THE PHILADELPHIA EAGLES...

81

pjhawks wrote:

81 wrote:

The Jeagler wrote:

they traded the greatest qb in franchise history

not being an Eagles fan so pardon me a bit. but the first thing that popped into my head was Randall Cunningham. I always enjoyed watching him. than i went and dug up his stats. a few really good seasons, 30td's one year, but nothing great.

then of course, there is Norm Van Brocklin and his championship.

randall cunningham wasn't one-third the QB Donovan McNabb was and still is. Saw every game each played as Eagles and it's not really all that close.

agreed. Randall's stats are a bit underwhelming. one really good season and a several solid seasons, but nothing to put him at the top of the list.

The Juggler

pjhawks wrote:

putting Kolb in with this offensive line though could have been disasterous for his development. let the offensive line settle in for a bit then put Kolb back in there. Kolb will get another chance this season - it is almost inevitable in the NFL. No reason to jump to conclusions that Kolb is gone and Vick will be the starter for 3-4 years. Things can change rapidly in the NFL with injuries and/or poor play. Again Kolb will get another chance and I'd be willing to bet he even gets at least one more start this year. The media and fans neet to take a deep breath and realize it's still september - teams have a way of evolving and changing over the season. the team you have in september is not necessarily the team you will field in december.

ladies and gentlemen....dave spadaro. you have a nice way of making a post that doesn't commit yourself to one point or the other. good god man.

i told you guys kolb looked awful in the preseason and it continued into week 1. but reid clearly didnt do him any favors. obviously if vick gets hurt, kolb's going back in (if he doesn't get traded). but to continue to have a revolving door at this position during a season in which kolb was supposed to be the guy is not helping anyone. how good was troy aikman's line in 1989? we sacked him 11 times in one game back then and he had multiple concussions throughout his career. he turned out okay. reid realizes kolb can't play. and with our brutal schedule down the stretch (another reason why you should look at the schedule), i don't see them going back to him if vick struggles. you need continuity at this position.

pjhawks

The Jeagler wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

putting Kolb in with this offensive line though could have been disasterous for his development. let the offensive line settle in for a bit then put Kolb back in there. Kolb will get another chance this season - it is almost inevitable in the NFL. No reason to jump to conclusions that Kolb is gone and Vick will be the starter for 3-4 years. Things can change rapidly in the NFL with injuries and/or poor play. Again Kolb will get another chance and I'd be willing to bet he even gets at least one more start this year. The media and fans neet to take a deep breath and realize it's still september - teams have a way of evolving and changing over the season. the team you have in september is not necessarily the team you will field in december.

ladies and gentlemen....dave spadaro. you have a nice way of making a post that doesn't commit yourself to one point or the other. good god man.

i told you guys kolb looked awful in the preseason and it continued into week 1. but reid clearly didnt do him any favors. obviously if vick gets hurt, kolb's going back in (if he doesn't get traded). but to continue to have a revolving door at this position during a season in which kolb was supposed to be the guy is not helping anyone. how good was troy aikman's line in 1989? we sacked him 11 times in one game back then and he had multiple concussions throughout his career. he turned out okay. reid realizes kolb can't play. and with our brutal schedule down the stretch (another reason why you should look at the schedule), i don't see them going back to him if vick struggles. you need continuity at this position.

why do I have to commit to anything? it's about winning the game this week and vick gives the Eagles a better chance to win this week. how can you commit to week 15 or 16 when you have no idea how it is going to play out? Too many variables go into play in the NFL to worry about 10 weeks down the line. Win the next game and move on. Later in the season Kolb might give this team a better chance.

And the difference Jaegs is that Cowboys teams were a 1-15 team. this Eagles team is a possible playoff team and if you make the playoffs you got a shot. when you have a chance to make the playoffs you have to take it. Even if you think this team has little shot of winning a Super Bowl (which i would agree to at this time but see above about week to week in the NFL). Getting into the playoffs and losing is still better on all fronts than not. Beat Jacksonville move to 2-1 and worry about next week next week. it's a cliche for sure but it's true, one game one week at a time.

i think the media and fans of this team have a tendency to overreact to everything and this is the case here. it's week 3 of the season people. relax take a deep breath and let the weeks play themselves out before calling an end to Kevin Kolb era. it's not over by a long shot.

