2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Fan Since 1981 vs Fan Since 1986. Who wins??

Does the 1986 guy believe in reincarnation and previous lives where he would have been an Eagles fan?

1 hour ago, downundermike said:

Imagine him going to Indy, seeing that Reich was the answer to the question why we won the Superbowl, and watching him get back to dominating.

A lot of folks would have a lot to answer for.

Imagine what Shanahan would do with him under center, Nick Mullens looked good under the bright lights of Monday night.

It would be crazy. I think he is still very valuable. Hardest position to fill. The Vikings traded a 1st for Bradford lol.

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

I don’t know if the offense looks catered to hurts.

What if we finally run the ball 30 times and give sanders 25 touched and we pass for only 100 yards. Would that not be an entirely different game plan then what the Philadelphia Eagles and what we’ve been telling you for about two months that they should run the ball with Miles Sanders me?

however I know what excuses you’re going to come up with after the Saints game if the offense doesn’t look good. The ones i just out out there are going to spew out of your mouth. 

You're obviously triggered today because just about everything you've been assuming over the past 2-3 weeks is rapidly showing to be inaccurate.  I get it.  If I was you, I would likely be "shocked" as well.  

And they better taylor the offense around Hurts.  That's exactly what good coaches do.  If they didn't, then I would begin to agree that it has more to do with the coaching then it does the QB.  

And I already know what your next "long winded" response is going to be so I'll save you the time, just like you saved me the time earlier.

"Well, they didn't taylor it around Wentz".

And I'll respond, "You're wrong because every credible report states that they have been working all year to make the offense better for Wentz"

And you'll go on and on and on about how it's not the case, how Howie didn't get him the right players and how the rest of the team stinks...as well as the play calling and scheme.

And I will disagree.  So agree to disagree now or in 20 more pages of this nonsense? 

 

12 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I've probably been an Eagles fan longer than you've been alive.  So that's that. 

Judging by your avatar and the fact that it says "Fan since 1986," I would undoubtedly and emphatically tell you that you are incorrect.  But that's still a pretty long time.  I'm sure you've seen some ish.  

Me: 

• Location: Charlotte, NC
• Favorite Team: Eagles
• Fan Since: 1981

You:

• Location: Florida
• Favorite Team: Eagles
• Fan Since: 1986

Blog:

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Blazehound said:

Robbie Anderson stings...instead we got an overpaid underperforming DT.

thanks Howie.

Actually, since the break Hargrave is probably our best DT, certainly our best pass rushing DT.

Just needed time to adjust from a two gap to one gap, that's where no exhibition games really hurt.

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

Lmao. Definition of politician answer. 

You come out clearly saying you were wrong( I think you can admit you put once again wrong) which was clearly a shot at me. 

When you say that statement you better have legitimate proof that they were wrong. Not the assumption you’re making and acting like that is the only truth of the matter.

Now it is: oh well we’re all just guessing it is an eagles board. So you’re guessing that you’re right and that other people are wrong. So you don’t have actual any proof to tell people they were wrong. So again great job making up narrative and going based off your assumptions as things are definitively true. 

like wow. This is the entire concussion argument we had last week where you keep making assumptions and saying them as if they are definitively true. Once again proving my point consistently every week

I was 100% correct about concussions.  Whether or not that's the case with Wentz is an unknown.

And no, I don't "need legitimate proof" because the FACT is that YOU said that Doug wouldn't start Hurts because it could show that the offensive struggles are his fault.  Well, now he's starting Hurts.  So you were wrong.  We are dealing in hypotheticals here.  So your hypothetical theory is wrong.  

Don't feel bad.  Some of my "hypotheticals" have been wrong as well.   For example, if the offense looks just as bad or worse against the Saints, my hypothetical theory that the offensive struggles have mostly (not all) to do with QB play could be wrong. 

Although a 1 game sample size vs a 12 game sample size wouldn't necessarily reflect that...it would at least begin to sway my opinion on the matter. 

12 minutes ago, hputenis said:

Judging by your avatar and the fact that it says "Fan since 1986," I would undoubtedly and emphatically tell you that you are incorrect.  But that's still a pretty long time.  I'm sure you've seen some ish.  

