article (http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16720886&BRD=1675&PAG=461&dept_id=18170&rfi=6)
I find it quite interesting that a player actually said something like that even if he was doing it in a "positive" way. Garcia speaking out on things like that.... I like it. Garcia taking Timmy Chang under his wing. ha.
QuotePHILADELPHIA -- Eagles backup quarterback Jeff Garcia doesn't see much of a difference between the team's new generation of wide receivers. That doesn't sound like a good thing for a group that desperately needs to distinguish itself to make up for the loss of Terrell Owens.
Garcia addressed the issue after a Wednesday workout at the NovaCare Complex, which is filling up with Eagles veterans getting a jump on organized full squad practices that begin next week.
Garcia thinks the receiving corps is capable. At the same time, the group headed by Reggie Brown and Jabar Gaffney at minicamp is so nondescript Garcia would like to see someone emerge as The Man.
"I think they all are very talented," Garcia said. "I think one of the things about the receivers is it seems like they're a lot of clones -- like the same guy out there. I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between them. And I think what's going to have to happen is, somebody is going to have to really step up and separate themselves. I mean that in a good way. I think competition is going to create that sort of atmosphere on the field."
Garcia would like to think he knows something about receivers. The three-time Pro Bowl quarterback with the San Francisco 49ers is one of just six players to throw 30 or more touchdown passes in consecutive NFL seasons.
What Garcia has seen at minicamp and in workouts is a group of receivers struggling to find an identity as the Eagles move on without Owens, the superstar that owner Jeffrey Lurie conceded is the best in the business.
A stickler for detailing work, Garcia's remarks about what the receivers must do to separate themselves, if you will, were eye-opening.
"I think they have to realize that doing the little extra things make a difference," Garcia said, "whether that's getting in the weight room today after practice, whether that's watching more film, getting in your playbook or eliminating certain mistakes out on the field. Those are all important factors in separating yourself. When you can become accountable for yourself and dependable, that's when you start to separate."
Garcia thinks the Eagles can win without a premier go-to guy. He says the balanced attack works -- providing the run becomes a real part of the offense.
"It's not just balance among receivers, tight ends and running backs," Garcia said. "It's balance between throwing the football and running the football. I do believe that they go hand in hand. In order for this offense to be able to work effectively, you need to be able to run the football, and you need to be able to utilize play action and movement off of that running game.
"When you look at the old San Francisco teams, not only were they tops in throwing the football, they also ran the football very well. I know this team got away from that last year and probably a lot because of where they sat in certain games, but I think it's something that we're really working to get back to, to really have balance. And really, every receiver has to be able to contribute because they're always an option on any given play."
The Eagles quietly were highly impressed with Garcia's efforts at the recent minicamp and expect to have a positive influence on starter Donovan McNabb.
"I just want to help him grow and continue to get better on the field and do whatever I can to help this team out," Garcia said.
Garcia's professionalism already is rubbing of on some of the younger Eagles including quarterback Timmy Chang, whom the veteran has taken under a wing.
"We're only going to be as good as that last guy on this depth chart," the 36-year-old Garcia said. "And I take pride in helping those guys because I've been through it. I've been around this system for eight years now and it's something I'm pretty confident in."
Get Boba Fett!
Mini-camp thread already has a blurb about this.
Wow, I am pleasantly suprised by Mr. Garcia's comments hopefully the rest of the team including coaching staff is listening.
Just an question.....were there any "stand-outs" on the Patriots WR corps the first 2 SBs they won?
The article failed to mention that Team Garthia thinks the receivers also look the same in the locker room.......hung. And that one of them should 'stand up' from the rest of them.
Quote from: hbionic on June 01, 2006, 02:29:24 PM
The article failed to mention that Team Garthia thinks the receivers also look the same in the locker room.......hung. And that one of them should 'stand up' from the rest of them.
Of course, you mention it. Coincidence?
Quote from: PhillyGirl on June 01, 2006, 02:27:53 PM
Just an question.....were there any "stand-outs" on the Patriots WR corps the first 2 SBs they won?
I wouldn't say they had any "studs" but they had one very good one in Troy Brown and a bunch of other solid guys. They also had a running game.
Garcia isn't saying anything that any Eagles fan or NFL analyst hasn't said for months.
Not only that but it seems as if the Pats Wideouts are stronger than ours. Ours just seem so weak. Maybe its that 2003 NFC Championship that's still lingering.
Cut Garcia.
Reggie Brown ALONE makes this WR corps better than 2003, bionic.
I am excited to see what Gaffney does. I think he and Brown are going to be solid.
DMF...I agree, the running game is key. If AR can start running the ball, I won't have as many concerns with the WRs.
I love how Reggie Brown somehow makes this corps better than the 2003 corps. What did he have, 500 yards last year? Superstar! Garcia is spot on, and it's terrifying.
that's more a testament to how bad they were in 2003, i think.
Quote from: SunnyCakes on June 01, 2006, 02:48:43 PM
that's more a testament to how bad they were in 2003, i think.
Bingo.
Brown has more talent in his index finger than Thrash/Pinkston/Na Brown have combined.
Quote from: PhillyGirl on June 01, 2006, 02:50:47 PM
Quote from: SunnyCakes on June 01, 2006, 02:48:43 PM
that's more a testament to how bad they were in 2003, i think.
Bingo.
Brown has more talent in his index finger than Thrash/Pinkston/Na Brown have combined.
That's like a 4 incher bragging he's bigger than a 3.5 incher. We are talking about index fingers here folks.
McMullen has talent too. I'll take production and the fact is that Brown hasn't proven he can produce yet, so let's just put our boners away and stop beating each other off to thoughts of Reggie Brown until he actually does something worth being excited about.
Like shooting someone in the face?
Sure, whatever chubs your nub, man.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 01, 2006, 03:02:23 PM
McMullen has talent too. I'll take production and the fact is that Brown hasn't proven he can produce yet, so let's just put our boners away and stop beating each other off to thoughts of Reggie Brown until he actually does something worth being excited about.
Comparing Brown to McMullen is preposterous. Brown showed more in one season with Mike fargign McMahon throwing the ball than McMullen did in what? 3 or 4 years?
Preposterous? I think not. Both were talented WRs that mysteriously did better under McMahon last year than they did working with McNabb.
The point is obvious, stop gushing over a question mark. It's embarrassing.
At least we got one QB on this team that speaks out.
just kidding
Quote from: hbionic on June 01, 2006, 02:34:29 PM
Not only that but it seems as if the Pats Wideouts are stronger than ours. Ours just seem so weak. Maybe its that 2003 NFC Championship that's still lingering.
2002 is still lingering in my head, like a really, really bad hangover. Like the one I had Sunday morning. Bombay farging Gin.
Quote from: Bunkley78 on June 01, 2006, 03:08:32 PM
At least we got one QB on this team that speaks out.
just kidding
:o
Quote from: rjs246 on June 01, 2006, 03:08:13 PM
Preposterous? I think not. Both were talented QBs that mysteriously did better under McMahon last year than they did working with McNabb.
The point is obvious, stop gushing over a question mark. It's embarrassing.
ok.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 01, 2006, 03:02:23 PM
so let's just put our boners away and stop beating each other off
you first.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 01, 2006, 03:02:23 PM
McMullen has talent too. I'll take production and the fact is that Brown hasn't proven he can produce yet, so let's just put our boners away and stop beating each other off to thoughts of Reggie Brown until he actually does something worth being excited about.
well for stepping into the starting role as a rookie and handling it like he did, i think he's got a chance to be something special. seems to me he's been our most productive rookie WR in the Reid era yet. Not bad for starting half the season and having a bum QB throwing him the rock. don't hate. and u better pray he's gonna get better. cause i am. :evil
We're all hoping he's better. This season depends on it.
But I think it's premature to say he's a 1,000 yd receiver this year, with 9+ TDs. What you really want from a #1. And until he PROVES that, he's not going to make the other receivers "better" like TO did.
It's a little worrisome we're hoping a 5'9" RB and a TE will open up the passing game for our #1, yet that's where we stand this year.
Quote from: PhillyGirl on June 01, 2006, 03:12:00 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on June 01, 2006, 03:08:13 PM
Preposterous? I think not. Both were talented QBs that mysteriously did better under McMahon last year than they did working with McNabb.
The point is obvious, stop gushing over a question mark. It's embarrassing.
ok.
Great point, accidentally mis-typing their position is just as embarrassing as blindly homerslobbing over a second year player who didn't exactly light the league on fire last year and has never played a significant amount of game time with the team's starting
QB.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 01, 2006, 03:02:23 PM
McMullen has talent too. I'll take production and the fact is that Brown hasn't proven he can produce yet, so let's just put our boners away and stop beating each other off to thoughts of Reggie Brown until he actually does something worth being excited about.
The excitement comes from the fact that he pretty good production as a rookie WR in the WCO, that alone says something. It is hard enough for a rookie WR to produce let alone the fact that he was in a very complicated scheme. To me the enthusiasm for this player is warranted, sure he may not live up to what is expected of him, but he certainly looks the part.
Who are we kidding. This team won't have a true #1 and doesn't feel they need one. They want a bunch of guys with good hands so they can spread the ball around. Maybe it works. Maybe it doesn't but pre TO this is the way Andy runs his offense like it or not.
Reggie Brown is going to be a top 15 receiver in this league. It's just a matter of when. Can he do it this season?
WELL, WE'LL FIND OUT SOON ENOUGH!!
