"Dawk don't walk"

[Leonard Tose]

Les Bowen: Eagles should not have let Dawkins walk

[IMG]http://media.philly.com/images/40*40/Bowen_80.jpg[/IMG]
By Les Bowen
Philadelphia Daily News
Daily News Sports Columnist
WELL, WE WOKE up yesterday morning and it was still true: Brian Dawkins plays for Denver.

And when Dawk called, responding to a text-messaged request to say something to Eagles fans, he didn't sound any happier about it than many of the folks who'd been venting all weekend on talk radio.

"I've just got to thank them," Dawkins told the Daily News. "For so many years, we obviously connected on a very deep basis. For so many years, they've allowed me to come into their living rooms, to laugh with them, to party with them, to celebrate with them, to cry with 'em through tough losses, to bleed with them. I just really appreciate the way they accepted me, a little safety from Clemson."

Asked about the fact that the Broncos are scheduled to visit the Eagles this season, at a yet-to-be-determined date, Dawkins, an Eagle for his first 13 NFL seasons, who left town as Philadelphia's longest-tenured pro athlete, was overcome with emotion.

"Whew," he said. "It's tough. This is not just business for me. I never thought that this would happen this way. I thought the only time I would shed tears in an interview would be because of my retirement from the Eagles, not like this."

The day after, it would not be stretching to say Dawk had regrets - buyer's remorse, at the very least.

"In a couple of weeks or a month, I'll be excited about this team," Dawkins said. "I've got to get used to saying that - I'm a Bronco." Then he paused. "I'll tell you one thing: I'll always be an Eagle."

Before I rant, I will make a couple of points in the Eagles' defense: A while back, when Dawkins and team officials were saying they expected they'd work out an agreement for him to stay, I don't think either side was thinking about 2 years and $9 million-plus, which is what reports say is the "real money" in the 5-year, $17 million free-agent contract the Broncos offered. Dawk even said something to a few of us, late in the season in a NovaCare hallway, about knowing his break-the-bank days were behind him.

It's an amazing contract, and if the history of aging Eagles who flee the nest is any indicator, the Broncos are likely to end up disappointed. Also, if you're going to take the team to task for not matching the Denver money, which I am about to do, you have to acknowledge something - that street runs both ways. Dawk could have just taken less money and stayed, without risking starvation.

OK, end of that spiel.

Here's the real gist of what I have to say: We are being instructed by the front office's apologists that this is just how the Eagles roll, and that, as I noted, they are almost always right about what an aging player has left in his tank.

That's so far beside the point you'll need to right-click about a thousand times to center it on your computer screen.

We are talking about Brian Dawkins here. Name the Top 10 all-time Eagles, in 76 seasons, and he has to be one of them. This is not Hugh Douglas or Carlos Emmons or Bobby Taylor or Duce Staley or Ike Reese or even Troy Vincent or Jeremiah Trotter. There are two jerseys you see worn most at Lincoln Financial Field when the Birds are playing: No. 5 and No. 20. And No. 5 is not the guy who carries with him the passionate soul of the fan base.

Late in the 2007 season, I was running (OK, chugging and shuffling) in a 10K race over the Ben Franklin Bridge from New Jersey and back, the morning of a late-afternoon Eagles game. Near the finish, I happened to be traveling through the Camden waterfront in a pack that included a runner wearing a Dawkins jersey. As we passed the Battleship New Jersey, we came up on a couple of people who had slowed to a walk. One of them wore a Dawkins jersey, as well. As we passed on the left, the Dawkins guy in my pack leaned over to the pedestrian No. 20. "Dawk don't walk," he said. Guy immediately started running again.

But never fear. I'm sure that even as you read this, the Eagles are assembling polling data that show I am wrong, that most of their fans support not bringing back Dawkins. I'm not sure, but I think they also have a poll that shows they won the last three Super Bowls.

Most of those previous decisions on aging players were explained by the constant need to massage the salary cap, which the Eagles were so good at, they kept telling us, and this constant vigilance, this dogged refusal to bow to sentiment, was going to pay benefits. They were going to rise in the standings behind their younger players, as other franchises sank beneath the weight of their overpaid veterans.

Except, the Eagles are currently so far under the cap ($40 million?) that team president Joe Banner admitted to me a little more than a week ago that they can't possibly spend to the limit. There is an excellent chance the cap will disappear entirely next year. And if they felt they needed to add a good, young safety in free agency or the draft, to hedge their bets, Sean Considine's roster spot was already open.

Dawkins would not address what the Birds offered to keep him here, why it wasn't enough.

