Jump to content

Featured Replies

1 hour ago, Iggles_Phan said:

You believe that they spent pick #65 on a guy to be a backup?    That was plan A?    If that's true, they should fire the lot of them.  But, I don't think that was their intention at all.

What do you think the plan was when they drafted Hurts at 53 right after extending Wentz? 

  • Replies 41k
  • Views 1.1m
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • For those that know me here I wanted to pass on the good news. I will be retiring from fulltime work in October of this year. Looking forward to not working 10 hour days anymore.

  • LeanMeanGM
    LeanMeanGM

    Ok I love the Barkley deal

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

What do you think the plan was when they drafted Hurts at 53 right after extending Wentz? 

A hedge. 

4 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

With how his "will he, won’t he” years and the way his retirement went down this year, he just doesn’t seem like the type of guy that will do a 180. I think he’s done and people should respect his decision instead of trying to make him second guess himself. Not you, just in general. 

Oh he's done IMO. Just playing the game based off of my earlier comment regarding Sirianni's reluctance to name Jurgens the center. 

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

A hedge. 

What about Dallas Goedert at #49 when we had Ertz?

The truth is, you need quality depth as well and hope that they can eventually start. Steen had zero college experience at Guard and didn't see any practice reps there until the senior bowl. It wouldn't be all that smart to expect him to jump right into an NFL starting OG position. Certainly the plan was to develop him there, but clearly his OT experience will pay dividends while he's not a starter. 

7 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

What about Dallas Goedert at #49 when we had Ertz?

The truth is, you need quality depth as well and hope that they can eventually start. Steen had zero college experience at Guard and didn't see any practice reps there until the senior bowl. It wouldn't be all that smart to expect him to jump right into an NFL starting OG position. Certainly the plan was to develop him there, but clearly his OT experience will pay dividends while he's not a starter. 

A smaller hedge plus planning for the future while also planning to run more 12 personnel. 

I don’t disagree with your overall point. But I do think they had higher expectations for Steen than just depth at the time they drafted him. If he weren’t to develop as a starter somewhere in his second year, I think the Eagles FO would secretly admit he’s not meeting expectations they originally thought. 

6 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

A smaller hedge plus planning for the future while also planning to run more 12 personnel. 

I don’t disagree with your overall point. But I do think they had higher expectations for Steen than just depth at the time they drafted him. If he weren’t to develop as a starter somewhere in his second year, I think the Eagles FO would secretly admit he’s not meeting expectations they originally thought. 

I agree. Grabbing a second, complimentary TE versus a backup QB after extending a starting QB is much different. Best case scenario at the time was we have an emergency QB who gains value and we trade him for assets if he plays well in relief. 

I hate the idea of drafting G/T hybrids. I can't remember the last one taken with a high pick who turned into a stud top tier OL. You see it more often with G/C than G/T. Every time I see someone say "The Eagles should draft someone who can play guard and then kick over to tackle when Lane retires." NO. Stop. They should be drafting someone who projects to be a stud tackle or a stud guard, preferably stud tackle since they're a more premium position. And if they can play a little guard, fine, but you aren't drafting a tackle early to play guard. You'd be drafting them to be your OT of the future. And if they can't play guard, that should be fine. The last thing you want to do is be shortsighted and draft a lesser OT prospect simply because he can play some guard now.

It's one of the reasons I disliked the Steen pick. He didn't project as a stud at either guard or tackle. He's a tweener. He has no future as a starter in the NFL. Any players in rounds 1-3 should be taken with the idea in mind they can be long-term starter for you or have top tier potential. You shouldn't be taking players you project as backups with a 3rd rounder.

I know DT is an unpopular choice, but with the current DT on the roster, Fiske could be a terrific fit. He's got a motor that doesn't stop. I really worry about Davis's conditioning and Carter just growing up. Fiske just comes off as a plug and play kind of guy who won't come off the field, hustles on every play and will lead by example. If he's there for one of their 2nd round picks, I'm all for it. 

 

1 hour ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

Was going for an afternoon walk around the neighborhood near me and ran into Zach Ertz. That was pretty cool. 

You ran into him?

Did he fall down pretty easily? 

43 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

I hate the idea of drafting G/T hybrids. I can't remember the last one taken with a high pick who turned into a stud top tier OL. You see it more often with G/C than G/T. Every time I see someone say "The Eagles should draft someone who can play guard and then kick over to tackle when Lane retires." NO. Stop. They should be drafting someone who projects to be a stud tackle or a stud guard, preferably stud tackle since they're a more premium position. And if they can play a little guard, fine, but you aren't drafting a tackle early to play guard. You'd be drafting them to be your OT of the future. And if they can't play guard, that should be fine. The last thing you want to do is be shortsighted and draft a lesser OT prospect simply because he can play some guard now.

