OWUeagleMD Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 We are the only team who is bridled with condemnations because our backups take opportunities to become starters. Everyone seems so sure that Rod Hood would have accepted an offer if we gave him one. Can you get any more speculative? Maybe he just wanted to show he could be a starter more than he wanted an extra couple mill. And for the sixty-billionth time, we pay Kevin Curtis a great deal more money than Stallworth is paid by NE. We are so cheap that when Stallworth decided to leave we offered his replacement twice as much money. Maybe Stallworth liked the idea of playing with the best QB in football, on the best team in football. It's an outlandish concept, I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWinzit Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 I agree with the thoughts on not signing a player over 30 to a big extended contract. However Hood and Stall were 25 and 26 respectively, I think they cheeped out. The whole TO in Philly thing was disaster in the locker room. There is no denying one of the largest issues was the way McNabb handled things. He took everything on too personal a level. The unhealthiest thing that can happen to a team is a splitting of forces. So what are the chances the Eagles bring in a legit punt returned next season? Oh and why aren't they giving the ball to Hunt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointyfootball Posted December 11, 2007 Author Share Posted December 11, 2007 So what are the chances the Eagles bring in a legit punt returned next season? Oh and why aren't they giving the ball to Hunt? Dude, it's not like they had a 1st and goal from the one against the Seahawks and couldn't score in four tries. Oh wait, my bad, they did. But seriously, I think he's been inactive b/c they have WB, Buck, Tapeh and...<drum roll>...Mahe as RBs. No way do they activate a 4th tailback when he doesn't play ST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWinzit Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Dude, it's not like they had a 1st and goal from the one against the Seahawks and couldn't score in four tries. Oh wait, my bad, they did.:laugh: But seriously, I think he's been inactive b/c they have WB, Buck, Tapeh and...<drum roll>...Mahe as RBs. No way do they activate a 4th tailback when he doesn't play ST.Yeah but I just see Hunt as being full of potential.:whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWUeagleMD Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 I agree with the thoughts on not signing a player over 30 to a big extended contract. However Hood and Stall were 25 and 26 respectively, I think they cheeped out. Maybe they did. I'm just curious why no one wants to consider the possibilities that Hood was interested in starting and Stallworth was interested in playing with the best QB and for the best team in the league. Stallworth's replacement does earn more than double what Stallworth earns, by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dockeryfan Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Maybe they did. I'm just curious why no one wants to consider the possibilities that Hood was interested in starting and Stallworth was interested in playing with the best QB and for the best team in the league. Stallworth's replacement does earn more than double what Stallworth earns, by the way. I never brought up STallworth, because I think the Eagles just didn't like his durability. ANd they have a past with bringing in a big name receiver with an attitude, so targeting Moss or Javon was kind of unstable ground for the Eagles. They chose not to, and I can understand their reticence. Hood never actually said anything about being a starter on the Eagles. The Eagles just didn't want to pay close to starter money for a nickle corner. That was my take on it. Why, exactly didn't they make ANY offer? State your case and have Hood turn you down. Same with Garcia. He actually said he liked his role on the team. He knew he was a backup. The Eagles told him to come up with a number. Whaaat? DOes that make sense to anyone? The FO simply did not want to reward Garcia for the stretch run, and did not want to be in a position to HAVE to make an offer. That whole QB controversy thing just didn't wash with me. Especially after what Garcia said about staying in Philly. Lurie just didn't want to pay him to be a backup, and never made him an offer. Never gave Garcia a chance to even turn it down. That's BS. Of course, a backup was needed this year, and with the NFC this year, 8-8 may just be enough to go to the playoffs. OK. Maybe that's a stretch, because the Eagles have other problems, but you get the point. Not spending money on a punt returner was another mistake that probably cost them a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWinzit Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 And for the sixty-billionth time, we pay Kevin Curtis a great deal more money than Stallworth is paid by NE. We are so cheap that when Stallworth decided to leave we offered his replacement twice as much money. Articles I'm seeing are conflicting but show Curtis and Stallworth in similar 6 year 30-36 million contracts. The Eagles seemed to rush to sign a replacement days after the Stallworth deal was in place. Perhaps they thought they could get Stallworth cheap (pure speculation). Once he signed they knew they needed to hurry to get a replacement before they were all gone, hence the Curtis deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.