2 hours ago, Crazy Legs said:

Bottom line...the intrigue will carryover into the next offseason.

Rgardless, I think we will of necessity need to draft a tight end on day 2 to groom for the future.

Right now? What you state seems accurate. Just saying”hold off for a minute on all those conclusions.” Let’s see if we uncover one of these unproven options Rosie has stacked up looking to do just that at the position. I like the plan. It was a good TE class….but felt like league wide need at the position kind of pushed every prospect up maybe a little higher than we wanted to fork over. Played some hardball with Goedert….but he didn’t just fold…he took a discount…with bonus options involved. Calcattarra really looks like a guy the more snaps we give…the more he’ll start producing. If he starts producing too much it will actually cost us. But both starter and number two TE are options to retain in the future. This is so very likely it for Goedert here though. Calc? Easily could be retained. But….whole thing is I like the plan looking at the present…but also the future. Rosie understands the need for the future. He really loaded up on all these unproven options with potential. The way he played the whole situation at TE this offseason seems fairly transparent on his thinking …to me anyway.

2 hours ago, Crazy Legs said:

Bottom line...the intrigue will carryover into the next offseason.

Rgardless, I think we will of necessity need to draft a tight end on day 2 to groom for the future.

Really you are probably correct. Maybe I’m being overly optimistic here. Be great though if we do find another avenue than spending that high draft pick.

2 hours ago, mattwill said:

Agreed on both points. The challenge in the Draft is finding a player who is both a plus receiver AND a (potentially) plus inline blocker. We may by necessity migrate away from a TE oriented Offensive scheme to an H-Back oriented scheme. If that happens, in a 2 TE set the non-motion TE could end up being a 6th O-Lineman.

Think you have just be detailed in whatever you do. Specifically cater towards the abilities of the personnel you are working with. There isn’t just one way to get victories in football.

2 hours ago, mattwill said:

Ham, given your obsession with Offense, what is your assessment of Lyle’s analysis in his tweet?

Seems like everybody sees things there way on this play. The play caught them. Like I’ve been saying…that receiving role past the top two of AJ and Smitty should be absolutely ideal. Third WR and TEs should be drawing easy matchups fairly consistently. S decided to charge after Goedert. Any heat any other receiving options take off Smitty and AJ is huge for this O. That S decided and made is break right when it felt obvious (no doubt in hindsight at least) that Smitty had beat the CB. What should have happened is a switch. S needed to realize CB was beat and switch over the top on Smitty. That would have allowed the CB to roll off back on the TE…he actually could have still covered. Now…the S looked like he might have been up in a bit more of a Robber duty role in that playcall. No way to actually know for sure. The thing is….what are you going to do against us? Hard to be doubling Smitty all game playing us.

2 hours ago, mattwill said:

Ham, given your obsession with Offense, what is your assessment of Lyle’s analysis in his tweet?

The genius of Kellen Moore feels like he missed what he even showed you right in that clip. Siri made that call. Totally his personality and style. He wanted The Dagger! I can appreciate that some with Siri. Let’s face it…everything doesn’t look like as risky and bad of an idea when it works.

2 hours ago, mattwill said:

Ham, given your obsession with Offense, what is your assessment of Lyle’s analysis in his tweet?

Might have let you down in my response. Think I spoke more from the D perspective.

2 hours ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

We may go to a FULLback scheme. We seem to like VS

We aren’t going to a FB scheme. It is possible we actually use a FB personnel package to run a few plays though. Clearly something they’ve been considering. Part of the thinking about that option also I believe revolves around the ability to run The Brotherly Shove. There has been an understanding the commish was trying to ban the play. Goodell came up a little short attempting to thwart us however. I’m sure he isn’t done though. He has massive million dollar antic teams that can break down every nuisance of every phase to figure out any specific areas we have advantages in. Fairly likely he attacks Rosie Void year contracts. Something we rely on more than any other team. Probably hurt is worse than banning The Brotherly Shove to be honest. Want put an immediate stop to us. But will really sting us trying to extend out on our Dynasty run.