The Juggler

pjhawks wrote:

The Jeagler wrote:

ladies and gentlemen....dave spadaro. you have a nice way of making a post that doesn't commit yourself to one point or the other. good god man.

i told you guys kolb looked awful in the preseason and it continued into week 1. but reid clearly didnt do him any favors. obviously if vick gets hurt, kolb's going back in (if he doesn't get traded). but to continue to have a revolving door at this position during a season in which kolb was supposed to be the guy is not helping anyone. how good was troy aikman's line in 1989? we sacked him 11 times in one game back then and he had multiple concussions throughout his career. he turned out okay. reid realizes kolb can't play. and with our brutal schedule down the stretch (another reason why you should look at the schedule), i don't see them going back to him if vick struggles. you need continuity at this position.

why do I have to commit to anything? it's about winning the game this week and vick gives the Eagles a better chance to win this week. how can you commit to week 15 or 16 when you have no idea how it is going to play out? Too many variables go into play in the NFL to worry about 10 weeks down the line. Win the next game and move on. Later in the season Kolb might give this team a better chance.

And the difference Jaegs is that Cowboys teams were a 1-15 team. this Eagles team is a possible playoff team and if you make the playoffs you got a shot. when you have a chance to make the playoffs you have to take it. Even if you think this team has little shot of winning a Super Bowl (which i would agree to at this time but see above about week to week in the NFL). Getting into the playoffs and losing is still better on all fronts than not. Beat Jacksonville move to 2-1 and worry about next week next week. it's a cliche for sure but it's true, one game one week at a time.

i think the media and fans of this team have a tendency to overreact to everything and this is the case here. it's week 3 of the season people. relax take a deep breath and let the weeks play themselves out before calling an end to Kevin Kolb era. it's not over by a long shot.

wishy washy personified.

"later in the season kolb might give this team a better chance."

name me one nfl team that has succesfully operated with 2 starting quarterbacks. if kolb is back under center, it will be because vick is injured and/or the season is an abject failure at that point. either way---both scenarios are not good.

its not that i am just asking you to commit to something (even though reid has commited to vick as his starting qb for the season not just this week). i'm just asking you what you think will/should happen from this point forward. but if you can't make an opinion beyond one of the worst teams in the league next week, then i guess this is moo point. kafka can beat the jags. this week is not the point.

pjhawks

The Jeagler wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

The Jeagler wrote:

ladies and gentlemen....dave spadaro. you have a nice way of making a post that doesn't commit yourself to one point or the other. good god man.

i told you guys kolb looked awful in the preseason and it continued into week 1. but reid clearly didnt do him any favors. obviously if vick gets hurt, kolb's going back in (if he doesn't get traded). but to continue to have a revolving door at this position during a season in which kolb was supposed to be the guy is not helping anyone. how good was troy aikman's line in 1989? we sacked him 11 times in one game back then and he had multiple concussions throughout his career. he turned out okay. reid realizes kolb can't play. and with our brutal schedule down the stretch (another reason why you should look at the schedule), i don't see them going back to him if vick struggles. you need continuity at this position.

why do I have to commit to anything? it's about winning the game this week and vick gives the Eagles a better chance to win this week. how can you commit to week 15 or 16 when you have no idea how it is going to play out? Too many variables go into play in the NFL to worry about 10 weeks down the line. Win the next game and move on. Later in the season Kolb might give this team a better chance.

And the difference Jaegs is that Cowboys teams were a 1-15 team. this Eagles team is a possible playoff team and if you make the playoffs you got a shot. when you have a chance to make the playoffs you have to take it. Even if you think this team has little shot of winning a Super Bowl (which i would agree to at this time but see above about week to week in the NFL). Getting into the playoffs and losing is still better on all fronts than not. Beat Jacksonville move to 2-1 and worry about next week next week. it's a cliche for sure but it's true, one game one week at a time.

i think the media and fans of this team have a tendency to overreact to everything and this is the case here. it's week 3 of the season people. relax take a deep breath and let the weeks play themselves out before calling an end to Kevin Kolb era. it's not over by a long shot.

wishy washy personified.

