1 hour ago, MrFadedGlory said:

And picking up blitzes, and reading him the user manual on a Microsoft surface pro, and smiling, and cheering, and rooting, 

Or he’s giving advice on how to ignore moron fans

On 3/30/2024 at 10:29 AM, NYEagle said:

So I have a cap question to the Capaleers on here....You have Kelce and Cox retiring, Bradberry and now Reddick.....I know (or think) you get 2 Post June 1st designations.......between these 4......what is the best way to use these designations not only to create cap space this year, but in '25?  

If I understand, we almost have to use them on Cox and Kelce and that would free up around 3mm this year getting them off the books.  Do we keep Bradberry on the team and just cut him June 1 or just keep him?  And now with the Reddick trade, I don't think we'd have any other designations to use???

 

On 3/30/2024 at 10:36 AM, Iggles_Phan said:

Reddick doesn't count in this equation anymore.  His money for 2025 accelerates up to 2024, so he has no cost for 2025.  He's essentially a net zero change for 2024 (due to the $1M bonus he got) - and costs about $300k more in 2024, but no cost in 2025.

So, I think it comes down to Kelce, Cox and Bradberry (if he's cut/traded).  

I’m catching up since I’ve been down with the flu, so this may have been answered….

 

Without looking at any numbers to weigh the pros and cons… Kelce and Cox don’t need to use a designation with their salary structure.  You just submit the paperwork of their retirement after June 1.  They can be carried with minimal impact (I think it was a combined 3 million difference with having them on the roster and a post June 1 retirement). 

7 hours ago, Saltpeter said:

A lot of the mock drafts I've seen, it seems like the Eagles' 2nds are in the sweet spot for WRs. To the point that they seem BPA almost every time. I don't expect them to make both picks, but if they do...

What do we think about a WR in the 2nd?

I wouldn't be mad at a WR in the 1st depending on how the players fall. 

10 hours ago, RLC said:

If you're upset that Reddick is not an Eagle in 2024, be mad at Haasan. He choose money over winning, which is his right.

Mad at another man for wanting more money? Really? 

9 hours ago, wussbasket said:

 

This assumption that he will improve even more with increased snaps and usage is some of the worse logic since Roob. That's not how it works. Lower them expectations a bit folks.

3 minutes ago, judunno said:

This assumption that he will improve even more with increased snaps and usage is some of the worse logic since Roob. That's not how it works. Lower them expectations a bit folks.

Agreed! I know it’s an easy correlation to make but I don’t agree with it. If he’s asked to pay more than he’s going to be more of a focus for the offense and he’s going to potentially wear down more. Rotation is better I think and that’s what this defense has done over the last couple of years.

3 minutes ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

Agreed! I know it’s an easy correlation to make but I don’t agree with it. If he’s asked to pay more than he’s going to be more of a focus for the offense and he’s going to potentially wear down more. Rotation is better I think and that’s what this defense has done over the last couple of years.

There's freshness, but there's also situations.  If he's being used in different situations than the past, it would be foolish to expect the same types of results.   And, if he's used in those situations in addition to the ones that he excelled in last year, he may be worn down on the ones where he was more effective and as a result his overall production could actually drop.  He's a risk.  He's going to be asked to do much more than he was in NY.  We'll see how he responds to the new role and the increased work load.  BUT... I am not expecting him to hit double digit sacks.  If he does, I will be pleasantly surprised.

16 hours ago, just relax said:

He had seven sacks in three games and four in the other 14.

There was times last year where i completely forgot he was on the team and i only noticed him when he overcommitted to the pass rush and was wildly out of position.  Like the team last year, his level of play was like a rollercoaster.   Was he bad? No, but he also wasn’t consistently good.  

 In all reality there was very few players who were consistent on this team all of last year (Cox, Kelce, Smith, Swift).

11 minutes ago, judunno said:

Mad at another man for wanting more money? Really? 

The noise started 1 year after signing a 3-year deal. There's a difference between playing out a contract and looking for the big raise on the next one and making it known you are unhappy because the cap went up and other players keep raising the bar right after you were supposedly happy. 

Few players like getting the Franchise tag despite the money being fair. They don't like it because it doesn't offer any long-term security. So they'd rather sign a multi-year deal that ensures they'll get paid beyond 1 season in the case they get hurt in the upcoming season. But if you are going to be fickle about your fair market value every year, then simply sign 1 year deals every year. You can't have it both ways. 

2 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

The noise started 1 year after signing a 3-year deal. There's a difference between playing out a contract and looking for the big raise on the next one and making it known you are unhappy because the cap went up and other players keep raising the bar right after you were supposedly happy. 