9 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Seems like everybody sees things there way on this play. The play caught them. Like I’ve been saying…that receiving role past the top two of AJ and Smitty should be absolutely ideal. Third WR and TEs should be drawing easy matchups fairly consistently. S decided to charge after Goedert. Any heat any other receiving options take off Smitty and AJ is huge for this O. That S decided and made is break right when it felt obvious (no doubt in hindsight at least) that Smitty had beat the CB. What should have happened is a switch. S needed to realize CB was beat and switch over the top on Smitty. That would have allowed the CB to roll off back on the TE…he actually could have still covered. Now…the S looked like he might have been up in a bit more of a Robber duty role in that playcall. No way to actually know for sure. The thing is….what are you going to do against us? Hard to be doubling Smitty all game playing us.

Given the success that the Eagles O had, is there any reason to change the plays?

Thinking on our Dynasty run I believe we are in the middle of: seemed like the predominant thinking revolved around the QB rookie contract as that window to win the SB.(Brady and Mahomes been there doing it much…but still has been a very widely used philosophy). See…don’t think it’s so much that…as the combination. For us…looking squarely at Jalen Carter. So far seems like I’m the only one here realizing just how much we are going to need to fork over for him. Carter’s rookie contract I’d say such a major factor on our championship window. {Really all lines up with just so many things going on with this organization. Saquan and Lane….}

9 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Given the success that the Eagles O had, is there any reason to change the plays?

Always. I keep stressing how we really were just getting there at the last second last season also. Felt like Moore wrestled back control of the O much more with that Steelers game and after. Stagnant is going backwards in the NFL I’ve always felt.

But…if we aren’t changing the plays? Then that’s just more and more proof surrounding it being Siri’s O all along like I’ve been telling you. Really just not sure how the Patullo/Siri run O dynamic is going to work out. On one hand? Really wasn’t happy with that being the choice. But on the other hand think it’s also kind of been the plan. Really feeling strongly on the assumption it was all a big plan setup by Rosie here. Tricked Moore into coming here to do what we desperately needed. Moore and Coach Doug had the ability to do the actual coaching/teaching the O needed…while expanding Siri’s playbook so massively. Built and coached us into running much more of an actual legit O scheme.

3 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

We aren’t going to a FB scheme. It is possible we actually use a FB personnel package to run a few plays though. Clearly something they’ve been considering. Part of the thinking about that option also I believe revolves around the ability to run The Brotherly Shove. There has been an understanding the commish was trying to ban the play. Goodell came up a little short attempting to thwart us however. I’m sure he isn’t done though. He has massive million dollar antic teams that can break down every nuisance of every phase to figure out any specific areas we have advantages in. Fairly likely he attacks Rosie Void year contracts. Something we rely on more than any other team. Probably hurt is worse than banning The Brotherly Shove to be honest. Want put an immediate stop to us. But will really sting us trying to extend out on our Dynasty run.

Goodell will have a very powerful opponent if he tries to go after the Void years … the NFL Players Association. The players LOVE the void years. Void years mean more cash earlier for the players. More cash is better. Earlier cash is better. Some of the owners are whispering in Goodell’s ears … the ones who are tight with their cash, but it is a minority of the owners. And unlike the tush push effort, banning Void years would take BOTH a vote of the owners AND agreement with the Players Association to write it into the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

I feel like we need somebody that can continue to build and add to the O. But at least it’s so much further than where it was. But just began scratching the surface of untapping this O potential in my opinion. Easy to make an argument about how good our O has been…but that would just be missing understanding just what the O is capable of.

19 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Given the success that the Eagles O had, is there any reason to change the plays?

I’m not assuming a repeat season is in store for Saquan. That’s just a huge consideration on square one of things. Want to be optimistic….but I’m too much a realist to ignore.

2 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Goodell will have a very powerful opponent if he tries to go after the Void years … the NFL Players Association. The players LOVE the void years. Void years mean more cash earlier for the players. More cash is better. Earlier cash is better. Some of the owners are whispering in Goodell’s ears … the ones who are tight with their cash, but it is a minority of the owners. And unlike the tush push effort, banning Void years would take BOTH a vote of the owners AND agreement with the Players Association to write it into the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

I’m not so sure the Players Union can stop him on this though.

5 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Goodell will have a very powerful opponent if he tries to go after the Void years … the NFL Players Association. The players LOVE the void years. Void years mean more cash earlier for the players. More cash is better. Earlier cash is better. Some of the owners are whispering in Goodell’s ears … the ones who are tight with their cash, but it is a minority of the owners. And unlike the tush push effort, banning Void years would take BOTH a vote of the owners AND agreement with the Players Association to write it into the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Thing is he actually doesn’t even need to win the battle. Think he might have a way he can take Void years away with the league office powers. Then the NFLPA could fight it. But really Goodell just needs to get us for a couple of seasons.

