Sal Pal says Philly wants a white QB

Watch how poorly they play this year when he isn't healthy and you might re-evaluate that statement.

Give me a quarterback in this league who the Eagles would be better off with. . .

Peyton? He's legitimately a better QB, but has plenty more weapons than McNabb.

Who else?

Brady? Probabaly.

The only thing I'll give you is that McNabb isn't Brady or Manning. But do you really think Carson Palmer would do any better in the same situation? Or Drew Brees? Or Matt Hasselbeck?

People who think the Eagles would be better off without McNabb have a distorted view of reality. This is the NFL.

Quarterbacks are going to have bad days. Those are the days when the rest of the team has to win the game.

 

To go back to the first post - the conclusion here <i>is faulty</i>. It has nothing to do with a <i>white</i> quarterback (if you really read the whole article), but rather a younger one. Everyone knows Jeff Garcia isn't the future, so if performs well, so be it - it's McNabb's job. But if Feeley peforms well, then people might be clamoring for him to be the QB in 2007. (This all according to Sal Pal).

Personally, I'm not sure you start looking for the future QB when your starter is only 30 (unless his skills have diminished greatly).

 

I'm not a huge fan of McNabb's, but he does a lot for that team. I mean, besides him, who do they have? Westbrook? Try to get three straight games from him without a stint on the IR. The defense is shoddy, especially after Kearse went down.

The Eagles try to be the Pats lite, but their coach isn't close to Billy Boy, and their management is the cheapest outfit in the league. What are they, like $13 million under the cap? The Pats are shrewd; the Eagles merely inept.

Paolantonio gets excellent information, but he's an insufferable asshat. I think he's a former news guy, and he carries himself like the Charlie Weis of reporters. Definitely a "has to get the last word in" type of guy. His reporting excellence is matched only by his status as a douchebag par excellance.

 

Never once saw a mention of the race of any of the quarterbacks in that article.

At no point did Sal say Philly wants a white quarterback. In fact, he never even said Philly wants a quarterback other than McNabb.

 

Pats want to object to the Eagles wrapping up cheapest team award. They are about $13 million under the cap and sorely missing Branch, Vinatieri and Law, among others.

 

didn't they just sign Reggie Brown, Mike Patterson and Trent Cole to huge long-term extentions? would the cheapest outfit in the league do that? and your cap figure isn't even close. they're about $3.7 million under as of the close of business Friday

 

Ignore the troll and his ass-backwards facts!

 

i admit, I took a liberty there solely on the ridiculous statement of "popular" and "pop-star looks" - what else could he possibly mean? Donovan can get a chunky soup ad but hey, Feeley might be the next "Bachelor" or pimping "American Express"...I just said what Sal Pal was implying.

Trust me - I wouldnt have been this touchy if not for Philly's reputation...

as for the football related issues: McNabb = brittle ; Feeley = QB of future ... those are way off and I think have been articulated well here by a few folks. I think Donovan's hit a string of bad luck, so maybe they should take a real long look at this year's QB draft class...but they have much greater issues on that team than a backup QB...

As for the "cheap" part, Philly is not that (see aforementioned contract extensions and even Donovan's $100+ million deal). And I will give Sal Pal credit for mentioning the debt they have to pay for the stadium and how that figures into how and why they spend the way they do.

 

I view the comment about Feeley as the usual shitheaded focus on players' hair, etc., that should have been drummed out of coverage long ago.

 

Here's the reason why they're so cheap: They purposely sign guys to long - term extensions that they know will become undervalued over the life of the contract. The Eagles are notorious for this. So the guy feels like he's getting a great deal at first, and then he becomes pissed off as the deal goes on and the Eagles won't renegotiate his deal. So their signing of the three to long - term deals isn't a counterexample to their cheapness - that's what they want you to believe - it is, instead, a perfect testament to it.

ProFootballTalk had a series of blurbs on this practice by the Eagles over the last month or so. Players, and their agents, are just beginning to catch on to this tactic by the Eagles' management. Don't take my 'troll' word for it - do some research. The opinions on the Eagles' poor business practices are out there in the public domain.

Of course, if you want to bury your head in the sand like a lantaur, you can do that, too. Simply insert your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and continue to shout out loud that "The Eagles are the best! The Eagles are the best! I'm not listening to you! Blah blah blah!" This will successfully numb the pain of another non - playoff season. If, however, you believe in objective reality, go look up the perception of the Eagles where it concerns player contracts and the salary cap and get back to me. You'll find my opinion to be conventional wisdom.

Now, can the conventional wisdom be wrong? Yep. That's why the Pats are ok on this score. But the Eagles have no rings to justify their frugalness.

Now someone will say "Hey, all teams want to sign - up guys to long - term deals." Yes, of course they do. But the longer length of the Eagles' deals, when they sign players to them (typically early in their careers so the player won't have an opportunity to earn a large free - agent contract when he has a breakout season), and their unwillingness to renegotiate them is what sets the Eagles' deals apart from most of the NFL. From a business standpoint, I get what the Eagles are doing. I'd be inclined to do the same thing. It makes sense, financially and leverage - wise. But you'll piss of your employees, too. It's a Wal - Mart type of strategy; stick 'em when you have the power to do so. I think we all know what kind of employee loyalty that breeds.

Like I said, you can get away with this if you're the Pats, but for the "Never - was" Eagles, it just doesn't work. It doesn't translate on the field. The Pats have lost guys (Ty Law, Vinatieri, etc.) over the years, but they still get rings. The Eagles have no such coattails.

 

Well, them's the breaks when you take guaranteed security over the risk of playing for a bigger payday.

The Eagles are willing to make these guys rich fairly early. If they play well enough to warrant a very rich contract by the middle of the deal, well, you can't have it both ways.

You can play year to year in hopes of getting what you think you deserve once you reach the open market. The risk to that, of course, is your spleen blows up a few months after you turned down $10 mil guaranteed. Whoops.