Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Question Regarding DJax & Press/Man Coverage
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
nephillymike
Give me some leeway in paraphrasing and an allowance for stirring the pot the day of our first preseason game:

So Colonel Jessup, if you gave the order that Santiago not be touched, and nobody ever disobeys your orders, then why was Santiago in danger?

So Coach Kelly, if because of McCoy, the opposition constantly played defense against us with tight man coverage and a single high safety resulting in very few double teams on Jackson and very little "extra space" benefit garnered by our other WR's as a result of Jackson's coverage, then how did Jackson get over 1,300 receiving yards? Wasn't he, and the team, very successful against the type of defense likely to be deployed against us again this year?

I want the truth!!

You want the truth?

You can't handle the truth!

Because deep down inside the sound proof walls of this organization, they NEED that money in the bank, they WANT that money in the bank! Guys like you, Nephillymike and Zero, you like to ignore this inconvenient fact and instead try to minimize the impact of Jackson by pointing to things like Tweets and bad behavior and not buying into the system and skeletons in his closet (which still haven't come out) when all along it was obvious by HIS production and the production of his teamates that he was a fit for our scheme and although this decision was made months before, in the end it was a MONEY decision with the trigger pulled at just the right time after the big spending weeks of free agency where there would be no pressure from you or Eyrie to use that money on other players as those viable to sign were off the market.

Is that clear??

Crystal.
TGryn
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 8 2014, 06:49 AM) *
Give me some leeway in paraphrasing and an allowance for stirring the pot the day of our first preseason game:

So Colonel Jessup, if you gave the order that Santiago not be touched, and nobody ever disobeys your orders, then why was Santiago in danger?

So Coach Kelly, if because of McCoy, the opposition constantly played defense against us with tight man coverage and a single high safety resulting in very few double teams on Jackson and very little "extra space" benefit garnered by our other WR's as a result of Jackson's coverage, then how did Jackson get over 1,300 receiving yards? Wasn't he, and the team, very successful against the type of defense likely to be deployed against us again this year?

I want the truth!!

You want the truth?

You can't handle the truth!

Because deep down inside the sound proof walls of this organization, they NEED that money in the bank, they WANT that money in the bank! Guys like you, Nephillymike and Zero, you like to ignore this inconvenient fact and instead try to minimize the impact of Jackson by pointing to things like Tweets and bad behavior and not buying into the system and skeletons in his closet (which still haven't come out) when all along it was obvious by HIS production and the production of his teamates that he was a fit for our scheme and although this decision was made months before, in the end it was a MONEY decision with the trigger pulled at just the right time after the big spending weeks of free agency where there would be no pressure from you or Eyrie to use that money on other players as those viable to sign were off the market.

Is that clear??

Crystal.
One question, lieutenant: If Jackson's release was ALL about the MONEY, how do you explain DeMeco Ryans and his $6.9 mil cap hit in 2014?
koolaidluke
1. Chip hates small receivers
2. Maclin was coming back and the Eagles were already (inexplicably) committed to Cooper as a starter
3. Chip disliked Desean and was tired of dealing with him
4. Cutting Desean saved some money which will be needed to extend Foles and others this season
5. Chip dramatically underestimates how important Desean was the offenses success last season


Put those things together and it is obvious why Desean is gone. Big mistake if you ask me.
JeeQ
For the sake of my Eagles I hope DeSean doesn't have a season anywhere as close to his last one
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Aug 8 2014, 07:42 AM) *
One question, lieutenant: If Jackson's release was ALL about the MONEY, how do you explain DeMeco Ryans and his $6.9 mil cap hit in 2014?


Could say that defense on cutting a bunch of players to lower the cap spent much lower than they did. Why just stop at Ryans? Could shave another 12 M with a few targeted cuts.

Reality was that they wanted to get to their comfort zone of 85% of cap. Fantasy was they would spend Jackson's money on improving this year's team. They've demonstrated over most of the last few years that 85-90% of cap is their limit on their financial commitment. It's a shame, really. We and the players deserve more. Tomorrow never knows.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 8 2014, 08:53 PM) *
Could say that defense on cutting a bunch of players to lower the cap spent much lower than they did. Why just stop at Ryans? Could shave another 12 M with a few targeted cuts.

Reality was that they wanted to get to their comfort zone of 85% of cap. Fantasy was they would spend Jackson's money on improving this year's team. They've demonstrated over most of the last few years that 85-90% of cap is their limit on their financial commitment. It's a shame, really. We and the players deserve more. Tomorrow never knows.



I think the reality of it is pretty simple. From everything I have read from all the beat writers it is a 2 pronged reason. Did Howie like saving the money? No question. Was that at the heart of the reason? No. It just made Howie much easier to convince when Kelly came to him and said "I want this little piece of shit gone".....everyone is pointing to Jackson's career year and they ignore the fact that EVERYONE had career years in this offense. Kelly gracefully put up with all of Jackson's distractions and realized after the season that, while everyone else who had a terrific year was all in on team, Jackson was just more empowered to be a me guy by his great year. Saving all that money just made convincing Howie easy.

Again...and I still want an answer that I don't think you have given me.....You make Jackson out to be one of the greatest WRs in the league right now......so whne he becomes a free agent and all 31 teams can BID for his service does he only sign for 8 million/year and that is from a guy who is known to overspend on talent? Where was the rest of the league? No other teams need a topflite WR for 9 million?

I guess they are wrong as well....just sayin.....
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Aug 10 2014, 11:12 AM) *
I think the reality of it is pretty simple. From everything I have read from all the beat writers it is a 2 pronged reason. Did Howie like saving the money? No question. Was that at the heart of the reason? No. It just made Howie much easier to convince when Kelly came to him and said "I want this little piece of shit gone".....everyone is pointing to Jackson's career year and they ignore the fact that EVERYONE had career years in this offense. Kelly gracefully put up with all of Jackson's distractions and realized after the season that, while everyone else who had a terrific year was all in on team, Jackson was just more empowered to be a me guy by his great year. Saving all that money just made convincing Howie easy.

