"You don't know what you have until it's gone". I hope that the anit-McNabb club had a good seat last night. And while we're at it, the anit-Reid brigade, because believe it or not, I don't see very many assistants coming in and accomplishing what he did or even finishing the job if he should leave at this moment.
Quote from: bobbyinlondon on December 06, 2005, 03:26:29 PM
"You don't know what you have until it's gone". I hope that the anit-McNabb club had a good seat last night. And while we're at it, the anit-Reid brigade, because believe it or not, I don't see very many assistants coming in and accomplishing what he did or even finishing the job if he should leave at this moment.
IMO I don't think anybody is calling or anyones head. Winning is everything in the NFL ;) Winning, playoff making seasons (regardless of how they get there) gets management/coaching lots of "slack" from the fans and most media (WIP excluded). But when you are loosing, have an apparent shortage of skill players and are way under the cap, fans will and probably should question what going on 8)
Stop with the "way under the cap" crap already. SEriously.
Quote from: PhillyGirl on December 06, 2005, 03:46:14 PM
Stop with the "way under the cap" crap already. SEriously.
Ok..they are "SEriously under" :-D :-D
Quote from: PhillyGirl on December 06, 2005, 03:46:14 PM
Stop with the "way under the cap" crap already. SEriously.
Why? Do we get some kind of special bonus for being the team with the most unspent cap space?
Why do you care about how deep the lining is in Luries pockets?
Total salary numbers from 2000 to 2004 for all NFL teams.
1. $390,819,249 Philadelphia Eagles
2. $382,673,005 Atlanta Falcons
3. $375,858,731 Chicago Bears
4. $373,833,158 Washington taterskins
5. $371,046,295 New York Jets
6. $369,591,901 Tampa Bay Buccaneers
7. $367,796,346 St. Louis Rams
8. $367,778,644 Detroit Lions
9. $366,583,147 New York Giants
10. $365,392,036 Seattle Seahawks
11. $363,482,362 Oakland Raiders
12. $362,985,446 Pittsburgh Steelers
13. $360,466,117 Arizona Cardinals
14. $354,791,340 Cleveland Browns
15. $352,776,920 Denver Broncos
16. $350,955,368 Indianapolis Colts
17. $349,605,735 Kansas City Chiefs
18. $348,920,137 Baltimore Ravens
19. $348,297,540 Cincinnati Bengals
20. $346,516,357 Miami Dolphins
21. $345,932,228 New Orleans Saints
22. $342,217,872 Carolina Panthers
23. $338,111,783 San Diego Chargers
24. $334,523,217 Tennessee Titans
25. $332,721,594 Green Bay Packers
26. $322,460,470 New England Patriots
27. $322,083,552 Minnesota Vikings
28. $319,287,441 Buffalo Bills
29. $319,163,689 Dallas Cowboys
30. $315,818,591 Jacksonville Jaguars
31. $291,769,266 San Francisco 49ers
32. $258,845,415 Houston Texans
Source: USA Today
I think it preposterous that there is talk of Reid being fired, however, I do think that Smallwood has a point.
QuotePosted on Tue, Dec. 06, 2005
John Smallwood | Reid's dual role catching up to him
WHAT WE CAN be sure of
is that no one in the ivory
tower of the Eagles' front office will even consider this. But at this point, you have to wonder if Andy Reid should learn one last lesson from his mentor, Seattle coach Mike Holmgren.
Things likely weren't as voluntary as the Seahawks' media guide portrays them. But the bottom line is that after the 2002 season when his team finished 7-9 and missed the playoffs for a third consecutive season, Holmgren - who went to Seattle in 1999 as executive vice president/general manager and head coach - "decided to focus exclusively on coaching and relinquished his duties as general manager."
In the next three seasons, with Holmgren worrying only about coaching, the Seahawks have earned three straight playoff
appearances and won the last two NFC West titles, including this
year's.
