What are the Eagles waiting for? (1 Viewer)

[bostonfred]

Just a thought.. could the Eagles lack of FA movement come from how they treated the TO mess???

And players just don't want to be part of the Philly movement?

Not saying TO was not a mess, but the Eagles also screwed up as well..IMO

And on that note, why would any agent encourage their player to play for them?

Players have left the Eagles and come back after chasing the money. See Jeremiah Trotter, Hugh Douglas, and now Shawn Barber.The Eagles are a class organization and Jeff Lurie has spent well on facilities, staff and an organization.

Add in the fact that the Eagles have been in the hunt since 2001 every year (minus 2005), and there's plenty of incentive to head to Philly.

There's a difference between players coming back to a team after chasing the money, and choosing not to come to a team in the first place.The Eagles did not act like a class organization with their handling of the Owens situation. You can call them tough, or no-nonsense, but not classy. That was one of the worst things that a team has done to a player in sports, and yet the media ate it up while letting the wife beaters slide.

The Eagles were not in the hunt, specifically because of the way they treated Owens. And now they're actually worse off at receiver than before, worse off at running back with McNabb hurt most of the season, nothing but Westbrook at RB, and a defense that looked nonplussed last year. I think they'll bounce back some, but I expect more of a 2005 Dolphins year than a 2004 Eagles year.

The NFL is a fraternity. A lot of players backed Owens in this deal, and a lot of others wouldn't get in the middle of it. Going to the Eagles is bad mojo right now for any player. The agents have to be wary of going to a team that seems hell bent on making them look bad in the media. And neither the coach, the team, nor the destination are so exciting that a player feels like they have to go there to win a Superbowl or play with one of the truly great players.

No offense bfred but

We'll see.

 

[JetMaxx]

Hey Woodrow, if you were unhappy about Moulds, you'll be "thrilled" about this.

There's a report on the Eagles MB that the Eagles are close to signing Brian Finneran.

http://boards.philadelphiaeagles.com/index...ic=333951&st=40

Are they going the route of the Patriots a few years back? Sign no one big, just role players that can fit a certain spot. Bad timing with all of the publicity with the labor talks and cap room but this could be their recalibration as Woodrow said. Not saying that I agree but it seems like Schobel, Finneran, Garcia, and possibly Howard will serve to fill holes. Get guys back healthy, further develop the young guys, and draft effectively.

 

[JaxBill]

Hey Woodrow, if you were unhappy about Moulds, you'll be "thrilled" about this.

There's a report on the Eagles MB that the Eagles are close to signing Brian Finneran.

http://boards.philadelphiaeagles.com/index...ic=333951&st=40

That doesn't bother me...unless we give him a lot of $$$. Not every signing is going to be a difference maker. The Eagles don't need an impact WR to get back into title contention, they need to make sure both lines are solidified; something that wasn't the case last year.

Well, that's the way I fell about Howard. As long as they don't give him a contract like he's coming off his 2004 season., I think he's an upgrade over Kalu.I just don't see the need for another WR3,and a possession WR3 at that.

 

[JaxBill]

Just a thought.. could the Eagles lack of FA movement come from how they treated the TO mess???

And players just don't want to be part of the Philly movement?

Not saying TO was not a mess, but the Eagles also screwed up as well..IMO

And on that note, why would any agent encourage their player to play for them?

Players have left the Eagles and come back after chasing the money. See Jeremiah Trotter, Hugh Douglas, and now Shawn Barber.The Eagles are a class organization and Jeff Lurie has spent well on facilities, staff and an organization.

Add in the fact that the Eagles have been in the hunt since 2001 every year (minus 2005), and there's plenty of incentive to head to Philly.

There's a difference between players coming back to a team after chasing the money, and choosing not to come to a team in the first place.The Eagles did not act like a class organization with their handling of the Owens situation. You can call them tough, or no-nonsense, but not classy. That was one of the worst things that a team has done to a player in sports, and yet the media ate it up while letting the wife beaters slide.

The Eagles were not in the hunt, specifically because of the way they treated Owens. And now they're actually worse off at receiver than before, worse off at running back with McNabb hurt most of the season, nothing but Westbrook at RB, and a defense that looked nonplussed last year. I think they'll bounce back some, but I expect more of a 2005 Dolphins year than a 2004 Eagles year.

The NFL is a fraternity. A lot of players backed Owens in this deal, and a lot of others wouldn't get in the middle of it. Going to the Eagles is bad mojo right now for any player. The agents have to be wary of going to a team that seems hell bent on making them look bad in the media. And neither the coach, the team, nor the destination are so exciting that a player feels like they have to go there to win a Superbowl or play with one of the truly great players.

