27 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

He had 80 rushes all year. 5 per game on average. And had a 56 yard run that’s going skew his YPA on limited carries. I didn’t say we should be throwing money at the position especially as the roster stands today, but that doesn’t change the fact that Scott as a player is what he is. It’s not like I’m saying cut him, but he’s a JAG in my eyes. I don’t think it would be reasonably difficult to replace him with someone else that could provide close to the same production. 

 

 

I think you are misusing JAG.  Your use is that Nelson, Harris, Wilson, Singleton, Barnett, Mailata, Seumalo, Sanders, Hurts, Goedert, Reagor, Watkins, Ward etc. are JAGs.  The entire second team and any other reserves, just JAGs.    What is not a JAG as you are using it?   Scott is a good back up RB. Not All Pro or Pro Bowl but solid in what we expect of him.  

5 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I know for a fact we are all JAGs on a message board. It’s pretty much the definition of a message board user. 

I mean obviously😂

28 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

If every team is made up of mostly JAGs, and what you just described Scott as is a JAG, I don’t understand what the problem with calling him a JAG is. 

I never said I had a problem with the label. I just don't have a problem with productive JAGs. I don't have a problem with a better player beating them out either --- even if the better player is a JAG. If you're looking for something I said, I suggest looking at my posts and not 4for4's posts where he pretends I believe things I never said. 

1 minute ago, DEagle7 said:

So he doesn't have enough carries that we can use his season long YPA to compare him to those other guys, but now we're only going to look at games where he "was a true #2" because he had too many carries in those other games?  

Finding a guy who who can rush 3 times a game for 14 yards isn't that hard sure.  Finding a guy who can do that AND fill in as a starter when needed competently is.  In those 4 games as a starter he had a YPA of 4.2+ which is right on par with Pollard, Hunt, Drake.

The point was he had more starts yet less carries all year than those guys. Which means the coaches mainly used him when they had to, not because they wanted to. Which just goes back to him being a JAG. Can you honestly say from just a talent stand point you would rather have Scott than Pollard, Hunt, Drake etc?

Yards from scrimmage Drake 1092, Hunt 1145, Pollard 628, Scott 586.

11 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I know for a fact we are all JAGs on a message board. It’s pretty much the definition of a message board user. 

We just signed AwesomeEagle to the EMB to replace you because as you stated you are a JAG.  

7 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

I think you are misusing JAG.  Your use is that Nelson, Harris, Wilson, Singleton, Barnett, Mailata, Seumalo, Sanders, Hurts, Goedert, Reagor, Watkins, Ward etc. are JAGs.  The entire second team and any other reserves, just JAGs.    What is not a JAG as you are using it?   Scott is a good back up RB. Not All Pro or Pro Bowl but solid in what we expect of him.  

I absolutely did not call all those guys JAGs ever, besides Ward. Most are too early to say one way or the other. 

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I absolutely did not call all those guys JAGs ever, besides Ward. Most are too early to say one way or the other. 

So, what is your definition of a JAG?

7 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

I never said I had a problem with the label. I just don't have a problem with productive JAGs. I don't have a problem with a better player beating them out either --- even if the better player is a JAG. If you're looking for something I said, I suggest looking at my posts and not 4for4's posts where he pretends I believe things I never said. 

Ok but you responded to me saying I look forward to not arguing over JAGs and seemed to take offense to it. In any case, maybe I’m the outlier here who doesn’t think JAG is an insulting, depreciating term? I don’t know.

17 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I know for a fact we are all JAGs on a message board. It’s pretty much the definition of a message board user. 

We are all jags as the eagles cut us all from the old message board. Luckily @VaBeach_Eagle started a new franchise and took us in to become a powerhouse team. However we might need to make some cuts. Sorry bacarty

1 minute ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

We are all jags as the eagles cut us all from the old message board. Luckily @VaBeach_Eagle started a new franchise and took us in to become a powerhouse team. However we might need to make some cuts. Sorry bacarty

I like to consider myself the JAGiest of JAGs. The message board version of Ryan Fitzpatrick. 

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I like to consider myself the JAGiest of JAGs. The message board version of Ryan Fitzpatrick. 

Biggest question is who wins the nasty Nate award for the emb 

4 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Ok but you responded to me saying I look forward to not arguing over JAGs and seemed to take offense to it. In any case, maybe I’m the outlier here who doesn’t think JAG is an insulting, depreciating term? I don’t know.

You mean this post?

 

5 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

So, what is your definition of a JAG?

More or less, someone you can either upgrade or at worst, replace without skipping much of a beat while not using substantial resources. 

11 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

The point was he had more starts yet less carries all year than those guys. Which means the coaches mainly used him when they had to, not because they wanted to. Which just goes back to him being a JAG. Can you honestly say from just a talent stand point you would rather have Scott than Pollard, Hunt, Drake etc?

Yards from scrimmage Drake 1092, Hunt 1145, Pollard 628, Scott 586.

