Califan007

Yeah, but that was after he set the record straight after being hired lol...before then, it was: 8 things to know about Doug Pederson, Eagles' new head coach (this sound familiar lol) Pederson is the Kansas City Chiefs offensive coordinator, and has held that title since Andy Reid became head coach in 2013. Pederson does not call the plays, but does have input on the gameplan, and calls plays in certain situations. https://www.nj.com/eagles/2016/01/8_things_to_know_about_doug_pederson_eagles_new_he.html Doug Pederson was calling more plays for the Chiefs than we realized The thing about calling plays is, you never really know who's doing it. Take the 2015 Kansas City Chiefs for example. We were under the impression that Andy Reid was the main play caller while OC Doug Pederson only called some plays. Pederson was introduced as the Eagles new head coach today and told the Philly media that he was calling the second half of games for most of the season. https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2016/1/19/10793458/doug-pederson-was-calling-more-plays-for-the-chiefs-than-we-realized **This one is kinda interesting: Andy Reid trying to convince Eagles to hire Doug Pederson? Doug Pederson's name emerged as candidate for the Eagles' head coaching search, Sunday morning and immediately two independent sources shot it down. Now a few days later, they're not so sure. "I think Andy (Reid) is getting to the owner (Jeffrey Lurie),'' one said. "Those two still get along pretty well, which is kind of peculiar on its own. But (Lurie) listens to Andy. They may wait and interview Pederson, and then who knows?'' [...]The second source, who thought all along the Eagles might be doing Reid a favor, said Pederson has a shot, but should not be considered the favorite. ****************** The reason I think that last one is interesting?... At the time there were rumors that Reid was propping up Pederson and making it seem as if he played a more important role in the Chiefs' offense than he really did, giving Pederson credit for stuff Reid was actually in control of. The blurb above makes it seem as if Reid was having talks with Lurie about recommending Pederson as an HC candidate and that Reid's relationship with Lurie is why it started. Got me thinking...does Reid have a good relationship with anyone on the Skins? lol...I now Alex Smiff is not FO and is a player and I'm sure this is probably against the spirit of the cap or something like that there, but maybe he's been floating Bieniemy's name to Smiff who in turn has floated it to Dan?... And that's why we're hearing about him as a possible candidate? We assume it was Smiff alone, but perhaps not.

Similar things were said about Pederson when he was hired by the Eagles...so there is that lol... Ok, this is almost exactly what was said about Pederson when he was hired by the Eagles lol....

??...It was on my twitter feed, I didn't go looking for it lol. The guy does a lot of Skins analysis, he's one of like 50 guys I follow on there. And he has 49.2 THOUSAND followers...not 3 lol...including Chris Mortensen and Rich Tandler (RIP)

I can not be the only one who saw this as a sign Bruce Allen had been fired lol...

Only two of the remaining 4 teams have wiing records )at the moment) so he should be good to go for a 10-6 record and a playoff birth. Once he's in the playoffs, though lol...

