Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Change in philosophy?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Change in philosophy?

    I know that Trot and Hugh came back but signing/trading the likes of Reagor and Spikes most of all shows a clear change in the modus operandi of the front office.

    While we have signed/traded for many a player coming off injury in the past - they have usually been younger (see Barber the first go round, Stallworth).

    While they have signed/traded for seasoned players, they are still usually under 30 years old and/or were "re-signs" of our current free agents (Trott was 28 when he signed long term, Freak was 27 at his signing, only OD was over 30 at the time of acquiring).

    The defensive line has always been either top draft picks, undrafted free agents or guys picked off the scrap heap. Reagor has a pedigree and was signed to a long term deal (although technically he's still 29).

    And then there is Mr. Spikes. The man with a pedigree and swagger coming to a franchise that has always undervalued the position and never paid top $ for players in the LB corps.

    I'm known as a FO apologist (or at least I play one on an Eagles message board), so I ask the question - have they changed their line of thinking? Are they admitting the error of their ways? Or has the league changed and they are changing with it?

    Being SO active in free agency and the off-season is refreshing to me but at the same time, the FO has always campaigned at how this isn't the part of the year where you win championships. You don't jump into free agency like this. Turnover in the roster is not a good thing and you build with youth and the draft.

    Does anyone else see mixed signals? If so/not - is all of this good in your opinion?

  • #2
    I think this shows again that the FO has only one modus operandi: doing whatever it takes to WIN.

    Countless times we have tried and thought we knew what their philosophy was or stated they were way too stubborn or did not want to win as badly as we did etc.

    And we have been proven wrong every time IMO...they have changed tactics, patterns and strategies constantly...they have re-evaluated their approach many times and worked to shore up weak spots within the constraints of the cap system.

    The latest myth to be exposed?

    -Do not value the LB position...

    I have fought this one for years...why have we almost annually drafted, traded for and signed LB then? It has not been a lack of effort or value IMO...simply they have not been as good in their choices and development at that position as in others...

    Do they value them LESS than CB and DE? Sure, but again there is a huge amount of evidence to support such an approach and their track record itself shows they are correct IMO...yet valuing something less than the two most important defensive positions does NOT equal not valuing them at all...

    Hopefully the comments about stubborness and inflexibility etc. will dissappear finally after this latest example...finally it will be seen as it truly is IMO: the fans being frustrated the team is not doing what they want them to do...
    Eliminate distractions, create energy, fear nothing, and attack everything.

    -Andy Reid

    Comment


    • #3
      Steve i was thinking the exact same thing. Bolstering the lineup w/ veterans when previously they may have just let their young players move into jobs.

      Or maybe Heckert took advantage of Reid being away for a while and tried to put his stamp on the organization. :P

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Vote for Kalas
        I think this shows again that the FO has only one modus operandi: doing whatever it takes to WIN.

        Countless times we have tried and thought we knew what their philosophy was or stated they were way too stubborn or did not want to win as badly as we did etc.

        And we have been proven wrong every time IMO...they have changed tactics, patterns and strategies constantly...they have re-evaluated their approach many times and worked to shore up weak spots within the constraints of the cap system.

        The latest myth to be exposed?

        -Do not value the LB position...

        I have fought this one for years...why have we almost annually drafted, traded for and signed LB then? It has not been a lack of effort or value IMO...simply they have not been as good in their choices and development at that position as in others...

        Do they value them LESS than CB and DE? Sure, but again there is a huge amount of evidence to support such an approach and their track record itself shows they are correct IMO...yet valuing something less than the two most important defensive positions does NOT equal not valuing them at all...

        Hopefully the comments about stubborness and inflexibility etc. will dissappear finally after this latest example...finally it will be seen as it truly is IMO: the fans being frustrated the team is not doing what they want them to do...
        I see a definate change in philosophy VFK. It doesn't me that they weren't a little stubborn in the past. I think that they were too conservative for awhile, but I sure like what is happening lately. Time will tell.
        "Hey Giants, who's your Daddy?"

        Comment


        • #5
          I think the one consistency (and I guess I am agreeing with VFK here) is the FO has always been pragmatic and resourceful - they make the moves that they believe will make them a better team even if they may go against their basic philosophy or cost/benefit analyses.

