22 minutes ago, 20dawk4life said:

Mathis was solid but unless this is 14th best LG for the decade I can’t take it serious. He’s not the 14th best olineman, sure as hell isnt the 14th best player. 

I was pretty pissed when Chip let him go bye,bye, with no plan at that position

This was a very important story for the Eagles future success.  I didn't see it discussed, and probably would not get much attention here, but I want to highlight it.  I have been talking about this here for the last few years.  The fact that the Eagles are now entering into their 4th medical and training staff (or combined iteration thereof) in the last 4 seasons shows how desperate they are to fix what they won't verbally acknowledge has been a HUGE problem, though their actions show at least that they know very well how bad this has been.  The quick recap is that the Eagles have led the league in "soft tissue" injuries, are among the league leaders every year in adjusted games lost, have had starters injured significantly in pre-game warm-ups (unthinkable in this day and age), have such frequent occurrence of re-injury when players are given the green light, give misleading and often totally wrong guidance on injury return times, and overall are several standard deviations outside of normal injury results in nearly every respect.  This has not just been about "old players" as the injury issues have included many different players over the past few seasons at different career stages.  This has been a total institutional failure, and one that should have resulted in those responsible for solving the problem being replaced (not just the medical staff themselves).  In a real business organization of this size, this kind of failure to solve such a crucial problem is not tolerated for half a decade.

https://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2020/5/13/21256948/eagles-new-medical-staff-hires-nfl-healthiest-teams-2019-injury-tom-hunkele-ted-rath-agl-study-bgn

I had been calling for the Eagles to attempt to hire away the Cowboys medical staff, who have been incredible in keeping their entire team healthy, returning people well inside the standard guidance for respective injuries, and overall basically never missing a key player on either side of the ball for more than a game or two here or there.  Had the Cowboys and the Eagles had the opposite medical and training staffs in the last two seasons, we could have been talking about the Eagles as decisive division winners while the Cowboys were winning 5-6 games per year.

What I like about this is that the Eagles hired key people from two of the "healthier" teams, including teams that had a good amount of veteran players.  They didn't just hire away from crappy teams that had good injury results and had young players.  They took guys that kept competitive veteran teams pretty healthy.  That's a promising sign.  We will see how it goes, it all depends on these individuals and how they perform, but this could have a big impact on the Eagles moving forward.

Flea-flicker - TD.   Game, set, match.   Silly Saints fans.  2017 was for the Eagles.   Your loser team couldn't hold on to a game that was gifted to them.  You had no shot.  You couldn't even beat the team that couldn't compete with the Eagles... in a dome.  No way you were going to win on the road that night, outdoors.

3 minutes ago, greend said:

I was pretty pissed when Chip let him go bye,bye, with no plan at that position

No doubt.  It is incredible what the idiot was allowed to do, and how much talent he stripped from the team.  The replacements he signed or drafted across the roster were even worse, with a few exceptions of course.  I assume it was others mostly running that 2013 draft (where he reportedly wanted Dion Jordan so badly).  Those 2014-2015 drafts hurt right now.  A couple of guys were here and helped some, but to get no key starters from 2 entire drafts in a row 5 years later is brutal.

1 hour ago, Iggles_Phan said:

That was good, and if I remember correctly, at the time, people were dogging Dillard for 'turning his man free'.  

 

I couldn't see who the LG was but I know it was from the pre-season.  It might be Pryor.  

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Eagles somehow got the ball back in the first half with only 29 seconds left... ball on their own 20.  

 

Bing, Bam, Boom... and they went right down the field to set up a FG.  24-7 at the half.  Eagles get the ball to start the second half.  If the Eagles score after halftime on that opening possession, the rout is on.   Looks pretty bad for the Vikings.   I think Saints fans might be full of crap.  Eagles were a machine in this game.  Straight up buzz saw.  And the only reason the Eagles didn't score a TD on this final drive before half is because they ran out of time.  They went over 60 yards on 3 plays in those 25 seconds.  And.... they still had 2 timeouts in their back pocket that they didn't need to use, because two of the three plays were along the sidelines.

 

Saints fans are delusional.

I don't care if we would have beaten the Saints.  They choked and didn't make it that far.  That's on them.  I don't know why twitter is even humoring that debate.  No one is giving us a SB for 2002 simply because we would have crushed the Raiders and should have beaten the Bucs.   I think the Saints would have lost to the Chargers or Patriots if they played them instead of the Colts in SB XLIV.  Maybe someone should take that up with New Orleans.  

6 minutes ago, greend said:

I was pretty pissed when Chip let him go bye,bye, with no plan at that position

That's fair.  But, at the same time, Mathis is overrated by PFF.  Shocking, I know.  Their numbers are usually so reliable, and not completely worthless at all.  

 

I mean, a QB that gets pulled at halftime by his coach for being ineffective is always better than a QB that throws 3 TDs and 0 INTs in a victory.

1 minute ago, NCiggles said:

I couldn't see who the LG was but I know it was from the pre-season.  It might be Pryor.  

It was.

1 minute ago, eagle45 said:

I don't care if we would have beaten the Saints.  They choked and didn't make it that far.  That's on them.  I don't know why twitter is even humoring that debate.  No one is giving us a SB for 2002 simply because we would have crushed the Raiders and should have beaten the Bucs.   I think the Saints would have lost to the Chargers or Patriots if they played them instead of the Colts in SB XLIV.  Maybe someone should take that up with New Orleans.  

Because its Twitter and because there's no real games to talk about.  

27 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

I forgot how much PFF loved Mathis.  

My favorite PFF grade is when they gave Von Miller the PFF player of the game after the Eagles shellacked the Broncos 51 to something.  OK PFF good thinking.  Von Miller clearly had a big impact on a defense that gave up more than 50 points.  

Oh my... I totally forgot this... 

Aikman actually suggested that the Vikings throw in Sam Bradford to try to catch up in this game.  

Lane was ranked 79 by PFF, Brooks 70 and Kelce 52. 

27 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

NVM.... Strip sack by the Eagles.  Followed by a TD drive going the other way.  Eagles up 21-7 before halftime.  Eagles get the ball to start the second half.  That's a potential back breaker.  Dome teams don't fare well in outdoor Championship games.  0-12.

 

Don't be fooled. Unblocked. Shouldn't count.

7 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Because its Twitter and because there's no real games to talk about.  

SBNation was doing a series of what if’s for the NFL. 

I was happy to face Case Keenum over Drew Brees. 

Not as fun as thinking about a healthy Randall paired with an all-time great defense. 

4 minutes ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

I was happy to face Case Keenum over Drew Brees. 

Me too. No question we got a much better matchup out of that miracle. 

11 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

SBNation was doing a series of what if’s for the NFL. 

because there's no real games to talk about...

 

7 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Me too. No question we got a much better matchup out of that miracle. 

Saints defense was pretty much garbage compared to the Vikings' D.  I have no doubt the offense, on that day, would have lit up the Saints as much as they lit up the Vikings.

17 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Not as fun as thinking about a healthy Randall paired with an all-time great defense. 

Me too. No question we got a much better matchup out of that miracle. 

Chip would have been given an extra year to see through the investment in a young QB.  We would not have had the assets to trade for Wentz, nor would we have 52.  
 

Reasonable chance they still hire Doug once Chip is fired.  I was going to say maybe Doug drafts Mahomes, but we likely wouldn’t have that first round pick.

47 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I read something from Otto Graham and a few others that actually say that he was better than Jim Brown.  They went so far as to say that he might have been the greatest all-around player in the history of the league.   He was apparently a helluva LB as well as a FB, and Graham was very impressed with his ability to block, versus Brown, whom he didn't seem to think was much of a blocker.

I don't doubt that he was better than Brown, he surely was bigger.  That's why it cracks me up when some one this site ridicule those who speak of a big back, give me a big back with running ability over a smaller speedy open field runner any day. 

Needless to say you want both types on your squad but the big back will keep the chains moving and by midway through the 3rd quarter you'll have defenders avoiding him, it's a damn shame the Eagles didn't get a shot a Dillion from BC, not that it would have mattered, I'm sure know-nothing Howie would have passed on him.

  Had the raiders faced any team other than the bucs who had their playbook the raiders win the super bowl.

Calahan not changing any of the calls from gruden was pretty moronic.

1 hour ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

I was happy to face Case Keenum over Drew Brees. 

Good to know, and I'm sure that the saints would rather face him than Carson Wentz and that's what they got and blew it. 

1 hour ago, Iggles_Phan said:

because there's no real games to talk about...

