didnt see any off-season stuff besides players names, so lick up on these thread cops
Ray Diddy calling Celek the breakout player, plus some other clips
http://philadelphia.comcastsportsnet.com/pages/player?is_popup=1&feedID=698&vidID=9676&startclip=5&dord=mr (http://philadelphia.comcastsportsnet.com/pages/player?is_popup=1&feedID=698&vidID=9676&startclip=5&dord=mr)
This thread is super for me to poop on.
you start this in june....for real?
yep--there they are pulling their badges out
and last time I checked this is the off-season and shtein does/has been happening in the nfl
when training camp starts july 26th, post the thread lippy..until then do what I told you
Ingram owns Celek
My prediction is that neither Celek nor Ingram will catch more than 40 balls this year.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 12, 2009, 02:57:15 PM
My prediction is that neither Celek nor Ingram will catch more than 40 balls this year.
I got 10 bucks on that.
Our version of the west coast offense is build for the TE. We just have had, sinore' drops (LJ Smith). So you forget what a real TE is. There is no way that at least one of Celek or Ingram don't catch 40 balls this yr. I believe Celek will def. break out and perform better on all levels than LJ ever did!
This has to be Stillupfront.
Can't be, he'd have been in the political thread by now calling everyone corksucking communists.
He's 32 and writes like he's 12
Half the people here write like they're twelve.
i write at a 13 yr old level, thank you very much.
12...... your giving me way too much credit!!
we're being nice to you because after we train your mom, she gives us back the five bucks we paid her so we'll be nice to you
mom jokes. the first sign of :CF acceptance. this is a special day.
btw.....i'd rail her.
Quote from: EaglesChad on June 12, 2009, 04:35:37 PM
There is no way that at least one of Celek or Ingram don't catch 40 balls this yr.
I have 20 bucks that says you're full of it.
Celek might catch 20-25, and have the rest of your equation plus 10-15 more thrown either at his feet or behind him.
Quote from: Rome on June 12, 2009, 04:19:27 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on June 12, 2009, 02:57:15 PM
My prediction is that neither Celek nor Ingram will catch more than 40 balls this year.
I got 10 bucks on that.
I'll call that a bet...
My prediction is Celek plays well, gets a 9 year $20 million deal...then hires Rosenhaus in 5 years to renegotiate it. Any takers?
for some reason i just had the thought of Taylor Rain pop in my head, i used to love that whore.
Oh yeah, that broad clearly has no nerve endings in her dumphole.
QuoteNFL draft moving to May
The first Saturday in May has always belonged to horse racing. Next year, though, the ponies might have to share the spotlight.
Though actual dates are not firm, the 2010 NFL draft is scheduled for early May. If the league maintains its traditional time frame of conducting the draft 12 weeks after the Super Bowl, the draft would be held May 1-2. The Kentucky Derby, the first jewel in racing's Triple Crown, is Saturday, May 1.
"It's a function of the way the calendar falls," pointed out Greg Aiello, the NFL's senior vice president of public relations. "The Super Bowl is late this year . . . February 7, 2010.
"We are currently listing next year's draft as 'early May.' We have not set the specific dates yet."
The league also is exploring the expansion of the regular season from 16 games to 18. All indications, however, are that two of the four exhibition games would be eliminated, thus leaving the length of the 20-week season intact.
Well, this sucks.
I actually think that's great. Anything to lessen the time gap between the draft and the start of camp.
i dont see why it matters either way
i guess its a small negative in that we have to wait longer for the draft (unless the eagles are in the superbowl) but otherwise i dont see any pro or con to this
they basically already ruined the draft anyway by starting it late sat afternoon
It matters because draft weekend is usually on or around my birthday and we have a huge party for it. Now it won't be.
This should be cause for concern for everyone here, obviously.
waaaah
its a whole seven days later...move your friggin party one week ahead funhole
the draft news is pretty meh.
i hate the idea of an 18 game regular season though. i don't mind trimming a preseason game or 2 off the schedule, but 16 games in the reg season is pretty solid. and 21 games for the 2 super bowl teams? that's going to hurt.
Quote from: Sgt PSN on June 17, 2009, 10:56:17 AM
the draft news is pretty meh.
i hate the idea of an 18 game regular season though. i don't mind trimming a preseason game or 2 off the schedule, but 16 games in the reg season is pretty solid. and 21 games for the 2 super bowl teams? that's going to hurt.
Yeah I thought they wanted to shorten the pre-season because of injuries, then they go and add 2 more full speed games that will do a whole bunch to help the stars make it to January/February. Sigh.
