As always, take Eskin's word for what its worth, but he is reporting that the Eagles and Mike Patterson are close agreeing on a contract extension. I haven't heard this anywhere else but on WIP so who knows.
Thank god. Now we can all rest easy.
Even though I'm his *sponsor*, I think it's extremely clear that he's the best DT on the team by far. All the others in the rotation have been completely useless of late, but he's still doing his thing.
Team Patterson approved this message.
i think andy believes that if he extends someone that means they are worth it and by default makes that player a great draft pick
Quote from: FFatPatt on November 01, 2006, 05:23:09 AM
Even though I'm his *sponsor*, I think it's extremely clear that he's the best DT on the team by far. All the others in the rotation have been completely useless of late, but he's still doing his thing.
Team Patterson approved this message.
Great! the best DT on a team of underperforming tackles.
remember, 1 INT return for a TD does not a great tackle make.
That was a fumble recovery.
But seriously, if you watch, Patterson does a lot in the middle without any help from the other tackles. Despite what others are still hoping to believe, he's shown much more promise for a solid career than Bunkley.
i agree but at this point in time hes not deserving of an extention
There are zero players on the Eagles at this point in time deserving of an extension.
Mahe's getting a lifetime contract.
Quote from: FFatPatt on November 01, 2006, 08:51:07 AM
That was a fumble recovery.
But seriously, if you watch, Patterson does a lot in the middle without any help from the other tackles. Despite what others are still hoping to believe, he's shown much more promise for a solid career than Bunkley.
A full offseason + training camp with the team will make all the difference where Bunkley's concerned.
Mark it.
;)
FSU homer.
Ugh... Temple won and FSU lost last weekend.
Kill me. Kill me now.
:-X
Patterson needs a compliment. He needs someone to fill gaps so he can be freed up to go after the QB. There isn't a DT on the roster that can do that at all.
I hate watching on TV the passing and running lanes the Eagles give up on passing downs. The D-line does not rush in their lanes, they are all over the place, and have no awareness of where they are on the field. Granted, sometimes such balls to the wall pursuit of the QB leads to sacks, but a lot of the time if the QB is savvy enough to step up in the pocket he has clear lanes to throw to his WR's. And, if no one has too much seperation, the lanes are big enough to even allow the slowest QB to at least pick up a few yards and keep the chains moving.
This team lacks discipline! Or, the coaching scheme has to change.
When the going gets rough, the Eagles tend to like to extend popular players to take the edge off. Seems to be a pretty consistent MO.
When the going gets rough, the Eagles tend to like to extend popular players to take the edge off.
thats an interesting take...i wouldnt put it past this regime but id like to see a time line...westbrook last year would certainly support this
what i dont get is why fans think when a young player gets extended that its automatically a great move
I'll put it this way: I don't think the Eagles would extend anyone they otherwise wouldn't; but I do think that the timing of the announcement represents a more holistic communication strategy than just coincidence, in general.
well what date do they have to resign guys by to get some loot under this years cap?
Quote from: MURP on November 01, 2006, 12:56:03 PM
well what date do they have to resign guys by to get some loot under this years cap?
It's usually November 10 or so, I believe. They signed Westbrook and Akers on the 6th and 7th, respectively, last year.
Quote from: Zanshin on November 01, 2006, 12:19:30 PM
I'll put it this way: I don't think the Eagles would extend anyone they otherwise wouldn't; but I do think that the timing of the announcement represents a more holistic communication strategy than just coincidence, in general.
WTF? ???
Which word was hard for you?
Quote from: Zanshin on November 01, 2006, 03:53:56 PM
Which word was hard for you?
I think the adjective 'holistic' being used to describe the noun 'communication' is the issue.
Actually it was referring to the holistic strategy...the communication piece was even more descriptive.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2647220
Extended. 7 years $32M.
retarded
We're talking Jeff and Joe's beer money here.
