21 minutes ago, WentzFan11 said:

Lane Johnson >> JP

That’s absurd. Just no. No. Lane is a great player, absolutely, but just no.  
Shaking my head. 
Just no. Lane may be one of the best pass pro guys ever, but as a run blocker he’s, well, average. In his prime, JP was the best in the league at both, for many years. He killed people. (Not in a Ray Ray  sense.)

Words fail me here. I understand that he stayed past his sell by date but this guy was one of the half dozen best linemen who ever played. 

30 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

He was a mercenary.  

No. He was a guy who loved to play.

25 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Haddix was a horrible pick and decision when viewed under the lens of Jaworski closing in on 34 (which would be equivalent to 39 or 40 today) in an historic QB draft.  Especially considering drafted QBs sat for two years routinely in those days 

Yeah.  There were probably players drafted who had worse playing careers, but it's hard to argue with the missed opportunity cost of drafting a RB with a 3.0 YPC over not 1 but 2 HOF QBs (among others) that year.

30 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Yeah... that's true.   But for the Eagles... as great as Reggie was, and he's clearly the only one in competition with Van Buren in my mind... he spent half his career elsewhere.  Van Buren spent all 8 years here.  (Ironically, Reggie also played 8 years here, but had 2 with the Showboats, 6 with the Packers and 1 with the Panthers.).  White was as dominant as they come, but for me... I think Van Buren still gets the nod.   And then you can wonder about if they should be including Bednarik...  But I still go Van Buren.

All-time Philadelphia Mt. Rushmore, only really fair, IMO with 1 rep for each franchise.

Wilt, Van Buren, Schmidt and Parent.

Second team:

Dr. J, White, Carlton, Clarke

I’m sorry, but there’s no way I’d put Bernie Parent ahead of Bobby Clarke. He was the heart and soul of that team for a decade. Bernie had two great years, got hurt, and was never the same player again.

Tbh i think the sixers probably have the easiest mt Rushmore of the 4 main philly teams. I think most fans would unanimously have wilt, dr. J. Tend to think iverson would be of majority of them if not all. 4th spot probably Moses or barkley. I’d have said embiid had a shot if the whole process era ended better

Just now, just relax said:

No. He was a guy who loved to play.

He loved to play so much that he refused to play LT without reworking his contract.

Just now, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

I’m sorry, but there’s no way I’d put Bernie Parent ahead of Bobby Clarke. He was the heart and soul of that team for a decade. Bernie had two great years, got hurt, and was never the same player again.

That's fair.  Those two great year resulted in Stanley Cups.  Without Parent... no Stanley Cups.  🤷‍♂️

4 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

He loved to play so much that he refused to play LT without reworking his contract.

No. He knew how good he was and Wilson wouldn’t pay him because he was broke so the Bills traded him. Reid and everybody else knew how good he was. Wilson wanted to pay him like the UDFA he had been because he couldn’t afford more. Your characterization of him is false.

4 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Tbh i think the sixers probably have the easiest mt Rushmore of the 4 main philly teams. I think most fans would unanimously have wilt, dr. J. Tend to think iverson would be of majority of them if not all. 4th spot probably Moses or barkley. I’d have said embiid had a shot if the whole process era ended better

That's a good one.  But you gotta consider Hal Greer.  1O years as a Sixer, Hall of Famer, was named a top 50 all-time greatest NBA player in 1996.  I'd take him over Barkley.   

8 minutes ago, Freshmilk said:

That's a good one.  But you gotta consider Hal Greer.  1O years as a Sixer, Hall of Famer, was named a top 50 all-time greatest NBA player in 1996.  I'd take him over Barkley.   

IMO I’d actually go Moses over both. The four years he was here (not counting when he came back 93-94 and was finished) he was amazing. And huge part in getting them over the top for that title. I can understand Greer though. He had a longer career as a sixer.

just my personal feeling on Moses Malone, he might be the most underrated/under-appreciated player when people talk about all time great centers today. his accolades are just ridiculous and how many people today don’t remember just how unbelievably great he was. Like there’s people out there that don’t realize he was a 3x mvp 

12 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

He loved to play so much that he refused to play LT without reworking his contract.

