View Full Version : For Pila: T.O. wants a raise!!!
What do you think? Should he get one?
He should, indeed - but I'd be genuinely surprised if the Eagles gave him one. They haven't been willing to give 30+ year-old stars in the past. But TO is a special breed, so perhaps they'll surprise me.
He should, indeed - but I'd be genuinely surprised if the Eagles gave him one. They haven't been willing to give 30+ year-old stars in the past. But TO is a special breed, so perhaps they'll surprise me.
So what will happen then? Thinks he'll hold out?
I think he deserves to be #1 or #2 on the pay chart for WR's. You and me are aligned for once. ;)
I have no idea - but if he does (hold-out), he'll be traded.
I have no idea - but if he does (hold-out), he'll be traded.
Agreed on that but I think the iggz are going to pay him.
Timmy
04-15-2005, 02:19 PM
I got up at 5 AM today to drive from Boston to work. In my groggy state, I began listening to the overnight ESPN radio guy talk about this with his crew and callers. The show was taking the stance that he signed a 7 year deal and he should live by it. They compared TO's contract to the contracts you sign in other industries, like radio. And if TO didn't like the fact that he is in an industry with non-guarenteed contracts, he should get out rather than renegotiate.
It was one of the more mind boggling dumb points of views that I have ever heard. I have to wonder sometimes if the people in radio get their jobs because they know how to say the dumbest things to get people to listen or call.
Once 6 AM rolled around, Mike and Mike took over. On their own, I never considered either one to be a great media personna. Together they have a real good morning show. They did a good job breaking down the situation, with Golic making a good point in regards to TO. Players have little to no leverage in these type of situations. However, not only is TO the most importnat skill position player on the team, he has a reputation (Rightly or wrongly) as being a guy who will torpedo his team's plans if he is not placated. In that regard, being viewed as nuts helps him negotiate.
RedEagle
05-02-2005, 10:24 AM
This is turning into quite a soap opera. "As TO Turns" is becoming a fullfledged bitch fight.
TO has accused McNOT of tiring in the Superbowl which imo is dishonest.
"I played every snap they allowed me to play,'' Owens told ESPN.com. "I wasn't even running until, like, two weeks before the game. But I made sure I was in the best shape possible. I wasn't the guy who got tired in the Super Bowl.''
He should have accused him of choking...because that's what he's always done in the big games.
See McNot's reaction.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylc=X3oDMTBpZ2NvMjltBF9TAzk1ODYxMDU5BHNlYwN0aA--?slug=ap-eagles-owens&prov=ap&type=lgns
Got love it...the city of brotherly love ain't so brotherly now!
Red, you stole my thunder.
Would be interesting to get Pila's insight on this and his reaction......
The Eagles knew TO would be whining sooner or later. They'll deal with this the way they always do - they'll move on without him if he doesn't intend on honoring his contract (thus Reggie Brown taken in the second round and Moats (See Brian Westbrook's whining) in the third).
Having the Joe Montana (banner) of the salary cap allows this team to consistently be flexible enough to anticipate these internal squables before they actually happen. It's why the Eagles, no matter how many "stars" on the team are inflicted with the woe-is-me virus (see Bobby Taylor and Troy Vincent last year, Hugh Douglas the year before and Jeremiah Trotter before that) they can continue business as usual without any sacrifice to the roster. Unlike the Jintz, for example, who are forced to continuously sacrifice the roster because they consistently have no choice but to relent to the whinings of aging stars or risk having their 6-10 exciting seasons turn into dull dorrmats of the league.
RedEagle
05-02-2005, 11:06 AM
My favorite McNot quote is this one.
"I'm not going to sit here and try to have a war of words. I'm a man at what I do.''
Fer sho! He is such a man, that in the 4th quarter with the game on the line, he was upchucking/choking on the pressure of running the offense.
Timmy
05-02-2005, 11:21 AM
We argued a few years ago on the Iggles lack of going for the juggular. I thought they lacked the one big player to go all the way due to their lack of making a FA push. You thought, and still think, it's better to make sure that you are flexible with the cap.
I'm telling you again, it's great to have flexibility- But you have to at some point say "We're going for it" and make the commitment. If not, blow the fucker up and start fresh with the nucleus (McNabb) you keep. Salary Cap "Hell" is overrated. The NFL is set up for one year of pennance if you bungle it, then a possible quick turnaround if you draft well (IE '04 Steelers and Falcons). The Titans will stink this year, but they can be back in the thick of things in '06.
