13 minutes ago, downundermike said:

I have just watched it several times, as he goes to the ground, he momentarily has the ball in both hands, but his right hand comes off the ball and he pins it between his left hand and the ground, incomplete.

I have blown it up as best I can, right hand is not on the ball, and he is pinning it between the ground and his left hand.

 

That left hand,  and the ball never move.  He maintains control that he had before it touched the ground,  even after it touches the ground. 

Not astute enough yet.  Keep reading.

2 hours ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

Kempski lays out our draft picks for the next three seasons.  In every year, we are better than baseline (1 pick in each round).

https://www.phillyvoice.com/philadelphia-eagles-2023-draft-picks-future/

https://www.phillyvoice.com/philadelphia-eagles-2024-draft-picks-future/

https://www.phillyvoice.com/philadelphia-eagles-2025-draft-picks-future/

2025 isn't much above baseline.

-----------------------------

Here's a hypothetical for you.  Let's say the Saints' season implodes and their pick is #1.  Do you trade down from that pick if you are Howie?  Also, what position(s) are your targets if you have that #1 pick?

Same question if the pick is #2

Same question if the pick is #3

 

2 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

That left hand,  and the ball never move.  He maintains control that he had before it touched the ground,  even after it touches the ground. 

Not astute enough yet.  Keep reading.

He is pinning the ball between his left hand and the ground, and his right hand is not on the ball.

Take the L, just like Purdue.

2 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Here's a hypothetical for you.  Let's say the Saints' season implodes and their pick is #1.  Do you trade down from that pick if you are Howie?  Also, what position(s) are your targets if you have that #1 pick?

Same question if the pick is #2

Same question if the pick is #3

 

 

Nope.  They will draft a QB.

27 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Correct.  They didn't desire to be rid of him, but they couldn't come to terms on a new contract.   So, their desire to not lose him for nothing, they made the trade.  We aren't in disagreement, until you make it so that the trade has to mean that they had no desire to keep him.  That's just not how things work.   You can desire something, and still do the exact opposite due to other factors.    They did have the opportunity to keep him around, but at a certain cost.    I have the desire to go to Italy... but have never gone, because it is cost prohibitive to the other parts of my life, just as they had the desire to keep him, but they deemed it cost prohibitive to do so for it would hurt them in other areas.

But... we shall leave it here.

Sad.  No mention of Honey Buns?  

I understand the philosophy of your argument, tho I disagree with it. Without getting too deep, there's realistic desires and unrealistic desires. For instance, I desire to win the lottery here tonight ($50 million CAD, so like, $10 (not million) USD), but it's not going to happen and the chances are so infinitesimal.

Your desire to go to Italy I would say is something that is realistic, and I would argue you aren't truly desirous to go there, or you'd find a way to make it happen (though to be completely fair, I don't know your personal situation, so the Italy thing may fall into the unrealistic desires).

Keeping Peters for Buffalo was a completely realistic desire that they chose not to exercise. Jauron can look back now and say all the nice things he says, but at the time, the actions of the FO spoke far louder than the words of the coach who has been long removed from the team. And so to me, him saying the FO desired to keep Peters there rings very hallow, as they were under no obligation at all to move him. They very well could have paid him and kept him. They chose not to of their own desire. 

I will respectfully agree to disagree with your philosophy on this, but I understand your point and where you're coming from.  

7 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

Give us a bonus prediction, man!

 

7 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I'm keeping track of any type of hot take/prediction too if you want to give one

My hot take is that this team gives Reagor his first 100 yard game in week 2

3 minutes ago, mattwill said:

2025 isn't much above baseline.

-----------------------------

Here's a hypothetical for you.  Let's say the Saints' season implodes and their pick is #1.  Do you trade down from that pick if you are Howie?  Also, what position(s) are your targets if you have that #1 pick?

Same question if the pick is #2

Same question if the pick is #3

 

not enough information to determine, depends on many things:

1) What our needs are at the time

2) What we believe our options are in the draft to fill our needs

3) What if any - cant miss prospects have emerged as cant miss HOF player

4) How deep the draft is at certain positions, and what can we get for trading down

2 minutes ago, downundermike said:

He is pinning the ball between his left hand and the ground, and his right hand is not on the ball.

Take the L, just like Purdue.

 

Nope.  They will draft a QB.

If our own pick is #32 (after Minshew leads us there), then our #1 overall pick should be used on Anderson. 

3 hours ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

But why does that "extra" WR need to be on the active roster rather than the practice squad? You can activate guys off the PS to play in games (granted there is a limit to the number of times for each player) so really it's the same thing.

