Jump to content

mjkvol

Members
  • Content Count

    9,188
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,091 Starter

About mjkvol

  • Rank
    Hall-of-Famer

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Team
    Eagles
  • Fan Since
    Birth

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don't trust or really have the slightest regard for the media, to say the very least, as anyone who knows me from these boards will attest. The story just coincides with the Roseman I have always pictured from everything we've ever heard about him, going back to the Reid years. You're right, it could all be a bunch of made up garbage by someone with a hard on about something, but it just fits the viewpoint I've always had so perfectly that I tend to believe a lot of it is true. I could be way off base, but I don't think so.
  2. I don't necessarily disagree with that last part, but from day one Pederson was all about calling plays, so it seems that he saw that as a condition of taking the job. Regarding the first part, please stop. There's a huge difference between what fans and even the media say, and your GM, who never played the game or coached at any level, calling you after every game in to interrogate you about play calling and in-game strategy. If you can't see that, there's no point having a discussion.
  3. By far the most disturbing part of all of that is the idea of Roseman having the unmitigated balls to criticize and question Pederson's coaching. Roseman, who has singlehandedly decimated this roster, transforming a solid team that had an otherworldly Super Bowl run into a laughingstock. And what the f***k does Roseman know about play calling and strategy, anyway? Pederson should have picked him up, walked him into Lurie's office, piledrived the twerp on Lurie's desk, and told Lurie that if he had any more questions about clock management he could stick the job up his ass. The funny thing is that nothing I read is remotely surprising, and actually fits what I've always felt that Roseman is about. Nothing about Lurie is surprising, either, as the way he set Kelly up for failure (he would have failed just fine on his own), ran him out of here and reinstated Roseman was very telling, as was the emotional intelligence and collaborative decision making idiocy.
  4. I was referring to the two biggest games, which is what anyone who thinks about that season is mainly going to remember. Foles made the defense irrelevant in the NFCCG, and his play overcame the awful defense in the SB.
  5. Sure, you can win despite an average QB (Dilfer, etc.) or if an average QB gets hot (Flacco, Manning), but I'm talking about building a team for sustained success, like the Patriots with Brady, the Packers with Rodgers, the Saints with Brees, the Seahawks with Wilson, etc. They might not win the SB every year (the Pats excepted), but they always enter a season with a shot and they are generally always playoff teams. You just essentially said it in your post - "If they draft well, they build a really good young roster" - and you also added the elephant in the room that a lot of people want to pretend isn't there - Roseman. I can't play the make believe "if "Howie" drafts well" game any more, because it's a fairy tale at this point. 2017 is looking more and more like an anomaly with every passing year, and unless Lurie has an awakening the Eagles are not only going to waste the potential of Wentz and Hurts, but throw away a treasure trove of draft capital next year. Foles is a bad example. He lit it up in both the NFCCG and SB, and actually beat the Pats despite the hideous defense allowing Brady to throw for 500 (!) yards. And while the Ravens had a good defense that year, it was Flacco's play that won in those playoffs, check his numbers. The best example is Manning, and the fact that it happened twice is almost impossible to believe. They had a perfect storm twice, and both times it was the defense beating up on Brady that won those games, but Manning got the prize because there were no other choices.
  6. That nails it. Hurts is a hard worker, a smart kid, a winner, and a leader. But from watching a ton of his games in college, I just never had a feeling that this was a guy who could be an upper echelon NFL QB. I believe he can be a starter in the league, good enough to have a long career but not a guy who you are going to build a championship team around. Hope I'm wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it.
  7. And they possibly don't have that record with a different QB. This hasn't been an example of an elite defense carrying a putrid offense, and a primary reason their run game is so explosive is the threat that Jackson poses. Listen, I don't want that kind of QB for my team because I don't believe you can win playoff games that way, but this argument that the kid sucks is utterly ridiculous. He has proven he can win games in the league to the point where one of the better run franchises has built an offense around him. Can it last and can he improve enough to win playoff games? I have my doubts, but to say he's a 'bad' QB is asinine.
  8. I don't disagree with any of that, I was addressing your description of Jackson as a 'bad' QB. He isn't the kind of QB I would want or draft as my franchise guy, because I don't believe you can win a title with him unless he is at least functional from the pocket. But the fact remains that the Ravens have built that offense around Jackson and they are 31-8 in the regular season since he took over. Elite defense or not, if he was a 'bad' QB they would not be having that kind of success the way the game is played today.
  9. Last I checked, it's about the W/L, not individual stats. The Ravens are 31-8 with him over the last three years. If they could have that with a 'bad' QB most teams would take it in a heartbeat. I feel he needs to improve a bit from the pocket if they are going to win a championship, but to win that consistently with the offense built around him? Calling that 'bad' is kind of ridiculous.
  10. For any team with sound, sensible management that drafts well it would be an awful trade you would never consider. Sadly, we don't have that here, which is why mortgaging the farm for a "sure thing" at QB seems like a possibility.
  11. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if at some point the Eagles make a run for Russell Wilson if it turns out the Hurts doesn't appear to be the franchise QB they are hoping he becomes. In fact, if nothing changes in Seattle this season it would surprise me if that didn't happen. Even Lurie at some point has to accept the reality that trusting his valet with the kind of draft capital the Eagles might have to go after yet another rookie QB is a hell of a lot riskier than paying a king's ransom for pretty much a sure thing. In fact, why not make that call now and give them Hurts and a boatload of picks before it's known whether Hurts can be the guy? It's not happening, but just stirring the pot a bit.
  12. That's essentially what I said. I offered an opinion, which the last time I checked is the purpose of forums like this. The last one "turned out" that way under the watch of the current management, which allowed the roster to crater around him. Being in a great position to draft yet another QB would be fine if the draft wasn't being run by the same clown whose previous two QB picks (if Hurts isn't the guy) failed. And planning around the idea that previous QB picks failed isn't exactly a recipe for future success.
  13. He might achieve that by default due to the massive roster deterioration on his watch.
  14. That will only happen if it would end up costing the Eagles the #1 pick.
×
×
  • Create New...