Quote from: Dillen37 on November 02, 2006, 03:07:29 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2647220
Extended. 7 years $32M.
that's a lotta cash to sign a
2nd-year defensive player....especially one that can't stop the run.
i could see if your other tackle was darwin walker and you wanted to make sure that you have at least one young solid tackle locked up...but they have a top 15 rookie dt draft pick next to him.....why dont we wait and see how it plays out for another year or two...to maybe see if bunkley progresses and laps patterson thus deserving his own big extention...to see if patterson improves to the point of wanting to extend him like this...
perhaps they see a lot more in patterson than i do and expect him to get a lot better....at least i hope thats the case
i see no point. he hasn't exactly been a world beater this year.
It's a great deal for the Eagles if Patterson improves at all and not a bad one if he continues playing about the same as he has been. There's still plenty of room for Bunkley to "lap" him and for the Eagles to pay him if it happens, but don't hold your breath. Kid hasn't had a solo tackle since week 4.
from ESPN:
QuoteAt 5 feet, 11 inches tall, Mike Patterson didn't tower over other top defensive tackles available in the 2005 draft, but now he can say he towers over his draft class financially.
In a rare move (read as weird for a supposed "cheap" FO), Patterson agreed to a contract extension with the Philadelphia Eagles 24 games into his NFL career. The Eagles extended their 2005 first-round choice by rewarding him with a seven-year, $32 million extension that could be worth $37 million based on incentives and escalators.
The key to the deal, though, was $9 million in guarantees.
What makes this contract unique is that he's only 24 games into his rookie contract. In July, 2005, Patterson signed a five-year, $6.625 million contract that included $3.825 million in guarantees. By signing this extension, Patterson locked himself into $12.825 million in guarantees before his third year.
I'm OK with it. Now let's get Bunkley starting ahead of Walker...
Bunkley should have reported to camp on time.
If he had, he'd be starting by now.
:-D
Quote from: BigEd76 on November 02, 2006, 03:45:53 PM
I'm OK with it. Now let's get Bunkley starting ahead of Walker...
Why? We've seen nothing to believe he can play at at NFL level yet. NOTHING.
Quote from: dis12 on November 02, 2006, 03:36:58 PM
from ESPN:
QuoteAt 5 feet, 11 inches tall, Mike Patterson didn't tower over other top defensive tackles available in the 2005 draft, but now he can say he towers over his draft class financially.
By signing this extension, Patterson locked himself into $12.825 million in guarantees before his third year.
...and after his third year he can start whining about his contract and badmouthing the FO, after which he can become a de-facto free agent.
There's still plenty of room for Bunkley to "lap" him and for the Eagles to pay him if it happens, but don't hold your breath
there also was the hope that they would sign a stud free agent run stopping DT some day....this extension pretty much eliminates that hope and says that they are locked into their same philosophy of going with a small quick line...unless bunkley is a complete and total bust and is off the team in a couple years and they replace him with a large man who can stop the run
this isnt a move i will bash...but it was premature and unecessary
Blame the philosophy of the DC for that one. Jim Johnson has to go before they ever sign a "big run-stuffing DT".
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 02, 2006, 04:25:31 PM
There's still plenty of room for Bunkley to "lap" him and for the Eagles to pay him if it happens, but don't hold your breath
there also was the hope that they would sign a stud free agent run stopping DT some day....this extension pretty much eliminates that hope and says that they are locked into their same philosophy of going with a small quick line...unless bunkley is a complete and total bust and is off the team in a couple years and they replace him with a large man who can stop the run
this isnt a move i will bash...but it was premature and unecessary
Clap it up for this man.
No. Most of that post was circular logic, and in summary he actually said very little.
I'm not torn up by this deal, but I'm not estatic about it either. It probably could have waited a year, but I assume it was done to get money under this year's cap instead of next year. Patt gets a hell of a lot of guarenteed money, but I bet it's structured in such a way that it can be terminated early if necessary without much of a hit.
Quote from: FFatPatt on November 02, 2006, 05:07:43 PM
No. Most of that post was circular logic, and in summary he actually said very little.
Clap it up for you then.
No.
