2 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

You keep tacking on to your posts

If Bahktiari is their best OL, then why is he being cut outright? You know which team isn't going to cut their best OL because of a constrained cap situation? 

Cause they had guys step up in his absence so they can replace him. You know depth that you claim they don’t have or not good enough.

When your depth steps up and they’re good, you can then cut a guy who hasn’t played in two years and save yourself the money. Again they were the sixth ranked DVOA offense which was one spot behind the Lions. 

so they lost their best offensive lineman and yet they had the depth to not collapse but still finish one spot behind the lions who lost vaitai who only started 3 games but played in 6. 

 

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

If he's good, you resign him to a team friendly or incentive-based deal. If he is not, then you look elsewhere. Can't have it both ways though and say he's the best OL but also the first to be cut because he hasn't played in two seasons.

I'm not sure what his contract looks like but if he can't stay healthy it makes sense to move on from him. "When" healthy he is their best olinemen

2 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

lions destroyed the packers was inexperienced and in his what 5th career start? They also beat down on the lions, cowboys and chiefs. The reason why it took the Green Bay Packers until midseason to start getting going is because Jordan Love was inexperienced as a starter in the NFL. He had like what 1 game under his belt prior to 2023?

Once they got Jordan love going, the Packer started beating teams that were good. They beat down on the lions later in the year when love had more experience. They beat Kansas City. They beat the crap out of Dallas. they were a missed field goal away from beating San Francisco and going to Detroit.

this they don’t have depth is BS. Aaron Jones missed 6 games and left early in 2, musgrave missed 6, Watson missed 8 (left early in 2), bakhtiari missed the entire year, Runyan missed 6 games, Myers missed 2 and Jenkins missed 2. They were starting a second year 7th rounder at RT. Yet they finished with the 6th ranked offense by dvoa.  One spot behind the vaunted lions 
 

I would love for the Eagles to get Runyan from them. Wishful thinking 

3 hours ago, ManuManu said:

 

Honestly, I think JJ is the best owner any fan of rival NFC East teams could hope for.  If he truly is going all-in, I hope it’s not because he just found out he’s terminal with something.  I actually say that sincerely.  It’s the exact opposite of what he said a year ago regarding his philosophy….he even cited the Rams (actually) and the Eagles (falsely) as bad examples of what not to follow in regards to going ‘all in’

Just now, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Cause they had guys step up in his absence so they can replace him. You now depth that you claim they don’t have. 

Never said they don't have any depth, I just said the Lions had better depth. If he's really their best OL, then sign him to deal laden with performance incentives or roster bonuses for every week he's on the active roster. That is, if have the cap space to make it work. 

1 minute ago, Godfather said:

I'm not sure what his contract looks like but if he can't stay healthy it makes sense to move on from him. "When" healthy he is their best olinemen

Incentives, that's quite literally what they're there for. 

38 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

Zero percent buy that

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Never said they don't have any depth, I just said the Lions had better depth. If he's really their best OL, then sign him to deal laden with performance incentives or roster bonuses for every week he's on the active roster. That is, if have the cap space to make it work. 

They can restructure that contract and keep them if they want to. Why would you keep him though when he’s injury prone and you found two guys along your offensive line that can give you high-level production for much less? So they had their best rb miss 6 weeks and really more he left 2 games early in the game, best tight end miss 6 games, best wr miss 8, best olineman miss an entire season, Runyan their starting guard miss 6, starting center miss 2 and their second best lineman in Jenkins miss 2 weeks. yet had good enough depth with an inexperienced Qb to finish 1 spot behind the lines in DVOA offense  

again, the lions only finished one spot ahead of the Packers in DVOA offense and the packers are going to be one of the teams with the highest games lost due to injury in the nfl. 

Just now, ToastJenkins said:

Zero percent buy that

Wasn't there a report that Lowie wasn't a fan of his? I agree

8 minutes ago, Godfather said:

Who's another Michigan player you want them to draft? 

Zinter, Junior Colson, Mike Sainristil 

Mostly the defense guys, they were taught by an NFL DC, and a school with good development. Three of the four guys were 3 stars. 

7 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

they were a missed field goal away from beating San Francisco and going to Detroit.

They lost the game by 3 pts

Or is there a new rule where the Packers automatically win all games in OT by default?

