Kolb not worrying about concussions.

[Phrazbit]

Something tells me, that you can easily imagine the conversation between Reid and his owner where he laid out the plan to pay Kolb $10M as way of suckering in some team to trade for him down the road. Not $1M or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5... no let's make it 10!!! That should convince some team that we like him, when we really, really don't.

Brilliant!

Right... you keep rolling with this idea. I said that Reid was "keeping his options open" by extending him.

Meanwhile, your theory involves Reid saying "Lets dump McNabb, Kolb is the future! And to prove how much we love him, lets lock him down for one whole year! Oh, by the way, I also am going to spend that year discussing trading him at every opportunity."

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Right... you keep rolling with this idea. I said that Reid was "keeping his options open" by extending him.

Meanwhile, your theory involves Reid saying "Lets dump McNabb, Kolb is the future! And to prove how much we love him, lets lock him down for one whole year! Oh, by the way, I also am going to spend that year discussing trading him at every opportunity."

Read Chickenhead. Easy to understand the timeline and process, even for a frothing at the mouth hater.

P.S. Explain why $10M and not 5,4,3 or 1?

 

[Phrazbit]

Read Chickenhead. Easy to understand the timeline and process, even for a frothing at the mouth hater.

P.S. Explain why $10M and not 5,4,3 or 1?

Because thats the rate for a QB you're planning on starting! How you think his dollar figure shows more commitment than the YEARS is absolutely insane. There are sides to the Kolb argument that have some merit, but his one year extension the Eagles gave him is absolutely not one of them. Its a damning sign of the Eagles long term plans at QB.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Because thats the rate for a QB you're planning on starting! How you think his dollar figure shows more commitment than the YEARS is absolutely insane. There are sides to the Kolb argument that have some merit, but his one year extension the Eagles gave him is absolutely not one of them. Its a damning sign of the Eagles long term plans at QB.

I don't see the dollar commitment as more significant than a long term agreement, but, $10M is more than chump change and you may want to do a thorough check on salaries for QB's projected as first year starters. The agreement was hardly damning; it simply reflected caution before a longer term arrangement.

 

[Phrazbit]

I don't see the dollar commitment as more significant than a long term agreement, but, $10M is more than chump change and you may want to do a thorough check on salaries for QB's projected as first year starters. The agreement was hardly damning; it simply reflected caution before a longer term arrangement.

Well, the discussion is about what Reid thought of Kolb's potential not about a one year cap figure. People want to paint this picture of Kolb being Reid's anointed star but Vick showed up and altered the course, but the contract clearly paints a different picture.

Ive been saying in 2010 he was not sold on Kolb's ability and the contract backs that, the dumping of McNabb had more to do with McNabb being toast than anything else. By 2011 Reid knew exactly what he had in Kolb.

 

[Jetstream Green]

The eagles had Vick who was playing out of his mind, they did not need Kolb and did what a smart team does and trade at a position where they already feel they have it secure. I still have hope for Kolb and would not be shocked if he did work out and I would be a stoked Cardinal fan (of course) if it comes to pass

 

[Jetstream Green]

And could people please stop trying to say with complete conviction they know exactly what Reid thought of Kolb....because you do not unless your Reid (comparing contracts only covers so much of the judgement when you have a team of 53 members with the constant ebb and flow of strength in other positions which also plays into the overall mix and the unique situation to each player in this grand scheme of things). Treating assumptions as facts should be regulated to the media, they give us enough of that already

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Well, the discussion is about what Reid thought of Kolb's potential not about a one year cap figure. People want to paint this picture of Kolb being Reid's anointed star but Vick showed up and altered the course, but the contract clearly paints a different picture.

Ive been saying in 2010 he was not sold on Kolb's ability and the contract backs that, the dumping of McNabb had more to do with McNabb being toast than anything else. By 2011 Reid knew exactly what he had in Kolb.

No, you've been saying that Reid KNEW Kolb was a junk QB all along.

You said $10 mill was the going rate for a starter. I agree, for an established middle of the road starter. But does that mean the Cards should raise Skelton's pay to 10 mill if he wins the job even though he is already under contract? Because KK was already under contract and nothing had to be done to extend him.