Me: 

• Location: Charlotte, NC
• Favorite Team: Eagles
• Fan Since: 1981

You:

• Location: Florida
• Favorite Team: Eagles
• Fan Since: 1986

Blog:

 

 

 

Oh, I was just going by the maturity level of your posts.  Touche.

 

4 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Actually, since the break Hargrave is probably our best DT, certainly our best pass rushing DT.

Just needed time to adjust from a two gap to one gap, that's where no exhibition games really hurt.

Hargrave can be our "...best pass rushing DT" and still be "...an overpaid underperforming DT."

28 minutes ago, downundermike said:

 

be nice to see a new play caller for the kid too.

The Eagles have become a national punchline. Even when they were bad in recent years before this, they were always a respected organization where mocking rarely reached the national stage. Everyone is laughing at how Fed up our situation is.

I hope Lurie takes note of this and it encourages him to clean house.

When the most impartial and unemotional reporters are ripping your organization, you know it's bad.

Just now, Sack that QB said:

The Eagles have become a national punchline. Even when they were bad in recent years before this, they were always a respected organization where mocking rarely reached the national stage. Everyone is laughing at how Fed up our situation is.

I hope Lurie takes note of this and it encourages him to clean house.

When the most impartial and unemotional reporters are ripping your organization, you know it's bad.

Lurie is part of the problem.

Just now, Desertbirds said:

Lurie is part of the problem.

Agreed, but you can't fire the owner, so not much can be done about that. He needs to get over his man crush with Howie and pull the plug. We can't afford one more season of this dysfunction.

Wentzdefenders should at least be willing to admit, speculatively, that IF the passes got out faster and more accurately; It's just possible more passes would've been caught, receivers and offensive strategy would succeed, sacks would be avoided, and our record would be better, thus avoiding so much condemnation. I'm not saying any of those outcomes were guaranteed if Wentz performed better, as the rest of the team's performance has been at least questionable as well. Only that there was no way possible that those outcomes COULD occur if Wentz DIDN'T perform better.

Just now, Ace Nova said:

You're obviously triggered today because just about everything you've been assuming over the past 2-3 weeks is rapidly showing to be inaccurate.  I get it.  If I was you, I would likely be "shocked" as well.  

And they better taylor the offense around Hurts.  That's exactly what good coaches do.  If they didn't, then I would begin to agree that it has more to do with the coaching then it does the QB.  

And I already know what your next "long winded" response is going to be so I'll save you the time, just like you saved me the time earlier.

"Well, they didn't taylor it around Wentz".

And I'll respond, "You're wrong because every credible report states that they have been working all year to make the offense better for Wentz"

And you'll go on and on and on about how it's not the case, how Howie didn't get him the right players and how the rest of the team stinks...as well as the play calling and scheme.

And I will disagree.  So agree to disagree now or in 20 more pages of this nonsense? 

 

Wow you are delusional. Literally nothing I’ve said over the last 2-3 weeks has yet to be proven wrong or inaccurate. you have yet to prove without just your assumptions that they have been. Always your classic assumptions which you think definitive facts. Proving my point once again with what you just wrote in your first paragraph. So you told me in the last post you don’t have definitive facts and are guessing but yet you’re going to say what you just did in that first paragraph.

seriously get yourself some help. You seem to think your assumptions are now definitive accuracies and truths. A week a go try to be a medical doctor because had research articles. This week do you like to tell people they wrong but then go back on it and say what we’re all just guessing. So youre guess now turned out to be accuracies and truth without actual definitive proof? Like your logic is ridiculously flawed 

if they did that for hurts and they couldn’t figure it out for Carson Wentz to run the ball 30 times and they would have success because it’s been proven they can run the ball most season. when they do it then the coaching has failed for 13 weeks of the season for not committing to the run when it’s been talked about repeatedly that they should. So they were trying to make it easier on Carson Wentz and tailored to him when he’s struggling throwing but they decided the running game being 28th in the league in carries. So 55 passing attempts and 9 called runs is making it easier and tailoring to wentz. I would be shocked too if I had poor logic like you are using right now. 