Quote from: Bunkley78 on June 01, 2006, 04:51:11 PM
Reggie Brown is going to be a top 15 receiver in this league. It's just a matter of when. Can he do it this season?
WELL, WE'LL FIND OUT SOON ENOUGH!!
You make me angry.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 01, 2006, 04:56:49 PM
Quote from: Bunkley78 on June 01, 2006, 04:51:11 PM
Reggie Brown is going to be a top 15 receiver in this league. It's just a matter of when. Can he do it this season?
WELL, WE'LL FIND OUT SOON ENOUGH!!
You make me angry.
And you make hbionic feel like a natural woman.
Quote from: MURP on June 01, 2006, 02:13:58 PM
Garcia speaking out on things like that.... I like it. Garcia taking Timmy Chang under his wing. ha.
you sure that's spelled right?
Ugh. I fargin hate the offseason.
BTW: Garcia's right. Someone has to step up from that group. WTF is wrong with him saying that? At least someone on the roster has the balls to say what everyone who calls themselves Eagles fans has been saying since the end of last season.
What amazes me is that it was the backup quarterback.
when your 36 and have been to 3 Probowls, you can say whatever the F you want. Hes basically talking about a bunch of youngbucks that havent done squat yet, and hes trying to let them know----you aint $htein, you got alot of work to do to be anything special in this league. he couldnt be more on.
Hey Donovan, any words for us on the recievers--maybe they needed to hear it from the starter? Right, I figured as much
The real question is whether Garcia will be attending the Carson Palmer Cornhole Classic.
Quote from: reese125 on June 01, 2006, 10:23:23 PM
when your 36 and have been to 3 Probowls, you can say whatever the F you want.
No. He's a joke, a backup, and new to the team. He can say
this and people can pick at it for days, but to say he can say anything is pretty farging stupid.
I believe Reggie Brown is going to be a stud. I know that angers rjs so I'll say it again...Reggie Brown will be a stud.
And I found the most interesting thing that Garcia said was that there has to be a balance between the run and pass. Reid has said he is going to stay committed to the run. Other players have said Reid has said he is going to run more and now Garcia says this.
They can win with this WR corps if they have a healthy run/pass ratio.
I think it's OK to believe and hope that Reggie Brown will be a stud.
I think it's foolish to bank on it.
I think this year is the year that the Birds prove to the critics that they can run the ball. All signs point to them being more committed to the run.
Quote from: mikey418 on June 02, 2006, 08:11:15 AM
I think this year is the year that the Birds prove to the critics that they can run the ball. All signs point to them being more committed to the run.
I think they are as well. But I don't see Westbrook or Moats being the guys that grind it out between the tackles. Westy will be featured prominently obviously, but when they are trying to kill the clock and sit on the lead, someone else will get carries. I think they either like what they see in the Davis kid from Illinois, or really, honestly believe Tapeh is back at 100%, or add a FA before camp (Suggs would be sweet if he shakes out).
I am so disillusioned.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on June 02, 2006, 03:07:10 AM
I believe Reggie Brown is going to be a stud. I know that angers rjs so I'll say it again...Reggie Brown will be a stud.
You're going to have to try a lot harder to anger me. I'm not angry, I'm just embarrassed for you. I hope he turns into a stud, but he sure as shtein isn't there yet and I would never ever yell from the mountaintops that he is the next great Eagles receiver. Let's see if he can actually catch passes from McNabb before we soil ourselves with glee.
Quote from: mikey418 on June 02, 2006, 08:11:15 AM
All signs point to them being more committed to the run.
i hope that's the case but i don't see how anyone can actually say that. is it because we still don't have a RB over 5'9? or the fact that they still haven't upgraded or put any emphasis whateoever on the FB position? or the fact that we signed a pass catching TE?
i won't believe we run the ball until i see andy do it in Week 1.
he caught a TD against the taterskins from McNabb.
Quote from: SunnyCakes on June 02, 2006, 09:21:37 AM
he caught a TD against the taterskins from McNabb.
I just soiled myself.
Squishy.
Quote from: SunnyCakes on June 02, 2006, 09:21:37 AM
he caught a TD against the taterskins from McNabb.
Are you going to make me compare his McNabb stats to his McMahon stats, just for the sake of proving my point and embarrassing you? Say yes.
Quote from: phattymatty on June 02, 2006, 09:21:28 AM
i hope that's the case but i don' see how anyone can actually say that? is it because we still don't have a RB over 5'9? or the fact that they still haven't upgraded or put any emphasis whateoever on the FB position? or the fact that we signed a pass catching TE?
i won't believe we run the ball until i see andy do it in Week 1.
But dude, they all SAID it. How can you not just believe them as a matter of course. You must not be a real fan.
it's not a fair comparision...TO was playing when McNabb was still in there.
And who was the second WR while TO was in there? What's that you say? It was Greg Lewis? You mean our savior, Reggie Brown, couldn't get on the field ahead of Greg Lewis? Stud.
Greg Lewis knew the offense better than Reggie.
His numbers certainly support that. He did average 3 catches a game for the season after all.
He knew the offense better, which is why he was out there, but Reggie is the better player. Had both players been on the same level of offense knowledge, Reggie would've been out there, no doubt.
Well I'm not arguing that point. One clearly has more talent than the other, but if the backup QB is making comments about how all of the receiver look exactly the same, Brown obviously hasn't blown past the competition like his fan club would have you believe...
(http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/rezrob/pedro.gif)We're talking about Jeff Garcia "WHO IS JEFF GARCIA?"
Baseball in a football thread? For shame.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 02, 2006, 09:47:45 AM
Well I'm not arguing that point. One clearly has more talent than the other, but if the backup QB is making comments about how all of the receiver look exactly the same, Brown obviously hasn't blown past the competition like his fan club would have you believe...
shtein...negro, that's all you had to say.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 02, 2006, 09:47:45 AM
Well I'm not arguing that point. One clearly has more talent than the other, but if the backup QB is making comments about how all of the receiver look exactly the same, Brown obviously hasn't blown past the competition like his fan club would have you believe...
Thats it. One blurb from Garcia is the end all and be all for the Eagles! The season is over! We're finished. I had such high hopes for you Reggie, but Jeff & rjs are the voice of reason. Oh well, what could have been.
exclamation points are for queers.
Quote from: Eagles 3x on June 02, 2006, 09:57:02 AM
Thats it. One blurb from Garcia is the end all and be all for the Eagles! The season is over! We're finished. I had such high hopes for you Reggie, but Jeff & rjs are the voice of reason. Oh well, what could have been.
This is the problem, you guys pick and choose the things you read and hear and end up believing whatever the hell you want. I WATCHED this team last year, as did all of you. I know what I saw. You guys seem to be of the mindset that last year didn't count. That somehow the injuries and the TO situation make last year's zesty performance by the healthy non-TO players a non-factor. I don't believe any of that nonsense. Last year happened and I don't see anything to make me believe that this team can improve by 5 games this year.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 02, 2006, 10:09:48 AM
This is the problem, you guys pick and choose the things you read and hear and end up believing whatever the hell you want. I WATCHED this team last year, as did all of you. I know what I saw. You guys seem to be of the mindset that last year didn't count. That somehow the injuries and the TO situation make last year's zesty performance by the healthy non-TO players a non-factor. I don't believe any of that nonsense. Last year happened and I don't see anything to make me believe that this team can improve by 5 games this year.
I don't see how you can be of that opinion, when Spads and Co. say otherwise. I mean, come on,
what else do you need? They would totally admit that team is in bad shape at a few positions if that were in fact the case.
Totally.
Duh.
I am optomistic that the defense will be improved and keep the team in just about every game they play.
I am discouraged by the offensive side of the ball but who knows really.
At this point I am willing to admit that I have no idea how the Eagles are going to do this year.
What I do know is that if they do well I will be very drunk. If they don't do well I will be equally drunk. Just the difference between a happy or miserable drunk.
Quote from: Phanatic on June 02, 2006, 10:32:04 AM
I am optomistic that the defense will be improved and keep the team in just about every game they play.
I am discouraged by the offensive side of the ball but who knows really.
At this point I am willing to admit that I have no idea how the Eagles are going to do this year.
What I do know is that if they do well I will be very drunk. If they don't do well I will be equally drunk. Just the difference between a happy or miserable drunk.
An extremely reasonable post.
Expect to be banned, or mocked in some way.
I expect nothing less and say... "thank you sir may I have another"
Quote from: rjs246 on June 02, 2006, 10:09:48 AM
Quote from: Eagles 3x on June 02, 2006, 09:57:02 AM
Thats it. One blurb from Garcia is the end all and be all for the Eagles! The season is over! We're finished. I had such high hopes for you Reggie, but Jeff & rjs are the voice of reason. Oh well, what could have been.
This is the problem, you guys pick and choose the things you read and hear and end up believing whatever the hell you want. I WATCHED this team last year, as did all of you. I know what I saw. You guys seem to be of the mindset that last year didn't count. That somehow the injuries and the TO situation make last year's zesty performance by the healthy non-TO players a non-factor. I don't believe any of that nonsense. Last year happened and I don't see anything to make me believe that this team can improve by 5 games this year.
You act like most people here expect this team to win the Super Bowl this season, everybody knows there are question marks with this team. The reason I believe this team can possibly win five more games than it did last season is because there are still a lot of veterans on this team that know how to win. Heck if Reid commits to running this team should win at least two more than it did last season. Bottom line this season getting back to the playoffs would be a giant step in the right direction.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 02, 2006, 10:09:48 AM
Quote from: Eagles 3x on June 02, 2006, 09:57:02 AM
Thats it. One blurb from Garcia is the end all and be all for the Eagles! The season is over! We're finished. I had such high hopes for you Reggie, but Jeff & rjs are the voice of reason. Oh well, what could have been.