I saw a few months ago the number of "dead" salary cap dollars the Iggles have not used in the last 4 years. If they go again into the season without a full clip in their gun, I don't see what so admirable about it. If they want to get rid of Owens because he's nuts, that's fine. But the penny pinching would bite my ass if I was commiting 1K+ per year for season tickets. They have been on the brink, only to fall short. What's so great about being teased?
Without TO you're in a dog fight to win the NFC, and would be looking for a miracle vs. the AFC champion. Trade him or sign him. Just don't let him sit around and allow this story to grow.
I would argue that the Giants have not suffered greatly from the salary cap, it's been their buffoonery in the draft that has cost them.
"Managing the cap" is so overated that the Eagles and the Patriots (the only other team to be descipline of this methodology) are the only two teams that are consistently in the hunt every year. Going for the "jugular" is what sends teams packing for 3-year rebuilding stages after an injury to their jagular star.
You give yourself a chance every year by remembering what gives you that chance every year, not by betting on the jagular.
If being in cap hell was overated, the Redskins who get themselves in Cap hell every year by winning the annual off-season Go-For-the-jagular race every year would have 5 superbowls this decade already. Instead, they have zero playoff appearences.
Proof is in the pudding: Eagles, highest winning percentage of any team in the league. Pats, second. Proof of concept, there's no denying it.
Until the Iggz win a Lombardi that salary cap madness you spew is all for not.
The Pats winning lately is not only a tribute to how they manage the cap but to many other factors as well. Why you've mentioned both in the same breath beats me.
The Jints baffoonery remain the same - draft like shit, make up by way of free-agency, the least buck effective method of building a squad.
The result is always the same, decent starting lineup, no depth. Other than the Redskins, the VaGinas remain the NFC's team with the most drop-off between their starting roster and their supporting talent. It is no coicidence that I accurately predict year after year their late season crash and burn after the season take their toll on the starting roster. This year will be no different, despite blowing their wad on offseason acquisition (just more of the same failed formula. Proof they'll never learn).
With or without TO, the Eagles are the team to beat in the NFC. And that'll continue to be the case until NFC teams start desciplining their cap methodology around the same principle that has mad the Pats and the Eagles a success.
Until the Iggz win a Lombardi that salary cap madness you spew is all for not.
The Pats winning lately is not only a tribute to how they manage the cap but to many other factors as well. Why you've mentioned both in the same breath beats me.It beats you because you're still stuck in the pre-FA, salary Cap Montana era and have a poor understanding of how today's NFL works.
Successful Cap management is the pillar to the consistent success that all other factors branch from. Without it, those other factors that make up the winning formula become merely a part of a broken equation.
It beats you because you're still stuck in the pre-FA, salary Cap Montana era and have a poor understanding of how today's NFL works.
Successful Cap management is the pillar to the consistent success that all other factors branch from. Without it, those other factors that make up the winning formula become merely a part of a broken equation.
You know what's funny? The only thing you and the Pats have in common if the management around your salary cap and nothing else.
Then again, you use both in the same breath because maybe it makes those wounds heal easier knowing that they've won 3 in four years and you've got squat.
But hey, you're as every bit as successful as they are, right?
As for my 49ers, I admit they suck and will suck for years to come. ;)
Timmy
05-02-2005, 12:08 PM
The Pats first victory was a great story due to it's unexepcted nature. It was a borderline miracle. Since then, they have made pointed signings of high level talent to balance off their low cost draftees. They don't win their second title without Rodney Harrison laying hits or grooming of the secondary. They don't beat the Iggles without Corey Dillon. This offseason they picked up Starks.
They are currently have a much lower key contract debate with Tom Brady. I guarentee they will end up keeping him, and not write him off as a widget that cannot disrupt the salary cap machine.
You can mention the dumb bell teams as a way of making your point, but it really doesn't. The Skins were roundly criticized for their signings. The Giants upped Strahan at a price that made the NY papers blush. It's their bad for doing it, and for continuing to do it. The Eagles have been great at drafting, which makes it easier to manage the cap. But they haven't won a Super Bowl. I don't think mentioning the Skins is any more honest than mentioning the Cards as an example of why of having a low salary cap is a bad idea.
