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

You mean the one where reagor route faded toward the sideline as he was running down the field?

I believe so. I only saw the play live on TV and then the subsequent zoomed in replay. I just remember hearing "blanketed" a frustrating number of times without proper context. 

6 minutes ago, Saltpeter said:

I believe so. I only saw the play live on TV and then the subsequent zoomed in replay. I just remember hearing "blanketed" a frustrating number of times without proper context. 

Yeah i posted the pic of the play. Where he wound up and where he started shows the defense  was 3rd and 9 on the second drive 

 

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

Yeah i posted the pic of the play. Where he wound up and where he started shows the defense  was 3rd and 9 on the second drive 

 

Gotcha. How did you parse blame on the play?

1 hour ago, vaeagle2 said:

hey eagle directv users , they removed cbs channel 9 here in va , long story short the eagles game is on cbs and now i won't get it unless directv knows the game isn't local anymore so i hope it will be on their nfl ticket channels. anybody have any info on this , i most likely have to call or save myself the sorrow of defeat.

Unfortunately, you may be in trouble. Last week, DTV was having issues with our local FOX, and the Giants and Bengals were the early game on FOX, but my local FOX was showing Family Feud instead of the game at 1, and the Ticket channel was blacked out because it was supposed to be on local FOX.

9 minutes ago, Saltpeter said:

Gotcha. How did you parse blame on the play?

Couple of things going on. 1. Don’t think reagor ran a very good route to begin with. 2. In the left top (goedert) it looks like the guy is open he’s not. He’s actually still running his route prior to wentz releasing it and the ball in that second pic is in the air. 3. everyone on that play was covered (added the picture of how everyone was covered when the ball is released by wentz in this upcoming photo). 

wasn’t a great throw by wentz but it also had no chance of working as reagor ran a less than stellar route and play was doomed as the fact no one got open. Another problem is if you had better first and second downplays you would’ve been in 3rd and 9 and could’ve ran a lot more plays out of your playbook
 

 

Slay for a 3 and 5 and his contract wasn’t a bad deal, and I won’t let the team’s 2020 debacle take away from the fact that he has made a huge difference for the defense.

Trading for him likely isn’t going to make a significant difference to the team since the offense ha cratered, but I don’t think it’s a fair way to look at the deal. At the time, most of us thought we had a top 10 QB. When you have one of those, you try to win with him. That doesn’t mean you sign Jackson, Jeffery, Peters, Curry, Mills, McLeod to bad or badly constructed deals or kick the can on the likes of Cox and Johnson and Brooks, but you try to fill obvious holes with good players. Slay is that. And his contract is easy to get out of. We haven’t had enough of those. 

5 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Slay for a 3 and 5 and his contract wasn’t a bad deal, and I won’t let the team’s 2020 debacle take away from the fact that he has made a huge difference for the defense.

Trading for him likely isn’t going to make a significant difference to the team since the offense ha cratered, but I don’t think it’s a fair way to look at the deal. At the time, most of us thought we had a top 10 QB. When you have one of those, you try to win with him. That doesn’t mean you sign Jackson, Jeffery, Peters, Curry, Mills, McLeod to bad or badly constructed deals or kick the can on the likes of Cox and Johnson and Brooks, but you try to fill obvious holes with good players. Slay is that. And his contract is easy to get out of. We haven’t had enough of those. 

If you take away the last game against the Seahawks, Slay has been arguably among the best players on defense.  And you have people here saying it was a "bad deal".  This place truly has turned into TATE.  Talk about recency bias.  Smh.

 

Just now, Ace Nova said:

If you take away the last game against the Seahawks, Slay has been arguably among the best players on defense.  And you have people here saying it was a "bad deal".  This place truly has turned into TATE.  Talk about recency bias.  Smh.

 

I don’t think anybody’s talking about slay’s performance. His performance has been fine. The problem is there other secondary player suck. Specifically having Maddox has your number two which was talked about being a disaster before the season. 

People are talking about the fact you could see this team was on the decline and wasn’t going to be a legitimate contender and he was already going to be 29 going on 30 years old. So by the time you got back to being a legitimate Super Bowl contender in two or three years you would’ve already past his prime. those two years where you’re paying a ton of money on a team that wasn’t going to be a legitimate contender.

I don’t think it was a bad deal but I think the Eagles fool themselves into thinking they were only a good corner on defense away from being a contender. And I also think you’re gonna wind up seeing his prime years wasted on a team that’s nowhere close to a Super Bowl contender.

