5 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

He isn’t that good…but he’s not that bad either.

This is spot on!  

5 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Sure…over and over you preached how you shouldn’t pay a Rb it’s all Oline. Even posted showing how the last so many SBs their RB room weren’t making over like 4 mil for the entire position group. But now you want to completely 180 and state this.

I'm not paying " RBs " ... I'm paying Barkley. 

5 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Rosie ignored and wouldn’t pay the LBs. Fangio stepped in and changed the culture. Identifies the right guy and brought him in. Targeted DBs and brought them in. Took the next to worst pass D and made them the best D in the whole league.

When was the last time we had the best LB in the league? 

When was the last time we had the best RB in the league or the best LB in the league.  

Steve Van Buren and Chuck Bednerik are probably the answers.  

5 hours ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Who said offenses had to be complex to score?

I think it was great that the bye week came week 5... the players spoke and wanted that simple offense and they were dominant!  

Was such a fun season to watch.

4 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

He has a great O mind and coach. So yeah I see what can happen with quality coaching.

What happened the last two games when it was actually a little competition?  Minnesota absolutely didn't look like a great O mind was running anything at the end.

4 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

They need to be versatile enough to win in the multiple situations…against the good teams.

Like the Eagles were doing since week 7.   I agree. 

1 hour ago, joemas6 said:

What happened the last two games when it was actually a little competition?  Minnesota absolutely didn't look like a great O mind was running anything at the end.

Difference in just being a 14 win regular season team and…how good you are at the end. Somehow you did notice that with the Vikings.

1 hour ago, joemas6 said:

I'm not paying " RBs " ... I'm paying Barkley. 

That’s why you fought against my idea of getting the best RB we could

1 hour ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Difference in just being a 14 win regular season team and…how good you are at the end. Somehow you did notice that with the Vikings.

Vikings weren't really beating anyone.... Eagles were beating playoff teams.  Ravens, Rams,Packers,  Washington, Steelers... different continents... back to back away games.... in dominant fashion.  

Just now, joemas6 said:

Vikings weren't really beating anyone.... Eagles were beating playoff teams.  Ravens, Rams,Packers,  Washington, Steelers... different continents... back to back away games.... in dominant fashion.  

Even putting up 70 points in 7 quarters with their back up QBs.

1 hour ago, cunninghamtheman said:

That’s why you fought against my idea of getting the best RB we could

You wanted to pay Sanders $6 mil.  I wasn't interested.  Wasn't interested in paying Swift either.   

Wasn't interested in paying Queen either.   You were desperate to pay decent players...  Baun and Barkley weren't the best we could.... they are the best in the league...big difference. 

11 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

They need to be versatile enough to win in the multiple situations…against the good teams.

So where did we fail? You seem to know it all

5 hours ago, joemas6 said:

You wanted to pay Sanders $6 mil.  I wasn't interested.  Wasn't interested in paying Swift either.   

Wasn't interested in paying Queen either.   You were desperate to pay decent players...  Baun and Barkley weren't the best we could.... they are the best in the league...big difference. 

See this is why I can’t use examples and just always knew because of YOU I have to stay vague. Because any examples I use to prove points you turn into spin. And you know exactly that’s what I was doing. Theoretical stating I don’t have a problem overpaying a player after finding all the best values that could be found. This is just dumb talk…and I said right then this is what you were going to do.  Sanders was obviously just gone. I didn’t even want to keep him. His situational football wasn’t good. 
  My view was always why wouldn’t you get the best RB you can possibly get.

1 hour ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

So where did we fail? You seem to know it all

We didn’t…where did you miss I’ve repeatedly stated we did have enough at the end. 

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

We didn’t…where did you miss I’ve repeatedly stated we did have enough at the end. 

From before week one all the way to the end I knew we were going to need all we could get done with Moore’s o

5 hours ago, joemas6 said:

You wanted to pay Sanders $6 mil.  I wasn't interested.  Wasn't interested in paying Swift either.   