Again...and I still want an answer that I don't think you have given me.....You make Jackson out to be one of the greatest WRs in the league right now......so whne he becomes a free agent and all 31 teams can BID for his service does he only sign for 8 million/year and that is from a guy who is known to overspend on talent? Where was the rest of the league? No other teams need a topflite WR for 9 million?

I guess they are wrong as well....just sayin.....



Well RF my friend, either the golf game is real good and you're drinking too much in celebration, or it's real bad and you're drinking too much in sorrow, but you have forgotten my previous response to this question so I will give you another source:

http://www.spotrac.com/free-agents/nfl/wide-receiver/

Even though he was cut free long after all the free agency money was spent, he got the 2nd highest total dollars in his contract and the highest amount per year of any WR's. (BTW, no proof that only WAS was interested. They may have just had the best offer) Had he been let go before FA started, he would have made much more. And why wasn't he cut lose earlier? Because had he been cut before free agency, the Eagle fans would have had sugar plums dancing in their heads about where we would spend his money. By waiting to do it until after the major spending was done, Howie saved himself the hassle of having to defend why he didn't spend it on this year's team. Fans who don't dig too deep just see it as, well there was no one left to spend it on, instead of asking why they didn't cut ties earlier to give themselves the opportunity to spend it on someone worthy. Answer is, their football reason was a financial reason. We all know they weren't holding on to him to trade him on draft day as the fact they let him go before the draft disproves that. Hey, if they can win a SB on spending 85-90% of the cap, more power to them. I don't think they can. Too little margin for error.
Zero
Mikey, you are one cynical muthafuka. How about the thought that Howie had been trying to trade him, maybe since the end of 2013? Maybe no other team wanted what they perceived as baggage, distractions and problems. As you have asked, why just give him away? One obvious possibility is that teams knew the Eagles would cut him. They wouldn't have known that if the Eagles hadn't of been shopping him. Fact is, neither of us knows because they ain't sayin.
Phits
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 10 2014, 12:52 PM) *
Hey, if they can win a SB on spending 85-90% of the cap, more power to them. I don't think they can. Too little margin for error.

Based on the "cap space" the Colts, Packers and Bengals disagree with you and share the Eagles sentiment.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Phits @ Aug 10 2014, 01:11 PM) *
Based on the "cap space" the Colts, Packers and Bengals disagree with you and share the Eagles sentiment.

well, there's Hertz and there's not exactly.

http://www.spotrac.com/cap-tracker/nfl/

Seems like the Jags Browns and Jets share our philosophy and given that they are on not on championship doorstep that is acceptable for them.

I happen to think we have a legit shot and it isn't acceptable for us. Those three playoff teams you mentioned have another FA worth of cap used in their numbers versus us.

What does $3.0 M in cap space buy you?:

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/philadelphia-eagles/cap/2014/

Could we have used another Malcolm Jenkins level FA on D this year?

I think we could squeeze this potential defensive FA and his 2.6M cap figure under our cap this year. no??

It would be tough, only having 16.4M of cap space left after we signed the prospective defensive FA and all but I think we'd be able to pay the bills...............................................

nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Aug 10 2014, 12:37 PM) *
Mikey, you are one cynical muthafuka. How about the thought that Howie had been trying to trade him, maybe since the end of 2013? Maybe no other team wanted what they perceived as baggage, distractions and problems. As you have asked, why just give him away? One obvious possibility is that teams knew the Eagles would cut him. They wouldn't have known that if the Eagles hadn't of been shopping him. Fact is, neither of us knows because they ain't sayin.



Damn Z, you threw out the MFword............ouch. If I was sensitive, I may have found reason to be offended but no worries, I'm not.

Let's work this thru:

1. Based upon whatever criteria, be it gangs, work ethic, non blocking, non commitment to the team concept, small size, whatever, the Eagles make the decision that DJ and his salary are not worth it. They either made that decision at the end of the season, or maybe shortly thereafter when DJ skipped his exit interview. So right after the Saints game, they know they are going in another direction. The fact that Maclin is coming back and the draft is ripe with WR talent makes that decision easier.

Decison is over, only the timing and method of his departure remain.

So it is early January and the decision is made, what and when to do?

2. Try to hone in and resign Cooper and Maclin. If you want to jettison Jackson, it would make sense to have those two back. As Eskin reported as early as a few days after the NO loss, the Eagles were targeting Cooper and Maclin:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200000031...ign-with-eagles

And that happened. 2/27 Cooper resigns, 2/28 Maclin resigns.

http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/team/transactions.html

3. Now it is February 28th. You got Maclin, you got Cooper. The decision to cut ties with Jackson was already made.
When and how is the best way to do this? There are two options: #1. If they haven't done so already, which you say they did, try to trade him up to the start of FA, March 11th. If you are right and they were already unsuccessful in doing that, then they likely know they won't get anything right now for him. If that is the case, they have two options after realizing nobody wants him #1. cut him now and use his money to improve the team by signing more FA's with his money. or #2. hold on to him until drat day when his value will increase because someone will inevitably miss out on the WR they wanted to draft. They decide not to cut him loose then. Surely they made the decision to hold onto him uintil his value increases at draft time on May 8th.

They sit by and watch FA after FA get deals done between 3/11 and 3/27. During this period 95% of the money spent in free agncy is spent by teams trying to improve their teams. No biggie for the Eagles right? They will stick by their decsion and will be Sam Hinkie patient and just wait until draft day to trade him and get more value for him.