Try to be logical and not let you hatred of Kolb blind you. Everyone knows a 1 year deal is not a long term commitment. However, you fail to see the significance of $10 million and call it a moot point. That amount of money shows a pretty good amount of confidence in any player. There's not 1 GM or owner in the league that is going to give a player 10 mill unless they think he is a keeper, or has the potential to be a keeper. It may not always work out that way but to discount that amount of money and look at only the 1 year is ridiculous. Of course you'd rather stick to the it's part of the plan to get more value from other teams for Kolb theory.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Doesn't every round have a very high failure rate? I'm still waiting for an answer to why Kolb was benched for the rest of the season after winning NFC Player of the Week for a guy the Eagles shipped out the next season and thought so little of they sent him to a Division rival.

They couldn't realistically bench McNabb in mid-season. Although, one of the reasons, if not the main reason, they let him go was because of the promise Kolb showed.

Yes, every round has a high failure rate. I have said there are very good players drafted in round 2. It's just that people assume that giving a 2nd round pick is an extremely high price, when in actuality, it likely isn't. I can see that point of view but, in the Cards case anyway, giving up a 2nd round pick for a young QB that has had some success in the league and potentially fills a major void, is a trade I would do every day.

 

[Phrazbit]

No, you've been saying that Reid KNEW Kolb was a junk QB all along.

No, I repeatedly said he was not sold on Kolb in 2010, but in 2011 knew what he had.

You said $10 mill was the going rate for a starter. I agree, for an established middle of the road starter. But does that mean the Cards should raise Skelton's pay to 10 mill if he wins the job even though he is already under contract? Because KK was already under contract and nothing had to be done to extend him.

Try to be logical and not let you hatred of Kolb blind you. Everyone knows a 1 year deal is not a long term commitment. However, you fail to see the significance of $10 million and call it a moot point. That amount of money shows a pretty good amount of confidence in any player. There's not 1 GM or owner in the league that is going to give a player 10 mill unless they think he is a keeper, or has the potential to be a keeper. It may not always work out that way but to discount that amount of money and look at only the 1 year is ridiculous. Of course you'd rather stick to the it's part of the plan to get more value from other teams for Kolb theory.

If they thought Kolb was their long term solution then why did they only offer him a one year contract? Please. Explain that to me, he was in the final year of his deal, no matter what their plans were with him an extension was a logic move... but why only ONE year? You keep saying that they thought he was a keeper because of 10 million BUT ITS A ONE YEAR DEAL!!! As for why 10 million? Because they wanted Kolb to sign it, they cant offer him a 2 million dollar extension, Kolb will just say "F-You" and become a free agent. If you're going to sign a guy but with no commitment then you have to actually pay them.

Using your logic, why didnt the Cardinals give Kolb a one year deal? Who cares about years right? You can think a guy is a keeper and sign him to a one year deal!

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

No, I repeatedly said he was not sold on Kolb in 2010, but in 2011 knew what he had.



If they thought Kolb was their long term solution then why did they only offer him a one year contract? Please. Explain that to me, he was in the final year of his deal, no matter what their plans were with him an extension was a logic move... but why only ONE year? You keep saying that they thought he was a keeper because of 10 million BUT ITS A ONE YEAR DEAL!!! As for why 10 million? Because they wanted Kolb to sign it, they cant offer him a 2 million dollar extension, Kolb will just say "F-You" and become a free agent. If you're going to sign a guy but with no commitment then you have to actually pay them.

Using your logic, why didnt the Cardinals give Kolb a one year deal? Who cares about years right? You can think a guy is a keeper and sign him to a one year deal!

Okay, I get it now. It was 10 mill just to get him to sign the deal. That makes alot more sense .

Wouldn't it make more sense, if, using you theory that they really didn't think they knew what they had, to let him play through the last year of his deal, then let him walk if he stunk. Or, if he played well, they could then work out a long term deal or even tag him. Nope, they'd rather give him 10 mill just to get him to sign an extension .