The Bucs made a commitment to winning one, went all in, and won. The Raiders made a commitment also. They came close twice to the SB, and lost to the Bucs in their final attempt. They are both now in the process of rehauling their rosters. It sucks for now, but good management will get them back in short order (The Bucs are showing a greater understanding of this part than the Raiders). I don't see how that plan is worse than entering evey season without the top level players to win a title. And I have no doubt Tampa fans wouldn't trade their title for a higher winning percentage.
Timmy
05-02-2005, 12:09 PM
As for my 49ers, I admit they suck and will suck for years to come. ;)
The ownership has been clownish over there. But the new coach is talking a good game. If he is as good a his mouth, then maybe they can make it back.
While the Eagles do not have the same SB credentials as the Pats, it is simply silly to deny that the method that has worked for NE has given the same opportunities to the Eagles over the last 5 years (highest 5-year winning percentage, 4 conference championships, 1 SB appearence).
Since I know you to be much more intelligent than you're giving yourself credit for here, I'll overlook your save-facing refusal to aknowledge the undeniable as mere friendly smack for the sake of keeping this debate interesting.
Don't worry, I'll keep that a secret between us.;)
The ownership has been clownish over there. But the new coach is talking a good game. If he is as good a his mouth, then maybe they can make it back.
You're telling me?
The only good thing to come out of last season was that York went and met with Iggz and Pats officials, particularly Bob Kraft and asked them how they did it. They both did the same thing. Hired a coach first and then a GM after the fact. Then they did what most owners should do and leave football operations to football operations guys and let them know what kind of budget they have to play with.
I'm sadly not optimistic and this has got to be one of the worst drafts ever to have a first pick in. Alex Smith owes Matt Leinart alot or else he would've been playing pocket pool right next to Aaron Rodgers last week.
While the Eagles do not have the same SB credentials as the Pats, it is simply silly to deny that the method that has worked for NE has given the same opportunities to the Eagles over the last 5 years (highest 5-year winning percentage, 4 conference championships, 1 SB appearence).
Since I know you to be much more intelligent than you're giving yourself credit for here, I'll overlook your save-facing refusal to aknowledge the undeniable as mere friendly smack for the sake of keeping this debate interesting.
Don't worry, I'll keep that a secret between us.;)
Hey, if you're a fan that's happy having the highest winning percentage in the past 5 years with nothing to show for it, then more power to you. Don't know how rest of Philly fan feels about that.
I'm not refusing to deny anything other than the facts. Yes, the Iggz have managed the cap well, just as the Pats have, but one team has got the titles and the other has the highest winning percentage in the past 5 years. :juggle:
The Pats first victory was a great story due to it's unexepcted nature. It was a borderline miracle. Since then, they have made pointed signings of high level talent to balance off their low cost draftees. They don't win their second title without Rodney Harrison laying hits or grooming of the secondary. They don't beat the Iggles without Corey Dillon. This offseason they picked up Starks.
They are currently have a much lower key contract debate with Tom Brady. I guarentee they will end up keeping him, and not write him off as a widget that cannot disrupt the salary cap machine.
You can mention the dumb bell teams as a way of making your point, but it really doesn't. The Skins were roundly criticized for their signings. The Giants upped Strahan at a price that made the NY papers blush. It's their bad for doing it, and for continuing to do it. The Eagles have been great at drafting, which makes it easier to manage the cap. But they haven't won a Super Bowl. I don't think mentioning the Skins is any more honest than mentioning the Cards as an example of why of having a low salary cap is a bad idea.
The Bucs made a commitment to winning one, went all in, and won. The Raiders made a commitment also. They came close twice to the SB, and lost to the Bucs in their final attempt. They are both now in the process of rehauling their rosters. It sucks for now, but good management will get them back in short order (The Bucs are showing a greater understanding of this part than the Raiders). I don't see how that plan is worse than entering evey season without the top level players to win a title. And I have no doubt Tampa fans wouldn't trade their title for a higher winning percentage.Not any more dishonest than to say the Pats wouldn't make it without Harrison or Dillon, since they have doen it without them both.
What you're ignoring is tha fact that teams like the Eagles and Pats make their moves in the FA when it counts, and limit them to managable numbers - all a product of the flexibiliy of properly managing the salary cap and having the ability to use and stack up on draft choices as a way to remain competitive year-after-year. Long-term planning, has long-term rewards.
Going for the "jagular", as with Tampa and Oakland, is simply not a smart way to achieve your SB aspirations. It's a huge gamble on luck in the NFL - where one setback (i.e. a key injury, a bad call (see "tuck" rule)) sends a team back to square one, just like that.