In other news, I wasn't sure where else to post this (or if it was worth a new topic), but the Athlon NFL preview mag picks the Eagles to win the NFC but lose to the Patsies in the SB.
Quote from: Rome on June 17, 2009, 09:34:35 AM
Well, this sucks.
I'd rather see them move it up to March rather than back, I love the draft and hate the wait
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 17, 2009, 09:58:30 AM
waaaah
its a whole seven days later...move your friggin party one week ahead funhole
Make me!
The season has officially started! I know you will all love this one.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090703/NEWS06/907030351/Ex-UH+quarterback+arrested (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090703/NEWS06/907030351/Ex-UH+quarterback+arrested)
I'm not sure who belongs in the Eagles Talk forum the least: Chad Ochocinco or Timmy Chang.
Well considering that was probably the farthest Timmy's thrown anything in the past 4 years it's a tough call.
I'd like to see more Bouldin talk,
I'd like to see more quality amateur threesome porn.
Have I got a site for you!
Quote from: Don Ho on July 03, 2009, 06:04:22 PM
The season has officially started! I know you will all love this one.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090703/NEWS06/907030351/Ex-UH+quarterback+arrested (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090703/NEWS06/907030351/Ex-UH+quarterback+arrested)
amazing what a college system can do for a QB.
Andre Ware, David Klingler, Colt Brennen, Ty Detmer, Chase Daniel, Charley Ware, David Carr, Gino Toretta, Chris Weinke, numerous Florida QB's all take offense to that.
I assume you mean Charlie Ward? And one would never know since he never took a snap as an NFL QB. David Carr got killed, so I don't know if he counts.
Ward was too short at 6'2" and way too skinny at 190 pounds to play in the NFL. He definitely made the right move going to the NBA.
PS: He's the worst sort of Christian douchebag. He does evidently despise Jews, so he can't be all bad.
Quote from: Rome on July 06, 2009, 09:16:47 PM
Ward was too short at 6'2" and way too skinny at 190 pounds to play in the NFL. He definitely made the right move going to the NBA.
Jeff Garcia (6'1", 205) says Haaaaaaay!... and hell, even Mike Vick (6'0", 215) says Woof, woof bitch!
What's Doug Flutie got to say?
STFU Rome?
wasn't ty detmer under 6'? i know his pro career never approached the same level of success he had in college but he was a fairly servicable back up.
i remember back in 96 i think it was when he started a good portion of the season after peete got hurt he actually put up decent numbers and got the eagles into the playoffs. you could do a lot worse when it comes to your back up qb. like mike mcmahon or kevin kolb.
theisman and tarkenton were both really short as well
and isnt brees six foot
McNabb is 6-2.
And yeah, Brees is 6-0 and was AP player of the year for '08. If he was 6-2, I bet he'd brake Favre's records.
it'd be a breeze for him.
Quote from: Sgt PSN on July 07, 2009, 01:28:28 PM
it'd be a breeze for him.
You mean he'd be Favre's air to the thrown?
McNabb is also 250 pounds. And did IGY really point to a guy who played in the 1960's? Really?? :-D
Quote from: Rome on July 07, 2009, 01:41:31 PM
McNabb is also 250 pounds. And did IGY really point to a guy who played in the 1960's? Really?? :-D
you said a 6-2 qb couldnt play in the nfl...just pointing out how retarded that is whether in 1930 or 2010
Brees is only listed at 209 pounds. That's still a difference from 190 but the point is that a QB can be short and light and still be successful.
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 07, 2009, 01:47:53 PM
Quote from: Rome on July 07, 2009, 01:41:31 PM
McNabb is also 250 pounds. And did IGY really point to a guy who played in the 1960's? Really?? :-D
you said a 6-2 qb couldnt play in the nfl...just pointing out how retarded that is whether in 1930 or 2010
No. I said a 6'2" 190 pound quarterback couldn't play in the NFL.
RIF.
Quote from: Eagaholic on July 07, 2009, 01:50:30 PM
Brees is only listed at 209 pounds. That's still a difference from 190 but the point is that a QB can be short and light and still be successful.
yeah its not even a question...not to mention charlie ward would have easily beefed up in an nfl weight program...he just wasnt nearly good enough to be an nfl qb it had nothing to do with size
The NFL's garbage bin is littered with quarterbacks who were too light and short to play. Why anyone is arguing this speaks more to your boredom than anything else. And pointing out two exceptions out of seventy-five playing the position is super awesome. It's like pointing at Jason Sehorn and saying, "see, a white dude can play cornerback!"