2 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Always. I keep stressing how we really were just getting there at the last second last season also. Felt like Moore wrestled back control of the O much more with that Steelers game and after. Stagnant is going backwards in the NFL I’ve always felt.

But…if we aren’t changing the plays? Then that’s just more and more proof surrounding it being Siri’s O all along like I’ve been telling you. Really just not sure how the Patullo/Siri run O dynamic is going to work out. On one hand? Really wasn’t happy with that being the choice. But on the other hand think it’s also kind of been the plan. Really feeling strongly on the assumption it was all a big plan setup by Rosie here. Tricked Moore into coming here to do what we desperately needed. Moore and Coach Doug had the ability to do the actual coaching/teaching the O needed…while expanding Siri’s playbook so massively. Built and coached us into running much more of an actual legit O scheme.

Your obsession with generating Offensive points ignores three key realities (1) points margin does not figure anywhere into the NFL standings. (2) the Eagles had the second largest scoring margin in the NFL 10.9 points per game, behind only the Lions at 11.6. Increasing it gains nothing. (3) opponents really hate and remember teams that run up the score. Why piss off the rest of the League?

1 minute ago, mattwill said:

Your obsession with generating Offensive points ignores three key realities (1) points margin does not figure anywhere into the NFL standings. (2) the Eagles had the second largest scoring margin in the NFL 10.9 points per game, behind only the Lions at 11.6. Increasing it gains nothing. (3) opponents really hate and remember teams that run up the score. Why piss off the rest of the League?

Let’s just start with: you think the target on our backs can get any bigger?

10 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I feel like we need somebody that can continue to build and add to the O. But at least it’s so much further than where it was. But just began scratching the surface of untapping this O potential in my opinion. Easy to make an argument about how good our O has been…but that would just be missing understanding just what the O is capable of.

Same three points as I listed above. Why do it? What does it improve?

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

Let’s just start with: you think the target on our backs can get any bigger?

Absolutely. The players aren’t currently in the targets game. It is the other owners and the Commissioner that appear to have it out for the Eagles. But running up the score is a direct affront to the players. Unnecessarily getting the players invested in the targets game is a fool’s errand.

2 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Your obsession with generating Offensive points ignores three key realities (1) points margin does not figure anywhere into the NFL standings. (2) the Eagles had the second largest scoring margin in the NFL 10.9 points per game, behind only the Lions at 11.6. Increasing it gains nothing. (3) opponents really hate and remember teams that run up the score. Why piss off the rest of the League?

See you are blinded by whatever it is personnel you are thinking with me on so much. That’s not anything I’ve been talking about. Running up the points? See..ok…yes…I believe we should run up the points…but not in the manner you seem to be stuck limited to consider. Not about running up the shore in garbage time. Not talking about that. But am stating running up the score…as in…unleash the O potential. Right from the start of the game. Believe unleashing the potential of this O makes us just as difficult to beat any given Sunday….in fact…even more difficult to just stay competitive with us.

13 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I’m not so sure the Players Union can stop him on this though.

Why do you say that. The CBA is an agreement between the Players Union and the League. No CBA and there is no season.

11 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Thing is he actually doesn’t even need to win the battle. Think he might have a way he can take Void years away with the league office powers. Then the NFLPA could fight it. But really Goodell just needs to get us for a couple of seasons.

What reason do you have to think that? Do you understand collective bargaining? The NFL can’t unilaterally change the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Any change has to be mutually agreed to and signed by both parties.

The core I’ve been steadfast on with my wishes concerning how the O is run: reality just simple…always feel versatility makes you the strongest and best version of yourself. Which is really what I felt we were getting to at the end. What D can handle us if we have the rushing game chugging full steam, AJ and Smitty creating problems….with just adding almost anything else to that. YAC Creation plays I’ve clearly focused in on as easy example. Pick plays.

Gotta remember we were the worst first quarter scoring team last season. A key detail factors in on both sides of the discussion really.

13 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Same three points as I listed above. Why do it? What does it improve?

I think it does improve things versus holding the O back