Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Was it a Good "Football" Decision
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
nephillymike
If you believe the trio of Chip, Howie and Jeff, that the decision to release Jackson had nothing to do with off the field issues as has been widely speculated, and, it was a "football" decision, then was it a good football decision? Assume, as I do, that his release was not for gang reasons etc.

1. They decided that they wanted to go with Cooper and Maclin as their top WR's this year.

2. They decided that whatever extra production that a trio of Jackson, Maclin and Cooper would have over Maclin, Cooper and TBD, that extra production was not worth the $10.75M cost.

3. They decided that the harm done to Jackson's ability to land a new job out weighed the benefit of an, unlikely in their mind, possibility of a trade during or after the draft, such that they saw it better for all to release him when they did.

4. They decided that it is best for long term plans that they not spend the 10.75M saved from Jackson on improvement of this year's team, but it is more important to have that money available to satisfy future expected financial commitments.

All of the above considered, how would you rate this football decision?
JeeQ
If we don't win the division and go to the playoffs this year it was a terrible decision...

If we win the division and go the playoffs it was a great decision...

Simple as that for me. We already proved what we can do last season with DeSean Jackson, if we don't equal it or better it than it was a stupid move.
Zero
Based on your criteria, I think it was a poor decision. I'm not sure I could ever give the release a good grade because of their failure to get anything in return for him. Now, if they end up using that $10 mil on a trade for Jordan and draft a receiver that would better fit what Kelly wants ... then it may be a better move.

I don't see it as a disaster but it can never be a good decision to let a player with his production go for nothing unless he was a major problem in the locker room. IOW, I don't believe what they've told us is the reason.
Aitkens
Chip Kelly wants full buy in from his team and staff. Jackson didn't buy in, and it was causing serious issues. Those issues quickly turn into a cancer, and that can kill a team. To be a Championship caliber team, you don't necessarily need to have the most talent, you need to be the best team.
mcnabbulous
Of course it's a bad "football" move. They simply didn't want to pay him that much money. I'm fine with that, if it prohibits us from making other good football decisions. DJax's salary was not prohibitive for anything we would have wanted to do in 2014.

As Maclin said, "we'll be okay."

That's not really what I was hoping for this upcoming season.
samaroo
I agree with Aitkens. I don't need 53 boy scouts, but if Chip thinks it's good for the team overall and long-term, I'm okay with it until proven otherwise.

Whatever we were doing before wasn't working. I'm good with a shakeup.
HOUSEoPAIN
Obviously it was a terrible football decision. If they end up using the money to improve their squad in other ways, fine.
Eyrie
All depends on their plans for the 2014 season.

If the return of Maclin compensates for Jackson, then it was a good move just as it was a bad move if Maclin can't match Jackson's production.

So no vote at this stage.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Apr 29 2014, 10:57 AM) *
All depends on their plans for the 2014 season.

If the return of Maclin compensates for Jackson, then it was a good move just as it was a bad move if Maclin can't match Jackson's production.

So no vote at this stage.

Even if Maclin matches Jackson's production, our team would be better with both Maclin and Jackson on the field than just having Maclin.

Jackson is a fantastic wide receiver. There is no way to lose his football talent and say it's a good football decision.

How is equaling last year's offensive performance a viable goal? Shouldn't our 10-6, first round playoff losing team be looking to improve?
Aitkens
Jackson was late for meetings and practice. Jackson wasn't buying into the Sports Science program that the Eagles are doing with Chip in charge. He's going against the grain. He's also not going to go out of his way to block downfield, which is a huge Chip Kelly thing. Those are three big strikes against him in the eyes of Chip Kelly, and that's not even including the blow ups Jackson has had with the staff and the lack of respect there. As a football coach, I'm going to look at it a little different. What the Eagles might be losing in talent, they're gaining by not having to deal with the headaches and big problems down the road. The preferential treatment crap always blows up in the face of the organization and coaching staff.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE
Jackson was late for meetings and practice.


