The Birth of Super Crip is now available!
Click here to get it in paperback or on Kindle.


I’ve been blogging about sports and more again at http://robjquinn.blogspot.com. I hope you’ll give it a try. Thanks!

Friday, April 17, 2009

Birds Trade for O-lineman; Week-in-Review

The Eagles have traded for left tackle Jason Peters, giving up the 28th selection and a fourth-rounder in the draft plus an undisclosed pick in 2010 according to ESPN.com.

This is classic Birds, and doesn’t excite me a little bit. Yes, it’s the prudent move, but it just doesn’t get it done. I’ve already heard this takes the Eagles out of the running for Anquan Boldin, who the Arizona Cardinals have announced is available for trade.

The Eagles are like the stodgy parents that never give the kids what they want. No, you can’t have the shiny toy, we’re going to put the money towards college. Problem is, it just doesn’t work in the NFL . . . and the Eagles’ Super Bowl trophies total proves it.

This team needs to go get a stud receiver, and, once again, they’re not going to do it. It’s just their typical we-know-better-than-everybody-else mentality at work. It really does seem like they go out of their way not to make the popular move.

This move isn’t even an upgrade. They simply replaced what they lost in Tra Thomas (or William Thomas) and John Runyan. It’s not a bad move, it’s just more of the same from the Eagles who are very proficient at replacing older players that have served them well with younger players. That’s great, but they do it at the expense of making the move that puts them over the top to win a Super Bowl.

It’s not about the so-called “sexy” move. It’s about winning. They made the popular or “sexy” move once when they brought in Terrell Owens, and they absolutely dominated that season. Instead of just talking about it, they actually went to a Super Bowl.

Apparently, once was enough for this Eagles regime. Now, if they go out and get the receiver they need, I’ll be one of the first to praise them. I’ll even settle for a complimentary running back to Brian Westbrook. But I’m not holding my breath hoping that either is coming to the Eagles any time soon.

Here’s my second straight Week-in-Review:
• I can’t write about Philadelphia sports this week and not mention the passing of Harry Kalas. Certainly he was the voice of the Phillies throughout my life, and was the main – if not the only – constant I remember from the team after my brief hiatus as a Cardinals fan in the mid ‘80s. I never met the man, and cannot add to the many stories about him that have flooded the airways this week. The Phillies and the game will go on. From the stories I’ve heard, Mr. Kalas would be the first to say that. While I felt genuine sadness upon hearing of his death, I don’t quite understand the team holding a viewing at the ballpark on Saturday. It seems like that should be left to family and friends. But I’m happy he got to broadcast the World Series championship for the Phillies in his last full season, and quite some time will have to pass before it won’t feel like something is missing when watching the Phillies. RIP Harry the K.

• Another broadcasting giant will no longer be doing games as John Madden retired this week. Some loved his style as an analyst, some hated it. Many grew up playing the video game with his name on it, and never realized he was a head coach before he was an analyst. I’ll always remember that when I heard him and Pat Summerall do a game, it was a big game, and when it was the Eagles it was awesome. I still miss playing the video game with my brother, and will miss Madden in the broadcast booth.

• Did you hear the story about the guy suing the Yankees because he wasn’t allowed to use the facilities during the singing of God Bless America, and was eventually tossed out of the stadium? Of course, reports are the guy was drunk and cursing throughout the game. Either way, you just gotta love New York, eh?

• The level of excitement surrounding the release of the NFL schedule never ceases to amaze me. Doesn’t the NFL have a formula that spells out which teams play right after the season ends? The actual dates are exciting? The best part is the way pundits want to predict how many games a particular team will win. Most teams are still trying to significantly upgrade their rosters at this point.