Well not quite. They decide on March 28th to cut Jackson. Although the move is anything but under the radar, a major reason for it does go under the radar. In all the racism, gang, bad apple, thug diversions that are discussed ad nauseum (sp?), nobody follows the money nor hones in on the timing. The decision to cut ties with Jackson which was made months before was executed at a time when the Eagles had no viable options to spend his money on (free agency being essentially over), and early enough to prevent utilizing him as a trade chip come draft day which was over a month away. It would seem from the outside to be a horrible return on a valuable asset, but from a closer look, it is a means to get the team spending back to a comfortable familiar level. Again, the masses ask will we be able to make up for DJ being gone and fret with the media about whether or not we will be. All along, the real issue about whether or not this team is good enough this year to pocket Jackson's money without using it to improve the team flies under the radar.

Eagles management is not stupid. They made a calculated decision and planned it out the way it happened. They succesfullly did it in a way that escapes a ton of criticism. As long as Maclin and Cooper are fairly successful, in all likelihood, their decision will never be under the microscope again. (If Mac and Coop flop then the heat will come) Even if we fall short of a Super Bowl title, even if it could have been caused by their decision not to use DJ's money to get more talent on this team,( it's not like we haven't been there for the last 54 years or so) so that won't stand out either.

Well played sirs, well played.

Now these Z are the ramblings of a cynical Mfer. The previous semi rant was nothing.......................................
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Aug 10 2014, 11:12 AM) *
I think the reality of it is pretty simple. From everything I have read from all the beat writers it is a 2 pronged reason. Did Howie like saving the money? No question. Was that at the heart of the reason? No. It just made Howie much easier to convince when Kelly came to him and said "I want this little piece of shit gone".....everyone is pointing to Jackson's career year and they ignore the fact that EVERYONE had career years in this offense. Kelly gracefully put up with all of Jackson's distractions and realized after the season that, while everyone else who had a terrific year was all in on team, Jackson was just more empowered to be a me guy by his great year. Saving all that money just made convincing Howie easy.

Again...and I still want an answer that I don't think you have given me.....You make Jackson out to be one of the greatest WRs in the league right now......so whne he becomes a free agent and all 31 teams can BID for his service does he only sign for 8 million/year and that is from a guy who is known to overspend on talent? Where was the rest of the league? No other teams need a topflite WR for 9 million?

I guess they are wrong as well....just sayin.....



Here's another look at it RF: Third in the NFL in avg guaranteed money per year for all WR's, despite enterin gthe market after most of Fa money was spent. Relatively speaking, DJ did just fine:

http://overthecap.com/contracts/
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 10 2014, 06:16 PM) *
Damn Z, you threw out the MFword............ouch. If I was sensitive, I may have found reason to be offended but no worries, I'm not.

Now these Z are the ramblings of a cynical Mfer. The previous semi rant was nothing.......................................

I hope you know I meant no offense, shoulda used biggrin.gif . Apologies for misconduct.

Your scenario is plausible but limited to theory nonetheless. The gaping hole in it, IMO is that the Eagles would voluntarily give up a player with that production and get nothing in return. Not a seventh round pick, not a practice squad player ... nada, nothing, zip, zero ... voluntarily, a team that is rebuilding! If you believe they're not stupid, why would they do that? If they get a late round pick or a first year practice squader, they still save Jackson's salary but at least have snow ball's chance of adding something to a team laying a new foundation. To me, that says that either they wanted to screw Jackson or tried to get something in exchange with no takers.

BTW, I've always thought referring to a married man with children as a MF was somewhat complimentary. --> biggrin.gif
koolaidluke
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 10 2014, 06:16 PM) *
Eagles management is not stupid. They made a calculated decision and planned it out the way it happened. They succesfullly did it in a way that escapes a ton of criticism


what makes you think the Eagles FO cares about criticism? They seem pretty indifferent to me.

Also, keep in mind that after last season Chip Kelly and, to a lesser extent, the FO had achieved God like status amongst the fan base to the point where the fans would have probably supported ANY move the FO made.
nephillymike
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Aug 10 2014, 06:00 PM) *
what makes you think the Eagles FO cares about criticism? They seem pretty indifferent to me.

Also, keep in mind that after last season Chip Kelly and, to a lesser extent, the FO had achieved God like status amongst the fan base to the point where the fans would have probably supported ANY move the FO made.



Not sure if you have access to the Philly ariwaves where you are, but God or not, Chip and the FO received a ton of criticism about the Jackson release. Even this week, it is still a major topic on sports talk airwaves around here.

For the record, I don't have much of a problem with cutting Jackson. I'm not sayig he's the be all end all. He was very successful in our O last year, but so was Coop and maybe Mac will be also. He's not one of my favorites. Now there is pressure on them that they made the right decision on Maclin's health and since they were front and center during his recovery they had more info than I in that regard but they need to be right on that part of it.

My criticism is that they got nothing for him in trade nor did they use his money to sign another FA at a position of need . Want to part ways, OK. But get me some picks or players in a trade, or a player with his money in FA. Even in a bad time when the teams had little money to spend, he got the third highest guaranteed money per year for all WR's. That says he was valuable. No excuse not to get something in return.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Aug 10 2014, 05:42 PM) *
I hope you know I meant no offense, shoulda used biggrin.gif . Apologies for misconduct.

Your scenario is plausible but limited to theory nonetheless. The gaping hole in it, IMO is that the Eagles would voluntarily give up a player with that production and get nothing in return. Not a seventh round pick, not a practice squad player ... nada, nothing, zip, zero ... voluntarily, a team that is rebuilding! If you believe they're not stupid, why would they do that? If they get a late round pick or a first year practice squader, they still save Jackson's salary but at least have snow ball's chance of adding something to a team laying a new foundation. To me, that says that either they wanted to screw Jackson or tried to get something in exchange with no takers.

