http://www.profootballtalk.com
T.O. WILL BE A CHALLENGE TO SIGN
Conventional wisdom throughout the league is that someone will offer receiver Terrell Owens a modest contract that permits him to cash in via incentive payments.
Absent an extension to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, however, it will be impossible for any team to use this device without holding back enough cap room to satisfy the incentives, if they are earned.
Because 2007 will be an uncapped year, all incentives immediately count against the cap when earned, even the so-called "not likely to be earned" incentives, which otherwise would count against the 2007 uncapped year if earned in 2006.
As a result, any team that signs Owens to an incentive-heavy deal will be required to have on hand the corresponding cap space, even if Owens never meets the threshold for the payment.
Let's assume, for example, that Owens gets $1 million in salary and up to $5 million in not likely to be earned incentives. In any other year, the team would need only $1 million in cap space in order to do the deal. Any incentive payments would then count against the following year's cap.
Look for teams, then, to shy away from an incentive-laden deal when talking with T.O., and to instead explore other devices (such as a roster bonus paid on a weekly basis) to protect against a recurrence of Owens' turdish behavior.
My money says that 81 will not act in "turdish" behavior no matter who he signs with. He'll have a model year, enticing some team to pay too much for too long in the 07 season....
Won't the CBA be redone by the time the "uncapped" year comes into play?
No, 28 of the owners are looking forward to skyrocketing salaries.
wonder if the uncapped year will complete the eagles slide into mediocrity. we don't spend all the money available under the cap as it is now.
Quote from: L-ong-B-each-I-ggle on January 08, 2006, 08:07:29 PM
wonder if the uncapped year will complete the eagles slide into mediocrity. we don't spend all the money available under the cap as it is now.
i seriously wish every person who said that would be shot and killed
i'm sorry. we do spend every dollar under the cap now. please don't shoot and kill me.
2007 is not going to be an uncapped year.
At least in my opinion. They will get the CBA done.
why doesn't the idiot get release his manager and grow some brains and play for the best football organisation in the league. The combination with Mcnabb was second to none this prick has fuelled his player with so much crap his balls are ready to explode. Eagles need a running game and some LB.
If the skins and giants made the playoffs we won't have a problem in the years to come with a fit Mcnabb.
English is fun.
But apparently, grammar and coherant thinking are not.
Quote from: L-ong-B-each-I-ggle on January 08, 2006, 08:07:29 PM
wonder if the uncapped year will complete the eagles slide into mediocrity. we don't spend all the money available under the cap as it is now.
The Eagles have spent the 2nd most money over the last 5 years when looking at real money. Not salary cap terms but actual cash - the Eagles are #2 with over 300,000,000 paid out in salaries, bonuses and stuff like that.
Quote from: Philly Forever on January 08, 2006, 10:59:09 PM
2007 is not going to be an uncapped year.
At least in my opinion. They will get the CBA done.
I agree, but for the purposes of this argument, unless the CBA gets done before the cap year starts (March 1?) they will have to operate 2006
as if it were the year before an uncapped year.
Quote from: Cerevant on January 09, 2006, 05:54:31 AM
Quote from: Philly Forever on January 08, 2006, 10:59:09 PM
2007 is not going to be an uncapped year.
At least in my opinion. They will get the CBA done.
I agree, but for the purposes of this argument, unless the CBA gets done before the cap year starts (March 1?) they will have to operate 2006 as if it were the year before an uncapped year.
Correct--and if that happens, a lot of rules change--
1. You have to be in the league 6 years before you become a UFA, and 4 years to be a RFA.
2. The playoff teams will have restrictions on the FAs they can sign. If you reach the FINAL FOUR, you won't be able to sign any FAs except if you lose one, and then, he can only sign for what the guy you lost made.
Quote from: bobbyinlondon on January 09, 2006, 10:53:58 AM
Quote from: Cerevant on January 09, 2006, 05:54:31 AM
Quote from: Philly Forever on January 08, 2006, 10:59:09 PM
2007 is not going to be an uncapped year.
