I’ll keep taking 3-5 years fron the head coach if they keep bringing us glorious super bowl victories like Doug did.     

On 4/5/2021 at 10:53 PM, JohnB said:

the success of any coach here is going to come down to whether or not they are truly the head coach, or if they are puppets to Lurie/Roseman. If it's the former, we have a fighting chance. If it's the latter, it will be one hell of an obstacle to overcome. 

In their minds they think differently. They gave Andy all that power and didn’t win one. They gave Chip all the power and they got worse. They hired a puppet and they won a Super Bowl. Things went bad when that puppet wanted more power. Just an observation, but I’m not saying I agree with it. 

I'm optimistic.

13 minutes ago, Jenkins27 said:

I'm optimistic.

Seems to speak pretty well and get across what he is trying to say. Seems fine to me

19 hours ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

I just don't think that looks that great. I mean CB and WR are absolutely glaring holes in my opinion. 

We can't just hope that Fulgham and Jacquet are going to be good enough to start. And there are other areas of this team that are just "OK". Nothing more, nothing less. And so much rests on Hurts actually being good and we simply don't know which way that's going to go. 

Fulgham proved he's good enough to start. If by "start" you mean be in the HOF some day, then no, we can't assume that --- but he can and has started in this league and was the most productive WR in the NFL over a 4 or 5 game stretch even with a QB playing his worst football on an offense missing many key players. Greg Lewis started games, James Thrash started games, Todd Pinkston started games. They were all "starters." What Fulgham did despite not being a part of this team's OTAs, not being a part of most of our TC, not having a preseason, and coming off our practice squad was so unbelievable that some of you refuse to believe it. I just don't get it. The guy can play in this league. He can still get a lot better too. 

The people in charge of the personnel on this team made a decision to re-establish Jeffery once he returned. We may not ever know who exactly made the decision (Doug? Howie? Lurie?) or why exactly it was made, but nothing good came from it. 3 of our 4 wins came during his first 5 starts. 

Jacquet is a little bit different. We were forced to use him at times last year and he did surprise with some pretty good plays, but he also struggled due to lack of experience. He's more of a developmental project than a guy that should be starting right now. He has upside and nice size, but you want to keep him around right now as depth and find someone more consistent to start in front of him. Try to get him some snaps in games and see how he's progressing. 

11 hours ago, Infam said:

But that is all I said. CB and WR are the most obvious needs, but the picture as a whole ain't all bad.

I mean I still think the OL is a concern just due to the number of injuries we've suffered there for a few years now. The DL is OK but I don't think is a particular strength now (but that may be OK in a Gannon scheme). We don't know what kind of HC Sirianni is and we don't know what kind of QB Hurts is going to be. 

5 hours ago, brkmsn said:

Fulgham proved he's good enough to start.

He started hot and then disappeared. He's been around a couple of PS. I'm not sure we can say he's good enough to start.

8 hours ago, Jenkins27 said:

I'm optimistic.

Fire Sirianni!!  He has proven he can't win it all...

 

4 hours ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

He started hot and then disappeared. He's been around a couple of PS. I'm not sure we can say he's good enough to start.

Maybe you can't, but I can. He's good enough to start. He proved that by actually starting games last season and producing. He produced against good defenses. He produced while we were missing: (Jeffery, DJax, Goedert , Reagor, JJAW / week4) (Jeffery, DJax, Goedert, Reagor / week5) (Jeffery, DJax, Goedert, Reagor / week6) (Jeffery, Ertz, Goedert, Reagor, Sanders / week 7) (Jeffery, DJax, Sanders, Ertz / week 8 ). Week 9 was a bye week. 

I've seen this board's argument that this 5-game stretch was some kind of anomaly --- that defenses hadn't prepared for him or game-planned against him. That's absolute nonsense. To suggest that opposing teams don't do their homework, preparing for the upcoming opponent is naive --- especially when they don't have to gameplan to cover a team's preferred targets (Jeffery, Ertz, Goedert, DJax, Reagor, Sanders). So what were opponents doing the week before Eagles games ... bowling? Clearly the 49ers didn't have much to study on Fulgham, but I'm sure they used what they could. After scoring the go-ahead TD in the 4th quarter, other teams knew to prepare for Fulgham and had game tape to see how he was used. During this stretch, most teams had their best CB on him. They were well aware of what he was doing each week. 

Following the week 9 bye, Jeffery returned to active duty and Doug wanted to start getting him involved and began taking snaps away from Fulgham. On top of that we were trying to reestablish Goedert (2nd game back) and Sanders (1st game back). Fulgham didn't have a good game in weeks 10 or 11. Both games were windy and one was wet as well and Wentz wasn't playing very well. It's not all that surprising that he would go through that. What is surprising is the Eagles insistence on getting Jeffery snaps over Fulgham. After the season, Jason Avant stated, "We as an organization stunted Travis' growth." I mean, that much is obvious --- what isn't clear is: Why? What were they trying to accomplish by taking their only real spark offensively in 2020 off the field for their most expensive non-factor?

Anyway, It's not like Fulgham only played against the NFL's worst defenses during his amazing stretch and it's not like were hiding him in a different uniform each week. Teams did prepare for Fulgham and he had success. Top corners covered him and he had success. We stopped using him and he fell off the stat charts. 

14 hours ago, EazyEaglez said:

In their minds they think differently. They gave Andy all that power and didn’t win one. They gave Chip all the power and they got worse. They hired a puppet and they won a Super Bowl. Things went bad when that puppet wanted more power. Just an observation, but I’m not saying I agree with it. 

maybe, however, let's look at the overall success of an owner/gm that meddles in the day to day football operations. The track record across the board is not very good. Say what you want, AR is still the most successful coach in Eagles history, even if he didn't win a Super Bowl. He kept us competitive the longest.In Roseman's case, he bought us a championship. He gambled away our short term future for the sake of a championship and we are all lucky that it actually worked. Many teams, such as the Redskins in the early days of Snyder's ownership tried to do the same thing and it didn't work. Furthermore, I'm not suggesting that any coach be given ALL the power, however, it's ridiculous not to be given MOST or at least HALF the power, particularly regarding which players they want and or positions of need. 

4 hours ago, JohnB said:

In Roseman's case, he bought us a championship. He gambled away our short term future for the sake of a championship and we are all lucky that it actually worked. 

Most (or all) of Howie's "gambling" took place after we won a Super Bowl. 

His lost game press conferences after a loss when the media is grilling him will be must see TV at least.  Even his game winning press conferences I bet he will be all hyped up like he is ablut his brothers community College team.