THE PHILADELPHIA EAGLES...

The Juggler

The Fixer wrote:

I'll ask again...who did you want in there? marvin mcnutt? damaris johnson? I actually like evan moore, always have from stanford and cleveland days...think he's underrated as a backup TE.

keep seeing articles about chip kelly. annoying as hell. HE'S AN AWFUL FIT...makes ZERO sense

okay, he's a tight end, fixer. mcnutt and johnson are receivers. why was there a need to go with a 2 tight end set all of the sudden (the eagles rarely did this even when clay harbor was healthy)? i sort of respect you for trying to defend reid till the end, but if your argument is that moore was out there as a necessity due to injuries, he would have played more than a total of 5 snaps all game (including the last few at the end). he was signed to replace our injured backup tight end.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... van-moore/
Despite playing in every game for Seattle this season, Moore had been on the field for just 104 of the team’s 934 offensive snaps (11-percent). He recorded just one catch for six yards in 14 games with the Seahawks. He served as the team’s third option at tight end behind Zach Miller and Anthony McCoy.
--

i guess you read domo's article today? i'm not big on kelly either. he also was talking about darrell bevell though. first time i've seen his name mentioned. i'd prefer him over kelly. seems he also might be in the mix for the wisconsin job.

The Fixer

The Juggler wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

I'll ask again...who did you want in there? marvin mcnutt? damaris johnson? I actually like evan moore, always have from stanford and cleveland days...think he's underrated as a backup TE.

keep seeing articles about chip kelly. annoying as hell. HE'S AN AWFUL FIT...makes ZERO sense

okay, he's a tight end, fixer. mcnutt and johnson are receivers. why was there a need to go with a 2 tight end set all of the sudden (the eagles rarely did this even when clay harbor was healthy)? i sort of respect you for trying to defend reid till the end, but if your argument is that moore was out there as a necessity due to injuries, he would have played more than a total of 5 snaps all game (including the last few at the end). he was signed to replace our injured backup tight end.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... van-moore/
Despite playing in every game for Seattle this season, Moore had been on the field for just 104 of the team’s 934 offensive snaps (11-percent). He recorded just one catch for six yards in 14 games with the Seahawks. He served as the team’s third option at tight end behind Zach Miller and Anthony McCoy.
--

i guess you read domo's article today? i'm not big on kelly either. he also was talking about darrell bevell though. first time i've seen his name mentioned. i'd prefer him over kelly. seems he also might be in the mix for the wisconsin job.

I didn't look at the play in as much depth as you have. All I saw was foles throw to an open receiver, who dropped an easy TD. I don't know if celek was in the game...if he was out due to recovery from his concussion...if they were giving moore an extended look (makes sense in a meaningless game), etc. All things considered, I don't think it's a big deal at all unless you want to further superfluously nitpick about reid.

Didn't see domo's article. I think it was this one. Just seems like a new kelly article surfaces every day. Even awful Phil Sheridan had one this week.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.co ... hip-kelly/

I saw Bevell mentioned somewhere earlier this week as well. Not going to pretend to know anything about him other than what I just read (though I do remember him as wiscy's QB back in the day). That said, he sounds like a much better candidate than chip kelly...and I'd much prefer someone like him over gruden or cowher.

I do like domo. Feel like he's one of the few local writers worth reading. I think the local writer quality is equivalent to amaro these days.

The Juggler

so you just took up almost 2 pages arguing with me about a play you admittedly don't recall that well.

this is what i'm dealing with people


celek was in there. if they were giving evan moore an "extended look," they'd have played him more than 5 snaps.


good lord. this is the most evan moore has ever been mentioned on the internet.

The Fixer

all I said was that the play call wasn't a big deal.

you said moore was the first option...then said that we don't know.

you didn't know who moore was until sunday. just like james starks in the playoffs a few years ago (who you referred to as james sparks).

The Juggler

The Fixer wrote:

all I said was that the play call wasn't a big deal.

you said moore was the first option...then said that we don't know.

you didn't know who moore was until sunday. just like james starks in the playoffs a few years ago (who you referred to as james sparks).