In embarrassing the Eagles last night, 42-0, the Seahawks improved to 10-2 and moved a step closer to clinching homefield advantage throughout the NFC playoffs.
Reid has gone 53-23, won four NFC East titles and reached four NFC Championship Games and a Super Bowl since adding the title of executive vice president of football operations in 2001. So it's silly to suggest he has been a failure as the Eagles' grand pooh-bah of football decisions.
Still, the circumstances of the Eagles' amazing fall from grace brings back the issue of whether it's the best idea for Reid to have complete control over the football decisions.
I've never been a fan of a coach
also wearing the hat of general
manager. I think it limits creativity within an organization and hampers its ability to be flexible and make adjustments. Certainly there have been exceptions, but as a
general rule, it doesn't add up to a championship equation.
In most cases, it ends up in a situation like Holmgren's - where a great coach becomes an average one because he's bitten off more than he can chew and gets bogged down with so many other responsibilities.
And while there are a lot of
reasons the Eagles went from
preseason Super Bowl favorite to the league's biggest disappointment, you have to wonder how different things might have been if Reid had nothing to do than coach.
Maybe some decisions and situations that ruined the Birds' season would have been handled differently. If the Eagles had a general manager who wasn't as joined at the hip to Donovan McNabb, the decision to delay surgery on the quarterback's sports hernia might have been different. Everything might have been done the same way, but it would have been nice to have a more objective view from someone who hasn't completely hitched his success to the QB he hand-selected.
At the very least, you have to
believe that if the Eagles had a GM other than Reid, they would have had a legitimate contingency plan to deal with McNabb going down with a significant injury.
The idea that Reid went into the season with Koy Detmer and Mike McMahon as the backups was a
suicidal gambit at best. As their pathetic showing against Seattle revealed, neither was equipped to fill in for McNabb. With those guys as the backups, Reid virtually guaranteed the season would fall apart if McNabb got hurt.
A GM who wasn't also the coach might have brought in a proven
veteran who has won NFL games
instead of keeping a guy at No. 2
because the kicker likes the way he holds the football.
And if Reid were just the coach, maybe the Terrell Owens saga would not have gotten as bad as it did.
Owens' beef was with the Eagles' management. But since the head coach is also management, it made it virtually impossible for the situation not to spill onto the practice and playing field.
And considering the cutthroat
nature of the salary cap, you have to wonder how much distrust of Reid there is because he's ultimately
going to side with management.
In a year when the Birds needed their coach to take them to another level, Reid might have been hamstrung by his responsibilities as general manager.
Quote from: methdeez on December 06, 2005, 07:34:45 PM
Quote from: PhillyGirl on December 06, 2005, 03:46:14 PM
Stop with the "way under the cap" crap already. SEriously.
Why? Do we get some kind of special bonus for being the team with the most unspent cap space?
Why do you care about how deep the lining is in Luries pockets?
because the whole "Lurie pockets loads of money that could be spent on players" is nonsense and has been proven so many times.
i will say this about cap space. every year, we say that the taterskins are heading for cap hell with all their signings, and it never seems to happen. now, they have spent their cap money on poor players so it's not a big deal. but they never have to blow up their team like everyone thinks they will have too. i wonder how they are able to sign all those players for big money and still make it work with the cap.
They're still a ticking time bomb, Mo.
The way they do it is they restructure and restructure until they cannot do it any longer. For instance they restructured Trotter's contract 1 season after he got there so they could sign a few guys. And they restructured Chris Samuels and many other guys as well. When they do that they keep pushing dead money off until years later.
Thats why they still have Trotter on their books as dead money despite cutting him two years ago.
I read somewhere that the Skins, right now, have something like $120M committed in 2006. The cap might get to $100M but maybe less. So they have to do some more tinkering and releasing and all that jazz.