"later in the season kolb might give this team a better chance."

name me one nfl team that has succesfully operated with 2 starting quarterbacks. if kolb is back under center, it will be because vick is injured and/or the season is an abject failure at that point. either way---both scenarios are not good.

its not that i am just asking you to commit to something (even though reid has commited to vick as his starting qb for the season not just this week). i'm just asking you what you think will/should happen from this point forward. but if you can't make an opinion beyond one of the worst teams in the league next week, then i guess this is moo point. kafka can beat the jags. this week is not the point.

how can i tell you what SHOULD happen the rest of the season when it's impossible to know that at this time. did you not read me saying it's a week to week thing? right now Vick should start this week. I hate the guy but he is the better option right now for this team.

What do I think will happen - I am 90% positive Kevin Kolb will start again at some point this season whether due to injury (most likely scenario since very few NFL QBs start all 16 games in a season) or poor play by Vick. Odds of the above I'd say 75-25 he gets back in due to injury to Vick as opposed to poor play.

remember last year at the turn Jaegs the Giants were 7-1 and they didn't make the playoffs and everyone around Philly was calling for Reid's head than. The point I'm trying to make by bringing that up is the point I tried to make above - its a LOOONNG season and things can change dramatically even during one season. Did you really think the Saints were a Super Bowl winning team this time last year? Did you think the Arizona Cardinals were a Super Bowl team 2 years ago after 2 weeks? Let's just relax and not overreact to something happening in week 2 and 3 of the season.

and i still stand by my pre-season prediction of 10-6.

The Fixer

pjhawks wrote:

The Jeagler wrote:

i havend't missed the point. andy reid's missed the point. i would have stuck with kolb. he was given the shortest leash in the history of the national football league (and leashes for that matter). i am just trying to rationalize your boy's decision for you.

but it is what it is. you're right. the nfc looks wide open again this year. i disagree with vick not being a possible long term option though. reid is convinced he can turn him into a better quarterback. if he plays well this year, he's gonna be here for the foreseeable future. people are just going to have to come to terms with that.

the question is do you think Michael Vick gives this team a better chance to win this week? If so then you can rationalize the decision. The NFL is a week-to-week thing and you have to worry about the week at hand. win this week, worry about next week next week.

This is where I disagree. This team isn't good enough to contend in 2010 (in case people have forgotten shaun fucking hill just dropped 30+ on the defense last week...and the special teams and offensive lines have been atrocious). 2010 shouldn't be about wins and losses, it should be about building a foundation for 2011 and beyond. Vick is not a long term solution.

That's all I'm saying. This shit makes no sense to me.

81

The Jeagler wrote:

name me one nfl team that has succesfully operated with 2 starting quarterbacks.

San Francisco in the late 80's. Two hall of fame QB's on that roster. Joe would start the season, go down with injury. In came Steve Young. Joe would get healthy and come back and win the superbowl.


1971 Cowboys is anouther interesting study in dual Qb's. Morton started teh season, then mid season, Morton and Staubach rotated every play, with Staubach finally taking over.

that's two examples. i'd like my cookie now.

jamminpearls

The Fixer wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

The Jeagler wrote:

i havend't missed the point. andy reid's missed the point. i would have stuck with kolb. he was given the shortest leash in the history of the national football league (and leashes for that matter). i am just trying to rationalize your boy's decision for you.

but it is what it is. you're right. the nfc looks wide open again this year. i disagree with vick not being a possible long term option though. reid is convinced he can turn him into a better quarterback. if he plays well this year, he's gonna be here for the foreseeable future. people are just going to have to come to terms with that.

the question is do you think Michael Vick gives this team a better chance to win this week? If so then you can rationalize the decision. The NFL is a week-to-week thing and you have to worry about the week at hand. win this week, worry about next week next week.

This is where I disagree. This team isn't good enough to contend in 2010 (in case people have forgotten shaun fucking hill just dropped 30+ on the defense last week...and the special teams and offensive lines have been atrocious). 2010 shouldn't be about wins and losses, it should be about building a foundation for 2011 and beyond. Vick is not a long term solution.

That's all I'm saying. This shit makes no sense to me.

Its funny we couldn't disagree more about baseball but we agree 100 about football. Take your lumps this year and at least see if kolb is the guy. Vick isn't the answer long term period,he's a good runner avg at best passer. Kolb was drafted and groomed and now that pick is looking really bad.

