3 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

He has zero chance to theoretically beat out Allen. Hurts is far from entrenched here. 

I remember paying Bradford and Chase Daniel and trading the farm for Wentz. 

Fair point.

I just can't see Howie doing that now though.  It would be career suicide for him after last year.  The whole drafting or Hurts, pissing off the franchise quarterback followed by the explanation of how important it was to have a backup quarterback...and we know the rest.

If he did all of that, the SIGNED a backup to the guy he drafted to be the backup who is now the franchise quarterback THEN drafted a new quarterback to be QB1...I just don't know how he could survive that mess.

26 minutes ago, RLC said:

One day, Howie Roseman will get fired and we will celebrate.

We will have to put Afan on suicide watch.

26 minutes ago, greendestiny27 said:

Wow, holy f'n crap, just when you think this team can't be any dumber they hit a new low

Caplan actually messed up his tweet, again for the second time today. It's $4M in incentives with $3.5M guaranteed so it actually can go up to $7.5M

2 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

The weird issue with Flacco...

If Hurts goes down (and maybe even if he doesn't), the Eagles will ACTIVELY want to tank.  This is a 2-6 win team with Hurts.  We don't need a backup that can step in and win a game.  

Unless we are paying Flacco 3.5m to mentor Hurts (we aren't), this makes no sense.

 

This team under Lurie is not going to actively tank for a whole season. While they may not be great on paper for 2021, there’s still going to be expectations to win games regardless who is at QB. As much as fans around here have written 2021 off, I guarantee you Lurie, Howie, and even Siriannni have not. They will be looking to put together an at least decent season. 

 

12 minutes ago, Utebird said:

And yet the eagles won a super bowl without a 1000 yard receiver which was the point of my comment.

I feel like you are either misunderstanding my original comment, taking it out of context or just wanting to argue 

The post had the pic if the dog drinking a cup in a house on fire and below said eagles haven't had a 1000 yard WR since 2015...

Below that it said Howie- everything's fine 

Normally I'd agree with the sentiment except during those all of 4 seasons which they didn't have a 1000 yard receiver they won a super bowl and made the playoffs 3 of those 5 seasons so 

One can argue that one " needs" 1000 yard receivers to win the super bowl using the eagles from 2015-2020 isn't a good example seeing as stated they didn't need a 1000 yard WR to win it all.

No you made the comment 1000 yard wide receivers winning Super Bowls. I just gave you the information. It is not my fault you can’t handle the information that I just gave you. 66% of the teams that made it to a Super Bowl had 1000 yards wide receiver in the last 21 Super Bowls. 62% of the Super Bowl teams have won the last 21 Super Bowls have had 1000 yard WR. It’s really higher if i add on tight ends who had 1000 yards into this it would be 72%. Also could be higher if ward and Edelman had 25 and 28 more yards. Would make it nearly 81% won with 1000 yard receivers  

Again you can change the narrative, move the goalpost and I don’t really care. The proof is the majority of the teams winning Super Bowls and getting two Super Bowls have 1000 yard wide receivers.  Yes the Eagles won it they are the MINORITY not the majority here. So you rather take the 38 percent chance at winning or 62 percent chance? Personally I’d rather take the higher percentage chance. 

It's not a Howie offseason if we don't sign at least one 35+ free agent

@EaglePhan1986 bad news foles isn’t coming back 

9 minutes ago, downundermike said:

Kind of funny, Carson had the injury prone label, only QB to start all 16 games for the Eagles since 2008, and he did it twice.

