Abdul Carter…watch some film on this kid. He’s a beast!

3 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

So many touches last season. He never has been the picture of durability like Peterson. It’s a clear concern for me.

We got Dillon to spell him some,where have you been?

3 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

My top WR was Brian Thomas. 10 TDs 1282 yards

JJ blew that away his rook year,the year you wanted Reagor and we got your guy LMAO

2 hours ago, mattwill said:

They weren’t gifted. They earned. The Draft choices in reverse order of record has been a fixture for decades.

Stop using logic, it's not going to work in Hamityville

Rosie was trying to trade all the way up to 22 for Jihad. Things worked out pretty well for us.

2 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

JJ blew that away his rook year,the year you wanted Reagor and we got your guy LMAO

That year I was big on Ceedee

1 minute ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Stop using logic, it's not going to work in Hamityville

I never said anything about bad teams drafting first at all. No idea where that even came from

2 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Same thing with Reddick. Rosie was correct about reading the market. So he proved it. Year ahead of actually dealing with the situation Rosie already was planning for who to replace Redick with. Huff was a bad decision. Had all the signs of he was puffed up with surrounding cast and system coaching.

Did Reddick get a ring last year? Fangio doesn't need Huff

46 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I don’t like pulling things back and playing not to lose. I much more believe in coaching up confidence and doing their best.

LMAO we pulled our guys out for 2 entire games and they still ran amok(yeah without Hurts) We have NP scoring. With basically the same players why would that fall off unless we went back to letting your boy toss picks all game? Our Defense is solid. IDK what you are worried about,we are still the defensing SB champs

Just now, GreenbleedinNC said:

LMAO we pulled our guys out for 2 entire games and they still ran amok(yeah without Hurts) We have NP scoring. With basically the same players why would that fall off unless we went back to letting your boy toss picks all game? Our Defense is solid. IDK what you are worried about,we are still the defensing SB champs

The NFC goes through Philly unless we seriously muck it up

9 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I never said anything about bad teams drafting first at all. No idea where that even came from

SO the gnats got " a wrecking ball" yet you said Lane can handle him fine,so which is it? You play both sides like this all the time

4 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I’m not hearing anything hear but expecting Saquan to duplicate his greatest all time season. Which all history suggests that never happens

Duplication comes in many forms. I tend to agree that duplicating the numbers is unlikely (for many reasons), but duplicating the domination and the debilitating effect on the opponents, and the feeling of self worth of his O-Line teammates is (in my opinion) highly likely to happen.

1 hour ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Can go over it as many times as you like

And you will be wrong every time

1 hour ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Had Reagor and Quez as starting WR. Low talent roster. A green HC. Nobody survives that situation. Hurts changed the whole franchise emerging from that impossible situation

Right as I said Hurts success is based on the SUPPORTING CAST

1 hour ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I’ve always stated I care about how a QB can play with a good team. You compared Fields to Hurts. Just because Fields could make something out of bad situations. Which really doesn’t matter much at all.

LOL he never had a team like we built for Hurts,he still doesn't so no way to know

1 hour ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I’m specifically talking about them drafting a complete stud pass rusher. Not sure how anybody jumped way over to that kind of conclusion.

SO why worry about crap you cant change? Really mind boggling how far out there you get. Nobody said the kid wasn't good. draft order is draft order And?

37 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Duplication comes in many forms. I tend to agree that duplicating the numbers is unlikely (for many reasons), but duplicating the domination and the debilitating effect on the opponents, and the feeling of self worth of his O-Line teammates is (in my opinion) highly likely to happen.

Henry getting up there, I fully expect Bark to lead the leagues RB's again. Duplication not necessary. We got Dillon to take some heat off him and extend his tire wear. Maybe give Ship or Montrell some garbage time snaps. I'm fine with preserving Bark

1 hour ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Rosie was trying to trade all the way up to 22 for Jihad. Things worked out pretty well for us.

Howie, please show him the respect he would show you, was doing the job Lurie pays him to do … explore all possibilities. The only way to do that is to work the phones. When a call gets placed, you never know what will come of it, Ben Franklin went to Paris with certain goals, as well as a strategy of asking the French for twice as much as he actually wanted. That way when he was offered "half a loaf” by the French, he got everything he had wanted. Howie understands Old Ben’s wily ways very well. He also understands how to use straw men effectively … giving others the satisfaction of the opportunity to turn him down. Further, you can’t know what the other side values unless you talk to them.

