71 replies to this topic

[CT Eagle]

mjkvol, on 14 November 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

  It isn't rocket science to conclude that opinion and objectivity cannot by definition coexist. Clear enough?

My opinions on Reid have been solely based on facts and actual results - you can't refute a single thing I've said about him as being baseless. But they are still my opinions!   The one thing I would change is my overall judgment of his performance here - I always considered him a very good but flawed coach. That would apply from 1999-2004.   From 2005-2010, it drops to good, but badly flawed.   Since 2011, he is nothing more than mediocre at the very best.    Disagree? Fine, let's hear it.

I am not sure what you trying to point out or conclude about opinions or objectivity.  It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to know that it is possible to have an objective opinion.  You are so biased and entrenched in your opinions that you lose any and all objectivity.  That is pretty clear to me and if you reread your last thousand posts, you might agree.  Reid is ultimately responsible for everything, but that doesn't mean he is at fault for everything.
Reid's performance over the last several years is mediocre at the very best.  I couldn't agree more.  Several obvious glaring gaffes under his watch yanked the rug from underneath this team and robbed the organization of opportunities to be great over the last 7 years.  It is clearly time for a change.

[SNOORDA]

The Cowboys looked horrible. So bad that they made the Eagles O-Line and D look somewhat decent. And the Eagles still found a way to give the game away.

Kicking an extra point is a asking too much now.

THis team has left so many points on the field this year. Probably more than they have scored.

[mjkvol]

CT Eagle, on 14 November 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

I am not sure what you trying to point out or conclude about opinions or objectivity.  It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to know that it is possible to have an objective opinion.  You are so biased and entrenched in your opinions that you lose any and all objectivity.  That is pretty clear to me and if you reread your last thousand posts, you might agree.  Reid is ultimately responsible for everything, but that doesn't mean he is at fault for everything.
Reid's performance over the last several years is mediocre at the very best.  I couldn't agree more.  Several obvious glaring gaffes under his watch yanked the rug from underneath this team and robbed the organization of opportunities to be great over the last 7 years. It is clearly time for a change.

Well, we absolutely agree on the last part, although I'd probably use very good as opposed to great. This organization hasn't remotely flirted with greatness since 2004.     And regarding placing blame, Reid has made himself the be all and end all of this organization, with Lurie's blessing.      Therefore, everything comes back to him.

What you might perceive as "objective", I or anyone else might not.    As long as you base an opinion on what you believe are facts and results, then that's being as objective as you can be. And that's what I do. I have strong beliefs, but if I'm proven wrong, I'm the first to admit it.    You can't say I'm wrong factually regarding Reid or drafting guards with #1's.      But you can absolutely disagree, which is what makes this fun.

[CT Eagle]

mjkvol, on 14 November 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

Well, we absolutely agree on the last part, although I'd probably use very good as opposed to great.         This organization hasn't remotely flirted with greatness since 2004.

What you might perceive as "objective", I or anyone else might not.       As long as you base an opinion on what you believe are facts and results, then that's being as objective as you can be.     And that's what I do.     I have strong beliefs, but if I'm proven wrong, I'm the first to admit it.       You can't say I'm wrong factually regarding Reid or drafting guards with #1's.       But you can absolutely disagree, which is what makes this fun.

A fact is a fact.  An opinion is an opinion.
Clearly you can't factually say that a Guard is or isn't worth a #1 pick.  However, if you talk about how much repect you have for the Steelers organization who have spent two 1st round picks on guards (Faneca and DeCastro) and then say how stupid it was for Reid to take Andrews because he was a guard (who could also play tackle btw).   Then you added a disclaimer saying if there was a glaring need, which the Eagles' arguably had anyway.  It is hypocritical.  If you said Andrews was a blown pick, that would be a fact.

[mjkvol]

CT Eagle, on 14 November 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

A fact is a fact.  An opinion is an opinion.
Clearly you can't factually say that a Guard is or isn't worth a #1 pick.  However, if you talk about how much repect you have for the Steelers organization who have spent two 1st round picks on guards (Faneca and DeCastro) and then say how stupid it was for Reid to take Andrews because he was a guard (who could also play tackle btw).   Then you added a disclaimer saying if there was a glaring need, which the Eagles' arguably had anyway.  It is hypocritical.  If you said Andrews was a blown pick, that would be a fact.

Nope.     The Steelers had a glaring need due to Ben getting killed, and being set at their skill positions - they also get some benefit of the doubt, being as good an organization as they are.      Reid never earned that benefit of the doubt.     But it is still an exception to the rule, just as picking an Allen or Hutchinson might be an exception to the rule.     You hang your hat on one example, and call it fact.      It's still only your opinion.

[Highboy]

CT Eagle, on 13 November 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

please stop quoting my posts on my threads or anywhere...your obsessive infatuation with me isn't normal

you just quoted my post. you're obsessed no?

[CT Eagle]

mjkvol, on 14 November 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

Nope. The Steelers had a glaring need due to Ben getting killed, and being set at their skill positions - they also get some benefit of the doubt, being as good an organization as they are.   Reid never earned that benefit of the doubt. But it is still an exception to the rule, just as picking an Allen or Hutchinson might be an exception to the rule. You hang your hat on one example, and call it fact.   It's still only your opinion.

McNabb was sacked 43x in 2003 3rd most in the NFL.  They also lost Welborn who was one of their better lineman.  Reid drafted for a glaring need.  You said previously that was ok...right ?  Did Reid deserve the benefit of the doubt back in 2004 ???  I think he probably did.
The Eagles drafted Watkins despite Vick having tons of time in the pocket ???? How many times was Vick hit last year ?