I'm going to say it. I don't like this deal. A player has just been rewarded for being less of a screwup than the players around him. The fact that anyone has gotten a new deal after the last month is a joke.
a defensive lineman, who isnt even 6 feet tall now essentially has an 11 year contract?
11 years?!?!
stupid
And his height has what to do with it?
Him being 5'11 actually helps him. He's fast off the ball and he is able to use that lack of height to his advantage.
This is classic Eagles FO. It is a deal that will be cheap in comparison to market value when he would have been a UFA.
If he sucks he can be cut most likely without it hurting the cap. That's how Banner does it.
Quote from: Father Demon on November 02, 2006, 05:14:51 PM
I'm not torn up by this deal, but I'm not estatic about it either. It probably could have waited a year, but I assume it was done to get money under this year's cap instead of next year. Patt gets a hell of a lot of guarenteed money, but I bet it's structured in such a way that it can be terminated early if necessary without much of a hit.
Guarantees are the only compensation the player is entitled to receive. If he is cut, they just accelerate to the year he is cut. It's not like you can 'lessen' the blow at all unless the Eagles structured a lot of the guarantees to come into play this year. Otherwise, he'll be an extremely costly cut if he craps it up in a couple of years.
Patterson is a good DT, but he definitely needs a compliment. My fear is that he doesn't occupy enough attention in the middle and is exploited in the run game. He's great on passing down, but in the run I think he needs to improve more.
If he sucks he can be cut most likely without it hurting the cap. That's how Banner does it.
shtein if it thats easy why doesnt he do it every year with with a bunch of top notch free agents who have actually accomplished something in their nfl careers
i wonder what happens too if bunkley has a decent year next season...does he then go to the FO and ask for pattersons contract or even better
Quote from: Eaglez on November 02, 2006, 06:33:01 PM
Quote from: Father Demon on November 02, 2006, 05:14:51 PM
I'm not torn up by this deal, but I'm not ecstatic about it either. It probably could have waited a year, but I assume it was done to get money under this year's cap instead of next year. Patt gets a hell of a lot of guaranteed money, but I bet it's structured in such a way that it can be terminated early if necessary without much of a hit.
Guarantees are the only compensation the player is entitled to receive. If he is cut, they just accelerate to the year he is cut. It's not like you can 'lessen' the blow at all unless the Eagles structured a lot of the guarantees to come into play this year. Otherwise, he'll be an extremely costly cut if he craps it up in a couple of years.
Patterson is a good DT, but he definitely needs a compliment. My fear is that he doesn't occupy enough attention in the middle and is exploited in the run game. He's great on passing down, but in the run I think he needs to improve more.
That's what I meant, even if I didn't say it. The remaining ~$25M (with full bonuses and such) would be cut along with him if they decide to not honor the entire contract. I would guess, although I don't know at all, that a pretty good portion of the guaranteed money is within the first three years of the deal, if not the first two years.
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 02, 2006, 06:38:20 PM
If he sucks he can be cut most likely without it hurting the cap. That's how Banner does it.
shtein if it thats easy why doesnt he do it every year with with a bunch of top notch free agents who have actually accomplished something in their nfl careers
i wonder what happens too if bunkley has a decent year next season...does he then go to the FO and ask for pattersons contract or even better
Well, because once a guy hits that FA market he's got the $ in his eyes. They played out their "paltry" rookie deals and are looking for a big payday. But he still structures those deals smartly (TO, Kearse, Howard, etc) where most of the hit are up front so later on down the life of the deal if they suck, get hurt or become psychotic they can cut ties relatively easy.
Here's the breakdown of the deal;
QuotePATTERSON GETS PAID
The Eagles have signed defensive tackle Mike Patterson to a long-term extension, locking up the team's 2005 first-round draft choice through 2016 via a seven year extension that doesn't even begin to apply until 2010.
Under the contract, Patterson gets $4.5 million to sign and a $4.5 million roster bonus in 2007. The salaries beginning in 2010 are $1.1 million, $1.4 million, $2.1 million, $2.9 million, $3.65 million, $4.9 million, and $6.25 million.
