Everything Ends In The End

Yes, it sucks that Brian Dawkins' skills have declined to the point the Eagles felt it was time to move on.  Dawk was, is, and forever will be The Man.  No one in Philly is happy that this day has come.

But it's one thing to be bummed about the situation.  It's quite another to direct all that emotion back at the organization in the form of a foot-stamping temper tantrum.

Here's an extremely tame version:

No one knows what the Eagles offered but you have to assume they did make an offer -- based upon Reid's stated optimism at re-signing Dawkins, if nothing else. And if they did make an offer, it means they did want him. The fact that Dawkins went to Denver means that the Eagles wanted him, but only on their terms. That just isn't good enough, not for a franchise with so much money it cannot possibly spend it.

Well, no, it doesn't necessarily mean that at all.  Maybe the Eagles really didn't want Dawk back, but they felt -- for a variety of reasons -- that they had to make him an offer.  If they intended to give him a hint, he sure took it.

The other specific issue there is that the Eagles (reportedly) offered a one-year deal.  Dawk wanted something longer term.  That's also not just about money.

Here's the bottom line.  We all want the organization to do everything it can to put the best possible team on the field.  That's what all those people who consistently say that nothing other than a Super Bowl win matters.

So why does that go out the window, just because the Eagles ended up letting your favorite player go?  Are they supposed to put the best possible team on the field at 21 positions, but grandfather in the free safety?  How long are they required to keep a guy they no longer feel can get the job done, just because he's really, really popular?

Do you want them to keep the guys you like or do you want them to win a Super Bowl?  You can't have it both ways.

Now certainly one could argue the point of just how effective Dawk still can be.  Despite some limitations, he had a pretty good year.  But you're kidding yourself if you think he's remotely the same player he once was.  (Watch a Redskins game next year and keep an eye on LaRon Landry.  That's what Dawk used to be.)

And for those who say his value goes beyond his on-field performance, you're right.  Dawk is one heck of a person, leader and mentor.  I even changed "hell" to "heck" in that last sentence out of respect for his personal aversion to cursing.

The problem is that leadership really only goes so far.  And the Eagles have other leaders.  Are they all of the stature of Dawk?  No.  But, collectively, they're good enough to get the job done. 

Emotions are pretty raw right now, so I'll stop before tying this into my larger theory of the rampant woe-is-meism of modern fans.  But the key point here is that this was a football -- not a business -- decision and if you want to scream at the organization about it, you're basically arguing the Eagles should have entered next season NOT doing everything they think they need to do to win.

If you're ok with that, great.  I'd rather win a Super Bowl.

Yes, even as much as it would suck to do it without #20.