You know who always used to be on time? Torrance Small and Na Brown. rolleyes.gif


Phits
The 10 wins last season raised the bar too high for where this team is supposed to be. First, it's short sighted to suggest that the other teams in the division will not improve. Second, we have a tougher schedule than last season. Third, and most important, Foles' performance last season cannot be expected to be repeated.

The "exorcism" of Jackson from the Eagles was a move to bring the player personnel closer to Chip's vision of where he wants the team to be. From that perspective, it was a sound football decision.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Apr 29 2014, 02:29 PM) *
Third, and most important, Foles' performance last season cannot be expected to be repeated.

Definitely. He doesn't have his best receiver to throw to.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Aitkens @ Apr 29 2014, 12:51 PM) *
The preferential treatment crap always blows up in the face of the organization and coaching staff.

mcnabbulous
dupe
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 29 2014, 03:35 PM) *
Definitely. He doesn't have his best receiver to throw to.

I think you're mistaken, his best WR was recovering from a pre-season injury and is rehabbed.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (Phits @ Apr 29 2014, 03:46 PM) *
I think you're mistaken, his best WR was recovering from a pre-season injury and is rehabbed.


Groupies Gone Wild.....
JeeQ
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Apr 29 2014, 01:12 PM) *
Groupies Gone Wild.....


Maclin has never been better than DeSean at any point in his career, but now that DeSean is gone and Maclin has a torn ACL he's suddenly better laugh.gif

I wish I could be a delusional Eagles fan too like the rest of them... and say inane things like getting rid of Pro Bowl WRs are good football moves... or that not winning the division this season and having a worse record is fine as long as we have team camaraderie
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Apr 29 2014, 02:46 PM) *
I think you're mistaken, his best WR was recovering from a pre-season injury and is rehabbed.

Statistically, there is nothing about Maclin that suggests he is better than Desean.

In his best season, Maclin had 964 receiving yards in 16 games. In the season that everyone says Desean quit on the team, he had 961 yards in 15 games.

Maclin scores about one more TD per year, while also contributing about 40%-50% fewer big plays.

I like Maclin, but he's never proven to be a better receiver than DJax. He's been more consistent throughout his career, but his upside has proven to be significantly less.

Maclin's best year would have ranked the following in 2013:

Catches: 37
Yards: 26
YPC: 41
TDs: 10
20+ Yard Catches: 22


mcnabbulous
QUOTE (JeeQ @ Apr 29 2014, 03:40 PM) *
or that not winning the division this season and having a worse record is fine as long as we have team camaraderie

It's all part of a master plan that you're too stupid to understand...apparently.
Phits
As you well know, stats don't tell the entire story. I believe that Maclin is a better WR than Jackson and you don't. He is more complete and willing to make the tough catches. He's not the showboat player that Jackson is and for me that goes a long way. He may not have the same breakaway speed, but he is pretty darn fast. With that said, the argument really is closed until the end of the upcoming season. I believe in Chip Kelly's ability to innovate and create a stellar offensive game plan with his chosen players. I believe this coming season is year 2 in a re-building plan and expect the team to get better, even if the win total is less than last season. You believe something else.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 29 2014, 04:59 PM) *
Statistically, there is nothing about Maclin that suggests he is better than Desean.

In his best season, Maclin had 964 receiving yards in 16 games. In the season that everyone says Desean quit on the team, he had 961 yards in 15 games.

Maclin scores about one more TD per year, while also contributing about 40%-50% fewer big plays.

I like Maclin, but he's never proven to be a better receiver than DJax. He's been more consistent throughout his career, but his upside has proven to be significantly less.

Maclin's best year would have ranked the following in 2013:

Catches: 37
Yards: 26
YPC: 41
TDs: 10
20+ Yard Catches: 22

TGryn
This comment over at Tommy Lawlor's site does the best job of laying out the possible football reasons for cutting DJax that I've read so far. Excerpt:
QUOTE
Jackson is a high variance WR who is very small and relies on one extreme talent (his absurd speed) to compensate for all his failings and that talent is inevitably going to diminish over the next few yrs leaving him with nothing else. Kelly desires a large low variance WR who can consistently beat man coverage, break tackles and block in the run game. I might not agree completely with the decision, but that’s what just happened.Kelly saw that the preferred way to defend his team was to put 7-8 in the box play press man w one safety shaded to DeSeans side and he didn’t like our lack of ability to counter that on offense. He's stated multiple times since our playoff loss to NO that finding WRs that can beat press man on a consistent basis is paramount to our continued success and improvement on offense. That, coupled with DeSean's release leads me to believe that they did not see DeSean as someone who could do that consistently.

