Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Turning the Tables on Chicken Little Ass Wipes...
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
D Rock
We got a win. It was ugly. But, it was a win. Against a very good defense.

So, for all you chicken little ass holes who took SOOOO much pleasure in pointing to your own brilliance in hating on Chip and our Iggles last week . . .

Does anyone want to bitch and moan about the "Stupid, reach, wasted-pick" of Jordan Hicks?

C'Mon. You all were so convinced he sucked. You all were so convinced we didn't need another ILB.

Please, tell us again how horrible a reach, and what a waste of a pick Jordan Hicks was.

laugh.gif

Robberson
I loved the pick. We run a 3-4 and we had just unloaded the best RB in franchise history for a piece of peanut brittle, so an ILB like Hicks was a good move. We'll be glad we have Sanchez still when Sam 'The Talc-man' Bradford gets injured.

12-4 here we come!
mcnabbulous
Sure ya did.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 28 2015, 07:34 PM) *
Sure ya did.

laugh.gif

Also of note for the chicken little ass wipes . . .

Todd Herremens was benched in Indy. Didn't play a snap in their first win.

laugh.gif

How could chip ever let him go?!?!?!?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Sep 28 2015, 02:36 PM) *
laugh.gif

Also of note for the chicken little ass wipes . . .

Todd Herremens was benched in Indy. Didn't play a snap in their first win.

laugh.gif

How could chip ever let him go?!?!?!?

It doesn't matter that Herremans was toast. People are mad because there wasn't a plan to replace him (e.g. a rookie). Because we all know how reasonable people are around here when it comes to our rookies making mistakes.
make_it_rain
Yes, I have been very pleasantly surprised by Hicks and how well has played. Rowe had a nice game yesterday as well.

However Hicks (and to a larger extent the defense's) play does not override the concerns with the offense, specifically with QB and WR play, which is far more worrisome in my opinion.

Thankfully with the division the way it is that win bought more time to get things going offensively.
Phits
QUOTE (make_it_rain @ Sep 28 2015, 04:30 PM) *
Yes, I have been very pleasantly surprised by Hicks and how well has played. Rowe had a nice game yesterday as well.

However Hicks (and to a larger extent the defense's) play does not override the concerns with the offense, specifically with QB and WR play, which is far more worrisome in my opinion.

Thankfully with the division the way it is that win bought more time to get things going offensively.

WR's are going to drop passes, it's inevitable. The real concern is with Bradford. It appears that his years in St. Louis have left him shell shocked making him feel phantom pressure. His dump off's and check downs wouldn't be so bad if his accuracy was more like the 2nd half of the ATL game. Unfortunately, he seems to get worse with each game.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Sep 28 2015, 03:51 PM) *
WR's are going to drop passes, it's inevitable.

Yeah, but this has been excessive.

QUOTE
The real concern is with Bradford. It appears that his years in St. Louis have left him shell shocked making him feel phantom pressure. His dump off's and check downs wouldn't be so bad if his accuracy was more like the 2nd half of the ATL game. Unfortunately, he seems to get worse with each game.

Can't argue with this.
Eyrie
I'm in the clear biggrin.gif

I'm not a Kelly-hater but I am willing to criticise when he gets it wrong just as I back him for getting it right.

I didn't like the Hicks pick because we needed an OLB (and still do) but I was quick to praise him for his play against Dallas. The rest of you are playing catch up.

I had no problem letting Herremans go, but still do with the failure to replace him with a FA or rookie. I've already posted that the OL played better yesterday.

Bradford is worrying me though.

Reality Fan
QUOTE (Robberson @ Sep 28 2015, 03:25 PM) *
I loved the pick. We run a 3-4 and we had just unloaded the best RB in franchise history for a piece of peanut brittle, so an ILB like Hicks was a good move. We'll be glad we have Sanchez still when Sam 'The Talc-man' Bradford gets injured.

12-4 here we come!


you just love to demonstrate your lack of knowledge for the the NFL don't you?

McCoy was unloaded to clear his salary...not to get Alonzo....Alonzo was a throw in....a nice one...but just a throw in....