So does that mean Edge is blackballed from the fraternity for signing with the Bidwill family?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

didn't Trent Cole play well at the end of 2005? Isn't Kearse sticking around? Howard is likely an upgrade over either spot, but Howard doesn't seem like an obvious target for the Eagles if he commands as big a salary as I assume he will.

 

[Polish Hammer]

Well, that's the way I fell about Howard. As long as they don't give him a contract like he's coming off his 2004 season., I think he's an upgrade over Kalu.

I just don't see the need for another WR3,and a possession WR3 at that.

This is exactly my line of thinking. Finneran doesn't really add anything but a little size to the group of WRs they have now. Sure, the cost is low, but that is still a roster spot. If you are going to do something at WR, then DO SOMETHING. Get gutsy and give up the 3rd rounder by making Nate Burleson an offer (is he still restricted?). I would have preferred KRob overall for the price and what you get for it, and I'd even be intrigued by Antonio Bryant. But Finneran does the same thing for me that a Givens signing would do. Not much.

 

[Polish Hammer]

didn't Trent Cole play well at the end of 2005? Isn't Kearse sticking around? Howard is likely an upgrade over either spot, but Howard doesn't seem like an obvious target for the Eagles if he commands as big a salary as I assume he will.

Trent Cole is a little undersized (6'2" 260lbs) to be a down lineman playing on every snap. He is good situationally and provides a nice change of pace in the right rotation. Kearse is still around, but it seems he underperformed last year. How much of that was him and how much was supporting cast is hard to say. The interesting thing with Howard will be to see just how much of a salary he commands. Do they pay him off or 2005 or 2004?

 

[JaxBill]

didn't Trent Cole play well at the end of 2005? Isn't Kearse sticking around? Howard is likely an upgrade over either spot, but Howard doesn't seem like an obvious target for the Eagles if he commands as big a salary as I assume he will.

They like Trent Cole but he's a smallish (265?) pass-rushing end.

 

[JetMaxx]

didn't Trent Cole play well at the end of 2005? Isn't Kearse sticking around? Howard is likely an upgrade over either spot, but Howard doesn't seem like an obvious target for the Eagles if he commands as big a salary as I assume he will.

They like Trent Cole but he's a smallish (265?) pass-rushing end.

VERY poor man's Derrick Burgess.

 

[bostonfred]

So does that mean Edge is blackballed from the fraternity for signing with the Bidwill family?

I don't think it's a case of blackballing. I think it's a case of social standing. To answer your specific question, I don't think Edge cares about that. And I don't think Edge made out badly in the deal. If a team is willing to overpay me, I'm willing to overlook a lot. Same goes for NFL players - I'm sure the Eagles can sign players, I just don't think they are going to see the discounts they used to.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

didn't Trent Cole play well at the end of 2005? Isn't Kearse sticking around? Howard is likely an upgrade over either spot, but Howard doesn't seem like an obvious target for the Eagles if he commands as big a salary as I assume he will.

They like Trent Cole but he's a smallish (265?) pass-rushing end.

so are Jason Taylor, Adewale Ogunleye, Leonard Little, Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila, Dwight Freeney, Derrick Burgess, Jevon Kearse, etc.EDIT: I'm not saying he is in the same class as these guys...just that his size shouldn't be the only factor in discounting him.

 

[Billy Bats]

Just a thought.. could the Eagles lack of FA movement come from how they treated the TO mess???

And players just don't want to be part of the Philly movement?

Not saying TO was not a mess, but the Eagles also screwed up as well..IMO

And on that note, why would any agent encourage their player to play for them?

Players have left the Eagles and come back after chasing the money. See Jeremiah Trotter, Hugh Douglas, and now Shawn Barber.The Eagles are a class organization and Jeff Lurie has spent well on facilities, staff and an organization.

Add in the fact that the Eagles have been in the hunt since 2001 every year (minus 2005), and there's plenty of incentive to head to Philly.

There's a difference between players coming back to a team after chasing the money, and choosing not to come to a team in the first place.The Eagles did not act like a class organization with their handling of the Owens situation. You can call them tough, or no-nonsense, but not classy. That was one of the worst things that a team has done to a player in sports, and yet the media ate it up while letting the wife beaters slide.

The Eagles were not in the hunt, specifically because of the way they treated Owens. And now they're actually worse off at receiver than before, worse off at running back with McNabb hurt most of the season, nothing but Westbrook at RB, and a defense that looked nonplussed last year. I think they'll bounce back some, but I expect more of a 2005 Dolphins year than a 2004 Eagles year.

