13 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

OK, I'm exhausted:

 

9 minutes ago, garingovt2000 said:

Racist 

Agreed. Despicable 

16 minutes ago, mattwill said:

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.  

Cool don’t care. Again Fing call it an investment. Call the Fing sunk cost. I don’t give a flying F what terms you want to use anymore. you seem to think there’s no more consequences/residual effects that could come based off decisions they made off reagor and JJAW anymore cause we got 5th and 7th. I disagree with you. 
 

 

30 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   

I would say that this describes why it was a good decision to move on from raegor and JJAW and that given a net present valuation of the players,  the return is acceptable. Sticking with them and taking a spot away from another potentially contributing player is throwing good "money” after bad. The initial event of drafting them used resources wastefully and will affect the organization’s future if repeated in a continuing pattern. Roseman is accountable for this. 

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

Cool don’t care. Again Fing call it an investment. Call the Fing sunk cost. I don’t give a flying F what terms you want to use anymore. you seem to think there’s no more consequences/residual effects that could come based off decisions they made off reagor and JJAW anymore cause we got 5th and 7th. I disagree with you. 

You have made that inference with absolutely no evidence to support it.  Nowhere have I sais there are no consequences from a poor draft decision.  That is a figment of your imagination. 

The original tweet that started this whole crap show commented on the trade ... nothing else.  I'll ask you the same question that I asked @BigEFly, would you have preferred that Howie had cut the two players rather than traded them?

20 minutes ago, mattwill said:

You have made that inference with absolutely no evidence to support it.  Nowhere have I sais there are no consequences from a poor draft decision.  That is a figment of your imagination. 

The original tweet that started this whole crap show commented on the trade ... nothing else.  I'll ask you the same question that I asked @BigEFly, would you have preferred that Howie had cut the two players rather than traded them?

 I keep bringing up there still could be consequences from their "bad Investment”. You keep ignoring that part because you wanna focus more on the term i used in sunk cost. You have yet to shut down when i said you believe there’s no more consequences/residual effects that can occur from this and we should just be happy we got something. So i ask you do you believe there’s any chance there’s still more consequences/residual effects from their "bad investment”? 

I much rather get something for them then nothing. I give howie credit for getting anything for those two useless players. But I’m also not  forgetting why we got such low return and ignoring potential consequence that still could longer from the decisions made after their "bad investment” to correct the bad investment. 

1 hour ago, Next_Up said:

I would say that this describes why it was a good decision to move on from raegor and JJAW and that given a net present valuation of the players,  the return is acceptable. Sticking with them and taking a spot away from another potentially contributing player is throwing good "money” after bad. The initial event of drafting them used resources wastefully and will affect the organization’s future if repeated in a continuing pattern. Roseman is accountable for this. 

Don’t get me wrong, I think it was a good decision to move on from them. i have no issue with what they got for them. I’m glad it wasn’t nothing. However it doesn’t erase the mistakes made nor do we know what the long term residual effects are on other positions by having to invest more high draft capital on one singular position.(they spent 3 firsts and a 2nd rounder overall on one position in a 4 year period of time.That’s almost the cost of what it is to get a QB in a trade). On Particularly wentz. I said that’s likely the best they could’ve gotten with the circumstances at that time. And they got 4 good years out of him. Frankly I thought they should’ve moved on from JJAW last year for the same reason you mentioned. Plus could at least use in negotiations he might pop his third year theory as a WR  

And that definition of sunk cost fallacy is what they had been doing with JJAW and reagor. They’re still doing it with Wallace 

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

 I keep bringing up there still could be consequences from their "bad Investment”. You keep ignoring that part because you wanna focus more on the term i used in sunk cost. You have yet to shut down when i said you believe there’s no more consequences/residual effects that can occur from this and we should just be happy we got something. So i ask you do you believe there’s any chance there’s still more consequences/residual effects from their "bad investment”? 

I much rather get something for them then nothing. I give howie credit for getting anything for those two useless players. But I’m also not  forgetting why we got such low return and ignoring potential consequence that still could longer from the decisions made after their "bad investment” to correct the bad investment. 

How do I "shut down" when you attribute something to me that I never said?  

Regarding your italicized question ... asked and answered multiple times.

2 hours ago, mattwill said:

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

2 hours ago, mattwill said:

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.  

