2 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

I feel very strongly that the holdup is a team not wanting to pay Reddick the money he wants. If his market two years ago was weak, I don't see why it would be strong now when he's two years older. And if a team isn't willing to pay him, they aren't going to trade for him since that is the reason he's being shopped in the first place. They'd just inherit the contract unhappiness he has here, otherwise. If teams wanted him he'd be traded already. Look how fast the Brian Burns deal came together.

Maybe some team will panic and get desperate, but I don't see it. Also, it has to be a scheme fit. Reddick isn't a hand in the ground prototypical edge rusher. So it needs to be a guy that fits a certain system on top of them liking the player.

It's a tough spot at this stage where a lot of the spending has already happened. No team wants to really give up significant draft assets AND spend big money on an extension. Double whammy. 

4 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

I feel very strongly that the holdup is a team not wanting to pay Reddick the money he wants. If his market two years ago was weak, I don't see why it would be strong now when he's two years older. And if a team isn't willing to pay him, they aren't going to trade for him since that is the reason he's being shopped in the first place. They'd just inherit the contract unhappiness he has here, otherwise. If teams wanted him he'd be traded already. Look how fast the Brian Burns deal came together.

Maybe some team will panic and get desperate, but I don't see it. Also, it has to be a scheme fit. Reddick isn't a hand in the ground prototypical edge rusher. So it needs to be a guy that fits a certain system on top of them liking the player.

I’d bet the opposite. There are teams that will pay him more than the Eagles but the trade compensation is the hold up. Same thing happened with Ertz. And once Burns went just for a 2nd, same thing is going to happen here. 

3 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I think it has to be B. I just don’t get scenario A. If they were making progress on a restructure or extension, why not just pay the $1M as an offer of good faith? They could just include that small bonus in whatever they would eventually agree to. It’s not like it has any significant cap ramifications considering they still have a boat load of space. 

Adding that extra $1 million to the guaranteed money looks better?

11 minutes ago, judunno said:

You do realize that you're contradicting yourself right. You've said several times already that the 16 sacks was an outlier. If that's the case isn't the 11 around what he was expected to do? If that's the case where's the regression? You're sample size of one year doesn't make logical sense. I'll let you figure out what fallacy you're committing. This is some Reuben Frank type logic that you're putting out there.

Are you on drugs, no, seriously. You just continue to deny the facts while making excuses, stating your opinion, and now just flat out making up BS to try to talk your way out of way being caught with a stupid and incorrect statement. 

Whether 11 is more in line with Reddick's career numbers or not has nothing to do with the fact that it is 5 / 31% less sack production from the 16 he had in 2022. Hence a regression, which you have and continue to deny because you would rather double and triple down than admit you were factually incorrect.  They don't call it "regression toward the mean" for no reason.

"I don't think Reddick regressed at all."

You've been proven wrong over and over and over again and no amount of word salad or excuses will get you out of it. Take the L and move on 🤡

5 minutes ago, T-1000 said:

Are you on drugs, no, seriously. You just continue to deny the facts while making excuses, stating your opinion, and now just flat out making up BS to try to talk your way out of way being caught with a stupid and incorrect statement. 

Whether 11 is more in line with Reddick's career numbers or not has nothing to do with the fact that it is 5 / 31% less sack production from the 16 he had in 2022. Hence a regression, which you have and continue to deny because you would rather double and triple down than admit you were factually incorrect.  They don't call it "regression toward the mean" for no reason.

"I don't think Reddick regressed at all."

You've been proven wrong over and over and over again and no amount of word salad or excuses will get you out of it. Take the L and move on 🤡

We're not talking about the same thing is the problem lol. You're talking 1 year production. I'm talking his career especially his last 4. No L to take when you don't know what you're arguing.

12 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I’d bet the opposite. There are teams that will pay him more than the Eagles but the trade compensation is the hold up. Same thing happened with Ertz. And once Burns went just for a 2nd, same thing is going to happen here. 

I really don't think so, usually once the contract is agreed to in these kinds of trades, the draft compensation usually comes together very quickly. I think Howie signed Huff with the idea that he'd probably trade Reddick or Sweat and he probably has a good idea already of what teams would give up for Reddick. I don't think the draft compensation haggling will be an issue.

When the reports said the Eagles are allowing him to go out and find a team willing to pay him, I think if a team was willing to pay him there'd be far more buzz and rumors swirling about teams that are interested. The closest we've got to any kind of a rumor is that Jake Rabadi guy saying "The Falcons have some interest." But not one national reporter has reported anything remotely close to something like "____ team has significant interest in Haason Reddick and they hope to be able to strike a deal." The fact this hasn't happened tells me that no deal is remotely close and no deal remotely close probably means no teams are super interested, and that's probably because of his price tag. I think the Eagles just want this resolved and are ready and willing to deal him if and when a team gives him the money he wants.

6 minutes ago, judunno said:

We're not talking about the same thing is the problem lol. You're talking 1 year production. I'm talking his career especially his last 5. No L to take when you don't know what you're arguing.

Did you or did you not say:

"I don't think Reddick regressed at all," in response to me saying he wasn't as good last year?

At no point did you say "he didn't regress compared to the rest of his career." That is a really weak and pathetic attempt to try to remove your foot from your mouth.

Is 11 factually significantly less sacks than the 16 he had in 2022?

Would a factual decrease of 5 sacks or 31% less for a pass rusher be  not only a regression but a significant one.

Again, keep making excuses and trying to throw out as much word salad as you like but you said something that was factually wrong and got called out for it and you are exposing yourself as a total fraud by not admitting it.

 

 

 

1 minute ago, T-1000 said:

Did you or did you not say:

"I don't think Reddick regressed at all," in response to me saying he wasn't as good last year? 