The NFL is a fraternity. A lot of players backed Owens in this deal, and a lot of others wouldn't get in the middle of it. Going to the Eagles is bad mojo right now for any player. The agents have to be wary of going to a team that seems hell bent on making them look bad in the media. And neither the coach, the team, nor the destination are so exciting that a player feels like they have to go there to win a Superbowl or play with one of the truly great players.

Ok.

Bottom line is, if you pay the money, they will come. (see Cleveland) The T.O. "situation" has zero to do with anything, anywhere. T.O. is a lunatic, EVERONE knows that, including the fraternity.

(edited to remove insults at BF)

 

[railman305]

Eagles | Team reportedly agrees to terms with Howard

Sun, 12 Mar 2006 22:01:34 -0800

Bob Brookover, of the Philadelphia Inquirer, reports a source said the Philadelphia Eagles have agreed to the terms of a six-year contract with free agent DE Darren Howard (Saints). No financial terms were disclosed. Gary Wichard, the agent for Howard, would not confirm the agreement but said he was working on a deal with the team.

hope its legit

 

[BoltBacker]

Eagles | Team reportedly agrees to terms with Howard

Sun, 12 Mar 2006 22:01:34 -0800

Bob Brookover, of the Philadelphia Inquirer, reports a source said the Philadelphia Eagles have agreed to the terms of a six-year contract with free agent DE Darren Howard (Saints). No financial terms were disclosed. Gary Wichard, the agent for Howard, would not confirm the agreement but said he was working on a deal with the team.

hope its legit

You must type faster than I do!

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Well, that's the way I fell about Howard. As long as they don't give him a contract like he's coming off his 2004 season., I think he's an upgrade over Kalu.

I just don't see the need for another WR3,and a possession WR3 at that.

This is exactly my line of thinking. Finneran doesn't really add anything but a little size to the group of WRs they have now. Sure, the cost is low, but that is still a roster spot. If you are going to do something at WR, then DO SOMETHING. Get gutsy and give up the 3rd rounder by making Nate Burleson an offer (is he still restricted?). I would have preferred KRob overall for the price and what you get for it, and I'd even be intrigued by Antonio Bryant. But Finneran does the same thing for me that a Givens signing would do. Not much.

I cannot believe you'd put Givens at the same level as Finneran. Givens > Bryant >> Finneran.

 

[Polish Hammer]

Well, that's the way I fell about Howard.  As long as they don't give him a contract like he's coming off his 2004 season., I think he's an upgrade over Kalu.

I just don't see the need for another WR3,and a possession WR3 at that.

This is exactly my line of thinking. Finneran doesn't really add anything but a little size to the group of WRs they have now. Sure, the cost is low, but that is still a roster spot. If you are going to do something at WR, then DO SOMETHING. Get gutsy and give up the 3rd rounder by making Nate Burleson an offer (is he still restricted?). I would have preferred KRob overall for the price and what you get for it, and I'd even be intrigued by Antonio Bryant. But Finneran does the same thing for me that a Givens signing would do. Not much.

I cannot believe you'd put Givens at the same level as Finneran. Givens > Bryant >> Finneran.

I'm not saying skill wise they are the same. All I'm saying is that my excitement level would be the same. Givens just doesn't excite me, and if my team is going to dump cash on someone, I want to be able to be excited about it. Odds of me being wrong and Givens becoming a top tier player? Probably decent. However, acquiring him wouldn't ease the negative feelings I have over the Eagles seeming ineptitude so far in FA.

 

[greenroom]

Ok.

Bottom line is, if you pay the money, they will come. (see Cleveland) The T.O. "situation" has zero to do with anything, anywhere. T.O. is a lunatic, EVERONE knows that, including the fraternity.

(edited to remove insults at BF)

You do know that the TO "situation" was caused by the Eagles not paying the $$$$. Also I really do think that the Eagles did take a hit by how they handled the TO Mess.

 

[Billy Bats]

Ok.

Bottom line is, if you pay the money, they will come. (see Cleveland) The T.O. "situation" has zero to do with anything, anywhere. T.O. is a lunatic, EVERONE knows that, including the fraternity.

(edited to remove insults at BF)

You do know that the TO "situation" was caused by the Eagles not paying the $$$$. Also I really do think that the Eagles did take a hit by how they handled the TO Mess.

