1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I consider all options

Yes...consider and choose the right one. Just like considering not getting the one seed to avoid Green Bay...consider it for half a second then realize the other choice is better.  

If you were starting a team from scratch... with franchise QB... would you pay Sanders $8 mil.

You are using a fear of losing players to drive you to consider overspending for him.

Ideally....

Choice 1... use the $8 mil to put towards one of those D players.

Choice 2... if you lose those players..  save money to upgrade other spots.. like possibly upgrade Seamulo?

Choice 3... save money for future. 

Choice 4... give in and pay Sanders.

Clear cut considerations for me.  Paying Sanders is sign of being desperate.  It's a Dallas move.  We see how rare an elite rusher wins...it's taking CMC to be in this situation with the 49ers and yet his receiving is his biggest contribution.    Why would we spend on only a good RB. When we know we need everything else around him?

RBs pop up every year out if nowhere.  I just can’t see being so desperate to sign Sanders?

And he has grown so much...and he was saved from being used so much...and his prime is coming up...and he is good.  And you called it...  and every other guy might leave in free agency... and he is high character. He is the best rusher on the team.  And Hurts doesn’t " check down" ....all that.

Still not good business to pay him $8 mil.  Not for the Eagles. 

Btw.... Pollard is a free agent.  What would you pay him?  

See the issue Dallas has... $20 plus mil potentially on RBs.   Gotta pay up the TE now.... a couple starters on D...and Lamb and Diggs can start negotiating.   

Investing in the RB spot is flash...luxury.  not smart business when you have all these other issues  

The Eagles are basically in the same situation.   I hope they choose the opposite. 

 

It's funny though... I would spend on Westbrook... guys that bring the receiving element.   Because it's basically like paying a RB and WR in one.   

I believe you win games due to making key plays.   Eventually those are converting on key 3rd downs.  Usually passing downs. 

The RB that can be my lead rusher, but also cause matchup problems as a receiver... that guy I would pay. Because he contributes on those game changing key plays.

Not $16 mil though . 

Give me the RB with 800-900 rushing yards...and 400-600 receiving yards... but causes matchup problems and creates opportunities to convert big plays.  I will pay him...and compliment him with guys that can rush on early downs.   

Much better investment than paying the 1200 yard rusher that doesn't contribute on key plays.

You can use a RB in the pattern....doesn't have to be limited to " check down "

You bet Eckler, Pollard or CMC would be used in the patterns...not just check down.  Imagine that in our offense along with the other guys.  That's game changing. 

6 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

 

These are the things I got in response to start this discussion today

Yeah you know why though??? You make claims acting like you know. So now, again, I will ask if you KNOW Tannehill. You claimed he was not a leader like Hurts,so you must know him and the entire Titans team or else how could you make a baseless claim? Dreams? So yes or no,do you KNOW Tannehill because that is the only way to back up his non leader claim. There is a difference between defending a point(aka debate) and throwing out claims you just make up. So yes or no,do you know Tannehill? No need to run amok,make 35 posts. it's yes or no,then we can debate the point. I personally know of no QB on any team that doesn't have the leadership skills to run the team(I'm talking QB 1 and 2 since I guess I need to spell out everything now). And it was my error assuming you were smart enough to understand my goalpost(pun intended). Like you,I also will defend myself when attacked,but the rules are different for you??? When you toss out baseless posts,I will ask questions about it and a nice straightforward answer will do fine. If I toss out a baseless claim(that is not my OPINION,then feel free to ask me about it,not too much to ask I hope. I'm fine with differing opinions,sometimes people on here make me change mine,but by using logic or showing me things I didn't know,not be calling me a "hater" "don't know what you're talking about" etc etc. I really don't care about posts I made 9 months ago,I may have changed my mind by now,so lets stick to the present. I'm merely asking you to back up the claim Tannehill is not a "leader like Hurts" . Should be easy to do, since apparently you know. The RB issue/debate I would assume every one on here thinks differently about. Fact is,for us it's merely debate. Howie will make ALL those calls,not you,not me, not anyone on here,so on that topic you are as right as I am, as Joe is,as anyone else who posts a thought about it. I'm not going back 14 months to debate if we should have kept a round 1 pick. Howie did NOT, he made what everyone else in the league considered a blockbuster deal and HIS is the only opinion that matters,so the whining "what ifs" are pointless. WHAT IF I wasn't an Eagles fan? If I wasn't I would not be playing this week to go to another SB and right now I am PROUD to be an Eagle fan. I wouldn't have spent money on a huge flag to fly out front. If I wasn't an Eagles fan,I would be watching from the sidelines wishing my team was playing this week. Be grateful to the Eagles org,they got us here even if we don't agree on HOW they got us here. But the fact remains we ARE here. Now,let's all peace out,get ready to face a great team, and let the warriors and coaches decide the game on the field. It should be a classic battle if both teams play well. Both teams will know they were in a fight. Only 1 team can win. FLY EAGLES FLY!!!!! We can debate Howeis decisions in the off season. What's done is done,this is our team,you can take that or leave it,but you aren't changing it. We're playing for the NFC title and there are 28 other teams and fans that would love to say that

7 hours ago, EaglesTD123 said:

Dam it, I can't edit anymore? OH THIS IS THE END! LOL

You can,it's now upper right like FB with the little triple dots top right of your post

6 hours ago, EaglesTD123 said:

If all of the RB's are sharing the load in the rushing the ball, whether it be 1 snap or 20 snaps, then they were part of the committee. 

Same

5 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

In TD and FL definition they’d seemingly consider The Fridge as part of a committee with Walter. I don’t know many people see it that way.

Look at it like politics. You have a committee,there is the head of the committee. The head is not the entire committee or it wouldn't be a committee. Everyone under the committee head still contributes to one degree or another, some more,some less. They all can't be head of the committee. Sanders is the committee head,the head of the RB room. That is my opinion

5 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Ajayi, Blount and Sproles that’s a committee approach to me. How I’ve always seen it.

That definition means everybody always has been a RBBC

Yep,the elite guys dominate the carries as the lead RB. Others come in to spell him or run a spefici play. They are part of the RB committee. So I will post this and let you think on it. We argued about PPG,so let's take a look at it. Last year was 25.6 PPG vs some rather crappy teams. Right now we are scoring at 28.6 PPG, exactly 3 more per game. Last year Sanders had zero TD. This year he has alot more. So why only a 3 PPG differential when we now have a high powered offense? That was why I said I expected 7 PPG because we have the offense to do it now. 1 TD more and that is/was totally doable with the upgrades we made. So why only 3? Alot is due to faith in the defense. We get big leads and can ball stall(meaning we work the clock rather than scoring). The +12 TO ratio doesn't hurt much either. So,for me,that explains why we couldn't get 1 more TD per game. because we don't NEED to as Joe has pointed out to me. Joe and I disagree on where the ball stall should start,but frankly it doesn't matter. The coach makes those calls,we just state our preferences and with a 14-3 regular season record,Siri gets paid to make those calls,we don't

5 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Just how I’ve always seen it. How it’s always been described by talking heads and fantasy guys.

Zeke wasn’t in a committee until Pollard asserted himself the last two seasons.

Sure he was,just now, his role got bigger(Pollards did)

Cool, Cook says I’m just arguing. So I stated my opinions. 

3 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I like your argument here. This is a smart way to go for your point. But I see through this. Because there is a giant dropoff from market setting and tenth….just right now. 

SO say Sanders won't agree to the re-sign terms(and he will probably want a huge contract which is his right). I got bashed for saying "maybe we take a high RB in the next draft". Some(many) mock sites have us taking Gibbs at 32. I would not be mad at that pick. The kid from Texas is far and away better,but with our other needs I don't give up draft capital for him. His new team will be asking him to carry the offense. I don't want to be put in that position. Now Gibbs is a fine RB prospect. I personally don't have him on my mock(yet). We need to see what Sanders wants and if Howie complies. if he does not,then I have NP taking Gibbs and adding another FA RB for alot less. Now you have your future LEAD RB in the committee and you should still have that 1/2 punch from GIbbs and whomever else we get and hopefully GIbbs grows into the lead role Sanders now has. So I cannot rule out a RB because at 32 you have him for 5 years and I really don't mind doing that every 5 years.