This is the problem, you guys pick and choose the things you read and hear and end up believing whatever the hell you want. I WATCHED this team last year, as did all of you. I know what I saw. You guys seem to be of the mindset that last year didn't count. That somehow the injuries and the TO situation make last year's zesty performance by the healthy non-TO players a non-factor. I don't believe any of that nonsense. Last year happened and I don't see anything to make me believe that this team can improve by 5 games this year.
This is the problem, you pick and choose the things you read. I thought we were discussing Reggie Brown's possible improvement this year. I WATCHED the games last year and was impressed with what he did with the opportunities he had. Unlike a lot of the young Eagles WRs he actually got some playing time, and under the circumstances I thought he did very well. I honestly think that the more playing time he gets the better he will be. I'm hoping that we are all very happy with him by mid-season.
Unfortunatly, the way things are right now, I don't see a 5 game improvement either. Fortunately, I hope I'm wrong.
Whether or not we improve by 5 games, I still think Reggie will have a very good year.
Quote from: SunnyCakes on June 02, 2006, 09:58:14 AM
exclamation points are for queers.
Well, ok then. If you insist, just for you SunnyCakes baby, !!!!!!!!!!!!!
This team getting back to the playoffs would be a HUGE step in the right direction, but I think you're overestimating the mental capacity of the other people on this board. Look at the predictions for this team's record in 2006, I see a lot of 10-6, 11-5 and 12-4 predictions. I'll eat my shoe if this team goes 12-4. Hoenstly, I'd be thrilled out of my mind if they can win 10 games. I expect 9-7. And I expect to be fairly content with that because that's about where they should end up. Can't expect much more and can't expect much less.
11-5 ain't that dramatic a difference from 9-7.
(outside of it probably meaning playoffs or not... but strictly in the numbers sense... not too big a diff. 2 freakin games.)
11-5, 9-7 two diff speculations on the upcoming year. ehh.
The numbers to worry about are last years 0-6. That HAS to be changed this year. I desperately need someone to convince me that it can be at least 4-2 this year.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 02, 2006, 10:09:48 AM
Quote from: Eagles 3x on June 02, 2006, 09:57:02 AM
Thats it. One blurb from Garcia is the end all and be all for the Eagles! The season is over! We're finished. I had such high hopes for you Reggie, but Jeff & rjs are the voice of reason. Oh well, what could have been.
This is the problem, you guys pick and choose the things you read and hear and end up believing whatever the hell you want. I WATCHED this team last year, as did all of you. I know what I saw. You guys seem to be of the mindset that last year didn't count. That somehow the injuries and the TO situation make last year's zesty performance by the healthy non-TO players a non-factor. I don't believe any of that nonsense. Last year happened and I don't see anything to make me believe that this team can improve by 5 games this year.
so after the superbowl, you
did see things that made you believe that they could drop by 7 games in 2005?
Anyone remember me talking about TO before the season last year? Anyone?
I didn't see a 7 game drop, but I definitely saw problems.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 02, 2006, 10:54:20 AM
This team getting back to the playoffs would be a HUGE step in the right direction, but I think you're overestimating the mental capacity of the other people on this board. Look at the predictions for this team's record in 2006, I see a lot of 10-6, 11-5 and 12-4 predictions. I'll eat my shoe if this team goes 12-4. Hoenstly, I'd be thrilled out of my mind if they can win 10 games. I expect 9-7. And I expect to be fairly content with that because that's about where they should end up. Can't expect much more and can't expect much less.
I think 10-6 is a reasonable expectation. 12-4 with the strength of schedule and the resurgence of the NFC East would be highly unlikely at best.
12-4 is a pipe dream.
Personally I think 12-4 is a possibility. The team could get on a roll and win 7-8 games going into the bye week. A confident team usually plays a heck of a lot better than a team with questions....and with the weakness of their starting schedule I think that could help....
I'll eat my shoe.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 02, 2006, 09:25:48 AM
Quote from: SunnyCakes on June 02, 2006, 09:21:37 AM
he caught a TD against the taterskins from McNabb.
Are you going to make me compare his McNabb stats to his McMahon stats, just for the sake of proving my point and embarrassing you? Say yes.
The reason he caught passes from McMahon was because he became the number one receiver a couple games before McNabb got hurt. Instead of looking at it that way, you should be thinking that since he played so well with McMahon he'll be even better with McNabb.
Don't even consider telling someone else how they should think of something until you can figure out how to form complete thoughts that don't enrage the people around you.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 02, 2006, 01:18:21 PM
I'll eat my shoe.
rj,
save me a bite cause ain't no way birds are going 12-4 unless we have a major collapse in the NFC East. I'll be impressed we go 10-6 but I'm not feelin' that either.
Captain Homertastic Sez, "The Eagles go 16 - 0 and continue the roll through the Super Bowl."
Captain Homertastic also likes shiney things.
You get extra bonus points for spelling it S-H-I-N-E-Y. :yay
The Eagles could end up 10-6... and just as easily 6-10.
It wasn't just the injuries (physical and mental) that killed the team last year. The defense didn't have major injuries until Shepard went out. Kearse was healthy- and unproductive. The LBs were all healthy- and unproductive. The backfield, sans Dawkins (and to a lesser extent Brown)- unproductive.
Akers and Dirk are major question marks until they prove to be healthy.
McNabb has to come back, somehow reclaim leadership on a team that edged away from him during the TO affair, and physically come back from a serious injury. Hs's also become like Andy Reid- refusing to run. In fact, McNabb may be less likely to "resort" to running than Reid.
The WRs have to prove that they can even reach mediocrity. Not saying they can't do it, but they haven't yet done that. If Brown or Gaffney break out, this becomes much less of a concern. But until they do, we can't just blindly assume they will.
The defense flat-out sucked last year, and mostly didn't have injuries to blame. Now we expect Howard, who has been hurt and unproductive last year, to not only become productive himself, but make Kearse productive again as well.
The linebackers, sans Trotter, well, suck.
The special teams were lousy last year- is signing a skier going to change that?
If I'm a "hater," so be it, but I cannot claim to be overly confident going into this season.
In the end, I'm going to guess... 8-8.
ESPN Insider article. This should make this discussion much more....um.....fun.
:paranoid
Quote
Harrison, Smith sure-handed
By KC Joyner
ESPN Insider
One of the things I most enjoy in researching football scientifically is debunking traditional football wisdom. How many times have you seen a sure-handed receiver drop a pass, only to have the announcer say something like, "That almost never happens. He'll catch that pass 99 times out of 100."
I always wondered if that was true. Do the best receivers catch 99 percent of the passes thrown their way?
As a result, I tracked the number of drops every qualifying receiver had during the 2005 season (minimum of 40 catches to qualify). I also divided the number of drops by the number of catchable passes to come up with a dropped pass percentage.
Here are the top 20 receivers in dropped pass percentage from the 2005 season:
Dropped Passes
Player Team Dropped passes Dropped pass %
Houshmandzadeh Cincinnati 3 2.6%
Marvin Harrison Indianapolis 4 3.2%
Bobby Engram Seattle 4 4.3%
Jason Witten Dallas 4 4.5%
Steve Smith Carolina 7 4.7%
Scottie Vines Detroit 3 4.8%
Tony Gonzalez Kanas City 6 4.9%
Eric Parker San Diego 4 4.9%
K. Johnson Dallas 6 5.1%
Joe Jurevicius Seattle 4 5.1%
Eric Moulds Buffalo 7 5.5%
Keenan McCardell San Diego 6 5.6%
Reggie Wayne Indianapolis 7 5.7%
Lee Evans Buffalo 5 5.9%
Jabar Gaffney Houston 5 6.3%
Larry Fitzgerald Arizona 10 6.4%
Chris Cooley Washington 6 6.5%
Marcus Pollard Detroit 5 6.7%
Deion Branch New England 8 6.7%
Jermaine Wiggins Minnesota 6 6.7%
If last season is any indication, the best receivers don't drop only one pass for every 99 they catch. The best ratio is more like one drop for every 40 catches.
It was no surprise to see Marvin Harrison near the top of this list, but I was somewhat surprised to see T.J. Houshmandzadeh rank No. 1 in this category. Houshmandzadeh is known as a very good possession receiver, but this chart shows he may be one of the best.
Steve Smith's reputation as a home run threat is well earned, but having dropped only seven passes in 150 catchable attempts shows his hands are certainly underrated.
I also found it interesting to see two Seattle receivers -- Joe Jurevicius and Bobby Engram -- in the top 20. Having two of the most sure-handed receivers in the NFL certainly was a big reason Seattle was finally able to become a championship contender in 2005.
Let's also examine how the worst receivers in the league did (also a minimum of 40 catches to qualify).