Took a hit where? In fantasy football forums and in the public's eye? Yea, definitely. But if they offer money to a FA that he's looking for, I doubt he'll care anything about TO. That stuff is overrated, IMO, when it comes to individual players and their desire to play here. TO signed his contract, how many players cause havoc like he did after year one of a signed contract and actually get paid? Not too many, if any at all. I wonder, has Green Bay suffered the same hit by not paying Walker?

 

[Jason Wood]

Hey Woodrow, if you were unhappy about Moulds, you'll be "thrilled" about this.

There's a report on the Eagles MB that the Eagles are close to signing Brian Finneran.

http://boards.philadelphiaeagles.com/index...ic=333951&st=40

That doesn't bother me...unless we give him a lot of $$$. Not every signing is going to be a difference maker. The Eagles don't need an impact WR to get back into title contention, they need to make sure both lines are solidified; something that wasn't the case last year.

Well, that's the way I fell about Howard. As long as they don't give him a contract like he's coming off his 2004 season., I think he's an upgrade over Kalu.I just don't see the need for another WR3,and a possession WR3 at that.

We did give Howard 2004 money as it turns out, although given our massive amount of cap room I don't mind that in retrospect. The more I looked into Howard's reported "attitude" problems the more I see it as a non factor. 1) The Saints offered Howard a huge deal before last season including a $10mil signing bonus so they obviously didn't have problems with him before 2005. 2) Howard turned down that money, a bold move, which shows he really did have issues with the state of the team.

didn't Trent Cole play well at the end of 2005? Isn't Kearse sticking around? Howard is likely an upgrade over either spot, but Howard doesn't seem like an obvious target for the Eagles if he commands as big a salary as I assume he will.

Trent Cole is ideally suited to the role of 3rd down pass rusher. Kearse is sticking around but he's now officially among the most overpaid DEs in the league and almost never got double teamed last year yet still had trouble getting to the QB. The Howard signing = but we've got more work to do on both sides of the ball.

 

[bostonfred]

Ok.

Bottom line is, if you pay the money, they will come. (see Cleveland) The T.O. "situation" has zero to do with anything, anywhere. T.O. is a lunatic, EVERONE knows that, including the fraternity.

(edited to remove insults at BF)

You do know that the TO "situation" was caused by the Eagles not paying the $$$$. Also I really do think that the Eagles did take a hit by how they handled the TO Mess.

Took a hit where? In fantasy football forums and in the public's eye? Yea, definitely. But if they offer money to a FA that he's looking for, I doubt he'll care anything about TO. That stuff is overrated, IMO, when it comes to individual players and their desire to play here. TO signed his contract, how many players cause havoc like he did after year one of a signed contract and actually get paid? Not too many, if any at all. I wonder, has Green Bay suffered the same hit by not paying Walker?

I think they took a bigger hit with agents and players than they did fans.A lot of fans agree with whatever they see on ESPN, and ESPN was absolutely on the Eagles' side on this. A couple analysts went so far as to say Owens should never play for another team again. That's ludicrous, but the fans all seem to be parroting the words "locker room cancer" and "destructive influence" about a guy who helped his team win home field advantage in the playoffs and almost win their first Superbowl against a team that was in the middle of a dynasty. I know which side of that argument you're on, and you can guess which side I'm on, but bottom line, a lot of fans agree with you.

For the agents, lots of teams claim they'll play hardball, but suspending a player for the maximum, benching him the rest of the year, refusing to cut him, going to arbitration to protect their right not to cut him, all because the player was a jerk, is over the top. You might agree with the team's decision, but the people who are at risk of being affected by it would be wise to avoid that team.

For the players, the Eagles have never offered the biggest money to outside free agents. They lowballed Owens so badly the NFLPA told him not to sign the deal. Aside from Kearse, who have they paid big money to? They don't even sign the guys who are successful for them, unless they come back for singificantly less money.

That's fine when you're winning NFC Championships, the players are happy, and the organization is perceived as fair. But why would you choose to work in a freezing cold city in front of a tough fan base for a coach who will suspend/bench a player for the rest of the city for a team that won't pay you top money to come there, won't renegotiate your contract, and won't pay you top money later on to stay?

You're right - if the Eagles pay big money, they'll get the players. But they didn't have to do that before. I think the Owens debacle - and the bad season that resulted from it - hurt them a lot more than fans realize.

 

[Jason Wood]

Ok.

Bottom line is, if you pay the money, they will come. (see Cleveland) The T.O. "situation" has zero to do with anything, anywhere. T.O. is a lunatic, EVERONE knows that, including the fraternity.