"I want to do this the right way," he said.

So, apparently, they couldn't give out a "reward" contract to one of the most beloved figures in franchise history because . . . having him here, making a lot of money, will somehow impede the crucial development of Quintin Demps? Because paying Dawk would somehow strengthen Sheldon Brown's case for a salary bump? Because Banner's head would explode? Seriously, I would like to hear a compelling reason; I'd be happy to endorse it if it proved valid.

"Because that's not how they do business" is a bleep-poor reason. To embrace it, you have to embrace the attitude that the fans don't really matter, and that if the Eagles start out 5-0 with Demps playing free safety next season, nobody will much remember how Dawk left.

Maybe that's right, in one sense, but it isn't ever going to be "right." And you don't have to be a capologist to understand the difference. *

[Eagle60]

"Banner don't pay"

[Leonard Tose]

"Banner don't pay"

With Banner, I'm not sure it's a situation of being cheap. I think it's a situation where Banner is always trying to remind us of his relevance.

I've noted before that the cap issues really aren't as important as they used to be, which diminishes his significance. Previously, he had been seen as the all-important "cap guru" who kept the Eagles under the cap and with the flexibility to make important roster moves while others were hamstrung.

That's not the case anymore. Most teams now have plenty of space. So I believe Banner has been asserting authority in other areas to keep his relevance and prominence in the organization. Particularly with regards to personnel.

Every now and then, Banner breaks balls and makes the "hard choices" to show everybody he's still in charge, IMO. This is the ultimate example, IMO. If he can get rid of the ultimate warrior of the Philadelphia Eagles, who is to question his authority?

Except that this was a hard choice that didn't need to be made. They could have paid Dawk -- there were no hard cap choices associated with a 2 year, $9 million contract. Dawk certainly demonstrated with his play last year that he still has something to offer.

And in some respects, Banner publicly broke with Big Red here, who assured fans two weeks ago that they would probably be keeping Tra and Dawk.

Don't think the other players haven't noticed this -- Banner completely undermined the coach here.

[Eagle60]

With Banner, I'm not sure it's a situation of being cheap. I think it's a situation where Banner is always trying to remind us of his relevance.

I've noted before that the cap issues really aren't as important as they used to be, which diminishes his significance. Previously, he had been seen as the all-important "cap guru" who kept the Eagles under the cap and with the flexibility to make important roster moves while others were hamstrung.

That's not the case anymore. Most teams now have plenty of space. So I believe Banner has been asserting authority in other areas to keep his relevance and prominence in the organization. Particularly with regards to personnel.

Every now and then, Banner breaks balls and makes the "hard choices" to show everybody he's still in charge, IMO. This is the ultimate example, IMO. If he can get rid of the ultimate warrior of the Philadelphia Eagles, who is to question his authority?

Except that this was a hard choice that didn't need to be made. They could have paid Dawk -- there were no hard cap choices associated with a 2 year, $9 million contract. Dawk certainly demonstrated with his play last year that he still has something to offer.

And in some respects, Banner publicly broke with Big Red here, who assured fans two weeks ago that they would probably be keeping Tra and Dawk.

Don't think the other players haven't noticed this -- Banner completely undermined the coach here.

I should have said-"Weasle don't pay"

[saratoga]

With Banner, I'm not sure it's a situation of being cheap. I think it's a situation where Banner is always trying to remind us of his relevance.

I've noted before that the cap issues really aren't as important as they used to be, which diminishes his significance. Previously, he had been seen as the all-important "cap guru" who kept the Eagles under the cap and with the flexibility to make important roster moves while others were hamstrung.

That's not the case anymore. Most teams now have plenty of space. So I believe Banner has been asserting authority in other areas to keep his relevance and prominence in the organization. Particularly with regards to personnel.

Every now and then, Banner breaks balls and makes the "hard choices" to show everybody he's still in charge, IMO. This is the ultimate example, IMO. If he can get rid of the ultimate warrior of the Philadelphia Eagles, who is to question his authority?

Except that this was a hard choice that didn't need to be made. They could have paid Dawk -- there were no hard cap choices associated with a 2 year, $9 million contract. Dawk certainly demonstrated with his play last year that he still has something to offer.

And in some respects, Banner publicly broke with Big Red here, who assured fans two weeks ago that they would probably be keeping Tra and Dawk.

Don't think the other players haven't noticed this -- Banner completely undermined the coach here.

Well said, LT. It became VERY apparent these last two weeks that Joe Banner is the defacto GM and THE head of this team. I totally agree with your take on this.

