Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

Exactly, Thongdar.

Exactly.

What's he saying that isn't accurate?

- The Eagles need help.
- There probably isn't any help out there.

It's not so much what he's saying, as how he's saying it.

Look at the big picture - you listen to Spuds because (despite the fact that he's a "journalist" paid by the Eagles) once you get past the Reno Mahe lovefest, you get some pretty honest commentary about their players. In that sense, he's not without credibility. Asskiss is worse, because you know he has almost NO credibility, and isn't as respected as Spuds (I CAN'T BELIEVE I WROTE THAT).

Hoffman, OTOH, who's SUPPOSED to be credible and/or objective, wants to have it both ways by also towing the company line and not pissing off anyone at NovaCare. Yes, he says stuff like "there's no help available", but he prefaces it by saying "they did a good job with their WRs". See the difference? Oh, and let's not forget the obligatory shot at McNabb, putting the thought in your head that if these guys aren't successful, it's not all their fault.

Bottom line - his pieces have been horrible lately, trying to walk both sides of a fence and just getting everyone annoyed. If you work for the Birds, that's one thing, but don't front like you don't and smooch their behinds all the time.

The other thing to note, fd, is this:

There can be no pretending here, not if they are really serious about getting something done this season. To bide their time is to waste everybody's time. They need to add a piece.

But then he remarks that the WRs are good enough to win a lot of games now IF McNabb is healthy AND confident. So if 5 isn't confident in the scrubs running out there, is that a product of the front office, or his own mangled deficiencies? And will this gimped-up WR set make him even less confident? And is it their fault or his?

It's crazy, because if this set of WRs was really good enough, they'd be able to withstand the Brown injury until he returns, but instead we have to deal with a career #4, an UDFA, and a rookie as your players of choice. And by this logic, were the Eagles wrong in their WR choices?

It's madness.

But then he remarks that the WRs are good enough to win a lot of games now IF McNabb is healthy AND confident. So if 5 isn't confident in the scrubs running out there, is that a product of the front office, or his own mangled deficiencies? And will this gimped-up WR set make him even less confident? And is it their fault or his?

I think you guys are misinterpreting what he's saying.

First and formost, the title of the article is "Eagles need a WR with Curtis on the Shelf". So, that's his message and that's the angle you should be reading this from.

In this quote: To tell them the name of the wide receiver they should acquire is to pretend to know the personnel end of the business better than they do, which is foolhardy. That said, they still have to do something

I read that to mean he's not going to start spouting off names that have popped up on PFT and demand the Eagles trade for that person, because he doesn't even know who is really available.

In this quote: This is not to say they have been wrong in the past about how they evaluated wide receivers - because they were not wrong. Curtis, Brown and Co. are a skilled-enough group to win a lot of games in the NFL if McNabb is healthy and confident. The Eagles really do have that part of it right.

The problem is, there really wasn't much of a margin for error - and the loss of Curtis combined with Brown's iffy hammy just reduced that margin to nothing. They can't bluff their way through this.

I took that to mean the Eagles, with a healthy McNabb, Westbrook, returning offensive line, improved D, etc. can win with Brown, Curits, and the rest of this group (especially with Desean). He's saying they were just barely good enough at the position given the other elements of their team, but had a razor thin margin that has already been erased.

He said this: The counter-argument goes like this: The expectation is that Brown should be OK for Opening Day against St. Louis, and that Curtis will have his surgery and do his rehab and get back relatively quickly. Given that, why would you spend a fortune on another wideout who will be a redundancy by Columbus Day?

All he did there was provide the "counter argument" which was essentially the argument the Eagles/Spuds/Eskin were going to trot out there today, and he immediately told us why that argument was bunk.


I don't see the problem here...he's saying the Eagles promised a win-now team and they cannot win as they are constructed.

It's crazy, because if this set of WRs was really good enough, they'd be able to withstand the Brown injury until he returns, but instead we have to deal with a career #4, an UDFA, and a rookie as your players of choice. And by this logic, were the Eagles wrong in their WR choices?

He's sayign they were good enough to win if they didn't suffer any injuries. That's all.

There many (Any?) teams in the league that can suffer injuries to their top WR and march along as though nothing happened, though.

The Eagles had a particularly thin margin and that was their massive error. The trade for a WR should have happened MONTHS ago.