          I do believe that they place values on certain positions and that they have historically undervalued the importance of the LB position. Certainly, they have drafted LB's in the past - but never in the first round (I think you probably have to go back to the Vermeil era and the drafting of Jerry Robinson to find the last time the Eagles drafted a LB with a #1). I also believe that they have missed on some of their LB draft picks (Gardner, Caver, and yes, McCoy (The LB they should have taken from San Diego State was Kirk Morrison - What were they thinking? McCoy had one great game against Michigan and they went GaGa!)).

          So, while the Spikes acquisition may be outside their normal paradigm, I don't think it is that inconsistent with their underlying basic philosophy which is to get the best player possible at the cheapest price. If Spikes is anything like he was in the past, getting him and Holcomb for Walker and a late draft pick is a steal.
          "Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein." - Joe Theismann



          Comment


          • #6
            well, as i've argued in another thread, they rely on these veteran acquisitions on the front 7 because they've missed (or the jury is still out) on a series of high-round picks dedicated to that area -- gardner, mccoy, caver, mcdougle, bunkley, gocong.

            i dont know if it's bad drafting or whether JJ's defense is just too complex for the rooks, but i think his veteran-favoring tendency is clear. i know others disagree.
            Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd kill you and everyone you cared about!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Eagle60
              Originally posted by Vote for Kalas
              I think this shows again that the FO has only one modus operandi: doing whatever it takes to WIN.

              Countless times we have tried and thought we knew what their philosophy was or stated they were way too stubborn or did not want to win as badly as we did etc.

              And we have been proven wrong every time IMO...they have changed tactics, patterns and strategies constantly...they have re-evaluated their approach many times and worked to shore up weak spots within the constraints of the cap system.

              The latest myth to be exposed?

              -Do not value the LB position...

              I have fought this one for years...why have we almost annually drafted, traded for and signed LB then? It has not been a lack of effort or value IMO...simply they have not been as good in their choices and development at that position as in others...

              Do they value them LESS than CB and DE? Sure, but again there is a huge amount of evidence to support such an approach and their track record itself shows they are correct IMO...yet valuing something less than the two most important defensive positions does NOT equal not valuing them at all...

              Hopefully the comments about stubborness and inflexibility etc. will dissappear finally after this latest example...finally it will be seen as it truly is IMO: the fans being frustrated the team is not doing what they want them to do...
              I see a definate change in philosophy VFK. It doesn't me that they weren't a little stubborn in the past. I think that they were too conservative for awhile, but I sure like what is happening lately. Time will tell.
              Thats my point, 60....

              They have changed, tweaked, altered and shifted their philosophies and strategies constantly over the years...

              I agree with stock...they are realists, pragmatists who are always trying to find the best way to construct a team that has a good chance to win...

              I do not see any inflexibility or stubbornness and never have...I could see their trust in building from the lines out could be viewed that way, but I think clearly the evidence largely supports them being right...I could see an argument for too much emphasis on CB and DE or QB and OL, but again I do not see that as "conservative"...I would see it as "smart".

              No team that I can remember has done very well without good QB, OL, DE and CB...

              So, I think they have certain tendencies or trust in certain strategies, but show time and time again they will go away from them or use others to improve the team...
              Eliminate distractions, create energy, fear nothing, and attack everything.

              -Andy Reid

              Comment


              • #8
                coincidence that this change goes along with McNabb getting older as well?

                Don will turn 31 this November

                Comment


                • #9
                  I tend to agree with the line of thought that sez, they have always been willing to bend that "plan".

                  The problem as some will see it is that WE the fans have decided certain positions and have decided that those were the positions of the FO and they weren't as WE the fans saw them. When, IMO, the reality is that the FO was never "that" inflexible, it's just that some of the things they believed to be the best way to go weren't always viewed that way by some fans.

                  I also agree with the train of thought that sez that have been hurt more by some of the talent evaluations then they have by sticking to the "plan". Example LB, yes they don't hold it at the same value as DB's or DL's-- but they have attempted to resolve that area over the years... but some of the choices have been poor ones (Caver, Gardner LaJune (sp) and a few others) that have just flopped.

