Jump to content
Nex_Gen

Philadelphia Eagles: Dynasty In The Making?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

That doesn’t make any sense. Nobody knew the Packers would lose guys to injury and not be able to rebuild the roster in 2010. Nobody knew Seattle’s draft success would plummet and they’d struggle to fill holes in 2013. You’re using what happened to the Seahawks/Packers as proof that the Eagles have a “much better chance” when the Eagles haven’t proven otherwise. Doesn’t make sense. 

And if Roseman is suddenly a top GM, you’re probably forgetting the praise Thompson and Schneider got back then.

I have no clue as to how hindsight is somehow off limits when it comes to assessing the Eagles chances at a dynasty. That makes no sense.

Anyway...

Roseman isn't suddenly a top GM, he has been for a long time. Not a lot of teams that have had the success the Eagles have had in the recent past. When Kelly wrenched control away, hijacked the team and started to dismantle it, it fell apart. 

I haven't forgotten the praise that Thompson got, it was not only completely undeserved, but praise has nothing to do with "chances", anyway. Favre turned full diva, threatened to retire for two years in a row, then a guy who Thompson (and LOTS of others) has rated as a potentially great quarterback falls into his lap, so Thompson takes him, and that makes Thompson the Albert Einstein of the NFL? Not buying it for a second. How many top ten defenses has Rodgers played with? What happens when he has one? Also--are you honestly blaming the last seven years of Packers playoff futility on injuries? 

Schneider, I don't think, can be disregarded just yet, even though this last draft was pretty putrid. It's simply Football Common Sense 101 that you can't pay one side of the ball like that.  

Edited by Heinz D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many super bowls does a team need to win to be a dynasty? 3? 

 

If so let's bring up this potential talk after they win a second if they ever do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

I have no clue as to how hindsight is somehow off limits when it comes to assessing the Eagles chances at a dynasty. That makes no sense.

Anyway...

Roseman isn't suddenly a top GM, he has been for a long time. Not a lot of teams that have had the success the Eagles have had in the recent past. When Kelly wrenched control away, hijacked the team and started to dismantle it, it fell apart. 

I haven't forgotten the praise that Thompson got, it was not only completely undeserved, but praise has nothing to do with "chances", anyway. Favre turned full diva, threatened to retire for two years in a row, then a guy who Thompson (and LOTS of others) has rated as a potentially great quarterback falls into his lap, so Thompson takes him, and that makes Thompson the Albert Einstein of the NFL? Not buying it for a second. How many top ten defenses has Rodgers played with? What happens when he has one? Also--are you honestly blaming the last seven years of Packers playoff futility on injuries? 

Schneider, I don't think, can be disregarded just yet, even though this last draft was pretty putrid. It's simply Football Common Sense 101 that you can't pay one side of the ball like that.  

Hindsight is 20/20. That's the point. We have the benefit of hindsight with the Packers and Seahawks that we didn't have in 2010 and 2013, respectively, and we don't have with the Eagles today. People were talking dynasty prematurely with those teams then, just as they are with the Eagles now.

In five years, we might be talking about how the Eagles bankrupted their draft abilities by trading up to get a QB who was never truly the same after his knee injury. You just never know. Then again, we could definitely be talking about an Eagles dynasty at that time. It's just way too early to be talking about it four months after they won their first SB in franchise history.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

Hindsight is 20/20. That's the point. We have the benefit of hindsight with the Packers and Seahawks that we didn't have in 2010 and 2013, respectively, and we don't have with the Eagles today. People were talking dynasty prematurely with those teams then, just as they are with the Eagles now.

In five years, we might be talking about how the Eagles bankrupted their draft abilities by trading up to get a QB who was never truly the same after his knee injury. You just never know. Then again, we could definitely be talking about an Eagles dynasty at that time. It's just way too early to be talking about it four months after they won their first SB in franchise history.

 

Not really, as to how he phrased it. It could have been that he meant, "We really have no way of knowing at this point. Let's see how things play out." Just didn't come off that way.

And I'd say the Seahawks had some prolonged playoff success, just not SB wins, wouldn't you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

Hindsight is 20/20. That's the point. We have the benefit of hindsight with the Packers and Seahawks that we didn't have in 2010 and 2013, respectively, and we don't have with the Eagles today. People were talking dynasty prematurely with those teams then, just as they are with the Eagles now.