How is the best RB in Eagles history doing not having someone telling him when to go to bed and what to eat and drink?

He has had 2 bad games...one decent one....no 100 yd games....and will miss the next game....

and for his salary we got Murray AND Matthews AND Alonzo......so we are still ahead of the game .....
Pbfan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 28 2015, 03:00 PM) *
It doesn't matter that Herremans was toast. People are mad because there wasn't a plan to replace him (e.g. a rookie). Because we all know how reasonable people are around here when it comes to our rookies making mistakes.


This was my logic. We cut players, under the justification that we needed cap space. When all was said and done, we had a lot of cap room to work with. Therefore, the moves didn't make sense. Especially with issues with Gardner, wouldn't it make sense to at least to have him or Mathis as at least a backup?
Pbfan
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 28 2015, 11:27 PM) *
you just love to demonstrate your lack of knowledge for the the NFL don't you?

McCoy was unloaded to clear his salary...not to get Alonzo....Alonzo was a throw in....a nice one...but just a throw in....

How is the best RB in Eagles history doing not having someone telling him when to go to bed and what to eat and drink?

He has had 2 bad games...one decent one....no 100 yd games....and will miss the next game....

and for his salary we got Murray AND Matthews AND Alonzo......so we are still ahead of the game .....


I disagree with that breakdown. It wasn't keeping Mccoy vs. getting Murray, Matthews and Alonzo. Murray and Matthews were independent events.

The move was: we get rid of Mccoy and get Alonzo + some cap space. But we haven't maxed out on cap space; the cap space is a completely separate issue. He got rid of Mccoy not because of cap space. Take a look: we have more cap space than most of the NFL teams.

This is what I am complaining about- I'm ok with Chip cutting any player, but I want to know the justification for the alternative. Having Murray and Matthews is nice, but does that really present the best yield of any of the options?

What if instead of singing Murray, we picked up another defensive back? Or perhaps gained some depth on the o-line? I think that would have made more sense.
D Rock
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Sep 28 2015, 09:32 PM) *
I'm in the clear biggrin.gif

I'm not a Kelly-hater but I am willing to criticise when he gets it wrong just as I back him for getting it right.

I didn't like the Hicks pick because we needed an OLB (and still do) but I was quick to praise him for his play against Dallas. The rest of you are playing catch up.

I had no problem letting Herremans go, but still do with the failure to replace him with a FA or rookie. I've already posted that the OL played better yesterday.

Bradford is worrying me though.

You draft for need, you end up with reaching for busts. Who would u have drafted in the 3rd round to fill that need? Wanna see the results of drafting for a need? Look at M.Smith.
D Rock
QUOTE (Pbfan @ Sep 29 2015, 11:48 AM) *
I disagree with that breakdown. It wasn't keeping Mccoy vs. getting Murray, Matthews and Alonzo. Murray and Matthews were independent events.

The move was: we get rid of Mccoy and get Alonzo + some cap space. But we haven't maxed out on cap space; the cap space is a completely separate issue. He got rid of Mccoy not because of cap space. Take a look: we have more cap space than most of the NFL teams.

This is what I am complaining about- I'm ok with Chip cutting any player, but I want to know the justification for the alternative. Having Murray and Matthews is nice, but does that really present the best yield of any of the options?

What if instead of singing Murray, we picked up another defensive back? Or perhaps gained some depth on the o-line? I think that would have made more sense.

Like who? Specifically. Who?

You dolts act like you just write a shopping list and go downtown to the defensive-back emporium and purchase one off the shelf. "Meet me for lunch at the ginchy lil cafe across from Guards-R-Us."

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Sep 29 2015, 09:20 AM) *
Like who? Specifically. Who?

You dolts act like you just write a shopping list and go downtown to the defensive-back emporium and purchase one off the shelf. "Meet me for lunch at the ginchy lil cafe across from Guards-R-Us."

laugh.gif

Not to mention that there are 31 other teams constantly looking to acquire DBs and OL. Our fanbase acts like we are the only game in town.

