Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Eagles @ Colts Game Thread: (1-0) - (0-1)


Datawire

Recommended Posts

Except it never hits them in their hands where it should. When the receiver dives around, leaps up, or reaches behind to tip the ball that isn't their fault. Foles has looked like complete garbage tonight. He's had ALL DAY to throw from the pocket and he can't find open receivers. And his accuracy is beyond bad. He makes a lot of poor decisions throwing into coverage, too.

 

I must agree. But he's playing against a QB that isn't that much better, despite the hype. Maybe that is why he looks good to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Foles sucks, but McCoy is a beast. Next to Cam he might be the most exciting player in the league. He's awesome. I was born in '88 so I don't really remember Barry Sanders other than highlights, but that's who McCoy reminds me of. Not overall as a RB, just speaking in terms of his elusiveness, speed, & juke moves in shaking defenders in the open field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chip Kelly is a gimmick. Always has been, always will be. Just like at Oregon, his offense looks exciting and they'll score points, but at the end of the day it's a novelty and will be shut down by the big boys.

 

I would use much stronger language to describe him. I have no rationale for why I don't like him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Luck obsession is pathetic with some of you. If the Eagles win this game they need to send a Thank you card to the refs despite that some of you think the refs are trying to help the Colts. Why watch football when you are watching it with hate blinders on? Andrew Luck is a stud. It's ok to say that, it really is. It doesn't diminish Cam in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
    • Well, we got our answer on Army today.
×
×
  • Create New...