You can argue that it worked for Tampa. Fine. But for every Tampa, there's 28 Redskins and Jintz. It's Russian roulette with 32 chambers, 31 of them with a "go back and do not past go" cards. Much smarter to play roulette with a gun of your making and give yourself a much better shot every year.
Hey, if you're a fan that's happy having the highest winning percentage in the past 5 years with nothing to show for it, then more power to you. Don't know how rest of Philly fan feels about that.
I'm not refusing to deny anything other than the facts. Yes, the Iggz have managed the cap well, just as the Pats have, but one team has got the titles and the other has the highest winning percentage in the past 5 years. :juggle:I'd put the 2 and 2 together for you, but I get ya! Deep down I know you're grateful for the bone I tossed you of letting you save face. You can repay me with a SuperBock at our next junket!;)
I'd put the 2 and 2 together for you, but I get ya! Deep down I know you're grateful for the bone I tossed you of letting you save face. You can repay me with a SuperBock at our next junket!;)
I don't know what face you were trying to save here other than your own mi compadre...
These are the facts in the last 5 years:
1. Pats & Iggz manage the cap brilliantly and much in the same way
2. Iggz have the highest winning percentage in these last 5 years
3. Pats have three Super Bowl titles within those 5 years
One's a champion and the other is well, second place. ;)
I'm not a betting man, but rest assured, I think the Pats success is built on more than just salary cap management to say the least while the Iggz inability to win the big one, well, I'll leave that to your spin Pila. ;)
Stop challenging my intelligent beliefs of your intellect, Flo. I know the concept of relationships between key principals and secondary factors by which branch off to a final, successful equation weren't lost on you when I first explained it to you. I ain't buying it, the act.
Stop challenging my intelligent beliefs of your intellect, Flo. I know the concept of relationships between key principals and secondary factors by which branch off to a final, successful equation weren't lost on you when I first explained it to you. I ain't buying it, the act.
Any type of intellect you have has been clouded by the constant side stepping and red herring act you continue to grace us with here.
Where was I inconsistent or void of any truths I put forward to you?
Watch out for those egg shells Pila. ;)
Timmy
05-02-2005, 12:59 PM
Not any more dishonest than to say the Pats wouldn't make it without Harrison or Dillon, since they have doen it without them both.
The Pats followed their first Super Bowl with a 9-7 record. They have continued drafting well, but also augmented it with FA signings. All Pats fans will tell you that the first team was the weakest of the three. These signings were there for teams, like Eagles, to make. They picked up two pro-bowl players in back to back seasons outside of the draft. That's very tough to do through the draft, and impossible if you aren't willing to take a chance.
What you're ignoring is tha fact that teams like the Eagles and Pats make their moves in the FA when it counts, and limit them to managable numbers - all a product of the flexibiliy of properly managing the salary cap and having the ability to use and stack up on draft choices as a way to remain competitive year-after-year. Long-term planning, has long-term rewards.
I'm not ignoring it all. I'm not advocating mad spending sprees. But I also am not writing off the reward of taking a risk.
Going for the "jagular", as with Tampa and Oakland, is simply not a smart way to achieve your SB aspirations. It's a huge gamble on luck in the NFL - where one setback (i.e. a key injury, a bad call (see "tuck" rule)) sends a team back to square one, just like that.
Can't you say that about any signing for any team? There is always a risk to any signing. But this isn't soccer, where weekly consistency wins, but a battle to the end. In the playoffs, your weaknesses that can be hidden during the regular season get exposed. The Eagles came closest to winning it all when they made a risky move by signing TO, thus shoring up their piss poor recieving corps. They are now digging in and using the same song and dance with every other player they let go. I understand why you give them the benefit of the doubt due to their great drafting.
But either get rid of him, or sign him. As long as you have him, and he plays at his standard level, this will be something he constantly barks about. TO isn't the bad guy because he is doing what he has always done- what is best for himself. They knew this when they picked him up. You love his great play, now you have to pay the man or get rid of him.
You can argue that it worked for Tampa. Fine. But for every Tampa, there's 28 Redskins and Jintz. It's Russian roulette with 32 chambers, 31 of them with a "go back and do not past go" cards. Much smarter to play roulette with a gun of your making and give yourself a much better shot every year.
The Steelers have spent most of the last 15 years being one of the contenders in the AFC, and it sucks seing them go cheap. It sucks seeing them fall short. The names of their foes change, but they have stayed the same. Always one or two great players away. I don't see the Iggles being all that different.
