14 hours ago, mattwill said:

As much as I liked DTR in his Draft year, a lot of that luster has faded.  McCord would have four years as an Eagle to develop.  DTR might not even have one year.

i like your guy for the Practice Squad.  I would have two UDFA QBs on the PS this year. The Canadian Taylor Elgersma would be the other one.  Developing those two plus McCord would be a fun test of our QB coaching.

DTR needed seasoning coming out of college.  Be real interesting to see what Loeffler does with him.  I suspect Loeffler will have a voice similar to Nussmeier last year.   I also suspect that he will be involved in the background of playcalling as he has much more experience at that compared to Patullo.  DTR can fit the Hurts offense so I still like him despite his result with a dismal team.  I found it interesting that he has coached with Moorehead.  I know it has been almost twenty years ago but I would be curious as to how @just relax thinks about his time coaching QBs at Michigan.  I think I like this hire.  

I was talking to an old friend today about the Super Bowl and then we kinda got side tracked into talking about other Super Bowls and general NFL discussion and some of our favorite Super Bowls. Eventually Super Bowl 32 came up(Packers Broncos) and during the discussion I couldn't remember who was favored in that game. I thought probably Packers a very slight favorite. I looked it up and Packers opened as a whopping 14 point fav.

Packers were 13-3, Broncos 12-4. Broncos #1 scoring offense by a wide margin and better point differential. Their defense was up there too. They had Elway, Rod Smith, Davis, some great defensive players so it wasn't some cinderella story.

Anyone here have a vivid enough memory to remember why GB opened as 14 point favorites? Usually you only see that in Super Bowls when a dynastic or powerhouse team goes up against a team viewed as kind of fluky like dynasty Niners vs fluky Chargers.

That would have been like the Eagles playing the Bills in the SB this year and Eagles being 14 point favorites, that would never have happened. What was Vegas smoking that year?

9 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

I was talking to an old friend today about the Super Bowl and then we kinda got side tracked into talking about other Super Bowls and general NFL discussion and some of our favorite Super Bowls. Eventually Super Bowl 32 came up(Packers Broncos) and during the discussion I couldn't remember who was favored in that game. I thought probably Packers a very slight favorite. I looked it up and Packers opened as a whopping 14 point fav.

Packers were 13-3, Broncos 12-4. Broncos #1 scoring offense by a wide margin and better point differential. Their defense was up there too. They had Elway, Rod Smith, Davis, some great defensive players so it wasn't some cinderella story.

Anyone here have a vivid enough memory to remember why GB opened as 14 point favorites? Usually you only see that in Super Bowls when a dynastic or powerhouse team goes up against a team viewed as kind of fluky like dynasty Niners vs fluky Chargers.

That would have been like the Eagles playing the Bills in the SB this year and Eagles being 14 point favorites, that would never have happened. What was Vegas smoking that year?

Might just be my perception, but a combination of Green Bay being defending Super Bowl champion and Denver being 0-4 in Super Bowl games, and being whipped in each one.

IIRC the NFC was also seen as the stronger conference in that era 

12 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

I was talking to an old friend today about the Super Bowl and then we kinda got side tracked into talking about other Super Bowls and general NFL discussion and some of our favorite Super Bowls. Eventually Super Bowl 32 came up(Packers Broncos) and during the discussion I couldn't remember who was favored in that game. I thought probably Packers a very slight favorite. I looked it up and Packers opened as a whopping 14 point fav.

Packers were 13-3, Broncos 12-4. Broncos #1 scoring offense by a wide margin and better point differential. Their defense was up there too. They had Elway, Rod Smith, Davis, some great defensive players so it wasn't some cinderella story.

Anyone here have a vivid enough memory to remember why GB opened as 14 point favorites? Usually you only see that in Super Bowls when a dynastic or powerhouse team goes up against a team viewed as kind of fluky like dynasty Niners vs fluky Chargers.

That would have been like the Eagles playing the Bills in the SB this year and Eagles being 14 point favorites, that would never have happened. What was Vegas smoking that year?

One reason was that the NFC had won 13 Super Bowls in a row. And Elway has a personal 3 Super Bowls loss streak.