At least in my opinion. They will get the CBA done.
I agree, but for the purposes of this argument, unless the CBA gets done before the cap year starts (March 1?) they will have to operate 2006 as if it were the year before an uncapped year.
Correct--and if that happens, a lot of rules change--
1. You have to be in the league 6 years before you become a UFA, and 4 years to be a RFA.
2. The playoff teams will have restrictions on the FAs they can sign. If you reach the FINAL FOUR, you won't be able to sign any FAs except if you lose one, and then, he can only sign for what the guy you lost made.
That's nutty. What's the idea behind that? I always thought tha FA was a way for quality teams to make up for thier low draft picks, by picking up FA's who want to be with a winner.
Quote from: bobbyinlondon on January 09, 2006, 10:53:58 AM
Quote from: Cerevant on January 09, 2006, 05:54:31 AM
Quote from: Philly Forever on January 08, 2006, 10:59:09 PM
2007 is not going to be an uncapped year.
At least in my opinion. They will get the CBA done.
I agree, but for the purposes of this argument, unless the CBA gets done before the cap year starts (March 1?) they will have to operate 2006 as if it were the year before an uncapped year.
Correct--and if that happens, a lot of rules change--
1. You have to be in the league 6 years before you become a UFA, and 4 years to be a RFA.
2. The playoff teams will have restrictions on the FAs they can sign. If you reach the FINAL FOUR, you won't be able to sign any FAs except if you lose one, and then, he can only sign for what the guy you lost made.
That's farging bizarre. I can't even begin to understand the logic behind all of that, and I can't imagine why it was agreed to.
Quote from: DemonchildrenOnTurf on January 09, 2006, 02:26:21 PM
That's farging bizarre. I can't even begin to understand the logic behind all of that, and I can't imagine why it was agreed to.
Motivation to get the new CBA done on time.
QuoteJim Flynn, of PewterReport.com, reports Tampa Bay Buccaneers head coach Jon Gruden addressed an ESPN report that said the Buccaneers had interest in Philadelphia Eagles WR Terrell Owens. "I don't watch ESPN, and for good reason," said Gruden. "[Owens] is under contract, and it's tampering to even discuss his situation. I wouldn't even go there and try to respond."
Quote from: Susquehanna Birder on January 08, 2006, 07:46:47 PM
Won't the CBA be redone by the time the "uncapped" year comes into play?
(http://www.abalive.com/images/teams/hawaii_150.jpg)
The Hawaii Mega Force of the ABA just folded after three games. Including players I think they averaged 25 people a game. Maybe knuckle head wants to own an "upstart" franchise. Player/coach? Player/trainer? Player/usher? Player/hot dog vendor?
Quote from: Don Ho on January 10, 2006, 03:16:35 PM
Quote from: Susquehanna Birder on January 08, 2006, 07:46:47 PM
Won't the CBA be redone by the time the "uncapped" year comes into play?
(http://www.abalive.com/images/teams/hawaii_150.jpg)
The Hawaii Mega Force of the ABA just folded after three games. Including players I think they averaged 25 people a game. Maybe knuckle head wants to own an "upstart" franchise. Player/coach? Player/trainer? Player/usher? Player/hot dog vendor?
That is seriously one goofy-ass team logo.....
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on January 09, 2006, 03:33:57 AM
Quote from: L-ong-B-each-I-ggle on January 08, 2006, 08:07:29 PM
wonder if the uncapped year will complete the eagles slide into mediocrity. we don't spend all the money available under the cap as it is now.
The Eagles have spent the 2nd most money over the last 5 years when looking at real money. Not salary cap terms but actual cash - the Eagles are #2 with over 300,000,000 paid out in salaries, bonuses and stuff like that.
You're talking to a wall my friend. It's becoming more clear every day that many people just don't want facts to get in the way of their little fantasy world.
