2 hours ago, 315Eagles said:

Hope LSU loses every game this year.

And that Brian Kelly gets hit by the team bus on the ride out. 

1 hour ago, The Blackfish said:

Surprising, considering they gave up 56, so 50 more than him.  They must have had a ton o-linemen. 
 Anyway, I gave Fields a pass for last season since he rarely had time to even set his feet but now that I see he carries a purse, never mind.  
 

 

You are aware not every sack is so called "allowed" and tied to a oline player in the stats right? Here are the sacks allowed on the stat sheet to the oline players on the Bears for 2021. I didnt check TEs or HBs. Some are just not tied to anyone. But as you can see, according to the stats, Peters led the team. 

Jason Peters 6 sacks

Larry Borom 5 sacks

Cody Whitehair 4 sacks

James Daniel 3 sacks

Teven Jenkins 2 sacks

Sam Mustipher 1 sack

Germain Ifedi 0 sacks

E. Wilkerson 0 sacks

40 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

What are the residual consequences of having DeVonta Smith, AJ Brown, and Quez Watkins (#200 overall pick) as the Eagles’ top 3 WR?

The NFL roster is extremely fluid.  The mistakes of 2-3 years in the past become obsolete and irrelevant quite quickly with a proper retool 

 we’re talking hypotheticals residual effects that could still occur at other positions due to having to correct the sunk cost they had at WR. The consequence imo isn’t the WR corps. They fixed that but at what cost to other positions down the road. The potential residual effect of fixing the sunk cost may very well be somewhere like corner or safety or DE. Due to having to use those extra 2 firsts to correct the sunk cost is the consequence may very well be you aren’t as secure long term at DE, Cb or S like you could be as they knew they needed long terms solutions at those positions as well as fixing the mistakes made at WR.  

that said I’m not saying that is definitively going to happen or it is 100% going to be horribly bad. If I made it sound that way that wasn’t what I meant by it. What I meant by it was that realm of possibility that exists that we havent seen the full residual effect of the sunk cost of reagor and JJAW. 

They should delay airing the rest of this season of House of the Dragon until Jalen "The FrancH1se" Hurts leads the Eagles to the max possible game elimination by winning the Super Bowl this season.  

 

 

 

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

 we’re talking hypotheticals residual effects that could still occur at other positions due to having to correct the sunk cost they had at WR. The consequence imo isn’t the WR corps. They fixed that but at what cost to other positions down the road. The potential residual effect of fixing the sunk cost may very well be somewhere like corner or safety or DE. 

That doesn’t make sense.  If Howie had drafted DK Metcalf instead of JJAW — well, DK just signed a new contract for $24M AAV, so there’s the money for AJ Brown.  It’s just AJ Brown’s account instead of Metcalf.  If Howie had drafted Justin Jefferson instead of Reagor, then you should add in the money Jefferson will be extended for after his season (likely $30M AAV) — unless Howie doesn’t wish to pay two WR that money, then one is gone from the team.

You’re trying to hold the Eagles front office to a perfect standard that no one meets.  Are there other teams that draft better?  Sure — but those teams don’t likely trade, restructure, or sign players as shrewdly as the Eagles do.  I suspect if you polled all 32 organizations on which are run the best for player personnel, the Eagles would be in the top 8.

Holy shite that FSU-LSU game 🤣

2 minutes ago, Iggles25 said:

Holy shite that FSU-LSU game 🤣

Insane final 2 minutes.

Lol

3 minutes ago, RLC said:

Insane final 2 minutes.

How demoralizing must it be to have your punt returner muff a punt, your defense miraculously recovers a fumble from a boneheaded playcall by the opposing offense, then your offense drives the length of the field and scores with no time remaining.

Only to have a game-tying extra point blocked.

Wow.

1 hour ago, Alphagrand said:

That doesn’t make sense.  If Howie had drafted DK Metcalf instead of JJAW — well, DK just signed a new contract for $24M AAV, so there’s the money for AJ Brown.  It’s just AJ Brown’s account instead of Metcalf.  If Howie had drafted Justin Jefferson instead of Reagor, then you should add in the money Jefferson will be extended for after his season (likely $30M AAV) — unless Howie doesn’t wish to pay two WR that money, then one is gone from the team.

You’re trying to hold the Eagles front office to a perfect standard that no one meets.  Are there other teams that draft better?  Sure — but those teams don’t likely trade, restructure, or sign players as shrewdly as the Eagles do.  I suspect if you polled all 32 organizations on which are run the best for player personnel, the Eagles would be in the top 8.

