Jump to content
Connecticut Eagle

EMB Blog: 2021 Training Camp / Preseason

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Alternative headline

"We're watching one reasonable player debate with a dumb ass that thinks dogs don't stretch over the vaccine decision in front of everyone"

They are vaccinating dogs now? /s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, CaliEagle said:

I do think the NFLPA is going to probably push back on this. It will be interesting to see a lot of drama now.  The NFL should just bite the bullet and make it required. They can do it on the grounds of saying that 50+ players are going to be in direct physical contact, so we have to do it.  There's going to be a lot of team turmoil now.  Now players on the Vikings are going to resent ownership for letting the coach go. Their season might be over before it begins.   I bet there is a lot of resentment in organizations now towards the NFL for the NFL putting this on teams instead of the NFL just creating a mandatory policy.  The NFL doesn't want the lawsuits, but it apparently seems fine if the individual teams get sued.  The NFL can say "hey, we didn't fire Rick Dennison...that was the Vikings' decision".  But, clearly the Vikings were operating under the NFL's warnings about forfeiture.  So, the Vikings, and soon to be other teams who will do the same thing, will be thrown under the bus.

I'm not upset if it ruins the Vikings.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CaliEagle said:

I wouldn't be surprised if they were all consensual, but it shows extreme lack of judgment on Watson. That's my point.  If Watson is going to be the face of your organization, he has to be a leader on and off the field.  This situation calls it into question.

I don't think it goes to his leadership as much as just his stability.  It's just not emotionally stable behavior.  So it raises the question about whether that issue will impact his ability to play either in terms of on or off the field behavior.  I mean it's a lot like I would look at a player that has an injury history.  It should impact his value.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people don't want Watson because they don't want to have to root for him, I get that, that's your prerogative. But trying to argue it's a bad move from a football perspective alone is utter insanity.

Dude's a get out of jail free card for this franchise that has fallen drastically since the SB. It's crazy how many QBs the Eagles have had since McNabb. It doesn't feel that way for whatever reason, but the QB position has been such a damn mess since McNabb left. They just haven't been able to get it right.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

I don't think it goes to his leadership as much as just his stability.  It's just not emotionally stable behavior.  So it raises the question about whether that issue will impact his ability to play either in terms of on or off the field behavior.  I mean it's a lot like I would look at a player that has an injury history.  It should impact his value.  

If that's true, I wonder if the Eagles could mandate sessions with a shrink?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

it’s 20% minority with the rosters extended to 90 at the moment. I’m curious to see if that percentage elevates, stays the same or decreases when they go to 53 man rosters 

I'd say elevates once they go to 53. Anyone in that danger zone of getting cut I'm going to assume got vaccinated and the ones that aren't know they are untouchable. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

If people don't want Watson because they don't want to have to root for him, I get that, that's your prerogative. But trying to argue it's a bad move from a football perspective alone is utter insanity.

Dude's a get out of jail free card for this franchise that has fallen drastically since the SB. It's crazy how many QBs the Eagles have had since McNabb. It doesn't feel that way for whatever reason, but the QB position has been such a damn mess since McNabb left. They just haven't been able to get it right.

It's not a move you make from a football perspective alone, that's the problem.  I think everyone can agree Watson is leaps and bounds better than what the Eagles currently have at QB, but in a hard-cap league any team is tying up significant portion of it to one player -- the franchise QB. 

If you want Watson how long do you want him on the team for?  10 years?  That's more than a significant investment of resources for a player who has many red flags.  Not red flag -- numerous red flags.  He has legal issues, he has character issues, he signed his mega extension in bad faith, he's over-stepping his position as a player trying to exert influence on organizational decisions that no NFL player has, nor should have.

Extreme risk in bringing Watson in, for many reasons beyond the football field.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, CaliEagle said:

I do think the NFLPA is going to probably push back on this. It will be interesting to see a lot of drama now.  The NFL should just bite the bullet and make it required. They can do it on the grounds of saying that 50+ players are going to be in direct physical contact, so we have to do it.  There's going to be a lot of team turmoil now.  Now players on the Vikings are going to resent ownership for letting the coach go. Their season might be over before it begins.   I bet there is a lot of resentment in organizations now towards the NFL for the NFL putting this on teams instead of the NFL just creating a mandatory policy.  The NFL doesn't want the lawsuits, but it apparently seems fine if the individual teams get sued.  The NFL can say "hey, we didn't fire Rick Dennison...that was the Vikings' decision".  But, clearly the Vikings were operating under the NFL's warnings about forfeiture.  So, the Vikings, and soon to be other teams who will do the same thing, will be thrown under the bus.

So remember the NFL is a league of individually owned businesses.  I do not believe the Commissioner necessarily has the authority to require teams to vaccinate.  I mean if Jerry Jones or one other owner doesn't want to require his coaches and team to vaccinate that probably prevents the Commissioner from acting.  It's not like an NFL policy would prevent a team from being sued for enforcing it.  It's not a team won't have enough money to pay some sort of claim.  I also do not believe teams would be that concerned about lawsuits.  I just don't think there's any real grounds for the suit.   