12 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Yep,the elite guys dominate the carries as the lead RB. Others come in to spell him or run a spefici play. They are part of the RB committee. So I will post this and let you think on it. We argued about PPG,so let's take a look at it. Last year was 25.6 PPG vs some rather crappy teams. Right now we are scoring at 28.6 PPG, exactly 3 more per game. Last year Sanders had zero TD. This year he has alot more. So why only a 3 PPG differential when we now have a high powered offense? That was why I said I expected 7 PPG because we have the offense to do it now. 1 TD more and that is/was totally doable with the upgrades we made. So why only 3? Alot is due to faith in the defense. We get big leads and can ball stall(meaning we work the clock rather than scoring). The +12 TO ratio doesn't hurt much either. So,for me,that explains why we couldn't get 1 more TD per game. because we don't NEED to as Joe has pointed out to me. Joe and I disagree on where the ball stall should start,but frankly it doesn't matter. The coach makes those calls,we just state our preferences and with a 14-3 regular season record,Siri gets paid to make those calls,we don't

We differ on ball stall...you see it as let's stop scoring. I see it as let's go slower between plays, let's avoid the incomplete passes...etc.    A missed FG , a dropped pass, a bad throw...that comes during this process is just something that occurs on its own to me... I feel like you think it's part of the strategy.  To me it's not.  Ball stall should mean keeping the ball...to do that the same principle applies as if you want to run the score up....you need to get 10 yards on 3 plays.   3 runs and a punt...is not my definition of ball stall.

Neither is throwing 6 incomplete passes...on 13 plays ...with only 2 runs and 2 short passes to RBs in those plays.  

The result doesn't dictate ball stall... the act of taking time off is what matters.

8 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

SO say Sanders won't agree to the re-sign terms(and he will probably want a huge contract which is his right). I got bashed for saying "maybe we take a high RB in the next draft". Some(many) mock sites have us taking Gibbs at 32. I would not be mad at that pick. The kid from Texas is far and away better,but with our other needs I don't give up draft capital for him. His new team will be asking him to carry the offense. I don't want to be put in that position. Now Gibbs is a fine RB prospect. I personally don't have him on my mock(yet). We need to see what Sanders wants and if Howie complies. if he does not,then I have NP taking Gibbs and adding another FA RB for alot less. Now you have your future LEAD RB in the committee and you should still have that 1/2 punch from GIbbs and whomever else we get and hopefully GIbbs grows into the lead role Sanders now has. So I cannot rule out a RB because at 32 you have him for 5 years and I really don't mind doing that every 5 years.

Are the mock sites ever correct?

10 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

We differ on ball stall...you see it as let's stop scoring. I see it as let's go slower between plays, let's avoid the incomplete passes...etc.    A missed FG , a dropped pass, a bad throw...that comes during this process is just something that occurs on its own to me... I feel like you think it's part of the strategy.  To me it's not.  Ball stall should mean keeping the ball...to do that the same principle applies as if you want to run the score up....you need to get 10 yards on 3 plays.   3 runs and a punt...is not my definition of ball stall.

Neither is throwing 6 incomplete passes...on 13 plays ...with only 2 runs and 2 short passes to RBs in those plays.  

The result doesn't dictate ball stall... the act of taking time off is what matters.

Right,as I said we just disagree when to do that. IMO that is not in the 3rd with a 10 point lead. We have seen teams come back many times even from 28 down and although that is a rarity it's still possible.I'm fine with ball stalling  in the 4th with a decent lead,just not in the early 3rd, that is where we disagree. I don't want any team having the opportunity for a comeback

3 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Are the mock sites ever correct?

IDK I don't keep track of the records on being right. but I know roughly the players that will be around when we pick. Gibbs may be one of them and if Sanders isn't staying,I would have to take look at having a top prospect in my stable for the next 5 years(at which point we will face the same thing we have with Sanders)

I would even be fine with the ball stall in the 3rd as long as we scored at the end of that,but many times we don't and thats not good for me. Even a FG would be fine,but let's not pretend teams haven't blown leads all year

I personally don't feel comfortable with a ball stall in the 3rd if we can't score vs the 9ers even with a 10 point lead. If you want to stall with 3 minutes left up by 17 in the 4th,I'm all for it. I think now, you keep the pedal to the metal

4 hours ago, joemas6 said:

Lol... so I ask again.   Who is more easy to replace... Sanders or any one of the 3 $17 mil guys...which I don't think al 3 will get that.

Is it more easy to replace HOF or practice squad guy? Basically that’s how I take this question.

So it sounds like ARod is going to be traded

26 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

So it sounds like ARod is going to be traded

Carr gone he can reunite with Adams in LV. Good TE,Jacobs is fine with  a re-sign. Hollins is ok(probably be replaced soon). Defense needs work but Arod would make them division contenders right now

 

 

 

 

Adam Schefter

 

@AdamSchefter

 

 

Former Broncos’ HC Vic Fangio is scheduled to interview today for the Miami Dolphins’ defensive coordinator job, per source.