33 minutes ago, jwill2420 said:

Bad news for us is Howie is our GM. 

Not arguing that, but there seems to be this false narrative that GM's in the NFL do not have final say on the 53 man roster.

8 minutes ago, Thrive said:

Interesting article from someone who is very close to Carson and the team.

I keep going back and forth on Carson but if he really didn’t do the acts he’s been reported to do, I’m way more willing to have him come back but I don’t know what good that will do. He seemed mentally checked out last year and (I think) his camping is using Rob to indicate that he is truly done in Philly (Rob seems to indicate that Hurts is the better option for Philly at this junction). 

Can i say i Fing hate the argument cause you aren’t close to a SB that you should trade away a QB in his prime if you believe he can be fixed and be a franchise QB. So it’s hard as heck to find a QB thats good in this league so since you aren’t close to a SB you should just trade them away if you do have one (not the wentz situation but in general— I’m talking about guys in their prime not guys who are exiting that). It’s a ridiculous statement. So the Texans aren’t close to a SB but they definitely should trade watson? I don’t see anyone saying it’s smart to do that. 

2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Great theory. Not reality. You must have missed the Foles has to go stuff a few years ago.

First Foles was the problem.  Now Hurts is the problem.

At what point is Carson Wentz the problem?

3 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

I was excited about today and optimistic.  Just a fitting end to a crap week.  At least we can all point and laugh this coming year.  That's all we can do.  

I can't get excited about anything they do until Howie is gone. And that applies to Lurie too since I can't trust him either until he shows he can get his head out of his ass and see what's going on right in front of him. Doesn't mean they can't get something right here or there. They won't get every single thing wrong. But until that happens, I just can't blindly trust any major move they make will be the right decision and with the right motivations.

If that's being harsh, then it is, but they've earned the skepticism.

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

Can i say i Fing hate the argument cause you aren’t close to a SB that you should trade away a QB in his prime if you believe he can be fixed and be a franchise QB. So it’s hard as heck to find a QB thats good in this league so since you aren’t close to a SB you should just trade them away if you do have one (not the wentz situation but in general— I’m talking about guys in their prime not guys who are exiting that). It’s a ridiculous statement. So the Texans aren’t close to a SB but they definitely should trade watson? I don’t see anyone saying it’s smart to do that. 

Agreed but I think that’s all just pretext. I think Rob (as a possible voice of the Wentz camp) is just using that argument to try to convince the fanbase/FO that a trade is a win-win for both sides.

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

Can i say i Fing hate the argument cause you aren’t close to a SB that you should trade away a QB in his prime if you believe he can be fixed and be a franchise QB. So it’s hard as heck to find a QB thats good in this league so since you aren’t close to a SB you should just trade them away if you do have one (not the wentz situation but in general). It’s a ridiculous statement. So the Texans aren’t close to a SB but they definitely should trade watson? I don’t see anyone saying it’s smart to do that. 

Thank you. I hate this argument. I also hate the "Can this guy beat Patrick Mahomes in the Super Bowl?" argument. It's so non-sensical. Are 31 teams supposed to just aimlessly keep bringing in QB's until they find one on Mahomes level?

I hope the team not committing to Carson as the guy will light a fire under him. Hard to say if that's the right strategy, but I also think Carson needs to know he owns part of the disaster that was last season. Why does everyone treat "QB controversy" as some terrible thing to be avoided at all costs?

(EDIT: by "everyone" I don't mean literally everyone, and certainly not everyone on the blog)

5 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Thank you. I hate this argument. I also hate the "Can this guy beat Patrick Mahomes in the Super Bowl?" argument. It's so non-sensical. Are 31 teams supposed to just aimlessly keep bringing in QB's until they find one on Mahomes level?

I think the mahomes argument has some validity to it. You have to have a QB that’s at least capable of playing great in the moment. Most teams lose to the chiefs cause mahomes has the ability to play a so-so game by his standards but would still be good for other QBs and other teams QBs play Ok which isn’t enough. I don’t believe the QB has  to be mahomes level but the rest of the team around him is very good or great to equal the field especially with the offensive skill players the chiefs have. However i don’t think you are beating the chiefs along with mahomes without having a top 8ish QB and a great team around them.  

Also, Eagles and Lurie are weak as hell going with a 1 hour time limit and Lurie filibustering for 1/3 of it. They waited like 10 days, had tons of reporters on the call and had 28 people that wanted to ask questions, and didn't even call on half of them. Even if he was giving non or weak answers they should have went until everyone got to ask a question if they had one.

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Also, Eagles and Lurie are weak as hell going with a 1 hour time limit and Lurie filibustering for 1/3 of it. They waited like 10 days, had tons of reporters on the call and had 28 people that wanted to ask questions, and didn't even call on half of them. Even if he was giving non or weak answers they should have went until everyone got to ask a question if they had one.

Nothing about this organization projects much confidence in what they're doing right now. At least that's my impression

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Also, Eagles and Lurie are weak as hell going with a 1 hour time limit and Lurie filibustering for 1/3 of it. They waited like 10 days, had tons of reporters on the call and had 28 people that wanted to ask questions, and didn't even call on half of them. Even if he was giving non or weak answers they should have went until everyone got to ask a question if they had one.