He's saying they were just barely good enough at the position given the other elements of their team, but had a razor thin margin that has already been erased.

Which is my (and others') main point - you can't be right about something in this league but only have a razor thin margin of error.

The comment about McNabb also disproves the thought about them having it really right. Lack of confidence in your WRs from your QB is not a good thing to entertain.

That's really where the angst comes from - they really should've done something to fix this group (and I'll be the nimrod and say that I had no belief whatsoever that Moss was coming here), and while we all agree on that, he makes it seem that they were right up to this point, when they really weren't.

Which is my (and others') main point - you can't be right about something in this league but only have a razor thin margin of error

You've got to be kidding, man. That's the ENTIRE LEAGUE.

What happens if the Giants lose Plax, for instance?

What happens to the Broncos secondary if Bailey misses a month?

What happens to the Cowboys pass rush if Ware goes down?

What about Colsten with the Saints?

What happens if just about any team in the NFL loses their blindside tackle?

Everyone is razor, razor thin at several positions. The Eagles are thinnest at WR. Everyone knows it. They could get by with what they had, they could have even snuck by if Curtis or Brown was going to miss a couple weeks with a hammy. An injury to their best WR that will likely hamper them all season destroys their very thin margin for error...plain and simple.

They could get by with what they had, they could have even snuck by if Curtis or Brown was going to miss a couple weeks with a hammy.

You can't be "really right" about a position where you were only expected to at best squeak by. His point was while saying they need help, they did everything right in getting up to this point, something that's just not true.

Yeah, I'm just not even close to agreeing with you. Couldn't disagree more, to be honest.

I think you're starting with the idea that you dislike the guy and you're painting everythign he's saying with that opinion.

They were thin at the WR position and no one is disputing that. They could have done MORE at the WR position in the off-season (and they desperately tried to) and no one is disputing that.

Fact is, they were just good enough, they had plenty of quality depth, but they didn't have another 1,100 yard WR waiting in the wongs. Those are the breaks...it's just reality.

Apologist.

NTF!

I think we can ALL agree that they needed/still need a real #1 WR. The only WR that represented an upgrade on their team was Moss and they made him an offer that reportedly would have bested what he got from the Pats.

Beyond that, Berrian would have been an upgrade at the 3rd WR spot, but not a significant one.

They spoke to the Lions about Williams (reportedly) and the lions refused to deal him to anyone. They spoke to the Cardinals extensively (reportedly) about both Fitz and Boldin...the Cards refused to deal either.

They lack a top WR, they couldn't add one, and they could get by with what they had (in the total framework of this particular team), but the best they could do was add Desean Jackson and they did.

Now they suffered an injury where they couldn't afford to suffer one and they are screwed.

I think you could very easily say they made a lot better effort at the WR position than they did at the DE position. They could have had Jason Taylor for a second round pick...the same investment they were happy to make in a completely unproven Abiamiri just one year ago and they didn't do it. Not only did they have some questions at the position, but they have had some injuries to boot.

In hindsight, isn't that a worse oversight even after the WR debacle?

You are clearly undervaluing McDougle.

Apologist.

touche.

Well, how well has Clemons played?

FD,

What happens if the Giants lose Plax, for instance?

Boss, Tyrell and company could pick up the slack. They also have a pretty darned good defense.

What happens to the Broncos secondary if Bailey misses a month?

Tough really....but he's probably the best CB in the league now. The birds didn't have Lito and did ok with Hood et al.

What happens to the Cowboys pass rush if Ware goes down?

Just outscore your opponent. They have tons of talent on offense.

What about Colsten with the Saints?

with Duce McAllister, Jeremy Shockey and Reggie Bush, I think they will be alright.

What happens if just about any team in the NFL loses their blindside tackle?

Depends on who that person is.....anywhere from disaster to no big deal. Just bring a TE onto that side and/or keep a FB to help out. Viola.

FD, the comment about the WR being redundant by Columbus day was freaking retarded. You mean having Boldin, a rehabed Curtis and Brown would mean redundancy? You mean they'd have to cut G Lew? Oh, the horror. I think it ISN'T unreasonable to really overpay once for a top flight WR. That would give your QB who has 3 good years left, an overworked Westbrook and a defense that stays on the field all the time a serious break.

Just seems stupid to me what he had to say. I'd give up a #1, a #4 and Brown to get Boldin. The Cards can't afford to keep him on the roster...its a win-win.

