Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: So I just read this article about how the Eagles should explain their actions
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Birdwatcher
And it made perfect sense to me regarding this situation. One argument has the Eagles signing Vick (known criminal) and Cooper (Drunken racist), but there are differences...

Not to mention the fact that you're dealing with apples and oranges here. Both Vick and Cooper had their laundry smack in the public eye through their own actions. Both also acknowledging their errors and acting to change their behavior. It is hard to tell what exactly happened here, but it sure looks to me like the Eagles have been trying for some time to work with DJ, doing a miraculous job of keeping these issues like bad company and even a pot charge under wraps, and giving him a fat contract to boot even after many of these problems arose. Hardly the behavior of a team protecting only itself. I think most likely this was a cumulative thing where DJ would not respond to their attempts get him on track, you know, the OPPOSITE of what Vick and Cooper did? There always comes a point when your help is not wanted that you must cut ties, the Eagles were wise to try to keep it in house for their benefit in attempting a trade AND for DJ's benefit for his future. So where's the confusion?
bounty101
Well said
samaroo
Sounds plausible, at least.

Got a link for the article?
nephillymike
QUOTE (Birdwatcher @ Mar 30 2014, 11:58 AM) *
And it made perfect sense to me regarding this situation. One argument has the Eagles signing Vick (known criminal) and Cooper (Drunken racist), but there are differences...

Not to mention the fact that you're dealing with apples and oranges here. Both Vick and Cooper had their laundry smack in the public eye through their own actions. Both also acknowledging their errors and acting to change their behavior. It is hard to tell what exactly happened here, but it sure looks to me like the Eagles have been trying for some time to work with DJ, doing a miraculous job of keeping these issues like bad company and even a pot charge under wraps, and giving him a fat contract to boot even after many of these problems arose. Hardly the behavior of a team protecting only itself. I think most likely this was a cumulative thing where DJ would not respond to their attempts get him on track, you know, the OPPOSITE of what Vick and Cooper did? There always comes a point when your help is not wanted that you must cut ties, the Eagles were wise to try to keep it in house for their benefit in attempting a trade AND for DJ's benefit for his future. So where's the confusion?

What article?
Eyrie
Vick was a risk, but it is to his credit that he did take the opportunity to turn his life around.

As regards Cooper, Kelly held fire to see what the locker room reaction was. Avant and Vick led the calls for Cooper to be given another chance.

I think you're spot on about the difference being that Jackson refused to change anything. And the lack of locker room leaks in his defence would suggest that teammates recognise that.
Birdwatcher
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Mar 30 2014, 01:37 PM) *
What article?


I think it was on Philly.com and tried to go back and find it, but there are a few articles along those lines....Marcus Hayes, McLane, Berman...and all of them have hundreds or more comments, so the one I saw must be buried pages deep by now. I did cut and paste it because I suspected it would be hard to find after the article with more comments coming in, but I just wanted to illustrate the difference in situations between Vick, Cooper, and DJax.
Flying Dutchman
Their refusal to go public with this is mirrored in their refusal to say anything incriminating in their public release statement. Although the media losers and the local conspiratory wannabees have tried to indite by imagination and innuendo, the fact is the Eagles have taken the "high ground" and refused to dump on DJ and I think that was the absolute right thing to do.
nephillymike
Fwiw, employers are given legal counsel not to say anything bad about an ex employee.

I have used that policy for over ten years.

Praise the good ones.

Say it's company policy not to discuss former ees when asked for referrals.
samaroo
I understand wanting an explanation out of curiosity, but I don't get how the team would have benefited from bad mouthing him after his release. I don't see how they could've looked good doing that.
Jax
QUOTE (Birdwatcher @ Mar 30 2014, 11:58 AM) *
And it made perfect sense to me regarding this situation. One argument has the Eagles signing Vick (known criminal) and Cooper (Drunken racist), but there are differences...

Not to mention the fact that you're dealing with apples and oranges here. Both Vick and Cooper had their laundry smack in the public eye through their own actions. Both also acknowledging their errors and acting to change their behavior. It is hard to tell what exactly happened here, but it sure looks to me like the Eagles have been trying for some time to work with DJ, doing a miraculous job of keeping these issues like bad company and even a pot charge under wraps, and giving him a fat contract to boot even after many of these problems arose. Hardly the behavior of a team protecting only itself. I think most likely this was a cumulative thing where DJ would not respond to their attempts get him on track, you know, the OPPOSITE of what Vick and Cooper did? There always comes a point when your help is not wanted that you must cut ties, the Eagles were wise to try to keep it in house for their benefit in attempting a trade AND for DJ's benefit for his future. So where's the confusion?

So this would also give more creedance to the Cris Carter/Buddy Ryan comparison?
TGryn
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Mar 30 2014, 09:37 AM) *
What article?
Les Bowen:
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles...ning_to_do.html
Birdwatcher
QUOTE (TGryn @ Apr 1 2014, 10:59 AM) *



Not that article, it came out the day after my post, it was another...I think it was McClane's
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Mar 31 2014, 09:21 PM) *
Fwiw, employers are given legal counsel not to say anything bad about an ex employee.

I have used that policy for over ten years.

Praise the good ones.

Say it's company policy not to discuss former ees when asked for referrals.



Hmmmmm...I think some brilliant mind has mentioned this a few times in several threads here.......


tongue.gif
D Rock
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 1 2014, 10:41 PM) *
Hmmmmm...I think some brilliant mind has mentioned this a few times in several threads here.......


tongue.gif

Yes.

Yes I have.

laugh.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.