BTW, I've always thought referring to a married man with children as a MF was somewhat complimentary. --> biggrin.gif


I can see why you think there is a hole but play it out. They are NOT stupid. That is the hole. Let's say they tried to trade him in good faith and were totally disappointed in the lack of offers up until March 28th. At that point, they probably had some offers, maybe a few 7ths or a 6th etc, but let's say they were beside themselves in disappointment. They are experienced managmement that knows that trade value increases during the draft. If the offers didn't improve, then they could dump him for the 6th's of 7ths they were offered in February and the fan base would say they tried and the market for Jackson's antics wasn't there. What they did was the equivilant of the Phillies cutting an All star asset June 25th because nobody gave us good offeres in a trade then. Everyone knows you hold on to the baseball player until July 31st when the market improves.

Case in point. What did we get for RB B. Brown? That was huge! Don't you think, even with DJ's salary, that a team sitting there in early 2nd round who just had the rug pulled out from under them because the all of the WR's they had high on their board inexplicably got drafted earlier than they projected, would be ripe to give us a good pick and/or some players for him?

In a heart beat.

They are smart.
They knew alll about the likelihood of an improved market.
It didn't matter.
They met their objective.
Phits
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 10 2014, 05:15 PM) *
well, there's Hertz and there's not exactly.

http://www.spotrac.com/cap-tracker/nfl/

Seems like the Jags Browns and Jets share our philosophy and given that they are on not on championship doorstep that is acceptable for them.

IMO, these 3 teams are at the same level of competitiveness as we are and have a large amount of cap space available:

Colts +$16.7 million
Bengals +$16 million
GB +$12 million

Then again Detroit is -358k over the cap and they aren't considered to be a competitor. I guess using all of your cap space for the sake of using all of your money isn't necessarily a recipe for success.

nephillymike
QUOTE (Phits @ Aug 10 2014, 06:53 PM) *
IMO, these 3 teams are at the same level of competitiveness as we are and have a large amount of cap space available:

Colts +$16.7 million
Bengals +$16 million
GB +$12 million

Then again Detroit is -358k over the cap and they aren't considered to be a competitor. I guess using all of your cap space for the sake of using all of your money isn't necessarily a recipe for success.



They have less than us. My point is buying another Jenkins like FA uses up only 2+M of cap room and that would put us down with them (from 19M to 16M). Buy two more and we're down in the GB range. But we didn't do that. If you think Jenkins was a good pickup for his 2.6M of cap, don't you think we should have gotten someone else like him in a PON, especially given Jackson's cap money we got rid of? I don't think that is unreasonable. I'm not asking them to break the bank, just to improve the team this year with the mony we saved from Jackson. Would you be Ok if we had kept Jackson and the team turned around and made $10M of cuts of other players on the team to bring their cap down to where it is now?

I wouldn't.
Phits
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 10 2014, 08:02 PM) *
They have less than us. My point is buying another Jenkins like FA uses up only 2+M of cap room and that would put us down with them (from 19M to 16M). Buy two more and we're down in the GB range. But we didn't do that. If you think Jenkins was a good pickup for his 2.6M of cap, don't you think we should have gotten someone else like him in a PON, especially given Jackson's cap money we got rid of? I don't think that is unreasonable. I'm not asking them to break the bank, just to improve the team this year with the mony we saved from Jackson. Would you be Ok if we had kept Jackson and the team turned around and made $10M of cuts of other players on the team to bring their cap down to where it is now?

I wouldn't.

Would you be OK if the team signed a bunch of players, just to use the available cap space and those players ended up like Aso? Now we have a bunch of dead weight and no cap space.

I wouldn't. Sometimes the move(s) you don't make are the best ones.

Jenkins was a solid pick-up, so was Sproles....and the Eagles had a solid draft, and it is year 2 of a new football program. I just don't see the need to panic.

nephillymike
QUOTE (Phits @ Aug 10 2014, 07:21 PM) *
Would you be OK if the team signed a bunch of players, just to use the available cap space and those players ended up like Aso? Now we have a bunch of dead weight and no cap space.

I wouldn't. Sometimes the move(s) you don't make are the best ones.

Jenkins was a solid pick-up, so was Sproles....and the Eagles had a solid draft, and it is year 2 of a new football program. I just don't see the need to panic.



I didn't say a bunch and i didn't say no cap space.

What we're talking about is one or two more additions at about $5M of cap space getting us down to $14M of cap space left. Not breaking the bank.

You say it's year two, true. But if 2016 is your year, keep in mind that Peters, mathis and McCoy may not be near their current level of play and they are our three best players.

This ain't the NBA. It's the NFL where the average career is less than four years, injuries change the landscape annually and each year five or more of the playoff teams were not n the playoffs the year before.

Need to go for it while we have a shot with the best RB in his prime in the best running game in the NFL.

koolaidluke
I think it would have been impossible to move that contract and Desean would never have renegotiated to facilitate a trade.

Philly airwaves I don't know about, but on Eagles message boards I have seen a huge amount of support for getting rid of Desean. Where I did see a lot of doubt/anger about the move was amongst the more casual fans.


Personally I think they should have kept him for another year regardless. I mean, he was gone anyway next year so what' the harm in having him play one last transitory season? The only way cutting him was the right move was if the Eagles had plans for that 6 mil they saved or if they believed that Riley Cooper is a good receiver. If the latter is true then the Eagles are in big, big trouble because Riley Cooper sucks.
nephillymike
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Aug 10 2014, 08:33 PM) *
I think it would have been impossible to move that contract and Desean would never have renegotiated to facilitate a trade.

Philly airwaves I don't know about, but on Eagles message boards I have seen a huge amount of support for getting rid of Desean. Where I did see a lot of doubt/anger about the move was amongst the more casual fans.


Personally I think they should have kept him for another year regardless. I mean, he was gone anyway next year so what' the harm in having him play one last transitory season? The only way cutting him was the right move was if the Eagles had plans for that 6 mil they saved or if they believed that Riley Cooper is a good receiver. If the latter is true then the Eagles are in big, big trouble because Riley Cooper sucks.


