Eagles realease Mathis

[DaEagles]

Everyone one of them had alot to say about Mathis..I an tired of being your fact checker. Go read the internet dude. Tra focused on the football aspect which was the most interesting.

The race stuff to me is a total non-story. I have zero interest. Don't know why you are bringing it up here? The only relevance I see to this story is it proves that Thomas is more than willing to criticize Kelly. He clearly is not a company man. So in this context it raises his pedigree as a straight shooter.

You seem to think that players routinely skip OTAs because their contract allows it? Simply not true. 99.8% of players attend and the only one's that skip all of them are involved in contract disputes. Kelly says this was all about money. You seem to disagree? I don't know why? You must be a complete idiot not to see that.
- Player complains about contract
- Player asks to be cut or traded.
- Player doesn't go to work (when 99.8% of them do and the other .2% are involved in contract disputes)
- Players agent tries the old whisper something to the press trick to pressure the team.
- Player gets cut.
- Coach/GM says this was about his contract.

What are you missing here?

LOL...your to much my friend.

Players skip OTA's almost yearly. Yes over contracts. Yes Mathis skipped his OTA over his contract. Yes it got him cut.

Doesn't make it a good move. Not sure what your missing.

You believe everything the Eagles say and nothing anyone else does...oh wait, unless they agree with your stance.

As far as Tra...Yes he's a straight shooter. So you believe Chip is a racist then? It's a serious question? It does have relevance here because it will let us know if you believe everything Tra says or just the one thing that supports your thoughts. Really interested in hearing back on this issue though.

 

[DaEagles]

If you search the forum, you will find a long discussion on this that I had. Not to rehash it here (its a good 10 page plus thread), but Yes I was in favor of the call and largely based on (1) the math made it a good call when placed in context of the fact that it allowed one more play given the time on the clock (2) the most successful coach in football (Belicheck) came out a couple of weeks later and said it was a good call).

Oh i remember the discussion. I was in it. I said it was a terrible call then also.

LOL...of course Belicheck said it was a good call...LMAO. WTF are you on now. There isn't a Pats player/fan who didn't think it was a good call probably...lol.

 

[deerpathdave]

LOL...your to much my friend.

Players skip OTA's almost yearly. Yes over contracts. Yes Mathis skipped his OTA over his contract. Yes it got him cut.

Doesn't make it a good move. Not sure what your missing.

You believe everything the Eagles say and nothing anyone else does...oh wait, unless they agree with your stance.

As far as Tra...Yes he's a straight shooter. So you believe Chip is a racist then? It's a serious question? It does have relevance here because it will let us know if you believe everything Tra says or just the one thing that supports your thoughts. Really interested in hearing back on this issue though.

I believe that Tra called it the way he saw it with regard to race relations. As far as what I believe? I could care less. I think you are crossing the line from Trolling to Flaming here.

 

[deerpathdave]

Oh i remember the discussion. I was in it. I said it was a terrible call then also.

LOL...of course Belicheck said it was a good call...LMAO. WTF are you on now. There isn't a Pats player/fan who didn't think it was a good call probably...lol.

Go read the quote and the context out of Belicheck before you make this inane statement. It was in the context of coaching strategy. You should know me well enough to know that I am not into popularity polls to determine correctness.

 

[I miss Dawkins]

I mean, some people thought that Carrol should of run Lynch in the SB...others not. But I'm sure you were a 100% behind him for the call. Even though players (who actually play the game) thought it should of been run. In fact the guy who would of known best, Lynch, as he is the most qualified being the RB, even said they should run it.

Yes I was in favor of the call

You called that one DaEagles.... how would you have ever guessed??? I have never seen such a sparado on a message board before. Can't even agree to disagree. He is committed, I will give him that. I wonder if all the teams that ran the ball and scored and won games, he disagrees with those - since the math would suggest it was the wrong call. Hmmm.

 

[DaEagles]

Go read the quote and the context out of Belicheck before you make this inane statement. It was in the context of coaching strategy. You should know me well enough to know that I am not into popularity polls to determine correctness.

Seriously? You don't care if your coach is a racist?

Do you think Tra could of had some type of beef with Mathis? Could he of said what he did, to take a cheap shot at Mathis? Or is that out of the realm here?