 

[Phrazbit]

Okay, I get it now. It was 10 mill just to get him to sign the deal. That makes alot more sense .

Wouldn't it make more sense, if, using you theory that they really didn't think they knew what they had, to let him play through the last year of his deal, then let him walk if he stunk. Or, if he played well, they could then work out a long term deal or even tag him. Nope, they'd rather give him 10 mill just to get him to sign an extension .

Yeah, with the high profile guys they have on that roster it would have made a TON of sense to save their franchise tag for Kolb.

But, you once again failed to explain why they gave their "keeper" a one year deal... because that makes a TON of sense.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Yeah, with the high profile guys they have on that roster it would have made a TON of sense to save their franchise tag for Kolb.
What 2010 high profile players do you mean? McCoy and Jackson were under contract. Nnamdi wasn't there. McNabb was gone. Peters was already signed long term. Dawkins was out of the picture. I guess they must have been saving it for Stewart Bradley.
But, you once again failed to explain why they gave their "keeper" a one year deal... because that makes a TON of sense.

I don't have to explain the 1 year deal. You already perfectly explained it. They gave him 10 mill just to sign it. You win, it makes perfect sense. I can't believe more team haven't picked up on this practice. If Lindley has a good pre-season, I coud see the Cards adding a year onto his deal for about 12 mill(figuring in inflation and all).

 

[Phrazbit]

I don't have to explain the 1 year deal. You already perfectly explained it. They gave him 10 mill just to sign it. You win, it makes perfect sense. I can't believe more team haven't picked up on this practice. If Lindley has a good pre-season, I coud see the Cards adding a year onto his deal for about 12 mill(figuring in inflation and all).

Cbus, I expect more of you. If you honestly want to resort to this garbage in debating then fine, go ahead. Unless you HONESTLY think those are comparable situations and you actually have as little perspective and objectivity as you are displaying.

You think a one year deal somehow implies a team thinks a player is a keeper, when you can explain the logic in that then you can go back to your childish drivel of retorts.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Cbus, I expect more of you. If you honestly want to resort to this garbage in debating then fine, go ahead. Unless you HONESTLY think those are comparable situations and you actually have as little perspective and objectivity as you are displaying.

You think a one year deal somehow implies a team thinks a player is a keeper, when you can explain the logic in that then you can go back to your childish drivel of retorts.

I don't know if you're being childishly stubborn or what. But when you have used arguments like they gave him 10 mill to get him to sign it or they were trying to up his trade value, then that leads to those kind of responses.

I have said that a 1 year extension is not a long term commitment. You fail to recognoze that 10 mill is a significant investment and teams DO NOT give that kind of money to someone they don't think has the potential to be, or already is, a very good player in this league.

Btw, you still haven't given me 1 example of another team giving a "junk"(your words) QB a 10 mill extension.

The only guy I could even remotely come up with is Alex Smith. He got a 3 year 33 mill deal and while I think he's junk QB, SF doesn't, and he at least took them to NFC Championship. Plus Smith was free agent. That's really not even a good comparison . I was just showing, AGAIN, that 10 mill/year is a big commitment.

 

[MoeIsBetter]

I don't know if you're being childishly stubborn or what. But when you have used arguments like they gave him 10 mill to get him to sign it or they were trying to up his trade value, then that leads to those kind of responses.

It actually makes sense. Kolb does not get the years he feels he deserves so the Eagles make up for it with more money to keep their young player happy.

Lets just be realistic about the entire situation. Kevin Kolb had not played very much, but enough to show some talent. Talent enough that when McNabb's time was up, the Eagles decided to let Kolb take the reigns to see what he could do. In his starts, despite losing, he was not a bad quarterback and was not the primary reason for their losses in any game.

When thinking about what a player looks like, the best place to go do it is by looking at press clippings from the time he was their or fan forums such as the one were posting in right now. One of the things that is constant in both time zones in that the fans and media were both fairly impressed with him and eager for him to start. The only time that they started turning on him was when he was traded (which is very typical for Eagles fans...lets be real). But still, Eagles media maintained that we had gotten a good player. Those outlets are the most outspoken, real form of communication you will get from people without "Coach Talk".