                  I hated their WR's position, at least what I thought was their WR position, they thought they could just plug and play guys at WR, at least that is what I thought they thought (lol) but IMO the reality was that they did try and bolster the WR core but made a few mistakes there also (examples like Fred X, Gari Scott, Na Brown Etc.).

                  I think they have an over all plan, and they have kinda stuck to it as the big picture evolves, and to some extent this year isn't too much different.... yes we took on an "older" Spikes, but we gave up and "older" Walker and added an "older" Monte. We haven't given up on any of the youth, just fixed the biggest hole we had with the best available option.... which has always been part of the "plan" (See Runyan, See OD)

                  I think the youth will still be served here very nicely.... based on all the long term deals they have in place.

                  The long term deals are the actions that speak louder than words sometimes.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I believe that the signing of a player like Spikes has a bit to do with Donovan's career, and some other things, and it is a departure from previous tendancies. I am hoping that they feel that now is a good time to think in the present. If we are going to win a title with Donovan, the next few years is probably going to be the best chance we'll have. We have a franchise QB, we have a franchise RB, and we have one of the best and deepest O-line groups in the entire league. A lot of teams in the league don't have anything near that going for them. We now have a serviceable group of WRs.

                    Now is a good time to take some chances, and be more agressive. Now is the time to grab a player like Spikes.

                    I'm not here to knock the plan up to this point, but I applaud the FO for making this move, and I think they realize that, as far as 5's career is concerned, we're on the back half now, not the front, and the timing is good for us to be bold.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I don't see any change in their philosophy per say.

                      I see them doing whatever it takes to fill their holes. When the play of an individual deteriorated to the point that that individual was not worth keeping, they attempted to replace them. When the play of a group wasn't enough to their standards, they tried to address it.

                      Evidence:

                      2004 - They needed a pass rusher, got the best in the game. They needed a WR, got the best in the game.
                      2005 - They felt the team was ready to return to the big game, TO blew up on them in the Off Season, the talent was there, but the locker room was so divided, along with Donovan's injury, there goes the season. Add to that everyone getting injured, what do you expect.

                      2006 - They needed to address the middle of the OL, they attempted to sign the best center available, failed, then drafted for the OL. They needed to address a backup QB, signed Garcia. They needed to address the WR spot, traded for Stallworth, drafted Avant, traded for Baskett. They needed to address the pass rush, went for Howard. Needed to replace Chad Lewis, addressed it. Needed a FB, brought in one, didn't need him, Tapeh ended up playing well enough. Needed a return guy, drafted Bloom.

                      2007-Needed pass rush through the middle, signed Reagor. Needed LB help, traded for Spikes. Needed a deep threat at the WR spot, signed Curties. Need secondary help, will likely draft some.

                      In other words, in the last three years at least ,whenever they identified a problematic spot, they addressed it. Sometimes not going after the player their fans thought it would be the best player for that spot, but with solid FA additions. Sometimes they were unlucky (i.e. TO going berserk, Kearse losing last season, McNabb going down), but most of the times their FAs are solid signings. Maybe not flashy, but solid.

                      And I never really understood how the 'over 30' thing worked. They did take back Hugh when he was over 30, kept Big John, keep William (Tra) Thomas (and will likely keep him if he wishes to continue play next year), keep Dawkins, kept Dorsey Levens at 50 years old, etc. They allow FAs that are over 30 to walk when they ask too much; not when they realize their value and demand a reasonable contract, and they also realize that certain players can play at that level when they are 30 (i.e. Dawk, Runyan, etc.).

                      Just because a FA wants heaven and earth, the Eagles are not going to pay him, either if he's 22 or if he's 32. Age was never an issue IMO - its whether the Eagles expect that player to play for them through his contract. They've repeatedly stated that they don't like to cut players under contract, because they don't feel that the players deserve to be cut. They've kept injured players under contract like McDougle and Buckhalter, they've kept high-priced players with bad injuries such as Tra and Kearse, and inspite the TO saga, they would likely keep him if he apologized to Reid and McNabb.