You align yourself with the Pats, but the difference between your team and the Pats is clear to me. The Pats ended the season as the best team in football, and they have done enough this offseason to go into the '05 season as the favorites despite losing key coaches and their defensive captain. I thought that the Iggles had changed last season. But if they let this dangle in the breeze, then they haven't IMO. It's one thing to be hardcore with true interchangeable parts such as Westbrook or Freddie Mitchell. But TO? You better have a backup plan if he is not wearing Iggle green in September.
If TO decides to whine himself out of Philly, is there a chance he'd land himslef in Miami? Do they have the cap space to pull such a move?
Any type of intellect you have has been clouded by the constant side stepping and red herring act you continue to grace us with here.
Where was I inconsistent or void of any truths I put forward to you?
Watch out for those egg shells Pila. ;)
Ah, cliches! I accepted your surrender after our second exchange. Don't over do it, it'll become even more obvious. Try to slowly fade into the background approach instead.
But because I'm incredibly sensitive to your attempt to save face...
The flaw isn't pointing out results, we all know them well. It's ignoring the Pats success and the Eagles (relative) success are a product of the same principal. Of course, managing the cap is but one step in the long run to winning a Superbowl. Managing the cap is not a gurantee to a superbowl - it is merely the most efficient way of keeping you on the right path every year, provided you don't devert by being suckered into risky shortcuts.
You still need to draft well, have good track records in talent evaluation, to insure a deep squad so that you're better prepared to handle tear and wear and injuries. You still need good coaching staff to improve your weekly success and to develop younger players who'll need to realize their potential when they are called upon.
But without managing your cap wisely, you extremely limit the depth of your squad, and thus have to rely more on luck and a handful of playmakers and pray they stay healthy for that one season in which you banked your mortage on.
The difference between the Pats and the Eagles aren't because of differences in which they go about their plans, but how well each have executed that plan. The margin is between the two is very small - but that is often how little it takes to be the one winning the whole thing and the one almost winning the whole thing. But their relative successes are a product opf a very similar formula.
Save the white flag on your next post - use it to wipe the egg off your face instead, Flo.;)
The margin between the two is the coaching staff, period.
You'll see how the Pats fall flat on their ass this upcoming season given their recent coaching changes.
Timmy
05-02-2005, 01:16 PM
Oh Squishy fishy, if it were only true I'd be making plans to that God forsaken Detroit for the next Super Bowl. But we both know it is not. They are too good and deep to not be a major player again.
The Pats followed their first Super Bowl with a 9-7 record. They have continued drafting well, but also augmented it with FA signings. All Pats fans will tell you that the first team was the weakest of the three. These signings were there for teams, like Eagles, to make. They picked up two pro-bowl players in back to back seasons outside of the draft. That's very tough to do through the draft, and impossible if you aren't willing to take a chance.
You misunderstand. Let's use your example, then.
Teams are able to pick up two Pro-bowlers (Eagles last year: TO and The Freak) and not blow their wad or sacrifice the rest of their roster or draft picks because precisely of how well they've positioned themselves leading them up to that point by managing the salary cap (i.e. making tough choices on stars that have seen their best production, but still have some years left). By avoiding cap hell, you can make two key signings on any given year with minimal sacrifice in other areas.
I'm not ignoring it all. I'm not advocating mad spending sprees. But I also am not writing off the reward of taking a risk. Everything is a risk - banking on young players and making tough decisions to let go proven commodities is risky. It requires confidence in your talent evaluators. Drafting, developing your young players is one of the keys to salary cap management.
Can't you say that about any signing for any team? There is always a risk to any signing. But this isn't soccer, where weekly consistency wins, but a battle to the end. In the playoffs, your weaknesses that can be hidden during the regular season get exposed. The Eagles came closest to winning it all when they made a risky move by signing TO, thus shoring up their piss poor recieving corps. They are now digging in and using the same song and dance with every other player they let go. I understand why you give them the benefit of the doubt due to their great drafting. The Eagles were able to limit their risk of signing TO because prcisely of the position they were in that could sign two of the biggest FA on the market without sacrificing the rest of the roster, their salary commitments of younger players while holding on to all their draft picks.
They didn't do this by accident. They positioned themselves to be able to make these kind of moves once they felt the players were worth it.
