3 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I suggest you find another team to root for Hurts hater.

I want Hurts to be good....because I'm an Eagles fan.   Not a 7 year old kid worshipping my hero that can do no wrong! 

He needs work on the mental aspect....but he can run.  That's facts! 

5 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I suggest you find another team to root for Hurts hater.

I believe Hurts is mentally capable of making a simple audible.  You seem to believe he isn't...without " sessions " in the classroom?  

1 minute ago, joemas6 said:

I want Hurts to be good....because I'm an Eagles fan.   Not a 7 year old kid worshipping my hero that can do no wrong! 

He needs work on the mental aspect....but he can run.  That's facts! 

You’re worse than what the enemy fans say about our team. I haven’t even run across a cowboys fan go so far as to call our leader "a mental midget.”

24 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I don’t think this gets it done though really. I wouldn’t move back that far just for that if I was the Broncos 

What about if you were Denver ...trading Surtain for pick #3?

I also read where 67% of our picks are guys we visited with,so......

6 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Why can't he replace Lane....in time and be the RG in the MEANtime? It's like getting 2 players with 1 pick

Not saying he can't...just saying that in the little bit I've read about him, he seems like he'd be a better RG than RT.  And if he starts out at RG and flourishes, it may be tough to move him and we'll be drafting another OT in Round 1 next year.

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

You’re worse than what the enemy fans say about our team. I haven’t even run across a cowboys fan go so far as to call our leader "a mental midget.”

You are worse with your opinion so low of his mental capacity....that you don't think he is smart enough to make a tweak at the line. 

1 minute ago, EaglesAddict said:

Not saying he can't...just saying that in the little bit I've read about him, he seems like he'd be a better RG than RT.  And if he starts out at RG and flourishes, it may be tough to move him and we'll be drafting another OT in Round 1 next year.

And then you have your future studs across the line....why is that a bad thing?  Either way you need 2 players.   Why not get 2 studs? 

1 hour ago, joemas6 said:

With zero tweak from the mental midget you say plays QB. 

Hurts hating!

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

Hurts hating!

Yes....you hating on Hurts mental ability.  I agree...don't be so tough on him 

4 minutes ago, EaglesAddict said:

Not saying he can't...just saying that in the little bit I've read about him, he seems like he'd be a better RG than RT.  And if he starts out at RG and flourishes, it may be tough to move him and we'll be drafting another OT in Round 1 next year.

Fuega is a RT,one that could use more snap counts. The way to get him more snap counts is to start him at RG(which we need anyway since that position could be in flux). That's basically 2 players with 1 pick is all I am saying. I don't believe we had Fuega in for a visit however, and as I just posted odds are on the guys we had in. PLus while he is at G you can add strength(although he doesn't lack there) and teach him the refinements of the T spot he usually plays. I watched film of where they had him at G on short yardage run plays

Just now, GreenbleedinNC said:

Fuega is a RT,one that could use more snap counts. The way to get him more snap counts is to start him at RG(which we need anyway since that position could be in flux). That's basically 2 players with 1 pick is all I am saying. I don't believe we had Fuega in for a visit however, and as I just posted odds are on the guys we had in 

I think it's the kid from Alabama 

1 minute ago, joemas6 said:

And then you have your future studs across the line....why is that a bad thing?  Either way you need 2 players.   Why not get 2 studs? 

That convo is built on the premise of trading up in Round 1 and giving up one of our 2nds.  If we took a stud RG at 22, then OT next year, fine.  But giving up a 2nd to trade up in this draft to get what would turn out to be a RG is a bad use of resources.  Was saying if they do that, it better be for a guy that they know will be the RT at some point.

1 minute ago, joemas6 said:

I think it's the kid from Alabama 

IDK what experience he has a G or if he played there at all. Fuega has played both and there are nuances.

2 minutes ago, EaglesAddict said:

That convo is built on the premise of trading up in Round 1 and giving up one of our 2nds.  If we took a stud RG at 22, then OT next year, fine.  But giving up a 2nd to trade up in this draft to get what would turn out to be a RG is a bad use of resources.  Was saying if they do that, it better be for a guy that they know will be the RT at some point.

In a draft many claim is stacked with the most G/T prospects 

2 minutes ago, EaglesAddict said:

That convo is built on the premise of trading up in Round 1 and giving up one of our 2nds.  If we took a stud RG at 22, then OT next year, fine.  But giving up a 2nd to trade up in this draft to get what would turn out to be a RG is a bad use of resources.  Was saying if they do that, it better be for a guy that they know will be the RT at some point.

Is there a stud RG at 22?    And again.. I don't think we would trade up for just an ok OT or ok G.   

3 minutes ago, EaglesAddict said:

That convo is built on the premise of trading up in Round 1 and giving up one of our 2nds.  If we took a stud RG at 22, then OT next year, fine.  But giving up a 2nd to trade up in this draft to get what would turn out to be a RG is a bad use of resources.  Was saying if they do that, it better be for a guy that they know will be the RT at some point.

You could probably get Latham and Beebe without moving. Then you have Lanes replacement and your starting RG. The again you'd be wasting a 1 pick on a player who won't play so which is the waste of resources?

1 minute ago, joemas6 said:

Is there a stud RG at 22?    And again.. I don't think we would trade up for just an ok OT or ok G.   

Barton is the best G(Duke) IMO(at 22),but we also had Beebe in. Beebe would be a round 2 but IMO is fully capable of handling the RG duties

I saw.. trade up with Seattle.    Then trading the 16th pick plus 53 to Denver... Denver gives those picks to NE for pick 3 to take their QB... we get Surtain. 

There are reports we are talking with Denver.. I highly doubt it's simply to move up to 12 to take an ok or good OL.

So just for me,if I move up for an OT,it should be a OT who can play G until Lane retires since it would cost me 2 picks to get him,he should cover those 2 positions to be of value

1 minute ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Barton is the best G(Duke) IMO(at 22),but we also had Beebe in. Beebe would be a round 2 but IMO is fully capable of handling the RG duties

Barton isn’t a stud. He’s very versatile. High floor player that doesn’t have as high a ceiling is how most describe him,

1 minute ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Barton is the best G(Duke) IMO(at 22),but we also had Beebe in. Beebe would be a round 2 but IMO is fully capable of handling the RG duties

Does Barton last...Does the kid from Oregon last...things will be different from the  " mocks"

Washington’s Fatanua is that college T that projects to be the stud G with a possible T versatility. That’s how I’ve seen it. Projected to be around pick 22.

3 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Does Barton last...Does the kid from Oregon last...things will be different from the  " mocks"

Barton is projected at C we could trade back to get. Oregon prospect has consistently been ranked very high. 

5 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Barton isn’t a stud. He’s very versatile. High floor player that doesn’t have as high a ceiling is how most describe him,

He's the #1G in a stacked class,so describe him how you want and I will describe him how i want