 

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

Don’t get me wrong, I think it was a good decision to move on from them. i have no issue with what they got for them. I’m glad it wasn’t nothing. However it doesn’t erase the mistakes made nor do we know what the long term residual effects are on other positions by having to invest more high draft capital on one singular position.(they spent 3 firsts and a 2nd rounder overall on one position in a 4 year period of time.That’s almost the cost of what it is to get a QB in a trade). On Particularly wentz. I said that’s likely the best they could’ve gotten with the circumstances at that time. And they got 4 good years out of him. Frankly I thought they should’ve moved on from JJAW last year for the same reason you mentioned. Plus could at least use in negotiations he might pop his third year theory as a WR  

And that definition of sunk cost fallacy is what they had been doing with JJAW and reagor. They’re still doing it with Wallace 

Your bolded statement is 100% true ... up to the point where Howie decided to cut bait.  Once the trades for JJAW and Reagor were completed, the theory no longer applied to either JJAW or Reagor because they were no longer assets of the team or investments in the team's portfolio of investments. 

Since Wallace is still an asset on their books and an investment in their investment portfolio, your definition of "sunk cost theory" does still apply in the case of Wallace.

1 hour ago, mattwill said:

How do I "shut down" when you attribute something to me that I never said?  

Regarding your italicized question ... asked and answered multiple times.

 

My point in all of this has been there are still potential consequences/residual effects from whatever the term used from the decisions made due to reagor and JJAW. Call it a sunk cost  or bad investment, I don’t care about the terms at this point. My argument at this point  is there still potential consequences/residual effects we might not see right now and they might catch up to them later from the decisions they had to make due to their "bad investment”. So i can’t just forget about that aspect when discussing the latest trades because hooray we got something for a useless players. That’s why i said to CT they are intertwined and why they are mentioned together by me 

I’m sorry I’m not on some of the blogs’ side in wanting to just throw a parade on Broad Street because we got some late round picks for reagor and JJAW.  Am I happy they got anything for them at this point? Yes. However i temper my excitement because I’m not sitting here ignoring the fact potential consequences/residual effects on decisions and capital spent to correct the "bad investment” couldnt ever possibly catch up down the road with their roster.  

1 hour ago, mattwill said:

Your bolded statement is 100% true ... up to the point where Howie decided to cut bait.  Once the trades for JJAW and Reagor were completed, the theory no longer applied to either JJAW or Reagor because they were no longer assets of the team or investments in the team's portfolio of investments. 

Since Wallace is still an asset on their books and an investment in their investment portfolio, your definition of "sunk cost theory" does still apply in the case of Wallace.

Imo the only reason why wallace is even here still is cause they spent a draft pick on him. If they didn’t and he was an UDFA he’d already been cut due to poor performance and durability. poor to no asset in a guy who’s perpetually injured, unreliable and plays bad every chance give. 

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

My argument at this point  is there still potential consequences/residual effects we might not see right now and they might catch up to them later from the decisions they had to make due to their "bad investment”. So i can’t just forget about that aspect when discussing the latest trades because hooray we got something for a useless players. That’s why i said to CT they are intertwined and why they are mentioned together by me 

I’m sorry I’m not on some of the blogs’ side in wanting to just throw a parade on Broad Street because we got some late round picks for reagor and JJAW.  Am I happy they got anything for them at this point? Yes. However i temper my excitement because I’m not sitting here ignoring the fact potential consequences/residual effects on decisions and capital spent to correct the "bad investment” couldnt ever possibly catch up down the road with their roster. 

Decisions/actions have consequences. I haven't seen a single person saying (to you or anyone else) that they don't.  If you can point me to anyone saying that I would be very much obliged.

With that said, several people here, including myself, have said something like the comment below by @Alphagrand that points out that you appear to be setting your expectations of the Eagles (1) possibly higher than any realistic level that is attainable (Alphagrand used the term "perfect standard), and (2) definitely higher than the average historical performance of other NFL teams, and (3) probably unrealistically higher than the standard you apply to other NFL teams.

6 hours 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.

 

1 hour ago, mattwill said:

Decisions/actions have consequences. I haven't seen a single person saying (to you or anyone else) that they don't.  If you can point me to anyone saying that I would be very much obliged.

With that said, several people here, including myself, have said something like the comment below by @Alphagrand that points out that you appear to be setting your expectations of the Eagles (1) possibly higher than any realistic level that is attainable (Alphagrand used the term "perfect standard), and (2) definitely higher than the average historical performance of other NFL teams, and (3) probably unrealistically higher than the standard you apply to other NFL teams.

