Unfortunately, it's a business

[andrewaters]

We don't like to admit it, but this is a business. If any of you were toward the end of your career in your respective professions and you had someone come in, wine and dine you, offer you a bunch of money for a few more years of service, you'd jump at the chance... so you can't blame Dawk one bit.

If the company you worked for knew what your capabilities were, asked you to give them a chance to match any offer, and you did that but they passed. You can't blame the company either. They know your value and they didn't think he was worth it.

So, it sucks and it is going to hurt like heck to see Dawk on another team but it is a business.

All that said, let's remember one thing here. The Eagles normally get this right on older players. Bobby Taylor, Troy Vincent, Hugh Douglass, Jeremiah Trotter, Jermane Mayberry, Chad Lewis, Duce Staley... the all walked out the door for more money and the Iggles were right on all of them.

They got it wrong a few times it appears on younger players like Derrick Burgess, Rod Hood (jury still out here), Bobbie Williams, and Raheem Brock. These were guys they didn't negotiate with and you could make the case they let a fairly good player walk out the door.

No doubt guys, this sucks big time but from a football standpoint this might be a good move.

One more thing to add, I believe the Eagles will get a draft pick out of this. Because they let three players go and they sign one player. That is a net loss which I think means they will get some compensatory picks.

We MUST sign Housemazillea at this point and trade for Tony G. Those are my must moves at this point.

[sfphillyfan]

Oh I don't really think Dawk has 2 years left. I think he has one year and change left.

But for what he did for this organization, you can't give the guy $9M? Meanwhile you franchised LJ last year? Come on.

And I will contend his leadership is worth the diminishing physical aspect of his game.

[EagleDan]

Yes it is a business!

Looking over the CBA, no where will you see the words, Tenure, Loyalty, or Sympathy. Contracts are based on upcoming performance, and sometimes mistakes are made.

A Fan favorite, who moves on, while seeming like a loss, can only be truly judged in retrospect! So I am going to wait and see, I don't have to like it, but I understand it!

[ThoughtProcess]

Vin, EagleDan, I agree with both of you. And andrewaters. What can you say? It is indeed a business.

[Eagle60]

We don't like to admit it, but this is a business. If any of you were toward the end of your career in your respective professions and you had someone come in, wine and dine you, offer you a bunch of money for a few more years of service, you'd jump at the chance... so you can't blame Dawk one bit.

If the company you worked for knew what your capabilities were, asked you to give them a chance to match any offer, and you did that but they passed. You can't blame the company either. They know your value and they didn't think he was worth it.

So, it sucks and it is going to hurt like heck to see Dawk on another team but it is a business.

All that said, let's remember one thing here. The Eagles normally get this right on older players. Bobby Taylor, Troy Vincent, Hugh Douglass, Jeremiah Trotter, Jermane Mayberry, Chad Lewis, Duce Staley... the all walked out the door for more money and the Iggles were right on all of them.

They got it wrong a few times it appears on younger players like Derrick Burgess, Rod Hood (jury still out here), Bobbie Williams, and Raheem Brock. These were guys they didn't negotiate with and you could make the case they let a fairly good player walk out the door.

No doubt guys, this sucks big time but from a football standpoint this might be a good move.

One more thing to add, I believe the Eagles will get a draft pick out of this. Because they let three players go and they sign one player. That is a net loss which I think means they will get some compensatory picks.

We MUST sign Housemazillea at this point and trade for Tony G. Those are my must moves at this point.

I agree totally AW. Dawk had no choice but to walk. As for getting more draft picks, big friekin deal. This whole FO is always based on "tomorrow". Where has it gotten them?

[MDFAN]

Nice post AW-- glad to see that there are a few still willing to see both sides, and understand you don't just give somebody 9 mill for past performance, you pay for future performance.

[SCREAM]

Looking over the CBA, no where will you see the words, Tenure, Loyalty, or Sympathy. Contracts are based on upcoming performance, and sometimes mistakes are made.

A Fan favorite, who moves on, while seeming like a loss, can only be truly judged in retrospect! So I am going to wait and see, I don't have to like it, but I understand it!

Do you see the words "Sack", "Interception", or anything similar in the CBA?