Dropped Passes -2
Player Team Dropped passes Dropped pass %
Ernest Wilford Jacksonville 13 19.1%
Justin McCareins NY Jets 16 16.7%
Reggie Brown Philadelphia 13 16.3%
Roy Williams Detroit 13 14.6%
Brian Finneran Atlanta 11 14.3%
Erron Kinney Tennessee 10 14.1%
Antonio Bryant Cleveland 16 13.9%
M. Muhammad Chicago 18 13.6%
Greg Lewis Philadelphia 13 12.9%
Eddie Kennison Kansas City 14 12.8%
Randy McMichael Miami 12 12.0%
L.J. Smith Philadelphia 12 11.8%
Alge Crumpler Atlanta 13 11.5%
Mark Clayton Baltimore 9 11.3%
Donte' Stallworth New Orleans 14 11.2%
Chris Chambers Miami 17 11.0%
Todd Heap Baltimore 11 10.4%
Terrell Owens Philadelphia 9 10.2%
Plaxico Burress NY Giants 17 10.2%
Ben Troupe Tennessee 8 10.1%
This chart shows that Ernest Wilford dropped nearly one out of every five passes thrown to him last year. Despite this abysmal drop percentage, Wilford still ranked fourth in the league in total yards per catch attempt. Most of Wilford's drops came on accurate passes, so he has a ton of upside for the upcoming season.
Two highly touted rookie receivers -- Reggie Brown and Mark Clayton -- also found their way on this list. While their drop percentages were fairly close, Clayton was actually much more sure-handed when considering the accuracy of the passes each receiver dropped.
The accuracy of a pass is a subjective measurement, but I use a set of rules to hopefully limit its subjective nature. The rule of thumb I use to grade the accuracy of a pass is whether the receiver is forced to reach behind or dive to make the catch.
I segment dropped passes into three categories. The first is an accurate dropped pass. The blame for dropping an accurate pass falls completely on the wide receiver. The second is an inaccurate dropped pass. These are passes that are thrown outside of the receiver's catching frame, but are still catchable. A receiver may not catch all of these passes but the best ones still catch most of them.
The third type of dropped pass is what I call stripped/drop passes. These are passes a receiver gets his hands on, but has the ball stripped away by the defender for an incompletion. Most scoring systems list these as passes defensed. However, since the receiver got his hands on the ball and had it stripped away, I figure it should be segmented away from the standard pass defensed (i.e., when a DB knocks the pass down before it gets to the receiver).
So how did Clayton and Brown fare in these categories? Four of Clayton's nine total drops came on accurate passes, while only three came on inaccurate passes and two on stripped passes. Meanwhile, nine of Brown's 13 drops came on accurate passes, while only four were due to inaccurate passes and none were due to stripped passes. The nine accurate pass drops tied Brown for fifth-worst in the league in that category last year.
Having a pair of good pass-catching hands is a natural talent, but as Raymond Berry proved years ago, it is also something that can be improved upon with practice. If these numbers are any indication, Reggie Brown has the most room for improvement of any second-year wide receiver.
Well, good thing we have Gaffney then.
QuoteBunkley78 03:40:12 PM Posting in Garcia - Eagle WR's seem like clones.
Can't wait....
These WRs are totally ready for a playoff run!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111
The word 'stud' comes to mind.
I'll say 11-5. This team is better than the team of 2004, but the competition is better. Overall this defense is going to be a lot better than the Superbowl team with upgrades at defensive line, and linebacker.
The offense should be equally as productive, and possibly even moreso. After all, the Eagles offense was pretty much equal(statistically) from 2003 and 2004, even with TO. The Eagles don't have the weapon of TO's caliber at receiver, but they have a better overall and deeper group of young guys. Reggie Brown isn't as good as TO or even close to TO at this point in his career, but he's probably the second best receiver the Eagles had since Irving Fryar. He's going to be a go to receiver for the Eagles without a doubt.
The Eagles also have Gaffney, who's better than any slot or even #2 receiver we've had in any of our competitive seasons since Andy's come here. Pinkston is a huge question mark because of his injury, combined with the "fragile" questions. If he can't play then the Eagles need to bring someone else in to fill his role. If not, and we have to look at someone else currently on the roster to fill that role, then this receiving corps is STILL better than that of 2003.
The tight end position is as strong as it's been in years. Schobel is a better player than either Spach or Chad Lewis, and we still have LJ Smith. He has trouble hanging on to the ball sometimes, but only a fool would deny his ability as a TE to get open and catch passes. He's a weapon at tight end, that's the reality.
Then you look at the RB situation. The Eagles don't have that big pound it up the middle guy, but they feel they are fine with the RB trio currently on the roster. I tend to agree with them. Westbrook is a stud as we all know. He does it all as a RB. Moats showed a lot last year when willing in for Westbrook. He definitely has the ability to make big plays for this team. As for Perry, he's very underrated. He's runs with power, has pop when he hits you, and has speed and quickness. I like Perry a lot, and he'll be better than anyone the Eagles could've realistically picked up on the cheap, except maye Mike Anderson. If the Eagles feel they really need a big power back for a goal line situation or 3rd/4th and 1's, then the Eagles could always use Thomas Tapeh. He has a lot more ball-carrying ability than any Eagles FB we've had in a while. All they have to do is actually run the ball, which they will.
Now let's look at the offensive line. It's the best and deepest offensive line this team has had in a while. Herremans is an upgrade over Hicks, and Andrews is losing the pounds and it staying in shape. Jackson at center will be an upgrade over Fraley, and we have Jean-Gilles and Justice as depth and eventual starters on this team.
So overall, this team IMO is better than the team that went to the Superbowl. Sure, we have questions, but so does every team, and the Eagles no more than anyone else. When all is said and done, you factor in what the Eagles have compared to the schedule and the competition and I think it's an 11-5 team with the division crown.
Quote from: Bunkley78 on June 02, 2006, 03:55:06 PM
I'll say 11-5. This team is better than the team of 2004, but the competition is better. Overall this defense is going to be a lot better than the Superbowl team with upgrades at defensive line, and linebacker.
The offense should be equally as productive, and possibly even moreso. After all, the Eagles offense was pretty much equal from 2003 and 2004, even with TO. The Eagles don't have the weapon of TO's caliber at receiver, but they have a better overall and deeper group of young guys. Reggie Brown isn't as good as TO or even close to TO at this point in his career, but he's probably the second best receiver the Eagles had since Irving Fryar. He's going to be a go to receiver for the Eagles without a doubt.
The Eagles also have Gaffney, who's better than any slot or even #2 receiver we've had in any of our competitive seasons since Andy's come here. Pinkston is a huge question mark because of his injury, combined with the "fragile" questions. If he can't play then the Eagles need to bring someone else in to fill his role. If not, and we have to look at someone else currently on the roster to fill that role, then this receiving corps is STILL better than that of 2003.
The tight end position is as strong as it's been in years. Schobel is a better player than either Spach or Chad Lewis, and we still have LJ Smith. He has trouble hanging on to the ball sometimes, but only a fool would deny his ability as a TE to get open and catch passes. He's a weapon at tight end, that's the reality.
Then you look at the RB situation. The Eagles don't have that big pound it up the middle guy, but they feel they are fine with the RB trio currently on the roster. I tend to agree with them. Westbrook is a stud as we all know. He does it all as a RB. Moats showed a lot last year when willing in for Westbrook. He definitely has the ability to make big plays for this team. As for Perry, he's very underrated. He's runs with power, has pop when he hits you, and has speed and quickness. I like Perry a lot, and he'll be better than anyone the Eagles could've realistically picked up on the cheap, except maye Mike Anderson. If the Eagles feel they really need a big power back for a goal line situation or 3rd/4th and 1's, then the Eagles could always use Thomas Tapeh. He has a lot more ball-carrying ability than any Eagles FB we've had in a while. All they have to do is actually run the ball, which they will.
Now let's look at the offensive line. It's the best and deepest offensive line this team has had in a while. Herremans is an upgrade over Hicks, and Andrews is losing the pounds and it staying in shape. Jackson at center will be an upgrade over Fraley, and we have Jean-Gilles and Justice as depth and eventual starters on this team.
So overall, this team IMO is better than the team that went to the Superbowl. Sure, we have questions, but so does every team, and the Eagles no more than anyone else. When all is said and done, you factor in what the Eagles have compared to the schedule and the competition and I think it's an 11-5 team with the division crown.
:nyuk :bash :fire :spank :chair
Are you going to make some arguments, or just bold specific lines like a retard?
Shawn Barber is better than Keith Adams, and we have competition with guys like McCoy and Gocong. Say what you want about McCoy who some people foolishly label him as a bust after one farging season. Give me a break with that bust nonsense. Give the guy a chance to get on the field first. Not everyone can jump right in and start. The linebackers are better. We didn't make drastic upgrades, but they are better.
Make some arguments, and maybe we can actually debate this, if you actually have the intelligence and maturity to respond without just throwing out insults like you normally do.
You are the biggest farging homer I've ever seen. You would fit right in with the ExtremeSkins crew.
ALL'S WELL!
Quote from: rjs246 on June 02, 2006, 04:08:22 PM
You are the biggest farging homer I've ever seen. You would fit right in with the ExtremeSkins crew.
ALL'S WELL!
What he said.
In regards to my earlier post with the smilies: Your post is so loaded full of wishful thinking and hopes, it doesn't deserve a thought out, pointed,
factual response.
If I was a homer I'd be saying:
16-0, Reggie Brown is the best receiver ever, Westbrook will rush for 1,500 yards and 20 TDs, blah blah blah.
11-5 is nothing mindblowing at all. As long as McNabb has been healthy, the Eagles have been a Superbowl contender. Have they not?
Quote from: rjs246 on June 02, 2006, 10:09:48 AM
Last year happened and I don't see anything to make me believe that this team can improve by 5 games this year.
I think a healthy McNabb alone is worth at least four games, maybe five. All this crap about him not being in control of the offense and not being respected anymore as a leader will be gone after he wins.