Chip built a solid team. They need to execute. Sam needs to be better.
Robberson
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 29 2015, 12:27 AM) *
you just love to demonstrate your lack of knowledge for the the NFL don't you?


Easy there junior, take a few deep breaths into your favorite brown paper bag, genuflect a few times before Almighty Chip's poster on the ceiling above your bed.

We unloaded Pro-Bowlers while signing guys with injury history. If you take a look at the standings, the Bills are ahead of the game, especially since our 'throw-in' is out for a while. It's Chip who clearly doesn't understand how it works in the NFL - and you of course, since you're still taking turns driving the 12-4 short bus with the other tools here. laugh.gif
Eyrie
QUOTE (D Rock @ Sep 29 2015, 03:15 PM) *
You draft for need, you end up with reaching for busts. Who would u have drafted in the 3rd round to fill that need? Wanna see the results of drafting for a need? Look at M.Smith.

I'm not a draftnik, so you're asking the wrong person.

But I do know that we had Ryans, Kendricks and Alonso on the roster, which meant yet another ILB was a luxury when we had a need for G, OLB and S.

Thurmond was signed as a CB but fixed S. Are you seriously happy with our Gs and OLB depth? We had the cap space and the draft picks to improve there if Kelly had chosen to.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Sep 29 2015, 03:54 PM) *
I'm not a draftnik, so you're asking the wrong person.

But I do know that we had Ryans, Kendricks and Alonso on the roster, which meant yet another ILB was a luxury when we had a need for G, OLB and S.

Thurmond was signed as a CB but fixed S. Are you seriously happy with our Gs and OLB depth? We had the cap space and the draft picks to improve there if Kelly had chosen to.

No team is deep at every position. It's simply the reality of the league. No, we're not deep at G. Fortunately it's one of the least important positions in the game. OLB is also week, but Kiko is versatile enough to bounce outside. Would you be okay with a LB core of Graham, Kiko, Hicks, and Kendricks? I would.
Eyrie
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 29 2015, 10:51 PM) *
No team is deep at every position. It's simply the reality of the league. No, we're not deep at G. Fortunately it's one of the least important positions in the game. OLB is also week, but Kiko is versatile enough to bounce outside. Would you be okay with a LB core of Graham, Kiko, Hicks, and Kendricks? I would.

Our offensive problems in the first two weeks would suggest that G is more important than you think. And it's not the depth that concerns me but the weakness of the two intended starters.

As regards LB, I think the Hicks pick was made with a view to replacing Ryans next year so we're set at ILB assuming Alonso ever plays for us. Barwin is good and Graham solid at OLB, but we need another regular contributor there. Maybe next year we can sign one in FA or draft one.
D Rock
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Sep 29 2015, 10:00 PM) *
Our offensive problems in the first two weeks would suggest that G is more important than you think. And it's not the depth that concerns me but the weakness of the two intended starters.

The film I've seen broken down suggest it was more an issue with Kelce and Peters, so that blows away the failed guard theory.

Hicks was taken because he was their BPA at the time. That's it. We're lucky to have him at the moment.

Was a great pick, despite the hand wringing of the fan base.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Robberson @ Sep 29 2015, 12:32 PM) *
Easy there junior, take a few deep breaths into your favorite brown paper bag, genuflect a few times before Almighty Chip's poster on the ceiling above your bed.

We unloaded Pro-Bowlers while signing guys with injury history. If you take a look at the standings, the Bills are ahead of the game, especially since our 'throw-in' is out for a while. It's Chip who clearly doesn't understand how it works in the NFL - and you of course, since you're still taking turns driving the 12-4 short bus with the other tools here. laugh.gif


I think you are the lad who needs the brown bag......

The Bills gaining McCoy and losing Alonzo has had nothing to do with their record...McCoy had one decent game which they lost....and now he is out......

Chip has made several mistakes but getting rid of McCoy was not one of them, nor was getting rid of Jackson or Mathis....

as their respective performance and or team performance dictates...
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Pbfan @ Sep 29 2015, 07:48 AM) *
I disagree with that breakdown. It wasn't keeping Mccoy vs. getting Murray, Matthews and Alonzo. Murray and Matthews were independent events.