Drake was a starter last year so using his scrimmage yards is kinda silly, and 40 yards difference between Pollard and Scott isn't exactly huge. So really you just have Hunt, who yes I believe is more talented. Probably the most talented #2 RB in the game.  I just don't think there is a dramatic difference in per game production between the top backups and Scott. He has shown he can bust off some big runs as a backup, and fill in respectively as a starter when needed even in a year where our OL/team sucked.  We have a pretty good RB for the price of a really bad one.  

3 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

You mean this post?

 

And then this 

1 hour ago, brkmsn said:

The door is open for Gainwell. All he has to do is beat out a JAG.

And this 

1 hour ago, brkmsn said:

Clement was just a guy, but he made key plays in our biggest game ever. Torrey Smith was just a guy, but he made key plays to get us to that game. Vaitai was just a guy, but we needed him to step up in 2017 because of injury. Celek was just a guy. Agholor, Jerrnigan, Curry, Bradham, Kendricks, Mills, Burton, Darby, Barnett, Allen, Long, Foles, --- all just guys. 

Together, they were one heck of a team. 

So yea, it seemed to me like you took offense to it. 

5 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Drake was a starter last year so using his scrimmage yards is kinda silly, and 40 yards difference between Pollard and Scott isn't exactly huge. So really you just have Hunt, who yes I believe is more talented. Probably the most talented #2 RB in the game.  I just don't think there is a dramatic difference in per game production between the top backups and Scott. He has shown he can bust off some big runs as a backup, and fill in respectively as a starter when needed even in a year where our OL/team sucked.  We have a pretty good RB for the price of a really bad one.  

Fair enough on Drake. I and I think most people or teams would pick Pollard over Scott. Yes, their stats are similar but Cowboys stupidly spent a premium pick and then even more stupidly signed their #1 RB to a massive contract so they need to feed him. Pollard should definitely have a more prominent role in that offense. Just looking at our division last year I’d say Scott is behind McKissik, Pollard and probably Gallman. 

9 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

And then this 

And this 

So yea, it seemed to me like you took offense to it. 

Not sure why I would be "offended."

Let me ask you something ... Do you really believe this as a possibility?

Quote

I look forward to having an actual team where we’re not arguing over JAGs

That's why I responded with the initial quip. You look forward to something that will never happen. That's not an "actual" team, that's a "dream team."

6 hours ago, BigEFly said:

Good question about a 6’6” center.  We will see how he does.  But we know his pedigree.  

I'm am completely out of it today lol. I was ready to reply to this and ask where you got 6'6" from Embiid is 7'1"  lol

1 minute ago, brkmsn said:

Not sure why I would be "offended."

Let me ask you something ... Do you really believe this as a possibility?

That's why I responded with the initial quip. You look forward to something that will never happen. That's not an "actual" team, that's a "dream team."

Yes. If you have a team with quality top talent on either side of the ball it’s much easier to live with JAGs. In 2004 when we had McNabb, TO, Westbrook, Douglas, Kearse, Simon, Dawkins, Sheppard etc no ones arguing about Greg Lewis and Dorsey Levens. 

3 minutes ago, Bwestbrook36 said:

I'm am completely out of it today lol. I was ready to reply to this and ask where you got 6'6" from Embiid is 7'1"  lol

Gonna use embiid at WR in the red zone. He’s a better version of Hakeem butler red zone aficionado

7 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

Not sure why I would be "offended."

Let me ask you something ... Do you really believe this as a possibility?

That's why I responded with the initial quip. You look forward to something that will never happen. That's not an "actual" team, that's a "dream team."

I would take it more as being tired of arguing over JAGs meaning 1st round players turning into JAGS so then we have to argue over who the better 6th sting running back in camp is.

A perfect example would be arguing over players like Ward and Fulgham because JJW sucks ass. @LeanMeanGM not sure if accurate with my thoughts on what you were saying feel free to yell at me for it lol. 

29 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Biggest question is who wins the nasty Nate award for the emb 

DumbleBear. He was on a daily tear during the offseason then just disappeared. 

It’s a question of varying degrees with some of these guys.  If Boston Scott is your #2 RB you’re likely not a good team.  If Greg Ward is leading your WR in snap counts, targets, etc you’re likely not a good team.  These are guys that should be transient players, moved out quickly as more talented players come in.

Fulgham is like Robert DeNiro in Awakenings — went from comatose to dancing around the room, back to comatose again.  Eagles fans are hoping Robin Williams finds the right dosage of medication to wake him up again.  Good teams don’t have these issues.

15 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

DumbleBear. He was on a daily tear during the offseason then just disappeared. 

So are we going to pretend @Brody never happened!??! What a complete lack of respect of the goat! Can you believe the audacity of this guy?? 

How bout it guys? Ban!  

Edit: he may have been last season lol I'm so freaking out of it today

Edit edit he joined late December his cap hit  carries over into this year

! @NOTW @e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! @downundermike @E-A-G-L-E-S Eagles @EagleJoe8@VaBeach_Eagle

You all have it wrong. 
 

Minshew was a jag. Now he’s an eagle.