4 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

If you take away the last game against the Seahawks, Slay has been arguably among the best players on defense.  And you have people here saying it was a "bad deal".  This place truly has turned into TATE.  Talk about recency bias.  Smh.

 

Judging a GM on his results is necessary, but I think we can use a little more nuance when dissecting individual moves. The Eagles were trying to win the division and compete for the playoffs, and CB was our weakest position. Even with our question marks, heading into 2020, we were a playoff/division contender. 

We also faced a murderer’s row of WRs. Howie and Co are at fault for us being in position to have to make a trade like that, but we got him at a fair price and what is a below-market contract.

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

I don’t think anybody’s talking about slay’s performance. His performance has been fine. The problem is there other secondary player suck. Specifically having Maddox has your number two which was talked about being a disaster before the season. 

People are talking about the fact you could see this team was on the decline and wasn’t going to be a legitimate contender and he was already going to be 29 going on 30 years old. So by the time you got back to being a legitimate Super Bowl contender in two or three years you would’ve already past his prime. those two years where you’re paying a ton of money on a team that wasn’t going to be a legitimate contender.

I don’t think it was a bad deal but I think the Eagles fool themselves into thinking they were only a good corner on defense away from being a contender. And I also think you’re gonna wind up seeing his prime years wasted on a team that’s nowhere close to a Super Bowl contender.

I don’t think a team has to be a SN contender to trade a 3/5 for a 29 year old No. 1 corner. His contract is relatively cheap for a top corner too. 

Just now, ManuManu said:

I don’t think a team has to be a SN contender to trade a 3/5 for a 29 year old No. 1 corner. His contract is relatively cheap for a top corner too. 

Well there’s two types of teams outside of being contenders. Declining and ascending.

I’m not making that move if I’m on decline. Because I’m gonna wind up wasting two years of his prime and by the time I’m a contender again he might not be the same player anymore. so I’m paying for a guy for years where we are going to stink even with him and descending  

If I was an ascending team that might not be a contender this year but next year I was building towards that you’re right I would make that move.  The Eagles were not that. And it was obvious they weren’t except if people bought into the fools gold at the end of last year. 

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

Well there’s two types of teams outside of being contenders. Declining and ascending.

I’m not making that move if I’m on decline. Because I’m gonna wind up wasting two years of his prime and by the time I’m a contender again he might not be the same player anymore. so I’m paying for a guy for years where we are going to stink even with him and descending  

If I was an ascending team that might not be a contender this year but next year I was building towards that you’re right I would make that move.  The Eagles were not that. And it was obvious they weren’t except if people bought into the fools gold at the end of last year. 

Easy to say from the couch. We were a playoff contender on paper with a glaring need at CB. No one could have seen the offense cratering like this. 

12 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Easy to say from the couch. We were a playoff contender on paper with a glaring need at CB. No one could have seen the offense cratering like this. 

Not really I along with some other said back in March and April that said this was not a contender or close to one with the roster they constructed and massive question marks they had at multiple positions. Trust me it was brought up. By many of us and we got told oh you’re just negative and chicken Little. No we were actually the ones that didn’t buy into every move. 

if we could back to the old boards do you know how many people were telling me Jalen mills was going to be an improvement over Jenkins while never really playing the position?.Or how many people were telling me that will parks could be a starting safety even if Mills didn’t pan out. Or that Sidney Jones was going to be the starting corner on the on this team. Or how many people try to convince themselves the Eagles not doing anything at wide receiver until the draft was smart idea. people bought into the fact every move that we made this off-season was going to make us better this year than they were last year.  Even though all over the field there was a ton of question marks? People just continue to ignore that fact because they saw them get into the playoffs last year and added hargrave and slay 

Even if wentz played well, we said they were only an 8 or 9 win team with all the questions surrounding multiple positions. 

again people bought into the fools gold at the end of last year where they beat three teams who finished in the top 5 of the draft and Dallas Cowboys team with Dak Prescott having a bum shoulder. If they didn’t have that fortunate scheduling and dak having his shoulder get hurt that week the  they aren’t even a playoff team. Again people in the organization bought into the fools gold but there were signs they weren’t a true contender and more on the decline as they lacked youth and guys were getting older  

 

31 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Judging a GM on his results is necessary, but I think we can use a little more nuance when dissecting individual moves. The Eagles were trying to win the division and compete for the playoffs, and CB was our weakest position. Even with our question marks, heading into 2020, we were a playoff/division contender. 