DeSean, despite his speed and short area quickness, needs some space and time to let his speed really show. He needs longer developing routes that allow him to run away from DBs. He'll never be someone that can take two steps up field, make a cut, catch the ball and break a tackle to get YAC, and that's essentially what I think Chip would prefer. He wants the QB to have the ball out of his hands in 2.5 seconds and the skill he wants at WR is the ability to make quick catches and overpower the DBs on a regular basis. I get the feeling he thinks he can scheme people wide open for big explosive plays, and doesn't require 4.3 speed to do so. But, he can't scheme someone to be able to catch a short pass in 2.5 seconds while boxing out the CB, breaking tackles and getting YAC as well as blocking in the run game. Those are the skills he requires, blazing speed is nice, but not a requirement.

Kelly would rather have a player that can consistently beat that single high press man look than one who can be taken out of the game for long periods and then make up the difference on that stat sheet w a big play. Low variance over high variance.




HOUSEoPAIN
Again, this is groupie-ism gone wild. His very presence on the field changes the entire way a defense approaches each play. When they double cover him and leave a safety
deep because of this 'one-trick pony,' that allows for more opportunities to not only use the run game to make big plays, but allows for people such as Maclin, Cooper, and
Ertz to exploit lax coverage. The simple fact remains that we transferred our best WR to a division rival, getting nothing in return. For Chip and Howie's sake, they better
hope those of us who were against this have to eat crow next year, or else he's going to find out real quick this isn't Oregon.
BirdsWinBaby
"Jackson is a high variance WR who is very small and relies on one extreme talent (his absurd speed) to compensate for all his failings and that talent is inevitably going to diminish over the next few yrs leaving him with nothing else. Kelly desires a large low variance WR who can consistently beat man coverage, break tackles and block in the run game. I might not agree completely with the decision, but that’s what just happened.Kelly saw that the preferred way to defend his team was to put 7-8 in the box play press man w one safety shaded to DeSeans side and he didn’t like our lack of ability to counter that on offense. He's stated multiple times since our playoff loss to NO that finding WRs that can beat press man on a consistent basis is paramount to our continued success and improvement on offense. That, coupled with DeSean's release leads me to believe that they did not see DeSean as someone who could do that consistently.

DeSean, despite his speed and short area quickness, needs some space and time to let his speed really show. He needs longer developing routes that allow him to run away from DBs. He'll never be someone that can take two steps up field, make a cut, catch the ball and break a tackle to get YAC, and that's essentially what I think Chip would prefer. He wants the QB to have the ball out of his hands in 2.5 seconds and the skill he wants at WR is the ability to make quick catches and overpower the DBs on a regular basis. I get the feeling he thinks he can scheme people wide open for big explosive plays, and doesn't require 4.3 speed to do so. But, he can't scheme someone to be able to catch a short pass in 2.5 seconds while boxing out the CB, breaking tackles and getting YAC as well as blocking in the run game. Those are the skills he requires, blazing speed is nice, but not a requirement.

Kelly would rather have a player that can consistently beat that single high press man look than one who can be taken out of the game for long periods and then make up the difference on that stat sheet w a big play. Low variance over high variance."

-----------

im still amazed that DeSean fans cant see the above

his stats dont matter....he didnt fit
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (BirdsWinBaby @ Apr 29 2014, 07:23 PM) *
"Jackson is a high variance WR who is very small and relies on one extreme talent (his absurd speed) to compensate for all his failings and that talent is inevitably going to diminish over the next few yrs leaving him with nothing else. Kelly desires a large low variance WR who can consistently beat man coverage, break tackles and block in the run game. I might not agree completely with the decision, but that’s what just happened.Kelly saw that the preferred way to defend his team was to put 7-8 in the box play press man w one safety shaded to DeSeans side and he didn’t like our lack of ability to counter that on offense. He's stated multiple times since our playoff loss to NO that finding WRs that can beat press man on a consistent basis is paramount to our continued success and improvement on offense. That, coupled with DeSean's release leads me to believe that they did not see DeSean as someone who could do that consistently.