I don't really agree with Garcia saying that the recievers look like clones. From what I've seen, Lewis and Brown look a hell of a site better than Pinkston ever has. God help us if they are all only as good as Pinkston.
Quote from: PhillyPhaninDC on June 02, 2006, 04:10:50 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on June 02, 2006, 04:08:22 PM
You are the biggest farging homer I've ever seen. You would fit right in with the ExtremeSkins crew.
ALL'S WELL!
What he said.
In regards to my earlier post with the smilies: Your post is so loaded full of wishful thinking and hopes, it doesn't deserve a thought out, pointed, factual response.
You think it's wishful that Shawn Barber is better than Keith Adams or that Reggie Brown can be a go to guy or that Herremans is better than Hicks? This has to be some sort of practical joke.
All you have to do is watch how guys like Adams and Hicks played compared to how guys like Herremans, and Reggie Brown played when they got the opportunity. There's nothing wishful about it, it's probable. Can Reggie Brown turn out to be a half season wonder, and can Herremans have been a total fraud? Sure, everything's possible, but you'd be basing it on no factual evidence.
Shawn Barber health aside has proven he's better than Keith Adams. Keith Adams has proven he's not a starting linebacker in this league.
Is Schobel not better than Spach or Chad Lewis was the last 2/3 years? Have you even seen Schobel play? Did Moats not show you anything last year? Do I have any reason to assume he won't be a player?
It's called probable thinking, not wishful. Wishful thinking is a shot in the dark. Wishful thinking is me saying Gocong will be a pro bowler, because it would be based on seeing nothing of him at the pro level.
So please don't give me that garbage. The Eagles have questions like everyone else, thats obvious, but there is no reason to think we haven't upgraded in those specific areas.
I'm sure you've watched a lot of Schobel games.
Quote from: shorebird on June 02, 2006, 04:18:12 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on June 02, 2006, 10:09:48 AM
Last year happened and I don't see anything to make me believe that this team can improve by 5 games this year.
I think a healthy McNabb alone is worth at least four games, maybe five. All this crap about him not being in control of the offense and not being respected anymore as a leader will be gone after he wins.
I don't really agree with Garcia saying that the recievers look like clones. From what I've seen, Lewis and Brown look a hell of a site better than Pinkston ever has. God help us if they are all only as good as Pinkston.
Great point. Everyone ripped McNabb and said the same garbage in 2003 when he had a poor start. It was said that he has a deep bone bruise in his hand, and everyone blamed it on excuses.
Well, what do you know? Suddenly when the hand heals the Eagles start winning again. Wow, who'd have thunk it? The bottom line is, the Eagles win when McNabb is healthy, and always have. As long as McNabb has been a full-time healthy starter for this team, they've made the playoffs and have won at least one playoff game.
I hate this time of the year.
The "I think the Eagles suck. Oh yeah? Well I think they're good! You're a ES level homer! No, you're a negadelphian!" arguments are tiresome.
A healthy McNabb does not make a 4 game difference on his own. That's not a slight on McNabb. That's a quarter of the goddamned season. Saying that he makes a 4 game difference in wins is like saying that one player, in one season, would make a 20 win difference in Basketball/Hockey, or a 40 game difference in baseball. It just isn't realistic. McNabb can do a lot and having him back should improve this team automatically by 1 or 2 wins. But there is a whole hell of a lot else wrong with this team that number five has no control over.
Further, anyone that claims that this team is in any way better than the 2004 team should be bannished from life.
I'm not comparing McNabb to Jordan here so don't take it the wrong way, but the fact is one player can make a huge difference in sports.
When Jordan left the Bulls they won about 50 less games. 45 to be exact, since the year after was the half season. He's the greatest player ever, but the point is, in sports one player can make everyone else on the team better. Especially in football with a QB, that is the most important piece of any team. Plus you have such a bad backup like McMahon.
If you take Tom Brady off the Pats, do you think they even sniff the playoffs? I don't.
the offense is gonna be what it is, what it was in 2003 and 2002, a unit that needs to play with little mistakes to sustain drives and score points, with the quarterback having to be a playmaker.
where this team goes from 6 or 7 wins to 10 or 11 is the defense. is the new dline gonna get pressure on the qb? if not, they are in trouble.
A quarterback in football means twice as much and is twice as important than any player in any other sport. To compare a quarterback to any hockey, basketball or baseball player is ridiculous.
Are you really saying that a healthy McNabb by himself isn't four games better than McMahon?? Your forgetting that he almost single handedly won and got us to the playoffs before this team acquired Owens.
I'm not forgetting anything. Are you forgetting that McNabb was 4-5 before going under the knife last year. QB is the most important player on the team, but football, more than anything, is a team sport and McNabb by himself doesn't make a four game difference. Not even close.
He was HURT!! Why do you think he went under the knife in the first place???
IT WAS THE fargING DEFENSE
Oh yeah, he got operated on because he had a losing record, it had nothing to do with a hernia.
Quote from: shorebird on June 02, 2006, 04:52:15 PM
Are you really saying that a healthy McNabb by himself isn't four games better than McMahon??
Please, rjs, answer the question. So you don't think McNabb is a 4 game difference maker, but do you really think that he can't make that much of a difference from McMahon?
You're reaching dude. Like I said before, everyone wants to pretend like last year didn't happen. Like the injuries give this team a mulligan on an awful season. It doesn't work that way. They'll be better this year, but as Sun said, if the defense doesn't improve by a freaking mile, this team could have a losing record again.
Quote from: shorebird on June 02, 2006, 05:07:08 PM
Quote from: shorebird on June 02, 2006, 04:52:15 PM
Are you really saying that a healthy McNabb by himself isn't four games better than McMahon??
Please, rjs, answer the question. So you don't think McNabb is a 4 game difference maker, but do you really think that he can't make that much of a difference from McMahon?
After McNabb went down the team went 2-5. You're suggesting that they would have gone 6-1 under McNabb? Come one man, you're embarrassing yourself.
If the defense isn't on the freaking field for three quarters of the game thanks to so many three and outs by a crappy offense they will be better. I think it was a chain reaction, caused by so many injuries that led to such a bad defense and crappy season. I by no means put all the blame on the defense for last year and don't expect them to have to improve as greatly as you think for them to win this year. Saying that the defense must get a mile better for this team to win when we lost a pro bowl quarterback who was hurting every time he went under center is having tunnel vision.
And don't forget all the bullshtein from that loud mouthed manbitch TO. It was a farged up season from any perspective. Every way you look at it. There wasn't a single good thing I can remember from last season. It wasn't just the defense.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 02, 2006, 05:09:48 PM
Quote from: shorebird on June 02, 2006, 05:07:08 PM
Quote from: shorebird on June 02, 2006, 04:52:15 PM
Are you really saying that a healthy McNabb by himself isn't four games better than McMahon??
Please, rjs, answer the question. So you don't think McNabb is a 4 game difference maker, but do you really think that he can't make that much of a difference from McMahon?
After McNabb went down the team went 2-5. You're suggesting that they would have gone 6-1 under McNabb? Come one man, you're embarrassing yourself.
If he was HEALTHY! What don't you understand about that? Yes, I think if McNabb was healthy they wouldn't have been 4 and 5 in the first place.
Look, a lot of shtein went wrong this year and you can assume that most of it will be remedied this year... BUT
1) this offense is incomplete and while everyone compares this WR corps to 2003, both of those receivers had a few years under their belt with this offense, practiced for years with McNabb and knew their roles. Our two starters are a second year player and a guy who has never played on this team.
2)in 2003 McNabb was willing to run. For the past two years he has not been willing to create yardage with his feet. He buys time, but he doesn't run. With TO in 2004 that wasn't a problem. That is a problem now.
3)in the past this team had capable blockers at TE and FB. They do not anymore.
4)the defense could not get pressure last year. Patterson should be better, Kearse should be better, Howard should be healthy and motivated, Cole might be a force, Bunkleymight contribute right away. Or one or many of those things could not happen and this defense can look identical to last year.
There are a LOT of 'ifs' on this team. Saying that they will go from 6-10 to 11-5 because their QB is back is laughable.
Quote from: shorebird on June 02, 2006, 05:18:46 PM
If he was HEALTHY! What don't you understand about that? Yes, I think if McNabb was healthy they wouldn't have been 4 and 5 in the first place.
You're attributing their record to his health again. I can't do that. McNabb was hurt in the first game, and Reid still only ran the ball 14 times. Healthy or not, that's no way to win. Reid called 8 running plays in the Cowboys game. He opened the Broncos game with 12 straight (incomplete) passes. Did this team suddenly get a brand new coach? Does a healthy McNabb suddenly complete 8 of those 12 missed passes to start the Denver game? Does Reid figure out how to run the ball because McNabb is healthy?
You know, you take away a ludicrous comeback vs. KC and a miracle win against SD and this team was FAR worse than their 6-10 record...
I'm not saying 11-5, but 10-6 is definatly attainable.
Quote1) this offense is incomplete and while everyone compares this WR corps to 2003, both of those receivers had a few years under their belt with this offense, practiced for years with McNabb and knew their roles. Our two starters are a second year player and a guy who has never played on this team.
And I think they are way better than Pinkston and Thrash already.
Quote2)in 2003 McNabb was willing to run. For the past two years he has not been willing to create yardage with his feet. He buys time, but he doesn't run. With TO in 2004 that wasn't a problem. That is a problem now.
