Dawk on Eagles
Brian Dawkins hasn't talked much about why negotiations with the Eagles didn't go well, but he seems to get more into that topic in an interview taped for Wednesday on ESPN 950-AM.
Dawk on Eagles
Les Bowen, Daily News Staff Writer
Before we all let the Brian Dawkins trauma go for a while, I think we'd like to know why he ended up taking that trip to Denver last week where the Broncos blew him away with their offer, how things came to that state of affairs, after repeated assurances from Dawk (and from the Eagles) that they ought to be able to work something out.
Dawkins was unwilling to discuss his negotiations when he spoke with the Daily News on Sunday, but excerpts from an ESPN 950-AM radio interview scheduled to air this morning suggest he's thawing a little on that front. The answers show the process was pretty much what we all expected, I think.
A station producer sent me an e-mail with a link to some excerpts that I couldn't get to work, but later Tuesday evening, I got a partial transcript that goes as follows:
Did the Eagles let it be known they can go on without you?
“Yeah, in so many words. For that organization, this was a business deal and it was not business for me. People think I wanted to get to free agency. I did not want to get to free agency. I’ve never gone to free agency. I’ve had times in the past where I could have collected big bucks on the open market, but I did not want to get there. So why would I want to get there all of a sudden now on my last contract. No, I wanted to be an Eagle.”
On if talks with the Eagles got contentious:
“I wouldn’t say ugly, I would just say that they opened my eyes right away that this was a business deal that this wasn’t about me being here, who I am to the team to my teammates and what I’m continuing to do. It was about my age and a business decision and that really hurt.”
On how the Eagles made him feel:
“At the end of the day you’re a 36-year-old safety.”
On the contract that the Eagles offered him:
“What I was offered, that was it. I wouldn’t say take-it-or-leave-it offer. No one gave me any impression that there would be any flexibility in it.”
Was owner Jeffrey Lurie involved in the negotiations?
“I don’t know if he was involved in the negotiation, but I feel like if perhaps he was things would be different right now.”
Comment removed.
The first problem with Dawkins' side of this is he is refusing to actually lay out what the Eagles offered. If the Eagles were truly that bad, then tell everyone what the offered. Second, it did not take him very long to negotiate and accept the deal with Denver. If staying in Philly was such a priority, what was the rush. Did his agent give the Eagles a chance to match. Why not accept the truth that this was a business deal for both sides and Dawkins was surprised that the Eagles stuck to thier guns and did not bend to his will. I also wonder why a 36 year old would want to play a season in Denver where the thin air is going to affect him more than it will a 26 year old. If you have not noticed, Denver tends to have a younger than average team and the high altitude is the reason. I wish the best for him, but the trama is stoked by the media sothey have a story.— dutchman- Accepting that Dawk is no longer an Eagle, we now see that the Eagles will remain just a step above mediocrity for the foreseeable future. They will make it the playoffs and possibly the doorstep of a Super Bowl, but, as they have just demonstrated, and I'm sorry to say, they will never have that extra intangible to bring us a Lombardi Trophy.— BMan
- I can see very clearly winning a SB is not on this teams radar. Plus they are defintely asleep at the wheel. Bullheaded, egotists with no regard for their players or fans. I can't root for these guys anymore. I was born and raised in Philly and have lived in New England for 12 years staying with them the whole time. Not anymore, Philly fans they are all yours. Go PATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!— The Manager
- Comment removed.
- Thank God for my Flyers :) Dawk was the only reason I ever attended any Eagles' games. He will be sadly missed -a great player.— flyergirl
- I can not support this team the same way any longer. If all you see is numbers like age and probability when you see Dawk, then you never played the game. It's a game of emotion and heart. And those things are hard to value...but the Eagles did not even atttempt to factor them in. In the end, if this truly is a "business decision", then how come these pencil pushers and mormons don't spend the money to make their business the best? You don't constantly go about cutting costs and not obtaining any assets! If you let go of Dawk...then where is the Boldin...or Gonzalez...or whoever? We have an owner, GM and coach who run OUR TEAM like slumlords trying to pay as little maintenance as possible.— Joyner80
- so for all you people that are saying it is his age and the money and defending this pathetic organization, i would like to know how you defend them letting the heart and soul of their defense go at age 35, and today they have a press conference at 3 with 34 year old shawn springs.. who wants a 3 or 4 year deal and will require a bit of money.. and a press conference usually means a signing.... so please defend that....— bleed green forever
- Boycott the sponsers...money talks— TobyRitter
- ...I'm still waiting for the Eagles front office to do something beneficial for this team in the offseason (besides sign a lineman with a gimpy knee). Are they all on vacation?— Fozzie27
- I think its shocking that Lurie wasn't involved. Probably figured the two sides could come to an agreement. GUESS NOT— jbettner
- yea the eagles and their horrible treatment of players. It happens everywhere you idiots. Players get old, teams move on, its that simple. If Farve could be traded, if Brooks could be unceremoniously released, Harrison released, (Mind you all those players help rebuild their franchise plus win a SB with them) then it can happen here. Get over it. It has always bee will always be about money.— Superkavi
- It is a real shame what they did to B Dawk, it only goes to show you they(eagles org)have no loyalty to anyone on the team B-West & D- Macc better watch thier backs or their next to go on the block.— joe vig
- There are 3 sides to every story...Sorry Dawk. This is the nature of the business. I also agree that Dawk contradicts himself. If he really wanted to end as an Eagle, then he would have signed. He obviously was about the $$$, as is every other sports figure. I loved Dawk, but it's time to move on. Someone else will need to stand up and be the heart and soul of the team. Plenty of young talented guys on this team. It's their time to shine. The defense will not miss a beat without Dawk. He should have said nothing...just go on to Denver and finished out his career. Taking shots at your former management is just plain silly and childish. Time to be a 36yr old grown up..— eric18966
- The Eagles have no CLASS. I understand it's a business but there are right ways and wrong ways of doing things. If the Eagles truly felt that Dawk could no longer play then why did they offer him an insulting low ball contract? They could have simply told him before free agency began that they were not going to be making an offer and wanted to go in a more youthful direction. That would be treating him with respect and honesty, but only an organization with CLASS would understand that.— billro3
