1 hour ago, cunninghamtheman said:

The question now is presented to MW. What was the point to be made? Why couldn’t he make his point without relying on me answering about my personal insurance situations?

The answer to that question is simple. You only saw the Pickett trade from one particular angle. The question was designed to get you to voluntarily look at the Pickett trade from a different angle.

31 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

He said he didn't want to go back that far....Shady ...he meant Sanders.

Pay attention

Has there ever been any point where you man up and apologized for being wrong? This wasn’t just a mistake..by you. Totally happened just attempting to correct me…with you being in the wrong. Adding snarking "Pay attention”… all when you were the guy that wasn’t paying attention. Pretty messed up. But doesn’t seem to phase you in the least. Character defining of the Man you are. Is what it is.

24 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Again you show you don’t understand investment. The Eagles investment in Blount produced a ROI of LII

In addition they paid him more than any other team had.

1 ,200,000 isn’t any large investment. You are making my case…no version this supports yours

1 hour ago, cunninghamtheman said:

See…that’s exactly key…you oversimplify and actually might believe it’s a simple yes or no question.

It was a simple yes or no question. Nothing more, nothing less.

25 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Again you show you don’t understand investment. The Eagles investment in Blount produced a ROI of LII

In addition they paid him more than any other team had.

Yes we paid the guy thrown on the garbage heap more than anybody else would. We picked up the very cheap low investment option. Exactly my point.

22 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Thank you for your answer, oblique as it is. A simple "Yes” or "No” would have sufficed.

Your answer shows that you know the value of buying Insurance in order to mitigate Risk. Therefore you understand why Howie brought Pickett on board … Risk mitigation.

Dang…was really hoping you had something much more reasoning I just had t considered. But nope…was as bad as I thought. Actually not even a good comparison and fail on that front…but I gave you the opportunity.

56 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Don’t shove your beliefs on to having to be mine about everything…in this case insurance. Totally not a subject should be expected for me to supply personal information about on this Eagles Board

Almost everyone in the US has car insurance, so giving your "yes” answer didn’t expose anything about you other than the fact that you are like everybody else in this one way. Nothing more, nothing less.

22 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

A contribution to a discussion is listening to the other people.

What’s your. Contribution here? I clearly listen to everything pretty much said on this board. Respond to a high percentage of thoughts shared in fact.

55 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Thank you…this post exactly makes the case towards everything I’m saying instead of the opposite. If it’s the obvious answer? Why did me answering the question ever need to occur in the first place?

It confirmed that you both understood Risk mitigation and had personally taken Risk mitigation steps. Nothing more, nothing less.

25 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

You can always leave?

I have a very solid understanding of being capable of doing as I choose. But thank you for pointing this out anyway.

54 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Exactly wanted to talk about my insurance…a subject really pisses me off

Never wanted to talk about your insurance … and haven’t talked about your insurance. The fact that you worried about that was/is your paranoia talking to you.

56 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

He probably forgot it was so long ago...but I don’t think it was anything to do with your personal history...lol

Never forgot it, which is why I kept asking that simple question.

45 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Sanders was a second round pick. So he was a bad example for you have missed. Being he was the largest investment at the position to make your case based on. I’ll volunteer all this for your sake myself though.

It was a sibilant brain fart.

44 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Who was the return man gadget player? Sproles.

Return Specialist and Gadget RB (not gadget player). Yes Sproles.

27 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Thank you for your answer, oblique as it is. A simple "Yes” or "No” would have sufficed.

Your answer shows that you know the value of buying Insurance in order to mitigate Risk. Therefore you understand why Howie brought Pickett on board … Risk mitigation.

Rosie brought Pickett on because of the conclusions he formed during his very thorough evaluating of Pickett. Terrible QB draft class. Rosie really was believing his biggest need was to find a QB for us. So he gave up a third round pick. Which you’ll learn just how much I value day two of the draft. Believe it’s absolutely crucial.

So I can understand your mitigating risk pint of view. Not saying it’s right in anyway…but can understand the thinking. But in reality we had a better option already. So what he did was waste resources on making our situation lesser. There were mostly just cheaper options at backup QB to choose around the league in that moment. He chose the larger investment. Now that includes pay and draft pick compensation. All this coming with guaranteeing Pickett was the second string QB as part of getting Pickett to agree with it. Now we shipped him out…proving not just based solely on my opinion…but proving our organizations opinion is Tanner is better option than Pickett.

