5 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

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

They were 7-4 under Pickett and 3-3 not under Pickett.

36 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

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.

This is all coming from you. How our disaster terrible P in 2022 hadn’t cost us a game so for you….there is no issues. But my view understood just how big an issue this could end up being instead. He didn’t shank week one to lose us that game. For me that isn’t the relevance towards that he did end up shanking the P in the biggest game of all costing us the SB esssentially. Easy case to be made without his shanked P so much plays out differently in that SB. They scored an easy TD off of that. Could also go deep into how it affects the game clock and end situation. If they settled for a field goal burning up much more clock instead of a quick TD? How does that end of game situation look and play out? Totally different. Think about it. Chiefs would have been under the gun that final drive with barely any time…with a field goal not being enough to win..or even tie.

7 minutes ago, mattwill said:

They were 7-4 under Pickett and 3-3 not under Pickett.

14-10 win/loss from Pickett

7 minutes ago, mattwill said:

They were 7-4 under Pickett and 3-3 not under Pickett.

Man where do you go so wrong with your info? Like we paid Swift over 8 mil. Like even your research investment quality suffers just because of all your time spent doesn’t overcome the failure to find accurate information.

9 minutes ago, mattwill said:

They were 7-4 under Pickett and 3-3 not under Pickett.

But this wasn’t the best quote for me to have pointed out your flaw with. Point applies…but so much more to so many other posts than this one by you

2 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

14-10 win/loss from Pickett

Steelers always winning record for so many years. All while suffering the flaw of terrible QB situations. Not sure the winning accomplishment props up Pickett like you attempt No Mas. Sounds great…unless you actually look into any of it any further.

Terrible QB flaw…they win more than lose season after season. What they’re known for right now in fact. So going14-10 QB on that team isn’t providing anything about even decent QB performance. It’s right along the lines of what that team has done under very universally ackoledged bad QBs.

5 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

14-10 win/loss from Pickett

Agreed. A rookie year at 7-6 where he ascended to starter because Trubisky wasn’t cutting it. And then 7-4 the next year until he got injured. 7+7=14 and 6+4=10. You are good with math.

6 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Man where do you go so wrong with your info? Like we paid Swift over 8 mil. Like even your research investment quality suffers just because of all your time spent doesn’t overcome the failure to find accurate information.

Steelers in 2023 were 10-7. Under Pickett they were 7-4. 10-7=3. 7-4=3

Maybe you aren’t so good at math.

Steelers went 10-7 last season with over the hill Primma Donna Russel Wilson at the helm. Along with Justin Fields…another first round draft choice proven through his opportunities give and experience to not be good enough…or at the very least not ready. Fields given up quickly after huge investment himself arguably could produce identical results as Pickett.

Just now, mattwill said:

Steelers in 2023 were 10-7. Under Pickett they were 7-4. 10-7=3. 7-4=3

Maybe you aren’t so good at math.

Exact same record as last season with them QB being over the hill RusselWilson and proven unworthy Fields.

Seattle understood better than anybody to give up on Russel Wilson. Even they did it later than should have. Not a good comparison for Pickett. Exact same results from him as the washed up old man that’s also such a Primma Donna he cares more about not getting a scratch on his face than winning.

Ham, you are going to be talking to yourself from now on. Enjoy.

14-10 doesn’t sound so terrible for a rookie Qb. As long as you eliminate all context surrounding everything. Just like how No Mas also does to prop Siri up.

1 hour ago, mattwill said:

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

Sanders second round pick is by far the only investment of the group. Swift, Blount, Ajayi, Clement….all proving willing to only go the cheap bargain basement route. Now whether the payoff returns well or not isn’t the discussion. While different topic. Clement received for over 100 yards in that SB. A RB everybody red flagged as not a pass catching back in fact. Loved and still love it! Wasn’t us reaping those rewards from amount invested at all though. Just like Blankenship. Huge credit for identifying undrafted player so good. But …was a saving grace the lowest investment paid off so huge. Otherwise had nothing. Ignored the entire position room.

1 hour 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?

You really believe Tanner benefitted just the same by being held down to third string last season? Third string reps and opportunities you think are as abundant and quality as second string?

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

You really believe Tanner benefitted just the same by being held down to third string last season? Third string reps and opportunities you think are as abundant and quality as second string?

Tanner is exactly in the same position after given zero opportunity to earn and compete for any promotion or place on the team? Which in many eyes…Tanner would have won..if competition actually existed. Tanner got stuck behind a lesser player. That isn’t the same at all for me. Pretty tough lesson about the NFL. No matter what he did…didn’t matter. He was third string…beneath the rightful third string QB.

11 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Ham, you are going to be talking to yourself from now on. Enjoy.

Your choice…can’t decide anything for you. But was giving you every chance and listening while responding to your posts.

1 hour ago, joemas6 said:

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.

Wasn’t it you that stated Philly most known about complaining about and over the best…didn’t you site a baseball all star as the biggest player it occurred with?

1 hour 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?

We forced the lesser QB as the guy we had to turn to. How are you still calling that good risk management? It created much higher risk situation. Wasn’t just here to deal with…actually traded and made it happen. Forced us into a higher risk worse situation by trading for Pickett. Proven all the way out by shipping him right out now for Tanner. Admittance of the mistake. Can’t really be argued otherwise now.

1 hour 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?

It’s against the law. So canceling my insurance would equate to trading for Pickett

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

It’s against the law. So canceling my insurance would equate to trading for Pickett

Puts me in a riskier situation. But hey…maybe I don’t get caught…if ever run into a need for the insurance …and I get around yesterday and today without penalty. Doesn’t equate to meaning it won’t ever happen tomorrow or ever though.

MW…just wasn’t a good comparison. Pickett experience wasn’t anything proving so much better than Tanner. In fact…we were the ones knew the best about Tanner. If anybody understood…should have been us. In fact…tons of our fanbase did exactly understand this fact all along.

MW…think I’d at least it was an open competition situation between Tanner and Pickett? Be a better comparison and point for you. Still not great….but much better.

13 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

A top O line will give you a nice ROI on RB's

What is ROI?