DeSean, despite his speed and short area quickness, needs some space and time to let his speed really show. He needs longer developing routes that allow him to run away from DBs. He'll never be someone that can take two steps up field, make a cut, catch the ball and break a tackle to get YAC, and that's essentially what I think Chip would prefer. He wants the QB to have the ball out of his hands in 2.5 seconds and the skill he wants at WR is the ability to make quick catches and overpower the DBs on a regular basis. I get the feeling he thinks he can scheme people wide open for big explosive plays, and doesn't require 4.3 speed to do so. But, he can't scheme someone to be able to catch a short pass in 2.5 seconds while boxing out the CB, breaking tackles and getting YAC as well as blocking in the run game. Those are the skills he requires, blazing speed is nice, but not a requirement.

Kelly would rather have a player that can consistently beat that single high press man look than one who can be taken out of the game for long periods and then make up the difference on that stat sheet w a big play. Low variance over high variance."

-----------

im still amazed that DeSean fans cant see the above

his stats dont matter....he didnt fit


If 82/1300/9 doesn't 'fit,' then maybe we should get more players who don't fit. Again, there's nothing we can do now, but if the Redskins beat us in week 3, he's going to
find out real fast his fans don't consist of drunk, happy, high people in Eugene, Oregon.
nephillymike
I agree that Lawlor's explanation is the best I've seen. Good stuff,thanks TG.

But just like always happens, every one is looking at the right hand while the magician just pocketed $10.75M with his left.

I will concede that Jackson was a punk, piss poor attitude, one trick pony fluke success as a WR who owed every one of his yards to the genius that is Chip Kelly

IF

People would wake the fuck up and realize that to not use his money to improve this team this year is managerial malpractice that is presumptuous in both their ability to win a Super Bowl with leaving 15% of the cap unused and in their belief that fans are too drunk on koolaid to know what is going on. While the narrow 60%-40% margin of people who don't think this was a good move gives some credence to their second presumption, koolaid drinkers sober up real quick in this town.

It's looking like same old, same old:
Empty trophy case
Full cap coffers
60,000 waiting to get a season ticket for the privilege to say:
"Thank You Sir May I Have Another"

As Mel Brooks said; "It's Good To Be The King"
Phits
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 29 2014, 09:32 PM) *
People would wake the fuck up and realize that to not use his money to improve this team this year is managerial malpractice that is presumptuous in both their ability to win a Super Bowl with leaving 15% of the cap unused and in their belief that fans are too drunk on koolaid to know what is going on. While the narrow 60%-40% margin of people who don't think this was a good move gives some credence to their second presumption, koolaid drinkers sober up real quick in this town.

Despite the board's opinion the 2013 Eagles were not 2-3 players away from the SB. Spending the available cap, just to spend it makes no sense. Next season should give us a more accurate picture of how close we are to being legitimate contenders.
mcnabbulous
Jackson caught a higher number of targets than almost any other receiver in football (at least of the guys near the top of receiving leaders).

That would suggest he makes tough catches and isn't a one-trick pony.

But let's just say he does only have one trick. That trick just happens to be making big plays on a regular basis.

Trying to deny his talent is silly.
BirdsWinBaby
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 29 2014, 10:07 PM) *
But let's just say he does only have one trick. That trick just happens to be making big plays on a regular basis.



and then the playoffs happen
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (BirdsWinBaby @ Apr 29 2014, 10:14 PM) *
and then the playoffs happen


He had two big plays that directly led to two touchdowns. Not sure what else you can expect from a WR. Especially when his QB plays not lose.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 29 2014, 10:07 PM) *
But let's just say he does only have one trick. That trick just happens to be making big plays on a regular basis.