I agree, and I've also seen a trimmer McNabb this year, which leads me to hope he might be ready to run more, and yes, I think he will have to run to keep D's honest. but I don't think his running will be that much of a difference, a healthy McNabb who only scrambles occasionally is still way better than a running, or throwing McMahon.
Quote3)in the past this team had capable blockers at TE and FB. They do not anymore.
True, but imo, the O-line was the main reason McNabb took such a beating last year. I feel the O-line, although largely untested as yet, is still better.
Quote4)the defense could not get pressure last year. Patterson should be better, Kearse should be better, Howard should be healthy and motivated, Cole might be a force, Bunkleymight contribute right away. Or one or many of those things could not happen and this defense can look identical to last year.
Call me a homer, but I think that the D was just plain run ragged last year, and can be better just from playing with a lead or not being on the friggen' field so damn much. The one weak spot I see is at linebacker. I don't think the secondary or the D-line is as bad as they looked last year.
QuoteThere are a LOT of 'ifs' on this team. Saying that they will go from 6-10 to 11-5 because their QB is back is laughable.
See first line ^
Quote from: rjs246 on June 02, 2006, 05:37:40 PM
Quote from: shorebird on June 02, 2006, 05:18:46 PM
If he was HEALTHY! What don't you understand about that? Yes, I think if McNabb was healthy they wouldn't have been 4 and 5 in the first place.
Does a healthy McNabb suddenly complete 8 of those 12 missed passes to start the Denver game?
In a word, yes.
Quote from: shorebird on June 02, 2006, 05:44:43 PM
And I think they are way better than Pinkston and Thrash already.
I agree, and I've also seen a trimmer McNabb this year, which leads me to hope he might be ready to run more, and yes, I think he will have to run to keep D's honest. but I don't think his running will be that much of a difference, a healthy McNabb who only scrambles occasionally is still way better than a running, or throwing McMahon.
True, but imo, the O-line was the main reason McNabb took such a beating last year. I feel the O-line, although largely untested as yet, is still better.
Call me a homer, but I think that the D was just plain run ragged last year, and can be better just from playing with a lead or not being on the friggen' field so damn much. The one weak spot I see is at linebacker. I don't think the secondary or the D-line is as bad as they looked last year.
That's a whole hell of a lot of specualtion and wishful thinking. So I will call you a homer.
And I will respectfully disagree with your assessment that McNabb would have completed 8 of the first 12 passes vs. Denver. No farging chance.
i didn't know not having a sports hernia can stop all out blitzes, interesting.
With a healthy McNabb and the defense playing as it was last year, the team would have still missed the playoffs.
Quote from: General_Failure on June 02, 2006, 12:36:44 AM
Quote from: reese125 on June 01, 2006, 10:23:23 PM
when your 36 and have been to 3 Probowls, you can say whatever the F you want.
No. He's a joke, a backup, and new to the team. He can say this and people can pick at it for days, but to say he can say anything is pretty farging stupid.
GF, Im not going to beat a dead horse here- but I will say since you took my "anything" to the extreme level as being farging stupid, clearly your not understanding my point. Im sure Garcia knows talent at the WR level when he sees it--he wasnt throwing the football to a bunch of mental midgets in San Fran like he
could be if McNabb gets dropped again. His words on the WR corp should be respected by the WR's--thats all.
Quote from: SunnyCakes on June 02, 2006, 04:46:41 PM
the offense is gonna be what it is, what it was in 2003 and 2002, a unit that needs to play with little mistakes to sustain drives and score points, with the quarterback having to be a playmaker.
where this team goes from 6 or 7 wins to 10 or 11 is the defense. is the new dline gonna get pressure on the qb? if not, they are in trouble.
the 2002 eagles scored more points than any other eagles team...ever.
and the 2003 eagles only scored about 20 less points than the 2004 eagles.
2004 - 386 Points scored reg season, 24.1/game (Owens, Pinkston, Mitchell) - Total Team Tds 44
2003 - 374 pts, 23.3/game (Pinkston, Thrash, Mitchell) - Total team TDs 43
2002 - 415 pts, 25.9 /gm (Pinkston, Thrash, Freeman) - Total team TDs 46
That's one of the reasons it's funny when people suddenly think this offense will suck. We have the best all around receiving corps since Andy's been here. We don't have anyone close to TO's caliber, but overall from front to back we have more talent and depth than any year since Andy's been here.
Plus we have 3 very talented RBs. 2 of which in any other offense would be 1,000 yard guys IMO. If the Eagles have a nice balance, this offense will be more productive than 2004, 2003 and 2002.
Field position is a big key too. Can Bloom start and give us great returns? Will it be Mahe?
mcnabb has the inner strength of a twinkie...with what has happened the last year and a half...even healthy theres no guarantee hes going to come back to what he was...the schedule is a great help to them in that he has a chance to come out strong and get his confidence in check (the opener coming on the road is key)....but if he comes out of the gate slow they are going to implode...regardless of what the wr's or defense do or dont do
if mcnabb returns to form...and that includes running the ball...they have a decent shot to be IN the division race
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 04, 2006, 04:12:19 PM
mcnabb has the inner strength of a twinkie...
Now here's a man who really enjoys writing out stupid things.
Quote from: Bunkley78 on June 04, 2006, 04:06:15 PM
That's one of the reasons it's funny when people suddenly think this offense will suck. We have the best all around receiving corps since Andy's been here. We don't have anyone close to TO's caliber, but overall from front to back we have more talent and depth than any year since Andy's been here.
Maybe talent-wise. But what does that say when 2 fourth rounders, a fifth rounder and two undrafted guys comprise the back end of the 'deepest' WR corps since Reid has been here? Nothing good, that's for sure.
Quote
Plus we have 3 very talented RBs. 2 of which in any other offense would be 1,000 yard guys IMO.
Everyone's hard-on for Moats is ridiculous. I've said enough about Westbrook for everyone to understand how I feel about him, but Moats? A 1000-yard rusher on another team? Jesus. What in the farg would make anyone think that?
Quote
If the Eagles have a nice balance, this offense will be more productive than 2004, 2003 and 2002.
In all three of those seasons the team had 6 games against TERRIBLE NFC East teams that allowed them to rack up meaningless points. Not to mention that the rest of the NFC wasn't exactly lighting the world on fire. There is no chance that this team approaches 400 points this season. None.
In other words, just stop.
I just wish the season would start so McNabb can once again prove his critics wrong.
He takes all the blame when the Eagles lose in the playoffs, and gets absolutely no credit for getting them there in the first place. When they lose in the playoffs or the Superbowl, it's the last game of the season and all the Negaphilians have all offseason to pick and intellectualize all the things he did wrong. Thing is all those doing the intellectualizing are ususally a lot less smart than they think themselves to be.
McNabb will come back, and this team will make the playoffs.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 04, 2006, 04:21:14 PM
In all three of those seasons the team had 6 games against TERRIBLE NFC East teams that allowed them to rack up meaningless points. Not to mention that the rest of the NFC wasn't exactly lighting the world on fire. There is no chance that this team approaches 400 points this season. None.
In other words, just stop.
This was all said when the Eagles finished 11-5 and surprised everyone with a playoff win in McNabb's second year. The NFC East, we were all assured, would be "better" next year and the Eagles would return to their Buddy Ryan/Rich Kotite/Ray Rhodes losing ways.
Then the Eagles go 11-5 next year, win 2 playoff games, and almost storm their way into the Super Bowl. Once again, the NFC conference would catch on to what the Eagles were doing, and the Eagles would return to the cellar of the NFL.
Next year, the Eagles perform Instant Replay, finish 12-4, win the division, AND Homefield. However, thanks to an idiot starting at safety who hid his injury from the team, no SB appearance. And the prediction-meisters once again said the Eagles will fall and fall hard.
Another year passes. The Eagles finish 12-4...again. Win the division...again. Get to the NFCCG...again. Unfortunately, while McNabb and some of the defense played, no one else bothered to show up...again. The Gloom Patrol jumps on the soapbox and proclaims the window for the Eagles has shut...again.
So what happens? The Eagles finish 13-3, win the division AND Homefield once more. AND get to the Superbowl...AND come within 4 points winning it all. And the broken records once again screamed, "The Eagles won't win! The Eagles won't win!"
So this year, the Eagles go 6-10, but it took a season-ending Injury to a starting WR, serious injuries up and down both sides of the ball, inept play from quite a few of the backup players, AND a cancerous superstar playing "Look at me! Look at me! The QB Sucks! I want money!' before the Eagles finished with a losing record for the first time in 6 years.
The "stronger Rest of the NFC East" is just an illusion, one perpetuated by hype, smoke and mirrors. Or are Eli Manning, Drew Bledsoe, and whoever the next clown strarting for the Capital Beltway team going to suddenly turn into Roger Staubach, Joe Montana, and Johnny Unitas? And the defenses have all become variations of the Doomsday Defense, the Steel Curtain, and Gang Green?
Because I certainly don't see it.
PS - Scoring 400 points in a season is a guarantee of nothing. Just ask the 2003, 2004, and 2005 Colts.
Quote from: Catapult on June 04, 2006, 07:16:35 PM
So this year, the Eagles go 6-10, but it took a season-ending Injury to a starting WR
Seriously now, that's your first reason?
LOL. Had to be a typo.
(Although the greatness of one Todd Pinkston can't be denied.) :yay
Quote from: General_Failure on June 04, 2006, 07:23:21 PM
Quote from: Catapult on June 04, 2006, 07:16:35 PM
So this year, the Eagles go 6-10, but it took a season-ending Injury to a starting WR
Seriously now, that's your first reason?