They're still a ticking time bomb, Mo.
this may be true...but mo is right in that everyone been saying this since they signed stubblefield wilkinson six years ago...they may be a bomb but it has a long ass fuse and ill believe they are in trouble when i see it happen...until then i fully expect them to be major players on the free agent market
Quote from: henchmanUK on December 07, 2005, 09:01:13 AM
I think it preposterous that there is talk of Reid being fired, however, I do think that Smallwood has a point.
QuotePosted on Tue, Dec. 06, 2005
John Smallwood | Reid's dual role catching up to him
WHAT WE CAN be sure of
is that no one in the ivory
tower of the Eagles' front office will even consider this. But at this point, you have to wonder if Andy Reid should learn one last lesson from his mentor, Seattle coach Mike Holmgren.
Things likely weren't as voluntary as the Seahawks' media guide portrays them. But the bottom line is that after the 2002 season when his team finished 7-9 and missed the playoffs for a third consecutive season, Holmgren - who went to Seattle in 1999 as executive vice president/general manager and head coach - "decided to focus exclusively on coaching and relinquished his duties as general manager."
In the next three seasons, with Holmgren worrying only about coaching, the Seahawks have earned three straight playoff
appearances and won the last two NFC West titles, including this
year's.
In embarrassing the Eagles last night, 42-0, the Seahawks improved to 10-2 and moved a step closer to clinching homefield advantage throughout the NFC playoffs.
Reid has gone 53-23, won four NFC East titles and reached four NFC Championship Games and a Super Bowl since adding the title of executive vice president of football operations in 2001. So it's silly to suggest he has been a failure as the Eagles' grand pooh-bah of football decisions.
Still, the circumstances of the Eagles' amazing fall from grace brings back the issue of whether it's the best idea for Reid to have complete control over the football decisions.
I've never been a fan of a coach
also wearing the hat of general
manager. I think it limits creativity within an organization and hampers its ability to be flexible and make adjustments. Certainly there have been exceptions, but as a
general rule, it doesn't add up to a championship equation.
In most cases, it ends up in a situation like Holmgren's - where a great coach becomes an average one because he's bitten off more than he can chew and gets bogged down with so many other responsibilities.
And while there are a lot of
reasons the Eagles went from
preseason Super Bowl favorite to the league's biggest disappointment, you have to wonder how different things might have been if Reid had nothing to do than coach.
Maybe some decisions and situations that ruined the Birds' season would have been handled differently. If the Eagles had a general manager who wasn't as joined at the hip to Donovan McNabb, the decision to delay surgery on the quarterback's sports hernia might have been different. Everything might have been done the same way, but it would have been nice to have a more objective view from someone who hasn't completely hitched his success to the QB he hand-selected.
At the very least, you have to
believe that if the Eagles had a GM other than Reid, they would have had a legitimate contingency plan to deal with McNabb going down with a significant injury.
The idea that Reid went into the season with Koy Detmer and Mike McMahon as the backups was a
suicidal gambit at best. As their pathetic showing against Seattle revealed, neither was equipped to fill in for McNabb. With those guys as the backups, Reid virtually guaranteed the season would fall apart if McNabb got hurt.
A GM who wasn't also the coach might have brought in a proven
veteran who has won NFL games
instead of keeping a guy at No. 2
because the kicker likes the way he holds the football.
And if Reid were just the coach, maybe the Terrell Owens saga would not have gotten as bad as it did.
Owens' beef was with the Eagles' management. But since the head coach is also management, it made it virtually impossible for the situation not to spill onto the practice and playing field.
And considering the cutthroat
nature of the salary cap, you have to wonder how much distrust of Reid there is because he's ultimately
going to side with management.
In a year when the Birds needed their coach to take them to another level, Reid might have been hamstrung by his responsibilities as general manager.