The fact is that this the wrong move based on where we are right now as a team.

1.) We have TWO safeties under contract, one of which is primarily a kick returner and hasn't stood out yet at the actual safety position.

2.) The guy was legitimately a Pro Bowl player last year. Yes, he had his ups and his downs, but he was an absolute game changer for a good number of games. In addition, the guy knows the system inside and out, since he's been here for the entirety of Jim Johnson's reign. People say that the staff had to adapt game plans to Dawkins' strengths, and that he seemed more of a LB than safety. Doesn't that just mean the staff is doing their job? We'll be paying him for his contributions for next year. But he's not just any other player, so you do make some exceptions.

3.) For his leadership skills / energy, and for the PR alone to the fans and teammates, and for his contribution over the years to this team, you do it. We have $40M in cap room, according to various reports. I apologize to stevemc if I'm wrong, since he knows these things so much better than me. Are you telling me that we can't afford to pay him that same contract, even if we had to cut him after a year IF his play declined to the point where he was a hindrance? Worse case scenario is that you have a productive backup safety/LB making $4.5M a year while he helps out his replacement that we probably will draft.

Yes, it's a business. But you need to make smart business decisions, and I'm not sure that this was one. Right now people are going to be emotional. And until they do something about the position, people will continue.

[fly]

I'm curious whether or not the Eagles really wanted him, or if their last offer was simply an effort to save face.

- if they truly wanted Dawk here for 2 at 5mil, then they're fools for 1) letting him get to FA, and 2) not paying him enough to keep him here.

- if they really didn't want him back, then at least i could respect them for making a decision (whether we agree with it or not).

i guess we'll never really know, but i tend to think it's the latter. and as a business decision, i don't like the idea of getting rid of a starter before you've found his replacement. it's risky and it could come back to bite them next year. or force them to overpay for the guy(s) they're targeting to replace him.

[sfphillyfan]

Well said scream.

[MDFAN]

"The fact is that this the wrong move based on where we are right now as a team."

It is not a FACT, just some peoples opinion.

[dawkins20]

I still have a problem with not keeping him. For every Montana or Monk or someone else...there is a Bettis and Strahan that held on..played a role...and won a title with the team they played their whole career with.

I thought we could have done that with Dawk and some strategic aggresive moves this off-season. The FO thought differently. I hope they know what they are doing, because right now it reeks EXACTLY of what Eagle60 says....this team ALWAYS looks to the future and never looks to a run at a title.

There will be a HUGE void at safety this year. I hope we can at least replace some of it. Right now Demps is a HUGE downgrade in ability, smarts, physicality, and experience. At least he can gain experience.

AW, you are right that the FO has generally been right when letting older players go. But we all have to admit this year could be different. Tra, Jon, and Dawk all played well last year and we could lose all three. Can we really replace all they gave and still upgrade this team enough to make a serious run next year?

[Eaglebreath]

"The fact is that this the wrong move based on where we are right now as a team."

It is not a FACT, just some peoples opinion.

It may be an opinion, but it is certainly a valid one, and he did a very nice job of outlining what that opinion was based on.

P.S. He's right.

[IMK]

Worse case scenario is that you have a productive backup safety/LB making $4.5M a year while he helps out his replacement that we probably will draft.

See, this is the one scenario I think the Eagles genuinely couldn't do. You can't sit Dawkins on the bench. If he wants to hang on as a part time player, it has to happen somewhere else. That was why they cut Trotter rather than keeping him as a backup. It just doesn't work that way, not with a legend.

[sfphillyfan]

See, this is the one scenario I think the Eagles genuinely couldn't do. You can't sit Dawkins on the bench. If he wants to hang on as a part time player, it has to happen somewhere else. That was why they cut Trotter rather than keeping him as a backup. It just doesn't work that way, not with a legend.

That's worse case scenario. And that's in year 2.

I hope Dawk does really well with Denver.

[andrewaters]

I think Dawk is going to have a lot of trouble in Denver unfortunately, he is going to have to cover Tony G. twice a year most likely and Antonio Gates is a best also. 4 times next year he is going to be exposed as a guy that isn't great covering the TE down the field anymore.

I love Dawk and wish him well, but I question if the Broncos will know how to hide him like JJ did.