The Fixer

jamminpearls wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

the question is do you think Michael Vick gives this team a better chance to win this week? If so then you can rationalize the decision. The NFL is a week-to-week thing and you have to worry about the week at hand. win this week, worry about next week next week.

This is where I disagree. This team isn't good enough to contend in 2010 (in case people have forgotten shaun fucking hill just dropped 30+ on the defense last week...and the special teams and offensive lines have been atrocious). 2010 shouldn't be about wins and losses, it should be about building a foundation for 2011 and beyond. Vick is not a long term solution.

That's all I'm saying. This shit makes no sense to me.

Its funny we couldn't disagree more about baseball but we agree 100 about football. Take your lumps this year and at least see if kolb is the guy. Vick isn't the answer long term period,he's a good runner avg at best passer. Kolb was drafted and groomed and now that pick is looking really bad.

nice to be on the same side for once.

this team is like a soap opera. not good times

pjhawks

The Fixer wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

The Jeagler wrote:

i havend't missed the point. andy reid's missed the point. i would have stuck with kolb. he was given the shortest leash in the history of the national football league (and leashes for that matter). i am just trying to rationalize your boy's decision for you.

but it is what it is. you're right. the nfc looks wide open again this year. i disagree with vick not being a possible long term option though. reid is convinced he can turn him into a better quarterback. if he plays well this year, he's gonna be here for the foreseeable future. people are just going to have to come to terms with that.

the question is do you think Michael Vick gives this team a better chance to win this week? If so then you can rationalize the decision. The NFL is a week-to-week thing and you have to worry about the week at hand. win this week, worry about next week next week.

This is where I disagree. This team isn't good enough to contend in 2010 (in case people have forgotten shaun fucking hill just dropped 30+ on the defense last week...and the special teams and offensive lines have been atrocious). 2010 shouldn't be about wins and losses, it should be about building a foundation for 2011 and beyond. Vick is not a long term solution.

That's all I'm saying. This shit makes no sense to me.

just because Shaun Hill dropped 30+ on this defense in week 2 doesn't mean that in week 15 this might not be a hell of alot better. and if you can make the playoffs and build a foundation that is much better than not making the playoffs and building a foundation. If you can get players like Jackson, Maclin, etc. more playoff experience isn't that exponentially better than not? Very few of these players have won a playoff game as a starter so you do what you can to make the playoffs today. not sure i understand the theory of let's be average or below for the sake of the future - winning this weeks game will help this team get closer to the playoffs this year. making the playoffs can't be a bad thing right?

and besides there is about a 99% chance there won't even be a season next year

The Fixer

pjhawks wrote:

making the playoffs can't be a bad thing right?

that all depends on what your expectations are as a fan. personally, a 10-6 team that squeaks into the playoffs to lose in round 1 isn't what I want. We had that last year with mcnabb. THey traded him to groom kolb as the guy to lead this team into the next decade. Is he the guy? No one knows at this point. 2010 should be about answering that question. If he's not, they go 5-11 and get a top 10 pick. There are some really good college QBs coming out this year (Luck, Locker, Mallet). Would have been nice to know what we've got going forward. Vick isnt the answer, we already know that.

booomm11

Ellis Hobbs is a bum

pjhawks

81 wrote:

The Jeagler wrote:

name me one nfl team that has succesfully operated with 2 starting quarterbacks.

San Francisco in the late 80's. Two hall of fame QB's on that roster. Joe would start the season, go down with injury. In came Steve Young. Joe would get healthy and come back and win the superbowl.


1971 Cowboys is anouther interesting study in dual Qb's. Morton started teh season, then mid season, Morton and Staubach rotated every play, with Staubach finally taking over.

that's two examples. i'd like my cookie now.

Don't forget the NY Giants Phil Simms and Jeff Hostetler, Redskins Mark Rypian and Doug Williams (isn't rypian who williams took over for?). Maybe even go as far as saying Drew Bledsoe and Tom Brady since Brady only took over because Bledsoe got hurt and Bledsoe did come back.

81

pjhawks wrote:

81 wrote:

The Jeagler wrote:

name me one nfl team that has succesfully operated with 2 starting quarterbacks.

