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

To be fair, Kearse was a beast when he first got here. Something ... age, life ... caught up with him and he hasn't been quite the same player since then.

But the actual right time to get rid of Kearse was shortly before the Birds got him.

Not exactly true. Kearse was awesome when he first came here, died down a bit, and then looked ready to have a monster year when he tore his ACL (thanks, Big Red). After that, considering how long ACLs usually take to recover from, how his speed was his best advantage and that was negated, and other guys coming up from behind him (not to mention the salary hit), led to his departure.

His effectiveness ended in that Giants game, but he was pretty good for the first 2-3 years of his tenure here.

To be fair, Kearse was a beast when he first got here.

huh? kearse was never a "beast" for the eagles, even in the beginning. check the numbers.

huh? kearse was never a "beast" for the eagles, even in the beginning. check the numbers.

The numbers say he was equally effective in each of his first two seasons, but he was a monster his first year and sucked his second.

It's not all about the numbers.

While I don't know that "beast" is quite the right name for him, he was a real force in 2004, which often translated into drawing double-teams that opened up lanes for other guys. I remember that there was some debate about him possibly making the Pro Bowl in '04, but he didn't have the stats to justify it, and no one gets to go purely because of the intangibles (aside from Chad Lewis).

He was no Reggie White, but he was off to a phenomenal start in 2006, dominating the Giants game until Reid's asinine game plan sent it to overtime, which is where his career essentially ended.

it may not be all about the numbers, but i generally want my one-dimensional pass-rushing DE to have more than 7.5 sacks and 2 FF before i call him a beast.

It's tough to remember specifics in 2004, but he sat out the end of the games they were winning huge, which was one reason his stats weren't as impressive in hindsight. In games where he would have been able to pile up big numbers as the QB had to drop back very down, he was on the sidelines with a hat on. He also sat out the last 2 games in their entirety.

The only example I can really remember was the Vikings game. The Eagles and Vikings played early in the 2004 season, both off to impressive starts and both considered Super Bowl contenders from the NFC.

Kearse only registered a tackle or two and no sacks, but he absolutely dominated the game and ended up on the horse trailer for MNF. If you just looked at that stat sheet, you'd wonder if he ever got out of bed, but he just dominated the game. Forcing Culpepper to throw the ball away a few times, hurries, knockdowns, key stops, forced a fumble in the red zone, terrorized Culpepper dropping back and spying him...it was like a clinic. He also had a "sack" that was taken away a few weeks later and changed to a run for no gain.

Then, back to the rest of 2004, you have Kearse collecting 2 sacks and knocking down 3 passes in 2 playoff games...

I mean, he wasn't Strahan that year, but I distinctly remember being extremely pleased with the investment that year. I thought he was better on paper in 2005, but not effective on the field. He started 2006 like he was shot out of a cannon before the ACL and last year was just lost.

Just a bad series of events, I guess.

it may not be all about the numbers, but i generally want my one-dimensional pass-rushing DE to have more than 7.5 sacks and 2 FF before i call him a beast.

So it may not be all about the numbers for you, but it actually is all about the numbers for you.

I think f-dallas pretty much summed it up.

it may not be all about the numbers, but i generally want my one-dimensional pass-rushing DE to have more than 7.5 sacks and 2 FF before i call him a beast.

My mistake. According to the official NFL Chart, when you cross reference 7.5 sacks and 2 FF, you get "maniac." Beast was in an adjacent box and I must have mixed that up. Apologies.

Interestingly, I ran Todd Pinkston's numbers and came up with "fagboy." Not sure if that's correct. Can you verify?

So it may not be all about the numbers for you, but it actually is all about the numbers for you.

um, no, but when your numbers are that far off the pace of what would be considered a great year a DE (again, in this case a one-dimensional player who only does one thing - rush the qb) and who just signed for huge money, that's when numbers are relevant.

My mistake. According to the official NFL Chart, when you cross reference 7.5 sacks and 2 FF, you get "maniac."

more likely, you'd get "good but not great production out of your best pash-rushing DE".

Flesh, I see what you're saying, but I think you're forgetting how he played that year.

There's such a thing as a suck 7.5 sacks and a great 7.5 sacks. He, strangely, had one of each in back to back years.

Flesh, I see what you're saying, but I think you're forgetting how he played that year.

f-d, that is very likely. i just don't remember, even in his first year, kearse ever really rising to the level of expectations the eagles and their fans had for him. certainly, the struggles/injuries of his subsequent years probably dampened his first year success in my mind.

I agree with Flesh here. I kept wanting the guy to be a beast and he never quite got there. It's not that he played poorly here, he just wasn't the Freak anymore.

He was, however, quite adept at limping off the field.

