Just now, RememberTheKoy said:

 

Cool man.  

 

Good choice. He also never won. 

4 hours ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

He was a LOT better than Alshon. As in, it’s disrespectful to even make the comparison.

I figured that part was probably true - honestly it's not really fair to compare numbers in the early-mid 80s to numbers today.  Appreciate your take on that, though.  

8 hours ago, NCiggles said:

Well it says TE/FB.  Byars played FB for most of his career with the Eagles. I think this was published by the Eagles organization and they probably didn't include Ertz because he's an active player on another team.  

I missed the inclusion of FB on the list.   But, either way, without Ertz, for whatever reason he was left off the list, makes for a lame game.

6 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

There's no instructions so I'll just pocket the $15

Best move to make, honestly.

4 minutes ago, WentzFan11 said:

Good choice. He also never won. 

 

People like you will be the first ones all jacked out in Sixers gear ready for the parade if Embiid does win a championship here.  

So Lurie is no question retiring his buddy Jason Peter's number.

I think Kelce is a lock for his number to be retired as well.

 

We might be in danger of retiring too many numbers soon especially when you consider the potential of Cox, Graham and Lane also getting their numbers retired.  Maybe they do with Foles too and then you have this current generation of offensive young guys who might be on that path if they stay with the Eagles their careers. 

23 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

The exclusion of Ertz is an unforgivable oversight.

The inclusion of Byars as a TE for the Eagles is also a massive mistake as illustrated by the lack of knowledge of the history of the team.  Byars only 'played' TE for the Eagles for part of the 1992 season.  He wasn't a TE, and definitely shouldn't be on the list compared to a guy who is the only Eagles PLAYER with over 100 receptions in a season, and one of only two TEs on the team that has gone over 1000 yards.  

This is a bad list.

Clearly Ertz should be on the list. Byars was drafted as and played HB for much of his time here, but he also played FB and TE and maybe they just wanted to get a FB in the TE/FB category. During Byars' career, our O-line was the worst in the NFL. He never really had great numbers as a runner. Adding to our blocking woes, K. Jackson, A. Toney, and M. Haddix were all better runners or pass catchers (Jackson) than they were blockers. So probably our best blocker during that era was indeed Byars.

In addition to his blocking, I don't think I've ever seen a player blessed with bigger, softer hands as a receiver. I honestly believe he may have had better hands than even Cris Carter. Watch him casually one hand a dart from Cunningham at about 2:30.

It's a shame Byars didn't get a chance to play in a more modern offense where pass catching RBs can really thrive. It would be interesting to see him on Andy Reid's team --- especially when McNabb didn't have much in the way of WRs.  I can see Reid lining him up at HB, FB, TE and WR and catching 90+ passes a year. He'll always be one of my favorite Eagles. Byars ended his career with more receptions, receiving yards, and TD receptions than Westbrook, Watters, C. Lewis and Celek (Celek and Byars tied with 31 receiving TDs). 

Ertz clearly deserves to be on the list, but I believe Byars does too.

1 hour ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

People like you will be the first ones all jacked out in Sixers gear ready for the parade if Embiid does win a championship here.  

Spoiler alert: He’s not

Harold Carmichael has aged into a higher standing with the team than what he was viewed as closer to the time with his playing career.  
 

Quick was decisively the better player.

17 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Harold Carmichael has aged into a higher standing with the team than what he was viewed as closer to the time with his playing career.  
 

Quick was decisively the better player.

I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks that way. Agree with you 100%. I liked Harold. He was good...and he was good for a decade. But I never thought he was great. In some ways, he was comparable to someone like former Phillies outfielder Gary Matthews. On the other hand, Quick was special. Until he wasn't because of injuries. And his great years just happened to be during the lamentable and largely forgettable Marion Campbell era so he doesn't have the accompanying nostalgia attached to his career that someone who played for a winner would have.

2 hours ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

Lillard just came off his best season.