(edited to remove insults at BF)

You do know that the TO "situation" was caused by the Eagles not paying the $$$$. Also I really do think that the Eagles did take a hit by how they handled the TO Mess.

Took a hit where? In fantasy football forums and in the public's eye? Yea, definitely. But if they offer money to a FA that he's looking for, I doubt he'll care anything about TO. That stuff is overrated, IMO, when it comes to individual players and their desire to play here. TO signed his contract, how many players cause havoc like he did after year one of a signed contract and actually get paid? Not too many, if any at all. I wonder, has Green Bay suffered the same hit by not paying Walker?

I think they took a bigger hit with agents and players than they did fans.A lot of fans agree with whatever they see on ESPN, and ESPN was absolutely on the Eagles' side on this. A couple analysts went so far as to say Owens should never play for another team again. That's ludicrous, but the fans all seem to be parroting the words "locker room cancer" and "destructive influence" about a guy who helped his team win home field advantage in the playoffs and almost win their first Superbowl against a team that was in the middle of a dynasty. I know which side of that argument you're on, and you can guess which side I'm on, but bottom line, a lot of fans agree with you.

For the agents, lots of teams claim they'll play hardball, but suspending a player for the maximum, benching him the rest of the year, refusing to cut him, going to arbitration to protect their right not to cut him, all because the player was a jerk, is over the top. You might agree with the team's decision, but the people who are at risk of being affected by it would be wise to avoid that team.

For the players, the Eagles have never offered the biggest money to outside free agents. They lowballed Owens so badly the NFLPA told him not to sign the deal. Aside from Kearse, who have they paid big money to? They don't even sign the guys who are successful for them, unless they come back for singificantly less money.

That's fine when you're winning NFC Championships, the players are happy, and the organization is perceived as fair. But why would you choose to work in a freezing cold city in front of a tough fan base for a coach who will suspend/bench a player for the rest of the city for a team that won't pay you top money to come there, won't renegotiate your contract, and won't pay you top money later on to stay?

You're right - if the Eagles pay big money, they'll get the players. But they didn't have to do that before. I think the Owens debacle - and the bad season that resulted from it - hurt them a lot more than fans realize.

Bfred...I LOVE the revisionist history. First of all, great teams build from within, so you can't segment a team's willingness to spend and relationship with agents by their moves to bring in OUTSIDE free agents. You have to take a holistic view on how they treat all players. From that perspective, the Eagles under Banner/Reid/Lurie have a long history of locking up their own guys to long-term deals and giving them financial security long before they're contractually obligated to. That works well for both sides. The Eagles benefit by avoiding getting into a bidding war for their own guys if they continue to develop.

Let's not forget that the Eagles rebuilding process started with a big free agent signing, when the Birds "overpaid" for Jon Runyan from the Titans. At the time, everyone was saying the Eagles overpaid for a RT and that there was no point b/c the team wasn't a contender anyway. Well, that proved to be the catalyst for the team's rebuilding process.

 

[FF Thinker]

Ok.

Bottom line is, if you pay the money, they will come. (see Cleveland) The T.O. "situation" has zero to do with anything, anywhere. T.O. is a lunatic, EVERONE knows that, including the fraternity.

(edited to remove insults at BF)

You do know that the TO "situation" was caused by the Eagles not paying the $$$$. Also I really do think that the Eagles did take a hit by how they handled the TO Mess.

Took a hit where? In fantasy football forums and in the public's eye? Yea, definitely. But if they offer money to a FA that he's looking for, I doubt he'll care anything about TO. That stuff is overrated, IMO, when it comes to individual players and their desire to play here. TO signed his contract, how many players cause havoc like he did after year one of a signed contract and actually get paid? Not too many, if any at all. I wonder, has Green Bay suffered the same hit by not paying Walker?

I think they took a bigger hit with agents and players than they did fans.A lot of fans agree with whatever they see on ESPN, and ESPN was absolutely on the Eagles' side on this. A couple analysts went so far as to say Owens should never play for another team again. That's ludicrous, but the fans all seem to be parroting the words "locker room cancer" and "destructive influence" about a guy who helped his team win home field advantage in the playoffs and almost win their first Superbowl against a team that was in the middle of a dynasty. I know which side of that argument you're on, and you can guess which side I'm on, but bottom line, a lot of fans agree with you.

For the agents, lots of teams claim they'll play hardball, but suspending a player for the maximum, benching him the rest of the year, refusing to cut him, going to arbitration to protect their right not to cut him, all because the player was a jerk, is over the top. You might agree with the team's decision, but the people who are at risk of being affected by it would be wise to avoid that team.