Well maybe if the Eagles would spend all that spare cap money people would pay attention.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on January 09, 2006, 03:33:57 AM
The Eagles have spent the 2nd most money over the last 5 years when looking at real money. Not salary cap terms but actual cash - the Eagles are #2 with over 300,000,000 paid out in salaries, bonuses and stuff like that.
Dude, Lurie can barely afford his hair. What do you want the poor guy to do? Walk around town with a $12 haircut? I DON'T THINK SO!
The Eagles have spent the 2nd most money over the last 5 years when looking at real money. Not salary cap terms but actual cash - the Eagles are #2 with over 300,000,000 paid out in salaries, bonuses and stuff like that.
that might mean something if they didnt go into seasons like this last one being 10 mil under the cap and not having a legit kick returner...punt returner or back up qb...all positions that are easy to fill and come cheap...their free agency period consisted of mike mcmahon...i mean wtf?
You're right. But there is a distinction between what you're saying and what I posted.
What I posted was pretty much in response to Lurie being cheap. I've had to use that little stat when we argue about this at work. Lurie will spend the money.
What you're talking about is the ay-to-day football ops people having the money and not spending it. Or should I say, Joe Banner not spending it. Maybe Reid urged him that they'd be OK or maybe there were other targets out there that Banner said no to, I don't know. But I do know that Lurie isn't cheap.
Banner is the bean counter for players.
lurie will spend money to make money...as any good business man will...however how willing is lurie to spend money that wont directly make him money but might help him win a title
im not 100% sure hes cheap when it comes to that but it sure looks like it sometimes...perhaps its more stupidity or a matter of being gutless
I think it was more like "Uh, we're fine there" uttered by Reid and/or Heckert. The fact that they're that high in dollars spent is an indicator they'll spend.
But they have to use their brains a little better and this year helped them, at least I hope so, inthe sense that they cannot be dormant again.
Re-signing Burgess would have been the only money-spending move that the Eagles truly missed out on last off-season. Where else would you have had them throw a chunk of change?
im not gonna get into naming names but there were like 400 ufa last year and youre telling me there wasnt any they could have gotten that would have upgraded their special teams...back up qb...linebackers ect...
As much as Burgess was a regular season snoozer and playoff stud last year, so was Keith Adams. Burgess ended up proving it wasn't a fluke, and Adams proved it did. It was also reasonable to believe that Dhani Jones would be better in his 2nd year in Jim Johnson's system. Let's just say the LB's were expected to be much better than they were.
Also, with special teams, there were injuries on top of injuries.
And the Eagles truly hoped they were going to be able to parlay Mike McMahon into a draft choice. Whoops.
All this said, it's important that you do name at least 1 or 2 specific names that you would not have passed on, given the Eagles situation when they were signed. Otherwise, you just come off as generally a whiner with no specific ideas or proof of how it could have been done better.
youre a homer of the ES variety...theres no talking to you
All I'm saying is that certain weaknesses are a lot more obvious (and a lot more weak) than they were during last year's off-season. The Eagles returned most of a team coming off a 3-point defeat in the Super Bowl and were adding a handful of key draft picks. At the time, there was much less reason to think it was a good idea to push the limits of the salary cap.
I'm not a homer. I'm a realist, in both good times and bad. You're a WIP alarmist, always trying to say "I told you so" and claim that the sky is and always has been falling.
I'm simply asking for a short list of about 2 names from last year's UFA's that you truly felt at the time that the Eagles should have signed. Apparently, it's a lot easier to bitch and moan about not using the salary cap space than to state specifics ways in which you would have used it, huh?
i know how this works...i name two players and you say theres no way they could have got them...they arent better than what they had...they werent available ect ect ect....and then i say youre wrong...im not going to go back and forth on free agency minutia from last spring
all im saying is double figures under the cap and ZERO improvements made...even the patriots after superbowl WINS added important pieces...the eagles did nothing zilch zero nada in a year they should have and more importantly could have made their team better
Here--I'll give you some help--
OL--Wahle (OG)--got an 8M bonus from Carolina
McKenzie got a 13M bonus from the Giants
Jennings got a 12M SB from the 49ers
Rivera got a 9M bonus fro the Jets
The Eagles felt they were good on the offensive line. They had given up 20 sacks in 11 games before all of the injuries set in. When they called more runs then passes, they were effective. Now, where would Rivera and Wahle, BOTH 30 or over fit on this line?
