Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dawk update

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by leifdawg View Post
    Also the Eagles are closer to the cap than you might think. If they Eagles had matched Dawk's expensive (front loaded) contract, they would probably be right up against the cap.

    qft
    What I might think? I get my figures from actual sources. I don't make em up out of thin air.

    The Eagles current cap space is $9M for 2009. Add in another $2.3M for Sean Jones (who never gets signed if Dawk is here) and we're talking $11.3M.

    Dawk's contract is $7.2M guaranteed for the next two years.

    TWO years. Even if you front loaded the hell out of that, you're nowhere near "up against the cap like you might think."

    Give me facts. Not conjecture.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by MDFAN View Post
      The Eagles made the best choice they thought for their organization.

      Both sides did what they felt was the best thing for them.

      I applaud both sides for having their convictions and sticking with them.
      Here's the problem. The Eagles made a terrible choice, did not adequately replace Dawkins and now have a hole at FS.

      I could get past the loss of Dawk as a player if they had not opened up a gaping hole by letting him walk. But what is there to applaud about letting a player of Dawk's stature walk for a relatively minor amount of money and replacing him with a rookie fifth-round pick?
      Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd kill you and everyone you cared about!

      Comment


      • #33
        All I keep hearing is how for a "few extra million" we could have him and be a better team!!!!!!!!!

        What bull crap!!!!!


        With Brian Dawkins this team is still 2 and 1 so he would not make them a better team right now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Leonard Tose View Post
          Here's the problem. The Eagles made a terrible choice, did not adequately replace Dawkins and now have a hole at FS.

          I could get past the loss of Dawk as a player if they had not opened up a gaping hole by letting him walk. But what is there to applaud about letting a player of Dawk's stature walk for a relatively minor amount of money and replacing him with a rookie fifth-round pick?
          We've had this discussion before --- your "gaping" hole doesn't fly! This team would still be 2 and 1---- end of conversation!

          The loss of Bradley hurts this team much more then replacing Brian Dawkins does!

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by MDFAN View Post
            All I keep hearing is how for a "few extra million" we could have him and be a better team!!!!!!!!!

            What bull crap!!!!!


            With Brian Dawkins this team is still 2 and 1 so he would not make them a better team right now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            Let's drop your 2-1 argument for a moment because that's a red herring.

            Do you really believe the Eagle defense is just as good with rookie fifth-round pick Macho Harris as a starter than it would be if Dawk were here? Do you really believe that?
            Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd kill you and everyone you cared about!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by MDFAN View Post
              We've had this discussion before --- your "gaping" hole doesn't fly! This team would still be 2 and 1---- end of conversation!

              The loss of Bradley hurts this team much more then replacing Brian Dawkins does!

              I agree that the loss of Bradley is substantial and significant and probably more of a problem.

              But they have two gaping holes in this defense, and I have a hard time accepting any argument that says Macho Harris is just fine back there. Maybe he will be in time. But he's going to be a problem before this year is over.

              And this 2-1 thing is not the "end of conversation." That's a straw dog.
              Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd kill you and everyone you cared about!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Leonard Tose View Post
                Let's drop your 2-1 argument for a moment because that's a red herring.

                Do you really believe the Eagle defense is just as good with rookie fifth-round pick Macho Harris as a starter than it would be if Dawk were here? Do you really believe that?
                This is the argument that always gets me.

                People tend to respond with "well, he's going downhill and next year, he won't be worth it.."

                And i always want to smack my forehead and yell "SO WHAT? It's not your money. AND we're nowhere near the cap."

                As a fan/ticketholder/whatever, don't you want your team to be the best it can be THIS YEAR?

                When next year rolls around, you might be overpaying for Dawk but again... SO WHAT? Macho Harris is under contract and is gonna be better for it because he learned from Dawk in 2009. Who is he learning from now? Quinten Demps?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Leonard Tose View Post
                  Let's drop your 2-1 argument for a moment because that's a red herring.

                  Do you really believe the Eagle defense is just as good with rookie fifth-round pick Macho Harris as a starter than it would be if Dawk were here? Do you really believe that?
                  Hmm, lets ignore facts and truth and play some sort of what if game?????? Right. LMAO

                  I don't know what 37 yr old Dawk would do here or not do here, but you're gonna tell be he would be superman.... so let's cut the bull. That's the difference, I don't pretend to know, you do.

