June 29, 2013

7-9, THEN WE'LL GET 'EM NEXT YEAR???

CURRENTLY Charles Kelly (not me) has reduced the starting QB sweepstakes to just two players (not 5), and 4th round pick Matt Barkley isn't one of them. Michael Vick at some point is almost guaranteed to miss games even if he wins the spot, which means Nick Foles will almost surely play, regardless of how it shakes out.

Earlier this year when everyone (except me it seemed) wanted the Eagles to draft either Geno Smith or E.J. Manuel, I said we should use our #4 pick to finagle an extra pick for next year and hold out until next year to draft a QB. 

7-9 (though just a prediction) places the Eagles somewhere in the early middle of the 2014 Draft (regardless of which QB/QB's we lost behind) and likely out of the running for any of the top QB prospects, unless one falls. 

*****

If 7-9 is the goal then this season is a failure before it begins. The players should be told that the goal is winning, so the staff should select the players who gives the team the best chance to do so. 

And HERE is where we find out what kind of team we have.

If the team starts sandbagging and "playing for the Draft" or "playing for Next Year", it's shows us that we're rooting for team that's less aggressive than it's fanbase. It's bad enough to be told at the end of a playoff loss "Eh, we'll get 'em next year"; but to hand the fans "Next year" BEFORE THE SEASON?! To tell the PLAYERS that BEFORE THE SEASON?!  To sandbag the roster for what (to us Philadelphians) has ALWAYS BEEN, this illusive, imaginary "Next Year"?!

NO!!!!!!

Don't hand me that "playing for Next Year" s*** in f***** JUNE! JUNE!?

F*** out my face with that bulls***!!!

7-9? "Next Year"? Don't hand me that s*** in June.

 

 

 

 

28 Comments:
  • Funny a guy you always seen to quote is Heath Evans the former Patriot and he's the one who stated with Vick 7-9 is all he can give the Eagles. So let me ask you what does that accomplish?
  • I can only recall quoting Heath Evans once (and providing a link) over the hiring of Kelly. I DO recall making mention of how his prediction was in agreement with what I had forecast as a CEILING for this team in 2013.

    I'm under the impression that 7-9 accomplishes diddly. The point of EVERY year should be to win. Jerome Brown was proof that tomorrow isn't a given, so you should play the hand you're dealt TODAY.

    This is why WE WERE ALL so excited when the Eagles signed seemingly every top FA available in 2010. It was an "All In" move. It was a statement. One the fanbase here had been complaining ENDLESSLY that this team would never make. And then they did, and now because it didn't work out, folks are saying what? It's like the organization can't win either way.

    So now you're READY to hear "next year". You used to complain about it, but now instead of grumbling about 10-6 and "next year", 4-12 has softened you up and has you hoping for a "conditional 7-9" as if there was such a thing. Don't believe me? Let's hop in the Way Back Machine.

    1997: The Eagles go 6-9-1. Second year 3rd rounder QB Bobby Hoying (sound familiar) wins a third of those games going 2-3-1 in 6 starts. He was thought of as a bright spot and handed the keys for the 1998 season. I don't know if you recall the remaining (I literally just typed 'reaming'. Talk a bout your Freudian slip!) seconds of Hoying career but in case you don't, it was as ugly as shooting a kitten at close range.

    7-9 is just 7-9. Even if we go 4-12 again or worse, I want the MISSION to be winning.
  • You can't win with mediocrity at the quarter back position in the NFL today. In the grad scheme of losing 4-12 accomplishes more towards future winning than 7-9 unless that 7-9 is with one of these two young guys showing promise. You keep writing about not wanting to discuss Andy Reid, because he's in the past and then you make a reference to Bobby Hoying??? I mean what is that? What does he have to do with any of this? Are you trying to imply that because Foles and Barkley are white they are going to end up like Hoying? How far will you go to try and make a point that makes absolutely no sense?
  • You're doing your level best to bang a pot for Nick Foles or Matt Barkley, and that's fine for you to do as a fan. Thing is, there doesn't seem to be much confidence in either one of them. Among fans or on the sidelines.

    Look, for all Michael Vick's "mediocrity" Kelly has him competing with Foles for the number one spot and Barkley isn't even in the conversation.