Many of us thought that Reid was in charge, that it was too much, and that he should focus on being the coach (others wanted him to move to GM and get a new HC).

However, I don't think that any of us EVER wanted Joe "Foot-in-mouth" Banner to be calling all of the personnel shots.

[fly]

Does anyone have that quote from Reid about Tra (um, I mean william) and Dawk?

[Leonard Tose]

Reid says he and McNabb “talk all the time”


INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
Feb. 20, 2009
INDIANAPOLIS - From Andy Reid's perspective, it's not necessary to have a clear-the-air meeting with Donovan McNabb over his brief benching because the issue between the Eagles coach and his quarterback was long ago resolved.

"We've already talked about it," Reid said yesterday while taking a break from watching film of college prospects in his hotel room at the NFL scouting combine. "I met with him right after the game [in which he was benched], and I addressed it right there, and I've talked to him since. We talk all the time. I spend more time with him than my wife. We're good. I think the world of the guy."

McNabb was benched at halftime of the Eagles' 36-7 loss at Baltimore on Nov. 23. McNabb returned as the starter the following week, broke out of a slump, and the team went on to advance to the NFC championship game, losing to Arizona.
More than once following the benching, McNabb said he planned to meet with Eagles management after the season, presumably to secure his future with the team with a deal that extends beyond the two remaining years on his contract.

"I'm sure we'll all get together when the time comes," Reid said. "[McNabb's] statement wasn't to talk to me. It was something else, and we'll get that done."
McNabb's agent, Fletcher Smith, yesterday confirmed a Daily News report that discussions on a new contract have not started, but he frequently meets with Eagles president Joe Banner for lunch at the combine.

With the free agent signing period beginning Friday, the Eagles have more pressing concerns. Although he didn't directly say so, Reid indicated the team may soon come to terms with safety Brian Dawkins and offensive tackle Tra Thomas, two of five veterans eligible to become unrestricted free agents.

"I think that'll all take place within the next few days or week or whatever," said Reid. "There's communication."

Dawkins, who will turn 36 in October, was selected to play in the Pro Bowl for the seventh time after rebounding from an injury-plagued 2007 season. He has been with the Eagles 13 seasons and may be the team's most popular player.

Thomas, who will turn 35 next season, has been a mainstay at left tackle since the Eagles drafted him in the first round in 1998. Tackle Jon Runyan, backup running back Correll Buckhalter and tight end L.J. Smith can also become free agents.

Thomas's bargaining power probably got a boost yesterday when Carolina signed Jordan Gross to a six-year contract. A talented young left tackle, Gross would have been a good fit for the Eagles if he had gone on the free agent market.

Runyan is one month into recovery from microfracture surgery on his right knee that was expected to sideline him four-to-six months.

"Time will tell. We'll see," Reid said of Runyan. "They're all different. I've seen ones that have worked and some that haven't."

Although the Eagles' need at offensive tackle appears obvious, Reid wouldn't tip his hand on the team's draft priorities. He said guards Todd Herremans and Shawn Andrews could be moved to tackle if needed. Herremans has played the position, and Andrews was among the nation's top tackles at Arkansas. But Andrews missed nearly the entire 2008 season with back problems that required surgery.

"I'm not saying I'm going to do that," Reid said. "A lot of guards that started for me have been outside guys I moved inside. And when the time comes, I can move them back out. I've got two guards who are real good tackles."

Reid made it clear he likes the position the Eagles are in to upgrade the team. They have the 21st and 28th picks in the first round of what is regarded as a draft deep in talent. They have 10 picks overall. And according to profootballtalk.com, the Eagles are $31 million under the mandatory salary cap of $124 million, giving them the freedom to be aggressive in free agency.

But 14 potential free agents were given franchise tags, leaving the pool of free agents pretty shallow.

"What this does is it gives you some flexibility with two first-round picks," Reid said. "We've got a little firepower there."

Reid prefers to upgrade through the draft than free agency, and he doesn't believe in drafting strictly to fill needs.

"You can't afford to draft for needs," he said. "People fall into that. I try not to do that. You understand what your weaknesses are and if that player's there and he's a quality player you take him. If that need is there and he's quality, then you take him. But if there's a way better player there at a different position, then you take that player.

"You don't want to get caught up in getting someone who's not that good just to try to fill a need."

[sfphillyfan]

There are two jerseys you see worn most at Lincoln Financial Field when the Birds are playing: No. 5 and No. 20. And No. 5 is not the guy who carries with him the passionate soul of the fan base.

So true.

You don't see pink 20 jerseys.