Pinkston will never make an All-Pro team. His name will not strike fear in the hearts of DBs. And he can be jammed at the line.
But somehow, he manages to stretch the field and McNabb will throw a bomb his way. More often than not, when it is, he'll either catch it or draw a PI flag.
Even if he doesn't, the attempt forces defenses to shift more into coverage. The "honest" defenses have a harder time defending the Eagles when Pinkston can do that.
This was the case when he started opposite Thrash (or Freeman). It was the case when he started opposite TO. And for all the crap that fans throw at him (which all started with 2 plays) not a single Eagles WR, including some "fan favorites" have been able to unseat him from the Number 2 slot. We saw why for one of them in the Super Bowl. We saw why with the rest of them last year.
The Eagles Reid-Run Offense needs a WR who can outrun coverage. Last year, they didn't have anyone that could (and at least try to catch the ball when they did). Pinkston's role as the Eagles #2 was never replaced, and the offense looked like a Ford Pinto, the moment before it was rear-ended by a Mack Truck.
the eagles were in a piss poor conference...that cant be denied
were they a good team of course
but to say they would have done the same thing in the afc or even last years nfc is to be lying to yourself
still i read somewhere that one team from each conference makes the superbowl...and even in the bad nfc the eagles could only even make one of those
again if mcnabb has a straight head on his shoulders and doesnt sulk and give up everytime hes in a tough situation this year when say people are booing him or telling him he misses TO...then the eagles should be right in the mix for the division
sorry
how about all up in the errea!
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 05, 2006, 08:35:06 AM
sorry
how about all up in the errea!
You know IGY all that BS you proclaim to be fact about McNabb is nonsense. The inner strength of a twinkie? The guy has played and played well with INJURY, not just pain. He has shown an amazing ability to suck it up. You\'re evidence is thst he didn\'t fist fight TO in the locker room? Sometimes, the best answer is just to ignore an idiot. That being said, however, I must tell you that I am in love with your avatar.
i never said he wasnt physically tough...hence "inner strength"
btw yours and mines favorite qb will be on with the king in the three oclock hour today for a softball tossing cliche ridden interview session
i wonder if he's going to talk about working hard.
that will be worked into a line about how much he likes the wr's hes got
yeah, too bad he cant be like all those other NFL QB's who talk about how much they hate their WR's and how all they did was lay around and get fat in the offseason.
hes especially awful tho....one of the worst interviews ever...then again he learned from the best in andy...
which is why mcnabb sounded so completely foolish and weakmade in criticizing owens....he was so out of his element in doing that he literally didnt know what to say or how to pull it off
He doesn't want to get the Campbell's B.O.D.'s angry with him, or Wilma. I'd hate to hear that conversation if his sponsorship got sacked for going off in public on a team mate.
Quote from: sallad selgae on June 05, 2006, 11:55:30 AM
He doesn't want to get the Campbell's B.O.D.'s angry with him, or Wilma. I'd hate to hear that conversation if his sponsorship got sacked for going off in public on a team mate.
actually it's good for him. Campbell's is getting ready to introduce a new flavor of soup. Black on Black Prime...Rib
C-
YES!
Alligator Army Bean Soup
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 05, 2006, 07:54:38 AM
again if mcnabb has a straight head on his shoulders and doesnt sulk and give up everytime hes in a tough situation this year when say people are booing him or telling him he misses TO...then the eagles should be right in the mix for the division
When has McNabb ever sulked or gave up?? Never. He plays hurt, and before all the TO bullshtein was the undisputed leader of this team. He's a pure proffesional, who refused to lower himself to the level of a idiot trying to start crap in the locker room.
Quote from: shorebird on June 05, 2006, 03:21:48 PM
When has McNabb ever sulked or gave up??
pittsburgh game in 2004
Quote from: rjs246 on June 02, 2006, 04:40:10 PM
A healthy McNabb does not make a 4 game difference on his own. That's not a slight on McNabb. That's a quarter of the goddamned season. Saying that he makes a 4 game difference in wins is like saying that one player, in one season, would make a 20 win difference in Basketball/Hockey, or a 40 game difference in baseball. It just isn't realistic. McNabb can do a lot and having him back should improve this team automatically by 1 or 2 wins. But there is a whole hell of a lot else wrong with this team that number five has no control over.
Well, I think comparing the NHL, NBA, and MLB is simply silly because of the great discrepancy in games played for each league. Those sports are far from analogous, especially considering the types of games, the number of players, the value and role of the players, etc.
However, because of the low number of games played in the NFL, the parity is far greater, and statistically teams have a greater chance to win any given game. That's why football is very hard to predict, and that's why everyone looks silly in making such predictions. McNabb accounting for four wins? Don't know. But, a QB is very central to the success of a football team since they touch the ball on every snap offensively. Who knows, but football is one sport that can see a relatively high turnaround since there is great parity within the league.
even if a healthy mcnabb is worth four games...and i think he could be...you can also make the argument that the division has improved so much since he was last healthy that the eagles could be four games worse because of that
The Eagles sucking so bad last year is what makes the Cowboys, Giants and Skins look so much better. What has either team done to validate all these " the division has improved" comments? The Giants have Arrignton, the Boys have TO, and the Skins have.....well, just who do they have?? Mark Burnell?? The other NFC teams might have improved a little, but nothing like what has been trumpeted in the press and on this board.
farg the Cowboys, Skins and Giants. I'm looking foward to seeing them get thier asses handed to them by the Eagles this year.
forget last year
you dont honestly think the cowboys giants and skins are all substantially better than they were in 2002-2004
and that the eagles are worse?
I think this is the best Eagles team since Andy's been here, and I said why in this topic earlier.
I think the rest of the division is better than 2004, but not significantly. I think last year was a bit of a mirage.
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 07, 2006, 03:00:28 PM
you dont honestly think the cowboys giants and skins are all substantially better than they were in 2002-2004
No I don't. They've improved a little, not substantially. All three teams have improved more because of coaching than anything else. As for personel, what has either of them done? The Skins aquired Portis, sat Ramsey and aquired Burnell. The Giants drafted Manning and signed Arrington. The Cowboys dredge up Bledsoe and sign TO. Whats to get all excited about??
You knew that Parcells and Gibbs would win, but how much remains to be seen. The Giants win a mediocre NFC East and get spanked in their first game of the playoffs. That was a real good showing as to how much this division has improved, isn't it? ::)
If the NFC East has improved so substantially, and the teams are soooo much better than in 2002, then why isn't the East putting more teams in the playoffs and winning games in the playoffs?? Neither team in this division other than the Eagles has won anthing in the playoffs, much less even gotten' to the playoffs.
And please, don't act like the Skins beating Tampa means anything.
the eagles are right back to what they were and the rest of the division isnt any better than they were a couple years ago....i got that part
but just to be clear....this year is going to go back to eagles 11-5/12-4 and the rest of the division around .500 or below?
Quote from: shorebird on June 07, 2006, 03:40:12 PM
If the NFC East has improved so substantially, and the teams are soooo much better than in 2002, then why isn't the East putting more teams in the playoffs and winning games in the playoffs??
The division put two teams in the playoffs and one of them lost to the eventual superbowl team from the NFC. Moderate personel upgrades combined with SIGNIFICANT coaching upgrades means that the division is MILES better than it was pre-2005. Claiming anything to the contrary is ridiculous.
I think it's obvious that the Eagles will win this weak division and cruise into the playoffs.
This is 2003, right?
the division is MILES better than it was pre-2005
yeah but only because the eagles had an off year last season
All's well!
Quote from: rjs246 on June 07, 2006, 05:00:04 PM
The division put two teams in the playoffs and one of them lost to the eventual superbowl team from the NFC. Moderate personel upgrades combined with SIGNIFICANT coaching upgrades means that the division is MILES better than it was pre-2005. Claiming anything to the contrary is ridiculous.
The same can be said for 2000, 2002 and 2003.
So was 2005 really that out of the ordinary... or was the NFC East really as weak as everyone claimed it to be outside of 2004? The division can't be that weak if its put 2 teams in the playoffs 4 out of the 6 years this decade.
Quote from: EagleFeva on June 07, 2006, 05:10:57 PM
The same can be said for 2000, 2002 and 2003.
So was 2005 really that out of the ordinary... or was the NFC East really as weak as everyone claimed it to be outside of 2004? The division can't be that weak if its put 2 teams in the playoffs 4 out of the 6 years this decade.
An excellent point. In those seasons there was one other competetive team from the division while there were two teams that were completely terrible.
Now all four teams are competetive (as evidenced by the fact that three of them were over .500 last year and we're all speculating that the Eagles would have been two games better had certain players been healthy).
The division is better. No question.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 07, 2006, 05:16:54 PM
Quote from: EagleFeva on June 07, 2006, 05:10:57 PM
The same can be said for 2000, 2002 and 2003.
So was 2005 really that out of the ordinary... or was the NFC East really as weak as everyone claimed it to be outside of 2004? The division can't be that weak if its put 2 teams in the playoffs 4 out of the 6 years this decade.
An excellent point. In those seasons there was one other competetive team from the division while there were two teams that were completely terrible.
Now all four teams are competetive (as evidenced by the fact that three of them were over .500 last year and we're all speculating that the Eagles would have been two games better had certain players been healthy).
The division is better. No question.
Yeah, I don't argue that the division isn't better all around, because anyone being honest with themselves can see that anyone in the East can finish in last just as easily as they can finish in 1st.