But since the only real guarantee is the $4.5 million signing bonus, and since that money prorates at $900,000 per year starting this year, there will be no cap acceleration if he is cut in 2010 or thereafter.
From 2010 and onward, then, the contract is a series of one-year deals -- and very reasonable salaries if Patterson becomes a stud. And if he becomes a stud, he'll surely claim that he has outperformed his deal.
Before Patterson or his agents succumb to that temptation, they need to keep in mind the $9 million in bonuses that Patterson has received in exchange for voluntarily tying himself down for the next decade.
So they'll take half of the guaranteed hit in 2007 when he is still young. That roster bonus will count all in one shot next year. The remaining 4.5 is then prorated so it is a smaller cap number and thus easy to cut ties. And as the breakdown points out - if he is cut past 2010 then there is no hit.
This is a good deal. It keeps him here on the cheap and also protects the team.
while the deal may be good and i dont even think its anything special....it was not needed and the guaranteed money given to him in the next few years could have been much better used in the free agent market especially the direction this team is going they have to make a big splash in FA this year and probably next....
or save the money for someone like bunkley justice herremans cole brown or any other players who may already be or one day turn into true studs...patterson simply was not deserving of this contract at this time...in the teams defense they did the same thing with brown and lito and it worked out tho they showed much more potential for greatness than has patterson...i think it would have been better to let patterson show the same kind of potential that someone like andrews did to get his extension
lets just hope patterson becomes a player in the future
This move reeks of P.R. damage control.
No way is Patterson deserving of an extension yet. For God's sake, he's only played 24 farging games in the NFL!
Whatever, though. It ain't my money and I'm not paying him so what the hell do I care?
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on November 02, 2006, 06:48:55 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 02, 2006, 06:38:20 PM
If he sucks he can be cut most likely without it hurting the cap. That's how Banner does it.
shtein if it thats easy why doesnt he do it every year with with a bunch of top notch free agents who have actually accomplished something in their nfl careers
i wonder what happens too if bunkley has a decent year next season...does he then go to the FO and ask for pattersons contract or even better
Well, because once a guy hits that FA market he's got the $ in his eyes. They played out their "paltry" rookie deals and are looking for a big payday. But he still structures those deals smartly (TO, Kearse, Howard, etc) where most of the hit are up front so later on down the life of the deal if they suck, get hurt or become psychotic they can cut ties relatively easy.
Here's the breakdown of the deal;
QuotePATTERSON GETS PAID
The Eagles have signed defensive tackle Mike Patterson to a long-term extension, locking up the team's 2005 first-round draft choice through 2016 via a seven year extension that doesn't even begin to apply until 2010.
Under the contract, Patterson gets $4.5 million to sign and a $4.5 million roster bonus in 2007. The salaries beginning in 2010 are $1.1 million, $1.4 million, $2.1 million, $2.9 million, $3.65 million, $4.9 million, and $6.25 million.
But since the only real guarantee is the $4.5 million signing bonus, and since that money prorates at $900,000 per year starting this year, there will be no cap acceleration if he is cut in 2010 or thereafter.
From 2010 and onward, then, the contract is a series of one-year deals -- and very reasonable salaries if Patterson becomes a stud. And if he becomes a stud, he'll surely claim that he has outperformed his deal.
Before Patterson or his agents succumb to that temptation, they need to keep in mind the $9 million in bonuses that Patterson has received in exchange for voluntarily tying himself down for the next decade.
So they'll take half of the guaranteed hit in 2007 when he is still young. That roster bonus will count all in one shot next year. The remaining 4.5 is then prorated so it is a smaller cap number and thus easy to cut ties. And as the breakdown points out - if he is cut past 2010 then there is no hit.
This is a good deal. It keeps him here on the cheap and also protects the team.
:yay :yay :yay Good stuff, bro.