 

This team is in win now mode with Embiid and Harden.  

We talkin’ about Harden!?!  We talkin’ about Harden?!?  Come on Man!  

 

2 hours ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

People like you will be the first ones all jacked out in Sixers gear ready for the parade if Embiid does win a championship here.  

And what is wrong with that?

37 minutes ago, mattwill said:

And what is wrong with that?

You sound like a young Violet Bick.

16 hours ago, EricAllenPick6 said:

There is a bit of a recency bias on these answers, which isn't surprising.  The NFL is not the same as it was in 1985. 

Honest question, how good was Mike Quick?  I honestly did not start watching football until I maybe the late 80s, so don't know that I ever really saw Mike Quick play in his prime.  Not in any way that I was actually paying attention, at least.

If you put Mike Quick up against, say Alshon Jefferey statistically, they are pretty close.  Quick has the advantage vs. Alshon on average yards per reception and TDs, but other than that they are close.   

 

My problem is: which O-line?  Ours the past few years or Buddy’s?  
 

That made me pay up for a RB. 
 

Then I wanted TO but not stud and scrub it and quite honestly I love the versatility we have with smith and brown today.  
 

No Ertz on the list means Celek is good enough. 

13 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Speaking of...

 

I think even the biggest degenerates are like "nah, I'm good".

I’ve bet on the spelling bee in college and this is too much

11 hours ago, brkmsn said:

Clearly Ertz should be on the list. Byars was drafted as and played HB for much of his time here, but he also played FB and TE and maybe they just wanted to get a FB in the TE/FB category. During Byars' career, our O-line was the worst in the NFL. He never really had great numbers as a runner. Adding to our blocking woes, K. Jackson, A. Toney, and M. Haddix were all better runners or pass catchers (Jackson) than they were blockers. So probably our best blocker during that era was indeed Byars.

In addition to his blocking, I don't think I've ever seen a player blessed with bigger, softer hands as a receiver. I honestly believe he may have had better hands than even Cris Carter. Watch him casually one hand a dart from Cunningham at about 2:30.

It's a shame Byars didn't get a chance to play in a more modern offense where pass catching RBs can really thrive. It would be interesting to see him on Andy Reid's team --- especially when McNabb didn't have much in the way of WRs.  I can see Reid lining him up at HB, FB, TE and WR and catching 90+ passes a year. He'll always be one of my favorite Eagles. Byars ended his career with more receptions, receiving yards, and TD receptions than Westbrook, Watters, C. Lewis and Celek (Celek and Byars tied with 31 receiving TDs). 

Ertz clearly deserves to be on the list, but I believe Byars does too.

Thanks for the history lesson.  I lived through those years and am well acquainted with that era.  I'm disappointed you didn't mention Heath Sherman.  

The inclusion of "FB" on the list seems to have been added just to make space for Byars.  Sadly, FB is now a long extinct position in the NFL.  And they seemed to need a 5th TE, without invoking Ertz.  Spagnola, Bavaro or even Mickey Shuler would have worked... given they went with other short term players at other positions, primarily at QB.

 

Byars was a fun player to watch at times. But frustrating at the same time.  As a first round pick, he was a disappointment compared to his draft status, at a time when running backs still were the bread and butter for most offenses.  

9 hours ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks that way. Agree with you 100%. I liked Harold. He was good...and he was good for a decade. But I never thought he was great. In some ways, he was comparable to someone like former Phillies outfielder Gary Matthews. On the other hand, Quick was special. Until he wasn't because of injuries. And his great years just happened to be during the lamentable and largely forgettable Marion Campbell era so he doesn't have the accompanying nostalgia attached to his career that someone who played for a winner would have.

He played for the Eagles way before my time.  His relationship and involvement with the Eagles post-playing career have been both successful and endearing (although the same could be said for Mike Quick).  From what the elderly Eagles fan friends of mine say, good but not special for a very long time is the proper label for Harold.  He deserves to be remembered fondly but his status may have been inflated a bit.