 

Having to use a backup QB in the last 8 postseason games is rough 

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

 

No you made the comment 1000 yard wide receivers winning Super Bowls. I just gave you the information. It is not my fault you can’t handle the information that I just gave you. 66% of the teams that made it to a Super Bowl had 1000 yards wide receiver in the last 21 Super Bowls. 62% of the Super Bowl teams have won the last 21 Super Bowls have had 1000 yard WR. It’s really higher if i add on tight ends into this it would be 72%. Also could be higher if ward and Edelman had 25 and 28 more yards. Would make it nearly 81% won with 1000 yard receivers  

Again you can change the narrative, move the goalpost and I don’t really care. The proof is the majority of the teams winning Super Bowls and getting two Super Bowls have 1000 yard wide receivers.  Yes the Eagles won it they are the MINORITY not the majority here. So you rather take the 38 percent chance at winning or 62 percent chance? Personally I’d rather take the higher percentage chance. 

I can handle the Information.

I'll ask you a simple yes or no question.

Does a team need a 1000 yard WR to win a super bowl?

7 minutes ago, RLC said:

The GM thinks his team is good though. So a backup QB to keep the team afloat is valuable.

TBF, not having any backup is dumb. We didn't have to pay this though.

We have nothing at CB after Slay and zero LBs who are bankable. Better pay up for a backup QB with zero upside. 

This team, man...

2 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

We have nothing at CB after Slay and zero LBs who are bankable. Better pay up for a backup QB with zero upside. 

Howie Roseman, man...

FYP

Makes no sense to hate the Flacco deal. Name a 2021 UFA QB contract other than Trubisky's you'd have preferred. "We could have had Trubisky!" is such a moronic thing to say.

They have -- repeatedly -- gone on record saying they value backup QB. Getting one at $3.5 million isn't ideal at all, but it's not egregious.

9 minutes ago, Utebird said:

I can handle the Information.

I'll ask you a simple yes or no question.

Does a team need a 1000 yard WR to win a super bowl?

not really. You rather take the lesser percentage chance to make and win Sb because the eagles once were the minority that did it. 

I never said you had to have 1000 yards wide receiver. However it’s been proven the majority of teams who have won Super Bowl and made it to Super Bowls in the last 21 years have had that.

here’s the problem with your argument you rather take the 38% chance you can win without one whereas I would rather take the 62% chance. So logically you rather take the lesser percentage to make it. That makes no sense

just to re-iterate if we include TE into this discussion who also had 1000 yard receiving the amount of teams making it becomes 71.4% and winning it 71.4%. I don’t know about you that’s a pretty strong case that you probably should go that route because it’s less than 30% chance doing it your way. 

2 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

We have nothing at CB after Slay and zero LBs who are bankable. Better pay up for a backup QB with zero upside. 

This team, man...

Yup when teams are scoring 40 points a game against this eagles D with nothing at LB or secondary joe flaccos ability to hold a clip board or take a few garbage time snaps will be invaluable.

I'm pretty sure Reid didn't pay this much for doug pederson as vet qb. Idiocy.

 

13 minutes ago, wtfcares said:

This team under Lurie is not going to actively tank for a whole season. While they may not be great on paper for 2021, there’s still going to be expectations to win games regardless who is at QB. As much as fans around here have written 2021 off, I guarantee you Lurie, Howie, and even Siriannni have not. They will be looking to put together an at least decent season. 

You might want to double check on who you really think Lurie is.

This is the same guy that literally wrote off 2021, in his own words, in his end of season press conference.  This is the guy that phoned in a QB change to tank a game on prime time.

This is also a 4 win team that should be worse, on paper, in 2021 than 2020.

No one in that building, in that city, or around the NFL is expecting a remotely decent season from this team.

 

4 minutes ago, Saltpeter said:

Makes no sense to hate the Flacco deal. Name a 2021 UFA QB contract other than Trubisky's you'd have preferred. "We could have had Trubisky!" is such a moronic thing to say.

They have -- repeatedly -- gone on record saying they value backup QB. Getting one at $3.5 million isn't ideal at all, but it's not egregious.

When are the Eagles going to do something that is ideal?

 

Just now, eagle45 said:

When are the Eagles going to do something that is ideal?

 

Anthony Harris was pretty ideal. But my point was that $3.5 million for a backup QB in the NFL is not bad at all.

