2017 Eagles: Thread Under the Influwentz

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
8,014
0-3 to 4-3
I had read that on the Twitter about an hour before I posted it, but in searching now I don’t see any reputable sites reporting the same (just some crazy right wing blogs demonizing the team for not going). So, sorry for spreading info that seems to be bad info.

I believe that Lurie leans left. I know he supported Jenkins in his ‘anthem protests’ as well as the general movement by the players on that side to enact change. I would be surprised to learn he’s a Republican or that he’s friendly with Trump.
 

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
8,014
0-3 to 4-3
PS - I wasn’t there but the parade today seems like it was off the charts. The looks on people’s faces reminded me of what I saw here in ‘04. Pretty cool.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
Finally able to click on the thread.

Congratulations to the terrific Eagles fans on the board and enjoy. Great game.

Next year I'll be rooting for the rematch.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
I think it's premature. This would be a major story right now if true. But we do know Long and Jenkins have opted out. Since this is a very tight team, it's likely most everyone will follow their lead.
I guess the real question is the owner. Not sure where he stands politically.
If the Pats had won, you know Kraft and Belichick would be on board for a trip to the White House. But the players? That SOB remark by Trump cut pretty deep around the league.
You were the guy who used to have the avatar of the sinister cartoon villain with the top hat and the moustach and the evil snicker, yeah?
 

terrynever

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2005
21,717
pawtucket
You think Bill and Kraft would visit the White House if all the players boycotted?
We'll never know. But in this political climate, the standard White House invite to league champions in any sport is becoming a potential embarrassment. Trump's SOB remark was really demeaning to NFL players. The Eagles may just consider their parade enough of a celebration. Based on the early rejections by Long and Jenkins, Trump may do what he did to the Warriors and just not invite the Eagles at all.
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
14,943
Silver Spring, MD
I had read that on the Twitter about an hour before I posted it, but in searching now I don’t see any reputable sites reporting the same (just some crazy right wing blogs demonizing the team for not going). So, sorry for spreading info that seems to be bad info.

I believe that Lurie leans left. I know he supported Jenkins in his ‘anthem protests’ as well as the general movement by the players on that side to enact change. I would be surprised to learn he’s a Republican or that he’s friendly with Trump.
I also read and posted here that the full Eagles team would skip the visit.

Now this morning I read this in the WaPost: ‘Plenty’ of Eagles won’t visit the White House, Torrey Smith says
 

terrynever

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2005
21,717
pawtucket
It's a developing story. Trump will respond on Twitter to the Eagles this Saturday night while eating a cheeseburger and watching SNL. I think he will take on Malcolm Jenkins and leave Chris Long alone. Trump never criticizes white athletes.
 

dirtynine

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2002
8,394
Philly
Moved to Philly from Boston last year. Tough week for me as a Pats fan but a great one for the people here. Definitely shades of '01 / '04 - the city is absolutely enraptured. Reputation aside, I have no beef with Philly fans or the Eagles and would have been rooting for them against any other team. It's a good town. And the Foles / Wentz situation is manna from heaven for sports radio down here. I don't listen, and I won't start now.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,520
Maine
On to the Offseason. No days off.
So whats Philly look like for 2018? Who do they lose? What decisions need to be made?

Welcome to trying to maintain a dynasty Philly.

One of the Dopes with a Philly interest feel free to move this to a 2018 Eagles thread.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
Solid move by Long and Jenkins.

Two forward looking questions for Eagles fans, or people who follow the team.

1. It’s my general impression that you’re not losing many guys and that the core pieces are tied up for a few years. Right?

2. Do they dare trade Foles, or is the Wentz knee too much of a question?

Thanks.
So I think they won't rush to trade Foles but they will IMO, barring a Wentz setback.
Foles is a free agent after next season if he's still an Eagle and if he's moved I believe he has 3 years at 4-5 mm a year.
He might be as valuable commodity as there is, a super bowl winning QB in his prime years under a multi year bargain contract. (That said that contract probably doesn't last if he plays well)

I think you got to get a first for him. The Vikings just signed the QB coach so that could be interesting. But I absolutely think he gets traded.

