Remember when I said I’d never be inured to heartbreak by the Eagles, but that I didn’t think I could ever fully convert to another team, and that the Stillers were tryin real hard to get me? Well the Eagles are tryin real hard to help em.
The only way not re-signing Dawkins makes sense is if they were cash-strapped. But they aren’t. Not even close. Maaaaybe if there was a top-notch free agent out there, I could see letting him go. Like if there was a 2003 Brian Dawkins out there somewhere, then okay. I suppose that would make good business sense. But this here? Letting him go when there’s not really the prospect of anything better out there? For the sake of what, being cheap? Nah, dawg. That’s not a good look. At all.
I’m sayin. I realize it’s a business. And I realize Dawk’s play-making abilities are starting to diminish. But as one commenter on philly.com said — this is the same situation the Stillers had with The Bus. But they re-signed him, not so much because of what he can do on the field, but because of what he brings to the locker room. Cuz I’m tellin you…I seriously doubt that the Eagles are gonna be close enough to the salary cap to warrant not re-signing him.
And if, by chance, everybody’s feelings are wrong and the Eagles are quietly eyeing some stud safety who helps them to do the impossible and bring home the belt, they better do like the Colts a couple years ago and give Dawk a ring.
That is all.
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:49 pm
I know you’re an Eagles fan, so I’ll try to put this as diplomatically as I can: it makes zero financial sense to re-sign a 30-something defensive back on the downside of his career to a big money, multi-year extension. I like Brian Dawkins. He’s had one whale of a career. But it’s an open question as to whether he’s got anything left in the tank. I have an indelible image seared in my brain of Larry Fitzgerald going through Dawkins like a tank through a grass hut. Do you really want to risk $10 million or so, guaranteed, to find out that play was not an aberration?
QBs, and linemen are the general exceptions to this rule, albeit for slightly different reasons in each case. Bettis’ deal was an anomaly. IIRC, he re-upped for only 1 year and that’s only because he and the Steelers believed they had a legit shot at winning the Super Bowl — which they accomplished. Look at how assed-out the Jets are now for signing Favre. I’m sure that’s what the Eagles were thinking about with Dawkins, and frankly, I don’t blame them one bit for letting him bounce.
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:01 pm
I hear you on all that. And logically, you’re right. But from the standpoint of the team and the fans, look at it like this: you know they ain’t gon be nowhere near the salary cap. so while on the one hand, it’s showing salary cap prudence, but at the same time, it’s bein cheap for no reason. if there was any eagle that deserved a loyalty check, it’s dawk. everybody knows dawk ain’t gon play for no 5 years. it’s just the principle. cuz what’s bein 10 million under the cap in december gon get you? the salary cap championship?
no jive, when i’m playin madden in franchise mode, i usually go like the eagles. but when it’s a player that’s been with me his whole career? if he was likes that for a good stretch of his career and it ain’t gon hurt my bottom line, why not?
they shoulda hooked him up for one year and been transitioning him into the front office.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:10 pm
That’s supposed to be an argument for the best interests of the team?
The best interests of the team is a number in black ink at the bottom of their annual financial report. The fans? The fans aren’t any more loyal to specific players than the teams are. As long as the Eagles (or any pro sports team outside of LA or Miami, FWIW) give the impression they’re capable of playing for a championship, the fans will keep showing up, TV and radio networks will keep shelling out money for viewing rights, and advertisers will keep throwing sponsorship money at them. Even state & local gov’t’s are in the act nowadays whenever they finance a stadium with public money.
I’ll bet the Monopoly money used by every fantasy football GM that unlike Bettis, Dawkins wouldn’t accept a 1-year deal and a significant pay cut.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:48 am
Dawkins ought to retire. There’s nothing worse than seeing the ghost of a former player ride it out on some off-brand team. Emmitt Smith, Brett Favre, Bruce Smith all should have shut it down a year earlier than they did with their original team. This year, Derrick Brooks, Dawkins and Ray Lewis ought to go out as one-franchise all-pros.