McCoy draws national praise
NFL Network continues to unveil its list of the league's top 100 players.
McCoy draws national praise
Sheil Kapadia, Philly.com
NFL Network continues to unveil its list of the league's top 100 players.
In an earlier post, I pointed out that DeSean Jackson fell to No. 71, and Nnamdi Asomugha plummeted to No. 79. Next up is Michael Vick at No. 70. He ranks ahead of Tony Romo (No. 91) and Joe Flacco (No. 74), but behind Philip Rivers (No. 61).
Meanwhile, Pete Prisco of CBSSports.com has his own top-100 list out. Four Eagles are on it - LeSean McCoy at No. 32, Trent Cole at No. 45, Jason Babin at No. 65 and Asomugha at 81. The only running backs listed ahead of McCoy are Maurice Jones-Drew (No. 19) and Adrian Peterson (No. 28). Prisco ranks McCoy ahead of Arian Foster (No. 36) and Ray Rice (No. 52).
Perhaps Drew Rosenhaus can use the list as leverage in contract negotiations with the Eagles?
He can use this article from NFL.com's Daniel Jeremiah also. Jeremiah worked as a scout for the Eagles and has a list out of the top 10 players under the age of 25. McCoy gets a mention:
McCoy's first two seasons in Philadelphia were very solid. He took his game to an entirely new level in his third year. He ran for 1,309 yards and led the league in both rushing TDs (17) and rushes over 20 yards (14). He also hauled in 48 balls for 315 yards and three TDs. He is the NFL's most elusive open-field runner. He has rare stop-and-start quickness and he doesn't get enough credit for his ability to power through tackles. He also has worked to become one of the better pass-protecting running backs in the league.
There's no denying McCoy, who will turn 24 in July, belongs on the list. I might disagree with the last sentence though. McCoy's improved as a blocker, but still has lapses and needs to get more consistent going forward. Not in the same league as Brian Westbrook yet in that aspect, in my opinion.
BELL CLOSE TO DECISION
Veteran safety Yeremiah Bell is close to signing with a team, Drew Rosenhaus reportedly said in a radio interview this morning. Per the South Florida Sun Sentinel, Bell has worked out for the Eagles, Jets, Chiefs and Titans.
I've always been in favor of adding a starting-caliber, veteran safety, but Jeff McLane of the Inquirer Tweeted yesterday that he's told the Eagles are not interested in Bell.
OSI APOLOGIZES
Over the weekend, Giants defensive lineman Osi Umenyiora went out of his way to wish LeSean McCoy a Happy Mother's Day.
Today, in response to an ESPN.com article criticizing him, he Tweeted an apology. Not to McCoy, but to women:
@SarahSpain is absolutely correct in her article. I wasnt thinking about it from that perspective. I apologize to any woman offended. It won't happen again.
PETERS DOCKED PAY
The Eagles will dock Jason Peters $3.25M, according to ESPN's Chris Mortensen. Peters originally injured his Achilles working out, but since he was away from the team's facility, it is considered a "non-football injury."
Tough one here. On one hand, the Eagles are well within their rights and are only taking away what they're paying Peters' replacement, Demetress Bell. Peters is scheduled to make $7.9M next season, so he's still getting $4.65M of that.
On the other hand, presumably, he was working out to get ready for the season. Had the injury occurred at the Novacare Complex, the Eagles would not have been allowed to dock him pay. But is it realistic to expect players to all work out at the team facility all offseason? I'm not sure.
Here are a couple Tweets from Andrew Brandt of the National Football Post on the issue:
Unintended consequence of CBA allowing players more time away from facility and w/out supervision of the Clubs’ coaches/trainers.
In deciding whether to not pay a player due to an offseason injury, club must balance money saved vs. relationship w/player, agent.
Mortensen's report said the Eagles had "amicably discussed" the cut with Peters and his agent, Eugene Parker.
I could go either way here. Interested to hear your thoughts.
You can follow me on Twitter or become a fan of Moving the Chains on Facebook.
