garg8050 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 If they sign Burress, we almost have to go CB at #9. I really don't like the matchup of Harris or Wilds on Burress, particularly in the red zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMONEY Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 My only question would be can Burress play in the westcoast offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyholetsgogrant Posted March 14, 2005 Author Share Posted March 14, 2005 Originally posted by Tom [Giants fan] jimster, You hit it on the head. I read on espn that he is going to have to wait five days before anything can be discussed. He isn't going to be doing this on his own without an agent and Rosenhaus won't become his agent for another five days. After that, I expect the Giants to get back into it since Harrison seemed to be the problem. If he goes to the Eagles, the Giants, Skins, and Cowboys will be fighting it out for a wildcard spot again. And to say that you don't care he is going to the Eagles because you guys have a great D is being a bit naieve. What about the other fourteen opponenets? So you guys handle the Eagles and let's say you beat them once, that makes them what? 15-1 or 14-2? You can't look at it as just being two games against you guys. Not everyone has a defense like the Redskins. And there is still question whether or not the Skins defense will suffer any from losing Pierce and Smoot plus the health of Barrow. Burress going to the Eagles isn't something we should just put aside and take lightly. This would suck. Plain and simple. I agree with you many fans believe that our defense will survive the punch of losing AP and Smoot, if Philly were to get Plax i would be very worried. Skin fans are being a little naieve, i think we may be forced to draft a CB if hes goes to a divison foe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TenaciousB15 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Originally posted by tizzod So why isn't Philly catching a boatload of defecation about going after all the "stars" like we would be catching if we were doing the same thing? Oh, I know! The media BLOWS! That's why! Silly me.... Why do you think that title is unjustified when is applied? What big time free agents have the eagles signed? Jevon Kearse, Jon Runyan. In 6 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willy50 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Buress is an over rated #2 WR that thinks he's a #1 WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MumboSauce Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Don't want to see that go down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr11fan Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Originally posted by TenaciousB15 Why do you think that title is unjustified when is applied? What big time free agents have the eagles signed? Jevon Kearse, Jon Runyan. In 6 years. Kearse, TO (I know technically a trade but gimme a break, they were going after him even if his agent wasn't a tard), Buress would be 3 in 2 years. But Philly has the Nfl's new golden boy at qb so the media won't say jack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TenaciousB15 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Okay, so we are now including trades? And players the eagles might go after? So were comparing the skins and the eagles right. What is that number? 30 to 4? The question was why do the skins get targeted for trying to buy a championship and not the eagles right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins11 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Whenever people argue that the Eagles lucked out in getting Owens, and Owens whined his way onto the Eagles and whined his way out of Baltimore, Eagles fans say that Owens SHOULD have been a free agent and thus should be treated like one. Now, when people are saying that Owens should count as a free agent signing by the Eagles, Eagle fans are saying that he was not a free agent, and should not be considered one... even it would have been ruled that he should have been a FA. Make up your mind, stop saying whatever is convenient for your argument right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TenaciousB15 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 I did. He should have been a free agent, although technically never was. And just to be nice, I let him include Owens as a free agent. Wait I take that back. I said lets just throw in all trades, into the equation. I want to know how the redskins deserve to be treated like the eagles in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins11 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Are you talking about just last year? Surely you must know that that is not a valid comparison, since we just brought in a new coaching staff, while the Eagles' has been around for years. Why don't you try comparing these numbers after the draft, since now the coaching staff will have been in place for over a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TenaciousB15 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 No were talking the past 5 or so. Becuase this guy wanted to know why the eagles aren't accused of the same things the redskins are. So all that goes into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr11fan Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Originally posted by TenaciousB15 Okay, so we are now including trades? And players the eagles might go after? So were comparing the skins and the eagles right. What is that number? 30 to 4? The question was why do the skins get targeted for trying to buy a championship and not the eagles right? Skins were accused of it during the 2000 season so what has happened since then is irrelevant to the point, besides I don't deny Snyder has tried to do it, only recognizing the hypocracy of the league when it comes to their teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brooklynskinsfan Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Im really starting to hate the eagles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 When you take in account that running backs like Edge James and Seattle's RB are available for a second round pick philly can have have a VERY scary offense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 It still doesn't matter because Philly's lombardi trophy polish will exceed its shelf life before plexico would help them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TenaciousB15 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Originally posted by pr11fan Skins were accused of it during the 2000 season so what has happened since then is irrelevant to the point, besides I don't deny Snyder has tried to do it, only recognizing the hypocracy of the league when it comes to their teams. How is the irrelevant? The skins are on a shorter leash, becuase of the ammount of times things like this has come up. That seems fair to me. If a team spends the money that it has to spend in one year, I don't see how they deserve to get it as badly. That outlook sorta of falls under the same umbrella as the people that blast the reporters who say the skins won't have success in an upcoming season, then when they end up being right about that, the fans that bashed them for it just ignore it and move on to the next year of repeating that cycle. To sum this all up. Can can't expect a team to be given respect. Its not a hand out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteve Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Why are we scared of Burress? He did exactly what against us with Pittsburgh last year? He's an inconsistent bum. He's Rod Gardner. He's 50/50. He's a good compliment to Owens who will make him look better than he really is...against bad defenses. We'll split with the Eagles next year regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins11 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Originally posted by TheSteve Why are we scared of Burress? He did exactly what against us with Pittsburgh last year? I agree that Burress is inconsistent, but the reason he did exactly nothing against us was because he did not play in that game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteve Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Originally posted by Skins11 I agree that Burress is inconsistent, but the reason he did exactly nothing against us was because he did not play in that game. Ok now I look stupid. Thanks man!:doh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 has anybody mentioned that Burress' new agent isn't official till the end of the week? he can't really be talking with anybody right now.....officially of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jett Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Originally posted by Bufford has anybody mentioned that Burress' new agent isn't official till the end of the week? he can't really be talking with anybody right now.....officially of course. Does not having an agent preclude a player from talking with other clubs?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 I may be the only person in the world who actually scared of a Pokes team with Bledsoe and a Fecal team with Buress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Montana Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Originally posted by TenaciousB15 If a team spends the money that it has to spend in one year, I don't see how they deserve to get it as badly. The Skins got accused of trying to buy a Super Bowl based on their acquisitions in 2000. The Eagles could have been accused of doing the same thing last offseason by signing Kearse and TO. Both teams spent a lot of money and handed out big bonuses to players that were to become key components of their team. But regardless, I think this whole notion of accusing teams of "trying to buy a Super Bowl" is nonsense. It could be valid argument in baseball, with a team like the Yankees (when their payroll is close to 4X the amount of some clubs). But in the NFL, with a salary cap in place, why should a team be criticized for how they allocate the money under their cap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TenaciousB15 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Originally posted by Danny Montana The Skins got accused of trying to buy a Super Bowl based on their acquisitions in 2000. The Eagles could have been accused of doing the same thing last offseason by signing Kearse and TO. Both teams spent a lot of money and handed out big bonuses to players that were to become key components of their team. But regardless, I think this whole notion of accusing teams of "trying to buy a Super Bowl" is nonsense. It could be valid argument in baseball, with a team like the Yankees (when their payroll is close to 4X the amount of some clubs). But in the NFL, with a salary cap in place, why should a team be criticized for how they allocate the money under their cap? Maybe they are looking at it in terms of biggest payroll? Don't the redskins still hold that title? I wouldn't see the point of accusing the eagles of that last year. They had 26 million in cap room, they had to do something with it. Its not as if they were spending the future for today. If that guy who initially said that wants to form that question, he would have an easier time trying to attack a team like the raiders, instead of the eagles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.