2 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Oh, we get it...you've said it a few times already.  It's a weak and nonsensical argument.   It's refreshing to know that the team and likely most fans don't feel that way. 

Dude, in the post you quoted in this reply, was @Arsenal79 saying we should cut him and bring him back at the vet minimum.

What about the Eagles history tells you the would not do that.  Before you respond,  I will remind you, Alshon Jeffrey, Jason Peters, Vinny Curry.  

8 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

Would you pay a guy to shovel your driveway in winter, but, when the snow actually falls, he just doesn't show up cause he's injured? Does that sound like a good allocation of resources to you? 

This analogy is a fail.  Vet min is hardly anything and he could be cut at any time.  I'm not advocating to give him a $30M/yr albatross contract that will handcuff us for years.

19 minutes ago, Arsenal79 said:

DeSean Jackson is an Eagles legend.  Would be nice to see him out there again before moving on this offseason.

Hell, if the price is right (vet min), I'd be ok with bringing him back next year as cheap depth.  

Do you really think he'd come back for the vet min?

15 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

What does that have to do with DeSean Jackson rehabbing so he can come back and help the team before the end of the season?

Straw man argument.  

 

No, it's not a straw man argument.  A straw man is when he mischaracterizes a position to destroy.   He has been clear about his argument about why he doesn't want Desean back.  He feels that the Eagles will fall prey to the same misguided optimism that Desean could remain healthy in 2021, even though the reality is that he's been completely incapable of staying healthy in 2019 or 2020.  And as he gets older, the likelihood of him all of a sudden getting more likely to stay healthy diminishes.   So, he doesn't want to see Desean back and have the same foolish front office that has failed to recognize older players with injury issues being liabilities to the team, rather than assets... and having it play out again with Desean.

 

So, Desean comes back, takes snaps from the young guys who are actually the future of the team, and makes the front office think that maybe next year he could stay healthy and really help the team.   What exactly is the up side?  

1 minute ago, Arsenal79 said:

This analogy is a fail.  Vet min is hardly anything and he could be cut at any time.  I'm not advocating to give him a $30M/yr albatross contract that will handcuff us for years.

No it isn't. You'd be paying him to play zero snaps, when he inevitably gets injured, again. It's an absolute waste of money, especially with a finite cap. 

2 minutes ago, Asg 15 said:

Do you really think he'd come back for the vet min?

Who knows?  Probably not, but if he did he'd be a cheap insurance policy in case our young guys falter.

1 minute ago, TorontoEagle said:

No it isn't. You'd be paying him to play zero snaps, when he inevitably gets injured, again. It's an absolute waste of money, especially with a finite cap. 

Even getting him for a quarter of the season would be fine at vet min.  It's hardly any money at all.  You need to do a cost/benefit analysis instead of just looking at what someone provides on the field in a vacuum.

26 minutes ago, downundermike said:

Should have never been brought back.  

DeSean - played in 6 of the last 30 games.

Alshon - played in 14 of the last 30 games.

So we have allocated 33.2 million in cap dollars the last two years for two players who have played 20 of the last 60 games combined.

Money well spent.

Lol, going even further, their combined statistical output for the last 2 years:

 

68 catches for 834 yards and 7 TDs. 

 

Honestly those numbers are actually better than what I thought they would be, but my God are they still awful for that money. 

This is why a lot of teams struggle to win multiple championships... they fall in love with the past and continually try to recreate that rather than move forward in the direction that the team and the league has gone.

6 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

No, it's not a straw man argument.  A straw man is when he mischaracterizes a position to destroy.   He has been clear about his argument about why he doesn't want Desean back.  He feels that the Eagles will fall prey to the same misguided optimism that Desean could remain healthy in 2021, even though the reality is that he's been completely incapable of staying healthy in 2019 or 2020.  And as he gets older, the likelihood of him all of a sudden getting more likely to stay healthy diminishes.   So, he doesn't want to see Desean back and have the same foolish front office that has failed to recognize older players with injury issues being liabilities to the team, rather than assets... and having it play out again with Desean.

 

So, Desean comes back, takes snaps from the young guys who are actually the future of the team, and makes the front office think that maybe next year he could stay healthy and really help the team.   What exactly is the up side?  

Because it’s DeSean. Like it’s amazing people on here call others washers meanwhile desean can’t stay healthy, is unreliable week to week and is going to be 34/35 but yet believe he’s just going to stay healthy even for 4 games and be a benefit to us next year even at a veteran minimum. Talk about washers. Epitome of calling someone a washer and then doing the same exact thing for a player you like who’s past his prime. 

1 minute ago, Arsenal79 said:

Even getting him for a quarter of the season would be fine at vet min.  It's hardly any money at all.  You need to do a cost/benefit analysis instead of just looking at what someone provides on the field in a vacuum.

You aren't going to get a quarter of the season. You might get 2 games, tops. 

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

Because it’s DeSean. Like it’s amazing people on here call others washers meanwhile desean can’t stay healthy, is unreliable week to week and is going to be 34/35 but yet believe he’s just going to stay healthy even for 4 games and be a benefit to us next year even at a veteran minimum. Talk about washers. Epitome of calling someone a washer and then doing the same exact thing for a player you like who’s past his prime. 

You can't be a Washer for someone making $1M per year.  That term is reserved for people who defend someone making $35M per year while turning in worst in the NFL performance.

You do understand there's a massive difference between $35M/yr and $1M/yr right?

3 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

You aren't going to get a quarter of the season. You might get 2 games, tops. 

I think you could easily get a half season or more if the guy is a deep backup and only used in emergency type situations.