If you read the Seattle papers, all would not seem as it appears. Yeah, they re-hired Mike Reinfeldt to be the cap guru (Banner's job in Philly), and they hired Bob Ferguson, late of the Cards, as a personnel VP (like Heckert is in Philly); but HOLMGREN STILL CALLS THE SHOTS. HE still has final say over the roster. Basically, the Hawks have won the West the last two years because the Rams have disintegrated and you have the perennial bad Cards and 49ers.
As far as "capable No.2 QBs, exactly WHO was out there? Brad Johnson, but he preferred to go back to the Vikings. I don't think the Eagles would want to give a 6.2M contract to a 37 year old QB (with 1.2M in SB).
Plus, as far as Owens goes, well, it still would have gone to pot no matter who was in charge. Remember, "he wasn't going to be happy unless he got a new contract"? Does anyone think that a different GM in Philly would have given him a new deal 1 year in?
What the hell does it matter if the Skins are major players in the free agent market? On the field, they suck under Snyder, every year without fail.
Quote from: henchmanUK on December 07, 2005, 09:39:34 AM
What the hell does it matter if the Skins are major players in the free agent market? On the field, they suck under Snyder, every year without fail.
no doubt, but the point being, while the Eagles have been very cautious with how they spend their cap money, and rightfully so, the taterskins have been spending money out the ass for several years and are yet to pay for it. the fact that they spent that money poorly is inconsequential. had they a real GM, who spent money on good players not just names, they might have been able to put together a very good team and win a SB with all the money they spent.
I've contended for weeks now that Reid should hand over the final personnel reins to Heckert.
Now, I also think he should shake up his staff and get some new blood in assistant roles.
i dont think reid is particularly adept at PP but if the choice is btwn him coaching and him gming ill take the front office position every day
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 07, 2005, 09:55:32 AM
i dont think reid is particularly adept at PP but if the choice is btwn him coaching and him gming ill take the front office position every day
I know you would. But that would never happen. Plus, I think Reid must stay to have a solid shot at righting this ship. Otherwise, you're talking about blowing up the team completely and starting from scratch, which I think is not the best plan of attack at this point in time.
Quote from: bobbyinlondon on December 07, 2005, 09:39:00 AM
If you read the Seattle papers, all would not seem as it appears. Yeah, they re-hired Mike Reinfeldt to be the cap guru (Banner's job in Philly), and they hired Bob Ferguson, late of the Cards, as a personnel VP (like Heckert is in Philly); but HOLMGREN STILL CALLS THE SHOTS. HE still has final say over the roster. Basically, the Hawks have won the West the last two years because the Rams have disintegrated and you have the perennial bad Cards and 49ers.
As far as "capable No.2 QBs, exactly WHO was out there? Brad Johnson, but he preferred to go back to the Vikings. I don't think the Eagles would want to give a 6.2M contract to a 37 year old QB (with 1.2M in SB).
Plus, as far as Owens goes, well, it still would have gone to pot no matter who was in charge. Remember, "he wasn't going to be happy unless he got a new contract"? Does anyone think that a different GM in Philly would have given him a new deal 1 year in?
At the end of the day, I am still not a fan of the dual GM/coaching role. Why have the Hawks overtaken the Rams? Possibly because at the same time the Seahawks took power away from Holmgren the Rams gave more power to Martz.
Otherwise, you're talking about blowing up the team completely and starting from scratch, which I think is not the best plan of attack at this point in time
no youre not...it would be akin to the dungy gruden switch
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 07, 2005, 10:03:04 AM
Otherwise, you're talking about blowing up the team completely and starting from scratch, which I think is not the best plan of attack at this point in time
no youre not...it would be akin to the dungy gruden switch
who's your Gruden?
Quote from: henchmanUK on December 07, 2005, 10:01:07 AM
Quote from: bobbyinlondon on December 07, 2005, 09:39:00 AM
If you read the Seattle papers, all would not seem as it appears. Yeah, they re-hired Mike Reinfeldt to be the cap guru (Banner's job in Philly), and they hired Bob Ferguson, late of the Cards, as a personnel VP (like Heckert is in Philly); but HOLMGREN STILL CALLS THE SHOTS. HE still has final say over the roster. Basically, the Hawks have won the West the last two years because the Rams have disintegrated and you have the perennial bad Cards and 49ers.
