The 2007 Offseason Thread

Eaglez · January 17, 2007, 08:08:23 PM

He has been silent in Washington, I agree. He might not be the answer, but he is 6'0 250 pounds. If anything, since he did not get much PT last/this year, and he will probably be cut (even the taterskins would be stupid to keep him around for a ton of cash) I would at least entertain bringing him in and see what happens in camp. I wouldn't mind one of those '1 year deals show us what you got' type contracts. Maybe push Buck (assuming he's back) and at least add some talent to compete for roster spots in training camp.

If he doesn't pan out, fine. And maybe he won't. But I'd at least make some sort of effort of getting a bigger bodied back in here to pick up some tough yards. And right now I can't think of any other bigger backs that would hit the market this year.

However, with the reluctancy to run for short yardage when you have two cracks at picking up a yard might never change -- so bringing in a big back might be a moot point.

What is probably the most disheartening is that the Eagles have demonstrated during the win streak their ability and their commitment towards running and picking up short, tough yards. But I think I would be deluding myself to pretend that they will run the ball consistently in short yardage situations next year.

MDS · January 17, 2007, 08:22:14 PM

Westbrook
Duckett
Buckhalter

Good enough. Money, outside of Stallworth, should be spent revamping the defense. Which sucks.

Feva · January 17, 2007, 08:37:48 PM

Quote from: MDS on January 17, 2007, 08:22:14 PM
Westbrook
Duckett
Buckhalter

Good enough. Money, outside of Stallworth, should be spent revamping the defense. Which sucks.

Word to Big Bird.

mussa · January 17, 2007, 08:46:52 PM

Seriously, if they don't re-sign Stallworth they are making a huge huge huge mistake. What go with a 3 yr guy, and basically two rookies as our starting 3 receivers in a pass happy offense. Hmmm. Thats almost as logical as not establishing a running game. Hmm I'm starting to see a trend. They cannot be that stupid.

Northern Eagle · January 17, 2007, 09:04:45 PM

Instead of Duckett.. I want Michael Turner. He's a FA this year isn't he? He would be the PERFECT compliment to BWEST and he can also get the tough yards.

mussa · January 17, 2007, 09:25:50 PM

Mike Turner is a stud. I would be willing to give lots for a young, tough, fast, bruising back, who can return kicks also. Imagine a one two punch of Westbrook and M. Turner. Of course woud be willing to pay more for a new coach who runs the ball also.

Diomedes · January 17, 2007, 09:31:27 PM

If Duckett is a wet dream, then Turner is a real live threesome with Angelina and Jessica taking turns begging for more as they lap each other up and down..

Geowhizzer · January 17, 2007, 09:47:21 PM

Quote from: Northern Eagle on January 17, 2007, 09:04:45 PM
Instead of Duckett.. I want Michael Turner. He's a FA this year isn't he? He would be the PERFECT compliment to BWEST and he can also get the tough yards.

According to footballsfuture.com, he is:

QuoteMichael Turner, RFA, San Diego Chargers
Turner takes a beating and keeps going. Turner isn't well known to the general public, but the kid has talent. He gets a handful of carries behind Ladainian Tomlinson and has maximized those carries, averaging six yards per carry in his short career. He carried just 80 times this season, but it was a career high for Turner, and he was still able to crack the 500 yard-mark with a pair of touchdowns. With his strong running style and production in San Diego this season, it shouldn't surprise anyone to see Turner sign elsewhere—but the Chargers may look to keep their dangerous rushing combo together.

Drunkmasterflex · January 17, 2007, 10:01:04 PM

He is a RFA.

Seabiscuit36 · January 17, 2007, 10:19:43 PM

He's worth a second without a doubt.

Magical_Retard · January 17, 2007, 10:59:55 PM

again there is no point if we wont run, so unless they are committed to rushing their RBs, in any combination, at least 30 times a game it doesn't matter who we get and we might as well stick with the cheap buck.

more so than the offense, i want our ST and D to improve. and by improve i mean like score a TD here and there on ST and stop the run be a feared D.

speaking of our defense and our philosophy of not worrying so much about the rush yds vs the big play, i particularly do not disagree with the philosophy but when you mention that publicly and tell your players as much I think it does affect how they view a bad performance vs the rush. its almost like there is no accountability for the Ds inability to stop the run, and if someone brings it up its a automatic "well thats not what we are worried about". considering the cap space we have we should be able to have a D that can both shut down the run and pass, but sadly we can not even shut down the pass as predominately as we once could.

The BIGSTUD · January 17, 2007, 11:11:16 PM

I don't get the obsession with Michael Turner. Sure he is a nice player, but people are willing to give up draft picks for him, on a team that doesn't like to run the ball, and for a guy who would be second fiddle to Westbrook. Almost every offseason resource we have needs to be spent on fixing the defense.

Northern Eagle · January 17, 2007, 11:17:13 PM

Quote from: King Cole on January 17, 2007, 11:11:16 PM
I don't get the obsession with Michael Turner. Sure he is a nice player, but people are willing to give up draft picks for him, on a team that doesn't like to run the ball, and for a guy who would be second fiddle to Westbrook. Almost every offseason resource we have needs to be spent on fixing the defense.

Well considering what they have gotten latly out of the draft...... yes.

rjs246 · January 17, 2007, 11:25:24 PM

Quote from: King Cole on January 17, 2007, 11:11:16 PM
I don't get the obsession with Michael Turner. Sure he is a nice player, but people are willing to give up draft picks for him, on a team that doesn't like to run the ball, and for a guy who would be second fiddle to Westbrook. Almost every offseason resource we have needs to be spent on fixing the defense.

While I agree about the defense, bringing Michael Turner in would give me a rager the likes of which have not been seen since Briana Loves Jenna.

mussa · January 17, 2007, 11:47:34 PM

Well the real problem is clear. The coaches are not taking advantage of the players on this team. They want a big play offense, yet do not have receivers or a QB who can do it effectively and consistently. They strives to stop the pass, yet our D-line and DB's have performed much the same as the WR and QB, inconsistent. Not only do they not take advantage of their players, but their schemes are proven schemes that rarely succeed in NFL history.

This team showed great promise torwards the end of the regular season. They ran the ball, effectively, due to calling more run plays and also catching teams of guard by running so much. The run opened up time for Garcia and took pressure off him. The run more importantly gave us control of the clock and gave our small defense much needed time to be fresh. When our D is fresh, they excel. Look at the turnovers and pressure we got in those last few games.

Its so fargin simple its elementary. We have the players to ground and pound, yet we continue to try to be a team that in NFL history does not succeed.

I rest my case and I find the defendant Andy Reid and Co. guilty of neglect. Punishable by firing. Pack your bags and go to Canada or Europe.