San Francisco in the late 80's. Two hall of fame QB's on that roster. Joe would start the season, go down with injury. In came Steve Young. Joe would get healthy and come back and win the superbowl.


1971 Cowboys is anouther interesting study in dual Qb's. Morton started teh season, then mid season, Morton and Staubach rotated every play, with Staubach finally taking over.

that's two examples. i'd like my cookie now.

Don't forget the NY Giants Phil Simms and Jeff Hostetler, Redskins Mark Rypian and Doug Williams (isn't rypian who williams took over for?). Maybe even go as far as saying Drew Bledsoe and Tom Brady since Brady only took over because Bledsoe got hurt and Bledsoe did come back.

forgot about those. he only wanted one, so i stopped thinking after two. Redskins won three titles in a short span with 3 different qb's.

The Fixer

pjhawks wrote:

81 wrote:

The Jeagler wrote:

name me one nfl team that has succesfully operated with 2 starting quarterbacks.

San Francisco in the late 80's. Two hall of fame QB's on that roster. Joe would start the season, go down with injury. In came Steve Young. Joe would get healthy and come back and win the superbowl.


1971 Cowboys is anouther interesting study in dual Qb's. Morton started teh season, then mid season, Morton and Staubach rotated every play, with Staubach finally taking over.

that's two examples. i'd like my cookie now.

Don't forget the NY Giants Phil Simms and Jeff Hostetler, Redskins Mark Rypian and Doug Williams (isn't rypian who williams took over for?). Maybe even go as far as saying Drew Bledsoe and Tom Brady since Brady only took over because Bledsoe got hurt and Bledsoe did come back.

williams took over for jay schroeder.

I think jeags point was 2 functioning QBs at the same time, sharing snaps. not a starter and a backup

he's right, it doesn't work

The Juggler

The Fixer wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

81 wrote:

San Francisco in the late 80's. Two hall of fame QB's on that roster. Joe would start the season, go down with injury. In came Steve Young. Joe would get healthy and come back and win the superbowl.


1971 Cowboys is anouther interesting study in dual Qb's. Morton started teh season, then mid season, Morton and Staubach rotated every play, with Staubach finally taking over.

that's two examples. i'd like my cookie now.

Don't forget the NY Giants Phil Simms and Jeff Hostetler, Redskins Mark Rypian and Doug Williams (isn't rypian who williams took over for?). Maybe even go as far as saying Drew Bledsoe and Tom Brady since Brady only took over because Bledsoe got hurt and Bledsoe did come back.

williams took over for jay schroeder.

I think jeags point was 2 functioning QBs at the same time, sharing snaps. not a starter and a backup

he's right, it doesn't work

yeah...pj hawks was saying he thinks vick will give us the better chance of beating the jags (mind you they are an atrocious football team ) this week but down the road kolb might be a better matchup verses another team.

"Win the next game and move on. Later in the season Kolb might give this team a better chance."


if that is what he really means, he just don't understand football. injuries happen. but nfl coaches don't look at the schedule and think one qb would fair better one week and then go with the other quarterback the next week. doesn't work that way. that's why....it never, ever, ever, ever, ever happens.

rightly or wrongly, vick is our qb whether people like it or not.

81

i agree, you don't flip flop qb's like that on a week to week basis based on match ups.

one job, one guy

The Juggler

81 wrote:

i agree, you don't flip flop qb's like that on a week to week basis based on match ups.

one job, one guy

this guy knows what i'm talking about

Cliffy6745

Eagles taking calls for Kolb?

The Juggler

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Eagles taking calls for Kolb?

indeed. cleveland, as i suspected earlier:

Report: Browns called Eagles last night about Kolb
Posted by Mike Florio on September 22, 2010 12:51 PM ET
Those in the Philly front office who believed in quarterback Kevin Kolb included the team's General Manager.

Tom Heckert is now the G.M. of the Browns. And Anthony Gargano of WIP in Philly reports that Heckert's Browns already have called about a possible trade for Kolb.

Specifically, the call was placed last night, and the Browns were told that Kolb isn't available.

But maybe he could be. Coach Andy Reid said Wednesday that that he can't predict whether Kolb will be on the roster past the trade deadline. And that means that maybe Kolb will be traded between now and October 19.