Green Bay was the defending champion and their offense ranked 2nd in the league in points scored (only behind the Broncos) and 4th in yards gained, while their defense respectively ranked 5th and 7th in those two categories.

Denver was a Wild Card team.

The Packers had cruised through their two playoff opponents, while the Broncos had squeaked by their last two postseason victories by less than a TD.

On 3/21/2025 at 4:15 PM, RLC said:

Love Avonte, but it was time to move on. Wish him the best in Detroit, butt that turf + his body is a bad mix.

A team that had a hard time staying healthy down the stretch signed a player that has had a hard time staying healthy.  

Yeah that was probably it. Still seems a little extreme, 14 points is crazy, that's such a big line. And then next year the same Broncos were only 7.5 pt favs over that weird Falcons team.

4 hours ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

 

I am not sure that the Eagles' aggregate RAS scores are lower than the Leaguewide average.  One problem with a RAS score is that it is a one-size fits all approach to positions.  The other problem is that it's not likely a measurement teams use.  Teams likely have position specific measurements they are looking for in a player.  

12 hours ago, kiwieagle said:

If only there was a precedent for a big time programme dumping a QB in college, him going to another school, getting better and then being successful in the NFL, and even winning a SB . 
 

Not saying McCord will repeat that, but just saying, that argument by itself isn’t that strong. 

I understand he was not a finished product.  I also admit to not really watching him this year.  It's mainly his lack of mobility that lowers my overall opinion of him.  

20 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

I am not sure that the Eagles' aggregate RAS scores are lower than the Leaguewide average.  One problem with a RAS score is that it is a one-size fits all approach to positions.  The other problem is that it's not likely a measurement teams use.  Teams likely have position specific measurements they are looking for in a player.  

The somewhat useful aspect of RAS is that it aggregates the available Combine, Pro Day and other workout/measurements results into a common format.

47 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

I was talking to an old friend today about the Super Bowl and then we kinda got side tracked into talking about other Super Bowls and general NFL discussion and some of our favorite Super Bowls. Eventually Super Bowl 32 came up(Packers Broncos) and during the discussion I couldn't remember who was favored in that game. I thought probably Packers a very slight favorite. I looked it up and Packers opened as a whopping 14 point fav.

Packers were 13-3, Broncos 12-4. Broncos #1 scoring offense by a wide margin and better point differential. Their defense was up there too. They had Elway, Rod Smith, Davis, some great defensive players so it wasn't some cinderella story.

Anyone here have a vivid enough memory to remember why GB opened as 14 point favorites? Usually you only see that in Super Bowls when a dynastic or powerhouse team goes up against a team viewed as kind of fluky like dynasty Niners vs fluky Chargers.

That would have been like the Eagles playing the Bills in the SB this year and Eagles being 14 point favorites, that would never have happened. What was Vegas smoking that year?

That was peak Favre fever.  He just did it the year before.  And no one believed that Elway could actually win one.  I get GB being a favorite, but certainly not that spread.

5 hours ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

 

I have a hard time believing this.  

7 years ago, absolutely.  They clearly placed very little emphasis on athleticism, more on relentless effort.

Now?

Josh Sweat, Milton Williams, Jordan Davis, Nolan Smith...each of them had an unprecedented workout.  Ringo and Brown aren't far behind.

Their OL is full of athletes.  Barkley is an off the charts RAS.  

And their WRs...not workout warriors.  

Their 2022/3/4 drafts RAS were probably the highest in the NFL, or at least very very close.  

I bet we'll see a lower RAS this year.  I don't think there are many players with noteworthy workouts who will go in our range.  

38 minutes ago, LacesOut said:

I kinda like the AJ Dillon signing. See what he has.

One aspect of the signing that is thought provoking is that the RB room has Saquon - Dillon - Shipley - Nichols - Davis-Price as the current five.  What does that mean for the upcoming Draft?

5 hours ago, RememberTheKoy said:

This can't be true, can it?