As far as "capable No.2 QBs, exactly WHO was out there? Brad Johnson, but he preferred to go back to the Vikings. I don't think the Eagles would want to give a 6.2M contract to a 37 year old QB (with 1.2M in SB).
Plus, as far as Owens goes, well, it still would have gone to pot no matter who was in charge. Remember, "he wasn't going to be happy unless he got a new contract"? Does anyone think that a different GM in Philly would have given him a new deal 1 year in?
At the end of the day, I am still not a fan of the dual GM/coaching role. Why have the Hawks overtaken the Rams? Possibly because at the same time the Seahawks took power away from Holmgren the Rams gave more power to Martz.
but martz was an idiot before that move.
im not saying there is a gruden out there...im comparing the situations and saying that you wouldnt be blowing up the team just because you get rid of a bad coach...if anything youre helping the team...as long as you bring in the right guy to replace him
eagles have the talent to win as tampa bay did...they just need a new direction and attitude from the HC spot...not to mention a competant in game tactition
Quote from: Wingspan on December 07, 2005, 10:05:43 AM
Quote from: henchmanUK on December 07, 2005, 10:01:07 AM
Quote from: bobbyinlondon on December 07, 2005, 09:39:00 AM
If you read the Seattle papers, all would not seem as it appears. Yeah, they re-hired Mike Reinfeldt to be the cap guru (Banner's job in Philly), and they hired Bob Ferguson, late of the Cards, as a personnel VP (like Heckert is in Philly); but HOLMGREN STILL CALLS THE SHOTS. HE still has final say over the roster. Basically, the Hawks have won the West the last two years because the Rams have disintegrated and you have the perennial bad Cards and 49ers.
As far as "capable No.2 QBs, exactly WHO was out there? Brad Johnson, but he preferred to go back to the Vikings. I don't think the Eagles would want to give a 6.2M contract to a 37 year old QB (with 1.2M in SB).
Plus, as far as Owens goes, well, it still would have gone to pot no matter who was in charge. Remember, "he wasn't going to be happy unless he got a new contract"? Does anyone think that a different GM in Philly would have given him a new deal 1 year in?
At the end of the day, I am still not a fan of the dual GM/coaching role. Why have the Hawks overtaken the Rams? Possibly because at the same time the Seahawks took power away from Holmgren the Rams gave more power to Martz.
but martz was an idiot before that move.
At what? Personnel, coaching or both? I'm not Martz's biggest fan, but he does have a Super Bowl ring as an OC.
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 07, 2005, 10:05:51 AM
im not saying there is a gruden out there...im comparing the situations and saying that you wouldnt be blowing up the team just because you get rid of a bad coach...if anything youre helping the team...as long as you bring in the right guy to replace him
eagles have the talent to win as tampa bay did...they just need a new direction and attitude from the HC spot...not to mention a competant in game tactition
If they replaced Reid in the off-season (which you and I both know won't happen), they would not make it to the Super Bowl in 2006. No way. No how. Remember that Gruden went in to fix the Tampa offense, but they kept Monte Kiffin and the defense intact. Our DEFENSE has been the biggest problem this year. Even when most/all of the D was healthy, they've been extremely sketchy. JJ's timing and in-game strategy has been weak at best.
That's why I think JJ should go (along with Brasher). A new and slightly different scheme and attitude would help the good players we have on defense already, and an influx of a couple of talented guys could bring dominance back to the D.