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 02, 2006, 07:02:37 PM
while the deal may be good and i dont even think its anything special....it was not needed and the guaranteed money given to him in the next few years could have been much better used in the free agent market especially the direction this team is going they have to make a big splash in FA this year and probably next....especially with the downward direction this team is going they have to make a big splash in FA this year and probably next
or save the money for someone like bunkley justice herremans cole brown or any other players who may already be or one day turn into true studs...patterson simply was not deserving of this contract at this time...in the teams defense they did the same thing with brown and lito and it worked out tho they showed much more potential for greatness than has patterson...i think it would have been better to let patterson show the same kind of potential that someone like andrews did to get his extension
lets just hope patterson becomes a player in the future
That's the thing - the money is being used now. He's been cut a check for $4.5M now and will get another in 2007 and then thats it. Compared to what they will have to spend this is like us regular folk spending $20.
They'll still have money for Brown, Cole and the guys like that and to play the FA market. With the new CBA and the cap going up big time next year this is cheap.
And if he sucks, its not a cap breaker.
doesnt matter whether its right now or next year there are players on this team much more deserving of that money than patterson
and you act like hes gonna suck and be cut at no cost or be great and be a steal...whats if hes completely vanilla as he is now and not good enough to make an impact on the field but not completely suck...they wont cut him and he will be eating up momney down the road and also be taking up a position on the field that could be filled by a much better player
thats one of the main problems with this front office...they go for the cheap solid player way to often instead of a much better more expensive guy
it all comes down to if he turns into a player or not....and with the combination of him having multiple years left on his current deal and his play not being extension worthy its way to early to say that he is indeed gonna be a player and thus receive this deal
war bye weeks
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 02, 2006, 07:18:32 PM
doesnt matter whether its right now or next year there are players on this team much more deserving of that money than patterson
and you act like hes gonna suck and be cut at no cost or be great and be a steal...whats if hes completely vanilla as he is now and not good enough to make an impact on the field but not completely suck...they wont cut him and he will be eating up momney down the road and also be taking up a position on the field that could be filled by a much better player
thats one of the main problems with this front office...they go for the cheap solid player way to often instead of a much better more expensive guy
it all comes down to if he turns into a player or not....and with the combination of him having multiple years left on his current deal and his play not being extension worthy its way to early to say that he is indeed gonna be a player and thus receive this deal
war bye weeks
No doubt - and there is still time to get those guys signed. Even if they don't get 'em done by the time the '06 deadline rolls around next week they can do it on next years cap. They have a ton of space to use. Prior to this deal they had about $9.7M in cap room. Next year it'll be around $30M.
If he is vanilla, then his salary will reflect that. Look at the base salaries and then think about what players will be making in several years. He will be below market value and be paid like an average DT. The market is going to blow up because of this CBA. So if he sucks, they cut him without damage. If he's a stud, they have a great deal. If he's just a guy, he's being paid like just a guy.
Agreed on it coming down to him being a player or not. And the Eagles are usually pretty good at projecting these things. So I defer to the history of locking up players like this...
hate
Are you kidding me? Everybody loves everybody.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on November 02, 2006, 07:07:12 PM
This move reeks of P.R. damage control.
It's strange seeing this from you. :-D
If people want to argue about whether he deserves it or not, great, but leave out this bit of conspiracy. You only feed the crackpots.
Two things. One, since when does this FO care about creating positive PR regarding signings/non-signings? Two, does this signing shift the focus off the lack of performance we have seen thus far in 2006? No, it does nothing at all to control any negative feelings.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-12/903959/the_optimist.jpg)
Quote from: dis12 on November 02, 2006, 03:36:58 PM
from ESPN:
QuoteAt 5 feet, 11 inches tall, Mike Patterson didn't tower over other top defensive tackles available in the 2005 draft, but now he can say he towers over his draft class financially.
In a rare move (read as weird for a supposed "cheap" FO), Patterson agreed to a contract extension with the Philadelphia Eagles 24 games into his NFL career. The Eagles extended their 2005 first-round choice by rewarding him with a seven-year, $32 million extension that could be worth $37 million based on incentives and escalators.
The key to the deal, though, was $9 million in guarantees.
What makes this contract unique is that he's only 24 games into his rookie contract. In July, 2005, Patterson signed a five-year, $6.625 million contract that included $3.825 million in guarantees. By signing this extension, Patterson locked himself into $12.825 million in guarantees before his third year.