It’s absolutely amazing you  believe your assumptions are truth an accurate but then when somebody calls you out to prove you only have your assumptions, guessing or change the narrative. Just wow  

 

2 hours ago, Casey @ Bat said:

I get your point and if we got a good offer I’d consider it considering where we are as a team. I’m just not in favor of putting JAG’s on the Oline. We’ve put plenty of young guys out there this year that look just like that to me. 

I fear Brooks and Johnson will look like JAGs next year, too.

On 12/7/2020 at 1:24 PM, Rhinoddd50 said:

Ever since The Shawshank Redemption I can't ever hear this word again without thinking about the Warden Norton scene.    

To be honest - I don't think I ever used that word before that scene and now can't seem to find enough opportunities. 

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

Wow you are delusional. Literally nothing I’ve said over the last 2-3 weeks has yet to be proven wrong or inaccurate. you have yet to prove without just your assumptions that they have been. Always your classic assumptions which you think definitive facts. Proving my point once again with what you just wrote in your first paragraph. So you told me in the last post you don’t have definitive facts and are guessing but yet you’re going to say what you just did in that first paragraph.

seriously get yourself some help. You seem to think your assumptions are now definitive accuracies and truths. A week a go try to be a medical doctor because had research articles. This week do you like to tell people they wrong but then go back on it and say what we’re all just guessing. So youre guess now turned out to be accuracies and truth without actual definitive proof? Like your logic is ridiculously flawed 

if they did that for hurts and they couldn’t figure it out for Carson Wentz to run the ball 30 times and they would have success because it’s been proven they can run the ball most season. when they do it then the coaching has failed for 13 weeks of the season for not committing to the run when it’s been talked about repeatedly that they should. So they were trying to make it easier on Carson Wentz and tailored to him when he’s struggling throwing but they decided the running game being 28th in the league in carries. So 55 passing attempts and 9 called runs is making it easier and tailoring to wentz. I would be shocked too if I had poor logic like you are using right now. 

It’s absolutely amazing you  believe your assumptions are truth an accurate but then when somebody calls you out to prove you only have your assumptions, guessing or change the narrative. Just wow  

 

No one is changing the narrative here except YOU.

YOU said Pederson wouldn't start Hurts because it could show that the offensive woe's are his fault and the rest of the team's (and Howie's) fault.  YOU SAID THAT.

Now you drumming up additional excuses.  I'm done here.  Have someone else read your dreadfully long winded, nonsensical responses. 

1 minute ago, Ace Nova said:

YOU said Pederson wouldn't start Hurts because it could show that the offensive woe's are his fault and the rest of the team's (and Howie's) fault.  YOU SAID THAT.

Technically he is correct.  I am of the belief that Howie and Jeff are pulling the strings on this.  Doug is "starting" him because his bosses told him to.

12 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I was 100% correct about concussions.  Whether or not that's the case with Wentz is an unknown.

And no, I don't "need legitimate proof" because the FACT is that YOU said that Doug wouldn't start Hurts because it could show that the offensive struggles are his fault.  Well, now he's starting Hurts.  So you were wrong.  We are dealing in hypotheticals here.  So your hypothetical theory is wrong.  

Don't feel bad.  Some of my "hypotheticals" have been wrong as well.   For example, if the offense looks just as bad or worse against the Saints, my hypothetical theory that the offensive struggles have mostly (not all) to do with QB play could be wrong. 

Although a 1 game sample size vs a 12 game sample size wouldn't necessarily reflect that...it would at least begin to sway my opinion on the matter. 

Oh, I was just going by the maturity level of your posts.  Touche.

 

You are 100% not discussing whether or not concussions could lead to long-term issues. That was never the discussion. You change your narrative into that halfway through the argument when I told you you were full of crap because he didn’t have his medical records and he didn’t have test done on him really prove that.

and yes I said that with doug at that time he didn’t wanna do it. Because if he goes out there against that crappy defense like the Seahawks And struggles it falls on doug because the Seahawks defense is not very good.

which brings me to my next point I know you don’t read things. Because what did I say to you at the last message we had that day? I said you are my real opinion is that it falls on Jeffrey Lurie at the decision. And yet you haven’t responded to that. Again narratives made by you.

