2 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

IDK,then you have teams like the BALTIMORE COLTS,OAKLAND RAIDERS and the SAN DIEGO CHARGERS who kept the moniker even with the city change

So ... in the NBA.  Te New Orleans Hornets changed their name to the Pelicans in 2013 ... which allowed the Charlotte Bobcats to go back to being the Hornets in 2014-15.  

1 minute ago, joemas6 said:

So ... in the NBA.  Te New Orleans Hornets changed their name to the Pelicans in 2013 ... which allowed the Charlotte Bobcats to go back to being the Hornets in 2014-15.  

Sometimes names change with new owners also.it's the owners call what their team name is

2 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

LOL no matter,some said he would NOT return as a G anywhere because it was a pride thing.It was "LT or retirement". He was on the market a long time!!!

Would still be there without the Brooks injury ... we all know injuries change everything.   

Just now, joemas6 said:

Would still be there without the Brooks injury ... we all know injuries change everything.   

A pandemic might be a factor too... if you could have predicted this, then kudos?  

Just now, joemas6 said:

Would still be there without the Brooks injury ... we all know injuries change everything.   

Well it can't hurt either way.Depends for me what we paid for him which I have no info on.Also the fact he knows this teams workings and has for many years.No re-tooling needed

1 minute ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Sometimes names change with new owners also.it's the owners call what their team name is

IDK... other than these tow cases... and the Bullets changing to the Wizards... I don't remember any other ones unless a move to a new city was involved?  

It's easier to maintain the name and logo even if you change cities. jerseys and what not already printed. A few exceptions like the creamsicle  Bucs,who were all for a re-image after the disastrous no win season even the colors make the move

8 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

So ... in the NBA.  Te New Orleans Hornets changed their name to the Pelicans in 2013 ... which allowed the Charlotte Bobcats to go back to being the Hornets in 2014-15.  

Yeah and who were the Timberwolves before that name?

https://theeagleswire.usatoday.com/2020/07/14/philadelphia-eagles-jason-peters-contract-details-brandon-brooks/   Interesting that he won;t be on the left side

https://theeagleswire.usatoday.com/2020/07/14/philadelphia-eagles-jason-peters-right-guard-brandon-brooks/   Seems to me the object of getting him(besides the Dillard mentoring) and putting him on the right is to have a power packed line on the right side.This should really bode well for Sanders and the running game

7 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Yeah and who were the Timberwolves before that name?

Nobody... they were expansion in the 90s or 80s, I forget, but that name was what they started with.

7 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

https://theeagleswire.usatoday.com/2020/07/14/philadelphia-eagles-jason-peters-contract-details-brandon-brooks/   Interesting that he won;t be on the left side

IDK why it's hard to comprehend.... Brooks got injured... the RG... without that Peters would not be here.  He is here to replace Brooks at RG.   Why are we making this complicated?  If the LG got hurt, then maybe he would play LG... but the RG got hurt, so he will play there.   

5 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

IDK why it's hard to comprehend.... Brooks got injured... the RG... without that Peters would not be here.  He is here to replace Brooks at RG.   Why are we making this complicated?  If the LG got hurt, then maybe he would play LG... but the RG got hurt, so he will play there.   

Hard to say Joe,he could play on the left side and move the LG to RG.So it's not complicated to me.They want the experience and power on the right side for the running game

1 minute ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Hard to say Joe,he could play on the left side and move the LG to RG

It's not hard to say... one guy gets hurt and they sign a guy to replace him.  Now you want to play musical chairs on the OL because of this idea of Peters being a coach and mentor.... you are skipping the part of them needing Peters the player.  The player is needed at RG.  

2 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Hard to say Joe,he could play on the left side and move the LG to RG

I mean,.. we know 2 guys that want him on the team are the C and the RT ... is it a shocker that he would line up between them?    Probably a big part of the sell.  

1 minute ago, joemas6 said:

It's not hard to say... one guy gets hurt and they sign a guy to replace him.  Now you want to play musical chairs on the OL because of this idea of Peters being a coach and mentor.... you are skipping the part of them needing Peters the player.  The player is needed at RG.  

Fact is they could play him left or right.

1 minute ago, joemas6 said:

I mean,.. we know 2 guys that want him on the team are the C and the RT ... is it a shocker that he would line up between them?    Probably a big part of the sell.  

Nope no shock.They want more holes for the running game rather than waste JP on pass pro on the left side

So,the assumption is JP is fine moving to the more unfamiliar side

Just now, GreenbleedinNC said:

Fact is they could play him left or right.