But either get rid of him, or sign him. As long as you have him, and he plays at his standard level, this will be something he constantly barks about. TO isn't the bad guy because he is doing what he has always done- what is best for himself. They knew this when they picked him up. You love his great play, now you have to pay the man or get rid of him.
Absolutely. TO is no different than the previous 20 before him. The Eagles can pay him and still be relatively flexible because of how desciplined they've been. He may be worth doing that for him. But I doubted. They didn't get to this position by making exceptions. We'll see, but overall, the Eagles are built to minimize the impact of the departure of any key player. They handle these sort setbacks better than most because of it.
The Steelers have spent most of the last 15 years being one of the contenders in the AFC, and it sucks seing them go cheap. It sucks seeing them fall short. The names of their foes change, but they have stayed the same. Always one or two great players away. I don't see the Iggles being all that different. The Eagles have faired better mostly because their draft picks at positions of more value have faired batter. It's not the methodology that is failing the Steelers, but some of the executions.
You align yourself with the Pats, but the difference between your team and the Pats is clear to me. The Pats ended the season as the best team in football, and they have done enough this offseason to go into the '05 season as the favorites despite losing key coaches and their defensive captain. I thought that the Iggles had changed last season. But if they let this dangle in the breeze, then they haven't IMO. It's one thing to be hardcore with true interchangeable parts such as Westbrook or Freddie Mitchell. But TO? You better have a backup plan if he is not wearing Iggle green in September.Every year people say that about the Eagles (last being the exception, after all, the media reacts to FA signings like every other dunno-diddly). TO is a great player, but the team is built to anticipate the loss of any player. You can't replace TO's production with another player, you have to do with a number of players and coaching. The eagles, like the Pats, are equipped to handle these situations better than most.
After all, when TO got hurt with 3 games left in the regular season, how many here came around to wave a premature hand at the Ealges playoff aspirations? How many did the same thing when McNabb went down two years ago? What about when Duce whent down? What about when the Eagles lost their entire starting DL the year before that.
It's no accident that the Eagles can still manage to put a challenger on the field despite losing key players. They owe that to good coaching. But more than that, to smart salary cap management.
The difference between the Pats and the Eagles aren't because of differences in which they go about their plans, but how well each have executed that plan. The margin is between the two is very small - but that is often how little it takes to be the one winning the whole thing and the one almost winning the whole thing. But their relative successes are a product opf a very similar formula.
And this is the part I was waiting for (He took the bait)......
Loco has unfortunately followed up with my response thereafter....
And this is the part I was waiting for (He took the bait)......
Loco has unfortunately followed up with my response thereafter....As I said, I had already accepted your concession. I knew youse were smarter than you were letting yourself seem - I was happy to let you save face.
You're welcome.
Timmy
05-02-2005, 02:02 PM
The Eagles have faired better mostly because their draft picks at positions of more value have faired batter. It's not the methodology that is failing the Steelers, but some of the executions.
I'd like to explore this a bit. My problem with the Steelers for the most part is that they would let guys go at a nauseating rate. That happened mostly before the salary cap and Heinze Field. It really bugged me after a while to see players and coaches leave on a yearly basis.
Also, over the past 20 years they had many a chooch play the QB position. Flo had men such as Joe Montana, Steve Young, Steve Bono, and Jeff Garcia calling the signals. I had Cliff Stoudt, Mark Malone, David Woodley, Bubby Brister, Neil O'Donnel, Mike Tomzack, Kordell Stewart, and Tommy Maddox. Roethlisberger is their first QB with an inkling of greatness since Bradshaw.
Their secondary has also been substandard most of the time (Except for Woodson and Lake at their peak). Especially when you factor in the defense Cowher uses. Like the Eagles, you have to be really good to get away with single coverage.
I'd like to explore this a bit. My problem with the Steelers for the most part is that they would let guys go at a nauseating rate. That happened mostly before the salary cap and Heinze Field. It really bugged me after a while to see players and coaches leave on a yearly basis.
Also, over the past 20 years they had many a chooch play the QB position. Flo had men such as Joe Montana, Steve Young, Steve Bono, and Jeff Garcia calling the signals. I had Cliff Stoudt, Mark Malone, David Woodley, Bubby Brister, Neil O'Donnel, Mike Tomzack, Kordell Stewart, and Tommy Maddox. Roethlisberger is their first QB with an inkling of greatness since Bradshaw.