Bingo. Peters MAJORLY tarnished his legacy both as an Eagle and NFL player based on the last several years of his career. Peters prime in terms of the level of play was better than Lane, but not by much and there are so many things that go in Lane's favor it's not even funny in terms of Eagles Mount Rushmore.

-Lane was a a home grown talent having been drafted by the Eagles, Peters was not.

-Lane will end up playing his entire career as an Eagles, and likely retire while still playing at a high level. There were multiple seasons for Peters tenure as an Eagle where he was on a significant decline, then he ended up playing several more years for several more teams including the Cowboys.

-Lane has restructured his deal several times to help the organization create cap space. Peters literally held the Eagles hostage and demanded more money on a contract he had signed just a few months before because they wanted to switch him from G back to LT.

-More games played as an Eagle for Lane, and before his career is over he will probably have the franchise record for games played.

-Three SB appearances and two SB wins for Lane. One and one for Peters and he didn't even play in it.

Again, if the discussion is who was the better player in their prime that would be Peters. If we are discussing who had the better Eagles career and who has a right to being on an Eagles Mount Rushmore it is EASILY Lane FN Johnson.

19 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

He loved to play so much that he refused to play LT without reworking his contract.

And took himself out of games when he wasnt happy with the coach. 

10 minutes ago, just relax said:

No. He knew how good he was and Wilson wouldn’t pay him because he was broke so the Bills traded him. Reid and everybody else knew how good he was. Wilson wanted to pay him like the UDFA he had been because he couldn’t afford more. Your characterization of him is false.

You're in the wrong era of his career and obviously forgot a lot.

3 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

IMO I’d actually go Moses over both. The four years he was here (not counting when he came back 93-94 and was finished) he was amazing. And huge part in getting them over the top for that title. I can understand Greer though. He had a longer career as a sixer.

just my personal feeling on Moses Malone, he might be the most underrated player in the history of the nba when you consider his accolades and how many people today don’t remember just how unbelievably great he was. Like there’s people out there that don’t realize he was a 3x mvp 

I love Moses.  Just a remarkable basketball player.

12 minutes ago, just relax said:

No. He knew how good he was and Wilson wouldn’t pay him because he was broke so the Bills traded him. Reid and everybody else knew how good he was. Wilson wanted to pay him like the UDFA he had been because he couldn’t afford more. Your characterization of him is false.

Bro, lol

1 hour ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I've seen that too.  But, I'd make the argument that Lefty was the greatest left handed pitcher in MLB history.  🤷‍♂️. Hard to say, Carlton was mostly before my time... and Roberts was way before my time.   Roberts played in a very different era, when these guys just got the ball constantly.  Lefty got it a ton on 4 days... Roberts got it even more often than that.   But, even with Lefty pitching way too long, he still had a better ERA than Roberts, gave up fewer HRs in an era where HRs were far more common than Roberts' era... and struck out way more batters, both total, and per 9 innings.  I just think Lefty was the more dominant pitcher.  

 

Then again, the issue is how many people alive today actually saw Roberts pitch?   Same for Van Buren.  His day was 1948 and 1949.  How many people alive today really saw him play?   Most games weren't even televised, but if you go by league accomplishments, Van Buren is right there with White.  Just as White rewrote the record book for defensive players with more sacks than games played... Van Buren was the undisputed greatest RB in the league at a time when running the ball was the primary mode for moving the ball... and everyone knew he was going to get the ball, and were gearing up to stop him.  But he still dominated.   He was Jim Brown, before Jim Brown, from all the accounts I've read and heard from those who watched both play.

https://www.profootballhof.com/players/steve-van-buren/

 

Carlton may have been one of the best Lefty pitchers in MLB history, but he's not in the same ballpark with Sandy Koufax.

Carlton had one elite season, 1972, Koufax had a five year stretch when he was absolutely dominant.

Randy Johnson was also better than Carlton, and a lot scarier.