The rest of the team
Patrick Robinson the nickle who had a great year is likely gone. But this is partly offset by the fact that Sidney Jones (first round Target who got hurt late and drafted him as essentially a red shirt) plus Mills plus Darby are all back, young and cheap.
Safeties are all locked up

Linebacker needs some depth and I hope they can keep bradham

Dline has EVERYONE back. Except long (who says he wants to come back)
Oline also has everyone back right now, Peters is unclear. He seems to want to come back
I think they want him as a coach after so might be still there. But big V improved just hugely in the end of the season and playoffs. So not as huge a need as feared. Depth is good.

Burton is gone (fa) and I suspect celek retires or is cut. Expensive and aging. They resigned Billy brown (who I thought might make the 53 as an undrafted fa.). They probably look for a cheap blocking te.

WR Smith likely leaves (good). Jeffery miracle turn around agholor and hollins are back. Likely look for some depth here in the draft or cheap fa

RB ajai and Clement are signed, Blount is suspect is gone. Smallwood and pumphrey exist still and sproles seems to want to come back too
Not sure about him

So basically the team needs tweaks and a QB decision.

Meanwhile the rest of the division looks... Eek. The casual racists dumped cousins to hook up to Alex Smith. Ok.
Dallas is suddenly a lot less sure about dak after a BAD sophomore season and their WR suddenly look trash and defense nowhere.
Giants have a done Eli and need a new QB, and defense and o line

Most importantly Doug Peterson looks like the real deal and likely brings real continuity. Comfortable with Doug vs Garrett (what does he do) and Shurmur (lol) and Gruden is ok I guess.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,152
San Francisco
So I think they won't rush to trade Foles but they will IMO, barring a Wentz setback.
Foles is a free agent after next season if he's still an Eagle and if he's moved I believe he has 3 years at 4-5 mm a year.
He might be as valuable commodity as there is, a super bowl winning QB in his prime years under a multi year bargain contract. (That said that contract probably doesn't last if he plays well)

I think you got to get a first for him. The Vikings just signed the QB coach so that could be interesting. But I absolutely think he gets traded.
I am highly skeptical about this. I think the GM's of the 31 other NFL teams don't place as much weight on playoff performance as the fans do. He still has a pretty mixed bag resume.

Adding to this, there's a ton of available QB options around the league this year.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
Which is why I mentioned the Vikings who signed the eagles DeFilippo as OC
But I disagree, Foles didn't just have a fluke game he was exceptional vs the Vikings and close vs the Patriots.
There is no better QB contract around, I think.

I say I think because what I know of the contract is that it was a 5 year contract, but can be voided if he is on the eagles roster this time next year.
It may have other language not reported about trades.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,271
I am highly skeptical about this. I think the GM's of the 31 other NFL teams don't place as much weight on playoff performance as the fans do. He still has a pretty mixed bag resume.

Adding to this, there's a ton of available QB options around the league this year.
I agree and think a first round pick is a pipe dream. You're not giving up a top 15 pick for Nick Foles under any circumstances. The only team out of that area that needs a QB is Buffalo with 21 and 22, but are they really going to want Foles? Arizona is at 15 and they'd be idiots for giving it up for Foles. If you want to get a 2019 1st rounder that may not be a dream, but no way in 2018.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Foles has one year left at $8mm. Is that right or am I misinformed?
 

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
8,014
0-3 to 4-3
That is correct.

I don’t understand the 3 years at $4-5m thing.

Good to see you though LS. Are you still raging over the Rowe trade?
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
That is correct.

I don’t understand the 3 years at $4-5m thing.

Good to see you though LS. Are you still raging over the Rowe trade?
I don’t recall raging about Rowe trade. Another guy?

Rowe held his own. He wasn’t the problem IMO.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Foles has one year left at $8mm. Is that right or am I misinformed?
It’s complicated. You’re not necessarily wrong, but London is right.

Longer version: Foles is signed to a 5 year deal structured by the Eagles (and Foles) to lower his cap hit and to incentivize the Eagles to move Foles to a good situation.

It does this through a clause that voids the final 3 years of the deal only if Foles is on the Eagles’ roster in February of ‘19. The kicker is that the contract is front-loaded, so the final three years are for approx. $5 million per, which is insanely low for a quality QB.

