6 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Yup. It was barely even challenged too. If you don’t think he’s top 15, you better have 15 actual guys ready to list, not 8. Then it turned into "you do the research for me” about subjective stats.

I thought the original argument he was trying to make was that Wentz was given the contract extension too quickly because "he hadn’t proven anything yet”.  I would think the current impasse with Dak Prescott’s contract would demonstrate it simply wasn’t the case.

 

16 minutes ago, Utebird said:

True, i remember saying as much after the season. I think keeping agholor over tate was just howie being loyal to his super bowl guys again instead of projecting future, yet if one had no intention of retaining TATE then why rent him for half a season?

Just a head scratching move to keep agholor over Tate.

Tate got $27 million in guarantees and I think more than $9 million per year.  They got a pick back by letting him go that they probably wouldn't have gotten from Agholor.  

3 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

I thought the original argument he was trying to make was that Wentz was given the contract extension too quickly because "he hadn’t proven anything yet”.  I would think the current impasse with Dak Prescott’s contract would demonstrate it simply wasn’t the case.

Are you not familiar with beast? Sadly, he doesnt care one bit about reason or objectivity. Sadly, now a bunch of grown men will go to bed crying about the things he said in here. 

31 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

It wasn’t the unpopular opinion, it was the unwillingness to back it up with anything objective.  When the position was challenged he got hurt feelings and left, calling everyone else thin-skinned.

It's an opinion. He did back it up. Didn't like Wentz's record against good teams, his durability, his turnovers. I disagree with him, but jeesh.

I guess my point is that we can't have good, civil conversation if half the blog flips out at an unpopular opinion about one of our guys.

7 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Are you not familiar with beast? Sadly, he doesnt care one bit about reason or objectivity. Sadly, now a bunch of grown men will go to bed crying about the things he said in here. 

Reminds me - 10cc was a very underrated band:

 

57 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

The Golden Tate trade was a very good trade. The problem was he kept the wrong WR in the offseason. Tate with a offseason here to learn the playbook, work with Carson would have been a very nice player. He actually would have been our best WR by far on the team. So Howies mistake there was keeping Nelson over Golden. 

You wonder how things would have changed if they had let Nelson walk and kept Golden Tate.  It most likely would have been a 3-4 year deal so WR wouldn't have been as pressing a need as it was.  They still would have to add speed and youth but it could have changed round 1 for sure.  The domino effects of moves can be huge.   I don't think Tate was the answer so I'm not losing any sleep over it.  

48 minutes ago, Utebird said:

True, i remember saying as much after the season. I think keeping agholor over tate was just howie being loyal to his super bowl guys again instead of projecting future, yet if one had no intention of retaining TATE then why rent him for half a season?

Just a head scratching move to keep agholor over Tate.

Well remember that in 2017 Ags was really good and we all thought he had turned the corner. In 2018 he got back to the old concrete hands that we learned to hate.

Hindsight is 20/20

9 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

 

Tate got $27 million in guarantees and I think more than $9 million per year.  They got a pick back by letting him go that they probably wouldn't have gotten from Agholor.  

True the comp pick lessened the blow and a 3rd round pick for a half a season rental and a less than comp pick seems a hefty price to pay.

I thought it was a desperate trade the time it happened and in retrospect my opinion hasnt changed.

Simply for amusement...Jared Goff has a losing record (14-16) against teams with a winning record.

Pretty much every young quarterback is in the same boat, with the exception of Patrick Mahomes. So it seems pretty obvious that trying to use the "has a losing record against winning teams" argument is pretty stupid. In all likelihood, only super elite Hall of Fame caliber quarterbacks are going to have any kind of long term success (over .500 record) against winning teams.

But stupid people like to make stupid arguments. So I'm not surprised our resident troll did so.

2 minutes ago, Asg 15 said:

Well remember that in 2017 Ags was really good and we all thought he had turned the corner. In 2018 he got back to the old concrete hands that we learned to hate.

Hindsight is 20/20

I didnt think he turned the corner, i thought his 2017 season was smoke and mirrors and he was still just an average slot receiver that benefitted from being on a really good team.

5 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Simply for amusement...Jared Goff has a losing record (14-16) against teams with a winning record.

Pretty much every young quarterback is in the same boat, with the exception of Patrick Mahomes. So it seems pretty obvious that trying to use the "has a losing record against winning teams" argument is pretty stupid. In all likelihood, only super elite Hall of Fame caliber quarterbacks are going to have any kind of long term success (over .500 record) against winning teams.

But stupid people like to make stupid arguments. So I'm not surprised our resident troll did so.

While he was here talking about the bucs he said they had the best WR group in football. If you feel like math how about applying his same parameters to his own WR group that he was using against Wentz? How many playoff wins have they contributed to? Whats their record against teams with a .500 or better record? Id guess they arent a top 15 group. 