It includes "foil wins"--teams that would have had a winning record if they did not lose to that QB. Didn't you wonder what that column meant? Or were you too quick to dismiss anything that didn't prop up Kirk to even notice it or wonder what it meant...because you obviously didn't know. And did you even bother to see if it's possible to have 10 games a season against teams that either had a winning record or "Foil" teams? (for the record, 8-7-1 is a winning record as well). Don't worry, I'll do the work for you: 2009 (9 games) Wins (4): Cowboys 11-5 49ers 8-8 (Foil Win) Ravens 9-7 Cardinals 10-8 Losses (5): Bengals 10-6 Vikings 12-4 (twice) Steelers 9-7 Cardinals 10-6 (playoffs) 2010 (10 games) Wins (8): Eagles 10-6 (twice, once in playoffs) Jets 11-5 Giants 10-6 Bears 11-5 (twice, once in playoffs) Falcons 13-3 (playoffs) Steelers 12-4 (Super Bowl) Losses (2): Bears 11-5 Falcons 13-3 2011 (9 games) Wins (8): Saints 13-3 Bears 8-8 (Foil Wins) Broncos 8-8 (Foil Win) Falcons 10-6 Chargers 8-8 (Foil Win) Lions 10-6 Giants 9-7 Raiders 8-8 (Foil Win) Losses (1): Giants 9-7 (playoffs) 2012 (12 games) Wins (6): Bears 10-6 (twice) Texans 12-4 Rams 7-8-1 (Foil Win) Vikings 10-6 (twice, once in playoffs) Losses (6): 49ers 11-4-1 (twice, once in the playoffs) Seahawks 11-5 Colts 11-5 Giants 9-7 Vikings 10-6 2013 (5 games) Wins (2): Ravens 8-8 (Foil Win) Chicago 8-8 (Foil Win) Losses (3): 49ers 12-4 (twice, once in the playoffs) Bengals 11-5 2014 (11 games) Wins (6): Dolphins 8-8 (Foil Win) Panthers 7-8-1 (Foil Win) Eagles 10-6 Patriots 12-4 Lions 11-5 Cowboys 12-4 (playoffs) Losses (5): Seahawks 12-4 (twice, once in playoffs) Lions 11-5 Patriots 12-4 Bills 9-7 2015 (9 games) Wins (4): Seahawks 10-6 Chiefs 11-5 Vikings 11-5 Redskins 9-7 (playoffs) Losses (5): Broncos 12-4 Panthers 15-1 Cardinals 13-3 (twice, once in the playoffs) Vikings 11-5 2016 (13 games) Wins (8): Lions 9-7 (twice) Giants 11-5 (twice, once in playoffs) Texans 9-7 Seahawks 10-5-1 Vikings 8-8 (Foil Win) Cowboys 13-3 (playoffs) Losses (5); Cowboys 13-3 Falcons 11-5 (twice, once in playoffs) Titans 9-7 Redskins 8-7-1 Grand Total: 78 games in 7--er, 8 seasons. My guess is, not only did you not understand what "foil wins" were (or even notice they were included), you also didn't consider playoff wins and losses in the equation...nor did you take into account that when you finish in either 1st or 2nd place as often as the Packers have, you will have a ****load of winning teams on your schedule. Nor did you bother to even see if it's possible for the Packers to have 10 games against winning teams in multiple seasons. You just got over-eager because you thought you would (finally) get to prove me wrong and posted before actually thinking anything through. Don't worry...it happens regularly with several others here on ES as well. But I get it...my saying 7 years instead of 8 years and claiming I'm employed by Dan Snyder negates all of the above. So you got that going for ya. Feel free to respond with the laughing reaction thing again lol...it never bothers me. When people who disagree with me do that, I usually take it as a sign that I've won the argument.

NFL Division Leaders...

Here's hoping that when Haskins is 31-32 yrs old he's at least where Cousins is in terms of sacks....

I would say that for the overwhelming majority of us, we would have had a hard time telling ourselves what made any competent GM seem like "GM material" before they were first hired...so I'm not sure that should be considered a detriment against Kyle Smith. I do know that he's been given more responsibilities and has been promoted and our drafts seem to have noticeably improved right along with it. With his father being a former successful GM, he also has a pedigree and lineage that could offer him some valuable insights into the position. And I like seeing competence in the organization given a chance and rewarded. So if Smith is named GM, I'd be happy.

Will be interesting to see how (or if) this ends up affecting the draft order...

Chip Kelly, too lol...

I'd say ask that again if all of that **** happens lol... But don't ask me, because if all of that **** happens it means I'm also spending the weekend in bed with Margo Robbie and Gal Gadot.

No part of me thinks we will beat the Packers. And while it's kinda fun to run with the idea of the Skins actually winning the division after such a horrendous start to the season, I'm expecting that to come to a crashing halt Thursday night when the Cowboys beat the Bears. But until then, we got 2 more days of stress-free delusion lol...so: Skins 23 Packers 21

I would think just using logic instead of gossip and speculation would lead most people to the same conclusion, though. Plus, the recent report/speculation/whatever that Dan is wanting to put Bruce under much heavier review after the season would point to this season being different from the rest in that regard...empty stadiums, abysmal on-field play, and tanking ticket sales won't be overcome by a 4-12 record and Bruce's smarm. If Snyder keeps Bruce on it will be for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with winning a few more games. The stronger speculation would be to say Bruce will convince Snyder that he has the perfect plan for turning things around, specifically ticket sales, jersey sales, and attendance numbers. But that angle is rarely, if ever, mentioned among all the "If we win another game Bruce is gonna convince Dan we're 'close' " rhetoric. It just seems lazy to me. Regardless of what any of us think of Snyder, he sees everything we do. We don't see everything he sees, though. Which is why we (collectively) think he'll base his decisions on the stuff we fans see, and little else.