 The NFLPA probably has no real grounds to complain about a policy of forfeiting games unless it directly impacts compensation for players.  I think individual players could file grievances about suspensions or some other team discipline but I really think other players are not going to want the NFLPA to support the grievance.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dawkdaballhawk said:

If that's true, I wonder if the Eagles could mandate sessions with a shrink?

I think they could put in all kinds of moral clauses in a contract but there's still an issue of the price to get him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, greend said:

And nothing you have said makes him "guilty" either, n=but you sure seem to have made up your mind about it

And nothing you've said makes him not guilty but you sure seem to have made up your mind about it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok as far as "you're" concerned THIS is QB1 on the Depth Chart.

 

images.jpgThey're all yours Al. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

it’s 20% minority with the rosters extended to 90 at the moment. I’m curious to see if that percentage elevates, stays the same or decreases when they go to 53 man rosters 

6 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I'd say elevates once they go to 53. Anyone in that danger zone of getting cut I'm going to assume got vaccinated and the ones that aren't know they are untouchable. 

Good point. Is Hopkins the only star player that's publicly been against it?

Also bring up the contract point again. What happens if a star player with a mega deal wont get the vaccine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

So remember the NFL is a league of individually owned businesses.  I do not believe the Commissioner necessarily has the authority to require teams to vaccinate.  I mean if Jerry Jones or one other owner doesn't want to require his coaches and team to vaccinate that probably prevents the Commissioner from acting.  It's not like an NFL policy would prevent a team from being sued for enforcing it.  It's not a team won't have enough money to pay some sort of claim.  I also do not believe teams would be that concerned about lawsuits.  I just don't think there's any real grounds for the suit.   

 The NFLPA probably has no real grounds to complain about a policy of forfeiting games unless it directly impacts compensation for players.  I think individual players could file grievances about suspensions or some other team discipline but I really think other players are not going to want the NFLPA to support the grievance.  

The NFLPA isn't going to do anything, they are the ones that agreed to the rules

Quote

In an email to membership issued in response to Thursday’s memo from the NFL to all teams, the unions said, "We remind you that the same basic rules applied last year.”

As noted by the NFLPA, if games were missed in 2020 because of a COVID outbreak, nobody would have gotten paid.

"The only difference this year is the NFL’s decision to impose additional penalties on clubs which are responsible for the outbreak and the availability of proven vaccines,” the memo explains. "The protocols we jointly agreed to helped get us through a full season last year without missing game checks and are effective, when followed.”

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

It's not a move you make from a football perspective alone, that's the problem.  I think everyone can agree Watson is leaps and bounds better than what the Eagles currently have at QB, but in a hard-cap league any team is tying up significant portion of it to one player -- the franchise QB. 

If you want Watson how long do you want him on the team for?  10 years?  That's more than a significant investment of resources for a player who has many red flags.  Not red flag -- numerous red flags.  He has legal issues, he has character issues, he signed his mega extension in bad faith, he's over-stepping his position as a player trying to exert influence on organizational decisions that no NFL player has, nor should have.

Extreme risk in bringing Watson in, for many reasons beyond the football field.   

Vick had already been convicted, incarcerated, and reformed.  He took responsibility for his actions, was remorseful, and was advocating against dog fighting.  That all made his signing more tolerable.

Watson is pretty far away from where Vick was.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, CaliEagle said:

I do think the NFLPA is going to probably push back on this. It will be interesting to see a lot of drama now.  The NFL should just bite the bullet and make it required. They can do it on the grounds of saying that 50+ players are going to be in direct physical contact, so we have to do it.  There's going to be a lot of team turmoil now.  Now players on the Vikings are going to resent ownership for letting the coach go. Their season might be over before it begins.   I bet there is a lot of resentment in organizations now towards the NFL for the NFL putting this on teams instead of the NFL just creating a mandatory policy.  The NFL doesn't want the lawsuits, but it apparently seems fine if the individual teams get sued.  The NFL can say "hey, we didn't fire Rick Dennison...that was the Vikings' decision".  But, clearly the Vikings were operating under the NFL's warnings about forfeiture.  So, the Vikings, and soon to be other teams who will do the same thing, will be thrown under the bus.

Not so fast my friend.   NFLPA is good with it.  It is, what it is.  
 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/07/22/nflpa-on-players-not-being-paid-in-event-of-a-forfeited-game-the-same-basic-rules-applied-last-year/

9 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

The NFLPA isn't going to do anything, they are the ones that agreed to the rules

 

Beat me to it.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Good point. Is Hopkins the only star player that's publicly been against it?

Also bring up the contract point again. What happens if a star player with a mega deal wont get the vaccine?

To me that’s going to be the next big thing that’s going to hit eventually. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Good point. Is Hopkins the only star player that's publicly been against it?