We also faced a murderer’s row of WRs. Howie and Co are at fault for us being in position to have to make a trade like that, but we got him at a fair price and what is a below-market contract.

I agree. 

Revisionist history is what it is.  The way this team (and Carson Wentz) performed heading into the playoffs last year demonstrated (to most) that this was still a playoff team and with some "luck", maybe better.  

You and I were here during the off-season and this blog was unanimous: The top 2 needs in the off-season were WR & CB.  There may have been some debate on which of the two was "higher" but no one debated that those two areas were the "biggest needs". 

So for some to say that the Slay move was somehow a "bad move" 9 months later because he just had the worst game of his career and the team is 3-7-1 is nothing more than recency bias, imo

 

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

Not really I along with some other said back in March and April that said this was not a contender or close to one with the roster they constructed and massive question marks they had at multiple positions. Trust me it was brought up. By many of us and we got told oh you’re just negative and chicken Little. No we were actually the ones that didn’t buy into every move. 

if we could back to the old boards do you know how many people were telling me Jalen mills was going to be an improvement over Jenkins while never really playing the position?.Or how many people were telling me that will parks could be a starting safety even if Mills didn’t pan out. Or that Sidney Jones was going to be the starting corner on the on this team. Or how many people try to convince themselves the Eagles not doing anything at wide receiver until the draft was smart idea. people bought into the fact every move that we made this off-season was going to make us better this year than they were last year.  Even though all over the field there was a ton of question marks? People just continue to ignore that fact because they saw them get into the playoffs last year

Even if wentz played well, we said they were only an 8 or 9 win team with all the questions surrounding multiple positions. 

again people bought into the fools gold at the end of last year where they beat three teams who finished in the top 5 and Dallas Cowboys team with Dak Prescott having a bum shoulder. If they didn’t have that fortunate scheduling and dak having his shoulder get hurt that week the  they aren’t even a playoff team. 

 

You didn’t think we were competing for a playoff spot this year?

1 hour ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Slay was an expensive addition.  And... hasn't paid off at all.  

So, let's play this out... Slay was a good addition, but was he what the team needed?  The team needed (and did at the start of last offseason) to get younger and cheaper.  Slay is neither of those.  He was another 'win now' move on a team that clearly had their window close after the 2018 season.  I didn't believe that before the 2019 season, but the writing was on the wall, I just couldn't read it.  Now, everyone can read it.   

Would the 3rd round pick have been better used than adding Slay and keeping either Jones or Douglas and the money that he'll cost on the salary cap... 

That's not the type of contract you want to pick up when trading for a 29 year old.  But, Howie (as he has done so often) traded away draft capital, and then signed the new addition to a new deal.  The Eagles are on the hook for $9.75M of that if a new GM decides to move on from him (like he should) after this season.  But, Howie... KNOWING about the pandemic... KNOWING about the likely drop in the 2021 salary cap STILL made this move.  To what end, really?    Just stupid.    But, hey, we know how he'll fix it.  He'll take that $12M guaranteed salary, and spread it over the next 5 years, by adding two meaningless empty years at the end of this contract, "lowering" the cap hit for 2021, and having to deal with it in 2024 and 2025.   And the Eagles gain $9.3M on the cap converting $11M of the guaranteed money to a signing bonus spread over the last 3 years, plus two.  And for no real benefit to the team.   Meanwhile, trading him and getting whatever the Eagles could salvage from that move would free up $6M, and get him off the books immediately, giving the team more cap flexibility in the future, rather than extending the misery.  

 

Tell me again, how the Slay deal was a good move... 

I don't think he's being used properly. If you remember in the offseason a bunch of us were curious if Schwartz was going to have Slay play 10yds off the line like he does with everyone. Some said there's no way they'd get Slay in the offseason only to have him give a cushion. Then the season happens and...

He's made a lot of great plays this season though. He got beat by DK badly but I think that was because DK is likely going to be a great WR for some time(lucky Fing Hawks)

There's also been times where he was flagged when he shouldn't have been. I'm not sure if it was a good investment because of his age and that Schwartz is likely gone after this season though.

29 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

You didn’t think we were competing for a playoff spot this year?