WR--Burress got 8M in bonus money from the Giants
Houshmenzada was a RFA and would have required draft pick compensation
Muhammed got 12M in bonus money form the Bears
Right, when Owens hired Rosenhaus, Muhammed was gone, Housh had been signed, and only Burress was out there. So, the question is, would you have signed ANOTHER head case to go along with Owens?
DL--We can debate the Burgess deal for the next century, but the fact is that NO ONE could see he was going to have the kind of year he had in Oakland--not when he spent 2 yrs on IR, had a career high 6 sacks in 2001 as a rookie, and had spent 4 games LAST YEAR on the sidelines.
To be continued...(I have to go on break)
in your never ending quest to defend the front office youre missing the point...youre only listing the very best free agents at their position...no one is saying they should have dropped 20 million in signing bonuses...but to have done absolutely nothing is inexcusable
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 11, 2006, 10:53:09 AM
in your never ending quest to defend the front office youre missing the point...youre only listing the very best free agents at their position...no one is saying they should have dropped 20 million in signing bonuses...but to have done absolutely nothing is inexcusable
At least he's offering examples instead of empty complaining.
Quote from: DemonchildrenOnTurf on January 11, 2006, 10:57:43 AM
At least he's offering examples instead of empty complaining.
*ding*
empty complaining?...im pointing out something that is factual and true...the eagles did nothing to improve their team and had the money to do so...how can you spin that...by listing teams that did improve themselves?
hes listing random players that got signed by other teams who had less cap room than the eagles...as if it was a bad move that the bears signed mushin muhammed...if anything hes making the eagles look worse
am i saying they should have signed any or all of the players he mentioned no of course not but at least other teams made an attempt...the eagles wouldnt even sign someone to replace jr reed...
telling someone to name a player so you can search for reasons why the eagles shouldnt have signed him is 3rd grade arguing and something i will not be a part of
Refusing to get specific in an argument is like a political debate, and I don't want to be a part of that, either.
You're more wrong than you are right in this case. It's that simple. You wouldn't dare want to prove that by actually getting specific with the argument, so you'll instead pretend you're above that.
Nice try, but you're full of shtein.
im wrong only because its impossible to be right when debating with homers of the highest degree
yous could learn a lot from phreak
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 11, 2006, 11:26:27 AM
im wrong only because its impossible to be right when debating with homers of the highest degree
yous could learn a lot from phreak
Dude - go take some prozac. Your persecuted victim schtick is getting old.
Anyway, the Eagles are 13-3 last season, and are a handful of stupid coaching & QB decisions from winning the Super Bowl. They have 11 draft picks. What exactly should have been setting off alarms in the heads of the coaching/FO staff to say - "hey, you know, we need to make some changes here"
You keep saying backup QB...Koy had shown the ability to come off the bench and hold the team together. McMahon was a project that failed. It isn't like they didn't try to address the situation.
Then there is kick returner. Yes the Eagles lost Reed, but there were a number of players already on the roster that supposedly had KR skills. Where was the problem?
My problem with your argument is that you keep going back to the cap. The problem had nothing to do with money, it was roster spots. AR is clearly a "if it ain't broke" kind of guy. He isn't going to go around making changes for the sake of change. So tell us, where was the team so broken that it was obvious that there needed to be a change?
not changes...improvements
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 11, 2006, 11:38:02 AM
not changes...improvements
Well, with a 53 man roster, if someone comes in someone else has to go. Where did the Eagles need to make improvements?
linebacker...kick returner...punt returner...linebacker...defensive end...fullback...
what did they do?
mike mcmahon
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 11, 2006, 11:43:46 AM
linebacker...kick returner...punt returner...linebacker...defensive end...fullback...
what did they do?
mike mcmahon
i'm not sure how anyone can argue this...mcmahon really was their only free agent signing.
on the flipside, they lost 2 starters from the d-line, their kick returner, & the nfc's pro bowl special teamer.
that's not a successful offseason.