:roll:

you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, as usual. merry christmas

The Fixer

The Juggler wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

all I said was that the play call wasn't a big deal.

you said moore was the first option...then said that we don't know.

you didn't know who moore was until sunday. just like james starks in the playoffs a few years ago (who you referred to as james sparks).

arguing for the sake of arguing. merry christmas man.

when you can't think of anything to say, just play the victim. typical macknow

The Juggler

The Fixer wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

all I said was that the play call wasn't a big deal.

you said moore was the first option...then said that we don't know.

you didn't know who moore was until sunday. just like james starks in the playoffs a few years ago (who you referred to as james sparks).

arguing for the sake of arguing. merry christmas man.

when you can't think of anything to say, just play the victim. typical macknow

what does this even mean?

you admitted you don't recall the play that well, despite pretending like you did. then you bring up something from 3 years ago. this is what you do when you can't win an argument.

The Fixer

The Juggler wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

arguing for the sake of arguing. merry christmas man.

when you can't think of anything to say, just play the victim. typical macknow

what does this even mean?

you admitted you don't recall the play that well, despite pretending like you did. then you bring up something from 3 years ago. this is what you do when you can't win an argument.

point of the argument was that it wasnt a big deal for the throw to go to evan moore (who you called the first read...then admitted you didn't know what you were talking about -- as usual).

watching on tv you can't always tell who's in the game during a play. and from your seats atop the lights at the linc that's obviously the case unless you have a telescope attached to the seats in front of you

just do me a favor and try to watch less tv and more sports over the holidays. lot of bowl games will help you get ready for the draft. that way instead of regurgitating what you hear on 610 or read on the internet, you will actually be able to form and present your own opinion for a change.

The Juggler

The Fixer wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

when you can't think of anything to say, just play the victim. typical macknow

what does this even mean?

you admitted you don't recall the play that well, despite pretending like you did. then you bring up something from 3 years ago. this is what you do when you can't win an argument.

watching on tv you can't always tell who's in the game during a play.
.

you spent 2 pages of this thread arguing with me over this stupid play before admitting you didn't even realize who was all on the field. that is a waste of both of our time, not to mention the other poor people reading this nonsense.

just admit you don't know something at the onset next time and save yourself the embarrassment...this way you can also avoid using the same, childish, insults you whip out each and every time you lose an argument to me, or anyone else. however, it is kind of funny when you do that---reminiscent of a white towel being thrown out of your corner.

cut me mick!

jamminpearls

Lol, his insults never get old. Wish pjhawks was around, I wanna good old Ross Gload Convo.

The Juggler

meet dirk koetter. he would not be my ideal choice, but he is a choice nonetheless.

http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2012 ... er-falcons

The Juggler

i'll always be tempted to call him matt. this is an intriguing candidate:

mike mccoy
http://www.phillymag.com/eagles/2012/12 ... ike-mccoy/

The Juggler

An accomplished assistant with local roots is going to become a free agent at the end of the season, according to a report.
d coordinator candidate perhaps?

http://www.phillymag.com/eagles/2012/12 ... eidpolian/

A source tells Manish Mehta of the New York Daily News that New York Jets defensive coordinator Mike Pettine has turned down a contract extension with the team.

Pettine has spent the last four years with Rex Ryan in New York. He was a defensive assistant with the Ravens from 2004-2008 and is a well-known name in high school football circles. Pettine’s Dad coached 33 years at C.B. West in Doylestown, and Pettine was the head coach at North Penn for five seasons.

Despite the Jets’ offense being a train-wreck, Pettine’s defense ranks seventh, according to Football Outsiders. And keep in mind, that’s without Darrelle Revis. In 2011, they ranked second; in 2010, fifth; and in 2009, first.

The New York Daily News article suggests Pettine could get some look as a potential head coach. That might be true, but there’s certainly a chance he could go elsewhere and become a defensive coordinator. We’ve seen in recent years with Andy Reid how crucial assembling a staff is for the head coach. Pettine’s a name to keep an eye on in the coming weeks.

