• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Lloyd

  1. 45 minutes ago, Silentop said:

    Yall are crazy.. Dude I was seriously just asking how he has been doing and you all ran with it like I was trashing him. I was not.

    My bad. I read it the same way Don did. We're in a topic revolving around Bradford being kind of a bust.  So when you said "Speaking of which, what has Sweat done" I assumed you were lumping him in with a semi-failed draft pick.  

    (I know Bradford isn't a TOTAL failure - he's just an overpaid, over-drafted mediocre backup QB)

  2. 12 minutes ago, Don Corleone said:

    Yeah, he's not an All Pro, Howie has lost all credibility.

    I thought we all kind of accepted that he was a project in the first place. Athletic as hell, but a need to learn how to use those skills against NFL talent.

    Didn't know there was this silent resentment of Sweat not stealing snaps from Long, Bennett, Barnett, Graham, and Cox occasionally lining up at End.  

  3. Just now, voodoochile75 said:


    I never said he was a problem child.

    My point in short was that trading Peters 2 years ago was far more beneficial to the team than holding on to him. Timelines would suggest Wentz hitting his stride/prime in the next 2+ years. In the sense of peaks and valleys, we're seemingly headed to have our O-line in a pretty deep valley at that point.

    Not a problem child as in him being a jerk. But you implied that Peters has been unreliable for you somehow. So I look into it, and I'm like, yeah he was hurt last year...but otherwise...

    I guess what I'm trying to sort out is - you wanted to build a line that would hit its prime with Wentz. We drafted Wentz 3 drafts ago, using up a good amount of draft capital.  And it kinda sounds like you're suggesting that we should have traded Peters away -  I assume for draft picks - and then just kinda hope that "(Blank) OL draft pick" would develop into a good starter that would protect your young franchise QB. Which doesn't quite sound to me the way that NFL teams approach roster-building. Especially in regards to developing a top 3 draft pick QB. And especially when you have a hall of fame LT blocking for your developing top 3 QB. 

    I mean, the idea of an O-line drafted and developed at the same pace as Wentz is kind of a tough request in the first place. So we drafted Wentz...and then subsequently we're supposed to draft nothing but O-linemen in order to make this "hitting prime simultaneously" thing happen? And do it over the course of two drafts? I'd imagine we'll develop the line as we always have - a combination of young guys and veteran free agents. 

    Sorry. If you had said this to me at a bar, I would have just nodded politely and smiled and sipped my beer and not tried to dissect your point.  But when I see things in writing, I can't tell if we're just two sports fans throwing crap at the wall or if someone actually believes we should have traded Jason Peters two years ago.

  4. 19 minutes ago, voodoochile75 said:


    Wentz is the absolute opposite end of the spectrum and you can't compare the two situations. The OL should have been being built to be in it's prime when Wentz hits his prime. Peters has missed more than a significant amount of playing time, has been a huge cap hit and a potential pick. The Eagles are getting absolutely nothing out of the deal the past 2-3 years.

    Of course you keep the Hall of Famer...when he's playable. Peters hasn't been exactly a model of playing time the past few seasons.

    He missed 2 games since his last big injury in 2012...and then he tore his ACL halfway through last year.  So through 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016...he missed 2 games. The ACL isn't a good thing...and of course Peters can't be effective forever...but it's kinda hard for me to hop on board with painting him as some oft-injured unreliable problem child.

    I also don't quite know what you mean by building the OL to be in its prime at the same pace as Wentz. Much like every other unit, I imagine it always has and always will be a mix of veterans and young guys. 

  5. 13 minutes ago, voodoochile75 said:


    Peters should have been dealt two years ago when he had value. The line is going to have to get worse before it gets better, no way around it.

    If you recall, we won a Super Bowl without Jason Peters. So...

    We won the Super Bowl with a backup QB too. But it would be silly for me to diminish the value of a good starting QB because of that, no? "Hey guys, we won with backups, so who needs starters?!"

    If you have a hall of famer at an important position, you keep the hall of famer. Develop behind him, but keep him. There is no other philosophy. 

  6. 41 minutes ago, mrfitsaro said:

    It’s trendier to protest against the police and gets more media attention.  Dealing with the actual problems is probably a lot more difficult and doesn’t bring as much attention.  That silly article is proof.  He’s not MLK he’s a dude who plays a game with a ball.