Yep... the fact is they could move Lane Johnson to LT too... he has more NFL experience there than Dillard does... fact is though, they probably don't worry about Peters being a coach as much as you do, fact is they still probably want him because they think he can play.  Fact is Kelce and Lane are his two big supporters.   Fact is the player that plays RG got hurt.  Fact is RG is the position that is in between his two biggest supporters.   Fact is, coaches don't like to keep playing musical chairs with the OL.  Fact is the LG has played LG for a couple of years now.   Fact is everything we are seeing in reports is that he will play RG.     IDK why it;s hard to see it for you?   

2 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

So,the assumption is JP is fine moving to the more unfamiliar side

The unfamiliarity is moving to guard.  The side is irrelevent because he won't be back pedaling to stop a speed rusher, he will be playing inside.   Different set different goals.  different footwork.  The side really on the interior isn't as much of an issue. 

2 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Yep... the fact is they could move Lane Johnson to LT too... he has more NFL experience there than Dillard does... fact is though, they probably don't worry about Peters being a coach as much as you do, fact is they still probably want him because they think he can play.  Fact is Kelce and Lane are his two big supporters.   Fact is the player that plays RG got hurt.  Fact is RG is the position that is in between his two biggest supporters.   Fact is, coaches don't like to keep playing musical chairs with the OL.  Fact is the LG has played LG for a couple of years now.   Fact is everything we are seeing in reports is that he will play RG.     IDK why it;s hard to see it for you?   

lmao I'm not worried about him being a coach.It IS a plus he can keep mentoring Dillard no? IDK how you can deny that fact

1 minute ago, joemas6 said:

The unfamiliarity is moving to guard.  The side is irrelevent because he won't be back pedaling to stop a speed rusher, he will be playing inside.   Different set different goals.  different footwork.  The side really on the interior isn't as much of an issue. 

Somewhat true.When you change sides your set changes and your angles are opposite of what you are used to.Some guys have trouble with that

3 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

So,the assumption is JP is fine moving to the more unfamiliar side

But you want to move the other guy over though?   IDK ... you could be right.  IMO the thing that I would look at is what happens the following year?  Do you move the LG to RG.. then back to LG next year?  Or do you keep him playing the same spot?     The flip side is that our LG played all the other OL spots in college .. except for LG...lol.    IDK, but if I was Peters, I would prefer to play between the 2 vets on the right side.  

1 minute ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

lmao I'm not worried about him being a coach.It IS a plus he can keep mentoring Dillard no? IDK how you can deny that fact

yep, he can mentor him playing RG.. just like he mentored Lane playing the complete opposite side... no?  

1 minute ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Somewhat true.When you change sides your set changes and your angles are opposite of what you are used to.Some guys have trouble with that

Yep.. more so at tackle when you are dealing with the outside rush all the time... now playing inside, more head on rushing or even having to double team moving in either direction.  Not the same footwork difference of the extreme side to side as the OT position is.  

1 minute ago, joemas6 said:

But you want to move the other guy over though?   IDK ... you could be right.  IMO the thing that I would look at is what happens the following year?  Do you move the LG to RG.. then back to LG next year?  Or do you keep him playing the same spot?     The flip side is that our LG played all the other OL spots in college .. except for LG...lol.    IDK, but if I was Peters, I would prefer to play between the 2 vets on the right side.  

yep, he can mentor him playing RG.. just like he mentored Lane playing the complete opposite side... no?  

Yeah our line is pretty versatile.I still feel it was a decision to put him on the right to enhance the running game.Even if there is a "fail" at LG,we can still run the ball more if that happens and as yyu said JP can play about any spot and do reasonably well even if it's not his prime spot

2 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Yep.. more so at tackle when you are dealing with the outside rush all the time... now playing inside, more head on rushing or even having to double team moving in either direction.  Not the same footwork difference of the extreme side to side as the OT position is.  

Welp,JP will have all camp to make any side switch adjustments,so not too worried.Keeps the other guys intact so they can keep learning their spot without having to change

2 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Somewhat true.When you change sides your set changes and your angles are opposite of what you are used to.Some guys have trouble with that

But to your argument... since G is easier to transition from side to side... and Isaac has already had experience playing RG in college etc... those are points you can make for Peters playing LG.   I still just don't think they make multiple moves to start, much easier to keep it all the same IMO.   But we can see how it works out and perhaps they switch.  But I would think the sell to Peters would be to come play for Brooks between Kelce and Lane.  To go dominate one side, to have a lot of speed and agility on one side as far as what they can do in blocking schemes.   The left side allure of mentoring Dillard ... wouldn't seem to be something to inspire Peters.. its really a one way benefit that fans could look at, more so a burden for Peters.