If you drafted DK Metcalf and Jefferson then you wouldn’t of had to use 2 first round picks on AJ Brown and Devonta Smith at that point in time. You would have those pick at your disposal to go to address numerous other positions that have questions going forward. But at this point we can’t change that. However the Eagles because they didn’t do that and because they had these two horrific investments/sunk costs were forced to make a decision on what direction they went in and couldn’t address everything

we can say whatever we want, the residual effects of the investment of reagor and Jjaw is that they made a decision that they needed to address WR over other areas they knew had potential upcoming questions over the next 2 years. how bad the eagles are at those other positions long term because of the decision made to the correct it is anyones guess? It might be minuscule in a year or two from now. It might loom larger 

I’m not asking them to be perfect. I’m just informing people that there is definitely a residual effect from their drafting reagor and JJAW in what decisions they made and what the outcome might be in a year or two from now might not be as rosy as it looks today due to those decisions made based off the sunk cost of reagor and JJAW. 

2 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Lot K

K lot? Someone here is booshie. 

25 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

You are aware not every sack is so called "allowed" and tied to a oline player in the stats right? Here are the sacks allowed on the stat sheet to the oline players on the Bears for 2021. I didnt check TEs or HBs. Some are just not tied to anyone. But as you can see, according to the stats, Peters led the team. 

Jason Peters 6 sacks

Larry Borom 5 sacks

Cody Whitehair 4 sacks

James Daniel 3 sacks

Teven Jenkins 2 sacks

Sam Mustipher 1 sack

Germain Ifedi 0 sacks

E. Wilkerson 0 sacks

Yes I do!!   According to the reporter that wrote the story, Peters was a high point on their line, also according to PFF he was their best lineman.  You proved your point, he sucks but he’s still going to the HOF, and might play against the Eagles this season.
 He gave up 8 sacks in 2020 for the Eagles which is remarkable since he missed a bunch of games, but it didn’t stop reporters from writing nice things about his time in Chicago, I’m sure there are some that rip him as well.

https://theathletic.com/2903209/2021/10/21/hes-a-freak-signing-39-year-old-jason-peters-turned-into-a-positive-for-the-bears/?amp=1

https://www.audacy.com/670thescore/sports/chicago-bears/matt-nagy-explains-bears-decision-to-start-jason-peters-over-teven-jenkins

https://chicagocrusader.com/bears-offensive-lineman-jason-peters-named-week-2-nfl-way-to-play-recipient/

 

 

3 hours ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Even if it’s 50000 and that’s my sunk cost, there’s still effects from that sunk cost there in the present and future. Just cause you recognize it as a sunk cost and accept it does not mean the effects stop and they all the sudden disappear. 

The after effects from the sunk cost don’t just  disappear because you’re recognized as a sunk cost. So if the definition of sunk cause is "an investment already incurred that can't be recovered” that just means i am accepting im never recovering my investment. That doesn’t say there won’t still be more potential consequences coming after I’ve accepted I’m not getting my investment back( as it’s a sunk cause). 

You don't have to "accept" that the cost is "sunk" That happens automatically every single time you make an investment or exchange one asset for another.   A good manager's/company's job it to maximize the leverage of the acquired asset so that it maximizes the value to the company. 

As @Next_Up correctly pointed out, you are talking about Return On Investment (ROI) not Sunk Cost.  Everything you are saying applies if in fact the measurement indicator being used is ROI. 

3 hours ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

OK I can accept that. However you still have consequences and affects in the present and years down the road from the sunk cost even after accepting it as that and for what it is. If we want to call it Return of investment fine. The damage/consequences from the sunk cost can very much still affect and lingering on. 

the affects stemming from the sunk cost don’t just go away cause we’ve established it’s a sunk cost and moved on from it. That’s my point. There’s still affects/consequences even when accepted the sunk cost and we’ve established it’s sunk cost. 

The consequences are not from the sunk cost ... in your example they are from the investment.  They are two very different things ... very different. The investment results in the acquisition of an asset, which you then try and leverage to create value.  An investment is focused on the present and the future.  it is dynamic.  A sunk cost has no present and no future.  It only has a past.  It is the resources that you used to make the investment.  Once the investment has been made the assets used to make it disappear from the company's ledger ... they cease to exist.

28 minutes ago, mattwill said:

You don't have to "accept" that the cost is "sunk" That happens automatically everyn single time you make an investment or exchange one asset for another.   A good manager's/company's job it to maximize the leverage of the acquired asset so that it maximizes the value to the company. 

As @Next_Up correctly pointed out, you are talking about Return On Investment (ROI) not Sunk Cost.  Everything you are saying applies if in fact the measurement indicator being used is ROI. 

this is the last post I’m gonna make.  Did the eagles make decisions based off two players who were sunk cost? Yes they did. because they made the decision to use two more first round picks to fix their mistake (sunk cost of reagor and JJAW). There decision is a residual effect of the sunk cost of reagor and JJAW. And there’s residual effect of the sunk cost that may or may not hurt them down the road. You seem to think there’s no more residual effects that could come from it cause we’ve moved on. I 100% disagree with you

I gave you what the definition of what sunk cost is "an investment already incurred that can't be recovered”. Where in there does it say  it’s a sunk cost and maximizing its value to its fullest today means no more residual effects/consequences can occur from it? It doesn’t. Cause they still can. 