Why does ESPN, in it's infinite wisdon, call this "unique"? These are almost the same numbers Andrews just got. He received a $5 mil SB and a $5 mil roster bonus to count against the following year and was signed after his second year. Patterson got $4.5 mil SB and $4.5 mil roster bonus to count against the next year's cap. Considering that Andrews was drafted higher, they are strikingly similar. Andrews is signed through 2015. Patterson, drafted a year later, is signed through 2016. The salary of Andrews last 3 years is $3.75, 5.25, and 6.25 million. Patterson's last 3 are $3.65, 4.9, and 6.26 million. Seems like pretty clear formula to me, not unlike the draft slotting. Maybe what ESPN meant by unique is that, although the numbers are the same, each player has a different last name.
i think what they are referring to as unique is the fact that the eagles gave all that money to a guy who hasnt even played two years in the league and when he has played hes been underwhelming
Signings like this and the extension they gave to Dirk Johnson tell me that they're more interested in sticking with their plan of signing their own guys rather than looking for better alternatives in the open market.
It's like Banner can point to them and say, "see, we're spending all of our cap dollars, and we're doing it on guys we drafted or better yet, got off the scrap heap - look at how smart we are!!"
I wouldn't mind so much if they were spending money on guys who actually deserve an extension but Patterson doesn't.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on November 03, 2006, 08:22:10 AM
Signings like this and the extension they gave to Dirk Johnson tell me that they're more interested in sticking with their plan of signing their own guys rather than looking for better alternatives in the open market.
It's like Banner can point to them and say, "see, we're spending all of our cap dollars, and we're doing it on guys we drafted or better yet, got off the scrap heap - look at how smart we are!!"
I wouldn't mind so much if they were spending money on guys who actually deserve an extension but Patterson doesn't.
Do you have any original thoughts, or did you just want to suckle off IGY's mind-teet some more?
theres still room if youd like to get on it as well
Nah. While I do think the Eagles' organization is stubborn across the board, I also think the contract isn't worth complaining about. Patterson's proven to be at worst a 2nd/3rd DT in a rotation, and he's getting some coin in his pocket for it. The contract is not ridiculously rich and doesn't hurt the Eagles' plans to do anything they want personnel-wise in the future. Especially when every other DT on the team has been coming up ridiculously small, I just can't find a reason to whine about this contract.
There are plenty of real problems this team has. Patterson's contract doesn't rate.
The only thing I like about this signing is that I can now wear the same jersey for the next couple years.
Other than that it's a ridiculously stupid move. I think he very well might be a really good tackle some day, but we have a bit more needs at the moment than signing a 2rd year guy to 7 years.
get off the teet son
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 03, 2006, 08:53:18 AM
theres still room if youd like to get on it as well
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 03, 2006, 09:53:41 AM
get off the teet son
so which is it? there's room to wannabe, or there isn't?
Patterson's contract extension alone isn't worth getting upset over.
Combining it with the other extensions that have been given out causes me some concern because in more than a few cases, they haven't proven to have deserved them.
Quote from: Diomedes on November 03, 2006, 10:46:53 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 03, 2006, 08:53:18 AM
theres still room if youd like to get on it as well
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 03, 2006, 09:53:41 AM
get off the teet son
so which is it? there's room to wannabe, or there isn't?
He's saving room, but only for me, because I'm special.
Looks like I'm in the minority but I like this move. They didn't necessarily break the bank and he's a good young player.
Quote from: SD_Eagle on November 03, 2006, 01:30:16 PM
Looks like I'm in the minority but I like this move. They didn't necessarily break the bank and he's a good young player.
Wrong. If you're angry at the team, you have to criticize everything they do. Try again.
4 pages about this crap...everyone killyourselves, quickly
Although I understand the move, I would rather have seen the team wait a year or two on Patterson and use the 9 million bonus bucks on a solid playmaking LB this off season.
Right now, I would rather the team spend $10mil on buying out AR's contract tham extending anyone on the roster. I wish I was kidding.
Of all the problems on the team, the ones with AR are most easy to remedy if they simply fix the antenna.
Why is that the people who seem to have the biggest problem with spending $$$ on this extension, are the same ones who always say that fans shouldn't care what the team spends on a player, when free agency rolls around?
because theyd rather the team spend money on top notch free agents as opposed to milktoast defensive lineman that are already under contract for another three years
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 06, 2006, 10:14:17 AM
because theyd rather the team spend money on top notch free agents as opposed to milktoast defensive lineman that are already under contract for another three years
When they don't have enough money next off season to go after any of the top-tier FA's, I'll complain. As of right now, this is griping about nothing. Let's focus on f***ing the Skins. :yay
I just find it hilarious that we have a defensive tackle signed through 2016. I mean jesus farging christ. McNabb will be 40 then. Dawkins will be 44. It just seems like overkill.
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 06, 2006, 10:14:17 AM
because theyd rather the team spend money on top notch free agents as opposed to milktoast defensive lineman that are already under contract for another three years
yeah, players like randel el and brandon lloyd.
...and Todd Collins, Adam Archuleta, and Andre Carter.
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 06, 2006, 10:14:17 AM
because theyd rather the team spend money on top notch free agents as opposed to milktoast defensive lineman that are already under contract for another three years
If the Eagles only gave Corey Simon the money he so rightly deserved, we wouldn't have these concerns about extending a 2-yr player. :P
julian peterson or javon walker should have gotten pattersons money
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 06, 2006, 02:25:06 PM
julian peterson or javon walker should have gotten pattersons money
good god, watching Walker yesteday made me sick. Guy is playing out of his mind.
Walker >>>>>>>Brown. Stallworth, Baskett, Avant, Lewis X 10
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 06, 2006, 02:25:06 PM
julian peterson or javon walker should have gotten pattersons money
Signing those two are a completely separate issue, that I doubt anyone here would disagree with.
Plus, if I remember correctly, the Eagles were ready to show Walker major money but couldn't work the trade out.
Walker is actually having a very average season if you watched him through every game. He's been very up and down. I think he's up there in yards. Mainly because of 2 big games he had, but his catches are limited. Had a big game yesterday, but that is expected against a Steelers pass defense that couldn't stop Michael farging Vick. Stallworth>Walker when healthy. Anyone who knows football knows as much.
Quote from: King Cole on November 06, 2006, 03:51:46 PM
Stallworth>Walker when healthy.
you're right, he is better for those two games a year.
Walker has missed more career games than Stallworth. ;D
you're right, he is better for those two games a year.
actually walker is better in every game he plays
stallworth has more games played in his career
yet somehow has managed less yards....less touchdowns...and for good measure less yards per catch
and only has 12 more catches
stallworth is a nice speed guy that can add a different dimension to an offense
walker is stud pure #1 wr
lol @ u
Walker has had one good career year.
Stallworth has never blown up, but he's had multiple good years.
Quote from: King Cole on November 06, 2006, 03:51:46 PM
Walker is actually having a very average season if you watched him through every game. He's been very up and down. I think he's up there in yards. Mainly because of 2 big games he had, but his catches are limited.
Jake. Plummer.
Quote from: King Cole on November 06, 2006, 03:51:46 PM
Walker is actually having a very average season if you watched him through every game.
I don't believe you have watched every Denver game this year and focused on Javon Walker exclusively.
The only reason Walker's stats arn't spectacular yet is because that offense has struggled to score this year up until the Indy and Pittsburgh game. Believe me he's on my fantasy squad and has not done jack until last 2 weeks. Not because he's a bad player, just that offense had some issues and seems to be clicking now.
I'd take a gamble on Walker anyday :'(
Quote from: EagleFeva on November 06, 2006, 08:13:53 PM
Quote from: King Cole on November 06, 2006, 03:51:46 PM
Walker is actually having a very average season if you watched him through every game. He's been very up and down. I think he's up there in yards. Mainly because of 2 big games he had, but his catches are limited.
Jake. Plummer.
Booyah!