    What that says is, either Kelly can't recognize mediocrity; OR he thinks that Vick isn't mediocre; OR he thinks Foles sucks just as bad, and that Barkley is somehow worse. (Perhaps he'll be ready next year?) My point is that you are at odds with KELLY on this situation. You aren't arguing with me because, I'm not debating the QB position. I leave that to the rest of you.

    This post is about NOT TANKING the season.

    I don't believe in losing on purpose.
  • You can try your best to avoid the question all you wish. Chip Kelly didn't mention Bobby Hoying you did. Who is to say Foles or Barkley can't be good? Who is to say that one of them starting could end up being the best thing for the franchise? And here you want to go on and on about tanking well let me in let you in on a dose of reality. Mike Vick as a starter just for the Eagles is 18-16. That means at best they win 9 games if they are lucky. Don't count on him to play a full season, and don't count on him to protect the football. Don't count on the playoffs at all. In essence you're non desire to tank the season with Vick at the helm would do that very thing. Since this is the reality and since you have no beef with Chip Kelly and apparently I do since you told me I do, we can only expect cherry Eagles articles from you from this moment on and not thinly veiled insults?
  • You asked me 4 questions in your former reply, (3 in this latter one). I thought my reply would answer each of the former 4. Which do you need clarification on?
  • I am not excited about viewing the Eagles struggle one more season, but I'm a realist. There is a new coach, new front office, and new scheme in place for a 4-12 football team. I've watched enough football to know that in the NFL today you NEED an elite quarterback. Here is all I know so far. Mike Vick is not an elite quarterback, and the jury is still out on Nick Foles and Matt Barkley. Wasting another year with a quarterback I know can't do it SETS THE FRANCHISE BACK! You can't get to a point of winning if they are desperately holding onto losing. Now I would GLADLY accept a season of losing football if it meant the rise of Foles or Barkley as upcoming elite quarterbacks or the Eagles being in a position to draft an elite prospect player who can propel them from being a "diddly" 7-9 into a Super Bowl Contender. I would GLADLY endure a poultry 1-15 if that meant a dynasty on the horizon. It wouldn't be the first time that's happened. After all we endured a terrible 3-13 season and we were ultimately rewarded with McNabb.
  • You're still talking about QB's.

    The point of this post is that I don't want the staff to tank the season. I want a sincere effort.
  • Who ever wrote the staff wont provide a sincere effort? Chip Kelly has built a staff of teachers. Andy Reid's previous staff was a circus. You certainly didn't seem to mind that 4-12 circus. In fact you wanted another year of it. It seems a little hypocritical of you to demand a sincere effort from Kelly's coaching staff when all you really wanted was for Reid and that staff of absolute buffoonery to come back for more.
  • You can't intentionally tank whilst doing your best.
  • You can if you have a bad roster and most importantly a bad quarterback
  • Then it's the fault of whom for KEEPING so many bad and privileged players?

    If they got the last guy fired, why'd the new guy keep so many? It's not like there aren't replacements out there.
  • They have gotten rid of several mostly on the defensive side. Of course you can't get rid of all of them in one season. That's why the Raiders held onto the convict last season right? With that being the case some of the privileged guys are young and talented. Now it's about trying to correct them. If they refuse to change then they wont last here.
  • Says you.

    KELLY actually held onto those guys.

    You want privileged? DJax squawked at getting demoted, and a MEETING got him his starting designation back. Maclin has to earn a spot, as they talk about his extension. Oh yeah! Kelly is a taskmaster! Lane Johnson hadn't earned a thing in the NFL and BOOM! He's also a starter.