For the players, the Eagles have never offered the biggest money to outside free agents. They lowballed Owens so badly the NFLPA told him not to sign the deal. Aside from Kearse, who have they paid big money to? They don't even sign the guys who are successful for them, unless they come back for singificantly less money.

That's fine when you're winning NFC Championships, the players are happy, and the organization is perceived as fair. But why would you choose to work in a freezing cold city in front of a tough fan base for a coach who will suspend/bench a player for the rest of the city for a team that won't pay you top money to come there, won't renegotiate your contract, and won't pay you top money later on to stay?

You're right - if the Eagles pay big money, they'll get the players. But they didn't have to do that before. I think the Owens debacle - and the bad season that resulted from it - hurt them a lot more than fans realize.

I agree the eagles can still get players because obviously money talks but it will cost them. T.O. was an ### but when the eagles threw the book at him they showed how hard they can be on a player. And since they are no longer a playoff lock what advantage is there to playing for the eagles. If there is no advantage than they are in the mix with everyone else and can't lowball offers. This is a significant change from prior years.

 

[Jason Wood]

Ok.

Bottom line is, if you pay the money, they will come. (see Cleveland) The T.O. "situation" has zero to do with anything, anywhere. T.O. is a lunatic, EVERONE knows that, including the fraternity.

(edited to remove insults at BF)

You do know that the TO "situation" was caused by the Eagles not paying the $$$$. Also I really do think that the Eagles did take a hit by how they handled the TO Mess.

Took a hit where? In fantasy football forums and in the public's eye? Yea, definitely. But if they offer money to a FA that he's looking for, I doubt he'll care anything about TO. That stuff is overrated, IMO, when it comes to individual players and their desire to play here. TO signed his contract, how many players cause havoc like he did after year one of a signed contract and actually get paid? Not too many, if any at all. I wonder, has Green Bay suffered the same hit by not paying Walker?

I think they took a bigger hit with agents and players than they did fans.A lot of fans agree with whatever they see on ESPN, and ESPN was absolutely on the Eagles' side on this. A couple analysts went so far as to say Owens should never play for another team again. That's ludicrous, but the fans all seem to be parroting the words "locker room cancer" and "destructive influence" about a guy who helped his team win home field advantage in the playoffs and almost win their first Superbowl against a team that was in the middle of a dynasty. I know which side of that argument you're on, and you can guess which side I'm on, but bottom line, a lot of fans agree with you.

For the agents, lots of teams claim they'll play hardball, but suspending a player for the maximum, benching him the rest of the year, refusing to cut him, going to arbitration to protect their right not to cut him, all because the player was a jerk, is over the top. You might agree with the team's decision, but the people who are at risk of being affected by it would be wise to avoid that team.

For the players, the Eagles have never offered the biggest money to outside free agents. They lowballed Owens so badly the NFLPA told him not to sign the deal. Aside from Kearse, who have they paid big money to? They don't even sign the guys who are successful for them, unless they come back for singificantly less money.

That's fine when you're winning NFC Championships, the players are happy, and the organization is perceived as fair. But why would you choose to work in a freezing cold city in front of a tough fan base for a coach who will suspend/bench a player for the rest of the city for a team that won't pay you top money to come there, won't renegotiate your contract, and won't pay you top money later on to stay?

You're right - if the Eagles pay big money, they'll get the players. But they didn't have to do that before. I think the Owens debacle - and the bad season that resulted from it - hurt them a lot more than fans realize.

I agree the eagles can still get players because obviously money talks but it will cost them. T.O. was an ### but when the eagles threw the book at him they showed how hard they can be on a player. And since they are no longer a playoff lock what advantage is there to playing for the eagles. If there is no advantage than they are in the mix with everyone else and can't lowball offers. This is a significant change from prior years.

Even if you're right, you're forgetting one very important thing...the vast majority of the Eagles core are signed long-term and were built from within. AKA, a non issue.And by the way, $$$ talks, walks...teams rarely if ever go to teams simply because it was a great fit. Show me evidence of players taking less to go somehwere they "really wanted to be." I can think of ONE...Derrick Mason who opted for the Ravens over the Patriots of all people.

Heck, even L. Bentley was smart enough to use another team [the Eagles in this case] to ensure he not only landed where he wanted to, but got them to pay full value in the process.

 

[MPhilly03]

Let's not get worked up about everything here. Mike Anderson was hardly someone the Eagles needed to target. If the team feels it needs another back, this is a fantastic year to get that back in the draft. It's a deep RB class and the Birds have a bboatload of picks.