The move was: we get rid of Mccoy and get Alonzo + some cap space. But we haven't maxed out on cap space; the cap space is a completely separate issue. He got rid of Mccoy not because of cap space. Take a look: we have more cap space than most of the NFL teams.

This is what I am complaining about- I'm ok with Chip cutting any player, but I want to know the justification for the alternative. Having Murray and Matthews is nice, but does that really present the best yield of any of the options?

What if instead of singing Murray, we picked up another defensive back? Or perhaps gained some depth on the o-line? I think that would have made more sense.


You can disagree but you are easily proven wrong....

Getting rid of McCoy freed up the money to land other RBs or players or are you suggesting the signing of other RBs when they got rid of McCoy was not the plan? I know that is not the case because that would be an idiotic assumption....while Alonzo was not a key part of the plan it is what Buffalo tossed in....but they were certainly going to sign players to replace McCoy and add depth...it just so happens they signed 2 RBs.

They have depth on the OL.....just because you don't like the depth does not mean it is not there......both guards that replaced Herremans and Mathis are playing better then either one right now....it is not easy to have a stable full of good OL players.....

It is really a question of how much do you spend and/or value any position....if Peters is not hobbled by a gimpy foot and Kelce not playing horrendously than we are not having this conversation...
mcnabbulous
If you're going to use the arbitrary, stupid "pro bowler" status to describe the guys we got rid of...can't you do the same for Murray? Or Mathews? Hey we got two for the price of one!

Pro bowls mean jack shit.
Pbfan
QUOTE (D Rock @ Sep 29 2015, 10:20 AM) *
Like who? Specifically. Who?

You dolts act like you just write a shopping list and go downtown to the defensive-back emporium and purchase one off the shelf. "Meet me for lunch at the ginchy lil cafe across from Guards-R-Us."


Like keeping mathis.

Go sit down now.
Pbfan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 29 2015, 10:22 AM) *
laugh.gif

Not to mention that there are 31 other teams constantly looking to acquire DBs and OL. Our fanbase acts like we are the only game in town.

Chip built a solid team. They need to execute. Sam needs to be better.


Thats true, but we could have bid more. I think that signing Brandon Flowers for a $9m a year, and then having Matthews + sproles is better than murray + matthews + sproles
Pbfan
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 29 2015, 06:36 PM) *
You can disagree but you are easily proven wrong....

Getting rid of McCoy freed up the money to land other RBs or players or are you suggesting the signing of other RBs when they got rid of McCoy was not the plan? I know that is not the case because that would be an idiotic assumption....while Alonzo was not a key part of the plan it is what Buffalo tossed in....but they were certainly going to sign players to replace McCoy and add depth...it just so happens they signed 2 RBs.

They have depth on the OL.....just because you don't like the depth does not mean it is not there......both guards that replaced Herremans and Mathis are playing better then either one right now....it is not easy to have a stable full of good OL players.....

It is really a question of how much do you spend and/or value any position....if Peters is not hobbled by a gimpy foot and Kelce not playing horrendously than we are not having this conversation...


Firstly, we still have over 10m in cap room. I think technically we could afford McCoy + Murray + Matthews + Sproles. Of course it isn't practical, but that's not the point. He wanted to get rid of McCoy.

My point is, that signing Murray is a separate move. They didn't trade for Murray like a lot of people are stating. My point is, getting rid of McCoy is valid, but I think signing Murray, while already having depth at that position, didn't make a ton of sense. For that very large sum of money, there was good FAs out there!

I will be interested to see what additional value Murray + Matthews + Sproles added versus Matthews + Sproles.

The value of those extra yards that Murray would get vs. Matthews + Sproles, better be more than what additional value a good CB like Brandon Flowers, or keeping Maclin, etc.. would have yielded.
Phits
QUOTE (Pbfan @ Sep 30 2015, 06:59 AM) *
Firstly, we still have over 10m in cap room. I think technically we could afford McCoy + Murray + Matthews + Sproles. Of course it isn't practical, but that's not the point. He wanted to get rid of McCoy.