In five years, we might be talking about how the Eagles bankrupted their draft abilities by trading up to get a QB who was never truly the same after his knee injury. You just never know. Then again, we could definitely be talking about an Eagles dynasty at that time. It's just way too early to be talking about it four months after they won their first SB in franchise history.

 

I thought the Eagles were out of the Wentz mortgage? They look to have a strong roster atm. They probably have the best oline/dline combo in the league for at least two years. 

They seem to be able to cycle through effective skill players well. If Wentz goes slightly under market value they will be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

Hindsight is 20/20. That's the point. We have the benefit of hindsight with the Packers and Seahawks that we didn't have in 2010 and 2013, respectively, and we don't have with the Eagles today. People were talking dynasty prematurely with those teams then, just as they are with the Eagles now.

In five years, we might be talking about how the Eagles bankrupted their draft abilities by trading up to get a QB who was never truly the same after his knee injury. You just never know. Then again, we could definitely be talking about an Eagles dynasty at that time. It's just way too early to be talking about it four months after they won their first SB in franchise history.

 

I thought the Eagles were out of the Wentz mortgage? They look to have a strong roster atm. They probably have the best oline/dline combo in the league for at least two years. 

They seem to be able to cycle through effective skill players well. If Wentz goes slightly under market value they will be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kiwibrown said:

If Wentz goes slightly under market value they will be fine.

This has a 0% chance of happening. That being said, I think the Eagles will be fine regardless of how much they pay Wentz. They have a great system and it seems like they know how to maximize talent on their roster. There are also several mediocre/non-crucial players making a lot of money that they can get rid of as time moves on.

I'm guessing they win another Super Bowl in the next 5 years, but as others have stated, the league is so crazy that it also wouldn't shock me if they were picking in the top 5 at some point in the next 5 years. They have a ton of talent, but dynasties are extremely rare in any sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

Help me out here- I am no cap expert, and clearly I don't understand-

Over The Cap lists the Eagles' top 51 for 2019 having a cap liability of roughly 218,000,000.  That says to me their cap situation is not healthy, and they will need to shed cap at some point.  Not a good situation for a budding dynasty.

How is this wrong?  What am I missing?

It's about the structure of the contracts and his system of what positions to pay.

Structurally, he is paying them a lot of money but most contracts are not hamstringing them with the  structure.  Low performing players can be easily cut or traded. 

They also know what positions to use high draft capital and pay big money too: QB, OL, DL, S meanwhile they stay cheap and load up in the middle and late rounds at positions like LB, CB, RB. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ninjapirate said:

How many super bowls does a team need to win to be a dynasty? 3? 

 

If so let's bring up this potential talk after they win a second if they ever do. 

Stop being rationale damnit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Heinz D. said:

I have no clue as to how hindsight is somehow off limits when it comes to assessing the Eagles chances at a dynasty. That makes no sense.

Your justification for the Eagles having a “much better” chance at a dynasty than GB or Seattle, was hindsight. How in the world does that make sense? At the time, both of those teams looked great and nobody had any ideas how things would shake out. Just like no one has any idea how Roseman/Pederson will be down the stretch.

1 hour ago, Heinz D. said:

Anyway...

Roseman isn't suddenly a top GM, he has been for a long time.

He’s been a good one, not a great one. He’s routinely been behind guys like Belichick, Schneider, and Thompson (until recently). Behind Ozzie and Elway too.

1 hour ago, Heinz D. said:

Not a lot of teams that have had the success the Eagles have had in the recent past. When Kelly wrenched control away, hijacked the team and started to dismantle it, it fell apart. 

Plenty of teams have had success the way Philly had prior to this SB run. Again, Roseman hasn’t built any SB teams (other than this one obviously). 

1 hour ago, Heinz D. said:

I haven't forgotten the praise that Thompson got, it was not only completely undeserved, but praise has nothing to do with "chances", anyway. Favre turned full diva, threatened to retire for two years in a row, then a guy who Thompson (and LOTS of others) has rated as a potentially great quarterback falls into his lap, so Thompson takes him, and that makes Thompson the Albert Einstein of the NFL? Not buying it for a second. How many top ten defenses has Rodgers played with? What happens when he has one? Also--are you honestly blaming the last seven years of Packers playoff futility on injuries? 

So the Packers have had “playoff futility” for 7 years, but we should laud all that success Roseman had sans 2018...makes sense. 

