FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
https://championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=24984
93henfan wrote:Yep, just as I suspected. The Eagles are right down there with the Tampa's, Kansas City's, and Jacksonville's of the world. A team simply content to win a few games instead of win it all. Sad, really.
If that's the case, somebody had better tell Tampa Bay.dbackjon wrote:93henfan wrote:Yep, just as I suspected. The Eagles are right down there with the Tampa's, Kansas City's, and Jacksonville's of the world. A team simply content to win a few games instead of win it all. Sad, really.
Philly is actually in a good place. They have plenty of room to sign Free Agents. Teams have to spend at least 99% of the 120 Million cap this year. All teams will be spending the same.
Eh, those numbers are as of today and don't include players that became free agents. Not a bad place at all to be considering.93henfan wrote:Yep, just as I suspected. The Eagles are right down there with the Tampa's, Kansas City's, and Jacksonville's of the world. A team simply content to win a few games instead of win it all. Sad, really.
maybe they're just saving money for:93henfan wrote:Yep, just as I suspected. The Eagles are right down there with the Tampa's, Kansas City's, and Jacksonville's of the world. A team simply content to win a few games instead of win it all. Sad, really.
Totally disagree. The Eagles were so close to the prize that all those years they stayed significantly under the cap, if they'd have just gone out and gotten McNabb a WR (or two) before or after the TO year, they may have some rings now. Coincidentally, the one year they did have TO, they went to the Superbowl and lost to the Pats by three points with a TO hobbling around with pins and screws in his lower leg.GannonFan wrote:Eh, those numbers are as of today and don't include players that became free agents. Not a bad place at all to be considering.93henfan wrote:Yep, just as I suspected. The Eagles are right down there with the Tampa's, Kansas City's, and Jacksonville's of the world. A team simply content to win a few games instead of win it all. Sad, really.
With that said, I think people always overestimate the Eagles spending decisions when trying to find a reason for their inability to win a Super Bowl under Lurie. They've had teams that have been capable of winning the Super Bowl - it hasn't been because of lack of spending, but more so, a combination of players not performing and coaches coming up short. They didn't lose all those NFC title games because they didn't spend enough money - that's just an easy fallback thing to criticize when it really hasn't been a culprit in the Eagles inability to win it all.
McNabb was basically Lebron before Lebron came along - if we only could've surrounded McNabb with enough talent then those players could've won it for McNabb (basically in spite of him).93henfan wrote:Totally disagree. The Eagles were so close to the prize that all those years they stayed significantly under the cap, if they'd have just gone out and gotten McNabb a WR (or two) before or after the TO year, they may have some rings now. Coincidentally, the one year they did have TO, they went to the Superbowl and lost to the Pats by three points with a TO hobbling around with pins and screws in his lower leg.GannonFan wrote:
Eh, those numbers are as of today and don't include players that became free agents. Not a bad place at all to be considering.
With that said, I think people always overestimate the Eagles spending decisions when trying to find a reason for their inability to win a Super Bowl under Lurie. They've had teams that have been capable of winning the Super Bowl - it hasn't been because of lack of spending, but more so, a combination of players not performing and coaches coming up short. They didn't lose all those NFC title games because they didn't spend enough money - that's just an easy fallback thing to criticize when it really hasn't been a culprit in the Eagles inability to win it all.
GF, you don't have to apologize or make excuses for a front office who has gone on record as saying that "competitive" is good enough for them and that they consider themselves the "gold standard" among NFL franchises.GannonFan wrote:McNabb was basically Lebron before Lebron came along - if we only could've surrounded McNabb with enough talent then those players could've won it for McNabb (basically in spite of him).93henfan wrote:
Totally disagree. The Eagles were so close to the prize that all those years they stayed significantly under the cap, if they'd have just gone out and gotten McNabb a WR (or two) before or after the TO year, they may have some rings now. Coincidentally, the one year they did have TO, they went to the Superbowl and lost to the Pats by three points with a TO hobbling around with pins and screws in his lower leg.
Really, the only NFC title game the Eagles lost where you can say definitively it was because of a lack of WR's was the Panther's loss in '03. The other losses had little to do with the WR's and more to do with flaws elsewhere on the team or on the sidelines. Not having a WR wasn't the reason why Juerevicius was able to somehow run free for two miles (heck, he might still be running even now) in that loss in the last game at the Vet. Heck, the one year we had TO we actually made it to the Super Bowl without him even playing a down in any of the playoff games leading up to the Super Bowl. And if McNabb was able to stop puking on the field and throwing darts into the dirt we may have still won that Super Bowl. Blame goes around aplenty for the Eagles and not making it to the promise land in the past 10 years, but a lot of it starts and ends with #5, even though he still was easily the best QB this franchise ever had. Reid takes his share of the blame as well. Not spending enough money? Eh, not even a factor in my book.