My point is, that signing Murray is a separate move. They didn't trade for Murray like a lot of people are stating. My point is, getting rid of McCoy is valid, but I think signing Murray, while already having depth at that position, didn't make a ton of sense. For that very large sum of money, there was good FAs out there!

I will be interested to see what additional value Murray + Matthews + Sproles added versus Matthews + Sproles.

The value of those extra yards that Murray would get vs. Matthews + Sproles, better be more than what additional value a good CB like Brandon Flowers, or keeping Maclin, etc.. would have yielded.

I don't believe that Murray was an initial target. He was expected to re-sign with Dallas. However, the intent was always to bring in 2 N/S runners. Initially Gore/Matthews was the intended target. Gore spurned us for Indy and then Murray became available.

Maclin decided to go to KC. You can't blame a team for making an effort and having a player choose a different option. As for the secondary, according to all reports, aside from the first half of the Falcons game (call it the Julio Jones effect) they have been very good.

The problems with this team rest solely on whether Bradford can perform as intended. He gave us a sparkling 2nd half to the ATL game, but other than that has been less than mediocre.
Zero
QUOTE (Pbfan @ Sep 30 2015, 06:59 AM) *
Firstly, we still have over 10m in cap room. I think technically we could afford McCoy + Murray + Matthews + Sproles. Of course it isn't practical, but that's not the point. He wanted to get rid of McCoy.

My point is, that signing Murray is a separate move. They didn't trade for Murray like a lot of people are stating. My point is, getting rid of McCoy is valid, but I think signing Murray, while already having depth at that position, didn't make a ton of sense. For that very large sum of money, there was good FAs out there!

I will be interested to see what additional value Murray + Matthews + Sproles added versus Matthews + Sproles.

The value of those extra yards that Murray would get vs. Matthews + Sproles, better be more than what additional value a good CB like Brandon Flowers, or keeping Maclin, etc.. would have yielded.

Both Mathews and Murray have injury history. Adding only one in FA would have necessitated either keeping Polk or adding another RB as insurance. With questions on the OL, Polk would have been the better bet. If Kelly really thought/thinks this team is capable of making a run, adding the best available/affordable RB makes some some sense.

I take your argument to say that you think adding an OL in FA or keeping Maclin instead of one of the RB and keeping Polk would be a better approach. I think I agree with that thought. I liked the kid from the Bengals but have no clue if he fit this system. Maclin would probably be a help right now. But, if this OL does the job then maybe the more capable football mind may have been right.

How they played the first two games isn't nearly as important as how they play in December as long as they continue to find ways to win and be in the hunt.
mcnabbulous
They tried to keep Maclin. I don't know why this is even a talking point now.
Zero
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 30 2015, 09:04 AM) *
They tried to keep Maclin. I don't know why this is even a talking point now.

I realize that. This is only an exercise in alternatives ... maybe a waste of bandwidth but whatever. If Agahlor can get up to speed he can eliminate the revisionist discussions about Maclin.
Robberson
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 29 2015, 07:53 PM) *
If you're going to use the arbitrary, stupid "pro bowler" status to describe the guys we got rid of...can't you do the same for Murray? Or Mathews? Hey we got two for the price of one!

Pro bowls mean jack shit.


Murray, yes. Mathews, no, because that was 4 years ago.

Apparently you're on the same level of genius as Chip - would you put our team on the same field as last year's Pro-Bowlers and expect anything other than a good old-fashioned country ass-whooping? If no, then shut up. If yes, then buckle your seatbelt on the 12-4 short bus little man.

#ProBowlersMatter
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Robberson @ Sep 30 2015, 01:54 PM) *
Murray, yes. Mathews, no, because that was 4 years ago.

Apparently you're on the same level of genius as Chip - would you put our team on the same field as last year's Pro-Bowlers and expect anything other than a good old-fashioned country ass-whooping? If no, then shut up. If yes, then buckle your seatbelt on the 12-4 short bus little man.