Dropped playoff pass aside, and I know that's no small thing, I don't understnad the popular Cooper sucks mantra.

Dude hustled, fought for the ball, ran good patterns and made some real nice catches last year. I expect him to continue that this year.

I can see if people want to call him racist for what he said, but his play on the field was at a high level.
JeeQ
The Eagles are the "Gold Standard" when it comes to fielding a quality team while having a lot of cap space available...

They also have no Super Bowl wins...
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 10 2014, 11:52 AM) *
Well RF my friend, either the golf game is real good and you're drinking too much in celebration, or it's real bad and you're drinking too much in sorrow, but you have forgotten my previous response to this question so I will give you another source:

http://www.spotrac.com/free-agents/nfl/wide-receiver/

Even though he was cut free long after all the free agency money was spent, he got the 2nd highest total dollars in his contract and the highest amount per year of any WR's. (BTW, no proof that only WAS was interested. They may have just had the best offer) Had he been let go before FA started, he would have made much more. And why wasn't he cut lose earlier? Because had he been cut before free agency, the Eagle fans would have had sugar plums dancing in their heads about where we would spend his money. By waiting to do it until after the major spending was done, Howie saved himself the hassle of having to defend why he didn't spend it on this year's team. Fans who don't dig too deep just see it as, well there was no one left to spend it on, instead of asking why they didn't cut ties earlier to give themselves the opportunity to spend it on someone worthy. Answer is, their football reason was a financial reason. We all know they weren't holding on to him to trade him on draft day as the fact they let him go before the draft disproves that. Hey, if they can win a SB on spending 85-90% of the cap, more power to them. I don't think they can. Too little margin for error.


I think they came to the same conclusion as the Eagles...The guy is a dick who benefited from Kelly's offense just like the rest of the players in skill positions.

Right now there are 13 teams with 10 million or more in cap space and none needed an upgrade at WR? Hell...the Eagles are 3 or 4th right now under the cap......The jets have plenty of cash.....The Jags......?

And my golf game keeps me sane..it keeps me busy so I don't lose my mind reading some of the crazy stuff here....

How about Canton and Andre finally getting in....wild party
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 10 2014, 11:52 AM) *
Well RF my friend, either the golf game is real good and you're drinking too much in celebration, or it's real bad and you're drinking too much in sorrow, but you have forgotten my previous response to this question so I will give you another source:

http://www.spotrac.com/free-agents/nfl/wide-receiver/

Even though he was cut free long after all the free agency money was spent, he got the 2nd highest total dollars in his contract and the highest amount per year of any WR's. (BTW, no proof that only WAS was interested. They may have just had the best offer) Had he been let go before FA started, he would have made much more. And why wasn't he cut lose earlier? Because had he been cut before free agency, the Eagle fans would have had sugar plums dancing in their heads about where we would spend his money. By waiting to do it until after the major spending was done, Howie saved himself the hassle of having to defend why he didn't spend it on this year's team. Fans who don't dig too deep just see it as, well there was no one left to spend it on, instead of asking why they didn't cut ties earlier to give themselves the opportunity to spend it on someone worthy. Answer is, their football reason was a financial reason. We all know they weren't holding on to him to trade him on draft day as the fact they let him go before the draft disproves that. Hey, if they can win a SB on spending 85-90% of the cap, more power to them. I don't think they can. Too little margin for error.


I think they came to the same conclusion as the Eagles...The guy is a dick who benefited from Kelly's offense just like the rest of the players in skill positions.

Right now there are 13 teams with 10 million or more in cap space and none needed an upgrade at WR? Hell...the Eagles are 3 or 4th right now under the cap......The jets have plenty of cash.....The Jags......?

And my golf game keeps me sane..it keeps me busy so I don't lose my mind reading some of the crazy stuff here....

How about Canton and Andre finally getting in....wild party
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 10 2014, 07:53 PM) *
Don't you think, even with DJ's salary, that a team sitting there in early 2nd round who just had the rug pulled out from under them because the all of the WR's they had high on their board inexplicably got drafted earlier than they projected, would be ripe to give us a good pick and/or some players for him?

In a heart beat.

They are smart.
They knew alll about the likelihood of an improved market.
It didn't matter.
They met their objective.

This is where you keep losing me. What is the benefit for the team by getting no compensation for Jackson? Unless you believe the team is lying when they say they want to win the SB as much or more than the fans, unless you think they won't increase revenue by winning more games, what do they gain by reducing their payroll without adding to their foundation?
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Aug 11 2014, 04:25 AM) *
This is where you keep losing me. What is the benefit for the team by getting no compensation for Jackson? Unless you believe the team is lying when they say they want to win the SB as much or more than the fans, unless you think they won't increase revenue by winning more games, what do they gain by reducing their payroll without adding to their foundation?

The benefit is profit.

The money they saved by cutting DJ goes right to the bottom line.

It's been pointed out, correctly, that there is no guarantee of a SB if they full spend the cap.

There is a guarantee of $10M or whatever more profit if they bank his money.

Could they make some of it back if they go one more round further? Yes. But that is not guaranteed like banking his money is.

They want to win a SB within the parameters of a certain payroll. History has shown that those parameters over the years has been the 85-90% of the cap range. I gotta believe that the team is able to make a profit at full cap spending otherwise the league wouldn't have set it up that way. However they make more at 85%. They aren't pigs and don't go for a 75% spend, but they do like the certainty of the higher profit levels it would seem.
Eyrie
This feels plain wrong but I agree with Mikey ohmy.gif that the decision to cut Jackson was made early because there were reports at the time that the Eagles tried to get Maclin on a long term deal which would have tied up serious money in our WRs.

But to make me feel better tongue.gif I'd go with the counter argument that having made that decision the Eagles must have tried for a trade partner and clearly couldn't find one. Whether that was because it was too obvious that he would be cut or because the price was too high, I don't know.
Zero
oops
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 11 2014, 06:41 AM) *
The benefit is profit.

No! How much does a first or second year player from the practice squad cost? How much does a 5th, 6th or 7th round draft pick cost? Nothing compared to Jackson's money ... nothing! That argument doesn't hold water. The team could have used a talent "chance" and could still have saved that money. The logic, lieutenant points to "nobody wanted him."
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Aug 10 2014, 11:09 PM) *
I think they came to the same conclusion as the Eagles...The guy is a dick who benefited from Kelly's offense just like the rest of the players in skill positions.

Right now there are 13 teams with 10 million or more in cap space and none needed an upgrade at WR? Hell...the Eagles are 3 or 4th right now under the cap......The jets have plenty of cash.....The Jags......?

And my golf game keeps me sane..it keeps me busy so I don't lose my mind reading some of the crazy stuff here....

How about Canton and Andre finally getting in....wild party


I remembered you when listening to him speak that day. I thought there was a chance you were there. How was it? What is your connection to him, a friend from Kutztown?
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Aug 11 2014, 06:18 PM) *
No! How much does a first or second year player from the practice squad cost? How much does a 5th, 6th or 7th round draft pick cost? Nothing compared to Jackson's money ... nothing! That argument doesn't hold water. The team could have used a talent "chance" and could still have saved that money. The logic, lieutenant points to "nobody wanted him."



Hey Z, it's not the draft picks that cost real money. It's using the money saved of Jackson on a free agent that is the cost they wanted to avoid and did so successfully. Draft picks are almost cap neutral. It's the free agents!!!

Capiche??

Do you really believe that if they held onto Jackson until draft day, that they wouldn't have gotten anything for him?

Do you really believe that if they cut him March 1st after they resigned Cooper and Maclin and took Jackson's $10 M of salary (and 6.5M of jackson's cap space) and went out in the free agency market with that asset that they could have gotten talent to improve this team over where they are now?

Truth is you don't believe either of these statements.

I enjoy the debate but you know we would be in better position if they had done either of the above.

The strongest argument you have is the fact that Eyrie agrees with me.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 11 2014, 09:47 PM) *
Hey Z, it's not the draft picks that cost real money. It's using the money saved of Jackson on a free agent that is the cost they wanted to avoid and did so successfully. Draft picks are almost cap neutral. It's the free agents!!!

Capiche??

Do you really believe that if they held onto Jackson until draft day, that they wouldn't have gotten anything for him?

Do you really believe that if they cut him March 1st after they resigned Cooper and Maclin and took Jackson's $10 M of salary (and 6.5M of jackson's cap space) and went out in the free agency market with that asset that they could have gotten talent to improve this team over where they are now?

Truth is you don't believe either of these statements.

I enjoy the debate but you know we would be in better position if they had done either of the above.

The strongest argument you have is the fact that Eyrie agrees with me.
Haha! Being on the wrong side of Eyrie is safer when there's high winds. laugh.gif

All I'm saying is it wasn't just money. I'm sure they're in love with their cap space and that it was a big part of his release. I've never defended them for that or for not getting compensation in return. That's my point, the compensation. Why would they not get something in return? I don't think you've answered that point. I don't mean spend the money someplace else because that's not part of my point either.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Aug 12 2014, 07:05 AM) *
Haha! Being on the wrong side of Eyrie is safer when there's high winds. laugh.gif

All I'm saying is it wasn't just money. I'm sure they're in love with their cap space and that it was a big part of his release. I've never defended them for that or for not getting compensation in return. That's my point, the compensation. Why would they not get something in return? I don't think you've answered that point. I don't mean spend the money someplace else because that's not part of my point either.


Assets like Jackson don't come every year

Why not get anything in return?

I think they needed to know, or hope they knew, that they would get something if they waited until draft day. What that something would be, who knows.

Why not wait until then? One thing is maybe they wanted to give Jackson the benefit of hooking up with someone ASAP. It is easier to do that March 28th than weeks later.

Maybe they thought that Jackson wanted a new deal with more guaranteed money and wouldn't go anywhere that wouldn't redo his deal. Funny thing is, Jackson is much better off financially than he would be if he stayed here. He got a bunch more guaranteed money. That would sour his trade value, but not to the point of having no value come draft day.

If he was a bad seed, I don't see them going out of their way to let him go early. However, I could see where he could have made it difficult to trade him if he demanded a new deal with the trade but really it is common place these days to give a new deal in those situations. (See Eagles et Sproles, Darren). So a diminished field yes, non existent, no way.

They had no way to know that jackson would get them nothing in May draft.

Why let him go March 28th? The first day of offseason workouts was to begin 4/21. They didn't want more distractions. They were done. Their objective was met (saving money and cap) no need to wait.

They and their $10M of cash and $6.5M of cap moved on.

Eagles management is very happy and richer for it.

Jackson is very happy and richer for it.

The Redskins and their faithful fans are very happy.

Maybe the move will make us better this year and and we'll win the Super Bowl and our football experience will be richer for it. I don't think they made us better.

54 years and waiting, we deserved better. .

Zero
I agree with your sentiment but if the release wasn't in response to no interest the only answer I can figure is they were being good to the player. If not a business that would be a good thing.
JaxEagle
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Aug 8 2014, 09:30 AM) *
1. Chip hates small receivers
2. Maclin was coming back and the Eagles were already (inexplicably) committed to Cooper as a starter
3. Chip disliked Desean and was tired of dealing with him
4. Cutting Desean saved some money which will be needed to extend Foles and others this season
5. Chip dramatically underestimates how important Desean was the offenses success last season


Put those things together and it is obvious why Desean is gone. Big mistake if you ask me.

No arguments from me. But, if a guy is an asshole then I respect the coaches desire to not deal with an asshole. I think there is a big difference between the occasional rub you the wrong way and being an asshole all the time. Too bad for us. We shall see if chemistry matters more than deep speed.
koolaidluke
QUOTE (JaxEagle @ Aug 14 2014, 07:56 PM) *
No arguments from me. But, if a guy is an asshole then I respect the coaches desire to not deal with an asshole. I think there is a big difference between the occasional rub you the wrong way and being an asshole all the time. Too bad for us. We shall see if chemistry matters more than deep speed.


I don't think there is any question that Desean is not a victim in this situation. He has claimed (in so many words) that he tried to meet Chip half way, which is all you can reasonably expect from a diva WR, but calling your position coach a "faggot" during a game, continuing with the Instagram gang banger stuff after repeatedly being asked to stop and blowing off the exit interview is not meeting Chip or the FO half way in my book.

I think Desean was valuable enough that you put up with his bullshit if you are serious about winning a Superbowl this season, but I totally understand why the Eagles made the decision they did.
Pila
"We always talked about being an eight-man front," one defensive coach said. "So, the worst thing we could do was play Cover 2. So we always went to an eight-man front with Cover 1 or Cover 3. And really the basis behind that is they want to run the ball. They're a run-first, pass-second team."

Cover 2, which lightens the box to seven defenders, serves as an open invitation to run the football. That's what the Eagles do best, so bringing an extra defender into the box helps fortify a run defense.

From a pass defense perspective, defenses want to be physical with the Eagles' wide receivers.

"The thing that gave them issues -- DeSean Jackson isn't very strong at the line of scrimmage," said an assistant coach. "We played Cover 1 and pressed him and just jammed the [expletive] out of him, and he couldn't get off the line. That's the other good thing about playing an eight-man front, especially in Cover 1, if you get the timing off of those receivers, especially the little guys, it screws everything up."

-Defensive coordinators asked to dissect Eagles offense on ESPN Insider, link is on
Phillymag.com

Mikey could probably profit better if only he learned to apply Occam's Razor to his daily speculations.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Pila @ Aug 15 2014, 12:47 AM) *
"We always talked about being an eight-man front," one defensive coach said. "So, the worst thing we could do was play Cover 2. So we always went to an eight-man front with Cover 1 or Cover 3. And really the basis behind that is they want to run the ball. They're a run-first, pass-second team."

Cover 2, which lightens the box to seven defenders, serves as an open invitation to run the football. That's what the Eagles do best, so bringing an extra defender into the box helps fortify a run defense.

From a pass defense perspective, defenses want to be physical with the Eagles' wide receivers.

"The thing that gave them issues -- DeSean Jackson isn't very strong at the line of scrimmage," said an assistant coach. "We played Cover 1 and pressed him and just jammed the [expletive] out of him, and he couldn't get off the line. That's the other good thing about playing an eight-man front, especially in Cover 1, if you get the timing off of those receivers, especially the little guys, it screws everything up."

-Defensive coordinators asked to dissect Eagles offense on ESPN Insider, link is on
Phillymag.com

Mikey could probably profit better if only he learned to apply Occam's Razor to his daily speculations.

If it's few assumptions you prefer, I can oblige if you allow me two:

1. The team preferred Maclin and a draft pick over Jackson.

2. The team preferred to increase the amount of unused cap space.

As far as the defensive game plan against us, it is nothing we haven't heard before. Chip said as much last week. The impetus for the man to man defense with single safety over the top was our running game. Any perceived issues it gave Jackson was secondary. Some say Jackson struggled, but as my first thread asks, how much did he struggle if he had a 1,300 yard Pro Bowl year. Let's hope Maclin struggles as much. For the record, I am not a big Jackson fan.
Pila
Maybe it had something to do with the fact that not all teams can press as effectively and that when they did, Chip started finding ways of getting Jackson in motion and lining him up in the backfield to avoid the jam, but this limited his offense and the use of Jackson.

The fact that he's less likable than some guys could have made this decision easier. The fact that they could also save a few pennies may have removed any doubts. But everything learned from a football perspective since the off-season began points to a decision based on Chip's efforts to build a championship calibre team molded in his vision.

The real reason your speculation is absurd though is the notion that Chip cares about saving Lurie money, or that management would risk pissing off their coach by suggesting he release his best WR to stuff Lurie's pocket with another handful of a few million. If Chip smells even a scented sweat bead of anything less than 100% commitment to building the best team possible in his image, he's packing.

For the record, I'm a big fan of Jackson.
koolaidluke
There will only 2 teams that were successful jamming Desean at the line during the Eagles 7-2 run down the stretch: the Cardinals and the Saints (for 3/4 of the game). I can think of plenty of times when teams tried to jam Desean and he blew the top off the defense.


re cover 2: The cowboys suffocated the Eagles in the last game of the season by playing with 2 deep safeties. Avant and Celek bailed out Foles with amazing catches but other than that Foles did next to nothing aside from hitting Byrce Brown on a blown coverage against a wheel route. This idea that teams can't play 2 deep against the Eagles is baloney. Hell, the Bears played 2 deep against the Eagles just last week and their starters had no problems with the Eagles run game.
Phits
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 15 2014, 06:12 AM) *
If it's few assumptions you prefer, I can oblige if you allow me two:

1. The team preferred Maclin and a draft pick over Jackson.

2. The team preferred to increase the amount of unused cap space.

As far as the defensive game plan against us, it is nothing we haven't heard before. Chip said as much last week. The impetus for the man to man defense with single safety over the top was our running game. Any perceived issues it gave Jackson was secondary. Some say Jackson struggled, but as my first thread asks, how much did he struggle if he had a 1,300 yard Pro Bowl year. Let's hope Maclin struggles as much. For the record, I am not a big Jackson fan.