Because of the unique structure, the Eagles don’t have to rush to trade Foles. They can see how things develop with Wentz and keep Foles as insurance. But, if Wentz is fine, the Eagles must move Foles during the season to ensure they capture the value of his contract.

Those three years of control at a low salary are why I agree with London that the Eagles are likely to get a 1st rounder for Foles.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
I am skeptical because, as a practical matter, you probably cannot surrender a first rounder for a QB you intend to start, thus validating his worth, then hold him to $5 MM/yr contract. It would be an insane underpay, and I don’t think you could hold that line.

That’s in addition to the fact that teams treat first rounders like the Hope Diamond.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,754
Pittsburgh, PA
Foles signed that contract, as a free agent, after having his option declined by KC. Maybe he should fire his agent, but if he's traded I'll have no sympathy for him if he holds out. He would, in that case, want to have it both ways - the security of a pretty rich deal by backup QB standards (5.5/yr for 2 years), but also the upside if he started and played well. He should have known being traded was a possibility if he became a starter, and insisted on including automatic raises if he were traded (thus truly making the last 3 years a for-cap-purposes-only provision).
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
It’s not a sympathy thing. It’s a stature thing that comes with the position. So, for example, you will see good QBs renegotiated while still on their rookie deals with years to go.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
That’s a fair point, dc. And one of the ways around it is for the acquiring team to rework his contract to add one or two years of (non-guaranteed) control at a hefty raise. And they’d include a respectable signing bonus for the extension to help deal with the underpay problem.

Probably any number of ways to address the stature issue, but regardless, the three additional years of cheap control are a valuable asset.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
Yeah I think I hinted at that too, It's probably unlikely if he plays well next year for the deal to not be renegotiated, but in that scenario you are happy with your QB which for many teams is pretty great,

But the point remains a team trading for him gets a year to look at him with no risk of losing control or risk of destroying cap if he is bad.
I think teams at the top of the draft aren't giving up a 1st but if you're later?
I think late 1st or high second.

edit:
And obviously I'm basically happy to give Roseman the benefit of the doubt generally right now, but I never understood trading Rowe at the time, given the roster. Now, they've got 3 sub 25 CBs.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Yeah I think I hinted at that too, It's probably unlikely if he plays well next year for the deal to not be renegotiated, but in that scenario you are happy with your QB which for many teams is pretty great,

But the point remains a team trading for him gets a year to look at him with no risk of losing control or risk of destroying cap if he is bad.
I think teams at the top of the draft aren't giving up a 1st but if you're later?
I think late 1st or high second.

edit:
And obviously I'm basically happy to give Roseman the benefit of the doubt generally right now, but I never understood trading Rowe at the time, given the roster. Now, they've got 3 sub 25 CBs.
Yes, and that year obviously is valuable.

His career puzzles me honestly. He had that very solid year, seemingly disappears, endures Kelly, QB killer Fisher, thinks seriously about retirement, reunites with Reid, now this.

Only clarity I have is a point made in the BB/TB discussion — it matters a ton where you are and who your coach is.

Maybe you could get Minn’s 1st or Jax’s, maybe. But Minn has already paid thru the nose for QBs, and my guess is they stick with Keenum. Jax, who knows? My guess is they give Bortles another year.

Presume spot maybe given the economics — Denver? Would be very interested in Elway’s take on him.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,152
San Francisco
I mean Sam Bradford got a first, We shall see I'd be disappointed by a third and delighted with a first so I guess we aren't that far apart
Yea, teams do get a little nuts about quarterbacks. I just wonder about how the musical chairs are going to shake out this offseason. You got:

Keenum, McCarron, Bridgewater, Cousins.

( I now realize that McCarron would have gone to Cleveland for a 2nd rounder if they hadnt biffed the paperwork. All things being equal Foles is a better / less uncertain option than McCarron, so that has me rethinking).

These teams definitely need a QB:

Cleveland
New York
New Jersey
Washington
Denver
Arizona

Then you got a few other teams that either want to upgrade (e.g. Buffalo) or need to groom a replacement (e.g. San Diego) but Foles doesn't really make a lot of sense for either. So you are looking at 6 teams, 4 free agents who are all in the ballpark of Foles talent-wise (or better), and some of them are probably going to try and draft a quarterback rather than spend a pick on Foles. For a team like New York or the Jets who need talent everywhere before they can compete does it make sense to drop a pick on Foles?