 

2 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Simply for amusement...Jared Goff has a losing record (14-16) against teams with a winning record.

Pretty much every young quarterback is in the same boat, with the exception of Patrick Mahomes. So it seems pretty obvious that trying to use the "has a losing record against winning teams" argument is pretty stupid. In all likelihood, only super elite Hall of Fame caliber quarterbacks are going to have any kind of long term success (over .500 record) against winning teams.

But stupid people like to make stupid arguments. So I'm not surprised our resident troll did so.

The record against winning teams is a flawed metric as if that player wins the team he beats winning% decreases.

Also how does one factor in opening games where both teams are 0-0

What if he beat a team that had a 7-2 record but then lost 6 in a row.

If one takes into account end of year record what the team ended with a losing record but when he beat them they had a winning record at the time.

Its just such a flawed metric with so much more nuance then saying he has a losing record against winning teams, what does that even mean???

Now the other drama queen has to jump in the middle of it.

7 minutes ago, Utebird said:

The record against winning teams is a flawed metric as if that player wins the team he beats winning% decreases.

Also how does one factor in opening games where both teams are 0-0

What if he beat a team that had a 7-2 record but then lost 6 in a row.

If one takes into account end of year record what the team ended with a losing record but when he beat them they had a winning record at the time.

Its just such a flawed metric with so much more nuance then saying he has a losing record against winning teams, what does that even mean???

I agree it's stupid. But that's Beast for ya. He tends to say stupid things and make stupid arguments just to annoy people.

Incidentally, I used "end of season" totals rather than "at the time" totals. I'm not sure which one would be better to use. But it was easier that way.

18 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Simply for amusement...Jared Goff has a losing record (14-16) against teams with a winning record.

Pretty much every young quarterback is in the same boat, with the exception of Patrick Mahomes. So it seems pretty obvious that trying to use the "has a losing record against winning teams" argument is pretty stupid. In all likelihood, only super elite Hall of Fame caliber quarterbacks are going to have any kind of long term success (over .500 record) against winning teams.

But stupid people like to make stupid arguments. So I'm not surprised our resident troll did so.

I envision beast like this when he posts

18 minutes ago, Utebird said:

I didnt think he turned the corner, i thought his 2017 season was smoke and mirrors and he was still just an average slot receiver that benefitted from being on a really good team.

He caught the damn ball.

After 2017 he couldn't catch a cold

1 minute ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I envision beast like this when he posts

Fraggle Rock?

9 minutes ago, Asg 15 said:

He caught the damn ball.

After 2017 he couldn't catch a cold

Fraggle Rock?

Yup 

55 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

I thought the original argument he was trying to make was that Wentz was given the contract extension too quickly because "he hadn’t proven anything yet”.  I would think the current impasse with Dak Prescott’s contract would demonstrate it simply wasn’t the case.

Maybe. The middle stuff about contract and Dak was copy and pasted from somewhere. His comments were he's overrated and not top 15

28 minutes ago, Utebird said:

The record against winning teams is a flawed metric as if that player wins the team he beats winning% decreases.

Also how does one factor in opening games where both teams are 0-0

What if he beat a team that had a 7-2 record but then lost 6 in a row.

If one takes into account end of year record what the team ended with a losing record but when he beat them they had a winning record at the time.

Its just such a flawed metric with so much more nuance then saying he has a losing record against winning teams, what does that even mean???

I believe that record is determined on a team's season ending record, not at the time they play. Could be wrong though.

Dallas effed up. 

Hopefully people mask the eff up so we can get fans in the stands. The Eagles need all the nickels and dimes they can scrounge up. 

2 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Dallas effed up. 

I think Dak is gone at the end of 2020; if you make the decision not to offer a long term deal, then stick with it and follow it through.  Set your scouting department to work evaluating your next QB, and save $30M+ — especially if/when DAL has another 8-8 type of season in 2020

7 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Hopefully people mask the eff up so we can get fans in the stands. The Eagles need all the nickels and dimes they can scrounge up. 

I was thinking about this the other day. No doubt that no fans will cause revenue loss, but no fans means everyone who would be at all the games will be viewing from home. They are going to have massive viewership and ratings the year before they renegotiate tv deals 

5 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

I think Dak is gone at the end of 2020; if you make the decision not to offer a long term deal, then stick with it and follow it through.  Set your scouting department to work evaluating your next QB, and save $30M+ — especially if/when DAL has another 8-8 type of season in 2020

They did offer him a long term deal. He just didn’t take it. 

1 hour ago, HazletonEagle said:

he was talking about their hurt feelings. funny how no one got that. 

I understood it just fine....I was just throwing some Beast "double-speak" right back at him....nothing he says is by accident...pure troll