Feels like we only draft freaks..

https://sports.yahoo.com/2022-nfl-draft-ras-scores-160719087.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKQTSn9-bzLvWaOouMetKBNWQAIab9kyq-qSqTUPhfxWIAtoIlKMg-GaNwyL2jwL_jYMM4Ou8kxKRRVwbr5WOo9EnMwPPjmfplpB4xj1xQUBYLWu6-KfMBUtkIWpEsbsmnq8WeXOdXZJtVCsXxV8Ecc__fsSJYKipQljHnn3IlDs

 

https://theeagleswire.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/eagles/2023/04/29/philadelphia-eagles-2023-nfl-draft-relative-athletic-score-jalen-carter-nolan-smith-sydney-brown/80409721007/

 

https://www.profootballnetwork.com/2024-nfl-draft-ras-scores-results/

 

Howie is unquestionably RAS happy.  He may not call it RAS.  But the Eagles had an inflection point in their drafting where they started to focus on objectively superior athletes.

Rebuilding?

Reloading?

Tanking?

Going All In?

Clearly the Eagles are a team that is reloading, and the Giants are tanking, and the Commies are going all in.  Are there other categories beyond those four, and what are some of the other teams doing?

47 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

Yeah that was probably it. Still seems a little extreme, 14 points is crazy, that's such a big line. And then next year the same Broncos were only 7.5 pt favs over that weird Falcons team.

I was at that Denver Falcons SB. My buddy was given tickets from his then bro-in-law who was corporate.  Funny how that happens. I later paid top dollar to go to Eagles playoffs

1 minute ago, mattwill said:

Rebuilding?

Reloading?

Tanking?

Going All In?

Clearly the Eagles are a team that is reloading, and the Giants are tanking, and the Commies are going all in.  Are there other categories beyond those four, and what are some of the other teams doing?

Every team self identifies as rebuilding, reloading, or going all in.

Within the rebuilding category is the only internally acknowledged, but externally apparent tanking tag.

Then there is the marinating category.  You don't do much to the roster, dress it up the best you can, and hope you get lucky.  That's probably where most of the NFL actually is.  Kind of where the Eagles are too, but they are already marinating at a SB level.

3 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Rebuilding?

Reloading?

Tanking?

Going All In?

Clearly the Eagles are a team that is reloading, and the Giants are tanking, and the Commies are going all in.  Are there other categories beyond those four, and what are some of the other teams doing?

Retooling/Reloading I think may be appropriate.....They had one of the best top to bottom rosters ever assembled in my opinion.  There was no way to keep everyone based on the cap.  But that being said, they are still bringing back Carter, Smith, Q, Coop, Blankenship, Baun on D so 6 starters, 2 All Pros and 5 of which could/should be Pro bowlers.....And if you get Dean back (which is a big if) 7 starters with plenty of players to step in.  Will the be as deep on Defense, no....will they be as good, probably not but will they still be a top 10 defense, I do believe so!

Now on offense, the only player they really lost was Becton with with having Steen, on that offensive line....they should be absolutely fine!  The biggest question mark is offensive line depth and the health of Jurgens and Dickerson.  

This team is still right now a Super Bowl contender with being able to build depth in the draft.  Are they as strong as last year, nope.....but I'm excited to see this upcoming season, especially with the schedule they have...should be A LOT of fun!  And maybe it's just me, with 2 Super Bowls in the Bank......anything more will be gravy!  I never thought I'd see 1!!

18 minutes ago, mattwill said:

One aspect of the signing that is thought provoking is that the RB room has Saquon - Dillon - Shipley - Nichols - Davis-Price as the current five.  What does that mean for the upcoming Draft?

Saquon and Shipley will be on the roster for sure so, as far as the draft goes, if there’s an upgrade over Dillon where the Eagles are picking they would consider taking RB — but I don’t see the Eagles drafting RB before Day 3.

It's always amusing to see players I liked in the draft make their way to the Eagles later in their career.  Some of them lived up to my hype and are coming in the twilight of their careers, others were disappointments and looking for second chances.

Jevon Kearse, Donte Stallworth, Suh, Bradford (hated that move), DGB, Robert Quinn, DRC, John Ross, Mike Wallace, Becton, Warmack.