#ProBowlersMatter

Our team last year was mediocre as fuck. Did you not watch them? Would you have been satisfied with another 10-6 season and first round playoff loss (or worse)?

What was your plan to get better? A few rookies and Maxwell?

News flash for you: Foles blows.

If #ProBowlersMatter so fucking much, you would think that Lesean, DeSean, Maclin and Mathis would have way more than zero fucking playoff wins to their resume.

The bottom line is that, for whatever reason, those pro bowlers didn't do enough to make our team a winner. Chip rocked the boat by changing a bunch of key parts. If Bradford doesn't get better, it won't matter, but at least he did something to stir it up...rather than the purgatory we've been in for the past few years.

JeeQ
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 30 2015, 12:03 PM) *
Our team last year was mediocre as fuck. Did you not watch them? Would you have been satisfied with another 10-6 season and first round playoff loss (or worse)?

What was your plan to get better? A few rookies and Maxwell?

News flash for you: Foles blows.

If #ProBowlersMatter so fucking much, you would think that Lesean, DeSean, Maclin and Mathis would have way more than zero fucking playoff wins to their resume.

The bottom line is that, for whatever reason, those pro bowlers didn't do enough to make our team a winner. Chip rocked the boat by changing a bunch of key parts. If Bradford doesn't get better, it won't matter, but at least he did something to stir it up...rather than the purgatory we've been in for the past few years.


We'll just pretend DeSean didn't catch this 62 Yard TD in the NFC Championship... wouldn't want to fuck up your argument in the bold there...



I know with Bradford as our QB you've probably forgotten what a pass over 5 yards looks like laugh.gif

Reality Fan
QUOTE (JeeQ @ Sep 30 2015, 09:18 PM) *
We'll just pretend DeSean didn't catch this 62 Yard TD in the NFC Championship... wouldn't want to fuck up your argument in the bold there...



I know with Bradford as our QB you've probably forgotten what a pass over 5 yards looks like laugh.gif




ummmm...

that was in 2008.....

and in the 3 playoff games since then?

3 rec...14 yards
2 rec....47 yards
3 rec.....53 yards

I would really think about doing a little research before trying to make a point if I were you....your not real good at supporting a position...

his playoff performances......especially with single coverage by New Orleans.....has not been even mediocre...
JeeQ
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 30 2015, 06:24 PM) *
ummmm...

that was in 2008.....

and in the 3 playoff games since then?

3 rec...14 yards
2 rec....47 yards
3 rec.....53 yards

I would really think about doing a little research before trying to make a point if I were you....your not real good at supporting a position...

his playoff performances......especially with single coverage by New Orleans.....has not been even mediocre...


If someone proves you wrong, always change the subject laugh.gif

Fact is, he said he had zero playoff wins, and he is WRONG

Thanks for playing, better luck next time
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Robberson @ Sep 30 2015, 02:54 PM) *
Murray, yes. Mathews, no, because that was 4 years ago.

Apparently you're on the same level of genius as Chip - would you put our team on the same field as last year's Pro-Bowlers and expect anything other than a good old-fashioned country ass-whooping? If no, then shut up. If yes, then buckle your seatbelt on the 12-4 short bus little man.

#ProBowlersMatter



ok...does that even make any sense?

would you put our team on the same field as last year's pro bowlers? what the hell does that even mean? The entire pro bowl roster? Maybe I am missing something....

You just keep ignoring the fact that Mathis is still struggling in Denver so he is a non issue beyond the fact that he was out for half the season last year and when he did come back they swooned at the end of the season....

McCoy would do no better with the line play from Kelce and Peters...you apparently forget his poor start last year
First 4 starts....74, 79, 22 and 17 yards......you are right ....a super pro bowl performance...

Maclin is a loss...no question but that was a move that could not be avoided unless we paid him a monster 4-5 year deal.....a move only a poor GM would make for a WR with no pro bowls, 1 season over a 1,000 yards and a lengthy injury history.....and they still tried to keep him with a very strong offer

So I think you are the guy who should at least take a little time to check things out before you start tossing rocks...
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.