Wasn't interested in paying Queen either.   You were desperate to pay decent players...  Baun and Barkley weren't the best we could.... they are the best in the league...big difference. 

I was totally interested in Queen. Really wasn’t thinking we had a complete championship roster while ignoring the LB position group last season. This season I actually had another LB in mind. But already was understanding this was a strength of Fangio and was trusting in him to take care of getting the LB…he’s very well known for doing.

So actually we have a coach known for picking out and developing LB very well….should we have paid Bain all that money? Fourth highest paid off ball LB ….when having a coach known for taking pretty much nobodies and getting them to balm.

1 hour ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

So where did we fail? You seem to know it all

We had a hiccup vs Carolina...QB had a bad game, Still put up 22 points.  That was coming off two huge road wins.  It happens,  you can't play well EVERY week. 

First playoff game nobody had practiced together for weeks... not surprisingly it didn't look great.

Rams game was 28 with two missed extra points,  Lane had a false start inside the 1, Becton had a dumb penalty that cost us a first and goal,  AJ dropped a pass inside the 2.

The offense clearly was good enough to put up close to 50 that game.  Then continued to roll at the end.

The style they played is the one that made it more difficult for the opposing defense to stop....that's the goal, to make it difficult for the opponent to stop.

You got to the end and KC sold out to stop Barkley, and we see what happened.  

 

54 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

See this is why I can’t use examples and just always knew because of YOU I have to stay vague. Because any examples I use to prove points you turn into spin. And you know exactly that’s what I was doing. Theoretical stating I don’t have a problem overpaying a player after finding all the best values that could be found. This is just dumb talk…and I said right then this is what you were going to do.  Sanders was obviously just gone. I didn’t even want to keep him. His situational football wasn’t good. 
  My view was always why wouldn’t you get the best RB you can possibly get.

It's not dumb talk...there is a difference with your idea of just throwing money at a position...and when you have the best player at the position you decide to pay them. 

Paying any RB or any LB is not the same as paying the 1st team All Pros at those positions. 

You are paying the elite of the elite,  the very best ... not " the best we could" 

55 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

We didn’t…where did you miss I’ve repeatedly stated we did have enough at the end. 

We had enough all year! 

The Eagles scored 34 vs Dallas and 27 vs Pittsburgh....winning comfortably... with Barkley getting 14 carries for 66 yards...and 19 carries for 65 yards 

Obviously that's dominant offense without relying on Barkley. 

So this...." i was right at the end BS"  we showed we could win, score big...without Barkley having to light it up.  

We lit up the scoreboard with backup QBs.

All season from week 7 but one game....it wasn't " at the end " it was all year since week 7.

The idea ... make the defense focus on stopping the run.  Then we can do anything from there.

 

 

16 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

It's not dumb talk...there is a difference with your idea of just throwing money at a position...and when you have the best player at the position you decide to pay them. 

Paying any RB or any LB is not the same as paying the 1st team All Pros at those positions. 

You are paying the elite of the elite,  the very best ... not " the best we could" 

Your dumb talk was it wax all Oline…gotta be committe and shouldn’t pay more than 4.5 mil to the whole RB room…since that’s what past champions had done. You wanted Gainwell…and whomever else committed approach…because you said ot didn’t matter. 
 But glad you came around after Saquan proved you wrong Saq 2K I’m sure changed more than just your mind.

17 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

We had enough all year! 

We had it…once we got it there. It was a work in progress.

7 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

The Eagles scored 34 vs Dallas and 27 vs Pittsburgh....winning comfortably... with Barkley getting 14 carries for 66 yards...and 19 carries for 65 yards 

Obviously that's dominant offense without relying on Barkley. 

So this...." i was right at the end BS"  we showed we could win, score big...without Barkley having to light it up.  

We lit up the scoreboard with backup QBs.

All season from week 7 but one game....it wasn't " at the end " it was all year since week 7.

The idea ... make the defense focus on stopping the run.  Then we can do anything from there.

 

 

Steelers game was the game I was really in hallelujah mode about obviously