31, 2005, 06:45:07 PM
No one has managed to explain the salary cap conundrum to my satisfaction.
You're all on report as of now.
That number doesn't count incentive bonuses that apparently will only be reached by McNabb this year. As I understand it they only count against the cap when they're reached.
Well, if the Eagles season goes in the tank, then they'll have no choice but to make some big FA signings. Especially if they let TO walk, they'll need to sign or trade for a 1,000 yard receiver.
But my problem is exactly what you said and how you said it. You said you build championship teams through the draft in the salary cap era. I agree. The Eagles aren't building right now though. They are there, and they need something to push them over the hump. Draftees, especially when drafting deep like the Eagles are won't push you over the top. When you are on the verge of winning a championship that is when free agency becomes important.
But if you are a 4-12 team looking to become championship caliber then you do build through the draft. The Eagles were a 13-3 team. The draft isn't what is going to get them over the hump.
The Eagles lost five starters from last year's team (Mayberry, Simon, Ritchie, Pinky & Burgess) and other than Ritchie & Simon, everyone assumed that the players they replaced them with were going to be more than adequate.
It turns out that they were wrong in nearly every instance but that doesn't mean you abandon your scheme and go all willy nilly in free agency. That tactic never fricken works. Just look at teams who've broken the bank in the recent past. None of them succeeded. Not one. The Eagles cannot rely on free agents to win anything. They have to rely on their own talent evaluation and acquisition skills via the draft.
It's just that simple.
They can't rely on it 100%, but in the same token it can do nothing but make your team better. Say next year the Eagles signed Darren Howard and Julian Peterson. They are going to be a much better defensive team with those 2 players. All they have to do is use them the way they are supposed to be used and execute. You base your system around your players, not your players around your system.
I would like to point out that the chances of the Eagles adding both Darren Howard and Julian Peterson next off-season are precisely MEATCICLE. ZERO. NO WAY IN FARGING HELL.
Are you following the same team here, space boy?
FF, will you please knock it off? You're interrupting a perfectly superfluous spat between hekilledhisnephew99RIP and TOisDOG.
Quote from: FFatPatt on October 31, 2005, 08:25:35 PM
I would like to point out that the chances of the Eagles adding both Darren Howard and Julian Peterson next off-season are precisely MEATCICLE. ZERO. NO WAY IN FARGING HELL.
Are you following the same team here, space boy?
I don't think they will either, but if this team misses the playoffs. They are going to do something major. I see 2 major FA acquisitions and a few lesser quality but still good ones. Peterson will probably be franchised, but the Eagles WILL sign a stud DE whether they make the playoffs or not. It's their absolute biggest weakness right now by far. Whether Howard will be the guy, I don't know. But they will sign a big name DE.
If there's one thing the Eagles do, it's address their biggest need in free agency every year.
I'm not sure but I also think Simeon Rice is a FA too.