Few players like getting the Franchise tag despite the money being fair. They don't like it because it doesn't offer any long-term security. So they'd rather sign a multi-year deal that ensures they'll get paid beyond 1 season in the case they get hurt in the upcoming season. But if you are going to be fickle about your fair market value every year, then simply sign 1 year deals every year. You can't have it both ways. 

If you're creeping up on 30 and you know the NFL has a problem paying folks in their 30s. What would you do

10 minutes ago, judunno said:

If you're creeping up on 30 and you know the NFL has a problem paying folks in their 30s. What would you do

Don't sign a 3-year deal at 27?

2 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

Don't sign a 3-year deal at 27?

So don't get money? Got it.

8 hours ago, Saltpeter said:

A lot of the mock drafts I've seen, it seems like the Eagles' 2nds are in the sweet spot for WRs. To the point that they seem BPA almost every time. I don't expect them to make both picks, but if they do...

What do we think about a WR in the 2nd?

Roman Wilson.

7 hours ago, Next_Up said:

Or he’s giving advice on how to ignore moron fans

I would hope they aren't focused on fans. 

I wonder if any WRs joined them in these workouts or if those guys are working with a QB who won't consistently under throw them. 

Just now, judunno said:

So don't get money? Got it.

If you want security you take less money. Anytime you want top dollar, a team is going to want an out. There's an understanding. Reddick got good pay for 3 years on his current contract at the time of the signing. It was not top dollar. But who outplayed his contract more, Reddick or Parsons? The difference between the two is no team had exclusive rights to sign Reddick when he chose to sign with the Eagles. He had every opportunity at that point to seek out every dollar. He chose to sign those terms that he now doesn't like. Boo-freakin'-hoo.

Maybe Howie gets serious on April fools day and signs Justin Simmons.

Just now, HazletonEagle said:

Maybe Howie gets serious on April fools day and signs Justin Simmons.

I think Howie likes our current safeties.

3 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

If you want security you take less money. Anytime you want top dollar, a team is going to want an out. There's an understanding. Reddick got good pay for 3 years on his current contract at the time of the signing. It was not top dollar. But who outplayed his contract more, Reddick or Parsons? The difference between the two is no team had exclusive rights to sign Reddick when he chose to sign with the Eagles. He had every opportunity at that point to seek out every dollar. He chose to sign those terms that he now doesn't like. Boo-freakin'-hoo.

Makes no sense. After a big year in a 3 year deal the Agent is supposed to start putting the bug in a team's ear. It's only a 3 year deal. He's not doing his job if he doesn't start talking extension in year 2 of the deal. It's not that he was going to get a new deal that year but he's priming things for the next negotiation which creeps up fast as it did. The difference between Parson's and Reddick is 1 Parsons is better. 2. Parsons is much younger. Not even comparable.

2 minutes ago, judunno said:

Makes no sense. After a big year in a 3 year deal the Agent is supposed to start putting the bug in a team's ear. It's only a 3 year deal. He's not doing his job if he doesn't start talking extension in year 2 of the deal. It's not that he was going to get a new deal that year but he's priming things for the next negotiation which creeps up fast as it did. The difference between Parson's and Reddick is 1 Parsons is better. 2. Parsons is much younger. Not even comparable.

No, the biggest difference between the two is Parsons had no say in his situation and Reddick had every say in his. 

46 minutes ago, judunno said:

This assumption that he will improve even more with increased snaps and usage is some of the worse logic since Roob. That's not how it works. Lower them expectations a bit folks.

It’s an assumption backed by data and scouting. Two things the FO feels they have good systems in place for and trust. It’s not like they are signing him and hoping for the best.

2 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

No, the biggest difference between the two is Parsons had no say in his situation and Reddick had every say in his. 

Just going to ignore the part where I said that the agent is supposed to do his job in year 2 of the deal right? :) Parson's and Reddick are in totally different stages of their careers. Not even sure why you're bringing him up. Do you not agree that the agent is supposed to start putting in work after a year 1 of a 3 year contract 2 get the talks going in year 2 in hopes of an extension for year 3? That's how the business works. Eagles decided not to play and moved him.

Still about 10 pages behind, but wanted to offer a pair counter points to what I read about the Reddick trade.  This is doesnt mean I feel one way or another (I'm pretty meh on it), just wanted to offer a different perspective.

 

What's the point of getting a third round pick when we could have just let him play out his contract and collect that COMP PICKZZZZZZ

I'm going to put salary cap implications aside for a second (gasp!)....

