1 hour ago, Mike31mt said:

I dont have a problem with the question.  Wentz is too classy to respond to it, but if they want to try and get a rise out of him then go for it

Im more curious as to Favres explanation 

I think Favre’s opinion just goes to show you that a lot of athletes’ opinions are no better than the average fan’s, and sometimes they’re even worse. 

5 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

Your 2 cents is your being a drama queen over nothing. Thats my 2 cents.

Not a drama queen by any means.  I don't believe in "bullying/trolling" and the question seemed to be asked to get a rise out of him.  

Some of you guys wonder why Philadelphia star players/coaches relationships with some in the Philly media have been somewhat turbulent at times over the years.... (Mike Schmidt, Buddy Ryan, Allen Iverson, Donovan McNabb, T.O...even Pederson at times...just to name a few)  Well, stuff like this is why.  

I'm glad Wentz is who he is and took the high road.  Good for him.

 

3 hours ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

That's an odd choice.  So many Giants and Cowboys to choose from...

 

BTW, how's that rash?

Rash is finally clearing up. Last time I go after you... 

 

1 minute ago, Ace Nova said:

Not a drama queen by any means.  I don't believe in "bullying/trolling" and the question seemed to be asked to get a rise out of him.  

Some of you guys wonder why Philadelphia star players/coaches relationships with some in the Philly media have been somewhat turbulent at times over the years.... (Mike Schmidt, Buddy Ryan, Allen Iverson, Donovan McNabb, T.O...even Pederson at times...just to name a few)  Well, stuff like this is why.  

I'm glad Wentz is who he is and took the high road.  Good for him.

 

Personally I would have probably answered with , "who?"

3 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

"Don't worry, it's OK to criticize the QB in confidence.  In the end, you'll get more guaranteed money."

6 minutes ago, QuinnWR4 said:

I agree with you. But as a kid I didn’t know any better. And they always had them sitting right there next to the register. 
 

never had Fotlz’s, I haven’t been to the York Central market in at least 20 years. 

Yea, it's easy to buy them when they are right by the register...that's when I might grab one.  Foltz's is the Amish style pretzel along the lines of Auntie Anne's.  Baked then buttered and salted.  Foltz's are a delicious.  

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

Who was the reporter who asked the question? Curious to know. Feels like that would be a Jeff mclane type of question 

ESP? Maybe

12 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

What is inappropriate about it?

The way it was asked.  If you want to get a "true answer" to a question like this, you'll usually get more with sugar than with spice.  Simple. 

14 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

I'm glad someone understands that Mailata playing better than expectations doesn't mean he is playing better than Peters.  Folks give Mailata a pass on certain bad plays.  "He'll get that right the next game."  Yet, Peters gets hammered for lesser mistakes.  Peters has fallen from a 10 to a 7.  Mailata has risen from a 0 to a 6.  7 is greater than 6.

Awesome paragraph. Almost precisely my thoughts put into words.

17 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

Yea, it's easy to buy them when they are right by the register...that's when I might grab one.  Foltz's is the Amish style pretzel along the lines of Auntie Anne's.  Baked then buttered and salted.  Foltz's are a delicious.  

Are you guys saying they should have kept Foltz's? What does Brett Favre think?

27 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

I'm glad someone understands that Mailata playing better than expectations doesn't mean he is playing better than Peters.  Folks give Mailata a pass on certain bad plays.  "He'll get that right the next game."  Yet, Peters gets hammered for lesser mistakes.  Peters has fallen from a 10 to a 7.  Mailata has risen from a 0 to a 6.  7 is greater than 6.

I am truly sympathetic to the notion that Mailata needs more reps.  But at the same time, the help we are providing Mailata in the interim is hampering our offense and in all likelihood impacting Carson's confidence in the pocket.  Futher, with Lane's health in question, keeping Mailata as an option as a true swing tackle makes sense.  There are teams searching for one viable option at LT, we have two.

Not in golf.

1 minute ago, greend said:

Are you guys saying they should have kept Foltz's? What does Brett Favre think?

It's seems that Foltz's is best suited as a backup pretzel.

28 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

I dont have a problem with the question.  Wentz is too classy to respond to it, but if they want to try and get a rise out of him then go for it

Im more curious as to Favres explanation 

I didn’t hear the interview with Favre but my guess is he believes the team as a whole was playing better with Foles at QB, and points to the playoff runs in 2017 and 2018.

I think the national media is trying to drum up interest and throw shade at the Eagles because a lot of them will be rooting for a NY team (the NYG) this Sunday.  If the Eagles win to go to 4-4-1, WAS loses in DET, and all the other NFCE teams are at 2-7 or 2-8 it almost appears to be a runaway.

Wentz isn’t alone in facing adversity from the media right now; commentators are now beginning to ask the very valid question whether DAL will draft QB next April.  They’ll probably have a top 5 or 6 pick, and would save almost $30M in cap space by selecting a QB who could step in Year 1, instead of being held hostage by Dak and his agents.  Look at what Herbert is doing for the Chargers — you can get a QB later than pick #1 or #2 to step in.

16 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

The way it was asked.  If you want to get a "true answer" to a question like this, you'll usually get more with sugar than with spice.  Simple. 

I’ve worked in the business for more than 10 years. It’s not nearly as simple as you think. And asking the question in a negative matter doesn’t make it inappropriate. 