Jason- I saw you mentioned this in another thread but can elaborate on what picks the Eagles have? I tried to do some searching but I have yet to find a full listing of the 7 rounds for 2006.Thanks!

 

[bostonfred]

Ok.

Bottom line is, if you pay the money, they will come. (see Cleveland) The T.O. "situation" has zero to do with anything, anywhere. T.O. is a lunatic, EVERONE knows that, including the fraternity.

(edited to remove insults at BF)

You do know that the TO "situation" was caused by the Eagles not paying the $$$$. Also I really do think that the Eagles did take a hit by how they handled the TO Mess.

Took a hit where? In fantasy football forums and in the public's eye? Yea, definitely. But if they offer money to a FA that he's looking for, I doubt he'll care anything about TO. That stuff is overrated, IMO, when it comes to individual players and their desire to play here. TO signed his contract, how many players cause havoc like he did after year one of a signed contract and actually get paid? Not too many, if any at all. I wonder, has Green Bay suffered the same hit by not paying Walker?

I think they took a bigger hit with agents and players than they did fans.A lot of fans agree with whatever they see on ESPN, and ESPN was absolutely on the Eagles' side on this. A couple analysts went so far as to say Owens should never play for another team again. That's ludicrous, but the fans all seem to be parroting the words "locker room cancer" and "destructive influence" about a guy who helped his team win home field advantage in the playoffs and almost win their first Superbowl against a team that was in the middle of a dynasty. I know which side of that argument you're on, and you can guess which side I'm on, but bottom line, a lot of fans agree with you.

For the agents, lots of teams claim they'll play hardball, but suspending a player for the maximum, benching him the rest of the year, refusing to cut him, going to arbitration to protect their right not to cut him, all because the player was a jerk, is over the top. You might agree with the team's decision, but the people who are at risk of being affected by it would be wise to avoid that team.

For the players, the Eagles have never offered the biggest money to outside free agents. They lowballed Owens so badly the NFLPA told him not to sign the deal. Aside from Kearse, who have they paid big money to? They don't even sign the guys who are successful for them, unless they come back for singificantly less money.

That's fine when you're winning NFC Championships, the players are happy, and the organization is perceived as fair. But why would you choose to work in a freezing cold city in front of a tough fan base for a coach who will suspend/bench a player for the rest of the city for a team that won't pay you top money to come there, won't renegotiate your contract, and won't pay you top money later on to stay?

You're right - if the Eagles pay big money, they'll get the players. But they didn't have to do that before. I think the Owens debacle - and the bad season that resulted from it - hurt them a lot more than fans realize.

Bfred...I LOVE the revisionist history. First of all, great teams build from within, so you can't segment a team's willingness to spend and relationship with agents by their moves to bring in OUTSIDE free agents. You have to take a holistic view on how they treat all players. From that perspective, the Eagles under Banner/Reid/Lurie have a long history of locking up their own guys to long-term deals and giving them financial security long before they're contractually obligated to. That works well for both sides. The Eagles benefit by avoiding getting into a bidding war for their own guys if they continue to develop.

Let's not forget that the Eagles rebuilding process started with a big free agent signing, when the Birds "overpaid" for Jon Runyan from the Titans. At the time, everyone was saying the Eagles overpaid for a RT and that there was no point b/c the team wasn't a contender anyway. Well, that proved to be the catalyst for the team's rebuilding process.

What revisionist history? I thought the Eagles screwed up Owensgate from day one. I don't think I posted any revisionist history. I don't disagree with you that the Eagles have signed a lot of good players to long term deals. I never questioned that they had good players on their team already. I just said I believe that free agents don't want to come there.

You've already bemoaned the Eagles not doing anything in free agency, so it seems like you want them to sign someone from outside. All I'm saying is, I don't think they're going to get any big names, and I sincerely doubt they'll get any bargains.

Like I said, I think they should be better this year without the distraction of the Reid-Owens catfight. I just think they're going to be a middle of the road, contending-for-the-NFC-playoffs-but-wouldn't-make-it-in-the-AFC type of team.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Ok.

Bottom line is, if you pay the money, they will come. (see Cleveland) The T.O. "situation" has zero to do with anything, anywhere. T.O. is a lunatic, EVERONE knows that, including the fraternity.

(edited to remove insults at BF)

You do know that the TO "situation" was caused by the Eagles not paying the $$$$. Also I really do think that the Eagles did take a hit by how they handled the TO Mess.