     At my wise old age, I know better than to engage in political/racial internet debates, but I'll chime in briefly.  First, MLK wasn't liked either. Gallup polls existed in those days too, and he had strong disapproval ratings from the, well, political majority. In 2018 we like to think that naturally, all people should be allowed to eat at the same lunch counter or drink at the same fountain, but no - people had their excuses for fighting against that, which I'm sure sounded perfectly rational in their minds at the time.  So 50 years from now, how will we look back on this topic? Which isn't to say that you're racist or evil for disagreeing with Jenkins - but it seems the majority population of a country (of any color) tend to stick up for the majority's status quo, and look down upon some "outsider" telling them how things should be. 

    There's a trend to protest against police brutality - but let's also acknowledge the trend to shout "Chicago!" any time people tell you that there's a worthy debate about the justice system. Chicago has violence. Chicago needs to address its violence. But Chicago's violence isn't all-consuming - the bulk is concentrated to a handful of neighborhoods, but Chicago has a black population that lives outside of those neighborhoods, and don't see or experience gang violence. But police can sometimes treat them as such, which they don't appreciate. And yes, police shootings are not happening by the millions. But shootings/killings are the HEADLINES. It's the highlight reel stuff. But the day to day stuff can be a graveyard shift maintenance man coming home from work at 4am, ending up getting frisked by some 27 year old cop. There was this dude who got frisked - assumed the position and bent over, calmly enough - and in the process the policeman jabbed his thumb up the guy's arse, just for funsies. You add up those little things, and a group of people - who have no association with crime - can come to believe "Hey, it kinda seems like my government doesn't like me."  And yeah, "First, stop the black on black crime!" is the rallying cry. But A- you'll find monthly, if not weekly "Stop the Violence" campaigns in lots of major cities (they're not hot enough political topics to make the news cycle). And B- Why can't you tackle BOTH justice reform and inner city violence at once? 

    Anyway, these conversations rapidly deteriorate these days, and I'd rather know you guys as fans of my favorite team than the political inner-workings of your daily lives, so I don't intend to go 10 rounds back and forth debating this.  I might not even check back in to see how bad (or maybe good) things get. I just wanted to offer a counterpoint to the idea that Jenkins is bad or wrong for his expression.

  7. 8 minutes ago, Don Corleone said:

    Yeah Grotz is getting way ahead of himself, if JP retires after this year, or the eagles move on, it's good to know Big V can step in and be that guy, he did really well after JP's injury last year. Right now, Big V is head and shoulders better than Mailata and it's understandable since Jordan just played in his first NFL game. V isn't going anywhere.

    Next week:  "Is Mailata a first or second ballot Hall of Famer?"

  8. 49 minutes ago, Don Corleone said:

    Halapoulivaati Vaitai, who did a solid job stepping in last year for Peters, is looking like trade capital. 

    Is he though? I mean...we kinda need him.

    50 minutes ago, Don Corleone said:

    The Eagles obviously have to groom a replacement for 36-year-old left tackle Jason Peters, who’s coming off ACL surgery. A low-cost option such as Mailata certainly would make it easier to sign Carson Wentz to a big contract extension down the road.

    I'd imagine by the time Mailata became a playable O-lineman, he'd be in the 2nd or 3rd year of his deal. And even then, we don't know if his usefulness will be as a solid starter or a capable backup. And that's if he's a player at all.

    Anyway, I love the Mailata journey. But man, this writer is really fast forwarding past the part where we discover if Mailata can actually play football.

  9. 3 hours ago, Don Corleone said:

    From this starting line-up, I would divide the players as such:

    Elite (All-Pro potential):

    Fletcher Cox, Brandon Graham

    Very Good (Pro Bowl potential):

    Malcolm Jenkins, Jordan Hicks, Nigel Bradham, Ronald Darby

    It's funny. I never thought of Brandon Graham as "elite".  Always thought of him as a good reliable starter. But I was fine with the FO not extending his deal, and letting him walk. Maybe I gotta give him another look. 