Quote from: Rome on July 07, 2009, 02:24:54 PM
The NFL's garbage bin is littered with quarterbacks who were too light and short to play. Why anyone is arguing this speaks more to your boredom than anything else. And pointing out two exceptions out of seventy-five playing the position is super awesome. It's like pointing at Jason Sehorn and saying, "see, a white dude can play cornerback!"
except 6-2 200+ isnt nearly small or light
if you had said charlie ward didnt play in the nfl cause he was 5'11 170 it would be different but you didnt you listed 6'2 190 and still said it was to small....the guy couldnt play qb in the nfl but it had nothing to do with size and everything to do with skill sets
Whatever, Tommy McDonald.
Joe Montana, 6'2", 200 lbs.
Johnny Unitas, 6'1", 194 lbs.
......and yeah, even Joe Blow Thiesman, 6'0", 192 lbs.
Quote from: shorebird on July 07, 2009, 05:50:08 PM
Joe Montana, 6'2", 200 lbs.
Steve Young was 6-2, but he weighed 15 pounds more than Montana, which explains why Young had a better QB rating and completion percent
LOL @ Johnny Unitas.
Jesus Christ.
:-D
Ryan Leaf - 6'5", 245 lbs... he would've been the shtein if only he had been taller.
Sun @ 1pm on NFLN - Set your DVR's
NFL Replay - Eagles/Cowboys Dec. '08 (http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/networkschedule?selectedDate=07/12/2009&field=selectedDate)
How in the hell did we get from Timmy Chang to Johnny Unitas? Is this my fault? Sorry. The off season causes one to do some scary shtein.
Don't blame yourself, it was just as much my fault as well.
are you 2 going to make out now?
Only if you join in.
Good god....I think I'll jack off when the off season is over.
Quote from: Rome on July 07, 2009, 06:54:05 PM
LOL @ Johnny Unitas.
Jesus Christ.
:-D
What, you don't think he could play today?
I find it kinda' funny the two best ever to play the game don't fit a lot of fans criteria of how tall or big a qb has to be.
Quote from: Don Ho on July 08, 2009, 09:56:21 PM
How in the hell did we get from Timmy Chang to Johnny Unitas? Is this my fault? Sorry. The off season causes one to do some scary shtein.
worst ever to best ever. natural progression.
Matthew Stafford and Mark Sanchez are 6-2. If only the Lions and Jets had known the secret formula they wouldn't have wasted any picks on these busts.
bad scouting id say
What else could you expect from the Lions?
But the Lions got tall receivers that make up for a short qb. Mike Williams is 6-5 and weighs over 300 pounds - he should dominate. I just don't understand it.
just saw the add on the phillies game (no scores please i am watching it on dvr delay) for the csn five part series on the eagle rookies...looks awesome....its time like this that i get really made that csn isnt on the out of town sports channel package
it should be even better this year with didinger in the fold
ESPN's front page:
Rumors: Eagles considering Warrick DunnActual:
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/eagles/2009-07-12-organization-report_N.htm)
QuoteCoach Andy Reid dismisses concern over Westbrook's cleanup ankle surgery but won't rule out adding a vet such as Warrick Dunn.
Didn't we go through this 6 years ago when Dunn actually had something left in the tank?
back to back years (01 and 02 i think?) they whiffed on priest holmes and dunn
I said a few weeks ago that this is who I bet they end up with. He fits their criteria..
Old
Previously persued
Small
Cheap
You forgot the most important criteria:
Boyscout
They can't honestly think Booker is an option if Westbrook goes down...at least they don't. Since they have the cap space they have nothing to lose by bringing in a veteran back.
Quote from: SD_Eagle on July 13, 2009, 02:48:15 PM
Since they have the cap space they have nothing to lose by bringing in a veteran back.
Just a roster spot for a '09 draft pick.
Meaning what they have to lose from bringing in an old back is a roster spot that would be better used for a young prospect.
thats not even close to the truth
saw on espn insider that they are considering warrick dunn. always liked dunn but i'm not sure that he's anything remotely close to what the eagles need right now......unless there's something with westbrook that might keep him out longer than expected.
Quote from: Sgt PSN on July 14, 2009, 10:34:57 PM
saw on espn insider that they are considering warrick dunn. always liked dunn but i'm not sure that he's anything remotely close to what the eagles need right now......unless there's something with westbrook that might keep him out longer than expected.
i think a veteran running back is exactly what they need...they dont want shady mccoy carrying the load if westbrook goes down....and even if he doesnt dont you want some insurance in case shady isnt ready to play in the league yet...hes not known as the most intelligent guy inthe world and that something you really need to learn these blitz packages and the like in this offense...not to mention dunn couldnt be a better fit for this offense....the question is how much does he have left
He has nothing left and he won't play special teams at his age. Pass.