                      Heck, the only player they released under long term contract in the last few years other than TO was Pinkston last year, who they at least allowed to be signed by another team considering he would be IRed if not cut. The Eagles RARELY cut long term contracts, and I would be surprised if they let Trotter or anyone else for that matter go.
                      "You will dress only in attire specially sanctioned by P.E. special services… You are no longer part of the system. You are above the system, over it, beyond it. We're "them." We're "they." We are the Men in Green."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Eaglebreath
                        I believe that the signing of a player like Spikes has a bit to do with Donovan's career, and some other things, and it is a departure from previous tendancies. I am hoping that they feel that now is a good time to think in the present. If we are going to win a title with Donovan, the next few years is probably going to be the best chance we'll have. We have a franchise QB, we have a franchise RB, and we have one of the best and deepest O-line groups in the entire league. A lot of teams in the league don't have anything near that going for them. We now have a serviceable group of WRs.

                        Now is a good time to take some chances, and be more agressive. Now is the time to grab a player like Spikes.

                        I'm not here to knock the plan up to this point, but I applaud the FO for making this move, and I think they realize that, as far as 5's career is concerned, we're on the back half now, not the front, and the timing is good for us to be bold.
                        I agree with all you say, EB....but disagree that this is the first time they have done this....

                        They were bold with Runyan...

                        They were bold with TO...

                        They were bold with Kearse...

                        They were bold in moving up for Andrews...

                        They were bold in grabbing Douglas and Trot back...

                        They were bold in drafting Lito & Brown when they already had good CB...

                        They have been aggressive many times over the years...again I do not think it is a question of effort or value or aggression...

                        I think it is just when they feel they have a weakness to fill or opportunity to improve the team, they jump on it...that is the main reason they stay disciplined with the cap every year...it is why they extend their young players long term when they produce...it is why they focus so much on the draft...
                        Eliminate distractions, create energy, fear nothing, and attack everything.

                        -Andy Reid

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I don't think its really a change in philosphy per say because its not that its their philsophy to not sign 30+ year old players its to not over pay for them. Reagor got a reasonable 3 yr 6.5 mill deal, Spikes has two years left at 4.5 and 5 mill no signing bonus's etc. So even that is reasonable. They just won't go out and break the bank like the Redskins due for gusy like London Fletcher who is 32 and they are giving him 5yr 25 mill contracts with high dollar guarantees.

                          This team has been aggressive for years. If they see something they want they go get it, Kearse, Runyan, Owens, even Kevin Curtis this year, they outbid 4 other teams for his services. They made six trades in the draft last year and every year they are pretty much moving and shaking when it comes to draft They are being aggressive
                          Were from Philly F in Philly no one likes us we DON'T CARE!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Leonard Tose
                            well, as i've argued in another thread, they rely on these veteran acquisitions on the front 7 because they've missed (or the jury is still out) on a series of high-round picks dedicated to that area -- gardner, mccoy, caver, mcdougle, bunkley, gocong.

                            i dont know if it's bad drafting or whether JJ's defense is just too complex for the rooks, but i think his veteran-favoring tendency is clear. i know others disagree.
                            Gardner, Caver and McDougle are busts. McCoy at this point is in danger of being a bust in the sense that he won't be a starter, but I think he will still contribute to the team on special teams and situationally on defense

                            Way way to early on Bunkley and Gocong. 1 year does not make a career
                            Were from Philly F in Philly no one likes us we DON'T CARE!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I think it's a little different than years before . Here are some examples as to why:

                              1) Have they gone out and acquired an old player (in league terms) with a significant price tag like Spikes? You may say it isn't significant but at $4.5MM in salary, there are only 3 people on the roster with a base salary higher than that in '07. Coincidentally - they are at those positions historically deemed by them as crucial (QB, OT, DE)

                              2) Have they ever spent this kind of money on a LB before? Nope

                              3) Have you ever seen them go into a draft with less than a pick per round? No comp picks and they gave up their 4th for Stallworth.

                              As a sidebar - the conditional 7th round '08 pick to the Bills is nice in that I believe we have a conditional '08 pick coming back to us from the Browns for Hank Fraley (I believe it's a 6th rounder). We'll also have a # of comp picks next year.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X