35 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

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.

I agree with you that that is your point, but it is not the point I originally made, which again was:

2 hours ago, mattwill said:

Invested in Swift

Invested in Sanders

Invested in Ajayi

Invested in Blount

40th overall pick the Saints took Shough. Tanner easily a better option for Moore than Shough. So that’s the floor for what they’d have given us in a trade. 40th overall pick in the second round. That’s something worth considering. I’ve been high on Tanner. But 40th pick? Believing he’s better option by far for them than Shough…meaning…all signs point towards they’d given up even more than just the 40 pick for Tanner. I’d have been working on that trade if I was Rosie.

So going through all that believing in Tanner. I actually would have kept Pickett and actually reaped the benefits of the move this season. Instead of the negative circumstances we endured last season. Grabbed a rookie QB this draft. Targeted him in fact. So he’d have that competition in Pickett needed to earn any promotion.

Just couldn’t shoot down trading Tanner for the 40th pick plus a little something sweet on top.

4 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

The large portion of fan base strongly believing Tanner was better…was proven correct. He wasn’t even afforded any fair competition to earn the second string job last season. Wasn’t ever on the table. Now my opinion…so many other Eagles fans opinions? You can not believe are worthy enough to value. But now…very next season…shipped Pickett out for a QB won’t even make the roster. Just got him out of the way…because our organization showed they acknowledge Pickett was a mistake. Tanner is better. No other reason they get rid of Pickett like they did. Heck I was thinking keep Pickett just in case we get that mega offer for Tanner. Moore and the Saints really would get a huge boost adding Tanner. They invested big in Shough. Because he was considered most NFL ready draft prospect. Can’t believe he’d be ahead of Tanner for Moore though.

A large portion of the fanbase understands the Eagles just won the Superbowl

They realize Roman Wilson and two 7th round picks for Shipley, DTR and a better 7th round pick is probably in the Eagles favor

They also realize that McKee got to run scout team and helped the team during the season.

But then again....a large portion of the fanbase doesn't look to complain about meaningless stuff.

It is what it is.

27 minutes ago, 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.

None of what you have said above acknowledges the risk of going wit Tanner as the QB2. Howie chose to mitigate that risk. His risk mitigation did absolutely no harm to Tanner. He is in EXACTLY the same spot today … QB2 on the Eagles roster … as he would have been if your risky course of action had been taken.

Howie’s choice fits squarely in the category of "no harm, no foul.”

With the above said, given your clearly articulated assessment of the Pickett decision, is there any reason why you don’t cancel your car insurance using that same logic?

13 minutes ago, mattwill said:

But Ham, he wasn’t wrong. Look at the original comment of mine below. No mention of Sproles anywhere. Please note that I have corrected my original sibilant brain fart and changed the incorrect word "Shady” to the correct word "Sanders.”

Remember...when Ham says something..he is correcting you because he wants to help you.

But when you correct him....it's an attack.

2 minutes ago, mattwill said:

None of what you have said above acknowledges the risk of going wit Tanner as the QB2. Howie chose to mitigate that risk. His risk mitigation did absolutely no harm to Tanner. He is in EXACTLY the same spot today … QB2 on the Eagles roster … as he would have been if your risky course of action had been taken.

Howie’s choice fits squarely in the category of "no harm, no foul.”

With the above said, given your clearly articulated assessment of the Pickett decision, is there any reason why you don’t cancel your car insurance using that same logic?

Dude....don't talk about car insurance....you may cause a mass shooting

I can’t concrete for sure state this trade was in the bag to be had. But almost everything surrounding ..everything…suggests where my opinion about it is coming from. So everything about Pickett from Rosie he screwed up. Put out Super season in jeopardy bringing him in guaranteeing he wouldn’t be subjected to earning anything or competing. Because he would have lost if that occurred. Wasn’t glaringly huge margin difference. But enough many Eagles fans believed along with me Tanner was better. But then also got rid of Pickett this season when he actually had value and could have worked out for us. Could have afforded to trade Tanner so much more. Tough spot now for us to do it. Saints already used that 40th pick forced to chase Shough. Yet…I’m not doubting they still will be facing much rather have Tanner. So after the 40th pick chasing QB…still believe they likely come back offering to get Tanner from us. Without Pickett makes things so much more difficult for us to do now though. Bad move…moves….two years in a row just woth Pickett.

30 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

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.

On March 16, 2024 what evidence existed that Tanner was a better QB2 than Pickett?

Belief and knowledge are two different things. Both you and I had the BELIEF that Tanner was better, but we had no evidence to introduce in Court to show that our belief was knowledge.

