StevieInferior Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 From the Washington Post: The settlement was contingent upon Owens reaching what the union regarded as an acceptable contract with the Eagles. Union officials said Tuesday night they were satisfied that requirement had been met when Owens agreed to a seven-year deal worth about $6 million per season, including a signing bonus of about $10 million and another $6 million or so in other bonus money. Even the home town paper is guilty of ruining their journalistic integerity to try and stick it to Snydar. Portis' contract has been reported on numerous occasions as containing a $17mill SB while Philly gave Jevon $16 mill in a SB and TO a $10 mill SB. They would then right that the contract also includes other bonuses that up the value to $20mill for Jevon and $16 mill for TO. But they really don't want you to know that Portis' SB was actually $11.6 mill and the same "other" bonuses that are repoted as seperate for the Philly deals up his to the $17 mill they want you to think Danny paid. This is troubling that the media does this IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles_Legendz Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 The media hates Philly by in large. I don't think there is a pro-Philly media bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 I disagree. The Eagles are clearly trying to 'buy' a Super Bowl aftre falling short for the past three seasons and the media rather than taking that tone has been more or less positive about the acquisitions. Let's remember that Kearse has been hurt the past couple of years and Owens was a coach killer and team distraction in San Francisco. Yet, the mainstream national media talks up their positives only. Meanwhile, the injury history of Shawn Springs WAS brought up when the ESPN boys considered that Redskins move. Ditto for the Brunell acquisition. And there was also some question about how Portis would 'fit' into a Gibbs/Zampese offense, as if these two offensive minds wouldn't know how to utilize a multi-talented player That said, the Eagles did the right thing in using their money to shore up some gaping holes on their team. James Thrash is not a #1 receiver. Ater Hugh Douglas left the Eagles didn't have a DE with real NFL credentials. So, in my mind they were calcuated risks but overall good moves. I also think the Redskins made some good moves. But you won't hear too much about that from the media Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 I think it's great. The Eagles have declared their method of personnel/cap management insufficient. They ran up the white flag, went out, and made the two biggest acquisitions of the offseason. Not only that, they give big $$$ to a 30-something player that is loud and proud, and one with a recent injury history. Great players, absolutely. And VERY risky. Not only the players themselves, but it also might cast a pall over management relationship with existing players. They've seen their own cast aside when they get to a certain age, or if they are too brittle. But, apparently management is willing to take a chance with outsiders who haven't been through the wars with others. This could pay off big time, or it could blow up in their faces. Guess what I'm rooting for... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 I think the other part of it is the reappearance of Parcells and Gibbs in the division has the Eagles concerned the good times may be coming to an end for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakehunter Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Eagles arent trying to buy a championship. They are still about 11-13 million under the salary cap, even after the TO signing. The Eagles have just spent money well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles_Legendz Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Sorry bulldog, I disagree. Every main site I've seen has certainly noted the risks with the signings. Many have applauded the Eagles change in philosophy, but they all realize that there are issues. Peter King, Prisco, ESPN Page 2 guy, Dr Z, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPare Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Jake- don't be too hasty with saying that the Eagles have spent well. Any good redskins fan will tell you that the test is during the season, not in March. Hey, I mean, Stubby and Big Daddy looked like money well spent at the time too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpgirth Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 I still don't hear of any tampering charges. (Philly media) Andy and TO stating they talked to each other at the Pro Bowl. If Washington would have given those contracts to Kearse and TO, it would be front page news about Snyder and his irresponsible ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Reid, Banner, and Lurie were scared when Parcells and Gibbs came back to NFC East. Give them some credit for being smart enough to see that it was no longer going to be the cake walk for them it once was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CounterTre Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 The difference EL is that while those sites may have mentioned it, if the same topic was about the Redskins those same Columnists would spend half the time injecting vitriolic hyperbole, twisting the fcats to at times outright lies and taking personal shots at Snyder and Co. There is no similarity whatsoever. The Eagles are indeed trying to buy a Super Bowl...aand there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, the current system dictates that. What's wrong is the disparity in reporting of such events. What's also been lost in this season's media pile on of the Redskins is that a team that bought a SB two short years ago has outspent and created more turnover than the Skins have....we are talking about the Bucs. Yet once again, no one's ****ing about them buying a Super Bowl and no one's piling on the Bucs. It's just a festering load of horsecrap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kappaluvacee Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 "All I hear is Eagles this & Eagles that, this years 'Skins are gonna beat the Eagles down with a baseball bat......." After failing to buy a SB this year, Philly will finally face it, they will never get a ring and go back to what they are used to: losing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.