The Eagles will still have five WRs in uniform against the Lions. One of them will return punts. One of them will return kickoffs. (Though I'd prefer Gainwell over Watkins, to be honest.)

I’d take Watkins on PR and Scott on KOR.  Just haven’t got the faith on Gainwell catching kicks yet.  Before he became a starter, Watkins returned both punts and kickoffs in college. Gainwell or Calcaterra as the up man. Little hesitant on the latter given his history of concussions at OU. 

1 minute ago, devpool said:

 

My hot take is that this team gives Reagor his first 100 yard game in week 2

2 hours ago, downundermike said:

Obviously I would have looked that up, just like afan.

The point, we know who Calcaterra is.  Some of us are draft nerds, I read tons of profiles and watch a ton of guys, I do this to a fault after we draft players.

I also run the yearly EMB mock draft where we each person takes on an AFC and NFC team, and we do a full draft before the NFL draft. ( That reminds me, I need to go update the spreadsheet to see how many picks we got right )

I also buy magazines, Lindy's, Athlon as I love to read while I am eating breakfast and lunch on the weekends.

You older folks need to quit acting like you are educating folks about very simple things.

I don't know of any of "the older folks" who are actually acting like they are educating folks (or even trying to educate folks).  I mknow your PERCEPTION is that that is what is happening, and that perception is reality for you, but when I read not only the older folks informational posts or the younger folks informational posts, I am totally comfortable receiving the information ... even thankful for that information.  Whenever ANYONE posts a coment, you appear to be much more focused on the messenger rather than the message.

Time's yours.

7 minutes ago, mattwill said:

2025 isn't much above baseline.

-----------------------------

Here's a hypothetical for you.  Let's say the Saints' season implodes and their pick is #1.  Do you trade down from that pick if you are Howie?  Also, what position(s) are your targets if you have that #1 pick?

Same question if the pick is #2

Same question if the pick is #3

 

#1 - Take the QB you like best.

#2/#3 - If you like more than one QB, stay and take the next one.  If not, trade up to #1 and get your guy.

1 hour ago, TorontoEagle said:

That statement alone is a flat out lie. Because they let him go instead of paying him like a top tackle in the league. 

You have to take into consideration that it was the Bills' ownership that made the decision(s) about how much they could afford to spend.

12 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

The question isn't whether they were right to trade someone or if they had other options. They also had other options at left tackle when they traded Peters. The issue is whether or not decline in play on the field was the reason they traded players considered to be the best at their position.

You said the coach was lying about Peters because you think, had his play not declined, that they team would have kept him. Not only have I provided evidence that this is not true from numerous sources, I have provided examples of two players who were among the best at their respective positions who were also traded.

You can't say the coach is lying about Peters based on your assumption that the team would never refuse to pay a player considered to be the best at his position, and then ignore the fact that that is exactly what they did with two other players. 

You love to rewrite history. Lynch was the best RB in the league at that time? Laughable!

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2009/rushing.htm

FRED JACKSON put up 237 carries for 1062 yards.

Lynch had 120 for 450. 

GTFO. 

Just now, mattwill said:

You have to take into consideration that it was the Bills' ownership that made the decision(s) about how much they could afford to spend.

Is the Bills ownership not considered the Front Office? 

4 minutes ago, mattwill said:

I don't know of any of "the older folks" who are actually acting like they are educating folks (or even trying to educate folks).  I mknow your PERCEPTION is that that is what is happening, and that perception is reality for you, but when I read not only the older folks informational posts or the younger folks informational posts, I am totally comfortable receiving the information ... even thankful for that information.  Whenever ANYONE posts a coment, you appear to be much more focused on the messenger rather than the message.

Time's yours.

When folks refuse to respond to a counter point, and say things like "I don't respond to gotcha posters" when their post is proven incorrect, it tells me all I need to know.

1 hour ago, jsb235 said:

Yes, the coach is clearly lying about the team not wanting to pay him. As is everyone else connected to the situation - they let him go because he was struggling, not because they didn't want to pay him. Despite the fact that they did the exact same thing three years later with Jairus Byrd.

The coach was trying to convince the ownership to spend their money at a time when their money situation was very tight.

1 minute ago, TorontoEagle said:

Is the Bills ownership not considered the Front Office? 

With one exception I don't personally consider ownership as being part of the Front Office.

9 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Here's a hypothetical for you.  Let's say the Saints' season implodes and their pick is #1.  Do you trade down from that pick if you are Howie?  Also, what position(s) are your targets if you have that #1 pick?