I like you would have taken the risk and installed Tanner as QB2, but it would have been universally seen as a BIG risk.

1 hour ago, joemas6 said:

Wow...so you didn't need a deep dive into Ham's personal insurance history.

Wow... just a simple example to show the analogy of having a veteran back up.

Are you sure there wasn't a deeper meaning. Ham sacrificed....such a major one...to answer this. There was no E = MC2 or anything Sigmond Freud would have to write a book about?

Just the example of insurance as back up players. Wow, I didn't know things could be that simple. 🙄

Bad comparison and example all the way

1 hour ago, mattwill said:

See above.

Fail..on all levels. Gave you the opportunity though. Over and over this was made such a big deal as I needed to answer a bad question …so you could make a bad comparison …

All you just should have plainly given on your own without relying on me answering about my car insurance. Just make your point…never needed anything about my car insurance there at all

Trying to just avoid the millions of ways it’s a bad comparison and the issues insurance presents in our society

It’s the law I have to be insured and pay so much money for insurance in so many ways. Maybe a touch of risk management. Really risk management is supplied by what I do to lower the risks with my actions instead of buying insurance.

Not driving super fast running red lights while paying attention to everything going on is my risk management.

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

Not driving super fast running red lights while paying attention to everything going on is my risk management.

I didn’t just forsake risky actions because I’m insured.

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

I didn’t just forsake risky actions because I’m insured.

Don’t see insurance like that at all. Still can lose points or my license for making driving errors. Have to pay insurance company in any occurrence I actually do make any claims with them. Deductible. Actually my thoughts are…if I have to make a claim…and get ticketed for any wrong actions…my understanding is my insurance costs will rise accordingly. I more have fear about insurance than it managing my risks. I screw up…insurance might not even cover me enough and I get screwed. But no doubts everything involved just going to cost me more money having to be insured.

A better example would be why you should become incorporated as a business. That’s risk management reasons. Just for me to be helpful towards your attempted point.

But the situation was forcing you to drive a car less safe …like lesser braking system while also not being structurally as sound a vehicle in the event of an accident. What was it the Fiero? The little cheaper sports looking kind of car..ripoff. Things caught on fire and were tiny with worst ratings of safety in accidents. Pickett was the Fiero. Kind of cheap looking knockoff towards a Ferrari or something. Been on the road and experienced…proving poorly. But Tanner being more the Volvo you associate as higher risk just because he hadn’t proven experience. Maybe Tanner isn’t the Volvo. But proven to be the Fiero and so terribly unfit isn’t choosing anything better towards less risk.

25 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

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.

In his two seasons his 2022 record was 7-6 followed in 2023 by 7-4. In Week 13 of 2023 Pickett suffered a high ankle sprain which opened the door to Mason Rudolph’s finishing the last six games of the season. Many teams would have been very happy with a 7-4 record. It is what it is. Nowhere near as bad as your hyperbole makes it out to be, but not good enough to be a starter either.

At best Rosie showing his bad evaluations consistently ..this time with Pickett…was acquiring some kind of ‘Floor’ we’d have at backup QB. You could be in worse situations than Pickett as a backup…is about all. Even saw Pickett developed and grew under Moore very much. We got a much better version of Pickett than his experience had shown previously in Pittsburgh. Thank goodness for that.

Just now, mattwill said:

In his two seasons his 2021 record was 7-6 followed in 2023 by 7-4. In Week 13 of 2023 Pickett suffered a high ankle sprain which opened the door to Mason Rudolph’s finishing the last six games of the season. Many teams would have been very happy with a 7-4 record. It is what it is. Nowhere near as bad as your hyperbole makes it out to be, but not good enough to be a starter either.

Steelers actually gained momentum and improved when Mason Rudolph took over. A career third stringer QB. Not good

38 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

The large portion of fan base strongly believing Tanner was better

Only after Training Camp and the Preseason games. In March fans like you and me who believed in Tanner as QB2 were few and far between.

Effects still lasting towards Mason Rudolph now. How bad Pickett was really boosted Mason. They got him back and had him in place as good enough if ARod doesn’t happen. Heck…ARod had very little reasoning to be believed can last a full season or produce at any high levels still anyway. Regardless Steelers likely turning to Rudolph again. All mostly because of how bad Pickett was.

38 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I’ve been high on Tanner

🤣

See once again No Mas you pint towards win/loss record as all defining. No specific matter framing anything going on except win/loss record. Nevermind Steelers have a winning record like every season while having terrible QB play. Every season man. Steelers still win. Bad QB situation. So what was the uptick on a team so many straight seasons always has a winning record even though flawed with terrible QB play? Give your win/loss record stat for Pickett in response please.