Also bring up the contract point again. What happens if a star player with a mega deal wont get the vaccine?

I think all you can do is follow the collective agreement.  I don't think the NFL wants to spend years in court fighting contract law, so the logical alternative is to mandate the unvaccinated players to mask up, get tested daily, isolate while on the road, generally make them live with their decision.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

The vaccine is still in experimental status. 

incorrect

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Good point. Is Hopkins the only star player that's publicly been against it?

Also bring up the contract point again. What happens if a star player with a mega deal wont get the vaccine?

It seems like it's been nothing but big name players that have been publicly against it. Hopkins, Fournette, Beasely, Cousins, Josh Allen, Zach Wilson, Sam Darnold, Christian McCaffrey, Jalen Ramsey, Montez Sweat and many others. Not saying they are all still unvaccinated, but they all have either said they aren't or were openly skeptical about it within the last month or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

If people don't want Watson because they don't want to have to root for him, I get that, that's your prerogative. But trying to argue it's a bad move from a football perspective alone is utter insanity.

Dude's a get out of jail free card for this franchise that has fallen drastically since the SB. It's crazy how many QBs the Eagles have had since McNabb. It doesn't feel that way for whatever reason, but the QB position has been such a damn mess since McNabb left. They just haven't been able to get it right.

have to price in the risk thats he convicted/suspended somehow

im just not sure hot to do it...

i dont know wtf to think about his off field issues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ellis, what have you told them? 

Ellis, you shouldn't be doing this. 

download-1.jpg.a9eb3392e17f9364e81083171518e66c.jpgEllis, listen to me very carefully.  Jordan is QB 1 . 

Ellis tell them you don't know me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

It's not a move you make from a football perspective alone, that's the problem.  I think everyone can agree Watson is leaps and bounds better than what the Eagles currently have at QB, but in a hard-cap league any team is tying up significant portion of it to one player -- the franchise QB. 

If you want Watson how long do you want him on the team for?  10 years?  That's more than a significant investment of resources for a player who has many red flags.  Not red flag -- numerous red flags.  He has legal issues, he has character issues, he signed his mega extension in bad faith, he's over-stepping his position as a player trying to exert influence on organizational decisions that no NFL player has, nor should have.

Extreme risk in bringing Watson in, for many reasons beyond the football field.   

He has legal issues right now. They will eventually be done with at some point whenever that is. Character flaws - that's a complicated one and multi-layered. For one, he's only been accused as of right now. Not saying I don't believe he did what he's accused of, but for now, it's mere accusations. But there's character as it pertains to an NFL locker room and character of stuff outside the football. From what I read, unless I missed some stories, if true, the guy sounds like a deviant with weird sexual proclivities. I don't know if that necessarily makes him a bad guy or not, that's entirely subjective. He seems popular in NFL circles though. Players around the league have always respected him as a player and leader.

And regards to the contract and wanting out stuff, I think that's being overblown. For one, that's modern sports. Players are more entitled now and they demand out. But this was different. His dislike there stems from his relationship with Jack Easterby, who seems like a total nutjob, and apparently the Texans even behind the scenes are a total mickey mouse organization. I can't begrudge him for wanting out. There's no indication as of right now it's going to be like this with every organization. And honestly, if they get him and can't put a winning team around him, they don't deserve to keep him. They would deserve to pay for their incompetence.

I don't think the risk is extreme, I think it's moderate at worst, and probably minimal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

have to price in the risk thats he convicted/suspended somehow

im just not sure hot to do it...

i dont know wtf to think about his off field issues

Unless he reaches a financial settlement with his 22 (?) accusers, he's not even scheduled to be deposed in the civil lawsuits until February 2022; there's no way he's playing in the NFL with the lawsuits still hanging over him so he won't be playing in 2021 -- he'd be on the Commissioner's Exempt List.  After the civil suits are resolved the NFL will decide if he'll be suspended -- you'd have to think that's pretty likely, and somewhere in the range of 8 games to a full season, so 2022 would be uncertain.

He and his lawyers have a lot of thinking to do.  I haven't heard anything regarding criminal charges, so one would think reaching an out-of-court settlement would be the logical course of action, and as expeditiously as possible.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Unless he reaches a financial settlement with his 22 (?) accusers, he's not even scheduled to be deposed in the civil lawsuits until February 2022; there's no way he's playing in the NFL with the lawsuits still hanging over him so he won't be playing in 2021 -- he'd be on the Commissioner's Exempt List.  After the civil suits are resolved the NFL will decide if he'll be suspended -- you'd have to think that's pretty likely, and somewhere in the range of 8 games to a full season, so 2022 would be uncertain.

He and his lawyers have a lot of thinking to do.  I haven't heard anything regarding criminal charges, so one would think reaching an out-of-court settlement would be the logical course of action, and as expeditiously as possible.  

$100 says that even he if doesnt settle, that does not happen and he does play this year. He is not going to be exempted an entire year over pending civil lawsuits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...