 

Where did i say they have to be perfect?  my standard is you can make a mistake, move on and get whatever you can from the mistake and be happy they got something from useless players. However that doesn’t mean they are going to just completely avoid consequences/residual effects  because you don’t want to think that’s possible or don’t want to discuss it because people just want to celebrate they are gone and got something for Them. Which has been another point.  why i encompass everything that comes along with reagor/JJAW and don’t ignore things good or bad in that entire situation. Some of you want to just pick solely the trade value they got and only discuss that? Go ahead. I look at the good part of it that they were actually able to get something out of those useless players. but I also look at the negative which is there may be future lingering consequences elsewhere on the roster for their decisions with JJAW and reagor. 

 nothing to do with being perfect. Has everything to do with a decision they made after dealing with the bad investment might or might bite them in the ass down the road with their roster is in the realm of possibility. It’s pointing out it could go that way or it may not. But it’s in the realm of possibilities. No offense spending 3 first round picks and a second round pick in 4 years to fix one position on the field then you may run into some roster residual effects/consequences at other positions at some  point due to the decisions they made due to JJAW/reagor failing. That’s not me saying they have to be perfect. that’s telling you that is the realm of possibility that there’s a potential of consequences of their decisions that should be discussed. just like it should be discussed they did a good job getting whatever they could for useless players. apparently new rule in the blog is we are only allowed now to discuss positives aspects of the eagles cause if we don’t some get bent out of shape  

at this point I’m gonna move on. Frankly you and I never see eye to eye. So going forward you can chose to respond to me but i won’t to you. Just giving you a heads up. 

NFL kickoff week ****es

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

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. 

The costs are more than just first round picks.  Both Brown and Smith cost third round picks as well.  Those aren’t throw away picks but rather second day picks. (Well for most GMs, for Howie the third tends to be a gamble pick.). Of course, the Eagles retain the services of both for the next four years, which is longer than they would have had Metcalf or Jefferson on rookie contracts (although Brown is on his extension too so …..).

Before we get too excited about the returns Howie got, let’s note he spent a sixth last year on Jacoby Stevens, who never made the active roster in a meaningful game, and a sixth next year on Kary Vincent (gone). One would presume Gowan also figured in some level value in the Ertz trade.  

9 hours ago, mattwill said:

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?

The trade of Reagor because of guarantees saved $1.8 million on the salary cap (but also cost $1.8 million this year, which was a sunk cost but offered some return with Reagor on the roster, a slight return that was lost in the transaction).  

Let me ask you this.  Would you trade a second round pick next year for a WR that can’t win routes or catch but can block on a three year contract at a second round level salary and a future seventh round pick?   Would you trade one of the Eagles firsts next year for a WR that is lazy when not the target, has concentration lapses and is a mediocre return man for two years at first d round salary for a future fifth and a seven?

 I guess it comes from my experience in business.  We measured the overall performance on a claim from beginning to end.  Stumbling into a satisfactory ending did not mean the overall transaction met our expectations. (Blind squirrel). Overall, auditing the entire transactions they are a failure.  Managing to get very low value at the end offers such a small return on investment to be negligible.  These ridiculous tweets that Jerrah only got a five for Cooper and Howie beat him with return on Reagor fail to see the whole transaction.  

Frankly, we don’t see the whole cost.  How much of Howie’s time during a critical roster decision was spent flipping JJAW for one week rental and then flipping one week rental into a low third day draft pick?  How much of Howie’s time was spent trading Reagor?  Did that result in an error perhaps in trying to claim Mond or Book without thorough evaluation, for example?  Many of us might conclude as much. 

Glad he got some return. But I think realistically the overall result was pretty poor.

Is anyone arguing the overall result from a JJAWS or Reagor isn't bad? That's obvious.  I think people were just looking at the sunk cost then grading the ending.  

4 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Frankly, we don’t see the whole cost.  How much of Howie’s time during a critical roster decision was spent flipping JJAW for one week rental and then flipping one week rental into a low third day draft pick?  How much of Howie’s time was spent trading Reagor?  Did that result in an error perhaps in trying to claim Mond or Book without thorough evaluation, for example?  Many of us might conclude as much. 