If Phrazbit wants to hate on Kolb, let him. It's not like Kolb had done anything that made any of us go "Whoa, this guy is it!". I've been saying it ever since I signed into this forum years ago, if you want a clear cut indication of what a player is, watch game tapes intensely. Last year I put up a thread titled My Expectations... in which I got most (in my opinion ) close to or right on just because my opinions came strictly from watching games over and over. Again this year, the one thing that sticks out for Kevin Kolb is how much better he got from the Carolina game to the Dallas game. His footwork in the pocket is 10x better after watching Skelton for a few weeks; he is much more confident in his passes across the middle than he was earlier in the year; his reads were being made much quicker as attributed to more passes to TE's (even though his throws to Housler and King were a tad off, at least he made the right read); and despite being sacked 5 times by Dallas, arguably 3 of those were strictly on Ware being the best pass rusher we faced all year and had nothing to do with Kolb not getting ready fast enough. The guy has no chance to go anywhere if he's not even able to complete a 3 step drop on 2nd down with 3 yards to go when the play designed were simple slants.

For anybody who is open minded on what Kolb could be (because realistically none of us know the future), his last start was promising. I'm not overly ecstatic that he's going to "light it up", but with more experience in this system (which should build confidence) he has all the tools to be a very good player. Potentially 3rd starter in Pro-Bowl but I just haven't seen "greatness". Can win us ball games and is definitely better (IMO) than any of the other QB's in this division. I think the same about what Skelton could do to with more knowledge in the NFL in general. But that's another conversation for another day...

 

[Phrazbit]

I don't know if you're being childishly stubborn or what. But when you have used arguments like they gave him 10 mill to get him to sign it or they were trying to up his trade value, then that leads to those kind of responses.

I have said that a 1 year extension is not a long term commitment. You fail to recognoze that 10 mill is a significant investment and teams DO NOT give that kind of money to someone they don't think has the potential to be, or already is, a very good player in this league.

Btw, you still haven't given me 1 example of another team giving a "junk"(your words) QB a 10 mill extension.

The only guy I could even remotely come up with is Alex Smith. He got a 3 year 33 mill deal and while I think he's junk QB, SF doesn't, and he at least took them to NFC Championship. Plus Smith was free agent. That's really not even a good comparison . I was just showing, AGAIN, that 10 mill/year is a big commitment.

What were they supposed to do? Like I said, they offer him a smaller dollar figure and he becomes a free agent and they lose the option to trade him or keep him. They signed him with no future commitment and left their options open. Do you think Kolb would have said "okay forget my chance to become a free agent, I'll sign for a couple mil." I dont see how you cant follow that. And seriously, a ONE year contract... is a "significant commitment"...? I dont know how you can convince yourself of the logic behind signing a young "keeper" to a one year contract.

And my words of Kolb being "trash" is inference to him after the 2010 season when he went 2-4 and stunk. At that point I think Reid had a pretty strong evaluation of Kolb as a player.

 

[chickenhead]

One thing I want to reiterate is that it wasn't a one-year deal in a vacuum, it was a one-year extension. Philly made the deal before the 2010 season to extend Kolb through the 2011 season. They were essentially committing to two years. If they thought he had value but was definitely not their future, they would have traded him before the 2010 season when he still had a year on his contract. Which of course is exactly why they traded him before the 2011 season once they decided that Vick was their future.

No, it's not the three years that Matt Flynn just got from Seattle, for example. But Flynn was a free agent. The opportunity cost for Seattle to see what they have in him was higher than it was for the Eagles to see what they had in Kolb in 2010, because Kolb was already in the organization on a four-year deal. If the Packers didn't have Rodgers and wanted to keep Flynn, they might have extended him for a year in a similar fashion.

Now if we want to debate the contract Arizona gave Kolb vs. the one Seattle gave Flynn, that will absolutely be a fair debate after this season...