                  All I know is that Macho Harris did not cost us a loss against N/O--- so there is no factual point to be made.

                  The only thing that is a red herring around here is this non factual emotional idea that Dawkins makes this team "better". Dawkins should be better, tons better, right now than a rookie going into his 4th game------- but the Eagles are still 2 and 1.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by sfphillyfan View Post
                    This is the argument that always gets me.

                    People tend to respond with "well, he's going downhill and next year, he won't be worth it.."

                    And i always want to smack my forehead and yell "SO WHAT? It's not your money. AND we're nowhere near the cap."

                    As a fan/ticketholder/whatever, don't you want your team to be the best it can be THIS YEAR?

                    When next year rolls around, you might be overpaying for Dawk but again... SO WHAT? Macho Harris is under contract and is gonna be better for it because he learned from Dawk in 2009. Who is he learning from now? Quinten Demps?

                    2 years and $9 million would almost certainly have brought Dawk back, that's basically the guaranteed portion of his Denver deal.

                    Hardly a cap-busting deal. Certainly money well spent to ensure they are not starting a rookie fifth round pick this year, IMO. Who knows about next year? What does it matter? There is not even going to be a cap next year.

                    I agree, Harris would have been better for the experience, maybe even Demps would have stayed in line and done his work.
                    Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd kill you and everyone you cared about!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Leonard Tose View Post
                      Let's drop your 2-1 argument for a moment because that's a red herring.

                      Do you really believe the Eagle defense is just as good with rookie fifth-round pick Macho Harris as a starter than it would be if Dawk were here? Do you really believe that?

                      That was the question I posed a while back...with no answer. Are we a better team without him here than we would heve been WITH him here? That is the question that needs to be considered by anyone with a rooting interest in the Philadelphia Eagles. Since the dollars are not coming out of my pocket, and the cap is a non issue here, we can keep it pretty basic. And everyone can have their own answer to that question. You know mine.
                      http://shop.cafepress.com/content/global/img/spacer.gifOK, let's try this again...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        LOL Vin, I should have just waited, and then cut and pasted your post.
                        http://shop.cafepress.com/content/global/img/spacer.gifOK, let's try this again...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by MDFAN View Post
                          Hmm, lets ignore facts and truth and play some sort of what if game?????? Right. LMAO

                          I don't know what 37 yr old Dawk would do here or not do here, but you're gonna tell be he would be superman.... so let's cut the bull. That's the difference, I don't pretend to know, you do.

                          All I know is that Macho Harris did not cost us a loss against N/O--- so there is no factual point to be made.

                          The only thing that is a red herring around here is this non factual emotional idea that Dawkins makes this team "better". Dawkins should be better, tons better, right now than a rookie going into his 4th game------- but the Eagles are still 2 and 1.

                          Look at the Denver defense. Are they not better? They were horrible, putrid last year. One of the worst defenses of the past 10 years.

                          Dawk is 35, not 37.

                          This straw man you're setting up about the won-loss record is really bizarre. How many times in football can we look at any specific NFL game and say that one person is solely responsible for the win or the loss on that day? Almost never.
                          Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd kill you and everyone you cared about!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Come on, LT, it's a great argument. Heck, we proved last week that we can win without McNabb or Westbrook, so we are probably not a better team with those guys either! We could have probably even managed to best Carolina without em!!!!
                            http://shop.cafepress.com/content/global/img/spacer.gifOK, let's try this again...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Leonard Tose View Post
                              Look at the Denver defense. Are they not better? They were horrible, putrid last year. One of the worst defenses of the past 10 years.

                              Dawk is 35, not 37.

                              This straw man you're setting up about the won-loss record is really bizarre. How many times in football can we look at any specific NFL game and say that one person is solely responsible for the win or the loss on that day? Almost never.

                              Denver players and coaches are crowing about how much intensity and leadership Dawk brings to the defense.

                              But who are they to know about such things?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                There is no answer to that question.

                                Anytime you compare a vet to a rookie of course the "easy" answer is to side with the vet, especially after such a small sample size. But many people like to take on a bigger view, and they aren't wrong either.

                                But the bottom line is it's a question that has no answer. Especially when there are 52 others who add or subtract to the equation.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X