    If guys can get spots without earning them, then how is this new guy any tougher than the old guy?
  • I wouldn't circle anyone in as a starter just yet as of this moment the Eagles do not have a depth chart. I believe this is the perfect scenario of a 4-12 football team. Nobody should feel like they have it made, and even though the Eagles may have to keep some players for longer than they may want to due to salary cap restrictions, it doesn't mean they have to play those guys until they get in line with the program.
  • You really have no idea of what going on do you? LOL.
    For your sake I hope you're pretty, 'cause you damned sure ain't smart.
  • Duly noted. An idiot told me I'm not smart.
  • Why play the games if your planning on losing...**** 7-9 might even get you a wild card or you may miss the playoffs by a game...whats the point? I say win 10 and lets start the Chip Kelly era off witha bang!
  • Tanking a season is not even a thought ever in Balto. Two superbowls in 13 years they have a formula. IIts called improving every year. Whether you are winning or not. Im telling you EZ its a cop out. I agree 100% w flip. fans dont pay for experiments . They pay to see their team give a 100% effort. If kellys team comes out flat, stale and worse than last year he will be dragged through the mud. Nobody is giving the fans a discount for the season why should the team get one?
  • First and foremost that's a load of bull. Baltimore has had lean and reload years in between the time they have had those two Super Bowls. They have replaced players and coaches in that span and don't bother trying to tell me how those Kyle Boller years were some of the greatest ever for the Ravens. You're not that stupid.

    Now I want you to nut up and answer this question with a yes or no response. I don't want to see any excuses just a simple yes or no. Does Mike Vick at starting quarterback make the Eagles a Super Bowl team right now? Don't be afraid to answer the question wood. It's not a trick question. Just type yes or no.
  • Nope.

    He doesn't in my opinion. He doesn't play Safety, nor does he block. Add to that, the fact that he has things to improve on himself, and the odds that this is a Super Bowl team this year or next or even in two years is highly unlikely.

    Then again a surprising Raiders team won the Super Bowl in 1980, so it CAN be done.

    BTW: That "just type Y or N" nonsense. Don't do that. Seriously, I broke my son of that habit when he was 7. I told him if a man's point can't hold up to questioning, that man doesn't have a point. (He's 13 and still does it, but now only when he's joking.) I have to tell you though, it would amuse me to find out that you're less of a man than a 13 year old.
  • I think if the offense can get back on track the Eagles have the potential to put up alot of points. Isnt that Chips expertise? Thats half the battle so my answer is yes they have more than a 1% chance of winning a superbowl with Mike Vick. Im not ready to tank.
  • I agree they have a more than 1% chance. The other teams in our division could be decimated by injuries and we could make the playoffs at 7-9 like the Cards did, then get really hot. Not at all outside the realm of possibilities.
  • Tanking as a strategy is not something I understand. Can you qualify your idea of tanking with a team that has tanked as a strategy. Please provide where the tanking stratgy was used successfully?
  • You asking me or one of the quitters?

    If your asking them, brace yourself for tales of drafting Andrew Luck. RG# may also come up, but that would be inaccurate. The Foreskins didn't tank a season, they were already wretched.

    On a side note: The Colts went through all they went through, and with better protection in a softer division, Luck still ended up with a passer rating almost 3 points lower. So the jury is still out on that move.

    Update: July 01, 2013
    I meant to say lower than Nick Foles.
  • No. Thats for EZquitter.
  • [not displayed: comment from locked account]
  • EZ doesn't actually think Reid is either. He's just using that line to say, >.

    That of course doesn't take into account the facts that the Chiefs and Eagles weren't talking trade until February 15th, while Vick was restructured on February 11th.

    Foles is making 600K to Vick's 7M. Considering the issues KC was having trying re-sign their OWN players, and the trade they eventually worked out for Alex Smith (a better QB than Vick), why would they add a $7M back-up with a $8.5M starter?

    Would have made no sense.

Updated NBA Draft early entries list

Honest NBA playoffs slogans

Gallery: The best of Barbie Blank

Breakout candidates for the NHL playoffs

Draft needs for all 32 NFL teams

Seven kids on every youth sports team

Behind the scenes with Paulina Gretzky

100 best players of the MLB expansion era

Best and worst of Monday Night Raw

Five-round NFL mock draft

Most sacred places in NFL history

10 greatest sports Bubbas of all-time

Hockey fights of the week

Reasons to stop playing recreational sports immediately

This week in MLB replay reviews

BARKER BEAUTIES
WANT MORE?
FOLLOW YARDBARKER:
Youtube_32 Twitter_32 Facebook_32 Rss_32 Email_32
Today's Best Stuff
For Bloggers

Join the Yardbarker Network for more promotion, traffic, and money.

Company Info
Help
What is Yardbarker?

Yardbarker is the largest network of sports blogs and pro athlete blogs on the web. This site is the hub of the Yardbarker Network, where our editors and algorithms curate the best sports content from our network and beyond.