Quote from: FFatPatt on December 07, 2005, 10:12:24 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 07, 2005, 10:05:51 AM
im not saying there is a gruden out there...im comparing the situations and saying that you wouldnt be blowing up the team just because you get rid of a bad coach...if anything youre helping the team...as long as you bring in the right guy to replace him
eagles have the talent to win as tampa bay did...they just need a new direction and attitude from the HC spot...not to mention a competant in game tactition
If they replaced Reid in the off-season (which you and I both know won't happen), they would not make it to the Super Bowl in 2006. No way. No how. Remember that Gruden went in to fix the Tampa offense, but they kept Monte Kiffin and the defense intact. Our DEFENSE has been the biggest problem this year. Even when most/all of the D was healthy, they've been extremely sketchy. JJ's timing and in-game strategy has been weak at best.
That's why I think JJ should go (along with Brasher). A new and slightly different scheme and attitude would help the good players we have on defense already, and an influx of a couple of talented guys could bring dominance back to the D.
Have to agree. Our D on third downs has been awful thanks mostly to the play-calling.
I give credit to JJ for not bringing the all-out blitz on 3rd down on the play that resulted in an Engram TD on MNF, but would it kill him to maybe bring 1 extra pass-rusher? It seems his only options on 3rd down have been to rush 3 or 4 and get no pressure, or to rush 7 or 8 and have no coverage.
The TD's to Glenn on MNF against the Cowboys and to Burress the next week against the Giants were 100% a result of an extremely questionable play call to send the all-out blitz. Those were game-changing plays.
I'm not saying this team hasn't had other problems and doesn't need anything else in the off-season, but righting the defensive ship with a new scheme and a new attitude is step 1. The defense has been out of sync all season.
im not going to even get into the specifics of it all as ive more than stated my position on reid but to even put a little of the blame on jj is nuts...he and his defense have carried andy for the last six years (other than last year)...the talent on defense is not close to what it was...thats the issue not jj's coaching
Of all people, you should understand the "what have you done for me lately?" philosophy.
The thing that pisses me off on D this season is that JJ does great on first and second down to put the D in the position they're in on third down, then loses his stones on third down, therefore resulting in the bad guys moving the chains.
Quote from: FFatPatt on December 07, 2005, 10:45:17 AM
Of all people, you should understand the "what have you done for me lately?" philosophy.
JJ is the "blue collar" average man's man & is immune to any blame. Reid on the other hand, is the personification of "management", who can be blamed for everything from poor player personnel selection to weak coffee in the press box.
Short fields are killing the D. As I have stated, this is the result of bad punting/poor kick coverage/poor to mediocre ST returns/the offense's lack of consistent production.
Quote from: SD_Eagle on December 06, 2005, 07:40:10 PM
Total salary numbers from 2000 to 2004 for all NFL teams.
1. $390,819,249 Philadelphia Eagles
2. $382,673,005 Atlanta Falcons
3. $375,858,731 Chicago Bears
4. $373,833,158 Washington taterskins
5. $371,046,295 New York Jets
6. $369,591,901 Tampa Bay Buccaneers
7. $367,796,346 St. Louis Rams
8. $367,778,644 Detroit Lions
9. $366,583,147 New York Giants
10. $365,392,036 Seattle Seahawks
11. $363,482,362 Oakland Raiders
12. $362,985,446 Pittsburgh Steelers
13. $360,466,117 Arizona Cardinals
14. $354,791,340 Cleveland Browns
15. $352,776,920 Denver Broncos
16. $350,955,368 Indianapolis Colts
17. $349,605,735 Kansas City Chiefs
18. $348,920,137 Baltimore Ravens
19. $348,297,540 Cincinnati Bengals
20. $346,516,357 Miami Dolphins
21. $345,932,228 New Orleans Saints
22. $342,217,872 Carolina Panthers
23. $338,111,783 San Diego Chargers
24. $334,523,217 Tennessee Titans
25. $332,721,594 Green Bay Packers
26. $322,460,470 New England Patriots
27. $322,083,552 Minnesota Vikings
28. $319,287,441 Buffalo Bills
29. $319,163,689 Dallas Cowboys
30. $315,818,591 Jacksonville Jaguars
31. $291,769,266 San Francisco 49ers
32. $258,845,415 Houston Texans
Source: USA Today
I see none of the Eagles and Lurie are cheap clowns responded to this. Every couple of weeks for the past four to five years we here this bs about the Eagles being cheap because of their cap room, yet they have spent the most money on player salaries over the past five years than any team in the league. In addition, they have spent a ton of money recently on coaches with Reids' new deal, JJ's new deal, John Harbaugh's new deal, Brad Childress' new deal, bringing in an assistant head coach like Marty Mornigheg cost money. They one of the highest paid offensive, defensive and special teams coordinators in the league. JJ was the highest paid coordinator in the league when he was signed.