 

[deerpathdave]

You called that one DaEagles.... how would you have ever guessed??? I have never seen such a sparado on a message board before. Can't even agree to disagree. He is committed, I will give him that. I wonder if all the teams that ran the ball and scored and won games, he disagrees with those - since the math would suggest it was the wrong call. Hmmm.

Never been a Seahawks fan so the spadaro reference makes no sense in this context. I am not a shill for the Seahawks coaching staff. They got it wrong...not in the play call, but in the preparation.

I am passionate about decision making under uncertainty. I apply it playing poker fairly successfully (You can look up my poker rating at pokerdb under deerpathdave). What a good poker player learns is to make good decisions and live with the fact that the outcomes are often unpleasant. Over time you will come out ahead. Assuming its a bad decision because you got a bad result is the wrong way of looking at things. The issue with the Seahawks play there was not the call, but the execution. And I am not putting that all on the players, but also the coaching and prep. The Patriots were better prepared for that play (maybe they had film?)

 

[deerpathdave]

Seriously? You don't care if your coach is a racist?

Do you think Tra could of had some type of beef with Mathis? Could he of said what he did, to take a cheap shot at Mathis? Or is that out of the realm here?

Race is not something I focus on or care much about. To twist that into saying I don't care if a coach is racist is trolling to the nth degree.

 

[I miss Dawkins]

Never been a Seahawks fan so the spadaro reference makes no sense in this context. I am not a shill for the Seahawks coaching staff. They got it wrong...not in the play call, but in the preparation.

I am passionate about decision making under uncertainty. I apply it playing poker fairly successfully (You can look up my poker rating at pokerdb under deerpathdave). What a good poker player learns is to make good decisions and live with the fact that the outcomes are often unpleasant. Over time you will come out ahead. Assuming its a bad decision because you got a bad result is the wrong way of looking at things. The issue with the Seahawks play there was not the call, but the execution. And I am not putting that all on the players, but also the coaching and prep. The Patriots were better prepared for that play (maybe they had film?)

it simply strongly appears that you support the FO purely after the fact. Maybe if we saw your opinion before their action, and then your reaction, we would have a differing opinion. Or if you showed any level of recognition that others opinions have any legitimacy at all. But you act like yours is the only one that matters, and justified by whatever questionable support you want to get. I get, that you think your right. Why would you have the opinion otherwise? But, no offense, you come across as arrogant, and simply a yes-man to whatever the FO does. Critical thinking is a necessity to improvement, it is not a lack of support. Just my opinion. Sorry, I don't have more supporting evidence from someone that is an expert on the subject tho.

 

[deerpathdave]

it simply strongly appears that you support the FO purely after the fact. Maybe if we saw your opinion before their action, and then your reaction, we would have a differing opinion. Or if you showed any level of recognition that others opinions have any legitimacy at all. But you act like yours is the only one that matters, and justified by whatever questionable support you want to get. I get, that you think your right. Why would you have the opinion otherwise? But, no offense, you come across as arrogant, and simply a yes-man to whatever the FO does. Critical thinking is a necessity to improvement, it is not a lack of support. Just my opinion. Sorry, I don't have more supporting evidence from someone that is an expert on the subject tho.

I fundamentally have an opinion on Kelly that he is all about winning and winning now and makes all his decision with that as the primary focus. You look closely at his history and there is a strong basis for that. Roseman was a slightly different animal with more of a business and financial balance to his thought process To assume that Kelly is making a decision based on emotion or finance is IMO misreading the man.

I do like to challenge people who view things differently. That is all we how we all can broaden our perspective and learn more. If you can support your opinion with something better than I have watched football for nearly 30 years, I am more than happy to change my opinion. But in this case, as I dug into it, I found several experts on offensive line play, with inside knowledge that supported the decision. On the flip side, I have got alot of...but he is a probowler.

One thing I absolutely detest is when message boards turn into these places where people are judging their correctness by how many people agree. Popularity does not equal correct. I am always searching for the correct answer...not the popular one. If that makes me arrogant....so be it.

 

[L.Freamon]

lol. I can't believe how many people are feeling sorry for poor old Evan Mathis! The guy has pocketed millions over the last few years playing pro ball and would have this year as well if he simply showed up for work with the other 89 guys. He asked for his release and he got it when there is still plenty of time to find work. If Kelly really wanted to screw him over, he could have held on to him til the very end of August.