6 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

Lol, going even further, their combined statistical output for the last 2 years:

 

68 catches for 834 yards and 7 TDs. 

 

Honestly those numbers are actually better than what I thought they would be, but my God are they still awful for that money. 

Meanwhile, 5th round pick last year Hunter Renfrow has 96 catches for 1,199 yards and 6 TD's.

Maybe we would have drafted a late round receiver if we did not have guys from the retirement home on our team.

1 minute ago, Arsenal79 said:

I think you could easily get a half season or more if the guy is a deep backup and only used in emergency type situations.

Lol imagine being this delusional! 

2 minutes ago, Arsenal79 said:

I think you could easily get a half season or more if the guy is a deep backup and only used in emergency type situations.

Last time we did that the guy broke his leg.

8 minutes ago, Arsenal79 said:

You can't be a Washer for someone making $1M per year.  That term is reserved for people who defend someone making $35M per year while turning in worst in the NFL performance.

You do understand there's a massive difference between $35M/yr and $1M/yr right?

I couldnt care less what the price is. The fact of the matter is you’d defend bringing back a guy who can’t stay healthy and past his prime like he’s reliable and going to help even at a minimum value. It’s the same principal of using his past to justify bringing him back when recent history has proven he’s likely done and not reliable. Congrats on being a desean washer. This is the exact same thing you were doing about people talking about 2017 wentz and yet you’re using his past to justify even bringing them back for a minimum veteran salary. The exact thing. I don’t give a crap If Carson Wentz make 35 million and he’s only make the veteran minimum. You’re using the same logic of people saying in 2017 you can get him back to that point to justify well desean was good years ago so it would be worth the veteran minimum.  

17 minutes ago, downundermike said:

Dude, in the post you quoted in this reply, was @Arsenal79 saying we should cut him and bring him back at the vet minimum.

What about the Eagles history tells you the would not do that.  Before you respond,  I will remind you, Alshon Jeffrey, Jason Peters, Vinny Curry.  

That's putting the cart in front of the horse.

No different than reporters asking Pederson to name his starting tackle for next season.

I start thinking about next season once this season is over.  I highly recommend it, you won't stress yourself out nearly as much. 

2 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

That's putting the cart in front of the horse.

No different than reporters asking Pederson to name his starting tackle for next season.

I start thinking about next season once this season is over.  I highly recommend it, you won't stress yourself out nearly as much. 

If Desean Jackson had 1 game like the Washington game last year to end the season, do you think the Eagles keep him at his cap number ??  Based on their history, I say yes.  

 

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

I couldnt care less what the price is. The fact of the matter is you’d defend bringing back a guy who can’t stay healthy and past his prime like he’s reliable and going to help even at a minimum value. It’s the same principal of using his past to justify bringing him back when recent history has proven he’s likely done and not reliable. Congrats you’re a hypocrite and desean washer. This is the exact same thing you were doing about people talking about 2017 wentz and yet you’re using his pass to justify even bringing them back for a minimum veteran salary. The exact thing. I don’t give a crap If Carson Wentz make 35 million and he’s only make the veteran minimum. You’re using the same logic of people saying in 2017 you can get him back to that point to justify well desean was good years ago so it would be worth the veteran minimum.  

Wrong again.  My logic is perfectly sound.  I'd be perfectly happy to bring Carson Wentz back next year if he was only making $1M/yr.  The fact that he's making over $30M/yr for many years is why he has to go.

Cost/Benefit analysis.  It's a simple thing to understand.

2 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

That's putting the cart in front of the horse.

No different than reporters asking Pederson to name his starting tackle for next season.

I start thinking about next season once this season is over.  I highly recommend it, you won't stress yourself out nearly as much. 

Sure it is. If you ask Pederson right now if he thinks Desean should be the starting WR next year, the answer should emphatically be no. 

14 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

You aren't going to get a quarter of the season. You might get 2 games, tops. 

YOu can't know that. What pissed me off last year was him not getting surgery when he was injured at the beginning of the season.

If he had he would have been available for the playoffs. The fact that he didn't makes me wonder about his comittment

9 minutes ago, downundermike said:

If Desean Jackson had 1 game like the Washington game last year to end the season, do you think the Eagles keep him at his cap number ??  Based on their history, I say yes.  

 

I would be great to see DJax have a stellar game...it's usually exciting to watch and the team usually wins when he goes off like that. 

But I have no idea what the Eagles are thinking.  As you know, I'm a DJax fan. If they decide to bring him back on a team friendly deal, it would be fun to watch him go at it for another year.   

And like I said, I have no idea what the F.O. is thinking.  Not to mention the fact that there could be teams out there that might sign him if it doesn't work out with the Eagles, etc. 

1 minute ago, Arsenal79 said:

Wrong again.  My logic is perfectly sound.  I'd be perfectly happy to bring Carson Wentz back next year if he was only making $1M/yr.  The fact that he's making over $30M/yr for many years is why he has to go.

Cost/Benefit analysis.  It's a simple thing to understand.

Yeeeeeah not really but then again you can’t even see the hypocrisy in your responses to wentz washers using his past to justify something and you using desean past to justify him even having a roster spot. 

But you do you and continue your desean washing. 

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

Yeeeeeah not really but then again you can’t even see the hypocrisy in your responses to wentz washers using his past to justify something and you using desean past to justify him even having a roster spot. 

But you do you and continue your desean washing. 

What part of Cost/Benefit analysis do you not understand?  I'm ok w/DeSean coming back for $1M/yr, not $35M/yr like Carson Wentz.

Do you understand the difference between $1M and $35M?