• I hate the way baseball seasons start with a day off after every home opener. I understand they do it in case of rain (so they can play the make-up game the next day) for people who specifically bought tickets for the opener, but it causes so many starts and stops and re-starts the players have to struggle to get into a rhythm.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

You don't seem to have a grasp on reality in the NFL. Games are won and lost in the trenches. Yeah we went to Superbowl with TO but we still lost so what's your point there. Boldin in not a game changing receiver and is on the decline. Check his stats the last few years. And finally try comparing the offensive numbers from last year with the Superbowl year. Nearly identical offensively and even a little bit better last year.

Rob said...

Why are the dumbest comments always by "Anonymous"? You think I "don't seem to have a grasp on reality in the NFL" yet you say "Yeah we went to Superbowl with TO but we still lost so what's your point there." Duh...first of all, it's spelled Super Bowl. Second, unless you're Jeff Lurie, winning a Super Bowl is the only goal of a football team. You can't win it if you can't get there.

If you seriously think this offense was just as good as it was with TO, you're clueless. I don't care that the stats are comparable; the Super Bowl team practically took the last month of the season off because they had clinched home field and T.O. got hurt so they didn't want to risk anybody else. Look at the games -- they lost one meaningful game in the season to Pittsburgh, most were laughers, and lost the Super Bowl to the Patriots in the midst of what at the time was a budding dynasty...and probably should have won.

As for, "Games are won and lost in the trenches" ... gee, which announcer are you parroting? Besides, my point was that they merely maintained what they already had, which has resulted in ZERO titles. If that's good enough for you, knock yourself out.

I appreciate comments, but if you're going to come with a challenging tone...do better than that. And at least sign it with a nickname!

Anonymous said...

umm... i think they began their championship run when they signed runyan did they not? sure mcnabb had some of the credit too with his signing, but he wouldn't have been as effective without that line. i remember the day runyan signed, and knew the superbowl was going to happen. so maybe you wanna credit T.O. with putting them over the top to superbowl caliber? but they made it through the playoffs that year without him. they did it with a blocking bonafide fullback, and good (remember the eagles' rb's before andy reid were not really exceptional, except for a handful of runners past their prime, or who were all alone, or named wilbert) running backs. the receiving did it's job. we almost have that again now. sure i'd love a top five receiver, but boldin really hasn't played too many full seasons, and isn't fitzgerald either. many people have taken a dump on ohco cinco, but don't really know that he used to eat sleep and shit bengals 24/7. he slept at the practice facility. and they all loved him. a new staff comes in. conflict ensues, and ownership suddenly turns into norman braman. that would disappear if he came to the birds. he would never throw mcnabb under the bus. he'd be born again hardcore. still with plenty of draft picks this year, they can fill in soft spots, and get an RB, a WR, a TE, maybe a center, and some DB's. the eagles improved greatly over last year's 5 minutes from the super bowl team, and other playoff teams have not. don't rule out another trade, or a sudden castoff/free agent that fits right in. seems like every year andy manages to find one guy off the street that has an impact. desean is either gonna have another outstanding year, or he's double covered opening up somebody else.

Rob said...

I got no problem with Johnson; I'm not bent on Boldin, but don't take yourself out of that possibility (or trading up, which, yes, could still happen) to get a lineman. Yeah, guys love to sound like "true football fans" with that "in the trenches" stuff. But bottom line, the offense was almost unstoppable when they had TO, and it was essentially the same quality of O-line before, during, and after that season.

Anonymous said...

And why do the most clueless people have blogs. "You can't win it if you can't get there." Talk about dumb comments. As far as dominating the other teams in 2004, try looking up their records. The majority of the NFC sucked that year. Two of the NFC teams made the playoffs with 8-8 records. Only 2 of those wins were against teams with a better than .500 record (Baltimore 9-7, GB 10-6). TO was not the difference that year (They only ranked 8th in scoring) it was the lack of competition. Winning in the trenches may be cliche but it isn't any less true. Would Bolden be an upgrade? Most likely, but he would not be the difference in getting us to a Super Bowl!

Rob said...

I guess we have blogs so lazy ass dopes like you can feel like you actually have something to say by writing stupid comments that they have so little conviction in that they stay anonymous. Or, maybe that's just you?