Their secondary has also been substandard most of the time (Except for Woodson and Lake at their peak). Especially when you factor in the defense Cowher uses. Like the Eagles, you have to be really good to get away with single coverage.Glad we finally came to an agreement:
The Eagles have faired better mostly because their draft picks at positions of more value have faired batter. It's not the methodology that is failing the Steelers, but some of the executions.Case in point: Quaterback, CB.
As I said, I had already accepted your concession. I knew youse were smarter than you were letting yourself seem - I was happy to let you save face.
You're welcome.
I just wanted simple clarity on why you grouped the Iggz and the Pats together all the time when the only thing they have in common is the style in which they manage their caps and how that is "one of" the several reasons that has led to their effectiveness or ineffectiveness.
I just wanted simple clarity on why you grouped the Iggz and the Pats together all the time when the only thing they have in common is the style in which they manage their caps and how that is "one of" the several reasons that has led to their effectiveness or ineffectiveness.No. Not "one" of the reasons, but "THE" reason.
Glad I was able to clarify that for you, then.
No. Not "one" of the reasons, but "THE" reason.
Glad I was able to clarify that for you, then.
Nope. I beg to differ. One's gotten to the promised land for a reason and the other hasn't.
Just be thankfull you're not a Buffalo or Minnesota fan Pila. It could be worse ya know. ;)
It's one step forward, three back, eh? It's okay, I got ya!;)
It's one step forward, three back, eh? It's okay, I got ya!;)
Not at all. Just calling it like it is. The cap is "one of" not "the" reason the Pats are Super Bowl Champs and the Izzs have had the highest winning percentage in the last 5 years.
I doubt you guys would've even gotten to the dance without T.O. as well. ;)
We did get to the dance without TO.
Uh, oh - your falling, fast. You betta hang on to something! Quick! Spell smack or something!
We did get to the dance without TO.
Uh, oh - your falling, fast. You betta hang on to something! Quick! Spell smack or something!
Oh yeah, my bad. Forgot he wasn't responsible at all for you guys getting home field and the great regular season record you achieved. :googly:
Gimme a break. Hurry Pila, grasp at that last straw. ;)
So the Iggs were able to beat the best of the NFC without TO, but they'd have trouble with the fodder they sweaped under a ten-ton bus during the season without TO?
C'mon - who took over your handle? Didja sell it in Vegas to one of the bimbos at the door?
So the Iggs were able to beat the best of the NFC without TO, but they'd have trouble with the fodder they sweaped under a ten-ton bus during the season without TO?
C'mon - who took over your handle? Didja sell it in Vegas to one of the bimbos at the door?
Hey, I'm just keeping you honest Pila, that's been my job today for some reason. ;)
So are you telling me that even without T.O. the Iggz would've claimed the NFC Championship and home field advantage in the playoffs?
Careful, I might ask you to recommend the type of glue you've been sniffing....
Don't worry, I won't mention that we made it to the championship three times, last twice with the best record/homefield advantage, without TO on the roster. You're obviously still trying to wipe the egg off your face from confusing principals with factors.
Sssshhhhhh.... if you go back and edit that before anyone sees it, I'll play along and pretend you never went on this one seriously bad F1 funk today. We all have bad days from time to time, no shame. ;)
Don't worry, I won't mention that we made it to the championship three times, last twice with the best record/homefield advantage, without TO on the roster. You're obviously still trying to wipe the egg off your face from confusing principals with factors.
Sssshhhhhh.... if you go back and edit that before anyone sees it, I'll play along and pretend you never went on this one seriously bad F1 funk today. We all have bad days from time to time, no shame. ;)
You see that's the kicker. Up until last year, you never won the Championship game you made it to nor did you show up for final soiree. Something took you over the hump and I'd like to think it was more than the just the crappy NFC Opposition you encountered on your March to the promised land.
You forgot to tell me the name of that glue by the way... ;)
For the love of the god you worship, Flo - stop sabotaging every effort I'm making to save you from further embarrassment. Try at least to keep up with your own arguments! In the words of Jerry McGuire: "Help me help you!"
Your argument was that TO took us to the Superbowl because without him we wouldn't have homefield advantage through out the playoffs when we've clearly done this without TO on two seperate occasions when the NFC was in fact tougher than this year's version, and won every playoff game to get to the superbowl without him this year.
There's no question the TO makes us a better team, but it is silly to now claim we couldn't of just as well get to the Superbowl in this last year's diluted NFC after running over the competition like they were nonexistent wihtout him.