I would think that irrespective of the location of his work-outs, if he was working out to prepare himself for the football season, it should be considered a football related injury. If he was injured playing basketball, etc. then I could see him being docked.— Bobphxville- Here's a nifty little twist-
He had a $250K off-season workout bonus for this year. But players can't work at the teams facilities all year. So he worked out at home, got hurt. CBA says it's non-football related (whaaaa?). Now he gets to trade in the $3.25Mil + $250K because he was trying to meet a goal that he couldn't "properly" meet because of league rules. Is anyone else's head spinning yet on this circular logic? The only very, very slim upside is they are taking enough money to pay for his replacement.— verve - Seems like the Eagles struck the right balance with regards to Peters. They docked him the price of his replacement. Tough situation here, as I can see both sides of the argument, but as long as the discussion really was "amicable" then I think the Eagles handled the situation well...either way, here comes the "nickles" comments...
McCoy deserves all of the accolades, and more, heading his way. He is an absolute pleasure to watch with the ball in his hands.— JTR - I don't think any stance other than the one @Bobphxville lays out can be considered ethical. What if the players decided not to work out all off-season because they were scared of being injured? How can the team punish a guy for being a true professional? I can't believe you think it could go either way. It is another example of the lack of intelligence on the part of the Players Union. The owners absolutely wipe the floor with the NFL player's union at every turn. At what point do the players stop electing former players to run the union and hire themselves a skilled Attorney to represent their interest. I do to believe the player's union can accept this as it stands and must ask for an arbitrated opinion. It was only three weeks ago that the NFL owners got the players union and its members smash their own lawsuit which they most likely would have walked away with a big settlement. Instead the owners tricked them into defending the Bounty program and the players involved. Now when the players claim to not know about the long term effects of concussions, the owners have over a 100 quotes from current and former players in which they say to is perfectly acceptable to them for the other players to attempt to knock them out. Good luck with the lawsuit and god help you all when the next collective bargaining arrives. I imagine the owners will get you to accept that on field injuries should be eligible to be cut without pay.— UncleStosh
- "But is it realistic to expect players to all work out at the team facility all offseason? I'm not sure."
Is 99% of the working population expected to be at their work location every single day? Simple answer: yes, absolutely. These guys are getting paid exorbitant amounts of money. The least they could do is work out at their "office." If they choose not to, then they can face the consequences if they get hurt outside of work.
— Penfold18 - The problem with your analogy is that many players do not live in the same city in which they play, whereas 99% of the working population lives at least reasonably close to their job location. Remember, these guys are human beings, not robots who boot up every Sunday for our amusement. — JTR
- The other problem with your analogy is that they are not allowed to work out at the team's facility all year. — verve
- This stubborn stance on safety ("we're OK with who we have, we don't need any outside help") reminds of their stance on LB last year where they were content with going with the young guys who proved to be inadequate. I don't get why they can't just sign one veteran safety, there are way too many question marks with Allen and Jarrett and they are well under the cap. What is the risk here?— robm0202
- Let's once again applaud Unions. They argued for less time in practice and at the facility and they got it. Beware of unintentional consequences. Having said that, the key here is "amicably discussed." This decision is a land mine if they force it on Peters. But fair is fari, and $4.65 million is still good pay, so I hope that some type of agreement could be worked out.— Uncle Carm
- Sheil, Jason Peters is gonna get paid 4.65 million for, essentially, not working. Let's keep that in perspective. I think it's reasonable for the Eagles to reduce his pay.— soulman386
- Um, fellas? Any player can claim they were "working out" when in reality he may have torn it screwing around or doing something he wasn't supposed to be doing. So the Eagles have no way of knowing if he's telling the truth or pulling their leg. Peters may have injured himself water skiing for all we know. That is the whole point of not having to pay players when they are injured off-premises. If a player does something stupid to get injured the team shouldn't have to pay that player his full salary, when the team now has to find a replacement. This is a good compromise, considering the Eagles didn't have to give him a dime from what I understand.