No, it wasn’t primarily injuries (although they played a huge part), but injuries took some pieces off the table for the Packers’ dynasty potential (Nick Collins, Jermichael Finley). 

Thompson’s problem was Schneider’s problem. After hitting on some drafts and spending pretty smartly in FA, he was unable to continue hitting on both enough to sustain the talent as it either aged, left, or got hurt. Which is exactly the point of why using hindsight to discredit those guys is stupid when Roseman hasn’t done it yet.

1 hour ago, Heinz D. said:

Schneider, I don't think, can be disregarded just yet, even though this last draft was pretty putrid. It's simply Football Common Sense 101 that you can't pay one side of the ball like that.  

My point isn’t to compare Roseman directly to Thompson or Schneider. We know what happened to the latter two. 

The point is that, in 2010 for GB and 2013 for Seattle, we didn’t know how those teams would fall apart and we gave them dynasty potential. Here we are in 2018, unknowing of the Eagles’ future, giving them the same potential. But apparently, they have a “much better chance” because...the other two teams didn’t do it. Bit of a self fulfilling prophecy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they will obviously contend for the superbowl again this year barring a major setback.

a lot can change in a few years though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BleedTheClock said:

This has a 0% chance of happening. That being said, I think the Eagles will be fine regardless of how much they pay Wentz. They have a great system and it seems like they know how to maximize talent on their roster. There are also several mediocre/non-crucial players making a lot of money that they can get rid of as time moves on.

I'm guessing they win another Super Bowl in the next 5 years, but as others have stated, the league is so crazy that it also wouldn't shock me if they were picking in the top 5 at some point in the next 5 years. They have a ton of talent, but dynasties are extremely rare in any sport.

0%? Derek Carr went under market value imo. He could of asked for much more. Cousins may of been able to get a bigger contract, but his is a very clever deal. 

If Wentz as a top 5 qb goes for 30 million per season or a little higher when his contact comes up that is under market. With rapid inflation at the position I think that in 2021 qbs could be going for a shade under 40 million per year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Dynasty depends on health to the superstar. The Bulls was a dynasty in basketball because MJ was always available. The Pats are a dynasty in the NFL because Brady (outside of that one season where he injured his knee) has always been available.

What I fear about the Eagles superstar, which is Wentz, is his playing style which has gotten him hurt twice. He was hurt in college and now in the NFL. It’s only going to get worst as he age and those hits continue to pile up. So if you can assure me Wentz is available then the Eagles can be a dynasty. If not then they won’t. They just will be a very good team for many seasons just like what we see from the Vikings since Zimmer took over. Nobody calling the Vikings a dynasty even though they have a great winning percentage under Zimmer and always seem to either make the playoffs or be in the think of it every season.

Edited by stl4life07

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, ninjapirate said:

How many super bowls does a team need to win to be a dynasty? 3? 

 

If so let's bring up this potential talk after they win a second if they ever do. 

This! While I appreciate the OP and it's content, the Eagles shouldn't be in the discussion for potential Dynasty until or if a 2nd is achieved. Otherwise they are no different then any other team with 1 SB victory.

Dynasty IMO should only be used if 3 SB Wins or more are achieved in a 5 year span. As great as the Patriots are and have been this decade in the AFCE/AFC, they aren't a Dynasty. That distinct title applies to the 01-04' Patriots.

Edited by Nabbs4u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BlaqOptic said:

Has Carson Wentz been paid yet? No? Then the answer is no.

Eagles fans - not on here - kept taking digs at Cowboys fans online mentioning all their injuries and how their franchise QB was the cherry on top and yet they still won the Super Bowl. They continually asked "What's your excuse." What immediately sprang to my mind, and was true, was that "My franchise QB has won 2 Super Bowls and is compensated as such, which drastically impacts the cheap and fair contracts we can get other guys on." Once Wentz gets paid we'll see how things go. We said the same thing about the Seahawks before them and the Giants before them.

 

one nice thing is all the sports betting money will come into play round the time he'll get paid, and knowing howie he'll get it done before the impending lockout...which will probably result in better contracts obviously.

It'll definitely be a hit, is for any team, but you look at the cap breakdown and contracts with the rising salary cap, almost the entire core team is taken care of for awhile.

 

doesn't mean much, but I'd say it is a better spot than most find themselves in roster and cap wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×