Oi, oi - it's not easy being your friend.;)
For the love of the god you worship, Flo - stop sabotaging every effort I'm making to save you from further embarrassment. Try at least to keep up with your own arguments! In the words of Jerry McGuire: "Help me help you!"
Your argument was that TO took us to the Superbowl because without him we wouldn't have homefield advantage through out the playoffs when we've clearly done this without TO on two seperate occasions when the NFC was in fact tougher than this year's version, and won every playoff game to get to the superbowl without him this year.
There's no question the TO makes us a better team, but it is silly to now claim we couldn't of just as well get to the Superbowl in this last year's diluted NFC after running over the competition like they were nonexistent wihtout him.
Oi, oi - it's not easy being your friend.;)
The only thing that kept me from educating you earlier was an afternooon meeting with Whitey so you can thank him. ;)
Pila, who was your best player in the Super Bowl? Without him, do you think you guys would've had a better chance?
The NFC Opposition has been crappy at best over the past 5 years but you were never able to get over that hump still. T.O. was the X-Factor in more ways than one.
Nonetheless, the best part about knowing you is that I know you always have to be right. Tis alright, I'm always willing to let one be a legend in his own mind. See Tinto for an example. :)
Educating me? Educating me on how one loses track of one's own argument?
Seriously, do you even remember what your original contention was? :shocker:
Allow me to remind you since you've lost track when you've changed your argument 4 times in as many posts.
Original claim #1:
I doubt you guys would've even gotten to the dance without T.O. as well.
The Eagles played their entire playoff series without TO - so that's a pretty stupid claim to make.
To which you then changed your argument to (change #2):
Oh yeah, my bad. Forgot he wasn't responsible at all for you guys getting home field and the great regular season record you achieved.
Uh, the Eagles achieved the exact same thing on two prior occasions without TO!
Argument #3
So are you telling me that even without T.O. the Iggz would've claimed the NFC Championship and home field advantage in the playoffs?Uh, what part of having done it twice before without TO didn't you understand?
Argument #4
You see that's the kicker. Up until last year, you never won the Championship game you made it to nor did you show up for final soiree. Something took you over the hump and I'd like to think it was more than the just the crappy NFC Opposition you encountered on your March to the promised land.Oh, so now it's no longer TO got you homefield advantage, but over the hump - The NFC championship - which he didn't even play a single down in!
Not only can't you keep track of your argument, you can't even get one of them right. It's one thing trying to throw enough shit until you get something right, but getting everything you throw wrong, well that's just special! F1 kinda special.
Which finally brings us to argument change #4.
Pila, who was your best player in the Super Bowl? Without him, do you think you guys would've had a better chance?TO was superman in the SuperBowl. I'm just wondering what that has to do with your previous three contentions. :shocker:
I understand, after changing it so often, you forgot what you were arguing about.
Take your lumps like a man - this ain't the political forum where confusing commies with bullshit is easy. Respectfully concede that you inadvertently made a foolish point, then made three even more stupid additional ones trying to cover up for the first one. Lord knows where yer gonna end up at this rate if you continue…
Ogolo
05-03-2005, 05:18 AM
2 questions I have to ask....
First to Pila... With the eagles and all of their cap room, why havent they made an offer for Travis Henry?
And for Timmy.... The Pats last week signed CB Chad Scott, how good is he?
Timmy
05-03-2005, 07:03 AM
He'll be fine in the nickel or safety. If he has to start corner, he's prone to being beat. He's had some injuries.
2 questions I have to ask....
First to Pila... With the eagles and all of their cap room, why havent they made an offer for Travis Henry?
They did - the Bills wanted a second rounder. The Eagles offered a third.
Ogolo
05-09-2005, 02:47 PM
T.O is being a bitch! I hope Andy Reid and the Eagles dont give in to his demands. After is all b.s last year with not wanting to play for The Ravens...he comes off and pulls a stunt like this. Does anyone know how much T.O was supposed to make this year?
Ogolo
05-09-2005, 02:49 PM
They did - the Bills wanted a second rounder. The Eagles offered a third.
A third seems about right. Dillon cost the Pats a second, and Henry who is a damn good back, I wouldnt put him in Dillon's value. The Gm up in Buffalo Tom Donahue tries to hard to outsmart everybody.
His current salary puts him behind only Moss and Harrison.
Timmy
05-09-2005, 03:59 PM
Who??????????
vBulletin v3.0.7, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.