 

Right. Just providing more background...

1 hour ago, EagleVA said:

I don't doubt that he was better than Brown, he surely was bigger.  That's why it cracks me up when some one this site ridicule those who speak of a big back, give me a big back with running ability over a smaller speedy open field runner any day. 

Needless to say you want both types on your squad but the big back will keep the chains moving and by midway through the 3rd quarter you'll have defenders avoiding him, it's a damn shame the Eagles didn't get a shot a Dillion from BC, not that it would have mattered, I'm sure know-nothing Howie would have passed on him.

Alex Karras had the best line about Jim Brown when he said, "When you talk about running backs you say Jim Brown and then you wait a while."

And Motley was not bigger than Brown. They were the same size. Besides football, Brown was the best lacrosse player of his time - a Hall of Famer, averaged 13 points a game on the Syracuse basketball team, and ran track. I read someplace that he threw two no-hitters in high school.

After winning the MVP in 1965 - his fourth such award - he was shooting a film when the Browns told him he had to report to training camp or he would be fined. He requested a few days extension so he could finish filming. When they said no he retired.

No disrespect to Motley, but no, just no.

1 hour ago, greend said:

Good to know, and I'm sure that the saints would rather face him than Carson Wentz and that's what they got and blew it. 

20 minutes ago, justrelax said:

Alex Karras had the best line about Jim Brown when he said, "When you talk about running backs you say Jim Brown and then you wait a while."

And Motley was not bigger than Brown. They were the same size. Besides football, Brown was the best lacrosse player of his time - a Hall of Famer, averaged 13 points a game on the Syracuse basketball team, and ran track. I read someplace that he threw two no-hitters in high school.

After winning the MVP in 1965 - his fourth such award - he was shooting a film when the Browns told him he had to report to training camp or he would be fined. He requested a few days extension so he could finish filming. When they said no he retired.

No disrespect to Motley, but no, just no.

Doesn't bother me, one way or the other, as I had no skin in the game.  I was reporting the opinions others had.  I never had the privilege of watching either play. 

 

That said, Brown's lacrosse, basketball and baseball ability are completely irrelevant to the football discussion.  This wasn't a discussion about who the better athlete is.  The discussion was about football exclusively.  (Motley played both ways, Brown did not.  Granted, slightly different era... two way players sort of went out even before Bednarik retired in 1960, as even he only played both ways that year due to injury.)   And then there's the assessment by Otto Graham on who the better fullback was.   Not sure I agree with Graham, but I do know that I really can't disagree, as I didn't see either play live.  

 

As for the size difference, wikipedia has them listed: Brown 6'2" 232 lbs.  Motley 6'1" 232 lbs.  But, given the decade between the two playing, I think that fact that Motley was that size then, made him appear bigger, by comparison to other players on the field with him.

 

I don't feel like going back to the original sources... but you can if you wish (I listed the book being referenced where the quote from Graham is taken):

Quote

In 1968, Motley became the second black player voted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, located in his hometown of Canton. Having played successfully as a fullback and pass blocker on offense and as a linebacker on defense, he is seen as one of the best all-around players in football history. Blanton Collier, an assistant who took over as the team's head coach after Paul Brown's firing in 1963, said Motley "had no equal as a blocker. He could run with anybody for 30 yards or so. And this man was a great, great linebacker."^[13]

Most of Motley's runs were trap plays up the middle, but he had the speed to run outside. "There's no telling how much yardage I might have made if I ran as much as some backs do now," he once said.^[13] Running back Jim Brown surpassed Motley's rushing records in the early 1960s, but many of Motley's coaches and fellow players regarded Motley as the better player, in part because of his strength as a blocker. "There is no comparison between Jim Brown and Marion Motley," Graham said at a luncheon in Canton in 1964. "Motley was the greatest all-around fullback."^{[40]  (}Pluto, Terry (1997). Browns Town 1964: Cleveland Browns and the 1964 Championship. Cleveland: Gray & Company. ISBN 978-1-886228-72-6.)

In his books The Thinking Man's Guide to Pro Football and The New Thinking Man's Guide To Pro Football, football writer Paul Zimmerman of Sports Illustrated called Motley the best player in the history of the sport.^[41] He was named to the NFL's 75th Anniversary All-Time Team in 1994.^[42]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Motley#Honors_and_legacy