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 11, 2006, 10:53:09 AM
in your never ending quest to defend the front office youre missing the point...youre only listing the very best free agents at their position...no one is saying they should have dropped 20 million in signing bonuses...but to have done absolutely nothing is inexcusable
Actually, I'm not listing THE VERY BEST FAs that were out there. I'm listing FAs that some fans (not necessarily you) are pointing to and saying we could have added this guy or that guy. On the O line, Rivera has had back problems, and I don't know too many people who would give a guard an 8M signing bonus; also McKenzie had been very inconsistent with the Jets, which is why they really didn't re-sign him.
Continuing on, the secondary was considered a strength, and if Lito ever gets his head out of his butt and stops looking in the backfield all of the time, it will continue to be.
At LB, you had Peterson, who was a Franchise player and the Eagles aren't going to give him a 6 year 38M deal, which is what he has said he wants; Witherspoon was a RFA with 1st round compensation; Reese took a 4M bonus from the Falcons, in the mistaken notion that he was going to compete for the starting SLB job.
Back to the DL for a minute. At DE, you had Darren Howard, who was franchised, but the Cowboys tried to switch 1st rounders with them, and the Saints wanted the 11th pick straight up; Kyle Vanden Bosch had an injur plagued year with the Cards--he signed for the vet minimum and then wound up with 12.5 sacks--again, just like Burgess, who knew he'd have that kind of year? Who knew Courtney Brown would all of a sudden become a player when he went to Denver?
At DT, youcan't force a guy to sign his franchise tender. Simon had told Ashley Fox way back in February he was fine with it and willing to play under it, then all of a sudden, he wasn't. The Eagles had tried to get him signed for two years, and he kept asking for more money; he and his agent shot down at least THREE trades because they made outrageous demands. Now here is the kicker--
he and Hollis wound up with the same amount of tackles (35) and the same amount of sacks (0). Is he truly worth 30M and a 13M bonus?
Chris Hovan, there's another guy who washed out with the Vikings--but, in a contract year (since he made the vet minimum), he played like he did in his rookie year.
At QB, there simply wasn't a glut of talent out there--Warner wanted to start, which is why he wound up in Arizona; Johnson wanted to go back to Minny if he wasn't going to start--and now he's whining that he wants to start next year; Hasslebeck from the Giants--if the Eagles thought that much about him two years ago, they would have kept him. Blake, when he got his chance to play last year in the last two games, was just awful.
In the end, it comes down to this--when you're signing FAs, no FO has tea leaves, tarot cards, or crystal balls to read the future. You can only go on what you see on film and if a guy accepts your offer or if he shoots for the moon. FA is a crap shoot just like the draft--you don't know what you're getting from one year to the next.
One of the big problem was having 13 draft picks as well. When you pretty much have a set team, and then have 13 picks on top of that, that causes you not to spend in FA as well.
Quote from: bobbyinlondon on January 11, 2006, 11:51:41 AM
In the end, it comes down to this--when you're signing FAs, no FO has tea leaves, tarot cards, or crystal balls to read the future. You can only go on what you see on film and if a guy accepts your offer or if he shoots for the moon. FA is a crap shoot just like the draft--you don't know what you're getting from one year to the next.
huh? that's the front office's job...talent evaluation.
id rather go for players and fail than just sign mike mcmahon
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 11, 2006, 11:43:46 AM
linebacker
I might agree with you there. This might be worth looking at who was available.
Quote
...kick returner
I'm assuming this is because JR Reed was hurt.