Andy Reid thought that Andrew's was going to be a dominating player at G and at T.  The problem wasn't that he drafted a lineman, the problem was that Andrews was a bust.  Reid thought Watkins was a plug and play G who was a future probowler.  Again, Watkins looks like a bust.  That is the problem.  
Your opinion is your opinion and that is fine.  Your argument doesn't hold water.

Exception to the rule ?  Which rule is that exactly ? Oh...the rule that says it is ok if the pick works out or if the team wins a Superbowl.  Reid will be fired for breaking that rule.  He did just what the Steelers did although he didn't do a good job.

[Highboy]

mjkvol, on 14 November 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

Nope. The Steelers had a glaring need due to Ben getting killed, and being set at their skill positions - they also get some benefit of the doubt, being as good an organization as they are.   Reid never earned that benefit of the doubt. But it is still an exception to the rule, just as picking an Allen or Hutchinson might be an exception to the rule. You hang your hat on one example, and call it fact.   It's still only your opinion.

You asked earlier in the thread for an example of a team drafting an interior lineman without a glaring need and I gave you two. Miami had no glaring need on the line whatsoever yet Pouncey was too good a player to pass up, which is exactly what Mayock predicted about him. Its true you can typically get a quality guard or center in the middle to late rounds without spending a first round pick but there are some interior lineman that are so dominant they are worth the pick. You have to remember though that CT was chiding you, me, and even fdallas when the Eagles first drafted Watkins and we were all critical considering his age and the fact he was never going to be considered dominant at all, wasn't even dominant in college.

Vick was hit tons of times last year as CT implied, but Watkins was on the team. We blew a first round pick on him and not only is he not dominant, he's been benched multiple times. Guard was not a glaring need when the Eagles drafted before the 2011 season, and virtually no mock draft had the Eagles taking any lineman at all in the first round that year.

[mjkvol]

Highboy, on 14 November 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

Its true you can typically get a quality guard or center in the middle to late rounds without spending a first round pick but there are some interior lineman that are so dominant they are worth the pick.

That's all I was saying.

Obviously, there are always going to be exceptions to any rule, and you guys named some.       And I wasn't referring to center - that's a bit different, even though it would have to be a major stud, like Pouncey or Mangold.

Generally speaking, it's not a wise allocation of resources to spend a first round pick on that position.

[mjkvol]

CT Eagle, on 14 November 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

McNabb was sacked 43x in 2003 3rd most in the NFL.  They also lost Welborn who was one of their better lineman.  Reid drafted for a glaring need.  You said previously that was ok...right ?  Did Reid deserve the benefit of the doubt back in 2004 ???  I think he probably did.
The Eagles drafted Watkins despite Vick having tons of time in the pocket ???? How many times was Vick hit last year ?

Andy Reid thought that Andrew's was going to be a dominating player at G and at T.  The problem wasn't that he drafted a lineman, the problem was that Andrews was a bust.  Reid thought Watkins was a plug and play G who was a future probowler.  Again, Watkins looks like a bust.  That is the problem.  
Your opinion is your opinion and that is fine.  Your argument doesn't hold water.

Exception to the rule ? Which rule is that exactly ? Oh...the rule that says it is ok if the pick works out or if the team wins a Superbowl.  Reid will be fired for breaking that rule.  He did just what the Steelers did although he didn't do a good job.

Andrews was clearly a mental case, it was not a 'glaring' need, there were studs at impact positions available (who are still very good players in the league), and Reid absolutely did not have the benefit of the doubt based on his high picks to that point.   At no point here has he had the benefit of the doubt - every year was a new and different adventure, but rarely just sound, sensible drafting in the early rounds.  

Watkins was another lousy, risky pick, and by this time to say that Reid didn't have the benefit of the doubt was the understatement of the century.   He certainly should not have been anything resembling the 'final say'.

The 'rule' is that drafting a guard in Round 1 is putting way too much value on maybe the least important position on the field.   Yes, there are exceptions, and you've done a beautiful job of pointing out the handful of them.

[CT Eagle]

mjkvol, on 14 November 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

Andrews was clearly a mental case, it was not a 'glaring' need, there were studs at impact positions available (who are still very good players in the league), and Reid absolutely did not have the benefit of the doubt based on his high picks to that point.   At no point here has he had the benefit of the doubt - every year was a new and different adventure, but rarely just sound, sensible drafting in the firsthigh rounds.  

Watkins was another lousy, risky pick, and by this time to say that Reid didn't have the benefit of the doubt was the understatement of the century.   He certainly should not have been anything resembling the 'final say'.

The 'rule' is that drafting a guard in Round 1 is putting way too much value on maybe the least important position on the field.   Yes, there are exceptions, and you've done a beautiful job of pointing out the handful of them.

Like I said McNabb was one of the most sacked QBs in 2003 and they also lost Welborne.  Of course it was a glaring need.  
Watkins was viewed as one of the safest picks in the draft.  No idea why you would call him a risky pick.  That has to be hindsight analysis.  Vick was one of the most hit QBs in the league and clearly there was a glaring need at G.  There still is.....

[KOJO]

CT Eagle, on 14 November 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

Watkins was viewed as one of the safest picks in the draft.  No idea why you would call him a risky pick.  That has to be hindsight analysis.

Safe enough if you took him in the second round or later. For the myriad of reasons we've discussed on here, Watkins was anything but a safe pick. And that was without us even knowing about his injury history.