36 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

I'm glad someone understands that Mailata playing better than expectations doesn't mean he is playing better than Peters.  Folks give Mailata a pass on certain bad plays.  "He'll get that right the next game."  Yet, Peters gets hammered for lesser mistakes.  Peters has fallen from a 10 to a 7.  Mailata has risen from a 0 to a 6.  7 is greater than 6.

I am truly sympathetic to the notion that Mailata needs more reps.  But at the same time, the help we are providing Mailata in the interim is hampering our offense and in all likelihood impacting Carson's confidence in the pocket.  Futher, with Lane's health in question, keeping Mailata as an option as a true swing tackle makes sense.  There are teams searching for one viable option at LT, we have two.

Peters was about a 2 in a couple games this season 

5 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I am well aware of what Sheetz is, and I even tried it.... its not good.  BTW... my standard for measurement is the coffee.  Wawa coffee is very good.  Sheetz coffee is barely drinkable.

30 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

I think Favre’s opinion just goes to show you that a lot of athletes’ opinions are no better than the average fans, and sometimes they’re even worse. 

Plus it's easy to have an opinion like that now with Wentz playing fairly bad most of the time. The media and people in general choose to ignore that most of Foles' career is very hot and cold and littered with injuries, they only see that he came in off the bench and won a SB. 

8 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

I’ve worked in the business for more than 10 years. It’s not nearly as simple as you think. And asking the question in a negative matter doesn’t make it inappropriate. 

I agree, I don't think it's simple at all.  And if you've worked in the business for more than 10 years, then you would know that you would get better, more truthful responses by being respectful with people vs. "just throwing something out there to see what happens"? No?

I've been in business/sales/marketing for over 20 years and I am among the top 10% in the nation at what I do.  People are people and if you want to get honest responses out of people the first thing you should do is treat them with respect and dignity.

I've held training sessions on how certain phrases are delivered.  For example, if I look at you with a stern face and say, "You SOB!"  You would likely get offended, no?

If I look at you with a huge smile, pat you on the back and say, "Oh, you SOB" You would likely laugh.

Same basic phrase.  One is intended to offend, the other is not. 

That's the point.

 

Anyway, we're beating a dead horse here, moving on.

 

3 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I agree, I don't think it's simple at all.  And if you've worked in the business for more than 10 years, then you would know that you would get better, more truthful responses by being respectful with people vs. "just throwing something out there to see what happens"? No?

I've been in business/sales/marketing for over 20 years and I am among the top 10% in the nation at what I do.  People are people and if you want to get honest responses out of people the first thing you should do is treat them with respect and dignity.

I've held training sessions on how certain phrases are delivered.  For example, if I look at you with a stern face and say, "You SOB!"  You would likely get offended, no?

If I look at you with a huge smile, pat you on the back and say, "Oh, you SOB" You would likely laugh.

Same basic phrase.  One is intended to offend, the other is not. 

That's the point.

 

Anyway, we're beating a dead horse here, moving on.

 

This isn’t true, and it’s frustrating for you to tell me otherwise when you have zero experience in this field. I’ve gotten great answers from athletes and coaches who bristled at the phrasing or tone of my questions.

5 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

This isn’t true, and it’s frustrating for you to tell me otherwise when you have zero experience in this field. I’ve gotten great answers from athletes and coaches who bristled at the phrasing or tone of my questions.

I don't doubt that at all.  There are circumstances where being very direct will yield good results. 

This wasn't one of them, imo. And since Wentz didn't answer the question, I'm guessing I'm correct. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

This isn’t true, and it’s frustrating for you to tell me otherwise when you have zero experience in this field. I’ve gotten great answers from athletes and coaches who bristled at the phrasing or tone of my questions.

To me that's the heart of this though...why are you trying to prod the superstar of the city to bristle and have a reaction? It seems so antagonistic. I get that it would provide clicks and catchy headlines if Wentz went off on either the journo or Favre. But I dunno, it seems so....slimy to me. 

2 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I don't doubt that at all.  There are circumstances where being very direct will yield good results. 

This wasn't one of them, imo. And since Wentz didn't answer the question, I'm guessing I'm correct. 

 

 

It doesn’t mean the lame way you would have phrased the question would have worked either. Quarterbacks are pretty media savvy. 

Just now, 4for4EaglesNest said:

The point isn't, why did someone ask Brett Favre the question.  The point is why did the Philly media feel the need to ask Doug about Brett's opinion.  We know why, because they are terrible and they want to stir ish up.  Not only did they ask a dumb question, but they kept going back to it.  If you can't see what's wrong with that, then I don't know what to tell you.  

I was referring to the question asked of Wentz by the reporter about Farve's comment.

As far as asking Doug about it, he and Farve are buddies and he was brought in to speak to the team before the Super Bowl. Once Brett said what he said, Doug should have been prepared for a question about that comment. Doug fumbled it badly, and now we are blaming reporters for doing their job?

The reporters didn't instigate this, nor are they doing anything wrong in reporting it. 

7 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

To me that's the heart of this though...why are you trying to prod the superstar of the city to bristle and have a reaction? It seems so antagonistic. I get that it would provide clicks and catchy headlines if Wentz went off on either the journo or Favre. But I dunno, it seems so....**** to me. 

To get an honest reaction from him instead of the typical canned response. 

I didn’t listen to his answer. Frankly I don’t care about Wentz’s thoughts on it or Favre’s. I’m just pushing back against the notion that the question or the way it was asked was inappropriate. It’s not like the the reporter asked him "why are you playing so ****?” That would be inappropriate.