Year Rank Ret Yds Avg Long TD
2004 13 J.R. Reed PHI 33 761 23.1 66 0
2005 16 Roderick Hood PHI 38 900 23.7 53 0
Yeah, that really killed us this year.
Quote...punt returner
The Eagles were bad last year, but there were a number of players on the roster who could play PR, and it turns out they ended up with the league leader. If the Eagles were serious about having a big play punt returner, Westbrook would be back there.
Quotedefensive end
This one comes under FF's question - who was available when they knew they had a need? It was thought they were fine at this position until Dougs got shot.
Quote...fullback...
Andy has dicked around with this position ever since Ritchie got hurt. I don't know if he takes it seriously. But still - who? Was there really someone out there who was a no-brainer over their own draft pick?
Well, off the top of my head, you had Pierce (was he a UFA or a RFA?); Peterson was coming off a serious knee injury.
Anyone else?
Maybe Edgerton Hartwell. That's it for quality. And Pierce is a MLB, where we didn't need a replacement (sorry GF).
Quote from: FFatPatt on January 11, 2006, 10:22:13 AM
Let's just say the LB's were expected to be much better than they were.
i dont buy that at all...mainly because i expected nothing from the LBs...i certianly never expected some castoff backups from other teams to come in and hold their own on the field.
If I were running the Eagles, I would have found a real fullback as soon as I felt there was a chance of Ritchie not being able to cut it. I might have also tried to replace Ike's presence on special teams, but I'm sure I would have felt confident of getting some special teams help in the draft. I have to say I'm a little baffled they didn't take a true KR with any of their multitude of draft picks.
The thing is that hindsight truly is 20/20. Most of the major injuries (ie: everyone but JR Reed) were incurred after the FA pool was pretty much dried up anyway. Here are the big issues...
Jason Short: Eagles were hoping he'd come back and make a huge difference on teams
Pinkston: He's a better overall player than Greg Lewis. Having him available might have changed the situation with TO overall, but if not would certainly have slightly improved the offense. Regardless, especially with the team eyeing Reggie Brown in the draft, there was no perceived reason to sign a Muhammed, Burress, or Mason whatsoever.
Dirk Johnson: Losing him was big. Landeta eventually hit his groove, but all the other replacement attempts at Johnson were big-time sucky.
McDougle: The depth chart at DE from the Super Bowl would have simply replaced Burgess with Kalu. That, AT THE TIME, did not seem to be too much, if any, of a dropoff. However, many "insiders" really thought this was going to be McDougle's year to break out. I really think the Eagles would have gone after another DE in trade or FA if they had known McDougle wouldn't be available for the season.
Anyway, all this crap aside, needs on the team are now obvious and glaring:
QB - 2 new ones... preferably one somewhat-capable veteran backup and one younger guy
HB - still need a bigger guy... apparently Lamar Gordon is not the answer
FB - not a fan of Parry, but don't know who else is available out there
WR - We need a starter here. Trying to pass off Pinkston/Brown/Lewis/McMullen as a Super Bowl-caliber group would make me laugh.
TE - If Lewis returns, we might be ok. Good idea to get a young guy in the draft, though.
OL - Hoo boy. Where do I start? Hopefully, Thomas comes back strong. Hopefully, Andrews gets his fat ass in shape. Hopefully, the Eagles have enough good linemen that Artis Hicks is the 6th man and not a starter. This could be a mess.
DL - This is similar to the OL. Let's see... Kearse and Cole will probably start at the ends. Patterson and Walker will probably start at the tackles. McDougle will probably be back, for what it's worth, but this team needs a bunch of defensive linemen. Have to get at least 1 good one in free agency or by trade...
LB - Adams won't be back. The team needs to add a GOOD player by FA or trade to replace him. Would be nice to replace Dhani, too, but unrealistic that the Eagles would sign 2 new starters.
DB - This group is still pretty good overall, especially if Hood comes back. It might be time to bring someone in that could actually replace Dawkins down the line, but I'm sure they'll give Considine one more year... Yay.