Lurie’s phone call with Jihaad was marvelous theater. "We have been working on getting you for over an hour” was nominally accurate but a near complete dissembling … flattery, perhaps even gratuitous flattery, designed to blow smoke up Campbell’s skirt.

JMO

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/three-takeaways-from-eagles-rookie-camp/ar-AA1Ea37G?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=ab1faa6739544432f4349bf6819e075e&ei=21

9 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Bradberry. Huff. Those were Rosie decisions. Those were arguably the worst decisions that were made here.

Which GM would you prefer to have? With

10 hours ago, mattwill said:

I understand the assumptions. I just think they skew the base data. Because Howie uses void years and the Pats do not, your approach compares apples to oranges. The purchase price is the purchase price no matter whether you pay it all at once (the Pats’ approach) or in installments (Howie’s approach).

The base data...base common data is the 4 years

You want to compare what's showing now for Cam in years 5 and 6.... $15 mil in 2029 and a $28 mil void year.... that's $43 mil for 2 years.

Milton is getting paid $26 mil per year... you don't give him a raise that would be another $52 million for those years?

That's why you can't look beyond year 4. You want to show expense for Cam...which can easily come down with an extension...but you show zero for Williams when clearly if he plays, he ain't playing for free.

So for now.. we only cab compare the 4 years in common.

In 4 years from now... we can look and see what will happen going forward once Milton finishes his contract and we see what happens with Cam's deal. But it's too much to assume now.

What we know for sure... the Pats have a $104 cap hit for Milton from 2025-28....and the Eagles have $30 mil for Cam.

Milton is a blank page after that... Cam is showing $43 mil for the next 2 years, but we know that will change. He will either get cut before 2029 or he will get an extension to lower the cap hit while he gets guaranteed money.

For now... Cam is $74 mil cheaper than Milton until 2029. If both players are good... Cam will be a bargain at $15 mil in 2029... Williams might go up from $26 that year??? Who knows.

5 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Sure the playing not to lose approach worked out. That isn’t any proof of just unleashing our gifted O wouldn’t have worked just the same.

Proof... 5 times Hurts passed 30 or more times per game. 113 total points... with 34 coming week 1 ( when you say they had to get used to the Moore O) game 1 was the best game where Hurts threw 30 or more times.

22.6 points per game. If you take week 1 out ...it drops to 79 points in 4 games... 19.75 points per game.

Compare to the games where Hurts threw less than 25 times ( NOT counting the games he threw 25 to 29 times which includes the NFC title game ...28 passes and 55 points)

So those 10 games where he threw 24 or less times... they scored 300 points. 30 per game.

The offense was unleashed once they stopped passing so much. Hurts is more effective the less he throws. The more the other team falls asleep on his passing, the better he does

You want to look at the slow starts...very simple...go look at the high amount of pass plays early in games. Once we run, that's when the O clicks. And the beauty is, just like the Superbowl, the run doesn't even have to be highly productive... it just needs to command the attention and focus of the opposing defense. Then a few throws at the right time, and boom....offense unleashed!

The Andy Reid mindset is that running the ball is playing not to lose. Just as dumb as building a defense to play with the lead when every game starts 0-0. 🤦

12 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I wish for nothing but to agree with you. But I’m breaking things down much more specifically at our two year contending window laid out right in front of us. Lane and Saquan have two more years in them. Several other factors….but those two players are key enough to stay real focused on being all about winning now.

But for a contending window...you would prefer not to pay a pro bowl center an average$7.5 mil for the next 4 years ...you would prefer to start over at the position?

You actually lowered Cam's cap hit this year by extending him.

12 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

The usual of how great the inflation numbers rise….actually doesn’t apply to C. Big time push the numbers C…just inked a new deal. But again…you love the actually pay for play weighted so heavy at the backend of the deal.

Yeah....the $15 mil in 2029 isn't really getting me nervous... I mean look at where $15 mil Cap hit is compared to the centers in these next few seasons.