It's one of the reasons I disliked the Steen pick. He didn't project as a stud at either guard or tackle. He's a tweener. He has no future as a starter in the NFL. Any players in rounds 1-3 should be taken with the idea in mind they can be long-term starter for you or have top tier potential. You shouldn't be taking players you project as backups with a 3rd rounder.

I do think Steen was likely a reach because maybe we spot starts at RT, maybe he can emerge at RG, maybe he can be a long term Vaitai type.  The possibility of checking a lot of boxes mediocrely made them reach a bit.  Just guessing.  But who knows…maybe he becomes a dominant RG for us.  I just think the flexibility there led to the reach…as you said, less because he can project as a really good starter in one spot.

But there are some caveats.  It may be possible to find value in collegiate OT’s who miss the first pass of top OT prospects…but might actually be more athletic and great projections at OG.  They aren’t necessarily even physical tweeners, but they have value over the top tier OGs.  Shawn Andrews and Todd Herremans were both OT prospects who played most/all of their career at G.

42 minutes ago, 315Eagles said:

You ran into him?

Did he fall down pretty easily? 

Needed to be done, well done.

1 hour ago, bpac55 said:

I know DT is an unpopular choice, but with the current DT on the roster, Fiske could be a terrific fit. He's got a motor that doesn't stop. I really worry about Davis's conditioning and Carter just growing up. Fiske just comes off as a plug and play kind of guy who won't come off the field, hustles on every play and will lead by example. If he's there for one of their 2nd round picks, I'm all for it. 

 

Age is concerning to me, isn’t he 24? 

1 hour ago, Sack that QB said:

I hate the idea of drafting G/T hybrids. I can't remember the last one taken with a high pick who turned into a stud top tier OL. You see it more often with G/C than G/T. Every time I see someone say "The Eagles should draft someone who can play guard and then kick over to tackle when Lane retires." NO. Stop. They should be drafting someone who projects to be a stud tackle or a stud guard, preferably stud tackle since they're a more premium position. And if they can play a little guard, fine, but you aren't drafting a tackle early to play guard. You'd be drafting them to be your OT of the future. And if they can't play guard, that should be fine. The last thing you want to do is be shortsighted and draft a lesser OT prospect simply because he can play some guard now.

It's one of the reasons I disliked the Steen pick. He didn't project as a stud at either guard or tackle. He's a tweener. He has no future as a starter in the NFL. Any players in rounds 1-3 should be taken with the idea in mind they can be long-term starter for you or have top tier potential. You shouldn't be taking players you project as backups with a 3rd rounder.

Shawn Andrews, of course. Todd Herremans. Isaac Seumalo. Zack Martin was a tackle at Notre Dame. You’ve closed the book on Steen, I see. Lots of guys like that. This hybrid notion of yours as being a disqualifier is, well, silly.

1 hour ago, GoEagles614 said:

Best case scenario at the time was we have an emergency QB who gains value

Hurts package.  They didn't do that,  but teams do that with running QBs.

1 hour ago, just relax said:

They should be drafting someone who projects to be a stud tackle

when that player is needed.  Not 4 years before Lane retires.

The Eagles, at this point,  shouldn't be spending top picks on OL.  I'm in favor of having those players,  but it really seems like the Eagles should get combine winners in day 3 and have Stout coach them up.   Maybe they can use a day 3 pick on a pure right guard.   someone who played right guard in college for 4 years and for 4 years before that in high school.   If Steen has difficulty playing right guard,  the day 3 pick should know how to do it.  

However, it's not that clear that the Eagles are leaving large unsolved problems in the roster until the draft.  The Eagles got some good free agents,  holes seem to be filled.  I think it would be good to draft a star CB at 22,  put him in,  he's good enough to play right away,  and he does great and gets a 80 Pff.   And then the CB room has a great rookie for the next 5 years with a 80 Pff,  plus whoever else is there,  but isn't going to be bad or terrible,  because the new guy brought the average up.

And 2 2nd round picks.   Another WR?  But someone says "I want a OL, we have a shortage of backups,  and we want to upgrade."  It's a point with merit.  Wanting better backup OL is a good thing to want.   I'd want Tylan Grable on day 3.  I'd think there would be a right guard available on day 3.   But someone on the Eagles might want an upgrade from right guard 5 to right guard 2.   It's not necessary,  but it's hard to argue against it.  

I might take a DT before an OT in the 2nd.   The Eagles did lose Fletcher,  did not replace him with anybody,  and there is a hole in the roster where Fletcher was.  In theory,  a random 330 pound DT/NT taken from a hat would work.   But why not make that Cox replace DT a good one?   A day1-2 OL isn't going to play, and if he does, it means that a day 2 OL from last year's draft isn't going to play. 