Is 11 factually significantly less sacks than the 16 he had in 2022?

Would a factual decrease of 5 sacks or 31% less for a pass rusher be  not only a regression but a significant one.

Again, keep making excuses and trying to throw out as much word salad as you like but you said something that was factually wrong and got called out for it and you are exposing yourself as a total fraud by not admitting it.

 

 

 

Once again you're caught up on the 1 year. Did he have less sacks this in 2023 than in 2022 yes no crap sherlock. You're not saying anything profound. Everyone and their momma knows that the Eagles defense took a tremendous step back in 2023. Full body of work says the man didn't regress and he played on par for what he's been consistently doing for the last 4 or so years since teams figured out how to use him. Played at a high level putting up double digit sacks despite all of the things that were against him in 2023. I'll take a consistent 10-12 sacks all day every day. Add in the fact that he's not a total liability against the run and you have a guy I'd like to see stick around for a few more years.

I don't think regression or progression should be decided purely by statistical benchmarks. Not in a sport as nuanced as the NFL. For example there might be a season one year where a player got 12 sacks the year before and then the next year only gets 9, but played against much better offensive lines and saw a significant increase in double teams. That doesn't mean they played worse per se, the numbers don't always directly reflect how good you were.

26 minutes ago, judunno said:

Adding that extra $1 million to the guaranteed money looks better?

I’m not even sure what you’re asking but the point is if they were close to giving him money/more money, they could have just paid a small portion of money now. 

17 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

I don't think regression or progression should be decided purely by statistical benchmarks. Not in a sport as nuanced as the NFL. For example there might be a season one year where a player got 12 sacks the year before and then the next year only gets 9, but played against much better offensive lines and saw a significant increase in double teams. That doesn't mean they played worse per se, the numbers don't always directly reflect how good you were.

Regression isn’t the central issue.  The Eagles kept Cox to age 33 and Brandon Graham is still around and about to turn 36.  The issue is Reddick wanting $25M per season at age 30+.  Most of the highest paid edge rushers are 26-27 years old.

33 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I’m not even sure what you’re asking but the point is if they were close to giving him money/more money, they could have just paid a small portion of money now. 

21 million looks better than 20 million guaranteed when you hear the contract numbers is all I'm saying :)

17 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Regression isn’t the central issue.  The Eagles kept Cox to age 33 and Brandon Graham is still around and about to turn 36.  The issue is Reddick wanting $25M per season at age 30+.  Most of the highest paid edge rushers are 26-27 years old.

He's not getting $25M anywhere at 29. Is that the rumor of what they are asking?

8 hours ago, T-1000 said:

You keep failing to take into account what a difference going from two morons at DC to one of the best in the league in recent years will do for the defense. Huff replaces Reddick, you know, the guy who had a whopping one less sack in like 300 less snaps last season. 2023 was an outlier for Reddick, he's a 10-12 sack guy which Huff should easily provide and possibly even more with a bigger role. 

Huff more than likely had limited snaps for a reason.  We can’t expect his production just to automatically increase with more snaps.  More snaps can just as easily be detrimental to his production.  
 

Now he may become a player that can handle a larger role…I just don’t think we can assume it’s an automatic thing

9 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Lane Johnson doesn’t stand a chance trying to block Xavier Worthy 

He doesn't have to because he can play QB.

9 hours ago, Iggles25 said:

Dave's Hot Chicken is delicious.

We just got one here and I haven't been over to try it yet. Need to do that.

8 hours ago, Sack that QB said:

Reddick has been a top 5 edge rusher in terms of production in the NFL for 5 years. He has a proven track record. Huff has yet to prove he’s not a one year wonder. We can’t just assume Huff will replace his production. Reddick is damn good and has been really good for years now, those guys don’t grow on trees.

Reddick broke out with double digit sacks in his 4th year after 7.5 sacks in his first 3 years, Huff had 7.5 sacks across his first 3 years and broke out with double digit sacks in his 4th year . The Eagles are betting the light went on,  maybe they're wrong, but it's worth a punt.

3 minutes ago, Cochis_Calhoun said:

Reddick broke out with double digit sacks in his 4th year after 7.5 sacks in his first 3 years, Huff had 7.5 sacks across his first 3 years and broke out with double digit sacks in his 4th year . The Eagles are betting the light went on,  maybe they're wrong, but it's worth a punt.

Seems like a huge overpay on Huff…

do we have a real breakdown of his contract?

35 minutes ago, McMVP said:

Huff more than likely had limited snaps for a reason.  We can’t expect his production just to automatically increase with more snaps.  More snaps can just as easily be detrimental to his production.  
 

Now he may become a player that can handle a larger role…I just don’t think we can assume it’s an automatic thing

the reason seeemd to be their fantastic depth along the DL.

6 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Seems like a huge overpay on Huff…

do we have a real breakdown of his contract?

In terms of AAV it barely gets him into the top 20 of edge rushers, he's basically getting the same as guys like Landry and Greenard got after a double digit 4th year.  Every contracts a bet, if he keeps up double digit sacks he's cheap, if he reverts to 5 or 6 a year he's slightly overpaid.

 

10 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Saying a 5’11 165lb guy should play edge isn’t even good trolling. It’s a waste of bandwidth. 

Which was exactly his point. All those RAS posts are a waste.

4 minutes ago, just relax said:

Which was exactly his point. All those RAS posts are a waste.

The guy who @LeanMeanGM responded to was... but our local RAS aficionado posts RAS scores like they are meaningful and relevant.  His trolling has gotten particularly obtuse and lacks the creativity it once possessed.  Now he's just a cartoon. 

RAS is a good tool, but athleticism is not the end all be all. The Colts and Packers aren't dominating the NFL.

Freakbeast update: