See I can look ahead and give opinions based on how I see them coming to fruition. I’m not just giving bad hindsight points of views like you. On my end it feels like my track record predicting is better than yours in hindsight. Would seem extremely unlikely. But what’s actually occurred here.

6 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

By saying we won't hire Gannon back if he fails so brutally that he gets fired in AZ...  after he insulted the fanbase and showed he was soft...  and the piss poor 2nd half of the Superbowl. 

You translate that into Howie being brilliant?

I heard Howie refused to use the hair dryer in the shower.... brilliant! 

Did or did Rosie not offer Gannon more than HC money to stay as DC? Exactly! What Rosie thought…we know.

18 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Right...you see the balance?  What is the worst case scenario for a franchise?

You keep having to replace coaches who leave...and you get squat out of it!!!

The set up now... you have a successful coordinator...he either stays or you get compensation.   

If he sucks...then you replace him on your own.

Stupid me assuming that these guys were hired because the Eagles anticipate success. 

So your opinion is we actually preferred Desai over Fangio because he’s a minority? You sticking with that one?

8 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Actually you just pointed out how you are not able to see change and I am. The opposite point you thought you were making. Fan base is at its lowest on Gannon right now. You are caught in recency bias. But after this season I pointed out one…just one scenario where fans could be clamoring for a Gannon Rallis return. They’ll point out what he had our D ranked this past regular season. Then be comparing it to what Desai accomplishes. It’s obviously possible Desai doesn’t have them rank as highly. I think fans in the one scenario could be wanting to overlook some things to field the better D for us to try to make a championship run.

There are zero scenarios where the fans want Gannon back.  None.   If the new guy sucks, the fans will want a fresh face.... not a fired from Arizona Gannon.    Move on.

10 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

So your opinion is we actually preferred Desai over Fangio because he’s a minority? You sticking with that one?

In my opinion the Eagles would hire you over Gannon from this point forward.   Is that clear enough for you yet?   Gannon is not coming back here, especially if he craps the bed so brutally in AZ. 

You can let your mind wonder as deep into left field ...deep even for you... it ain't happening.   Move on.  3 pages of this fantasy

More talk of this then from now on Gannon will be known as Ham's boy.    Enough with this...  nobody wants Gannon.   Like an old girlfriend you are over... sure at one point you dated her, but it's over...for good now.

On 5/20/2023 at 1:18 PM, cunninghamtheman said:

See what I’m saying though BG? I see your angle of wanting Jurgens to get on the field. But I’m looking at the most optimal outcome being Steen winning RG and immediately taking over his permanent job.

I don’t care regardless of Jurgens getting on the field or not…. But the fact is he is likely the best option at RG this season maybe Steen comes in and more saws but I’d bank on the guy that had an entire nfl season going into year 2 that played on the interior OL vs the 3rd round rookie. 
 

I understand the logic of wanting Jurgens to stay focused on C but again no real clue when Kelce hangs it up could be next offseason could be 3 years from now no guarantee same with Lane dude is only 33. 
 

If we were a bad team I’d think yea they likely could hang them up sooner rather then later but being in this SB window they likely will try and play longer. Easily could see Lane/Kelce stay going until this window starts to shrink again 

On 5/20/2023 at 1:32 PM, cunninghamtheman said:

First sentence is correct. However it can be fairly complicated. Many questions tend to arise during the season. You have to choose whether to move guys or not. Like if we suffer a starting Oline to injury that only will have him miss one week. You might not choose to move players around as much to fill out the Oline. Where as if a starter goes down for the season. Then you know it’s a long term move. So all options are on the table.

You truly love to overcomplicate matters it truly is simple… you say start the best 5 but when I stated Jurgens as the best man at RG you go no this and that???? So do you truly want the best 5 on the field? 
 

Obviously injuries happen outside of Kelce getting hurt not much shuffling would need to be done…. if lane goes down your not moving Mailata to RT you plug Driscoll and vice versa. 
if we lost a starting G we aren’t flipping our other starter to the opposite side you plug whoever the backup G will be Steen, Opeta etc. 

