2024 Eagles Thread
- Thread starter Tom McAndrew
- Start date
Vinnie chose Thursday 11/14 to retire as a tribute to Marshall U. Where Vinnie played 11/14 is the anniversary date of the plane crash that killed 75 players coaches boosters from Marshall.
see We are Marshall
Yeah. Daniels played well against Pittsburgh, he made one great great throw. Pittsburgh really bottled him up and I’m hoping that the Redskins OC can adapt to this. I’m really worried about the WFT run defense, I wouldn’t be surprised if Barkley gets > 100.
I am rethinking my position on this. And part of it definitely is due to injury. With no Kittle and Aiyuk this past weekend, CMC/Pudry wasn't enough to make their offense go. And then when Bossa came out of the game, the defense couldn't keep up. I've now lowered SF below the Eagles in my personal power ratings. SF isn't going away, but this may be a lost season for them.
SF may be regression to the mean. They're a talented team that had really good luck with injuries in 2023. Much better luck than they've had on average. 2024 has swung pretty far the other way, but I think guys like Kittle, Deebo and CMC are at the age where nagging injuries will be a regular factor. CMC in particular has had massive utilization the past couple of seasons and stayed pretty healthy until 2024.
It's similar to what happened to the Eagles last season and makes one appreciate what Mahomes and the Chiefs have been able to do.
We'll see. I'm not declaring them cooked yet. But yeah, there certainly is a scenario where their skill guys could see some rapid decline in the next season or two. If that happens, it will be interesting to see if John Lynch can measure up to Roseman's ability to turn the roster over quickly.
PS to all Eagles fans since I brought up power ratings previously: I now have the Dallas Cowboys almost dead even with the Panthers as the worst team in the NFL (injuries factored in). Will we see Lamb and Parsons check out soon, making them the worst?
The other part is SF is going to have to pay Purdy at some point. It will become much tougher for SF to keep all their top players or solid backups with that contract hit against the cap. Sounds like this offseason SF will look to sign him to a massive extension.
That is a very interesting topic to me. I heard an interesting idea years ago regarding QB signings. Basically, a team has the best chance to win a super bowl with a QB on a rookie deal (where you can sign a bunch of other good players) or a QB who is a pro bowl/HOF type player (I know, this part is obvious). It was brought up at the time of Jared Goff's expiring contract, when he had performed pretty well. The assertion was that the Rams should let him go and redraft, which was fairly controversial since Goff had done fairly well. The thinking is that you will kill your team by over paying a guy who is an average (or below) NFL QB (hi NY Giants).
Will be interesting to see how SF approaches this and how Purdy looks the rest of this season. I am not sold that he is going to be worth the money, but on the other hand, will the fanbase break out the pitch forks if they let him walk?
PS. I had this same internal debate when the Eagles signed Hurts. I'm still not sold that it was the right move, but I can't blame Roseman too much as he would have been absolutely roasted if Hurts walked. Not to mention, Roseman has done a good job of managing the cap and surrounding Hurts with excellent players.
Good call outs. I don't think Hurts is worth the $ in the grand scheme. Hint: he's pretty good but the OL, Barkley and WRs/TEs are what makes that offense. I think they win in spite of Hurts at times.
And I think SF has been pretty QB-agnostic under Shanahan. They went to a Super Bowl with Jimmy G. That says it all. Paying Purdy $60M a year or close to it is a mistake, IMO. Like Hurts, he benefits from all the talent around him.
But I also empathize with Lynch's predicament. CMC, Deebo, Kittle and Williams will all decline rapidly. They have a borderline Pro Bowl QB in Purdy and they've invested 3+ years in him. Can they really afford to let him walk and risk trying to replace everyone on that offense in the next few years? Recall they swung and missed on Lance in the same draft as Purdy. It's not guaranteed the next guy is good.
I wonder if the franchise tag is a strategy they'll use? Make him prove himself another year before going astronomical on a contract. And if some desperate team wants to fork over 2 first round picks, then you have a real decision to make.
I really think that Purdy is a perfect example of a "system QB" that needs to be surrounded by legit high caliber weapons. I agree with you that I'm not sold on whether he's worth the $$. I donb't think they let him walk, but i can see them tagging him. he's regressed a little this year (the league is catching up? he doesn't have the weapons?)
Agree pretty much all points. Really tough call for Lynch. I don't envy him. I didn't consider the franchise tag. Unless it's more useful on another player, could be a good way to go.
Only reason I can see them tagging him is because of his dip this year, coupled with the injuries they've had. Tag him a year, hope they stay healthy, and see if he's a product of his surroundings or if he's truly regressing
Look at Dallas with Dak as exhibit A on what not to do.
fwiw the franchise tag for QB's in 2024 was $38 mil, for 2025 it is going up, so basically you have to tie up $38 mil for 1 player, and you have to have $38 mil in cap room when you use it. Can SF do that? IDK
No. But I also would not have waited until the night before the season opener to cave on an extension with him. They should have extended him a year ago when top contracts were ~$10M a year less.
Get unlimited access today.