Sal Pal says Philly wants a white QB

Good question, Daemon. I'll have to look that up. When I was read this I wasn't looking for specific players' names. I have to go back and check. I'm not talking about Owens, though. And neither was the article I was reading.

BYH, I agree with you. As an owner, I'd want to do the same thing. Financially and player - movement wise, it makes sense for management to do this. Like I (rewrote) say in my post above, however, it won't make your employees send you any Christmas cards.

It really comes down to whether you succeed on the field or not. If you do - like the Pats - everything is peachy; if you don't, you get called cheap and penurious. Hey, the Eagles have had a good degree of success, just not that Pats level of success where you're immune from criticism.

This is the common criticism of Eagles management. Now, with McNabb hurt, expect it to get louder.

 

One of the Eagles' beat writers acted like it was the signing of the century when the team signed Garcia over the off-season, and then through the minicamps and then into training camp, started to carry on a continuing theme, apparently in all seriousness, that there could be an actual battle for the starting position, if the "competition was really on an equal basis" when McNabb arrived in camp. The primary premise for this being Garcia's "veteran savvy," "experience," and his "leadership ability."



In other words, a recap of nearly-identical stories churned out over the last couple seasons in Detroit and Cleveland. Garcia must keep an APSE directory on his home computer, or surf Sportspages.Com to keep track of all the beat writers in the league, so he'll know whom to cozy up to any time he arrives in a new town (after being run out of the previous town after achieving unmitigated disaster), to start spinning his customary bullshit and cultivating dupes in the local media to pump out his PR smokescreen.

About 15 years ago, I coached a junior high football team. We were bad, real bad. The quarterbacks on that team did some crazy stupid shit, but they never did anything as stupid as some of the shit Jeff Garcia did last year (run hysterically backwards away from the line of scrimmage, then as you're being sacked from behind, throw the ball away backwards over your head.) Of course, Garcia has been doing similar stupid shit for about five years now.

There are 500,000 reasons Matt Millen needs to be fired, and needed to be fired years ago, but one of the biggest ones was that a year or so ago, when Steve Mariucci walked into his office and said "I would like to sign Jeff Garcia," he didn't say, "Steve, sit down, take a deep breath, think about what you just said, and decide whether you want to say it again, and if you do say it again, you're fucking fired, and you have exactly 90 seconds to get your ass out of this building, or I'll call people and have you beaten into insensibility."

The fact that he didn't say that is the biggest reason Millen needs to be fired.

 

Ahh yes Starman. We were waiting for you.

 

Why thank you, I'll be here all week, and don't forget to tip your waitress!!

 

If Jeff Garcia ever gets busted for kiddie porn, it's gonna be the perfect storm of Starman Justice.

 

Not precisely true, unless you're willing to argue that there weren't ANY black quarterbacks for several decades solely because there weren't any good ones.

 

At the NFL level, yes.

Do you really think an NFL coach, even back then, sat down and said, "You know, son, you give us the best chance at winning, but we're going to go with Tommy Smith instead because he is white and you are black."

The reason why there were no black quarterbacks in the NFL is because there were no black quarterbacks in college. And the reason there were no black quarterbacks in college?

SCENE: High school football practice.

COACH (Pointing to black kid): You -- line up at running back.
COACH (Pointing to white kid): You -- quarterback.

 

Hm, I don't recall ever yelling out the Eagles are the best, the Eagles are the best. I may like the team, but I'm no loser fanboy (unlike RokSki, who seems to be an anti-fanboy when it comes to the Eagles for whatever reason).

I've never heard of a team being called cheap for signing players to extensions. You know what, if the player (and/or agent) didn't like it, they have an option not to sign!

The Eagles historically have not given out extensions to veteran players - they go by the theory of why lock up a veteran to big bucks when their skills are declining. I'll help you - Bobby Taylor and Troy Vincent are two. Looks like L.J. Smith will walk after this year, although he's certainly still young enough to re-sign.

I'd like to see more on this non-renegotiation argument, as these extensions prove they do talk ... but should they be like the Redskins and just kill their cap every year? No, the Eagles have not been as good as the Patriots, and I wish they did win a ring (and as mentioned in another post, it seems like their Super Bowl window is closing), but they've been consistently in the hunt for the playoffs prior to last year, and not many teams can say that.

Now go back under the bridge RokSki.

 

The Pats are no longer immune to criticism. They're absorbing their share of barbs for not keeping Branch and Vinatieri. I'm sure Belichick's media relations skills don't help in that regard.

Only way to quiet that is to win it all. Otherwise, you're going to hear plenty about how the Pats have finally gotten too frugal for their own good.

 

There's nothing worth quoting, so I'll spare the rest of the thread readers.

L.J. Smith is not looking to 'walk;' he's looking to get paid market value. The Eagles don't want to do that, which is why intentionally sign players to long - term deals so that they can avoid having to re - up the player at fair - market value when he would normally come up for a new contract.

You are a fanboy, and, seemingly, a moron. You're intellectual dishonesty is fooling no one. I have teams I like, but I stick to the truth. You are deliberately attempting to misrepresent the truth for your own ends. Or, you're ignorant of the common perception of Eagles management around the league. Whatever. This isn't remedial school, so you'll be forcibly 'caught up.' It might hurt your dainty, fanboy senses to be so quickly brought into the light of the truth. Good luck.

 

Time to go to the research. You need to be decisively shut up for your own - and everyone else's - good.

1. http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061125/SPORTS02/611250342/-1/NEWS01

Eagles DB 'mysteriously' de - activated. TE 'to walk' chimes in.

2. http://philadelphia.comcastsportsnet.com/view_content_box.asp?ID=40673

Brian Dawkins and others chime in on Hood's deactivation.

3. http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/256-11232006-746185.html

Columnist covers the recurring nature of the way Eagles management deals with their players when it comes to contracts. An excellent summary of the Eagles' management style and its drawbacks.

4. http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061109/SPORTS02/611090342/-1/NEWS01

L J Smith discusses how he is seeking a fair - market contract, and how his situation is different than the 3 young players the Eagles just signed to long - term deals.

5. http://www.cbc.ca/cp/football/061102/f110286.html

Article discusses how the Eagles typically sign their young players to very long extensions so they won't hit free agency in their prime (that is, their contracts will become undervalued over the life of them due to contract inflation, if no other reason).

6. An excerpt from the ProFootballTalk.com website, concerning the Eagles and their contract shenanigans:

"POSTED 10:13 p.m. EST; UPDATED 10:34 p.m. EST, November 3, 2006

PATTERSON DEAL "ABSURD"

Reaction in league circles to the seven-year extension inked this week by Eagles defensive tackle Mike Patterson has been strong. And negative.

"Absurd" is what one league source called the deal, which locks Patterson up through the 2016 season, at salaries that likely will seem minuscule as the salary cap continues to grow and grow.

The problem is that, by the time Patterson starts earning the annual wages under the seven-year extension, the $9 million that he receives in the form of a signing bonus and a non-guaranteed 2007 roster bonus will be a faded memory, and if he reaches the potential that made him the second defensive tackle off of the board, he's going to think that he has a bad deal.

And that brings us back to the notion that often arises when a guy commits to a bunch of years in order to pocket a big bonus. It's known as "outperforming" a deal. Or, in Patterson's case, it also might be known as having inferior players leapfrog him based on contracts negotiated after the salary cap sails past $150 million.

So Patterson needs to realize -- right now -- that he has willingly tied himself up for the next ten-plus seasons in order to get that $9 million in short-term cash. While it protects him against getting hurt or turning out to be just "a guy," it gives him little solace (reportedly up to only $5 million in escalators over the life of the deal) if he becomes a dominant player.

We're also starting to wonder where the line is between the Eagles' habit of "taking care" of young players and "taking advantage" of them. Sure, no one is forcing these kids to sign their names to long-term deals. But at the same time the Eagles will need to have a better understanding of human nature than they did when they refused to proactively adjust the contract of Terrell Owens after he put together (and it kills us to say this) a heroic effort in Super Bowl XXXIX following a late-season broken ankle. Instead of approaching Owens and adjusting a deal that arguably was tilted in the team's favor, the Eagles did nothing, and suffered the consequences.

With guys like Patterson and Shawn Andrews signed for the long haul at future salaries that might look small in comparison to those of their peers, the fact that the Eagles could eventually have the guys under their thumbs doesn't mean that the Eagles should press down.

Though Andrews and Patterson might be very happy for now, there's a good chance that one or both of them will become upset with their financial situation before their respective contracts expire. And it'll be important for the Eagles to respond appropriately, or they might end up with a couple more T.O.'s in the locker room."


That's sufficient for now. I don't have time for lightweights. It's exactly what I said earlier - The Eagles play hardball, plain and simple. You can agree with that style or not, that's your opinion. But to deny that's how they do business is idiotic, and self - indicting. If you're ignorant, learn. If you're thinking you can get away with deliberate falsehoods because no one will check your blatant misrepresentations, you're mistaken. I hope you're just ignorant.

"Troll" comments don't shut out the truth, bud. I think you're underestimating your audience. Step up your game - you're not writing for the elementary school blog audience here.

 

Oh, I agree. F**k the Pats, as far as I'm concerned. My point is this: If the Pats can be criticized - after three championships - the Eagles sure as hell can be criticized for similar hardball negotiating tactics.