  10. 7 minutes ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

    Why wouldn't it be likely? He's got talent and he's proven he can deliver in the NFL. Outside of the top 4 WRs on this team he's got as good a chance as anybody surely? 

    He has a chance, for sure. I just figure that since we know who our top 3 guys are, the rest of the WRs better be young with upside and/or big contributors on special teams. I don't know how the Colts used him, but I wonder how active he is on special teams. 

  11. 48 minutes ago, nveagle5 said:

    Acknowledge he made mistake and learned and had to bring a football guy.   Great team but Howie should not get all the credit.  Good job by Jeffery to make sure a guy like Joe was brought in.

    Maybe Howie wanted a guy like Joe brought in. What’s up with his anti-Howie thing? Is that your shtick or what?

  12. 15 minutes ago, mrfitsaro said:

    The key to Rieds success was Mcnabb.  If Roseman and Douglas can get a better hit rate on draft picks than Reid and Joe Nickles I think they’ll win a couple more big games with Wentz.

    A QB definitely helps smooth things out, and provides stability in an important position - but every coach wants that. Philosophically, Reid's success was driven by his value of the O-line (D-line as well).  It was good to have Chip as his immediate successor because we got to see the EXACT opposite. It's like, hey Chip, all those pretty plays you're drawing up don't mean squat if you can't control the LOS. I think during Chip's 3 years here, we drafted Lane Johnson...and no one else on O-line.

  13. 4 hours ago, ilikepargo said:

    In his favor, I liked the fact that we took him away from Dallas.

    But he was the kind of old-school RB who would be at his best running behind a FB.  And we didn't give him that.

    And what was really bad was that his piss-poor attitude showed up in his poor play, in his refusal to fight for yards, in his refusal to really even try to be good at all.  He stole money from the Eagles.

    Not to defend him, because he was a sourpuss his whole time here. But yeah, a FB would have helped...and a coach that valued the O-line...and play calling that wouldn't ask him to run 10 yards laterally before turning to run behind an ineffective line.

  14. 22 hours ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

    Oh did we? OK I take it all back... That deal worked out much better for us. 


    Yeah,  instead of trading our pick for Fitzgerald, we traded DOWN in the draft for Carolina's 1st rounder the following year. Then we packaged that 1st rounder in a deal for Peters.



    Philadelphia couldn't trade for Fitzgerald, so the Eagles traded out of the first round in 2008. The Eagles traded their first-round selection (No. 19 overall) to Carolina for Carolina's second- and fourth-round selections in 2008 (No. 43 and 109), and Carolina's first-round pick in 2009. Philadelphia traded back again with Minnesota, giving its second and fifth-round selections (No. 43 and 152) to the Vikings for Minnesota's second and fourth-round selections (No. 47 and 117).

    The Eagles plan ultimately did work as they used that extra first-round pick in 2009 from Carolina to acquire Jason Peters, who is a six-time All-Pro and future Pro Football Hall of Famer. As for Carolina, they selected Jeff Otah at No. 19 overall. Otah was out of the NFL after three seasons. 



  15. 18 hours ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

    You know usually I'm sure these kind of reports would have crushed us. Learning that we missed out on such a great talent and a player who would have made such a big big difference to this team. But hey it all worked out for us right? So actually who gives an F! 

    Well the big thing is, we used the value of that 1st round pick to acquire the 1st rounder that helped us land Jason Peters. 

    And not to sound like too much of an Andy Reid guy, but I too value LT over WR. 

  16. 22 minutes ago, Jeep_Man said:

    Wentz had an up and down season as a Rookie, he looked Flawless with LJ in the line up and looked like well a rookie without him. I wasn't the one making steep claims about Wentz carrying the team on his back lol...  You can call it controversy when someone don't agree with you, I call it a difference in opinion, whatever floats your boat, I really don't care...

    Yes, but looking at the discussion - as you specifically requested me to do - UK Fan wasn't specifically talking about Wentz's rookie year (you are, because it helps the argument you want to make). He was talking about the total product. And the total product, when you take this year into account, is that Wentz played MVP-caliber football by his 2nd year in the NFL.

    And it's not controversy - you're just some guy with an opinion - plenty of those on the internet, no biggie. It's just that you seem a bit snippy about the whole thing. Which to me means, here's a guy desperately seeking a "hot take".