Except he doesn't do it on a regular basis. He disappears for stretches at a time and games at a time. he then reemerges to have a monster game and then disappears again. If you're going to give me 80 yds per game I would rather see that every game than inflated statistics by a handful of monster games.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Apr 29 2014, 11:17 PM) *
Except he doesn't do it on a regular basis. He disappears for stretches at a time and games at a time. he then reemerges to have a monster game and then disappears again. If you're going to give me 80 yds per game I would rather see that every game than inflated statistics by a handful of monster games.


Like Maclin in 2012?

96
23
7
39
130
33
28
93
0 (didn't play)
55
38
104
73
116
22

Mr. Consistency. Fwiw, we've gone over this. Every WR disappears at times. It's the nature of the position.
And Desean makes as many big plays as anyone in the league, no matter how you slice it.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Phits @ Apr 29 2014, 09:00 PM) *
Despite the board's opinion the 2013 Eagles were not 2-3 players away from the SB. Spending the available cap, just to spend it makes no sense. Next season should give us a more accurate picture of how close we are to being legitimate contenders.


Phits,

You are assuming if we would sign 2-3 more players that they are only allowed to contribute this year and will be gone by that mythical future year when we are good enough. These are multi year contracts and a guy signed for this year is also signed for future years, with the benefit of an extra years experience in the system. Using that logic, there are guys who will make this year's team that won't be able to make meaningful contribution in that future year. Should we cut them too, or do we keep them b/c they are the best we have available this year?

It almost seems that people are comforted by the notion that we're not there yet and the lack of expectations that go along with that. There's great fear in putting the chips into the middle of the table and going all in. Too scary out on that limb for many it seems. An odd situation. Once bitten, twice shy I guess, with the latest bite effecting fandom and mgt in the same way.
BirdsWinBaby
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 29 2014, 11:30 PM) *
He had two big plays that directly led to two touchdowns. Not sure what else you can expect from a WR. Especially when his QB plays not lose.



He was invisible until the end of the 3rd quarter.....of a playoff game.

You know what you get when the #1WR does that....in a playoff game? Chip does ..and made the right "football" decision
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (BirdsWinBaby @ Apr 30 2014, 06:56 AM) *
He was invisible until the end of the 3rd quarter.....of a playoff game.

You know what you get when the #1WR does that....in a playoff game? Chip does ..and made the right "football" decision


He was invisible because his QB was afraid to throw him the ball. When his QB finally elected to do so, he made plays.
It was a financial decision. Not a football decision.
If we cut every offensive player who didn't have great numbers against the Saints, our roster would be pretty thin.
HobbEs
Would it be a bad decision if we cut him prior to his contract?

With all the dogging it, the moping, not blocking downfield, not hustling after an interception, alligator arming passes that were not on point, not going across the middle and constantly complaining that he's underpaid...does anyone really think that's good for a team?

This wasn't a football decision. It was a money decision. More so it was a money vs. production issue. If a happy, ready to buy-in DeSean was coming to camp then he'd still be here and no one ever has this discussion. But the reality is that it's the DeSean described above that we had to deal with. Even with a new deal and being in the upper echelon of the pay scale he still feels he's underpaid.

Based on the history of the player it's a good move. There's no way I want a distraction like that this season.
TGryn
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 30 2014, 02:19 AM) *
You are assuming if we would sign 2-3 more players that they are only allowed to contribute this year and will be gone by that mythical future year when we are good enough. These are multi year contracts and a guy signed for this year is also signed for future years, with the benefit of an extra years experience in the system. Using that logic, there are guys who will make this year's team that won't be able to make meaningful contribution in that future year. Should we cut them too, or do we keep them b/c they are the best we have available this year?

If you give that money to a player you're only lukewarm on for a multiyear contract, that means that money won't be available when it comes time to re-up guys like Foles and Cox and Maclin and Thornton, all of whom coming up in the next couple of years. With the new CBA's conditions that allow massive transference of cap space from year to year, its really a new landscape. The old way where cap space disappeared if you didn't use it is no longer the case; banking it away for future years is a legit strategy if you think you're going to have a lot of extensions to give out.

In theory you could sign a bunch of FAs to "show-me" 1 year contracts like Maclin did, but there's only so many free agents out there who'll take those kind of deals (the truly elite FAs won't, because of the lack of security), and more often than not you'll end up with a Kenny Phillips or O.J. Atogye who turns out to be too injured to still contribute.
Phits
I am willing to wager that the combination of Sproles & Maclin will provide more consistent results game in and game out. As for "big plays" they are great for the hi-light reel and helps energize the crowd, but I prefer a methodical approach to the game, which (i believe) our QB is better suited for.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 30 2014, 01:08 AM) *
Like Maclin in 2012?

96
23
7
39
130
33
28
93
0 (didn't play)
55
38
104
73
116
22

Mr. Consistency. Fwiw, we've gone over this. Every WR disappears at times. It's the nature of the position.
And Desean makes as many big plays as anyone in the league, no matter how you slice it.

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (HobbEs @ Apr 30 2014, 08:29 AM) *
Would it be a bad decision if we cut him prior to his contract?

With all the dogging it, the moping, not blocking downfield, not hustling after an interception, alligator arming passes that were not on point, not going across the middle and constantly complaining that he's underpaid...does anyone really think that's good for a team?

This wasn't a football decision. It was a money decision. More so it was a money vs. production issue. If a happy, ready to buy-in DeSean was coming to camp then he'd still be here and no one ever has this discussion. But the reality is that it's the DeSean described above that we had to deal with. Even with a new deal and being in the upper echelon of the pay scale he still feels he's underpaid.

Based on the history of the player it's a good move. There's no way I want a distraction like that this season.

It wasn't that he was underpaid. He wanted guarantees. It wasn't an unreasonable request. This is what he said. I don't know how it was so unreasonable:

“I definitely feel it’s something deserving,” Jackson said at his locker in the NovaCare Complex on locker cleanout day. “We’ll see how that plays out, and hopefully we can work things out smoothly and not have to worry about anything out of the ordinary.

“But I definitely feel like it’s deserving. I’m proven in this league, and after this past year, went out there, no distractions, and just really put it all in for my team and went out there and had a lot of success, so we’ll see how it goes.”

When did he say anything about being underpaid? For the life of me, I'll never understand why people are so opposed to athletes wanting to capitalize financially within their ridiculously short pay window.


Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 30 2014, 12:53 PM) *
It wasn't that he was underpaid. He wanted guarantees. It wasn't an unreasonable request. This is what he said. I don't know how it was so unreasonable:

“I definitely feel it’s something deserving,” Jackson said at his locker in the NovaCare Complex on locker cleanout day. “We’ll see how that plays out, and hopefully we can work things out smoothly and not have to worry about anything out of the ordinary.

“But I definitely feel like it’s deserving. I’m proven in this league, and after this past year, went out there, no distractions, and just really put it all in for my team and went out there and had a lot of success, so we’ll see how it goes.”

When did he say anything about being underpaid? For the life of me, I'll never understand why people are so opposed to athletes wanting to capitalize financially within their ridiculously short pay window.

Where does it say that he only wanted guarantees? From what you have quoted it is suggesting that he wanted to re-work his 2 year old contract. Instead of giving a response, it probably would have served him better to go to the end of season exit interview.
HobbEs
QUOTE
“I definitely feel it’s something deserving”


Deserving? Deserving of what? Aren't you already one of the highest paid receivers in the league?

QUOTE
“But I definitely feel like it’s deserving. I’m proven in this league, and after this past year, went out there, no distractions"


Wait, what? You think you deserve a new contract because there weren't any distractions? So does this mean good behavior merits a raise?

QUOTE
"so we’ll see how it goes.”


And out the door you went.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (HobbEs @ Apr 30 2014, 01:12 PM) *
Deserving? Deserving of what? Aren't you already one of the highest paid receivers in the league?

Guarantees. I already said that. He wanted some guarantees that when putting his health and well-being on the line every Sunday, he would have some security if something bad happened.


QUOTE
Wait, what? You think you deserve a new contract because there weren't any distractions? So does this mean good behavior merits a raise?