As far as hitters, for pure power, the two who most impressed me were Richie Allen and Willie McCovey. They didn't just hit HRs, they hit moonshots.

Allen should have been a Phillie for life, but they were still a boob organization under the Carpenters.

24 minutes ago, just relax said:

No. He knew how good he was and Wilson wouldn’t pay him because he was broke so the Bills traded him. Reid and everybody else knew how good he was. Wilson wanted to pay him like the UDFA he had been because he couldn’t afford more. Your characterization of him is false.

I'm talking about when he was here.  He came back to play OG, but when injuries hit, he refused to go back to LT without a different deal.

As far as the Eagles, even I'm too young for Chuck Bednarik, but playing center and MLB, the last 60 minute man, well, nuff said.

Reggie White is the greatest player to wear the Green, no ifs ands or buts.

Peters v Lane, you can make the case that Peters was the better play but Lane the more important one, the Eagles record without Lane, even with all the other talent they've had the last decade, is under .500 I think.

Yep. .638 with, .395 without. That's an amazing discrepancy.

https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask/eagles-record-with-and-without-lane-johnson

I at least understand questioning Peters' legacy as an Eagle. Don't necessarily agree but I get it. He is the best offensive tackle many of us have ever watched play though. Don't let his age 40 year stats confuse any of you. 

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I'm talking about when he was here.  He came back to play OG, but when injuries hit, he refused to go back to LT without a different deal.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he even go as far as to sit out from practices until they agreed to give him more money to play LT?

There were conjecture narratives about Peters that fans chose to believe even though other people within the organization debunked them after the reports. But that never stops fans from still believing the click-bait. Peters didn't refuse to play for Chip Kelly that one day. He just wasn't good to go after testing the injury in warmups (per Lane Johnson). He also never refused to play tackle, but he did want a raise because the team brought him back as a guard that season and negotiated a lower deal for him because of the position change. It was a negotiation and I don't recall the exact wording he used in the interview. He wasn't unwilling to play Tackle, but wanted to be compensated for that since that wasn't the arrangement he and the team agreed to. The team put out a statement supporting his position and did bump up his pay. 

2 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

There were conjecture narratives about Peters that fans chose to believe even though other people within the organization debunked them after the reports. But that never stops fans from still believing the click-bait. Peters didn't refuse to play for Chip Kelly that one day. He just wasn't good to go after testing the injury in warmups (per Lane Johnson). He also never refused to play tackle, but he did want a raise because the team brought him back as a guard that season and negotiated a lower deal for him because of the position change. It was a negotiation and I don't recall the exact wording he used in the interview. He wasn't unwilling to play Tackle, but wanted to be compensated for that since that wasn't the arrangement he and the team agreed to. The team put out a statement supporting his position and did bump up his pay. 

That's called spin.  He didn't move to tackle until after they bumped his pay.

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

That's called spin.  He didn't move to tackle until after they bumped his pay.

They didn't just "bump" his pay either. They doubled the 4 million he had signed just months prior, to 8 million.

3 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

That's called spin.  He didn't move to tackle until after they bumped his pay.

There was no game missed. It happened in a matter of days.

9 hours ago, eagle45 said:

In asking everyone to rank the 11 Eagles primed to compete for starting jobs...the responses demonstrate that there is no consensus.

The biggest risk is uncertainty itself.  I think everyone has a few players they are excited about and think can be adequate replacements and then some.  Everyone has a few that will just be fine.  And everyone has a few they think will suck and disappoint.

The interesting thing is that it's different players in each group for different posters.  Most people are expecting big things from Jordan Davis next year and good things from Jalyx Hunt...after that, there is little consensus (and even that isn't universal).

For me, I like the DBs better than most, share the Davis/Hunt optimism, put Steen in the "fine" category, and have a much lower opinion of the non-Hunt edge rushers than the rest of you.  

The biggest risk is uncertainty itself  …

 ??? 

How is uncertainty a risk?  When things are uncertain they can go either up or down.  How is going up a risk?  For that matter how is going down a risk?