Exactly. There seriously isn't a back out there under 35 that can catch and block?
he had a great year last year for his age....now he could have appreciably declined in the seven months since then i have no idea...at his age its possible...but if hes even half as good as he was last year hes the perfect fit
The chances of Reid paying for a 33 year old third string locker room guy who won't/can't play on the kickoff/punt coverage teams seems remote. If all your factoring in is the idea of him fitting into the offense, sure, he could fit. But that's not the only consideration.
How do you know he won't play on ST? Since he's still unsigned the Eagles could tell him he needs to suck it up and play ST if he wants a roster spot. I can't see how anyone feels comfortable with a Booker/McCoy/Weaver backfield when Westbrook goes down...and let's be honest with ourselves, he's going down at some point. At least Dunn knows the offense, the blocking schemes, and fits the mold of an Eagles back. From what I saw of the guy last season he still has it.
Quote from: rjs246 on July 15, 2009, 08:09:11 AM
The chances of Reid paying for a 33 year old third string locker room guy who won't/can't play on the kickoff/punt coverage teams seems remote. If all your factoring in is the idea of him fitting into the offense, sure, he could fit. But that's not the only consideration.
1. he wouldnt necessarily be third string...no one knows if shady will be able to play this year or if booker will even make the team
2. they have more special teamers than they know what to do with....that wouldnt be a factor at all...booker doesnt play special teams
i dont even know if the eagles want him...but if youre looking for a veteran back up/stop gap guy for this team you could do a hell of a lot worse than warrick dunn...i mean youre looking at what...50 carries and 20 catches...they just want someone competent to fill in when needed...i think he fits the bill pretty nicely
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 15, 2009, 08:30:54 AM
Quote from: rjs246 on July 15, 2009, 08:09:11 AM
The chances of Reid paying for a 33 year old third string locker room guy who won't/can't play on the kickoff/punt coverage teams seems remote. If all your factoring in is the idea of him fitting into the offense, sure, he could fit. But that's not the only consideration.
1. he wouldnt necessarily be third string...no one knows if shady will be able to play this year or if booker will even make the team
2. they have more special teamers than they know what to do with....that wouldnt be a factor at all...booker doesnt play special teams
i dont even know if the eagles want him...but if youre looking for a veteran back up/stop gap guy for this team you could do a hell of a lot worse than warrick dunn...i mean youre looking at what...50 carries and 20 catches...they just want someone competent to fill in when needed...i think he fits the bill pretty nicely
Word.
Dunn >>> Booker
plus he has home-buying skillz
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 15, 2009, 06:24:40 AM
Quote from: Sgt PSN on July 14, 2009, 10:34:57 PM
saw on espn insider that they are considering warrick dunn. always liked dunn but i'm not sure that he's anything remotely close to what the eagles need right now......unless there's something with westbrook that might keep him out longer than expected.
i think a veteran running back is exactly what they need...they dont want shady mccoy carrying the load if westbrook goes down....and even if he doesnt dont you want some insurance in case shady isnt ready to play in the league yet...hes not known as the most intelligent guy inthe world and that something you really need to learn these blitz packages and the like in this offense...not to mention dunn couldnt be a better fit for this offense....the question is how much does he have left
veteran back, yes. veteran back with the exact same skill sets as westbrook, not really. if they are looking for a veteran then they should look at one who compliments westbrook with an alternate running style (like buck did) rather than bringing in an older carbon copy.
the only reason dunn would make sense imo is if they feel that westbrook isn't going to be ready for opening day and they want a back that resembles westy's abilities.
i wonder if they can lure duce out of retirement. kidding. but seriously. they should do it.
andy isnt going to have a true fullback and a big back on the roster....his offense requires a running back that is the antithesis of a big back...so it makes sense to have a guy who potentially would have to full in for westbrook to have the same skill set..i suppose its possible they could go after a dorsey levens type big back who has skills that match what this offense requires but i dont know that there are any out there
unless that happens leonard weaver whether we like it or not is the "big back" this year
They don't need a big tailback if they have a good fullback.
Supplemental Draft is today and i've heard a few places that the Eagles could take the DE from Kentucky
fwiw gargano all but said heckert told him the birds are gonna take jarmon but that he wont make it to them
went to the Skins for a 3rd
I think the taterskins think the normal draft has some sort of curse attached to it. Every year it seems like they are trying to win a secret prize for having the fewest amount of draft picks.