1) Comp picks are not guaranteed.  We have no way of knowing if he will for sure get us that 3rd.  We have been disappointed in the past.  This locks in a pick better than any comp pick than we could have got, even if the Jets win it all in 2025.

2) Comp picks are not guaranteed, part 2.  If we are projected to gain more FA's that year than lose, unless the Eagles win it all this year, we lose him anyway and get nothing.    

3) Comp picks are limited.  If we are projected to lose more FAs that year, in theory this allows us to gather an additional comp pick than if we kept him.

 

 

A future 3rd is a current 4th!!!

All draft classes being equal (they aren't but we don't know how 2026's stacks up against this years so pretend they are virtually equal), a pick is a pick is a pick.  The reason you see teams that trade for a current year pick and give away a future year pick is they have no leverage.  Their guy is sitting right there and they don't have assets in the current draft to get him.  So the team that makes the trade with them requests a future pick higher so no matter what happens they end up with more draft capital, not because a future pick is worth less.

So unless the intent is to flip that pick this year or next to move up, a 3rd is a 3rd.

8 minutes ago, wussbasket said:

It’s an assumption backed by data and scouting. Two things the FO feels they have good systems in place for and trust. It’s not like they are signing him and hoping for the best.

It's a terrible assumption. Efficiencies go down with an increase in sample size more often than not. All we can do is hope but there's no data that guarantees anything when the sample sizes are small like in this case. No one knows what he would do with more snaps because he hasn't done it.  I'll believe it when I see it. This is the same FO that had good systems in place and trust that signed Bradberry to a lucrative deal and he was already in house. Further, there may be a good reason why the Jets limited his snaps. We'll soon see. I'm just not going to set the bar high for this guy as it's not really fair given he's coming into a totally new system with new responsibilities and an increased role that he's not accustomed to.

4 minutes ago, judunno said:

Just going to ignore the part where I said that the agent is supposed to do his job in year 2 of the deal right? 🙂 Parson's and Reddick are in totally different stages of their careers. Not even sure why you're bringing him up. Do you not agree that the agent is supposed to start putting in work after a year 1 of a 3 year contract 2 get the talks going in year 2 in hopes of an extension for year 3? That's how the business works. Eagles decided not to play and moved him.

Reddick isn't the only player in the NFL with an agent. I have no problem with the business side of football. But as a player, when you start to use "malcontent" as a weapon for negotiations as opposed to using free agency, there's a bit of a red flag. It's better to part ways.

The Eagles didn't appear opposed to extending Reddick or giving him a raise. The two sides just weren't close enough together to get there. Playing out the current contract is the best move for Reddick. Free agency will drive up his price if he continues to perform at his current level. Waiting another year will only see the bar go up. If he were extended now, in two seasons he'd be in the same boat.

13 minutes ago, paco said:

Still about 10 pages behind, but wanted to offer a pair counter points to what I read about the Reddick trade.  This is doesnt mean I feel one way or another (I'm pretty meh on it), just wanted to offer a different perspective.

 

What's the point of getting a third round pick when we could have just let him play out his contract and collect that COMP PICKZZZZZZ

I'm going to put salary cap implications aside for a second (gasp!)....

1) Comp picks are not guaranteed.  We have no way of knowing if he will for sure get us that 3rd.  We have been disappointed in the past.  This locks in a pick better than any comp pick than we could have got, even if the Jets win it all in 2025.

2) Comp picks are not guaranteed, part 2.  If we are projected to gain more FA's that year than lose, unless the Eagles win it all this year, we lose him anyway and get nothing.    

3) Comp picks are limited.  If we are projected to lose more FAs that year, in theory this allows us to gather an additional comp pick than if we kept him.

 

 

A future 3rd is a current 4th!!!

All draft classes being equal (they aren't but we don't know how 2026's stacks up against this years so pretend they are virtually equal), a pick is a pick is a pick.  The reason you see teams that trade for a current year pick and give away a future year pick is they have no leverage.  Their guy is sitting right there and they don't have assets in the current draft to get him.  So the team that makes the trade with them requests a future pick higher so no matter what happens they end up with more draft capital, not because a future pick is worth less.

So unless the intent is to flip that pick this year or next to move up, a 3rd is a 3rd.

I understand the theory behind future picks being less valuable, but I was listening to Sheil break down the trade and he said the Eagles essentially got a 2025 conditional 5 based on how teams devalue future picks by a round each year. That’s just asinine. 

I have no idea how much to devalue future picks, but I will always take the higher pick, even if it’s two years in the future.