The only shuffle I could really see if Kelce goes down for a significant time and if Jurgens is starting RG moves to C then plug in whoever the backup RG is Steen 

On a different note kinda shocked it took the NFL so long to add a 3rd QB rule…. Now teams can have a 3rd QB that doesn’t take up an active game day spot…. Though first two guys have to be injured before he can come into the game. 
 

be interesting to see how teams use this I’d image as a team wanting a more veteran QB now as QB 3 

On 5/21/2023 at 9:25 PM, cunninghamtheman said:

Except he was a DC already once.

Yea so was Jim Johnson when Andy hired him not like he put together a great unit for Indy either was also a Seattle LB coach when we hired him. Not many scrambling to hire Jim either.

No point making rash judgement Desai will either be a good DC or a bad one and fired that simple. 
In 2-3 years if Gannons fired and Desai been terrible then hey maybe we get a Gannon reunion in Philly 

No biggie. Could've just expanded the roster to 54 and take your chances. Most wouldn't - if you're down to your 3rd QB you're done anyway

6 hours ago, mjkline1958 said:

No biggie. Could've just expanded the roster to 54 and take your chances. Most wouldn't - if you're down to your 3rd QB you're done anyway

Purdy was SF QB3,so that is not true

8 hours ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Purdy was SF QB3,so that is not true

If you're down to QB3 in one game you're pretty much done.

2 hours ago, Asg 15 said:

If you're down to QB3 in one game you're pretty much done.

I wouldn’t say this think it depends on the team and the QB. Why I think we could definitely see team targeting more veteran QBs to essentially be insurance policies. 
 

If you have a loaded roster like SF or Philly just having a remotely competent QB that won’t hurt you will keep the team competitive 

33 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

I wouldn’t say this think it depends on the team and the QB. Why I think we could definitely see team targeting more veteran QBs to essentially be insurance policies. 
 

If you have a loaded roster like SF or Philly just having a remotely competent QB that won’t hurt you will keep the team competitive 

My point here is QB1 gets most of the snaps in practice. QB2 gets only a few, and logically QB3 would be standing around at practice picking his nose.

3 hours ago, Asg 15 said:

If you're down to QB3 in one game you're pretty much done.

Purdy took them to the playoffs and if he didn't get hurt,we may not have even had a SB appearance,so how does that constitute being "done?"

38 minutes ago, Asg 15 said:

My point here is QB1 gets most of the snaps in practice. QB2 gets only a few, and logically QB3 would be standing around at practice picking his nose.

Wouldn't QB 3 run the scout team?   Unless the picking of the nose is in the other team's playbook, my guess is the nose would remain unpicked?

50 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Purdy took them to the playoffs and if he didn't get hurt,we may not have even had a SB appearance,so how does that constitute being "done?"

Purdy was QB1 for several weeks. It's a matter of practice time in those weeks

52 minutes ago, Asg 15 said:

Purdy was QB1 for several weeks. It's a matter of practice time in those weeks

But we agree it's better having the 3rd actual QB....than a RB or any other position in the game.   Rust factor aside... dude still knows the plays and physically throws the ball and goes through reps..   reps as in throwing routes etc....doesn't necessarily have to be working 1st team practice reps to be infinitely better than putting another position player in to take snaps.

Much better for the game to have this rule.  One that can't be manipulated into an extra roster spot....just the 3rd QB.

1 hour ago, joemas6 said:

But we agree it's better having the 3rd actual QB....than a RB or any other position in the game.   Rust factor aside... dude still knows the plays and physically throws the ball and goes through reps..   reps as in throwing routes etc....doesn't necessarily have to be working 1st team practice reps to be infinitely better than putting another position player in to take snaps.

Much better for the game to have this rule.  One that can't be manipulated into an extra roster spot....just the 3rd QB.

