Weaver Will Not Be an Eagle

by abender20 on Mar 17, 2009 8:32 AM PDT in Daily Links Comment 20 comments

As recently as last week, all signs pointed to Leonard Weaver donning an Eagles uniform. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, however, Weaver will not be headed to Philly.

A league source said that the Eagles had not had contact with Weaver's agent, Harold Lewis, for several days. The source indicated that Weaver might re-sign with the Seattle Seahawks or go to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

If Weaver has priced himself out of Philadelphia (a team that really could use him), his list of suitors may be as short as the "league source" claims. With the Eagles out of the running, Leonard Weaver loses a wee bit of leverage in his attempts to squeeze as much out of teams as possible. We may yet see Weaver back in Seattle.

0 recs | Comment 20 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

leonard!

I have been thinking a lot about how weaver fits in with the hawks.

The guy is the very definition of a tweaner- a too-short tight end with ball carrying skills.

As of now, our backfield is: Forsett, (Weaver), Schmitt, Duckett, Jones

I don’t understand why we didn’t try to trade either morris or weaver at the end of last year if we weren’t going to resign them. I mean the skins’ signed Shaun Alexander, couldn’t we have gotten a late pick for Morris?

Since it doesn’t seem like Weaver is getting any big offers, I think we should bring him back on the cheap. He is unlikely to “breakout” given his odd mix of skills. Still, he is a good value in terms of talent versus cost. He also has the sort of versatility that makes him an ideal depth player. He can pick up injury slack as a tailback, fullback, or even as a TE if we got desperate.

There is a good argument for Schmitt as the full-time fullback. Therefore, it is difficult to justify paying too much for weaver. We have to wait and see.

by michaelfox99 on Mar 17, 2009 10:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Cannot trade at the end of the year.

Trade deadline is after the 6th week of the season.

by Built2Spill on Mar 17, 2009 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The FAs

that we lose also have the potential to be compensatory picks in the future. It’s not a total loss.

by bp42810 on Mar 17, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In the same way that unemployment

partially compensates for your actual lost income. It’s not a total loss.

by jacobstevens on Mar 17, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If we can't use him effectively and only resign him because it doesn't hurt us

I’d rather take the compensation.

by Ezzra on Mar 17, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

where are we going to use Weaver?

I keep asking this without getting much of a response. He’s clearly not the fullback Knapp and co. want due to his lack of run blocking skills, and Duckett’s a better short yardage/pounder type back, so where does Weaver fit in?

It could be 3rd down back, I guess.

by djafrot on Mar 17, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love JJ, but if he gets inured (not unlikely) do you really want our RBs to just be Duckett and Forsett?

Even if JJ doesn’t get injured, I’d be fine with 65% JJ, 20% Weaver, 10% Duckett, 5% Forsett for carries.

Though I guess using the same logic, if JJ goes down, do you really want 40% Weaver, 40% Duckett, 20% Forestt? Probably not.

by LantermanC on Mar 17, 2009 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not against having another back on the roster

For one thing, I don’t see JJ being more susceptible (sp?) to injury than any other back of his type.

But should he be injured, I think Duckett and Forsett splitting time would be OK, and if JJ’s injury were for the year surely Ruskell would bring in another back for insurance (backs are easy to throw in).

I just don’t see Weaver fitting the roster very well, though perhaps the argument could be made that he does everything fairly well and as such could back up any position. Hrm, way to kill your own argument, DJ.

by djafrot on Mar 17, 2009 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good, I hate the Eagles.

And I’m indifferent about the Bucs. Although I’d still rather have him retained because of his versatility.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 17, 2009 10:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Really? I'm kind of a closet Eagles fan.

I was cheering for them in last years’ playoffs, and of course the #$)&(# Cardinals screwed that up.

by djafrot on Mar 17, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was cheering for them in the NFC Championship, but I wanted them to not even make the playoffs.

Though I give them props for keeping Dallas out.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 17, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm kind of a closet Eagles fan as well.

Something about Philly’s sports ineptitude (the 2008 Phillies not withstanding) brings out the fan in me. Then again, I can’t seem to get excited about sports once a Seattle team is eliminated from contention, though I found myself rooting hard for the Cards in the Superbowl, but that was probably more of a “I hate the Steelers so much” thing.

by LantermanC on Mar 17, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like the disciples of Holmgren

So therefore I generally root for the Eagles unless an Eagle fan is near me. I always root against Dallas and Patriots. Other than that I do not hold any true animosity. At one point I had animosity towards the Raiders because I grew up in the Bay Area and they ditched us. That ended when I was able to buy 50 yard line tickets 7 rows from the field for 40 dollars a pop because nobody wanted to see the Raiders-Chiefs Game. Rarely do you get such seats even if it is a battle of the heinousness.

by Built2Spill on Mar 17, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs