I'll start -
Reid has to go for this team to rebuild. His philosophy just isn't going to work anymore.
Pat Shurmur. He really deserves that Michigan St. job.
all of em
Quote from: Hoe Cakes on November 27, 2006, 12:48:02 PM
Pat Shurmur. He really deserves that Michigan St. job.
That job's already taken by an Old Navy shirt.
Reid isn't leaving after this season, so I'll settle for him losing his FO responsibilities.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on November 27, 2006, 12:55:11 PM
Reid isn't leaving after this season, so I'll settle for him losing his FO responsibilities.
That won't happen either. It sucks doesn't it? Realistically what are the chances Reid or Johnson are gone next year? Lurie and Banner have invested too much into them to just let them go after this season. I think Johnson has about a 70 percent chance of getting a pink slip though. Reid has about a 10 percent.. barring him actually resigning (lol).
Pete Jenkins. He's proven that he can't get even a moderately talented D-line to tackle.
Every Defensive coach needs to be shown the door. Get a young guy in here with a fresh philosophy. I'm so tired of speedy small players, I want physical LBs and run stuffing DTs. Small D-lineman are fine for 3rd down, but they shouldn't be in there on 1st and 2nd getting manhandled.
Reid should move upstairs, but he'll get another year probably to turn things around.
I'm tempted to bring a defensive guy in who can install the 3-4, but it's unlikely since we've used our last 2 first-round picks on DTs who can only play in the 4-3. Which sucks because Cole and Gocong could be ideal OLB edge rushers in the 3-4.
Do you really want Reid drafting any more "first round" talent?
True.
Put Reid in charge of the 2nd day of the draft and get someone who knows what they're doing to run the first day.
Joe Banner. I know he's brilliant with the cap but I think he's got a lot to do with this team being so cheap. There could be an entirely new coaching staff next year but if Banner is still counting the beans upstairs then I don't think we'll see any major changes in the way this team deals with (FA) players.
Quote from: PhillyandBCEagles on November 27, 2006, 01:29:36 PM
True.
Put Reid in charge of the 2nd day of the draft and get someone who knows what they're doing to run the first day.
I vote for Denny Green.
clean house
i would vote for a clean house, but thats not realistic.
id take a new defensive approach, let jim johnson retire to florida with all the jews.
also the key is getting a new player personal guy in here, or at least relegating andy reid to just being the coach
When a team has no heart, the top brass must be replaced.
banner #1 - as i said last night he has poisoned the franchise beyond repair with his treatment of players
reid #2 - disagraceful gameday coach and dont twist it up thats why he has to go first and foremost...but....hes also completely lost the team
Quote from: MURP on November 27, 2006, 03:14:27 PM
When a team has no heart, the top brass must be replaced.
I saw Buddy Ryan do an interview after Andre Waters died. He looked rested. :paranoid
At least Ryan's teams were fun to watch. I can barely watch the shtein that Andy puts out on the field. :boo
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 27, 2006, 03:17:04 PM
banner #1 - as i said last night he has poisoned the franchise beyond repair with his treatment of players
Banner = polonium
Quote from: MURP on November 27, 2006, 03:20:17 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 27, 2006, 03:17:04 PM
banner #1 - as i said last night he has poisoned the franchise beyond repair with his treatment of players
Banner = polonium
But they have so much cap space. :fire
Who needs to go? Everyone. I'm not joking. Every coach on this staff should be shown the door. This team isn't even trying on the field, especially on defense. They have always been awful at in-game coaching, but at least they used to get the players ready to play. That stopped happening some time last season. They've lost this team. It's over. Reboot.
Quote from: rjs246 on November 27, 2006, 03:29:34 PM
Who needs to go? Everyone. I'm not joking. Every coach on this staff should be shown the door. This team isn't even trying on the field, especially on defense. They have always been awful at in-game coaching, but at least they used to get the players ready to play. That stopped happening some time last season. They've lost this team. It's over. Reboot.
I actually concur. Consider yourself fortunate.
Maybe not everyone... the O-line is pretty good :)
Quote from: Butchers Bill on November 27, 2006, 03:19:03 PM
Quote from: MURP on November 27, 2006, 03:14:27 PM
When a team has no heart, the top brass must be replaced.
I saw Buddy Ryan do an interview after Andre Waters died. He looked rested. :paranoid
Rex Ryan looked pretty good stuffing the Stillers.
Fire all the coaches. Keep Heckert and Banner.
Heckert is as much to blame for this mess as anyone. You can't have 2 good drafts in the last 5 years and the rest absolutely abysmal and be blameless. Heckert can go too. Not to mention how bad our FA signings have been lately. Heckert sucks.
Heckert is the only person I think shouldn't go.
Heckert scouts well enough. The coaches are to blame here - he has to feed the "philosophy". McDougle fit the philosophy, the philosophy doesn't work.
Quote from: Northern Eagle on November 27, 2006, 04:28:14 PM
Maybe not everyone... the O-line is pretty good :)
The only coach from the Rhodes group. Coincidence? Shtein, fire Morningwood and promote Castillo to OC. Let him call the plays and see how many runs there are each game.
Then I guess that means you are satisfied with the personnel on this team, because while Andy probably makes the final decisions in who comes and goes, Heckert is the one that evaluates who would be the best fit on this team and gets the ball rolling.
The personnel on this team sucks on defense and Heckert is more to blame for that than Andy... unless and this is the only excuse, but unless Lurie has them strapped and is refusing to open the wallet for specific players. I highly doubt that though, because he opened the wallet for Kearse and TO, and still that wouldn't excuse the bad drafts Heckert has been mainly responsible for.
Heckert and Andy both go hand in hand in picking the players, but again, Heckert is the one who evaluates and builds the profiles on these players who we bring in.
Quote from: General_Failure on November 27, 2006, 07:15:42 PM
Quote from: Northern Eagle on November 27, 2006, 04:28:14 PM
Maybe not everyone... the O-line is pretty good :)
The only coach from the Rhodes group. Coincidence? Shtein, fire Morningwood and promote Castillo to OC. Let him call the plays and see how many runs there are each game.
Not a bad idea actually. Castillo is the only coach I would keep. He has to groom these guys to pass block. I wonder how often they practice run blocking in practice?
Yeah, Castillo is alright too I guess. But I'm not going higher than two keepers. Heckert and Castillo. Kill the rest.
Quote from: King Cole on November 27, 2006, 07:16:37 PM
:drool
Shut up. Learn to read. Stop posting. Stop breathing. Why haven't you killed yourself yet, anyway?
Quote from: King Cole on November 27, 2006, 07:16:37 PM
Then I guess that means you are satisfied with the personnel on this team, because while Andy probably makes the final decisions in who comes and goes, Heckert is the one that evaluates who would be the best fit on this team and gets the ball rolling.
The personnel on this team sucks on defense and Heckert is more to blame for that than Andy... unless and this is the only excuse, but unless Lurie has them strapped and is refusing to open the wallet for specific players. I highly doubt that though, because he opened the wallet for Kearse and TO, and still that wouldn't excuse the bad drafts Heckert has been mainly responsible for.
Heckert and Andy both go hand in hand in picking the players, but again, Heckert is the one who evaluates and builds the profiles on these players who we bring in.
Man you're slow. Reid and Johnson tell Heckert what they're looking for in a player at position X. Heckert rank orders the players available, based on how well they fit the profile. The guys they drafted are well suited to Reid and Johnson's philosophies. The problem is the philosophies are flawed. So you don't kill the messenger.
So you want to keep Heckert because he has done what well exactly? Blame Reid and Johnson for the personnel all you want, but what has Heckert himself done good?
Darren Howard - bad signing
Dhani Jones - bad signing
Mike McMahon - bad signing
Jevon Kearse - hasn't nearly played to the level he has been payed
That isn't even getting into the draft. I suppose Andy scouted all the players himself and is at fault for the drafts too?
Nevermind, Cole. You argue like my wife. Preparing your next statement instead of listening.
Must be nice to always be right.
Surely if you want to keep Heckert, you could tell me what he has done to be deserving of keeping his job. I don't mean blame it on Reid and Johnson. Forget about everyone else for a second. Tell me what Heckert has done well that makes him stand out as a good personnel guy.
You're on the clock.
Arguing about Heckert is a waste of time. He has the GM title but we all know who the GM is. It's Andy Reid. Once Reid is gone we might actually get to find out what Heckert can do. Until then he's irrelevant.
farg Andy Reid.
Quote from: King Cole on November 27, 2006, 07:24:14 PM
Darren Howard - bad signing
Dhani Jones - bad signing
Mike McMahon - bad signing
Jevon Kearse - hasn't nearly played to the level he has been payed
Howard at DT, with Kearse at DE, was an excellent thing. With Kearse out, moving Howard to DE makes him just another chump.
Quote from: Hoe Cakes on November 27, 2006, 07:32:12 PM
Arguing about Heckert is a waste of time. He has the GM title but we all know who the GM is. It's Andy Reid. Once Reid is gone we might actually get to find out what Heckert can do. Until then he's irrelevant.
farg Andy Reid.
See it wasn't that difficult. Even though I disagree with you, I'll even give you that. If Heckert is promoted to full-time GM then it might be easier to grade him... even though I still think Andy doesn't do nearly as much personnel studying and evaluating as Heckert does.
But saying you want to keep Heckert is a different story. If you want to keep someone, usually you can explain why you want them to keep the job.
For example a Patriots fan might say, I want to keep Bill Belichick because he has won Superbowls.
Then I would want to keep Heckert because...? If he stays whatever, but he hasn't done anything in my mind which makes him a guy who must stay. What has he done to seperate himself from other personnel guys in this league?
Heckert's still here because they've given him what he wants to stay. He's a hot commodity out there. And owner's are much better at evaluating their right hand men (in general) than they are at talent (re: Snyder).
Heckert recruits what he's told to recruit. Give him a coach that knows what the farg he's doing, and he'll recruit guys that fit the mold.
Tell him "I want small, fast DEs that can outrush a OT, but are a liability against the run (because stopping the run is irrelevant)", and he found McDougle. Who fits that mold perfectly. Just like Cole.
Castillo is OK, but it sure did take him long enough to sure up the offensive line. I remember a couple of years back where everyone was calling for his head and making fun of him for riding around in that little electric wheelchair after he injured himself.
And, I'm not going to blow my load over him either -- they manhandled a pitiful Colts front 7 who are among the worst in the league against the run; not as bad as the Eagles but up there. The O Line would not even been remotely successful against the likes of the Ravens front 7. They would show their pussiness once more.
200+ yards in 3 out of the last 4 games, and approximately 150 in all of those games is ridiculous.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on November 27, 2006, 07:54:55 PMJust like Cole.
Those last three words aren't fair. Cole has proven to be decent against the run.
Narf? I love Cole, but I haven't seen anyone on this defense who is worth a shtein against the run.
Arguing about Heckert is a waste of time. He has the GM title but we all know who the GM is. It's Andy Reid. Once Reid is gone we might actually get to find out what Heckert can do
BINGO
i dont care either way whether heckert stays or goes....but im willing to give him the benefit of the doubt were he kept simply because im not sure what his deal is
in fact id be down with clearing house except for heckert and have him hire the new regime and keep on who he wants
I guess since I'm the de-facto Banner sponsor, I should step up to the plate and defend his ass. I know this will make me real popular with our resident racist, but WTF.
Joe Banner does not make personnel decisions. He does not decide who to draft or who to sign in free agency. He does not even restrict the scope of those activities. He negotiates contracts. Further, when told to get the deal done, he gets the deal done. Heckert & Big Red set the parameters, and he gets the job done. Banner didn't bench Hood, Reid did - I don't care why.
Let's piss off all the racists in one post - Banner only gets uppity when he is negotiating a deal where the league's unwritten rules indicate that a player is not worth what he is asking for - draft picks are the perfect example of this. If a team signs a player outside of their salary "slot" that team is going to piss off every other team in the league - that's not how things are done. OK, that's how Mr. Snyder would do it, but he doesn't count.
The bottom line is, when the personnel people tell banner to over-spend, he has no problem writing the check. (see: Jon Runyan, Jevon Kearse) Reid ultimately decides how much he wants a player. Banner just crunches the numbers.
Quote from: Cerevant on November 28, 2006, 06:14:23 AM
I guess since I'm the de-facto Banner sponsor, I should step up to the plate and defend his ass. I know this will make me real popular with our resident racist, but WTF.
Joe Banner does not make personnel decisions. He does not decide who to draft or who to sign in free agency. He does not even restrict the scope of those activities. He negotiates contracts. Further, when told to get the deal done, he gets the deal done. Heckert & Big Red set the parameters, and he gets the job done. Banner didn't bench Hood, Reid did - I don't care why.
Let's piss off all the racists in one post - Banner only gets uppity when he is negotiating a deal where the league's unwritten rules indicate that a player is not worth what he is asking for - draft picks are the perfect example of this. If a team signs a player outside of their salary "slot" that team is going to piss off every other team in the league - that's not how things are done. OK, that's how Mr. Snyder would do it, but he doesn't count.
The bottom line is, when the personnel people tell banner to over-spend, he has no problem writing the check. (see: Jon Runyan, Jevon Kearse) Reid ultimately decides how much he wants a player. Banner just crunches the numbers.
Good points and I agree with most but it does appear Banner is an ass when negotiating. As my wife always tells me, its not what I say but how I say it.
Quote from: Philly_Crew on November 28, 2006, 07:21:49 AM
Good points and I agree with most but it does appear Banner is an ass when negotiating. As my wife always tells me, its not what I say but how I say it.
Yes, but rest assured that Rosenhaus, Steinberg, the Postons, etc. are asses too. Players are just the puppets in the negotiation.
Yes, but rest assured that Rosenhaus, Steinberg, the Postons, etc. are asses too.
but they dont work for the philadelphia eagles....i really could care less that banner is a despicable person...just dont be one for the eagles...hes a poison and needs to go...good things dont happen to bad people and the eagles will never win a superbowl as long as banner is there
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 28, 2006, 08:33:39 AMgood things dont happen to bad people
Yeah, right. What farging world are you living in?
the real world dunn
Not if you think good things don't happen to bad people, you're not.
lets just agree that banner needs to move on
WR Coach David Culley, period.
I'd rather agree that you live a fantasy world where good things happen only to good people. Ha.
I'd rather agree that you live a fantasy world
agreed
in my world the wiffle football besomes the national sensation that it originally should have
Quote from: Diomedes on November 27, 2006, 07:56:21 PM
Quote from: MadMarchHare on November 27, 2006, 07:54:55 PMJust like Cole.
Those last three words aren't fair. Cole has proven to be decent against the run.
no one on this defense is decent against the run
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 28, 2006, 08:33:39 AM
Yes, but rest assured that Rosenhaus, Steinberg, the Postons, etc. are asses too.
but they dont work for the philadelphia eagles....i really could care less that banner is a despicable person...just dont be one for the eagles...hes a poison and needs to go...good things dont happen to bad people and the eagles will never win a superbowl as long as banner is there
Yeah, I know...in your perfect little world, there would be no salary cap and the teams would just say, "You know Drew, you are right. McDougle should be the highest paid player in the NFL. What were we thinking". We all know that
Ed Danny Snyder is your model of the perfect owner, committed to his team and the pursuit of football excellence. Where multi-year contracts were meaningless, and where any player who whines loud enough gets a raise.
It should be clear to us that the taterskins are the true gold standard - the team that every other team should model their business practices and team affairs after.
if the taterskins had a good gm...or any gm...they would be the gold standard...the continously spend money at unseen levels and never have to pay a price for it...snyders fiscal policy is great...its his player personel policy that is fatally flawed
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 28, 2006, 11:05:20 AM
if the taterskins had a good gm...or any gm...they would be the gold standard...the continously spend money at unseen levels and never have to pay a price for it...snyders fiscal policy is great...its his player personel policy that is fatally flawed
I actually was thinking the same thing. If he was paying big money to players who actually deserved it then the taterskins would be scary for a long long time. But since Danny Boy is a moron without a clue, his team will continue to be a laughingstock.
for anyone interested sal pal is gonna be on wip shortly to discuss his contention that the reason the eagles are so cheap and always so far under the cap is that they have a ton of stadium debt and need money
They should have totally stayed at the Vet.
sal pal
-ask any owner or agent and they will tell you the birds are in serious debt
-borried a lot of money for the linc
-he talked to another owner who would like a new stadium and asked him if hed use the lurie model and the guy was like no way to much debt
-third in the league in revenue behind cowboys and skins
-one of the ways they generate a lot of revenue is that they will absolutely not overpay for any player
-says the that the eagles manage their debt as much as they manage the salary cap with their deals...specifically these extensions to young players theyve been giving out lately
-rhetorically asking where the tens of millions of dollars that they are under the cap goes (the answer: to their bottom line)
-whole heartedly believes that they want to win but they also want to manage their debt just as much
haha he said matt mccoy didnt even get a combine invite....should have never been drafted...should not be in the nfl
again i ask as matarano just did...how could everyone on earth know this except the eagles
I have 54 cents in my back pocket I can donate to the stadium debt if Lurie really needs it.
I'm not saying any of this is true or untrue but Sal Pal always seems to have some sort of shot he wants to take at the Eagles FO and the fans.
i know what youre saying but he said all this is common knowledge amongst owners and agents thruout the league...
talking about the debt situation.....the mccoy stuff was of course his opinion
Who is Lurie indebted with? The state?
he didnt say specifically but im guessing with the banks...the amount of money he spent out of his own pocket for the stadium im guessing was loaned to him
(http://www.hbo.com/sopranos/img/cast/character/tony_soprano.jpg)
Lurie and Co are running this team just as if it were a private business. The desire is there to improve but not if it's going to affect their ability to get out of debt. From a business stand point, it makes sense. From a fan stand point, I don't give a shtein. Get some farging players.
Isn't that what naming rights are for?
How the hell could he still be in that much debt?
he came into the league with money of course but not dan snyder or jerry jones money...for a pro sports owner he wasnt that wealthy
The desire is there to improve but not if it's going to affect their ability to get out of debt. From a business stand point, it makes sense. From a fan stand point, I don't give a shtein. Get some farging players.
the key question is whether this is a conflict of interest...can you have a desire to manage debt AND have a desire to win
If I remember correctly, about half of the stadium was funded with tax dollars while the rest was split between naming rights and Lurie.
I still don't understand now, just as I didn't understand then, why Lurie didn't model the naming rights after the Cleveland Browns who sold naming rights to different companies for the gates. So instead of entering the stadium through Gate A you would enter through the ABC Company gate. Obviously, its not going to sell for the same price as the naming rights to the entire stadium but when you've got a half dozen gates and you can sell the naming rights to each one to a different company you still stand to make a ton of cash......possibly more when you combine them all than selling the stadium name to one single company.
funny that you mention the browns...sal pal said they are in serious debt as well and it no coincidence that they and the eagles are in the top five money under the cap
Quote from: Sgt PSN on November 28, 2006, 01:00:48 PM
I still don't understand now, just as I didn't understand then, why Lurie didn't model the naming rights after the Cleveland Browns who sold naming rights to different companies for the gates. So instead of entering the stadium through Gate A you would enter through the ABC Company gate. Obviously, its not going to sell for the same price as the naming rights to the entire stadium but when you've got a half dozen gates and you can sell the naming rights to each one to a different company you still stand to make a ton of cash......possibly more when you combine them all than selling the stadium name to one single company.
Huh? Thats been done. The Jeep entrance, Pepsi entrance, etc.
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 28, 2006, 12:36:30 PM
haha he said matt mccoy didnt even get a combine invite....should have never been drafted...should not be in the nfl
again i ask as matarano just did...how could everyone on earth know this except the eagles
what Kiper said about McCoy:
Quote"Through workouts and interviews, Matt McCoy has helped himself more than any defensive player in this draft," states Mel Kiper, an ESPN draft analyst since 1984. "He was a very productive player in major college football and did so by matching a very good player like Morrison. The fact (McCoy) can run so well bodes very well for him. He's a high riser in this draft, a solid second-round pick."
Link (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050421/news_1s21graney.html)
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 28, 2006, 12:59:21 PM
the key question is whether this is a conflict of interest...can you have a desire to manage debt AND have a desire to win
um...no it's not a conflict. as the owner of a franchise...those are the two biggest things to do.
while i know you would like to beleive that the other 31 teams are run on the ideology that they will do whatever it takes to win, regardless of their bottom line. that is just not the case.
you want to point to snyder...fine. but snyder has a 92,000 seat staduim, vs a 68,000 seat stadium...that alone right there is $15M more income per season, on ticket prices alone, factor in consessions, and everything else...leads to a lot of money. i gaurantee that he wants to win and watches the bottom line just as closely. remember he tried to charge people for attending training camp?
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 28, 2006, 12:59:21 PM
he came into the league with money of course but not dan snyder or jerry jones money...for a pro sports owner he wasnt that wealthy
The desire is there to improve but not if it's going to affect their ability to get out of debt. From a business stand point, it makes sense. From a fan stand point, I don't give a shtein. Get some farging players.
the key question is whether this is a conflict of interest...can you have a desire to manage debt AND have a desire to win
Yes, you can have a desire to manage debt and win. It simply comes down to how long Lurie wants to take to get out of debt. Let's say he's $100 million in debt and that the team is profiting $10 million per year. Obviously it would take 10 years to get out of debt (longer when you calculate interest on his loan(s) but we'll keep it simple.) So it comes down to whether Lurie wants to stick with that 10 year plan or does he want to lengthen the amount of time he's in debt? He could easily take $5 million of that profit and reinvest it into the team for new players but then it would take him 20 years to pay off his loans.
Of course, the argument could (and should) be made that if Lurie would invest more of the team's profits back into the team and keep a legitmate Super Bowl contender on the field year in and year out that the team profits would continue to go up, meaning that he'll still be able to get out of debt in a timely manner....perhaps even faster than originally planned.
If the Eagles owe so much money and are in such dire financial straits, why are they consistently ranked by Forbes as one of the most valuable franchises in professional sports?
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2568057
Eagles worth: $1,024B. . . that's B as in BILLION, folks.
so the eagles conduct their draft according to mels bible....makes sense as that would save lots of money on the scouting dept
(http://www.melkiper.com/i/Rpt.jpg)
So does this mean we'll suck even after Reid is gone? Until the debt is paid (if it ever is) we're going to suck for quite sometime aren't we? Yay!! :boom
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 28, 2006, 12:30:08 PM
-whole heartedly believes that they want to win but they also want to manage their debt just as much
That makes a lot of sense, actually. It's kind of the way I manage my own finances.
um...no it's not a conflict. as the owner of a franchise...those are the two biggest things to do.
while i know you would like to beleive that the other 31 teams are run on the ideology that they will do whatever it takes to win, regardless of their bottom line. that is just not the case.
i think youre confusing managing debt with making money
teams are supposed to make money but very few are actually in debt...theres a big difference between going all out to win and perhaps not making as much money as you could vs being in so much debt that you cant put 100% towards winning
being ridiculosly far under the cap would be an example....locking up undeserving players to long term deals would be another
If the Eagles want to save all this money, then why do they pay their coaches more than just about any team in the league?
Because it's extremely hard to find people who make incompetance look so easy.
they may pay their coaches more than other coaches in the league but they dont pay them more than what some big time players would make
paying jim johnson a few extra hundred thousand a year is peanuts compared to being 26 mil under the cap
Over the past 5 years only the Skins have paid more money to players than the Eagles. If you look at the ACTUAL money they put out year in year out the Eagles are usually second. They have so much unused cap space because of the loophole Banner created. Phreak or MURP posted an article a few years ago that explained it.
Quote from: MURP on November 28, 2006, 01:23:32 PM
If the Eagles want to save all this money, then why do they pay their coaches more than just about any team in the league?
I think they have convinced ownership that excellent coaching offsets mediocre talent ???
Over the past 5 years only the Skins have paid more money to players than the Eagles. If you look at the ACTUAL money they put out year in year out the Eagles are usually second. They have so much unused cap space because of the loophole Banner created. Phreak or MURP posted an article a few years ago that explained it.
even if this is true why wont they use that loophole AND spend the rest of their cap money on players like the skins do
they are going into each and every year with tens of millions of unspent dollars....where is that money going?...lower ticket prices for fans....free parking for fans?...free agents?...an audible radio broadcast of the game in stadium bathrooms?...
their offseason last year consisted of mike mcmahon....i mean think about that.....their entire offseason was spent on mike mcmahon...thats unfathomable
theres a reason they arent spending that 20+ million they have on the cap
im not saying sal pal is right but id like to know what that reason is
You know their philosophy is to build through the draft (not saying they're great at it) and to identify young players and spend on them early to save money down the line. If free agency and the Skins specifically have taught us anything its that building through free agency doesn't work. If the Eagles are spending more money a year on salary than 31 other teams than how is that a problem with debt? They don't blow their wad every year because that money creates cap space for the next year. Again, I'm not saying I don't want them to sign free agents, I thought a guy like Wil Witherspoon, Julian Peterson, or Rocky Bernard would have been solid signings for this defense, but to say they're cheap when it comes to salaries is totally inaccurate when they shell out more dough per year than 31 other teams.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on November 28, 2006, 01:13:38 PM
If the Eagles owe so much money and are in such dire financial straits, why are they consistently ranked by Forbes as one of the most valuable franchises in professional sports?
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2568057
Eagles worth: $1,024B. . . that's B as in BILLION, folks.
The actual article (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/30/06nfl_Philadelphia-Eagles_301623.html) is much more useful. Check out the cryptic "TRPS" - wins vs. salary. Except for last year, the Eagles have exceeded the average number of wins for the amount of money they spend. Really good stuff there.
In short, the $1B is how much they could sell the team for, not how much cash they have laying around. Their debt/value ratio is 33%, meaning the team is still $300M in debt vs. the $1B worth.
you still havent answered me as to where the unspent salary cap money is going
You know their philosophy is to build through the draft
no one is saying trade draft picks...just spend money on free agents
If the Eagles are spending more money a year on salary than 31 other teams than how is that a problem with debt?
because there is 30 other teams in the league spending more money on the cap....could that be a problem because of their debt?
They don't blow their wad every year because that money creates cap space for the next year
cap space that they dont come close to utilizing
The Eagles have MORE money to spend under the cap hence they spend more money and have more available cap space. Why don't they spend it? My guess is because of control in case they want to re-sign a player to a long term deal or see a free agent they really like. I'm not saying they shouldn't spend more on free agents and use more cap space, because this offseason I was very irritated that they had so much available cap space and that they sat on their hands while good players signed elsewhere. All that I am saying here is that when the Eagles spend more money on player salaries than all but one team its hard to criticize them.
My guess is because of control in case they want to re-sign a player to a long term deal or see a free agent they really like
in other words the unspent money goes towards their bottom line
thats all i was looking for here
How does it go towards the 'bottom line' when they still spend more per year than 31 other teams? I guess 31 other teams that spend to the cap limit but put less out on player salaries are in debt too?
Both teams are just mucking with the numbers - taterskins stay under the cap by restructuring and giving new bonuses every year, while the Eagles spread their money over more players, and hide the salary cap stuff in the NLTBE incentives and all that other BS. Which works better? You can blame the management of the taterskins for their failures, but who else is out there spending like idiots and actually succeeds?
How does it go towards the 'bottom line'
because they have ten of millions of dollars they ARE NOT SPENDING EACH YEAR...and by not spending that money they positively effect their bottom line
just like they sign undeserving players to long term deals not because its good for the team but because it gives them cost certainty
They sign young players to long term deals so they can save money in the future. Like I said, I'd like to see them spend more of their available cap space, you won't get an argument from me there.
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 28, 2006, 02:21:40 PM
because they have ten of millions of dollars they ARE NOT SPENDING EACH YEAR...and by not spending that money they positively effect their bottom line
I'm curious about that - has anyone seen what the cap difference is
after the season is complete? I know there is a lot of in season statistics, but I've never seen what the cap looks like after the accounting year is done, when all those incentives finally count against this year's cap or next.
You can blame the management of the taterskins for their failures, but who else is out there spending like idiots and actually succeeds?
i think there is an area between the taterskins and being 20 mil under the cap and your offseason consists of mike macmahon
when your team sucks i can see being way under the cap because why go crazy spending on free agents when in all likely hood you will get nowhere by doing so...so you build up money under the cap rebuild thru the draft and then when the time is right stike the fa market hard
but when youre the eagles and made four straight nfl championship games and STILL are way under the cap its inexcusable...and there has to be a larger reason why...and all im asking is could their debt that sal pal talks about be the reason?
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 28, 2006, 02:29:42 PM
but when youre the eagles and made four straight nfl championship games and STILL are way under the cap its inexcusable...
You do realize how stupid that sounds, right? I'm sure there are Packers fans and Lions fans who would give their left nut to have their team go to the NFCCG 4 times in a row.
Really - how many of those losses can be attributed to lack of talent, and not piss poor coaching?
Quoteand there has to be a larger reason why...and all im asking is could their debt that sal pal talks about be the reason?
Again, I'm not convinced that when all is said and done they are really that far below the cap. But to answer your question, yes - every penny the Eagles use to pay off debt increases the value of the franchise.
You do realize how stupid that sounds, right? I'm sure there are Packers fans and Lions fans who would give their left nut to have their team go to the NFCCG 4 times in a row.
i could give a rats ass about what packer and lion fans think...and id give my left nut for a city championship far more tha theyd wish for a nfcc...it was when the eagles were that close for so long and didnt go all out for a title is when i turned on this regime...it was indefensable
youre actually making my point but saying how hard it is to even make a championship game...so if you do have a team that is doing it you better do something over top to get them to a superbowl title
1. If this is true about Lurie and the huge debt issues, why is this the first time in the four years since Lincoln Financial opened we're hearing about it? I mean we've heard about they have a big debt because many of these teams do. But we've never heard about it affecting the on-field talent.
2. Sal Pal says "ask any owner or agent" but yet we have never heard any agent speak out on this. On the record or anonymously. Why is that? Especially when you have agents who would line up to take a shot at Joe Banner and Jeff Lurie off the record.
3. They don't overpay for free agents because that is their organizational philosophy. That didn't start when they moved across the street. That was the philosophy when they were still in the Vet too. That is the way they run their team. Fans and the vocal media outlets don't like it because FA signings are sexy compared to the draft pick way of building a team. Can anyone remember them going balls out for FA's when they were in the Vet? No, thats because they didn't. They would identify players who they thought were worth the money and then go get them. Troy Vincent, Kevin Turner, Ricky Watters, etc. Just like they have done now with Kearse, Owens, Howard, etc.
The total payroll numbers since moving to LFF. This is actual money paid out, not cap figures or loopholed cash.
2003 = $77,436,900 = 17th in the NFL (http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2003)
2004 = $104,977,331 = 2nd in the NFL (http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2004)
2005 = $72,721,279 = 28th in the NFL (http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2005)
3 year total = $255,135,510
3 year average = $85,045,170
Other teams 3 year totals & 3 year averages;
Washington - $268,897,186 ($89,632,395)
Dallas - $228,686,602 ($76,228,867)
New York - $242,205,571 ($80,735,190)
New England - $253,536,489 ($84,512,163)
Seattle - $278,838,139 ($92,946,043)
Just a sample size, but when you look at the teams over the last several years on many occasions you can see an ebb and flow of one or two years where they are lower in the NFL in spending and then a spike to where they rise and spend more cash.
The 2005 drop off for the Eagles shows that the Eagles didn't spend money like they did in 2004, obviously. Now the argument is whether or not Sal Pal is right and its because of debt services or whether or not the Eagles FO got stupid and believed that they could tinker and add through the draft to the SB team of 2004. I lean towards the Eagles FO screwing the pooch because they thought they were hot shtein and didn't need wholesale additions. Because if what Sal is saying then the Eagles should be lower in these rankings, should they not?
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 28, 2006, 02:59:28 PM
it was when the eagles were that close for so long and didnt go all out for a title is when i turned on this regime...it was indefensable
In their defense they did sign Kearse and TO to enormous deals in the same offseason to get the team over the hump.
In their defense they did sign Kearse and TO to enormous deals in the same offseason to get the team over the hump.
three years too late and the city basically had to threaten to burn them down for it to happen...color me not impressed
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 28, 2006, 03:05:11 PM
In their defense they did sign Kearse and TO to enormous deals in the same offseason to get the team over the hump.
three years too late and the city basically had to threaten to burn them down for it to happen...color me not impressed
I don't think the city threatening them had anything to do with it. Kearse wasn't a free agent, nor was Owens on the trading block before that year.
bottom line is they had a great opportunity to win a superbowl and yet they had a hard time even making one in a horrendous conference all because they wanted to be good against the cap
they can all die
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 28, 2006, 03:15:45 PM
bottom line is they had a great opportunity to win a superbowl and yet they had a hard time even making one in a horrendous conference all because they wanted to be good against the cap
they can all die
2001 - The Rams were Superbowl favorites and hardly what I'd consider 'horrendus'
2002 - Bucs won the Superbowl by a large margin and hardly what I'd consider 'horrendus'
2003 - Carolina fought tooth and nail with Pats and almost pulled the upset, also hardly what I'd consider 'horrendus'
For me the model would be the Baltimore Ravens they went out and made a huge push for one year and it won them a Super Bowl. They then of course had to rebuild but it didn't take them long with a GM like Ozzie Newsome. While they haven't exactly been awesome the past few years they have been competitive and look poised to make a strong run this season. I think we can all agree that we would give our left nut for a Super Bowl and have six years of mediocrity before having a chance to win another.
so, from 2003 to 2005, 3 years total, two of them they were in the bottom half of spending and one year they were the 2nd overall.
that's not exactly a ringing endorsement for all those people who claim that they are towards the top of the spending "each year"
For me the model would be the Baltimore Ravens they went out and made a huge push for one year and it won them a Super Bowl. They then of course had to rebuild but it didn't take them long with a GM like Ozzie Newsome. While they haven't exactly been awesome the past few years they have been competitive and look poised to make a strong run this season. I think we can all agree that we would give our left nut for a Super Bowl and have six years of mediocrity before having a chance to win another.
im totally on board with this....but i will say that ozzie is light years ahead of reid in the player personel area and that makes a big difference
the eagles have a lethal combination of not being able to identify unknown talent and the unwillingness to spend on the known talent...thats why they are in the mess you see now
Newsome is definately one of the league's best.
The last 2 offseasons were more frustrating than any. They get dominated on the line of scrimmage in the Superbowl and go out and sign Mike frickin McMahon and the following year they have their first losing season in years and instead of admitting they aren't good enough, they blame it on TO and McNabb's injury and sign Darren Howard and Shawn Barber.
This team is farging cheap, I don't care how you slice it. The Eagles always talk about how they spend all of their money by the end of the season, but they spend it on extending players that they don't even need to extend(Greg Lewis, Mike Patterson, Darwin Walker years back).
Also the fact that they refuse to overspend is a joke. Sometimes to get what you want you need to overspend a little. Will it hurt you financially? Maybe a little, but it HELPS YOUR TEAM. That is the goal here. First and foremost to make your team better.
I haven't posted on here in a while, but I'll put my two cents in s I did on the EMB. I think Lurie has to clean the whole organization out. It'll be difficult for him to do because of his buddy Banner, but my reasons are below:
Banner--there have been several articles in the Philly papers over the last few years that have suggested that Banner and Reid don't always see eye to eye on a players' worth. So he needs to go out the door if that's the case.
Heckert--he brought in Jason Licht, who was supposed to be the next great GM-in-waiting from the Pats, and they've replaced all of the scouts, but so far, the drafts have produced very few impact players. True, the 2005 draft with Herremans, Brown, Patterson as starters might be good and this year's might be very decent once they all get on the field, but in between, very questionable.
Reid--as much as I love what he's done to revive the fortunes of the franchise, his system and his message have become stale. There was an excellent article in the Philly paper today saying "Andy the coach must avoid the stale feeling"--or words to that effect. Actually, I think it started last year. It's what killed Vermeil in 1982--the vets on that particular team got tired of Vermeil's message and basically after they came back from the strike, they quit playing--with the exception of the Cowboys game that year.
Johnson--again, his system has become stale. He built his defense to take care of offenses that loved to pass, but in the last couple of years, at least, teams now go to max protect, and run the ball. He hasn't adjusted. And for all the personnel decisions that Reid makes, Johnson has at least a lot of input on who he wants on the defensive side of the ball.
It's time to sweep this whole regime out--it's just a question of if Lurie has the guts and can find people who can be a trusted GM and a trusted cap guru. As far as coaches go, I 'd like to see a fresh face--no Gruden, no Fisher--a fresh face with an in-your-face defense and a pounding running game--and even if they have a passing offense, then I hope they have the sense to bring in WRs that can at least catch consistently.
So again, to play devil's advocate - how did Bill Cowher's message not get stale after all those years of mediocrity? It was 9 years after their first Superbowl loss that Cowher took the Steelers to the big game again.
Good defense, power running game, zesty division?
So again, to play devil's advocate - how did Bill Cowher's message not get stale after all those years of mediocrity? It was 9 years after their first Superbowl loss that Cowher took the Steelers to the big game again.
i could argue that cowher is a players coach and filled with fire and brimestone...guys love playing for someone that...he also wasnt the gm and seen as a shill for the devil himself (banner)...he fights for his players
that said i think the message thing is overrated...much more important is that reid is a horrible coach and always has been even when they were winning
Quote from: ice grillin you on November 30, 2006, 08:54:02 AM
i could argue that cowher is a players coach and filled with fire and brimestone...guys love playing for someone that...he also wasnt the gm and seen as a shill for the devil himself (banner)...he fights for his players
Actually, that's the kind of "message" that is typified as getting stale. Loud guys burst on the scene and make an immediate impact, shaking things up and getting big results...then peter out. See: Gruden, Parcells, Mike Keenan in the NHL is famous for this.
Quotethat said i think the message thing is overrated...much more important is that reid is a horrible coach and always has been even when they were winning
Unfortunately, I have to agree with that sentiment.
See: Gruden, Parcells, Mike Keenan in the NHL is famous for this.
cowher is nothing like these people
theres a difference between being animated and firey and being an a-hole
i cant in all of cowhers 15 years remember a single player of his ever speaking a bad word about him...they universally love him...where as the other guys youve mentioned have had numerous blowups with players
cowher listens to his players is friends off the field with them...his family even be friends them...hes almost one of them...a lot of this has to dow ith the rooney way...its how they run their organization...more like a college program than a pro franchise...can you imagine a parcells or keenan taking advice from a player...they would spit on a player before they put themselves on the same level as one
Every one of the fargers has to go. Every one of them. I haven't seen a team implode like this since the Sotite days. It's an embarrassment. Just shteincan the whole bunch of them.
I see a lot of folks in here saying "clean house" and "everybody must go" but I have a question.
Who do you replace them with?
Who else in this league has had the type of success Reid&Co have had over the last six years?
To be honest I do tend to agree that maybe it is time for a new start but who is out there?
Deep down I was hoping the Titans would part company, as has been rumored, with Fisher (sp?) but with their recent success I don't know if they want to break up what they've got going.
If you want to move JJ I would agree wholeheartedly but blowing everything up with no clear replacement just seems unlikely.
Fisher according to Charlie Casserly on CBS this afternoon will extend with the Titans. I agree with your point that Reid and Co have had great success in the recent past. That being said he seems to have lost the team and his confidence. This team really looks like a team that has quit on this coach expecially on defense.
The guy to me that would be a great fit for this team would be Ron Rivera. He is familiar with the organization and has helped put together what is probably the league's best defense.