TO wasn't the difference? And the Super Bowl run started with Runyan signing...which you saw coming based on his signing? You sound like a dope.

Normally, I wouldn't respond like this, even to such moronic comments. But you came to my blog and initiated the discussion with a confrontational tone. That's fine too - but if you're going to come with that it will go back to you.

Anonymous said...

My comment was no more confrontational than your original post. You ask me to do better so I give you the facts from the 2004 season. Apparently you cannot refute them so your only resort is to call me names. Who is the true lazy ass dope! I'd say it's the "journalist" who can only regurgitate populist opinion without stopping to actually look at the details. You can't even get your own rhetoric down.

You say we NEED a T.O. caliber receiver (which Bolden is not) to win the Super Bowl which didn't get it done in 2004. Then you come back with "winning a Super Bowl is the only goal of a football team. You can't win it if you can't get there. " T.O. didn't play in the playoff games which are the games that get you there so the Eagles got to the Super Bowl without T.O.

Signed,

Eric B. Right
Happy now?

Rob said...

Now you're boring me. Your "facts" are wrong or irrelevant, and now you're pouting. You start by ripping me, have zero to back it up, and cry because I called you on it in the same manner in which YOU initiated the discussion? You can't come to my site and question my "grasp on reality" then cry when I point out how ridiculous your argument is in similar fashion -- with plenty of solid points.

I'm glad I could teach you how to spell Super Bowl. Now, since you like stats so much, go look up the Super Bowl stats. TO led the Eagles by far in receiving. You're pointing out that they won two playoff games without him and lost the Super Bowl with him as if there is a correlation? I don't want to upset you, but that's just stupid.

If you want to say the Eagles got to the Super Bowl on those two games alone -- ignoring the fact that they had the best seed, a bye, and home field thanks largely to T.O. -- I can't help you with that.

Again, you're boring me. I'm done with this at least until future posts...I know you'll be reading me. Time to go read your fantasy football magazines til Labor Day.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

"Problem is, [not getting the flashy player] just doesn't work in the NFL, and the Eagles' Super Bowl trophies total proves it"

Very weak comment. Yep - that's how to prove something, because correlation ALWAYS equals causation.

Look at the Redskins "Super Bowl total" under Snyder when they always make the splashy signing, or the Raiders Super Bowl total for the last 15 years as they sign huge name receivers and QBs but pretty much ignore their lines (and as a result both teams have generally sucked).

You know the Eagles have been damn close to winning it all - as in one or two plays in each of the 2001-2004 years. And if you don't know that you should.

Here's to hoping the Philly Inquirer stops adding links to your page.

- Merdinus

Rob said...

Both Anonymous geniuses...or are you one in the same...seem touchy about the Inqy. Wonder why?

You essentially mis-used the quote; "it" referred to the idea of supposedly being prudent over going out and getting the guy that truly puts you over the top, even if it appears to be just the popular move. It's the right move.

Close to the Super Bowl? If that works for you, great. You're EXACTLY the type of fan they want. By the way, last season's playoff run was fun, but it doesn't mean they were close to a Super Bowl quality team; they needed a minor miracle to even make the playoffs.

I notice this on other blogs...why are people so rude when disagreeing with a post? What do you care that I have a link on philly.com or (the "other" anonymous) that I freelanced at the Inquirer? It's pathetic that you can't just disagree without trying to insult the blogger. The best part is that when the flippant tone is returned, you cry like li'l bitches.

You want to disagree and have a back and forth, great. You can even rip me. But don't cry about it and get ridiculous, or you just get deleted as above. Think of it as WIP hanging up on you...I'm quite sure you've had the experience. And if you don't like my blog, don't go to it.

Rob said...

Oh, your correlation point, which is honestly not that clear, but if I'm reading it right - you think there's no correlation between a pass happy offense going to the Super Bowl the ONE YEAR they had a Pro Bowl receiver? Seriously?