Sure its nice to have the 3rd QB. Why not let the team decide who to put on the roster as the 54th player?

I don't think there was ever a prohibition to carrying 3 QBs on game day was there? Now that they get 54 if they choose to make a bad decision, so be it

2 hours ago, Asg 15 said:

Purdy was QB1 for several weeks. It's a matter of practice time in those weeks

He was QB 3 until the injuries, he was QB 1 by default. His talent didn't change from 3 to 1,and who knows if we would have beaten them if he didn't go out,so to say when you reach QB 3 you are "done" is pure fallacy. Of course we'll never know,but with Purdy (QB3) they were right on the verge. When QB 1 goes out 2 and 3 move up the chain and get more snaps with the 1's. So having decent QB depth doesn't hurt anyone

5 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

He was QB 3 until the injuries, he was QB 1 by default. His talent didn't change from 3 to 1,and who knows if we would have beaten them if he didn't go out,so to say when you reach QB 3 you are "done" is pure fallacy. Of course we'll never know,but with Purdy (QB3) they were right on the verge. When QB 1 goes out 2 and 3 move up the chain and get more snaps with the 1's. So having decent QB depth doesn't hurt anyone

Purdy performed as well as their original QB 1 or 2.  

Remember Brady wasn't a QB1, until he was

56 minutes ago, Asg 15 said:

Sure its nice to have the 3rd QB. Why not let the team decide who to put on the roster as the 54th player?

I don't think there was ever a prohibition to carrying 3 QBs on game day was there? Now that they get 54 if they choose to make a bad decision, so be it

Nope... no more players.    No gray area... no manipulation. 

It's not 54 ...  it's the game day lineup.   You activate the normal amount, then you can dress your 3rd QB...doesn't count toward the game day lineup...but obviously has to be on your roster.  No tricks..  that's where they get in trouble when they keep expanding the gray area that can be manipulated.

This is simple...instead of having the 3rd QB in street clothes....dress him, put him in if the other 2 are knocked out.   Very black and white ....very simple. 

21 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

He was QB 3 until the injuries, he was QB 1 by default. His talent didn't change from 3 to 1,and who knows if we would have beaten them if he didn't go out,so to say when you reach QB 3 you are "done" is pure fallacy. Of course we'll never know,but with Purdy (QB3) they were right on the verge. When QB 1 goes out 2 and 3 move up the chain and get more snaps with the 1's. So having decent QB depth doesn't hurt anyone

To me it's not even about the quality.   It's simply the fact you have a QB in street clothes on the sideline.   Dress him...he doesn't count... then use him instead of a RB,WR or whoever else.   It's emergency role....once he goes in the other 2 can't come back.  Zero tricks...zero decisions to make.   Simply  not making the game a complete joke if 2 guys get hurt.  

The only decision to be made is if one of the 2 QBs can go back in... but with SF they couldn't.  Maybe Perdy got hurt worse when he went back in...idk... but if they could dress some scrub...at least that dude could throw and the game would have Maybe been a little more entertaining. 

Just dumb...you let the 3rd QB practice with your team all year...and all week... but can't put him in due to emergency?    

This is common sense now

1 hour ago, joemas6 said:

Nope... no more players.    No gray area... no manipulation. 

It's not 54 ...  it's the game day lineup.   You activate the normal amount, then you can dress your 3rd QB...doesn't count toward the game day lineup...but obviously has to be on your roster.  No tricks..  that's where they get in trouble when they keep expanding the gray area that can be manipulated.

This is simple...instead of having the 3rd QB in street clothes....dress him, put him in if the other 2 are knocked out.   Very black and white ....very simple. 

So what we have is a 46 man active roster + 1 QB

BTW i think it would be more common sense for the 53 man roster to be active

8 hours ago, Asg 15 said:

My point here is QB1 gets most of the snaps in practice. QB2 gets only a few, and logically QB3 would be standing around at practice picking his nose.

They run some scout team snaps. Which is usually involving trying to run the upcoming opponents type scheme