So I agree he is a valuable asset in a vacuum and his contract is great, but I think the market just has too many options right now. It only takes one though.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Unless you are assuming the Alex Smith deal falls apart, Washington does not need a QB. Also, the Giants draft #2, and with Manning at least serviceable, it would surprising if they don’t go the draft route.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,831
Henderson, NV
It’s complicated. You’re not necessarily wrong, but London is right.

Longer version: Foles is signed to a 5 year deal structured by the Eagles (and Foles) to lower his cap hit and to incentivize the Eagles to move Foles to a good situation.

It does this through a clause that voids the final 3 years of the deal only if Foles is on the Eagles’ roster in February of ‘19. The kicker is that the contract is front-loaded, so the final three years are for approx. $5 million per, which is insanely low for a quality QB.

Because of the unique structure, the Eagles don’t have to rush to trade Foles. They can see how things develop with Wentz and keep Foles as insurance. But, if Wentz is fine, the Eagles must move Foles during the season to ensure they capture the value of his contract.

Those three years of control at a low salary are why I agree with London that the Eagles are likely to get a 1st rounder for Foles.
According to OTC, the last three years were added to spread the signing bonus over 5 years instead of 2. From their notes:

For salary cap purposes the Eagles added three voidable contract years to prorate the money. The 2019, 2020, and 2021 years will automatically void if an extension is not reached. Another $6 million in incentives are available.
Bold is mine. So if he's not extended past 2018, those years go away and he becomes a UFA.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,152
San Francisco
Unless you are assuming the Alex Smith deal falls apart, Washington does not need a QB. Also, the Giants draft #2, and with Manning at least serviceable, it would surprising if they don’t go the draft route.
Totally forgot about Smith. There are two or three top quarterbacks in the draft, no? Itd be hard to imagine a team spending a first rounder on a QB and also dealing for Foles but stranger things have happened, like the time Bledsoe, Isaiah Thomas, and Got an Dragic all were on the Suns.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
I don’t mean to hijack this thread for a QB discussion, but it’s at least relevant here because of Foles.

Sammy, I don’t think any of the guys you listed are anywhere close to great, and that includes Cousins, who I like very much and defended here for a couple of years against charges that he “sucks”. Put differently, none of them are going to miracle any team’s ass into a SB that does not belong there. There are no Elways.

This makes things challenging for teams like Jax and Minn. Am I spending through the nose, in money or picks, for any of these guys when I otherwise would be focused on keeping my defense together and further building the team? Nope. If anything, I’d be inclined to sit tight and see if Keenum or Bortles could develop into a guy like Foles.

The Jets and Cleveland are differently situated. Their QB situations are awful; they lack credibility as destinations. In those places, paying big makes more sense.

That’s, in part, what motivated SF’s approach to the JG situation —

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/02/11/john-lynch-wants-49ers-to-be-a-destination-in-free-agency/
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
Yeah it kind of sucks, but frankly was inevitable sooner or later, what they did with the QBs (both) is always gonna attract interest and both moved up the coaching ladder.

The honest answer is not sure. Doug called the plays, so it's hard to know how much is on who.

Re the contract, the clause that is public is that he had the right to void the contract if he was on the eagles roster after next year. Not a roster as I understand it. So yes that statement is true for the eagles, I'm not clear that is true for other teams.

Regardless I think likely best to assume cheap this year but likely not after.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
What’s hilarious is the Ed Werders and Trey Wingos rushing to his defense.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,055
Hingham, MA
Barnwell had a interesting comparison today: the 1990 Giants. Simms was having a really nice year in 1990, a 15:4 TD:INT ratio, highest AY/A of his career, highest passer rating, then got hurt in week 15. Hostetler came off the bench and didn't lose a game. The Eagles are a well rounded team, they can absolutely still get to the Super Bowl. Not sure if they could beat Ben or Brady, but they can get there.
I just remembered I posted this before the playoffs last year. I hate myself.