You aren't considering the possibility that Mathis is being less than truthful here or that Rosenhaus was still talking up the release option without keeping his client in the loop.

Until Mathis gets a new job that pays more, you have to consider him to be an overpaid, fading veteran who was arrogant enough to think he didn't need to show up for work to protect his job.

Why were Jason Peters, Jason Kelce, Connor Barwin, Fletcher Cox and Lane Johnson at OTAs? They surely were not required to be there? And they must feel pretty confident in their starting jobs? Don't you want that kind of player on your team that is that dedicated? Why do you care so much about Evan Freakin Mathis? The guy they went 5-2 when he was absent last year?

Nobody feels sorry for Evan Mathis. We're concerned about the obvious lack of depth ON OUR TEAM and apparent lack of a contingency plan FOR OUR TEAM.

 

[L.Freamon]

If your simply saying that Kelly won't bad mouth a player he cut during a press conference, then I am in lock step with you on that. Every coach will lie at that point. Its simply the professional way of doing things. It serves no purpose to lay out all the dirty laundry to the press.

Except when Chip Kelly told the press, "nobody's wanted Evan for 2 years?" Then it's okay to air out dirty laundry, right?

 

[deerpathdave]

Except when Chip Kelly told the press, "nobody's wanted Evan for 2 years?" Then it's okay to air out dirty laundry, right?

See now that is nothing personal or directly football related though. Its a comment on trade value which is largely based on contract. Everything that Chip has said about Mathis as a football player or a person has been positive. He really didn't say anything that every team out there did not already know...that Mathis was seeking a raise or trade.

 

[deerpathdave]

Nobody feels sorry for Evan Mathis. We're concerned about the obvious lack of depth ON OUR TEAM and apparent lack of a contingency plan FOR OUR TEAM.

So what is obvious to us, that the Eagles don't have a offensive line player beyond the top 3 with any significant experience or that was even drafted, doesn't seem to be bothering the guys whose jobs are on the line for it. You ask Kelly or Stoutland about it, and they absolutely love Barbre and seem satisfied enough with Graf, Kelly, Tobin and Gardner.

Then you look at last year's experience and you see that they won 10 games while missing alot more than Mathis.
- Lane Johnson for 4 games.
- Herremans for 8 games
- Matt Tobin for 3 games
- Allen Barbre for 15 games
- Jason Kelce for 4 games.
- Evan Mathis for 7 games.

So 6 of their top 7 lineman missed a total of 41 games. they were mixing and matching street free agents all season long. Generally missing several guys for each game. Pretty much a disaster of a year injury wise on the line, and yet they still emerged with a very productive offense and 10 wins.

I think the lesson here is that these guys are alot for interchangeable than we think.

 

[ctc]

Now your just trolling. I know your smart enough to recognize and understand the business of leaking to the press.

Now you're making my point for me. If it was about the contract, the leaking, kelly's actions indicate he's being vindictive doesn't it.

 

[deerpathdave]

Now you're making my point for me. If it was about the contract, the leaking, kelly's actions indicate he's being vindictive doesn't it.

sigh...Just because this was about his contract doesn't mean that Kelly was vindictive. Clearly this was about whether Mathis wanted to be here at the contract he had...and clearly he didn't. But if Kelly didn't feel comfortable with the team's ability to win without him, he wouldn't have made this move.

 

[ctc]

sigh...Just because this was about his contract doesn't mean that Kelly was vindictive. Clearly this was about whether Mathis wanted to be here at the contract he had...and clearly he didn't. But if Kelly didn't feel comfortable with the team's ability to win without him, he wouldn't have made this move.

That it occurred right after you're alleging a leak certainly suggests it was.

Clearly he didn't? Pffffffffffftttttttt! If that were the case he wouldn't have been here last year would he.

 

[ctc]

I love this one from today's article.

On Tuesday, within the space of a minute, Kelly said the Eagles weren't sure Mathis would ever show up and then, asked if a training camp holdout worried him, said, "No, that wasn't a concern at all."

 

[PhillyGreen]

ctc...I read that to mean Kelly did not know if Mathis was going to show up and that he was not concerned if he didn't.

 

[deerpathdave]

It's been a week now. Every day that goes by makes me think more and more that Evan Mathis being one of the top 3 or 4 guards 8 the NFL is a myth perpetrated by the media, Mathis and pff. There doesn't seem to be a market for the guy.