1 minute ago, ToastJenkins said:

Zero percent buy that

How could anyone buy that.  Was Howie going to be sent to Siberia?  That’s the only way Bill would’ve been a consideration here

Just now, McMVP said:

How could anyone buy that.  Was Howie going to be sent to Siberia?  That’s the only way Bill would’ve been a consideration here

Would've been nice if he was sent there

5 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Why would you keep him though when he’s injury prone and you found two guys along your offensive line that can give you high-level production for much less?

Because you literally just claimed he was their best OL. If he's truly that good, you find a way to structure the terms into a one-year "prove it" deal to protect the team from him missing a bunch of games again. But if you're too cap constrained to consider that, then I guess that's not an option.

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

They lost the game by 3 pts

Or is there a new rule where the Packers automatically win all games in OT by default?

cause the like blowing a 17 point lead is better? They lost by the same amount of points as the lions with a Qb in his second ever playoff game. 

Just now, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

cause the like blowing a 17 point lead is better? They lost by the same amount of points as the lions with a Qb in his second ever playoff game. 

now you're moving the goalposts again. 

4 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Because you literally just claimed he was their best OL. If he's truly that good, you find a way to structure the terms into a one-year "prove it" deal to protect the team from him missing a bunch of games again. 

this is a BS argument. You don’t keep a guy at 33 even if he’s your best OLineman if he can’t stay healthy and on the field. Thats what the eagles did with peters and it was dumb. Especially when you have 2 guys who proved they are competent starters and can save money to spend elsewhere. 

6 minutes ago, McMVP said:

How could anyone buy that.  Was Howie going to be sent to Siberia?  That’s the only way Bill would’ve been a consideration here

Its his agent trying to distract that BB is a giant arsehole

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

now you're moving the goalposts again. 

Excuse me you changed the entire argument from talking about packers depth then starting a convo because i said they likely win/go to overtime against SF if their kicker could make a fg.  Jfc you cherry picked that part when the convo was about depth which the Packers had more injuries than the Lions, and yet sustained an offense that was 1 spot worse than lions with a Qb in his first year as a starter lol  

Just now, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

this is a BS argument. You don’t keep a guy at 33 even if he’s your best OLineman if he can’t stay healthy and on the field. Thats what the eagles did with peters and it was dumb. 

Again... If he's good, you structure the terms to protect against injury. It literally happens all the time. I'm one breath you say he's the best OL and him going down was a blow to the team, and in the next breath you imply he's washed up and not worth a one-year prove it deal. You can't have it both ways, bud.

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Again... If he's good, you structure the terms to protect against injury. It literally happens all the time. I'm one breath you say he's the best OL and him going down was a blow to the team, and in the next breath you imply he's washed up and not worth a one-year prove it deal. You can't have it both ways, bud.

again why would i pay a guy who’s unreliable to stay healthy even if i can restructure his contract when i had two guys prove they could be nfl level starters and the offense was able to still sustain success? So we should just pay him because he’s the best offensive lineman even though he’s probably gonna miss half or maybe all of the season. This is eagles Jason peters logic. That’s called bad use of your resources. He is still talented but I’m not paying a guy all the money when he can’t stay healthy and i have viable depth options to replace him and their depth proved to be good enough. 

5 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Excuse me you changed the entire argument from talking about packers depth then starting a convo because i said they likely go to overtime against SF if their kicker could make a fg.  Jfc you cherry picked that part when the convo was about depth which the Packers had more injuries than the Lions, and yet sustained an offense that was 1 spot worse than lions with a Qb in his first year as a starter lol  

Trying to get you to keep the facts straight, first it was only 23 players under contract in 2024, which was incorrect, then you claimed I said the Packers had no depth at all, also false, then it's the Packers being a missed FG away from beating the Niners, again incorrect. 

1 minute ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

again why would i pay a guy who’s unreliable to stay healthy even if i can restructure his contract when i had two guys prove they could be nfl level starters and the offense was able to still sustain success? So we should just pay him because he’s the best office lineman even though he’s probably gonna miss half or maybe all of the season. That’s called bad use of your resources. F is still super talented but I’m not paying a guy all the money that he wants when he can’t stay healthy and i have viable depth options to replace him. 

You keep framing this in binary terms. "You pay him" vs "you don't pay him", conveniently ignoring the fact that incentive-based deals exist for a reason.

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

Trying to get you to keep the facts straight, first it was only 23 players under contract in 2024, which was incorrect, then you claimed I said the Packers had no depth at all, also false, then it's the Packers being a missed FG away from beating the Niners, again incorrect. 

You want to talk about moving goal posts now? 

23 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Zero percent buy that

He also said Siri was fired, wrong there too