Besides....I thought the idea is to win now ..right?

You just seem to contradict yourself all the time. I show you the numbers on Cam...peanuts ... a decent cap hit ( still lower than multiple centers will have in 2025 and 2026... won't occur until 2029...which can still be lowered with an extension to a player who would turn 30 in August of 2029.

Now you say all the centers have been paid? Like there won't be any good young centers bumping up the market these next few seasons??? Lol. Come on now. The game evolves, players will always be getting paid.

11 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

So many more factors surrounding Milton. It was a crap FA class. He’s no elite stud. But he is a player hitting his peak years of career they will be paying for instead of paying for past performance.

You can't overpay players that much. You can't upset the scale. Just because you have money to spend, spending it unwisely isn't going to win anything. You have to pay players according to their worth. You overpay one, then the guy who is better needs to be paid more.

Look at any team in the salary cap era... you can't win paying elite money to only solid players. You can buy your way temporarily put of being bad...but you can't overspend as a basis to win a title. It's not a method that builds a solid foundation. You spend to put the finishing touches. But even then it's not $26 mil for Milton Williams .

7 hours ago, joemas6 said:

Which GM would you prefer to have? With

The base data...base common data is the 4 years

You want to compare what's showing now for Cam in years 5 and 6.... $15 mil in 2029 and a $28 mil void year.... that's $43 mil for 2 years.

Milton is getting paid $26 mil per year... you don't give him a raise that would be another $52 million for those years?

That's why you can't look beyond year 4. You want to show expense for Cam...which can easily come down with an extension...but you show zero for Williams when clearly if he plays, he ain't playing for free.

So for now.. we only cab compare the 4 years in common.

In 4 years from now... we can look and see what will happen going forward once Milton finishes his contract and we see what happens with Cam's deal. But it's too much to assume now.

What we know for sure... the Pats have a $104 cap hit for Milton from 2025-28....and the Eagles have $30 mil for Cam.

Milton is a blank page after that... Cam is showing $43 mil for the next 2 years, but we know that will change. He will either get cut before 2029 or he will get an extension to lower the cap hit while he gets guaranteed money.

For now... Cam is $74 mil cheaper than Milton until 2029. If both players are good... Cam will be a bargain at $15 mil in 2029... Williams might go up from $26 that year??? Who knows.

That is one way to look at it … an Income Statement approach rather than a Balance Sheet approach.

Businesses and individuals and families use both approaches. Both have strengths and weaknesses.

The Income Statement approach you have used looks at things narrowly … in time increments that are simple to understand. However, simplicity has its drawbacks. It doesn’t account for "pre-spent” obligations. For a person or family or business who rents their accommodations, the lease almost always includes periods of time that are not in the simple income Statement period. If the accommodations are owned rather than rented there typically is a mortgage, and the mortgage payments/obligations extend well past the simple Income Statement period. Car Loan and Car Lease payments are other examples.

The key with all these is that they are contractual obligations that in a Balance Sheet appear under Liabilities. They are no longer Cash. And the Asset that they acquired the rights to is "encumbered.”

The first two years of the Jurgens contract, which appear as low dollars in the respective annual Income Statements are not from the current contract. They have existed in the Balance Sheet as encumbered assets and contractual liabilities for several years.

The new Jurgens contract does not commence for two years. Magazine or Internet Application subscriptions work the same way. The decision whether or not to extend the subscription is (1) made independently of the existing subscription, with (2) the knowledge that the money you are making the decision about pre-spending ($68 million in the case of Jurgens) will not be due and payable for the next two years. But no matter how you cut it, you are still on the hook for the $68 million.

In life for most problems there is no single "right” answer. Rather, there are many right answers depending on how you "frame” the problem, and the framing that we choose is more often than not the one that is either most convenient or easiest to understand. Worrying about all those mortgage payments when you are deciding whether to buy a new car can be "inconvenient” for you, but crucially important to the bank. Your "right” answer is to buy the car. The bank’s "right” answer is that the car purchase will mean there is increased risk you won’t be able to pay the mortgage. You say yes because of your framing. The bank says no because of their framing.

Your explanation above is both simple and convenient, but it isn’t thorough.