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

What were they supposed to do? Like I said, they offer him a smaller dollar figure and he becomes a free agent and they lose the option to trade him or keep him. They signed him with no future commitment and left their options open. Do you think Kolb would have said "okay forget my chance to become a free agent, I'll sign for a couple mil." I dont see how you cant follow that. And seriously, a ONE year contract... is a "significant commitment"...? I dont know how you can convince yourself of the logic behind signing a young "keeper" to a one year contract.

You're completely missing the point. They didn't have to do anything. You still haven't told me another team that has adopted this strategy. If successful, they could have just tagged him or worked out a long term deal. As I mentioned there were no other players of concern for the tag and even if there were, a QB takes priority. If he failed and left via free agency, why would they care? It's not that hard to figure out. Well, at least for most people with some common sense it's not.

I think you're just arguing to argue. Did you miss where I said 1 year is not a long term commitment, duh. I said 10 mill is a significant commitment. If you think they signed to a 10 mill extension for the right to trade him then, sorry, you're a,.......... ah forget it and I'm done. This is nonsense.

 

[Duckjake]

They couldn't realistically bench McNabb in mid-season. Although, one of the reasons, if not the main reason, they let him go was because of the promise Kolb showed.

But it wasn't a question of benching McNabb mid season.

McNabb got hurt in game 1. Kolb played the rest of game 1 and started game 2 and game 3. They benched him to put McNabb back at the helm. If they thought Kolb was the future and were going to get rid of McNabb the next season why would they bench Kolb? Why didn't they just keep riding his hot hand? Could be that they thought Kolb still needed one more year of seasoning before letting him take the team over for good.

That it turned out well for the Eagles is irrelevant. What was it they saw that told them they needed to go back to McNabb even after Kolb's performance vs KC? That the starter didn't lose his job to injury? That can't be because Kolb lost his job when he got hurt.

Which brings up another concern. Of the 3 QBs Kolb is the only one to get hurt and not get his job back when he got well. What's up with that? Vick played lights out sure but Kolb was NFC player of the week and still got benched.

I still think CKW needs to go back to the start of 2007 and start Kolb and put in Double Deuce to run the hurry up offense every 3rd possession.

 

[Phrazbit]

You're completely missing the point. They didn't have to do anything. You still haven't told me another team that has adopted this strategy. If successful, they could have just tagged him or worked out a long term deal. As I mentioned there were no other players of concern for the tag and even if there were, a QB takes priority. If he failed and left via free agency, why would they care? It's not that hard to figure out. Well, at least for most people with some common sense it's not.

I think you're just arguing to argue. Did you miss where I said 1 year is not a long term commitment, duh. I said 10 mill is a significant commitment. If you think they signed to a 10 mill extension for the right to trade him then, sorry, you're a,.......... ah forget it and I'm done. This is nonsense.

A franchise tag takes up a ton of cap space, and if you cant find a buyer for the guy then you're screwed. The contract they gave him put his cap figure at like 2 million for 2011 because the 10 million was almost entirely a signing bonus. The contract they gave him allowed them to keep their options open, trade him, cut him, keep him, and all at a reasonable cap figure in 2011.

And please, show me an instance of a team taking their franchise QB of the future, a player they supposedly deem a "keeper" and then give him a one year deal. What do you think their motivation was for giving him such a short deal if they supposedly liked him as much as you think? You're right, this is nonsense. And I think you're arguing either because you like to argue or in denial, because there is no scenario where Reid thinks Kolb is a future stud, the team is committed to him and then they sign him to a ONE YEAR DEAL!

 

[Duckjake]

the team is committed to him and then they sign him to a ONE YEAR DEAL!

That could happen. Just look at the Cardinals with Dansby. If you look at sacks, interceptions, pdfs, and forced fumbles across the board you'd be hard pressed to find many guys who had the numbers in each category that Dansby did. There are LBs with more sacks, some with more interceptions, but you won't find many with the numbers in each category that Dansby had his first 5 years in the NFL.

But for whatever reason, probably because 40 year hates him, the Cards still weren't certain that Karlos would continue to play at that level if they gave him a large long term contract. Doesn't matter if it were right or wrong just that the y felt that way, and so they franchised him again. Karlos Dansby was talented enough to play very well 3 contract years in a row. But there still were those doubts from the Denny Green Days.