I believe my prediction was 8-8. And i believe when brooks got hurt i wanted to go with 7-9 but i stuck with 8-8. If that gets you into the playoffs you aren’t a contender.

Also just because your division is awful and you somehow win it with eight or nine wins does not make you a Super Bowl contender. It means you’re division sucks and you’re fortunate you play in such division. And the odds you go on a Giants type of Run is less and less as the years have passed since those Giants. There’s only been one no . 1 seed not to make the super bowl from the nfc since then which was Dallas losing to Aaron rodgers  

Again I said multiple times on here in April that this team is about two years away from being a legitimate Super Bowl contender again because they didn’t have enough youth to make the transition from the end of this era to the start of the next one smoothly. My stance has not changed since March.

** to prove i didn’t make up my stance currently, got into an argument with someone on blog calling me chicken little for feeling the way i did back in April. 

 

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

 

Did they fine Malik Jackson? I know he had a penalty like to plays later 

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

 

I had to work, so I only watched the first quarter and caught the rest on the radio.  The first quarter scuffle I saw both players should have been penalized.  It was multiple hands to the face by Metcalf before they split up — Slay went back at him after the whistle.

Unless there was another separate incident I didn’t see 

10 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

You didn’t think we were competing for a playoff spot this year?

I don't believe anyone thought this team wasn't a playoff contender... because most of us believed that this division was garbage.  Most of us underestimated just how garbage though.  Here the Eagles are 3-7-1, and they have a depressingly high probability of still managing to back their way into the playoffs at a paltry 5-10-1.

11 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I don't believe anyone thought this team wasn't a playoff contender... because most of us believed that this division was garbage.  Most of us underestimated just how garbage though.  Here the Eagles are 3-7-1, and they have a depressingly high probability of still managing to back their way into the playoffs at a paltry 5-10-1.

The thing about The division was they were always likely to split with the Cowboys. I thought the teams were very equal to each other. You saw it last year you got a split. That’s probably what was going to happen. However I actually predicted they would lose at least one game to the Giants or Washington. I thought both of those teams were better than they were last year just based off talent added for the Giants and with Washington a better coach and a good defense. And the giants play us close nearly every time and were due 

Now I thought they would go 4-2 in a division so at worst getting to 8 wins they’d only need victories against teams like bengals, browns and likely win 2 games out of SF, rams, ravens, Steelers, Seahawks, packers, saints and Arizona. I figured they’d likely beat Arizona and rams. 

what are we considering playoff contender? Just making the playoffs or getting to a Super Bowl as a playoff team. I thought they could make the playoffs cause division wasn’t very good and probably only needed nine wins to win it again. However i thought dallas with an easier schedule would win it with 9. 

1 hour ago, EagleJoe8 said:

Unfortunately, you may be in trouble. Last week, DTV was having issues with our local FOX, and the Giants and Bengals were the early game on FOX, but my local FOX was showing Family Feud instead of the game at 1, and the Ticket channel was blacked out because it was supposed to be on local FOX.

yeah i called and the person was dumbfounded LOL ,  you would think they know you no longer have that local channel and would lift the ticket blackout

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

I believe my prediction was 8-8. And i believe when brooks got hurt i wanted to go with 7-9 but i stuck with 8-8. If that gets you into the playoffs you aren’t a contender.

Also just because your division is awful and you somehow win it with eight or nine wins does not make you a Super Bowl contender. It means you’re division sucks and you’re fortunate you play in such division. And the odds you go on a Giants type of Run is less and less as the years have passed since those Giants. There’s only been one no . 1 seed not to make the super bowl from the nfc since then which was Dallas losing to Aaron rodgers  

Again I said multiple times on here in April that this team is about two years away from being a legitimate Super Bowl contender again because they didn’t have enough youth to make the transition from the end of this era to the start of the next one smoothly. My stance has not changed since March.

** to prove i didn’t make up my stance currently, got into an argument with someone on blog calling me chicken little for feeling the way i did back in April. 

We’re talking about a 3 and a 5 and a below market deal for a top corner. You don’t have to be a legit SB contender to make that move. 

What you saw as an 8-8 team (after Brooks got hurt... the Eagles traded for Slay before that) they may have seen as 9-7 or 10-6 in a bad division and a wide open NFC.

Let’s save "bad trade” labels for actual bad trades, like Golden Tate and Genard Avery. 

Direct TV is also having an issue with NBC as well. Had to watch the Ravens/Steelers game on Telemundo the other day.