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

Rosie brought Pickett on because of the conclusions he formed during his very thorough evaluating of Pickett. Terrible QB draft class. Rosie really was believing his biggest need was to find a QB for us. So he gave up a third round pick. Which you’ll learn just how much I value day two of the draft. Believe it’s absolutely crucial.

So I can understand your mitigating risk pint of view. Not saying it’s right in anyway…but can understand the thinking. But in reality we had a better option already. So what he did was waste resources on making our situation lesser. There were mostly just cheaper options at backup QB to choose around the league in that moment. He chose the larger investment. Now that includes pay and draft pick compensation. All this coming with guaranteeing Pickett was the second string QB as part of getting Pickett to agree with it. Now we shipped him out…proving not just based solely on my opinion…but proving our organizations opinion is Tanner is better option than Pickett.

So in our Super Season Rosie arranged forcing the lesser second string QB situation. He traded and paid…Pickett….guaranteeing him to be second string as part of the arrangement. Bad mistake. Just shouldn’t have done any of it. Actually created the greatest risk. Our Super Season he put us in the situation where our better option as second string QB couldn’t come in as second string. He traded for and forced, quality wise, our third string QB to be the guy called upon over our second best quality QB.

30 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Then explain any and all if your comments to me? It’s been exactly what you chose to attack me by lashing out about with me over.

His comments weren’t about insurance. They were about how normal people participate in a respectful two-way conversation.

With that said, I want to apologize to you both for being so slow to see and build on Ham's "yes” response. If I hadn’t had so many comments to go through I’d have explained the risk mitigation theme I was pursuing sooner.

32 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

What? Can’t believe this. Rookie contract was that much for one season?

That is what OTC is reporting.

32 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Jamyr Gibbs drafted after in the first round makes less than 2.5 mil a season. You got this completely wrong

I’m simply cutting and pasting what OTC shows. If you think it is wrong you need to take it up with them.

31 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Fact check: totally false…try again..no idea where you got that from

Over the Cap

Now I know…things worked out. It didn’t become the huge clusterF that could have resulted. So for many…it’s just washed away. Huge mistake…didn’t cost us…other than cap money and draft compensation. But…it was our Super Bowl winning season turned out to be at stake with all of this. So importance doesn’t get any higher. We couldn’t call on our second best QB option because of all this occurring. Terrible! Not even like it just happened to us that way…Rosie went out of his way to make that mistake happen. Tanner was already here. He didn’t have the proven line game experience backing him up. That’s true. But he had been here and nobody had a better understanding about Tanner than we did. Practice…PS…we had as good a read on Tanner as possible short of live game experience. Now Pickett had been given every opportunity that Tanner hasn’t been afforded. Conclusion from the Steelers who invested a first round so highly in him…was toss him away. Wasn’t good enough. So experience doesn’t always just trump not experienced. Pickett experience proved out poorly about him in fact. On a very good team….he couldn’t get it done in Pittsburgh. First round pick they gave up on as quickly as any team historically has given up on such and investment. Games, practice…Steelers dealt with reality. He wasn’t good enough…didn’t have it. Terrible use of first round pick by them. But they were correct seeing him in every way just not being good enough. Moving on was the path they rightfully took.

29 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

His largest cap number was when we brought him back sadly in 2018 at 1,907,000. Don’t know what you thought the rest was telling you here? But under 2 mil…that’s your idea of big investment? Feels more like you just making the whole case towards exactly my point instead.

It is an investment pure and simple. You are moving the goal posts by changing the original proposition of "Invested in” to "big investment”.

Further, the ROI of that investment was incredibly big … LII.

So experience from Pickett pointing to negatives of quickly understanding after two seasons he wasn’t the guy…isn’t anything in his favor at all. The exact opposite. Given every opportunity..after such a large investment…Steelers had every reason to have Pickett work out for them. They discarded him after two seasons. That’s bad. Like really very damning about Pickett in fact.

27 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Dang…was really hoping you had something much more reasoning I just had t considered. But nope…was as bad as I thought. Actually not even a good comparison and fail on that front…but I gave you the opportunity.

Imagine a simple yet effective point.

Getting a QB proved with opportunity and experience he wasn’t the guy…is against him as a quality option. Tanner just not given a chance and opportunity is preferred. Like at least he hadn’t proven he’s as bad as Pickett proved. But also myself and several Eagles fans have seen things in Tanner from the start. Solid portion of the fan base believed Tanner was better than Pickett this whole time. So coaches…and mostly talking about Rosie here….had more access than us to what Tanner has been doing all this time not playing in games.