On the one hand, I agree with this.

On the other hand, a lot of the questions asked were awful.

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Also, Eagles and Lurie are weak as hell going with a 1 hour time limit and Lurie filibustering for 1/3 of it. They waited like 10 days, had tons of reporters on the call and had 28 people that wanted to ask questions, and didn't even call on half of them. Even if he was giving non or weak answers they should have went until everyone got to ask a question if they had one.

What is the over/under the reporters ask wentz/QB questions if all of them got a question? 9.5?

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

I think the mahomes argument has some validity to it. You have to have a QB that’s at least capable of playing great in the moment. Most teams lose to the chiefs cause mahomes has the ability to play a so-so game by his standards but would still be good for other QBs and other teams QBs play Ok which isn’t enough. I don’t believe the QB has  to be mahomes level but the rest of the team around him is very good or great to equal the field especially with the offensive skill players the chiefs have. However i don’t think you are beating the chiefs along with mahomes without having a top 8ish QB and a great team around them.  

I agree you need a top 10ish QB to win a Super Bowl unless you get lucky, which happens. But people frame the argument that the QB needs to be on the same level as Mahomes. Which is stupid because he's in a tier by himself. 

14 minutes ago, Thrive said:

Agreed but I think that’s all just pretext. I think Rob (as a possible voice of the Wentz camp) is just using that argument to try to convince the fanbase/FO that a trade is a win-win for both sides.

Ive seen other articles not pertaining to the eagles where if a franchise isn’t close to a SB they should trade a QB. Like what? The toughest position in the game you just trade cause you aren’t close. Seems like a bad idea and a way to make yourself irrelevant for years. I could understand if you thought the guy was Bradford where you know you aren’t winning anything with him.   

**i could understand why the Rams want to move on from Goff. They continue to fall short large part cause Goff just isn’t good enough most of the time and they’ve gone as far as they can with him. Plus i think they believe he holds mcvay back from being the offense he wants. That would make sense to trade him if they believe that. Not if they weren’t close to winning a SB and decided let’s just trade hmm cause we aren’t close (in this hypothetical he is actually really good)

Word going around that former Temple coach John Chaney has died.

2 minutes ago, RLC said:

On the one hand, I agree with this.

On the other hand, a lot of the questions asked were awful.

Some things never change. 

 

Lurie said they were looking for someone who can fix Wentz but then Nick didn't want to comment

I think he was just nervous in his first PC as a HC

Not a fan of Howie getting final say over 53. Just means he can bring back old players that shouldn't be on the team

Good thing is at least Nick can choose to not have them on the field and let Howie waste money

Can't wait until Howie is gone

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I agree you need a top 10ish QB to win a Super Bowl unless you get lucky, which happens. But people frame the argument that the QB needs to be on the same level as Mahomes. Which is stupid because he's in a tier by himself. 

It’s lucky and usually not very sustainable long term to stay in that type of contention without one. 

i said this before if the eagles don’t believe wentz or hurts can be top 10 QBs in the league then they need to consider moving on from one or both and thinking about doing their research on the QBs in this draft to see if they believe one of them that they can acquire can be. Cause if you truly don’t believe either can you are just spinning your tires in the mud 

25 minutes ago, RLC said:

Nick Sirianni's press conference >>>>> Doug Pederson's first press conference.

Also, winning the press conference doesn't matter.

Honestly. People need to take a breath for a second. Don't overanalyze a press conference.

6 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

Word going around that former Temple coach John Chaney has died.

I still remember when he tried going after Calipari during his press conference.

Isn't it kind of hard for Nick to say competition is one of his core values and then simply name Carson the starter?

7 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Lurie said they were looking for someone who can fix Wentz but then Nick didn't want to comment

I think he was just nervous in his first PC as a HC

Not a fan of Howie getting final say over 53. Just means he can bring back old players that shouldn't be on the team

Good thing is at least Nick can choose to not have them on the field and let Howie waste money

Can't wait until Howie is gone

I don't think he will do that.  Hopefully he's learned his lesson.

18 minutes ago, Arsenal79 said:

First Foles was the problem.  Now Hurts is the problem.

At what point is Carson Wentz the problem?

That's the media creating and fans running with that naritive. We've seen nothing to suggest there were or are any issues been Carson and these other QBs, the opposite seems to be true. Carson and Nick are great friends and the cameras multiple times showed Carson helping Hurts on the sidelines.

If Carson is that much of a diva and that bad of a teammate, would he be helping his replacement during the game?

2 minutes ago, schuy7 said:

Honestly. People need to take a breath for a second. Don't overanalyze a press conference.

What on earth did you guys expect from an introductory news conference?

* Sirianni hit the right marks and gave non-answers as expected. 

* GMs having final say over the 53 and HC’s on the gameday roster is standard. 

* Sirianni is a young, first-time HC, of course he’s going to defer to the GM. That’s pretty standard. 

* Him not committing to Wentz is interesting. Not that I expected him to name him the starter, but to pretend he hasn’t already watched him closely and discussed Wentz extensively during the interview process would be burying your head in the sand. All options are on the table I think. 

This.