Well, how well has Clemons played?

He had a sack in his only game action, and they are still bitching about him. I'd say that means he's been awful.

FD, the comment about the WR being redundant by Columbus day was freaking retarded. You mean having Boldin, a rehabed Curtis and Brown would mean redundancy? You mean they'd have to cut G Lew? Oh, the horror. I think it ISN'T unreasonable to really overpay once for a top flight WR. That would give your QB who has 3 good years left, an overworked Westbrook and a defense that stays on the field all the time a serious break.

When he said it would be "redundant", he was playing the devil's advocate (ie: saying what the Eagles would say) and he immediately refuted it.

You guys are blinded by the hate!

Bob Brookover writes a little blog post taking on the Hoff's notion that the Eagles will be fuct if there's no salary cap. (After all, what championship could they win if there's no salary cap?)

Then the Hoff seemingly responds in the comments and lays the smackdown on Brookover.

You can't tell if it's really the Hoff or not (if not, the person did a great job imitating his tone), but I'm giving the Hoff credit anyway.
Yo, click it

And here's the Hoff's original piece, which Brookover totally took out of context and over-inflated it to absurd proportions.

The Hoff has a right to be pissed.

This is also a reason why these old school journalists should not be blogging. They're desperate to write about something, so they write about each others' writings. I guess that's still better than wondering what the Eagles would be like if they'd just been more patient with T.O.
Yo, click it

I didn't know quite where to put this, but it cracked me up so I thought i'd add it.

Thursday, September 11, 2008
T.O.: McNabb made me a better receiver; I made him a better QB
By Ed Werder
ESPN.com

Terrell Owens -- wearing one of his custom T-shirts that said "iLove" on the front and on the back said, "Me some me" spoke in the Cowboys locker room Thursday, often about Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb and the reasons for their failed relationship.

"I will say that Donovan made me a better receiver in Philadelphia, but I think Donovan would have a hard time admitting I made him a better quarterback."

Owens also suggested their problems were the result of McNabb being insecure about Owens' popularity surpassing that of the quarterback, saying, "I remember being in that stadium and hearing them chanting my name, and that couldn't bode well for Donovan."

Owens said he has a unique relationship with the Cowboys' Tony Romo because the quarterback "gets me" in a way none of the others ever did.

Owens also said he honestly does not believe what happened in Philly was his fault.

Owens says in many ways he still feels like a kid from a small town in Alabama with something to prove.

When asked about how it seemed Philly dominated the NFC East when he was an Eagle much as Cowboys are doing now, Owens suggested it was largely because he had changed teams. "The common denominator was me being in both places but I will let you make that assessment," he said.

In his conference call with the Dallas media, Eagles coach Andy Reid said he was pleased with Owens' turnaround even though it has occurred with a division rival and called T.O. "a guy who will go down as one of the greatest ever to play the position."

Ed Werder reports on the NFL for ESPN.

"The common denominator was me being in both places but I will let you make that assessment," he said.

Everyone's personal feelings about T.O. aside, you've got to admit this is hilarious... and true to a degree.

I don't agree with him at all.

In the 4 years leading up to 2004 they averaged 11.5 wins per season and went to 3 straight NFC Championship games.

In the season he was with them, he missed the final handful of games and the entire playoff run that landed them in the Super Bowl.

Owens absolutely made them better and made McNabb better, but the idea that him leaving the team led to the balance of power shifting in the NFC East is absurd, IMO.

The Eagles had to completely overhaul an old defense and McNabb has basically been injured since that Super Bowl. On the other side, Parcels rebuilt the Cowboys from scratch with a great running back, o-line, defense, Witten, and Romo.

I'm not discounting how good Owens is, but that was the funniest part of the article, IMO. He came to the best team in the NFC 3 years running and spent the game he was supposed to help them win (the NFC CHampionship) on the sideline.

Exactly @ f-dallas. Great post, he's a great WR but he's delusional with that statement.

To add a bit on to Talon's posts:

NFL Team Values Average 1 Billion


"The magazine also found that for the first time in any sport, team values averaged $1 billion. Ten years ago, when it first started keeping track, the average value of an NFL team was $288 million.

Forbes attributes the increase primarily to new stadiums as well as increased sponsorship deals."



Nice to see taxpayers continuing to finance these new stadiums, when their primary purpose to make billionaire owners even more money.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18