Injury history aside, there's no way you can say he didn't have an affect on the teams that played him.

I mean, how many news clips did we get of Kearse being featured in JJ's new-and-exotic "Ace" package?

FD's assessment is spot-on - that defensive line in 2004 was ordinary without him, and the attention he received allowed others to pick up the pace. I wasn't expecting 20+ sacks a year, but if disruptions were a stat (and not the Mike Mamula "almost got 'im"), Kearse would be pretty high up.

I remember someone using a similar argument about the Cowboys' defense years ago, how it wasn't really that great because they didn't get a lot of sacks. But that defense was really good in other, less-flashy areas (like 3rd down %) that it brought up the "sacks are good but you can't really measure a defense by them" statement.

Sorry if it seems like a bit off, but there are some measures of getting the job done that aren't, well, measured.

BTW, when LuJaun Ramsey was cut- I speculated that there was more to the story.

"I HAVE LEARNED" (Psyche- just read it on Cobb's site) that he wanted out via trade when they drafted Laws, and that forced his release.

And what did he think the Birds could get for him in a trade? Does he have any value?

And doesn't he think there will be competition on the next roster he might land on?

Kearse was effective the first season. Not necessarily numbers wise but in the dreaded "makes his teammates better" area. Regardless, he had one move and that was the "speed rush way outside the tackle and hope he's not fast enough to hinder my path." Once he lost a step and qb's were smart enough to figure out that staying in the pocket was actually right thing to do, Kearse was done for.

And what did he think the Birds could get for him in a trade? Does he have any value?

And doesn't he think there will be competition on the next roster he might land on?

Based on the waiver claims, I guess there's a chance they could have picked up some kind of conditional late round pick.

For a team that's been so average for so long, the opinion these players have of themselves is amazing.

No offense to Westbrook (best player on the team by far at this point), but who the fuck is Lujuan Ramsey to "demand" a trade? Who the fuck is Lito to demand a raise after missing so much time? Who the fuck is Scott Young to skip workouts?

I mean, shit...these guys have some balls.

How is it that he demanded a trade after they drafted Laws? Is Laws that good that he'll unseat Ramsey in the rotation, a rotation where he isn't even a starter?

You're starting to see Reid's grip on this team come apart slowly....can't imagine what will happen should Westbrook vocalize any unhappiness he has with his contract.

You're starting to see Reid's grip on this team come apart slowly....

He had a grip on something that wasn't loaded with lard?

You're starting to see Reid's grip on this team come apart slowly....can't imagine what will happen should Westbrook vocalize any unhappiness he has with his contract.

A winning season would really solidify his hold on the team. If he decides to become a little more flexible in his game planning I do think there's no reason why the Eagles couldn't make the playoffs and maybe even win the division. They're a good team with solid talent in enough positions that they SHOULD be able to win many games.

Hopefully he's humble enough to honestly evaluate his contribution to both the winning AND the losing seasons.

I think I'm homerizing again, so feel free to ignore me.

No, you're just making good sense.


For cripessake, they're rated third in the conf. to hit the SB this yr per Vegas odds @ 7-1 just behind the 'Boys and the reining Champs.

Bass' comment is about absurd (no offense).

He (Reid) isnt losing a grip on anything.

They released a potential issue in the lockerroom based on a perceived depth and comfort level in what they had on the roster around him.

I agree that they coulda and shoulda tried to maybe get somethin for him- but its about the individual.

Certainly a guy like Ramsey, who BTW fell outta favor and off the stat sheet last yr despite havin shown some flashes prior, is expendable.

Now, is it not better perhaps to take the guy to camp, have him take part in the competition perhaps, get him some reps in a couple pre-season games and then deal him? Sure, IF YOU FEEL YOU CAN without enabling a distracting situation.

Thats very important stuff in today's NFL.
Think the G-Men covet their situation there with Shockey? I think we'd all agree Shock's got a ton more value to a team than Ramsey, no?

They clearly weighed the depth at the position, their feelings on Laws especially with the manner in which it was that Ramsey demanded a deal and decided that the best thing was to cut ties.

did you say something Uber?

Bass' comment is about absurd (no offense).

None taken.

Avoiding a controversial situation with a backup lineman that has already fallen far off the depth chart vs. a controversial situation dealing with a PB CB?

My point wasn't to insinuate that this team is lost by F_B in Week 7. But with some of these players overevaluating themselves to the point of lunacy in some cases, am I incorrect in thinking we haven't really dealt with issues like these before? Just thought that issues like these weren't really issues before, because of the way the ship was locked down.

In reality, the only person who has a right to complain is Westbrook, which is why I wondered aloud (or in print, whatever) his situation. And even then his "actual" leverage is subjective.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51