Howie: The Eagles want more picks.
Also Howie: The Eagles overpay for Flacco to eliminate comp picks.

43 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Howie gives too much money to old, broken down players.   But, I heard he learned from that mistake.

 

44 minutes ago, vaeagle2 said:

 

I thought this was an appropriate response to your comment.

 

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

not really. You rather take the lesser percentage chance to make and win Sb because the eagles once were the minority that did it. 

I never said you had to have 1000 yards wide receiver. However it’s been proven the majority of teams we have won Super Bowls and made it to Super Bowls in the last 21 years have had that

here’s the problem with your argument you rather take the 38% chance you can win without one whereas I would rather take the 62% chance. So logically you rather take the lesser percentage to make it. That makes no sense

So you can't answer a simple yes no question🤔

I'm not sure what argument you think I'm making, I simply said you don't need 1000 yard receivers to win a super bowl.

Your very own stats prove it 38% of the time a team with out a 1000 yard WR win the super bowl, that's a little over a third no?

I'd rather take the chance with the 62% myself and yet still remains as I stated in my original post one doesn't need a 1000 yard WR to win the super bowl.

Do teams that have a 1000 yard WR have a higher probability of winning the super bowl? Yes they do.

I feel like I'm talking in circles.

No one least of all me is arguing against having a 1000 yard receiver I'd very much like the eagles to have one, I'm arguing its not a must to win the super bowl and arguing especially that using the eagles from 2015- 2020 to argue ones case doesn't add up as they were one of the 1/3 of teams that won without a 1000 yard receiver right!

2 minutes ago, Saltpeter said:

Anthony Harris was pretty ideal. But my point was that $3.5 million for a backup QB in the NFL is not bad at all.

For 1 year in a year when we’d rather have our backup qb lose games than win them.

yeah howie could have signed a back up QB after the draft most likely cheaper. you would think LB or CB  would be a bigger issue.

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

GROSS

Go Howie go!!! Master cap guru! 

10 minutes ago, Utebird said:

So you can't answer a simple yes no question🤔

I'm not sure what argument you think I'm making, I simply said you don't need 1000 yard receivers to win a super bowl.

Your very own stats prove it 38% of the time a team with out a 1000 yard WR win the super bowl, that's a little over a third no?

I'd rather take the chance with the 62% myself and yet still remains as I stated in my original post one doesn't need a 1000 yard WR to win the super bowl.

Do teams that have a 1000 yard WR have a higher probability of winning the super bowl? Yes they do.

I feel like I'm talking in circles.

No one least of all me is arguing against having a 1000 yard receiver I'd very much like the eagles to have one, I'm arguing its not a must to win the super bowl and arguing especially that using the eagles from 2015- 2020 to argue ones case doesn't add up as they were one of the 1/3 of teams that won without a 1000 yard receiver right!

Again where did I say you couldn’t win a Super Bowl without 1000 yard wide receiver? Go look at what I said. I never said that.

and just so you know if I added ward (missed a game due to playoff scenario seeding otherwise would have) and Edelman who were 25 and 28 yards short ( and Edelman didn’t play a couple weeks due injury and do to clinching otherwise he would’ve) of 1000 yards as wide receivers that number goes up to 71% who have won. And if I really wanted to I can add in two tight ends on Super Bowl winning teams that went over 1000 yards which would bring it all the way up to like 81%

My whole point to you was the percentages are not in your favor going the route you wanted to go. Add on your lazy Larry Fitzgerald point about not winning a Super Bowls. Theres 13 other 1000 yard WRs in the last 21 years that have which is a better percent than your 38 who didn’t have one. Also Larry Fitzgerald probably has a Super Bowl ring right now if not for a miraculous catch by wide receiver in Holmes.

9 minutes ago, Saltpeter said:

Anthony Harris was pretty ideal. But my point was that $3.5 million for a backup QB in the NFL is not bad at all.

Ooh, the safety who turns 30 this season on a 1 year contract during our rebuild was the ideal move.