My only point is that the Eagles weren't taking advantage of a "weak" NFC East while they were making their NFCCG and SB runs. 2004 was the only year where one team towered over all other three.
Let me preface by saying I do think the division is better than the last few years.
But the Eagles went 0-6 in the division. Why the Eagles sucked last year is up for debate. I personally think it was a combination of injuries, TO distractions, and poor defense, and was a total fluke of a year.
So, anyway, the Eagles go 0-6 in the division, so that obviously means each team in the division beat the Eagles twice. When a season prior, the Eagles go 6-0 in the division. So essentially, if the Eagles were themselves, and weren't plagued by injuries, the TO fiasco, and poor defense, the division looks a lot different.
The Giants are 9-7 instead of 11-5, the taterskins are 8-8 instead of 10-6, and the Cowboys are 7-9 instead of 9-7. Now let's just pretend the Eagles wouldn't have gone 6-0 in the division since the Cowboys smoked us. Even if we go 5-1 or 4-2 in the division, the records of the teams in the division don't look like records of contending teams.
The division has gotten better, but IMO the only team in the division that has a shot at getting to the Superbowl is the Eagles. People base this whole division is amazing BS on one year. In the NFL you are guilty until proven innocent. It takes more than one year to start a new trend. Teams and players have fluke years all the time. To me last year was a fluke year until proven otherwise. The entire division got 2 freebee wins per team because of the Eagles disaster of a season.
I'll beat FF to the punch and reiterate that even if McNabb and everyone else was healthy last year, this team was not making the playoffs and was probably no better than an 8-8 team.
I say we'd be 9-7 with McNabb completely healthy, considering how many close games we lost. That is still 4 wins worse than the 2004 season. So where did those 4 wins go? Bad defense, and the TO distractions. If we actually had a pass rush, which we will in 2006(knock on wood) and no distractions, combined with McNabb being healthy, we'd be back to that 12-4/13-3 level last year.
My prediction is 11-5 for 2006, because like we all agreed on the division is better, and the schedule has some tough games. You have to judge each season in it's own right.
Don't think that TO being gone means that he won't be a distraction. I'm willing to bet that for at least the first month of the season the team and coaching staff will be asked a few questions here and there regarding TO. And if you thought that the TO debacle last year was annoying and wouldn't ever go away just wait until the week leading up to both Eagles/Girls games this year. It's going to be a circus that PT Barnum would be envious of.
GT YO EARPLGZ RDY!!
Quote from: Sgt PSN on June 07, 2006, 06:16:36 PM
Don't think that TO being gone means that he won't be a distraction. I'm willing to bet that for at least the first month of the season the team and coaching staff will be asked a few questions here and there regarding TO. And if you thought that the TO debacle last year was annoying and wouldn't ever go away just wait until the week leading up to both Eagles/Girls games this year. It's going to be a circus that PT Barnum would be envious of.
GT YO EARPLGZ RDY!!
If you think the over-analysis of every McNabb syllable & Andy Reid press conference cough is bad now, just wait until this comes out around training camp: T.O. to write semi truthful memoirs (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11930053/)
This book's release pretty much guarantees that TO's stink will linger with this team for at least part of this season.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 07, 2006, 05:00:04 PM
Quote from: shorebird on June 07, 2006, 03:40:12 PM
If the NFC East has improved so substantially, and the teams are soooo much better than in 2002, then why isn't the East putting more teams in the playoffs and winning games in the playoffs??
The division put two teams in the playoffs and one of them lost to the eventual superbowl team from the NFC. Moderate personel upgrades combined with SIGNIFICANT coaching upgrades means that the division is MILES better than it was pre-2005. Claiming anything to the contrary is ridiculous.
Yeah, right. The division is miles better but yet the division winner gets thier asses handed to them 23-0 by Carolina in thier first game of the playoffs. MILES BETTER?!?!? I think not.
I'm not saying that the division hasn't improved, it has. Let's face it, it couldn't get much worse than it has 2-3 years ago. But all these goofballs in the press and elsewere saying how vastly it has improved, and then turning around and saying that the Eagles are at best a .500 team with a healthy McNabb is just plain crazy. So go ahead and jump on the "Eagles suck and the rest of the division is great" bandwagon. It's all the rage, and let's face it, if the press says it's so, then it has to be true.
For the record, I'll say the Eagles can definatly make 10-6, and could very well be a 11-5 team barring injury.
Yeah, I'm a homer, and I ain't talking about Simpson.
Quote from: shorebird on June 07, 2006, 07:17:01 PM
So go ahead and jump on the "Eagles suck and the rest of the division is great" bandwagon. It's all the rage, and let's face it, if the press says it's so, then it has to be true.
Um, no. The Eagles don't suck and the rest of the division isn't 'great' but to assume that this team can go 11-5 in a division of universally improved teams is stupid.
Quote
For the record, I'll say the Eagles can definatly make 10-6, and could very well be a 11-5 team barring injury.
Yeah, I'm a homer, and I ain't talking about Simpson.
Homer, 10-6 should be considered a VERY successful year. 8-8 is expected. 9-7 is possible and optimistic.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 07, 2006, 10:47:53 PM
to assume that this team can go 11-5 in a division of universally improved teams is stupid.
To think that the rest of this league is "universally improved" is stupid, whatever universally means here. I'm taking a guess and saying that is means a bit more than the fact they've improved enough to have a shot at the playoffs.
I can't believe some of you guys, the Eagles go to the Superbowl, have one bad year because of injury and all the TO crap, and all of a sudden they are a .500 team. And on top of that, here we are on a Eagles board and I'm listening to people say how good the farging Deadskins and the rest of the league are. Talk about being a Negaphilian. I'll take being called a homer any day of the week over that.
11-5 isn't impossible, but it would pretty much require that every question mark on the team turns into a positive.
11-5 isn't impossible
neither is 5-11
and thats the point
on both sides
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 08, 2006, 08:11:18 AM
neither is 5-11
and thats the point
I think a complete implosion like last year's would lead to no worse than another 6-10 campaign, and you're not going to convince me otherwise, because I'm in love with myself and my opinions! EAT IT!!!
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 08, 2006, 08:11:18 AM
neither is 5-11
and thats the point
on both sides
Exactly.
Shorebird, I'm not suggesting that the whole league has improved, I'm suggesting that the entire NFC East division has improved and are now competetive whereas in past years only one of the other teams was competetive. This isn't that hard to understand.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 08, 2006, 08:18:46 AM
This isn't that hard to understand.
I still don't understand, and I'd like a further detailed explanation from you. Thanks in advance.
Pie charts! I can't understand without pie charts!!
Mmmm... pie.... :drool
Quote from: shorebird on June 08, 2006, 06:17:33 AM
And on top of that, here we are on a Eagles board and I'm listening to people say how good the farging Deadskins and the rest of the league are. Talk about being a Negaphilian. I'll take being called a homer any day of the week over that.
i'd rather be realistic and risk being called a "negadelphian" by a homer
I'd rather add all those to the filter and watch you all bitch about it.
Will T.O.'s book be written without any vowels?
If you think the over-analysis of every McNabb syllable & Andy Reid press conference cough is bad now, just wait until this comes out around training camp: T.O. to write semi truthful memoirs (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11930053/)
This book's release pretty much guarantees that TO's stink will linger with this team for at least part of this season.
Quote
quoting is really hard for people today.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 08, 2006, 09:08:26 AM
quoting is really hard for people today.
[/quote
i know...right? morons
Quote from: rjs246 on June 08, 2006, 09:08:26 AM
quoting is really hard for people today.
Is this how you do it?
Please make it stop.
Quote from: Diomedes on June 08, 2006, 08:22:43 AM
Pie charts! I can't understand without pie charts!!
Hopefully this should clear things up. I'm limited while at work, so sorry for the poor graphic design.
(http://home.comcast.net/~beermonkey/Prediction_Pie_Chart.JPG)
:-D
ha!
Quote from: Beermonkey on June 08, 2006, 03:33:31 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on June 08, 2006, 08:22:43 AM
Pie charts! I can't understand without pie charts!!
Hopefully this should clear things up. I'm limited while at work, so sorry for the poor graphic design.
(http://home.comcast.net/~beermonkey/Prediction_Pie_Chart.JPG)
:-D :-D
Thats a good un'.
But really, is it Negaphilian, or Negadelphian, or Negabitches.
If you think the over-analysis of every McNabb syllable & Andy Reid press conference cough is bad now, just wait until this comes out around training camp: T.O. to write semi truthful memoirs
TO wore a shaq jersey to the game last night
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 09, 2006, 08:40:21 AM
TO wore a shaq jersey to the game last night
There's no spinning that. It was clearly a shot at the Eagles organization & McNabb.
It's very well known that Shaquille O' Neal and Dwayne Wade hate McNabb... so TO wearing his jersey made perfect sense.
So just so we're clear... Shaq says "farg the Eagles".
yeah great...and I say farg Shaq- that illiterate Harry and Hendersons stunt double
I'm more upset at the #5 rectal tattoo he had done in Deep Ellum last week.
QuoteGarcia's already rubbing off one on some of the younger Eagles including quarterback Timmy Chang......
Reggie Brown - Breakin' out in '06. (http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=104710)
Quote from: EagleFeva on July 03, 2006, 06:58:22 PM
Reggie Brown - Breakin' out in '06. (http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=104710)
Just because he got his shot in on TO I really like this guy. Love the "OT" reference.