Teams - Is Dirk going to be good to go? Great. We still need a punt returner.
Yuck.
Quote from: FFatPatt on January 11, 2006, 01:25:05 PM
If I were running the Eagles, I would have found a real fullback as soon as I felt there was a chance of Ritchie not being able to cut it. I might have also tried to replace Ike's presence on special teams, but I'm sure I would have felt confident of getting some special teams help in the draft. I have to say I'm a little baffled they didn't take a true KR with any of their multitude of draft picks.
The thing is that hindsight truly is 20/20. Most of the major injuries (ie: everyone but JR Reed) were incurred after the FA pool was pretty much dried up anyway. Here are the big issues...
Jason Short: Eagles were hoping he'd come back and make a huge difference on teams
Pinkston: He's a better overall player than Greg Lewis. Having him available might have changed the situation with TO overall, but if not would certainly have slightly improved the offense. Regardless, especially with the team eyeing Reggie Brown in the draft, there was no perceived reason to sign a Muhammed, Burress, or Mason whatsoever.
Dirk Johnson: Losing him was big. Landeta eventually hit his groove, but all the other replacement attempts at Johnson were big-time sucky.
McDougle: The depth chart at DE from the Super Bowl would have simply replaced Burgess with Kalu. That, AT THE TIME, did not seem to be too much, if any, of a dropoff. However, many "insiders" really thought this was going to be McDougle's year to break out. I really think the Eagles would have gone after another DE in trade or FA if they had known McDougle wouldn't be available for the season.
Anyway, all this crap aside, needs on the team are now obvious and glaring:
QB - 2 new ones... preferably one somewhat-capable veteran backup and one younger guy
HB - still need a bigger guy... apparently Lamar Gordon is not the answer
FB - not a fan of Parry, but don't know who else is available out there
WR - We need a starter here. Trying to pass off Pinkston/Brown/Lewis/McMullen as a Super Bowl-caliber group would make me laugh.
TE - If Lewis returns, we might be ok. Good idea to get a young guy in the draft, though.
OL - Hoo boy. Where do I start? Hopefully, Thomas comes back strong. Hopefully, Andrews gets his fat ass in shape. Hopefully, the Eagles have enough good linemen that Artis Hicks is the 6th man and not a starter. This could be a mess.
DL - This is similar to the OL. Let's see... Kearse and Cole will probably start at the ends. Patterson and Walker will probably start at the tackles. McDougle will probably be back, for what it's worth, but this team needs a bunch of defensive linemen. Have to get at least 1 good one in free agency or by trade...
LB - Adams won't be back. The team needs to add a GOOD player by FA or trade to replace him. Would be nice to replace Dhani, too, but unrealistic that the Eagles would sign 2 new starters.
DB - This group is still pretty good overall, especially if Hood comes back. It might be time to bring someone in that could actually replace Dawkins down the line, but I'm sure they'll give Considine one more year... Yay.
Teams - Is Dirk going to be good to go? Great. We still need a punt returner.
Yuck.
Hey,
Team "Ow my shoulder!" takes offense to that. If McCoy gets enough rope to hang himself, so should Considine. Also, I'll have you know, Considine kicks farging ass in Madden, where McCoy sucks, and that should tell you
something. :paranoid
Madden programmers smoke crack with stillupfront?
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 11, 2006, 10:53:09 AM
in your never ending quest to defend the front office youre missing the point...youre only listing the very best free agents at their position...no one is saying they should have dropped 20 million in signing bonuses...but to have done absolutely nothing is inexcusable
Signing guys that make no more than the guys already on the roster doesn't really use up all the cap space. Pick an argument and stick with it.
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 11, 2006, 11:26:27 AM
im wrong only because its impossible to be right when debating with homers of the highest degree
yous could learn a lot from phreak
yous could learn a lot from Jamie Kennedy
(http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/malibu_s_most_wanted/_group_photos/big_steele3.jpg)
oh word?