Quote from: methdeez on July 16, 2009, 03:58:47 PM
I think the taterskins think the normal draft has some sort of curse attached to it. Every year it seems like they are trying to win a secret prize for having the fewest amount of draft picks.
they didnt trade a pick they acquired one without having to give anything up....basically they had two thirds this year and none next year instead of one and one
I understand how it works, thanks. I just think it is typical that it was the taterskins who landed this guy, giving them one less draft pick next year.
Quote from: methdeez on July 16, 2009, 10:13:44 PM
I understand how it works, thanks. I just think it is typical that it was the taterskins who landed this guy, giving them one less draft pick next year.
if they had given up three picks next year for this player i could see what youre saying...and i agree the skins history with dealing picks is awful...but this isnt a case to use as an example of that...this is nothing more than drafting a guy in the third round since the net result in picks will be zero
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 17, 2009, 06:21:37 AM
Quote from: methdeez on July 16, 2009, 10:13:44 PM
I understand how it works, thanks. I just think it is typical that it was the taterskins who landed this guy, giving them one less draft pick next year.
if they had given up three picks next year for this player i could see what youre saying...and i agree the skins history with dealing picks is awful...but this isnt a case to use as an example of that...this is nothing more than drafting a guy in the third round since the net result in picks will be zero
Well, not quite. I think there is some disadvantage to the supplemental draft, since the players are several months behind on the playbook, and missed OTAs, minicamp, etc. They certainly are at a disadvantage by missing three months of offseason, which I think is pretty important for a rookies chance of contributing in the first year.
It's like a 2009.5 pick.
Quote from: methdeez on July 17, 2009, 10:57:19 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 17, 2009, 06:21:37 AM
Quote from: methdeez on July 16, 2009, 10:13:44 PM
I understand how it works, thanks. I just think it is typical that it was the taterskins who landed this guy, giving them one less draft pick next year.
if they had given up three picks next year for this player i could see what youre saying...and i agree the skins history with dealing picks is awful...but this isnt a case to use as an example of that...this is nothing more than drafting a guy in the third round since the net result in picks will be zero
Well, not quite. I think there is some disadvantage to the supplemental draft, since the players are several months behind on the playbook, and missed OTAs, minicamp, etc. They certainly are at a disadvantage by missing three months of offseason, which I think is pretty important for a rookies chance of contributing in the first year.
It's like a 2009.5 pick.
they arent looking for him to come in and be a stud this year....hes a project type...no different than the eagles taking bryan smith in the 3rd round
QuoteReport: Eagles take look at Hollis Thomas Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com
Hollis Thomas could be making a return to Philly, a league source tells Scout.com's Adam Caplan.
Per the report, the Eagles recently brought in the veteran defensive tackle for a visit and a physical, but they didn't offer him a contract.
Not sure about you all, but when I think of big Hollis, I think insane facial hair, piercings and entertaining sideline hijinx when he was mic'd up.
But maybe you have different memories.
Thomas first joined the Eagles in 1996 and spent the first nine seasons of his career here. He caught on with the Saints in 2006 and spent the last three seasons in New Orleans.
Last year he appeared in eight games after missing time with a triceps injury.
In 2006, Thomas was suspended four games for violating the league's steroid policy. He appealed the suspension, saying the violation was the result of his asthma medication, but lost.
The Birds currently have the following DTs on their roster: Broderick Bunkley, Mike Patterson, Trevor Laws, Dan Klecko, Jervonte Jackson.
Victor Abiamiri and Darren Howard also play inside on certain packages.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/SamiB/Eagles%20stuff/hollis.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/SamiB/ht.jpg)
i love me some hollis and i'm fine with the eagles bringing him back as long as he's clearly better than the other guys toward the bottom of the rotation. clearly he's going to be a back up, which would give him plenty of time to offer veteran knowledge to an otherwise young group of dt's sans klecko.
Quote from: Sgt PSN on July 18, 2009, 11:31:38 AM
i love me some hollis and i'm fine with the eagles bringing him back as long as he's clearly better than the other guys toward the bottom of the rotation. clearly he's going to be a back up, which would give him plenty of time to farg around and do/say funny shtein on the sidelines for the cameras.
Word. Get him.
ha
QuoteHollis Thomas could be making a return to Philly, a league source tells Scout.com's Adam Caplan.
Per the report, the Eagles recently brought in the veteran defensive tackle for a visit and a physical, but they didn't offer him a contract.
My source told me the exact same thing over a month ago. My source is Phreak. (http://www.concretefield.info/forum/index.php?topic=20401.msg685067#msg685067)
Hollis and Hugh were definitely fun to watch. The team seemed less uptight then including McNabb.