call it Fing investment if you want. Call it Fing sunk cost. Makes no difference to me. The point remains that there’s still residual effects/consequence that happened and can still happen of whatever the F you want to call it. But you think it’s over now, we’ve just washed our hands of it potentially any consequences toward the eagles in the future.  I DISAGREE. Do I think that’s for sure going to happen? No. But I can’t rule it out like you seemingly think we all should do

2 hours ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

 The most basic definition of sunk cost ive found is this, "an investment already incurred that can't be recovered”

so I can accept that they were never going to recover the investment that they made. Obvious that was gonna happen. I accept that part. hence why I’m happy they got anything for JJAW and reagor for what their value was now sand them as a sunk cost. However i also know that doesn’t mean there’s not other residual effects/consequences currently or in the future that could still stem from that sunk cost investment

my problem is just cause we call and accept it as a sunk cost, doesn’t mean the residual effects/consequence just stop and just go away  But those effects/consequences are associated with the player on the roster, not the draft pick asset that was used to invest in the acquisition of the player.

Now there’s a sunk cost investment fallacy which is throwing good money after bad while refusing to cut one’s losses. That’s what the eagles had been doing with JJAW and reagor until they just accepted it as a sunk cost bad investment and got rid of them for what they could. But again none of these mean there’s no more residual effects/consequences once you’ve accepted and established something as a sunk cost bad investment. 

FYP

2 hours ago, BigEFly said:

Yes and no.  Let’s say that asset A cost $100.  Use failed to meet expectations.  At the value expected, asset A should have produced a $50 return but rather resulted in a $5 dollar return. So recognizing that the likelihood that asset A may never produce above a minimalistic return or even a loss, you sell asset A for $10.  Yes you got return on your investment but at a capital loss.  Reagor is a significant capital loss.  JJAW is a major capital loss.  Heck, Davion Taylor is currently measuring as a capital loss.  Anytime an investment that required capital does not offer an equal return, it is a loss.  Celebrating Howie for slightly minimizing the loss seems absurd. 

Agreed 100%.  With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, they all were bad investments 

Would you have been happier if Howie simply cut Reagor and JJAW?

1 minute ago, mattwill said:

FYP

No actually you didn’t. It’s called sunk cost fallacy. But apparently we are changing it to investment fallacy cause Mattwill disagrees  cool   

43 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

You’re trying to hold the Eagles front office to a perfect standard that no one meets.  Are there other teams that draft better?  Sure — but those teams don’t likely trade, restructure, or sign players as shrewdly as the Eagles do.  I suspect if you polled all 32 organizations on which are run the best for player personnel, the Eagles would be in the top 8.

That is so spot on that it deserves to be repeated.

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

this is the last post I’m gonna make.  Did the eagles make decisions based off two players who were sunk cost investments? Yes they did. because they made the decision to use two more first round picks to fix the sunk cost. There decision is a residual effect of the sunk cost. And there’s residual effect of the sunk cost that may or may not hurt them down the road. You seem to think there’s no more residual effects that could come from it cause we’ve moved on. I 100% disagree with you

I gave you what the definition of what sunk cost is "an investment already incurred that can't be recovered”. Where in there does it say  it’s a sunk cost and maximizing its value to its fullest today means no more residual effects/consequences can occur? It doesn’t. Cause they still can. 

call it Fing investment if you want. Call it Fing sunk cost. Makes no difference to me. The point remains that there’s still residual effects/consequence that happened and can still happen of whatever the F you want to call it. But you think it’s over now and there’s no more than can come from it.  I DISAGREE 

The sunk costs were the draft picks used to acquire the investments (the players)  You can never get those draft picks back.  You can only do your very best to maximize the value of the respective investment (players) that currently reside on your books. 

Sunk costs do not exist on any company's balance sheet. 

This is Business School 101 ... or if you will Accounting 101.

OK, I'm exhausted:

3 minutes ago, mattwill said:

The sunk costs were the draft picks used to acquire the investments (the players)  You can never get those draft picks back.  You can only do your very best to maximize the value of the respective investment (players) that currently reside on your books. 

Sunk costs do not exist on any company's balance sheet. 

This is Business School 101 ... or if you will Accounting 101.

Call it whatever the F you want. You tend believe those investments ( sunk costs) have no more consequence that follow them anymore cause weve moved on. I disagree with you. 

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

No actually you didn’t. It’s called sunk cost fallacy. But apparently we are changing it to investment fallacy cause Mattwill disagrees  cool   

That is different than what you described.  It describes "cutting bait" from an existing asset.  It does not have anything to do with future effects associated with the original investment (consequence that follow them).

4 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

OK, I'm exhausted:

Racist 

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

Call it whatever the F you want. You tend believe those investments ( sunk costs) have no more consequence that follow them anymore cause weve moved on. I disagree with you.  

No, whether or not an Investment provides good return or bad return absolutely has consequences.  Those consequences are part of the Return On Investment (ROI).  But the money/assets used to purchase/acquire the asset (player in this case) has no future consequences.  It is gone/expended.