Jackson's yards per reception were on par with his career average. Consider that Riley Cooper led the team in yards/reception. Only 1 player on the team averaged less than double digit yards/reception. It lends to the argument that the system exceeds the value of a player.

If the same holds true, Maclin should not have the statistical season that Jackson had last season. If Foles can play around 80% (of what he did last season) it is likely that we will have 3 receivers around the 1000 yard mark. The pressure is on Foles, not Maclin or any other receiver.
Pila
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Aug 15 2014, 02:20 PM) *
There will only 2 teams that were successful jamming Desean at the line during the Eagles 7-2 run down the stretch: the Cardinals and the Saints (for 3/4 of the game). I can think of plenty of times when teams tried to jam Desean and he blew the top off the defense.


re cover 2: The cowboys suffocated the Eagles in the last game of the season by playing with 2 deep safeties. Avant and Celek bailed out Foles with amazing catches but other than that Foles did next to nothing aside from hitting Byrce Brown on a blown coverage against a wheel route. This idea that teams can't play 2 deep against the Eagles is baloney. Hell, the Bears played 2 deep against the Eagles just last week and their starters had no problems with the Eagles run game.
That statement is challenged by everything that has been printed in the media, both by coaches and the media's analysts.

Even so, the point is that Mikey's speculation that Jackson was primarily released to make cap room with the bottom line being Lurie's pockets is a stretch of a very biased imagination that still operates under the folly of a narrative that the team is cheap.

I admire Mikey's number-crunching aptitude, but his crutch is an underlying prejudice for the team's administration.
koolaidluke
I really don't care what coaches say, I care what the tape shows. I guarantee you that the Eagles will see a massive amount of 2 deep coverage this season.
Pila
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Aug 15 2014, 04:07 PM) *
I really don't care what coaches say, I care what the tape shows. I guarantee you that the Eagles will see a massive amount of 2 deep coverage this season.

Shady and Chip wish your prophecies come true.

But what extensive analysis of tape printed in the media have shown is consistent with what the coaches have been saying - opponents chances to beat the Eagles lie in press coverage.

If opponents suddenly opt to go two deep, Shady will have another career year, possibly break the rushing record, as will the offense as a whole.

ps you're insane, and that's ok. wub.gif
nephillymike
QUOTE (Pila @ Aug 15 2014, 08:01 AM) *
Maybe it had something to do with the fact that not all teams can press as effectively and that when they did, Chip started finding ways of getting Jackson in motion and lining him up in the backfield to avoid the jam, but this limited his offense and the use of Jackson.

The fact that he's less likable than some guys could have made this decision easier. The fact that they could also save a few pennies may have removed any doubts. But everything learned from a football perspective since the off-season began points to a decision based on Chip's efforts to build a championship calibre team molded in his vision.

The real reason your speculation is absurd though is the notion that Chip cares about saving Lurie money, or that management would risk pissing off their coach by suggesting he release his best WR to stuff Lurie's pocket with another handful of a few million. If Chip smells even a scented sweat bead of anything less than 100% commitment to building the best team possible in his image, he's packing.

For the record, I'm a big fan of Jackson.


1. If all teams cannot press effectively, than t would be Ok to keep Jackson since he can do well vs zone.
2. If chip found ways to beat press coverage by moving him around and still managed to finish 7-2 and Jackson and the offense still had awesome years, then I would think he'd be OK with that.
3. The last six games of the regular season we averaged 32 points and 423 yards per game. It didn't look like they were all that limited. Teams adjusted their D and we adjusted our O to overcome those changes.

My absurd speculation puts the team where it prefers to be every year; 85-90% of cap.

Had they signed Coop and mac and kept Jackson, or signed Coop and Mac, cut Jackson and used Jackson's money to buy more defensive help, they would have been out of their element, way above their preferred spending level.

I have a previous post from a few months ago near the time that they let Jackson go that shows how they are always around that cap level.

As far as Chip's agreement with it, they may have said that they remain committed as they have ever been to building a winner. And at 85-90% of cap , they will have spoken the truth.

nephillymike
QUOTE (Pila @ Aug 15 2014, 10:09 AM) *
That statement is challenged by everything that has been printed in the media, both by coaches and the media's analysts.

Even so, the point is that Mikey's speculation that Jackson was primarily released to make cap room with the bottom line being Lurie's pockets is a stretch of a very biased imagination that still operates under the folly of a narrative that the team is cheap.

I admire Mikey's number-crunching aptitude, but his crutch is an underlying prejudice for the team's administration.


Nah, no prejudice.

Jeff Lurie, his new wife and his ex wife Christina Weiss Lurie are huge customers. Everyone likes them. They treat people with respect and are class and I wish them nothing but a Super Bowl.

The Eagles are my team, I want them to win a SB. I don't think leaving that much cap in the coffers this year is the way to get it done.
Pila
The teams that press well are the teams the Eagles will have to beat to get a championship. The rest are teams the Eagles will beat with or without Jackson taking up a roster spot.

Your insinuation was that the purpose for this cap space margin was Lurie's pockets. If you're suggesting that this fact is something Chip is willing to go along with, then we've reached an impasse. However, a notion that particular percent of margin of cap space is something they think is essential for long-term and short-term planning to deal with the unexpected and eventually re-sign your future stars - that would be a legitimate notion, and much easier to go along with although it would never come at the price of someone they feel is essential. But if you're now suggesting this, then you'd be shifting the goal posts in the gist of this thread.
Pila
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 16 2014, 12:31 AM) *
Nah, no prejudice.

Jeff Lurie, his new wife and his ex wife Christina Weiss Lurie are huge customers. Everyone likes them. They treat people with respect and are class and I wish them nothing but a Super Bowl.

The Eagles are my team, I want them to win a SB. I don't think leaving that much cap in the coffers this year is the way to get it done.

Your prejudice isn't a dislike for Lurie, but the fallacy that the team is cheap.
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.