 

I hope you’re being deliberately disingenuous by characterizing picking up the 3rd QB as a critical roster decision.  Studying the available talent on the waiver wire for 5 minutes led me to conclude there wasn’t any available talent.  I don’t think either Mond or Book will be relevant NFL starters at any point, but Mond was a Day 2 draft pick and Book was a 4th round pick.  There wasn’t anything else better on the waiver wire at the position.

It was pretty apparent either Sinnett or Strong was coming back on the practice squad.  I’d hoped it would be Strong as I don’t see any upside with Sinnett, but the Eagles see it differently.  Either way, it’s definitely not a critical roster decision.  The return Howie got for JJAW and Reagor was the proper use of time.

5 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

I hope you’re being deliberately disingenuous by characterizing picking up the 3rd QB as a critical roster decision.  Studying the available talent on the waiver wire for 5 minutes led me to conclude there wasn’t any available talent.  I don’t think either Mond or Book will be relevant NFL starters at any point, but Mond was a Day 2 draft pick and Book was a 4th round pick.  There wasn’t anything else better on the waiver wire at the position.

It was pretty apparent either Sinnett or Strong was coming back on the practice squad.  I’d hoped it would be Strong as I don’t see any upside with Sinnett, but the Eagles see it differently.  Either way, it’s definitely not a critical roster decision.  The return Howie got for JJAW and Reagor was the proper use of time.

Yeah I'm not a fan of the Book move but it's not a big deal.  I don't think either he or Mond will ever be a #2.  Maybe they feel differently. Maybe Book will be cut in a few weeks. No one even claimed Taylor anyway

5 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

I hope you’re being deliberately disingenuous by characterizing picking up the 3rd QB as a critical roster decision.  Studying the available talent on the waiver wire for 5 minutes led me to conclude there wasn’t any available talent.  I don’t think either Mond or Book will be relevant NFL starters at any point, but Mond was a Day 2 draft pick and Book was a 4th round pick.  There wasn’t anything else better on the waiver wire at the position.

It was pretty apparent either Sinnett or Strong was coming back on the practice squad.  I’d hoped it would be Strong as I don’t see any upside with Sinnett, but the Eagles see it differently.  Either way, it’s definitely not a critical roster decision.  The return Howie got for JJAW and Reagor was the proper use of time.

No need to claim either one at all.  Neither is going to develop into an NFL QB.  Wasted roster spot, IMO.  Should have just waited and added one to the PS, if needed, no need to put one on the 53.  I don't see either one as being substantially better than Sinnett... and that's hard to do.   And frankly, if we need to play QB3... we are already doomed.

2 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

Meh. 

You could go grab an athletic type QB off the streets and could get this team a lot of wins. I LOATHE! and I mean LOATHE! Cam Newton but with this offense, and our running game, and our schedule, I truly believe Cam Newton  could flirt with 10 wins. 

11 for 18, 120 yards, and another 40 on the ground. 

He's not that guy anymore.

6 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

I know that. But again, with this offense, this schedule, the running game. Yea, he'd flirt with 10 wins. 

Had this same debate last year with Minshew. I think we have almost the EXACT same results with Minshew at the helms. Earn a playoff spot and get blown out

 

Newton isn't as good a passer as Minshew.  He's not as good a runner as Hurts.  He's washed.  No thanks.  

The thing Hurts had going for him last year is he didn't turn the ball over a lot in the games against bad teams which kept the games winnable.  Now this isn't a pay the guy 35mil argument but it is a reason you can't just plug anyone in. 

2 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

You're missing the point. 

This roster is really good, there schedule is really easy. JOE BLOW could stumble to 10 wins. 

Just to let you know, Joe Blow isnt actually a QB, it's a made up person to prove a point that basically anyone could do it 

Thanks for clarifying.   

 

BTW, there is no roster in the NFL good enough to win with a giant hole at QB.   Sorry, 10 wins with our QB3 would be a miracle, not a certainty.    So, you can take your hyperbole elsewhere.  IF, as you said, this "Joe Blow" would stumble to 10 wins, then why the need for Cam Newton, eh?  Just let Book or Sinnett do it.  You sort of just undid your entire argument for the need of adding Newton, if what you said is true.  Self-refuted argument.

6 minutes ago, pgcd3 said:

The thing Hurts had going for him last year is he didn't turn the ball over a lot in the games against bad teams which kept the games winnable.  Now this isn't a pay the guy 35mil argument but it is a reason you can't just plug anyone in. 

Yup.