But, hey, why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good delusion.
They only spent about $8 million more than the #2 team! CHEAP, I say! CHEAAAPPPPPP!!
i would question the source...its not like its coming from the players association or the nfl finance office...usa today did it...
regardless its not how much money you spend but how you spend it...peep new england at number 26
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 07, 2005, 11:55:25 AM
regardless its not how much money you spend but how you spend it...peep new england at number 26
Most of us would agree. Some people think that cap room = cheap FO. Those people are idiots.
i dont think theres a team in the NFL that is cheap...you make good moves and you make bad moves...period
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 07, 2005, 12:03:01 PM
i dont think theres a team in the NFL that is cheap...you make good moves and you make bad moves...period
Not true. There are cheap teams. The new 49ers FO has been cheap. The Bengals have been historically cheap, but are improving. The Cardinals are cheap. The Steelers are a little cheap.
Quote from: FFatPatt on December 07, 2005, 12:04:33 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 07, 2005, 12:03:01 PM
i dont think theres a team in the NFL that is cheap...you make good moves and you make bad moves...period
Not true. There are cheap teams. The new 49ers FO has been cheap. The Bengals have been historically cheap, but are improving. The Cardinals are cheap. The Steelers are a little cheap.
The Steelers seem to draft incredibly well though, especially linebackers
Quote from: Tomahawk on December 07, 2005, 12:29:51 PM
Quote from: FFatPatt on December 07, 2005, 12:04:33 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 07, 2005, 12:03:01 PM
i dont think theres a team in the NFL that is cheap...you make good moves and you make bad moves...period
Not true. There are cheap teams. The new 49ers FO has been cheap. The Bengals have been historically cheap, but are improving. The Cardinals are cheap. The Steelers are a little cheap.
The Steelers seem to draft incredibly well though, especially linebackers
the Steagles would be a helluva team in today's NFL
Quote from: Sun_Mo on December 07, 2005, 10:03:34 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 07, 2005, 10:03:04 AM
Otherwise, you're talking about blowing up the team completely and starting from scratch, which I think is not the best plan of attack at this point in time
no youre not...it would be akin to the dungy gruden switch
who's your Gruden?
We need to find a young coach with annoying mannerisms before he goes to the Saints next year. I say we look at special teams coaches, they're always goofy.
Quote from: MURP on December 07, 2005, 09:15:09 AM
Quote from: methdeez on December 06, 2005, 07:34:45 PM
Quote from: PhillyGirl on December 06, 2005, 03:46:14 PM
Stop with the "way under the cap" crap already. SEriously.
Why? Do we get some kind of special bonus for being the team with the most unspent cap space?
Why do you care about how deep the lining is in Luries pockets?
because the whole "Lurie pockets loads of money that could be spent on players" is nonsense and has been proven so many times.
The bottom line is, every year we have more unspent money than everyone else. This is outside of those fake roster bounus's and all those tricks. What are we going to with our unspent $6Mill this year?
Quote from: methdeez on December 07, 2005, 02:06:07 PMWhat are we going to with our unspent $6Mill this year?
I think the Eagles should do something charitable with it such as feed TO's fatass family.