That list technically isn’t a ranking, just a cost sheet to assemble a lineup.  So technically no one HAS to be included or is snubbed.  
 

But if one were to view it as a ranking and comprehensive list, I’d agree that there should be some changes.  

7 hours ago, EricAllenPick6 said:

There is a bit of a recency bias on these answers, which isn't surprising.  The NFL is not the same as it was in 1985. 

Honest question, how good was Mike Quick?  I honestly did not start watching football until I maybe the late 80s, so don't know that I ever really saw Mike Quick play in his prime.  Not in any way that I was actually paying attention, at least.

If you put Mike Quick up against, say Alshon Jefferey statistically, they are pretty close.  Quick has the advantage vs. Alshon on average yards per reception and TDs, but other than that they are close.   

 

Pointless effort to compare Quick's stats from his era to Jeffery's during his era.  Just night and day.

For example, Jeffery's best season in the NFL, he had 1400+ yards... leading to his only Pro Bowl bid, never making All Pro.

Quick's best season, he also had 1400+ yards, but that led the league that year.  Quick was a 5 time Pro Bowler, and 2 time All-Pro.  

Frankly, there's no comparison.  In his day, Quick was an elite WR.  In his day, Alshon was a one year wonder.

 

4 hours ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Mike Quick was awesome until his knees gave out. His career was kinda short, but for about three or four years there, he was the best receiver not named Terrell Owens the team has had over the past fifty years. And yes, I’m including Harold Carmichael in that group. In my view, Quick was better than Harold. Harold was durable. Unfortunately Quick was not. So I could see someone taking the opposite view there.

There’s a chance that our two current stars will surpass him, but rest assured, a healthy Quick was legitimately great. 

He was a LOT better than Alshon. As in, it’s disrespectful to even make the comparison.

At his best, Quick was better than Carmichael at his best.

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Pointless effort to compare Quick's stats from his era to Jeffery's during his era.  Just night and day.

For example, Jeffery's best season in the NFL, he had 1400+ yards... leading to his only Pro Bowl bid, never making All Pro.

Quick's best season, he also had 1400+ yards, but that led the league that year.  Quick was a 5 time Pro Bowler, and 2 time All-Pro.  

Frankly, there's no comparison.  In his day, Quick was an elite WR.  In his day, Alshon was a one year wonder.

 

At his best, Quick was better than Carmichael at his best.

I would, in no way, advocate for Alshon in a Quick comparison.  BUT...the tail end of Alshon's career here makes it easy to forget that he was very good here and great in Chicago.

23 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

I would, in no way, advocate for Alshon in a Quick comparison.  BUT...the tail end of Alshon's career here makes it easy to forget that he was very good here and great in Chicago.

He had one great season in Chicago.  Most of his time in Chicago was marred by injuries.  Here he was 'above average'.  He never approached 'great'.  

1 hour ago, eagle45 said:

I would, in no way, advocate for Alshon in a Quick comparison.  BUT...the tail end of Alshon's career here makes it easy to forget that he was very good here and great in Chicago.

I would say very good in CHI and good here is more accurate.  He had one standout season of over 1,400 yards.  Never had more than 843 yards in Philly; that's Jordan Matthews territory.

13 hours ago, WentzFan11 said:

The only correct answer is Vick, Westbrook, TO, Brown, Celek. 

I would rather have Hurts at this point than Vick.  Vick was never efficient as a passer and I don't think he would hold up in QB designed runs.  The problem with TO and Brown is really a lack of top end speed.  I think Brown and Quick gives you a more dynamic pair.  Celek is fine but Byars in open space and running the ball behnid this o-line would be dynamic.  He just adds much more than Celek does.  

21 hours ago, paco said:

Hurts - 3
Westbrook - 4
Brown - 3
Smith - 3
Celek - 2

This is the best combo, IMO.

10 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

This is the best combo, IMO.

That’s why I picked it