I liked Adoree Jackson in the draft.  Like many of the above, I don't like him so much on the second pass.

All we really need, however, is for Ringo to blossom and Jackson to be an upgrade over Maddox.

27 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

I have a hard time believing this.  

7 years ago, absolutely.  They clearly placed very little emphasis on athleticism, more on relentless effort.

Now?

Josh Sweat, Milton Williams, Jordan Davis, Nolan Smith...each of them had an unprecedented workout.  Ringo and Brown aren't far behind.

Their OL is full of athletes.  Barkley is an off the charts RAS.  

And their WRs...not workout warriors.  

Their 2022/3/4 drafts RAS were probably the highest in the NFL, or at least very very close.  

I bet we'll see a lower RAS this year.  I don't think there are many players with noteworthy workouts who will go in our range.  

The 2024 class in particular was heavy on RAS— 9.89, 9.80, 9.22, 9.61, and 9.38 RAS respectively for DeJean, Mitchell, Hunt, Shipley, and Keegan.

People need to separate Howie’s older drafts with those of the last 4 years.

We had a radical shift towards athleticism which I would argue has accelerated each year and coincided with our draft success.

I think this year will be the same, especially in mid and later rounds where there are tons of great athletes with more specialized skill sets.

2 minutes ago, TEW said:

The 2024 class in particular was heavy on RAS— 9.89, 9.80, 9.22, 9.61, and 9.38 RAS respectively for DeJean, Mitchell, Hunt, Shipley, and Keegan.

People need to separate Howie’s older drafts with those of the last 4 years.

We had a radical shift towards athleticism which I would argue has accelerated each year and coincided with our draft success.

I think this year will be the same, especially in mid and later rounds where there are tons of great athletes with more specialized skill sets.

Agreed 100% on everything except this year being the same.  I don't think there is as much explosive talent in this draft.  In the later rounds, where everyone goes off script, Howie will probably have the freedom to prioritize great athletes and will find some.

In rounds 1-2, when there are tangible expectations and downside isn't well tolerated....I'm not seeing many players in that range, with high RAS athleticism who actually did enough in college to make you feel safe using that kind of pick on them.

I think rounds 1 and 2 will present us with guys who were excellent, sound football players in good conferences and are merely adequate or above average type athletes.  I think this applies to most of the players going top 15, let alone the ones we'll have access to.

 

 

In trying to get creative for us at edge, I wondered if Jihaad Campbell could have some parallels to Micah Parsons.  Similar size, athleticism, and hype as off-ball LB’s in college.

One of the few smart decisions Dallas has made was drafting Parsons and converting him to an edge.  

Watching old PSU Parsons highlights, I see a great NCAA off-ball LB waiting to be unleashed as an edge.  He always wanted to be going downhill.  Watching Campbell, I see a great NCAA off-ball LB who will be most at home as a great off-ball LB in the pros.

32 minutes ago, TEW said:

The 2024 class in particular was heavy on RAS— 9.89, 9.80, 9.22, 9.61, and 9.38 RAS respectively for DeJean, Mitchell, Hunt, Shipley, and Keegan.

People need to separate Howie’s older drafts with those of the last 4 years.

We had a radical shift towards athleticism which I would argue has accelerated each year and coincided with our draft success.

I think this year will be the same, especially in mid and later rounds where there are tons of great athletes with more specialized skill sets.

So you’re saying Dominic Morris isn’t on the board?

 

57 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Every team self identifies as rebuilding, reloading, or going all in.

Within the rebuilding category is the only internally acknowledged, but externally apparent tanking tag.

Then there is the marinating category.  You don't do much to the roster, dress it up the best you can, and hope you get lucky.  That's probably where most of the NFL actually is.  Kind of where the Eagles are too, but they are already marinating at a SB level.

Marinating means standing pat.  How can losing Williams and Sweat be considered standing pat.  If they were marinating they would have re-signed them both, as well as Becton and Gainwell and Burks?  All of those "chambers” were fired and ejected.  If they were marinating wouldn’t they be leaving this chambers empty rather than reloading them?