Can be interpreted multiple ways. He may have been saying that when he went out there with no distractions (meaning no contract concerns), he played incredibly well. Not that he was deserving of a new contract because he caused no distractions.

QUOTE
And out the door you went.

And we're worse off for it. And he got more guaranteed money. So it didn't work out too poorly for him.

QUOTE (Phits @ Apr 30 2014, 01:02 PM) *
Where does it say that he only wanted guarantees? From what you have quoted it is suggesting that he wanted to re-work his 2 year old contract. Instead of giving a response, it probably would have served him better to go to the end of season exit interview.

You're right, he never said he only wanted guarantees. But he never said he thought he was underpaid. He wanted a reworked contract.

His comments, when asked how he felt about his contract, weren't unreasonable. Anyone in his situation would have wanted a different contract.
nephillymike
QUOTE (TGryn @ Apr 30 2014, 09:06 AM) *
If you give that money to a player you're only lukewarm on for a multiyear contract, that means that money won't be available when it comes time to re-up guys like Foles and Cox and Maclin and Thornton, all of whom coming up in the next couple of years. With the new CBA's conditions that allow massive transference of cap space from year to year, its really a new landscape. The old way where cap space disappeared if you didn't use it is no longer the case; banking it away for future years is a legit strategy if you think you're going to have a lot of extensions to give out.

In theory you could sign a bunch of FAs to "show-me" 1 year contracts like Maclin did, but there's only so many free agents out there who'll take those kind of deals (the truly elite FAs won't, because of the lack of security), and more often than not you'll end up with a Kenny Phillips or O.J. Atogye who turns out to be too injured to still contribute.

Teams have been carrying cap over to future years for over a decade. The only difference was that now they can do it without the old "haucking" trick they did for years when unearned unrealistic bonuses from one year were credited to the next.

The thing that nobody sees is that with $20M of cap space plus a modest increase in the cap next year, they have the cap world by the balls and very easily could have signed a few more FA's and done anything they felt like next year. IMO, a lost opportunity that will haunt us this year, similar to how the same strategy left us short vs. NO.

Even now in this thread, guys are still arguing how good/bad Jackson is as opposed to the real issue. This fan base is an owners dream. Argue the periphery, never uniting on the real issue.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 30 2014, 10:03 PM) *
Even now in this thread, guys are still arguing how good/bad Jackson is as opposed to the real issue. This fan base is an
owners dream. Argue the periphery, never uniting on the real issue.


Seriously.

Hey, let's make our long-tenured offensive line coach (who hasn't coached defense since Reagan was president at a high school
in Texas) the new defensive coordinator of an NFL franchise touting itself as a Super Bowl contender - this will be an especially
good idea because our old cracker d-line coach will now be subordinate to him. Half the fans will be outraged, the other half
tripping over themselves to remind everyone else that we should 'leave it to the experts' and we should
'see how it plays out.' rolleyes.gif

As an extra fork in your groin, after Castillo was fired he was picked up by the Ravens in January of 2013. As in, he got a ring.

Phits
Good point HoP. The front office went against the mantra of their program and decided to go all in with a combination of players and coaches. Figuring they were only a few pieces away from the Superbowl puzzle, they bowed to public opinion and assembled the dream team. The End. Good bye Andy Reid.

The moral of the story, if you start listening to the fans, you'll soon be sitting with them.

QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ May 1 2014, 11:35 AM) *
Seriously.

Hey, let's make our long-tenured offensive line coach (who hasn't coached defense since Reagan was president at a high school
in Texas) the new defensive coordinator of an NFL franchise touting itself as a Super Bowl contender - this will be an especially
good idea because our old cracker d-line coach will now be subordinate to him. Half the fans will be outraged, the other half
tripping over themselves to remind everyone else that we should 'leave it to the experts' and we should
'see how it plays out.' rolleyes.gif

As an extra fork in your groin, after Castillo was fired he was picked up by the Ravens in January of 2013. As in, he got a ring.

mcnabbulous
Yeah, it probably had nothing to do with having some of the worst drafts in franchise history in 2010 and 2011.
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.