Took a hit where? In fantasy football forums and in the public's eye? Yea, definitely. But if they offer money to a FA that he's looking for, I doubt he'll care anything about TO. That stuff is overrated, IMO, when it comes to individual players and their desire to play here. TO signed his contract, how many players cause havoc like he did after year one of a signed contract and actually get paid? Not too many, if any at all. I wonder, has Green Bay suffered the same hit by not paying Walker?

I think they took a bigger hit with agents and players than they did fans.A lot of fans agree with whatever they see on ESPN, and ESPN was absolutely on the Eagles' side on this. A couple analysts went so far as to say Owens should never play for another team again. That's ludicrous, but the fans all seem to be parroting the words "locker room cancer" and "destructive influence" about a guy who helped his team win home field advantage in the playoffs and almost win their first Superbowl against a team that was in the middle of a dynasty. I know which side of that argument you're on, and you can guess which side I'm on, but bottom line, a lot of fans agree with you.

For the agents, lots of teams claim they'll play hardball, but suspending a player for the maximum, benching him the rest of the year, refusing to cut him, going to arbitration to protect their right not to cut him, all because the player was a jerk, is over the top. You might agree with the team's decision, but the people who are at risk of being affected by it would be wise to avoid that team.

For the players, the Eagles have never offered the biggest money to outside free agents. They lowballed Owens so badly the NFLPA told him not to sign the deal. Aside from Kearse, who have they paid big money to? They don't even sign the guys who are successful for them, unless they come back for singificantly less money.

That's fine when you're winning NFC Championships, the players are happy, and the organization is perceived as fair. But why would you choose to work in a freezing cold city in front of a tough fan base for a coach who will suspend/bench a player for the rest of the city for a team that won't pay you top money to come there, won't renegotiate your contract, and won't pay you top money later on to stay?

You're right - if the Eagles pay big money, they'll get the players. But they didn't have to do that before. I think the Owens debacle - and the bad season that resulted from it - hurt them a lot more than fans realize.

BF, are you by any chance a disgruntled TO owner?this seems like a pretty one-sided take...

first of all... to assume that other FAs would avoid the eagles because of how the TO situation was handled is laughable... did FAs avoid TB because of the keyshawn johnson situation?

if i were a FA, i would only worry about that if i thought i would be engaging in the kind of behavior TO did that precipitated the situation... how many players do you think are realistically worried about that?

try this... tomorrow, tell your boss to shut up unless he is spoken too... while your at it, afterwards ask him if he views you as a "locker room cancer" or a team player...

the eagles don't sign their own?

how about mcnabb... bryan westbrook recently... almost the entire secondary in michael lewis, lito shepard & sheldon brown? if they thought they were being lowballed, they didn't have to reup...

maybe what you meant is they don't overpay guys north of 30 like hugh douglas, troy vincent & bobby taylor for what they have done in the past, & hamstring the team with aging players that are signed to long term contracts in which it is unlikely they would be able to finish the contract playing at as high a level as when they were in their mid-twenties... should they have re-signed douglas & taylor out of loyalty... if they are DONE... should we critique them for what... not being sentimental with the future of the team?

as jason said, they are one of the best in the business at locking up core young talent before they hit the open market... i wish the rams were capable in recent seasons of reaching even some semblance of their expert talent identification & cap management...

imo, part of apparent "sitting on hands" might be case of PHI system, scheme & philosophy not meshing or aligning with this FA class...

& if darren howard is healthy, good signing there to pair kearse & howard...

witherspoon was a great young LB now off market... arrington & peterson are high profile LBs that could be expensive & have injury issues (& possibly other issues)... but eagle's DC johnson doesn't put a premium on LBs (one reason that led to trotter feeling underappreciated & leaving for WAS before quickly returning... if PHI was so bad... WHY WOULD TROTTER COME BACK? )... whether you agree with it or not, it has nothing to do with FAs avoiding team for fear they will be TOd or lowballed...

they could arguably use help at WR & OL... but it doesn't seem like an outstanding FA class in either case (except for hutchinson)... i think reggie brown will be pretty good (reid has said most talented rookie WR he has ever had)... are givens & ARE massive difference makers that should be paid accordingly?

so far i see a lot of cases where teams are throwing stupid money at marginal, fringe OL... that is money they won't have to re-sign better internal talent later... or if they end up cutting player in future, the teams cap will be hag-ridden with dead money paid to players no longer even on the team...

smart teams don't just spend to spend... a FA acquisition should meet a need... be the kind of player the team has identified as a good fit... & come at the right price... it isn't exactly a secret that NE & PHI have been very successful with this blueprint... & the smarter teams should be trying to emulate them... i hope the rams take a cue from them...