- In a perfect world, if a player is training in the offseason away from the team facility and gets hurt, he should not have his pay docked because he was working out for the team. However, the problem is there is no way to police that like you stated brianmcwilliams...the honor system goes out the window when you start dealing with millions of dollars... — JTR
- Do you have any idea how hard it is to tear an achilles? You (I mean you, brian) couldn't do it if you tried unless you used a knife on it. Peters is a guy who can probably squat 500 pounds easily. That's 400 pounds of pressure on each (including his weight), and you come up with water skiing? How about a saucy limbo line while we're at it? Maybe tiddlywinks. — verve
- Verve, I'm with you on your other comments above, however, Ryan Howard tore his running down the first base line...freak accidents can occur in ways that you wouldn't expect, such as water skiing — JTR
.jpg)
Want to echo JTR's comment. I truly feel for Jason Peters, if he wasn't injured I'm sure he would have been on the list as the top left tackle & maybe the highest rated Eagle. As far as Jason Peters pay cut seems not much different than your average joe who goes on disability (who collect about 60% of norm. pay - correct me if I'm wrong). Ask any player in the NFL (not for long) it's a business. The
Eagles management are excellent in money management (Who would you rather have? 'Nickles' Banner or big spenders like the Raider/Redskins..?). The money saved will partly go resigning McCoy and investing in Bell/others. It seems ever year the Eagles have a good number of draft picks & plenty of cap space. On a side note - Phila. trolls are always complaining about how the Bird's do business. If you ask almost anyone who have an affiliation with the NFL the Eagles are one of the best run outfits in the league - top to bottom (umm.. I have). I'd love the Eagles to win a Superbowl. The best team doesn't always win the big game, injuries and funny way a football bounces can often determine the winner. With the Eagles, they have a great organization and will be in the hunt. As a fan I'm happy with that. Best wishes to the team in the upcoming season..!— highfive
Comment removed.- McCoy is the best back in football. He can run around you, run through you, shake you out of your socks and catch the ball. His blocking is adequate and the only back that comes close to being perfect is Adrien Peterson. Only reason I take McCoy over Peterson is Peterson can be injury prone and he is easier to see at the line of scrimmage. When McCoy hits the hole you barely see him and then he is gone.— Zeru
- I believe that the players need to consider moving to the area for their playing career. If it is wrong or not doesn't matter. It was collectively bargained. They need to adjust.— quentin1978
- I believe that the players need to consider moving to the area for their playing career. If it is wrong or not doesn't matter. It was collectively bargained. They need to adjust.— quentin1978
- I believe that the players need to consider moving to the area for their playing career. If it is wrong or not doesn't matter. It was collectively bargained. They need to adjust.— quentin1978
- Sheil, I'd be interested in knowing how insurance works in the NFL. Don't teams take out insurance policies on their better players?— Cameiros
- In regards to Jason Peters ..... I am not sure to any degree why anyone would want to stand up for him and say that the Eagles are wrong. It is what it is. I don't hear any reports or see any message board posts from the players standing up for the fans when ticket prices and such go up. In fact, the last I heard, they delayed the season not only trying to guarantee that we would pay more each year, but that they would also get a larger percentage of it.— voodoochile75
- The players agreed to and wanted it. They gave the organizations the choice. Don't cry about it now that they are implementing a provision the players wanted and agreed with. Why should a team pay the entire contract when a player isn't able to play? I think Peters can live off of the 2 million he will be receiving. Most people don't get 2 million for rehabbing an injury they suffered away from the job facility. Short term or long term disability doesn't pay that much for us working people who pay to watch those guys play a game.— TNEaglesFan
- TN, I think it comes down to "football related". He wasn't pulling a Big Ben by leaving a skin rash on the pavement or trying to slam a basketball, he was improving his body for football. If I was JP I'd grieve that to the last appeal. If working out for football season isn't football related I don't know what is.— tpizza
- @JTR and @verve: There's absolutely nothing wrong with my analogy. These guys need to move to the cities where they are employed just as everyone else has to. There's nothing stopping them from moving to Philly. Just because they want to live somewhere else doesn't mean that they should. I want to live in Hawaii, unfortunately my job is here. Too bad. If I don't like it, then I need to find a job in Hawaii or elsewhere. And as far as I know, these guys can work out at the facility whenever they want in the offseason. They just can't engage with the coaching staff.— Penfold18
- Ok, you are right, the NEW rules specify that players cannot workout at the team facility in the offseason. However, those rules are THEIR FAULT. That's what they bargained for. So, again, this is on the players. They asked for the risk, and now they have to suffer the consequences. Too bad.— Penfold18
- If players are going to be docked for injuries sustained in training for the upcoming season, you're going to have plenty of out of shape players reporting! Long term a very poor decision by management.
@brnmcwilliams; all player contracts have restricted activities which would negate the contract if an injury occurred (water skiing isn't one of them). If he injured himself and wasn't in a "restricted activity", he's met the grounds of his contract. Perhaps the Eagles should list "working out" as a restricted activity.— JBinPA
Follow
Sheil on Twitter. And become
a fan of Moving the Chains on Facebook.
Download our NEW iPhone/Android app for even more Birds
coverage, including app-exclusive videos and analysis. Download it here.