Same question if the pick is #2

Same question if the pick is #3

The Saints' season will hinge on a few things:

-- Is Dennis Allen a better head coach now than he was with the Raiders?  He was awful there

-- How much has Pete Carmichael perfected Payton's philosophy?  One would think there will be a drop-off, but how much?  Curious that Carmichael never gets much HC buzz

-- Does Jameis Winston revert back to TB Winston?  I think yes, and wouldn't be surprised if Dalton is the QB later this season.

 

I think they will be worse than most predictions I've heard, but I can't imagine they can be as bad as the Bears, Seahawks, Jets, Lions, Texans, or even Jags.

Just now, mattwill said:

With one exception I don't personally consider ownership as being part of the Front Office.

If they're dictating player salaries, how can they not be? 

2 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

I understand the philosophy of your argument, tho I disagree with it. Without getting too deep, there's realistic desires and unrealistic desires. For instance, I desire to win the lottery here tonight ($50 million CAD, so like, $10 (not million) USD), but it's not going to happen and the chances are so infinitesimal.

Your desire to go to Italy I would say is something that is realistic, and I would argue you aren't truly desirous to go there, or you'd find a way to make it happen (though to be completely fair, I don't know your personal situation, so the Italy thing may fall into the unrealistic desires).

Keeping Peters for Buffalo was a completely realistic desire that they chose not to exercise. Jauron can look back now and say all the nice things he says, but at the time, the actions of the FO spoke far louder than the words of the coach who has been long removed from the team. And so to me, him saying the FO desired to keep Peters there rings very hallow, as they were under no obligation at all to move him. They very well could have paid him and kept him. They chose not to of their own desire. 

I will respectfully agree to disagree with your philosophy on this, but I understand your point and where you're coming from.  

It's about resource distribution.  I go to Italy, but then I find myself doing the thing I swore I'd never do again... go into debt for a trip.  Been there, done that.  So, I save for it... and someday, I might have enough to make it happen.  Different for the Bills, yet still the same.  It's about your willingness to allocate resources at the current time to something versus something else.  Same as investing huge money into a LT sometimes... means not having assets available for other things.

 

 

I appreciate the respectful disagreement.  Here it will remain.

1 minute ago, Alphagrand said:

The Saints' season will hinge on a few things:

-- Is Dennis Allen a better head coach now than he was with the Raiders?  He was awful there

-- How much has Pete Carmichael perfected Payton's philosophy?  One would think there will be a drop-off, but how much?  Curious that Carmichael never gets much HC buzz

-- Does Jameis Winston revert back to TB Winston?  I think yes, and wouldn't be surprised if Dalton is the QB later this season.

 

I think they will be worse than most predictions I've heard, but I can't imagine they can be as bad as the Bears, Seahawks, Jets, Lions, Texans, or even Jags.

Oddly...I think the Jets, Lions, Texans and Jags will all do better than most think. And I think all will be better than the Saints at the end of the year. 

14 minutes ago, mattwill said:

2025 isn't much above baseline.

-----------------------------

Here's a hypothetical for you.  Let's say the Saints' season implodes and their pick is #1.  Do you trade down from that pick if you are Howie?  Also, what position(s) are your targets if you have that #1 pick?

Same question if the pick is #2

Same question if the pick is #3

 

Too soon.  I want a QB.  Having Pick 1 allows me to have my choice of the litter.  Is the right QB there, then no price makes me trade that pick.  If not, then I listen to offers.

3 minutes ago, mattwill said:

The coach was trying to convince the ownership to spend their money at a time when their money situation was very tight.

Yup, it is abundantly clear to most people that the decision to trade Peters (as well as Lynch and Byrd) was completely related to money and had nothing to do with on-field performance.

1 minute ago, jsb235 said:

Yup, it is abundantly clear to most people that the decision to trade Peters (as well as Lynch and Byrd) was completely related to money and had nothing to do with on-field performance.

Wrong

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

IF it actually happened though it's crazy to think of the massive ripple affect it would have had in Eagles history. Most likely no Desean Jackson or Jeremy Maclin. Probably no Jason Peters. And probably a Super Bowl appearance in 2008. And the biggest shakeup of them all.....

No Bryan Smith from McNeese State! 

That same argument was made recently by one of the beats noting that we wouldn't have Brown or AJ if some predecessor event hadn't happened.  If, if, if.

3 hours ago, hputenis said:

@EaglePhan1986 pm'd me pics of his greendick fracture which apparently does happen in adults.  His was due to a rare strain of gonorrhea combined with an unhealthy sex addiction.  

Yeah well you told me they were just regular gummy bears.