But he bless your heart because you think your assumptions make people wrong even though you can’t even prove your assumption is factually true. Bravo also on changing narratives and goal post of your arguments in the middle of arguments 

 

Just now, downundermike said:

Technically he is correct.  I am of the belief that Howie and Jeff are pulling the strings on this.  Doug is "starting" him because his bosses told him to.

Doubtful.  There were reports saying that Pederson could likely get fired for pulling Wentz the last game and keeping Hurts in.  Maybe they were 100% BS, we don't know.

Maybe it's a combination of the three (Lurie, Howie and Pederson) but there's ZERO chance that Pederson didn't have say in the call....HE'S THE ONE THAT PUT HIM IN TO BEGIN WITH...HELLO.

 

Chris Simms, who has plenty of NFL sources, says he has heard that Doug wants out.

I think it's true, but a tricky situation for Doug. He wants to be a HC, so he can't just resign or that looks pretty rough.

2 hours ago, RLC said:

Hurts had to start or the entire roster would have revolted.

Playing the Saints as your 1st game though? Oh boy, that's ROUGH.

This also means we're likely going 2-2 to end the year.

Really?   Even though the roster didn't revolt at Peters getting put out there week after week being a turnstile, who demanded more money to be a bad LT, rather than a putrid RG?  

 

Just now, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

You are 100% not discussing whether or not concussions could lead to long-term issues. That was never the discussion. You change your narrative into that halfway through the argument when I told you you were full of crap because he didn’t have his medical records and he didn’t have test done on him really prove that.

and yes I said that with doug at that time he didn’t wanna do it. Because if he goes out there against that crappy defense like the Seahawks And struggles it falls on doug because the Seahawks defense is not very good.

which brings me to my next point I know you don’t read things. Because what did I say to you at the last message we had that day? I said you are my real opinion is that it falls on Jeffrey Lurie at the decision. And yet you haven’t responded to that. Again narratives made by you.

But he bless your heart because you think your assumptions make people wrong even though you can’t even prove your assumption is factually true. Bravo also on changing narratives and goal post of your arguments in the middle of arguments 

 

You're not making any sense and anyone who has been reading this blog knows exactly what you said and my responses to it. You can go on and on and on with your nonsense and it still won't make it true.

54 minutes ago, RLC said:

So many clips like this are so weird. Reagor looks like he doesn't care, yet he's still open.

He needs to clean it up because that is some lazy S. There is no excuse for that. 

2 hours ago, Alphagrand said:

I have no issue at all playing Hurts down the stretch because I separate the rest of 2020 from 2021 entirely.

If the coaching staff is let go -- and especially if Howie is let go -- everything on the personnel side starts fresh for 2021.

I've said before -- give Wentz an entire offseason program with OTA and training camp, let him work with a QB guru for the summer, and enter training camp in 2021 refreshed and he is still the presumptive starting QB next season.

Yup. 

But, this makes the clean sweep of the front office and coaching staff that much more likely.  

1 minute ago, macgregor said:

Wentzdefenders should at least be willing to admit, speculatively, that IF the passes got out faster and more accurately; It's just possible more passes would've been caught, receivers and offensive strategy would succeed, sacks would be avoided, and our record would be better, thus avoiding so much condemnation. I'm not saying any of those outcomes were guaranteed if Wentz performed better, as the rest of the team's performance has been at least questionable as well. Only that there was no way possible that those outcomes COULD occur if Wentz DIDN'T perform better.

You're arguing cause and effect.  I've been saying since early in the season the ball needs to come out faster.

If Doug calls up plays where the release is 2.5 seconds or less, and Wentz isn't throwing the ball, the QB change should have been made a long time ago.  I don't believe that's the case.

Just like Andrew Luck in 2015, the OC is calling for long-developing plays that the OL is incapable of protecting.