 

[Phrazbit]

That could happen. Just look at the Cardinals with Dansby. If you look at sacks, interceptions, pdfs, and forced fumbles across the board you'd be hard pressed to find many guys who had the numbers in each category that Dansby did. There are LBs with more sacks, some with more interceptions, but you won't find many with the numbers in each category that Dansby had his first 5 years in the NFL.

But for whatever reason, probably because 40 year hates him, the Cards still weren't certain that Karlos would continue to play at that level if they gave him a large long term contract. Doesn't matter if it were right or wrong just that the y felt that way, and so they franchised him again. Karlos Dansby was talented enough to play very well 3 contract years in a row. But there still were those doubts from the Denny Green Days.

They were slapping Dansby with franchise tags, the franchise tag cost for a MLB is not near as brutal as for a QB, and the Cards supposedly wanted to get a long deal sorted out for him, but never could. And when do you see young "franchise" QBs on year to year deals? It just does not happen.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

But it wasn't a question of benching McNabb mid season.

McNabb got hurt in game 1. Kolb played the rest of game 1 and started game 2 and game 3. They benched him to put McNabb back at the helm. If they thought Kolb was the future and were going to get rid of McNabb the next season why would they bench Kolb? Why didn't they just keep riding his hot hand? Could be that they thought Kolb still needed one more year of seasoning before letting him take the team over for good.

That it turned out well for the Eagles is irrelevant. What was it they saw that told them they needed to go back to McNabb even after Kolb's performance vs KC? That the starter didn't lose his job to injury? That can't be because Kolb lost his job when he got hurt.

Which brings up another concern. Of the 3 QBs Kolb is the only one to get hurt and not get his job back when he got well. What's up with that? Vick played lights out sure but Kolb was NFC player of the week and still got benched.

I still think CKW needs to go back to the start of 2007 and start Kolb and put in Double Deuce to run the hurry up offense every 3rd possession.

McNabb was entrenched as the starter. It's pretty hard to bench him no matter what the other guy did. Not just Kolb, it could have been any guy that came in and played well and they would have went back to McNabb. At that point in his career, it would kind of be like if Manning got hurt to start the season and Painter lit it up and not going back to Manning. Plus, to a lesser extent Reid was still loyal to, and confident in McNabb.

Replacing Kolb with Vick was much easier. Kolb was not entrenched as the starter and Vick was a former #1 overall pick that had previously played at a very high level. Vick never lost his job because of on field performance. IIRC, Reid initially named Kolb the starter upon his return but later changed his mind.

After thinking about it, that may have just been a ploy to up his trade value. Frankly, I'm surprised Philly didn't give Kolb an extra 8 mill to raise his trade value further.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

That could happen. Just look at the Cardinals with Dansby. If you look at sacks, interceptions, pdfs, and forced fumbles across the board you'd be hard pressed to find many guys who had the numbers in each category that Dansby did. There are LBs with more sacks, some with more interceptions, but you won't find many with the numbers in each category that Dansby had his first 5 years in the NFL.

But for whatever reason, probably because 40 year hates him, the Cards still weren't certain that Karlos would continue to play at that level if they gave him a large long term contract. Doesn't matter if it were right or wrong just that the y felt that way, and so they franchised him again. Karlos Dansby was talented enough to play very well 3 contract years in a row. But there still were those doubts from the Denny Green Days.

Not to mention that numerous times Graves said KD was a core player and they wanted him around long term. That doesn't mean a thing. Only guys that sign long term contracts with 2 years left on their original deal are in a teams future. Don't let yourself get suckered into arguing with that clown like I did.

Actually DJ, that's a great example because one of the concerns the Cards had was KD staying healthy. Instead of signing him long term they wanted to see his durability and leadership improve so they took a chance on a 1 year Ftag. I didn't agree with durability concerns, but that's what the Cards were thinking. On the other hand, according to someone, they could have given a 20 mill bonus so they could trade him.