I generally think that a 270-290 pound DE/DT might be useful.  A big, run stopping DE and a gap penetrating rushing DT.  That kind of size.  There might be a good one available around mid 2.    myles cole is on mock draft database at 171 / 5th tyreek johnson on mock draft database at No Results Found. 

 

mylescolevtyreekjohnson.jpg

Ruke Orhorhoro

mock draft database 66 / 3rd round
that's close enough to the 2 mid 2nd round picks the Eagles have.

won the combine / pro day at DT.   Almost the same size as Fletcher Cox,  who just left. 

 




fletchercoxvruke.thumb.jpg.ef8df7976aaeb1affe74a54044a222a1.jpg

3 hours ago, bpac55 said:

I know DT is an unpopular choice, but with the current DT on the roster, Fiske could be a terrific fit. He's got a motor that doesn't stop. I really worry about Davis's conditioning and Carter just growing up. Fiske just comes off as a plug and play kind of guy who won't come off the field, hustles on every play and will lead by example. If he's there for one of their 2nd round picks, I'm all for it. 

 

In the first 90 picks, really an indefensible choice. They just spent two firsts in a row at DT, they have a gaping hole at LB and they need another S and CB. Davis was hurt last year and the entire defense sucked this year. If Davis still has issues this year playing under fangio then sure maybe a top 100 pick in 2025 goes into DT. But this year? Gross misuse of assets.

9 hours ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

I don’t think he’s a lock but their defense was terrible this year. 

That would be a valid excuse if he played well in the games they lost.  He didn't in 4 of them

6 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

A smaller hedge plus planning for the future while also planning to run more 12 personnel. 

I don’t disagree with your overall point. But I do think they had higher expectations for Steen than just depth at the time they drafted him. If he weren’t to develop as a starter somewhere in his second year, I think the Eagles FO would secretly admit he’s not meeting expectations they originally thought. 

Seems like a gross overreaction

9 hours ago, brkmsn said:

I still believe Steen was drafted with the expectation that Driscoll would be leaving in free agency and Steen would be here for 3 more seasons to be a versatile backup. I believe they will draft an IOL in round 1 or 2 this year to find their next RG. 

I think Steen was drafted as project, he played left tackle for Bama, but he needed work on his technique and footwork for the pros, after a year with Stout he could go either way as a back up swing tackle or kick inside to start at right guard.

Not sure why you (and others) are so hung up on the round he was drafted, Guards that go in the first round are pretty rare beasts, and starting guard who are 3rd round and later are pretty common around the league

8 hours ago, bpac55 said:

I know DT is an unpopular choice, but with the current DT on the roster, Fiske could be a terrific fit. He's got a motor that doesn't stop. I really worry about Davis's conditioning and Carter just growing up. Fiske just comes off as a plug and play kind of guy who won't come off the field, hustles on every play and will lead by example. If he's there for one of their 2nd round picks, I'm all for it. 

 

Yep. 

Wouldn't be shocked by Newton if he is on the board too.

The birds are chirping. The crows are cawing. The sky is cloudy.  And this just might be a beautiful day for signing Justin Simmons. 

9 hours ago, brkmsn said:

What do you think the plan was when they drafted Hurts at 53 right after extending Wentz? 

Apples... Oranges.   But, nice try.

9 hours ago, brkmsn said:

What about Dallas Goedert at #49 when we had Ertz?

The truth is, you need quality depth as well and hope that they can eventually start. Steen had zero college experience at Guard and didn't see any practice reps there until the senior bowl. It wouldn't be all that smart to expect him to jump right into an NFL starting OG position. Certainly the plan was to develop him there, but clearly his OT experience will pay dividends while he's not a starter. 

Goedert was drafted to be Ertz' replacement.  

 

Yes, you need quality depth, but it is RIDICULOUS to use premium draft choices to acquire 'quality depth' and ignore the fact that quality 'depth' is only valuable if you have quality STARTERS ahead of them.   We saw last year that you need to build the FULL roster of starters too.  We had about 17 quality starters on the field last year.   You need 22.   They don't all need to be all-pro, but they need to be starting caliber.   We were missing about 5 of those last year.

10 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Goedert was drafted to be Ertz' replacement.  

 

Yes, you need quality depth, but it is RIDICULOUS to use premium draft choices to acquire 'quality depth' and ignore the fact that quality 'depth' is only valuable if you have quality STARTERS ahead of them.   We saw last year that you need to build the FULL roster of starters too.  We had about 17 quality starters on the field last year.   You need 22.   They don't all need to be all-pro, but they need to be starting caliber.   We were missing about 5 of those last year.

And if steen was drafted to potentially replace Lane, why get hung up on his lack of playing time?

the draft is 90% about the long term

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.