The Fixer

The Juggler wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

watching on tv you can't always tell who's in the game during a play.
.

you spent 2 pages of this thread arguing with me over this stupid play before admitting you didn't even realize who was all on the field. that is a waste of both of our time, not to mention the other poor people reading this nonsense.

just admit you don't know something at the onset next time and save yourself the embarrassment...this way you can also avoid using the same, childish, insults you whip out each and every time you lose an argument to me, or anyone else. however, it is kind of funny when you do that---reminiscent of a white towel being thrown out of your corner.

cut me mick!

funny that you ignore my point about being at the game and sitting in the worst seats in the stadium. as if you can ever tell who's in a game from the last row of the stadium.

the crux of the argument was that your superfluous criticism of the play call was unwarranted. You even backed off of your original stance that moore was the first option. you can cry and whine that I'm too mean...that doesn't deny that fact that I am correct (as usual) in that it's not a big deal that the play went to evan moore.

Me losing a sports argument to you would be like alabama losing to your shitstown st alma mater (assuming you graduated...and assuming that they even have football)

The Juggler

The Fixer wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

watching on tv you can't always tell who's in the game during a play.
.

you spent 2 pages of this thread arguing with me over this stupid play before admitting you didn't even realize who was all on the field. that is a waste of both of our time, not to mention the other poor people reading this nonsense.

just admit you don't know something at the onset next time and save yourself the embarrassment...this way you can also avoid using the same, childish, insults you whip out each and every time you lose an argument to me, or anyone else. however, it is kind of funny when you do that---reminiscent of a white towel being thrown out of your corner.

cut me mick!

funny that you ignore my point about being at the game and sitting in the worst seats in the stadium. as if you can ever tell who's in a game from the last row of the stadium.

the crux of the argument was that your superfluous criticism of the play call was unwarranted. You even backed off of your original stance that moore was the first option. you can cry and whine that I'm too mean...that doesn't deny that fact that I am correct (as usual) in that it's not a big deal that the play went to evan moore.

Me losing a sports argument to you would be like alabama losing to your shitstown st alma mater (assuming you graduated...and assuming that they even have football)

continuing to carry on about a play he admits he doesn't remember very well. you can't win an argument about something you don't know anything about.

and more of the same insults. yeah. boy i didn't see them coming.

The Fixer

The Juggler wrote:

continuing to carry on about a play he admits he doesn't remember very well. you can't win an argument about something you don't know anything about.

and more of the same insults. yeah. boy i didn't see them coming.

I know that the play wasn't a big deal. keep crying about it though.

also, you shouldn't criticize a player who you have never heard of. just watch more football and we won't have these issues

The Juggler

The Fixer wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

continuing to carry on about a play he admits he doesn't remember very well. you can't win an argument about something you don't know anything about.

and more of the same insults. yeah. boy i didn't see them coming.

I know that the play wasn't a big deal. keep crying about it though.

also, you shouldn't criticize a player who you have never heard of. just watch more football and we won't have these issues

i guess you're just out of your league.

but keep trying to argue about stuff you know nothing about...and follow up those arguments with insults when you run out of stuff to pretend to know about....because it's working sooo well for you thus far. :thumbup:

jamminpearls

Jeag's i'd say invite him for a beer........... Nevermind!!!

The Juggler

not very surprising as we've heard this before:

Source: Reid has his sights set on San Diego
Posted by Mike Florio on December 29, 2012, 12:48 PM EST
APPublicly, Eagles coach Andy Reid says he wants to coach next year. Privately, Reid has fixed his gaze on Southern California.

The Los Angeles native wants to coach the Chargers, according to a league source. Per the source, Reid is making his intentions known as he lines up a potential coaching staff — part of the “multi-level musical chairs” tournament unfolding throughout the league.

Reid arrived in Philly 14 years ago, vaulting from tight ends coach to head coach and V.P. of football operations. In San Diego, Reid may not have the same degree of power he enjoyed with the Eagles, if as reported by Kevin Acee of U-T San Diego the plan is to elevate Jimmy Raye and give more duties to John Spanos.

Then again, no other owner may be willing give Reid the keys to their franchises, especially in light of the decimation of the Dream Team. If Reid truly wants to coach in 2013, that may be all anyone is willing to hire him to do.

jamminpearls

Geno Smith isn't helping his draft stock today.