I’ll take Pitts

9 hours ago, DawkinsOwnage03 said:

Who wants a 130 million dollar QB that needs to be fixed, shouldn’t need to fix a fing franchise QB.  Jimmy G and Wentz same thing.

Ben Roethlisberger, 3rd year in the league - 18 TDs, 23 INTs, QBR of 55....yeah, good thing they didn't "fix" him at all!

7 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Nah.  If you’re talking about building a team.  TE is low on the list of priorities.  I do like the trade haul though.   

That's exactly my point.  If TE is low on the list of priorities then there is no reason to invest $50 million in to DG.  I get that a 1st rounder is a big investment but think of it big picture.  Weak top end draft.  Over the cap, aging roster.  If you target tight end in round 1 and are able to trade DG, that move alone brings back 2 2nd round picks and a 4th to even out the Avery trade.

Would you rather have Dallas Goedert at $50 million plus a reach at DE or WR

-or-

Kyle Pitts at $15 million plus 3 other players. Heck, if you have 3 2nd round picks you could move back in to round 1 if a top prospect falls.  

What really kind of sucks about Goedert is we don't get to exercise a 5th year option on him because he was a 2nd rounder. Thanks Howie. 

Yeah I'm not touching a TE in round 1. If he's as good as you guys say he is, trade down.

 

23 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

Ben Roethlisberger, 3rd year in the league - 18 TDs, 23 INTs, QBR of 55....yeah, good thing they didn't "fix" him at all!

Just won a super bowl nothing needed to be fixed, was he benched? Did he lead in turnovers and sacks?

2 minutes ago, Saltpeter said:

Yeah I'm not touching a TE in round 1. If he's as good as you guys say he is, trade down.

 

That's precisely what I proposed they do.

I enjoy the draft talk, and the analysis of the upcoming prospects, but I think it's a bit foolish to plant your flag at this point and declare them do not want. 

 

So much of a prospects success is tied into where he is drafted and how he is used. Prime example is Jefferson this year. Had we drafted him, he'd probably have half the numbers he's put up in Minnesota. But in Minny, they had Cook, Thielen, and Cousins who posts decent numbers but isn't a winner. It was a perfect situation for JJ to thrive. I'd bet anything that if Jeudy/Lamb went to Minny, they'd be posting similar numbers to JJ. 

 

I think the consensus is Doug will not be back, but Howie will (though both should be gone, most reports seem like this will be the situation). Without knowing who the next HC is, and what offensive scheme they want to run, I think it's silly to say we shouldn't draft X, Y, or Z. I know people like to make declarations to be "right" later on. But in my mind, there's way too many unknowns about this team moving forward to make any kind of definitive statements. 

5 minutes ago, DawkinsOwnage03 said:

Just won a super bowl nothing needed to be fixed, was he benched? Did he lead in turnovers and sacks?

23 INTs in a year doesn't need to be fixed??? What planet are you from?

To dive in further, from that year (2006) to 2009, he was sacked 46,47,46, and 50 times. The 50 sacks led the league. The 23 INTs in 2006 led the league. The only reason the other years didn't lead the league in sacks was because:

2006 - Jon Kitna had a ridiculous 61 sacks (Ben was 4th)

2007 - Kitna again with 51 (Ben was 2nd)

2008 - Cassel had 47 (one more than Ben, who was 2nd again)

2009 - Ben finally took the crown. 

12 minutes ago, downundermike said:

I’m baaaaaaaack

I would only be in favor of trading back if there were no difference makers at any position where the Eagles are going to draft.  The Eagles need to find great players more than they need volume.

In a rebuild, outside of true difference makers (which can matter at any position), they need to prioritize the offensive and defensive lines while also determining who the QB will be moving forward.  Then we need to find difference makers on the outside in the passing game (WR/CB).  After that you can find your inside guys (TE/S) and finally your LBs and RBs.

The only way I am taking a TE in the top 5-6 is if he is a game changing difference maker.  At that position he would have to be somebody that comes into the league as immediately the best TE and a matchup nightmare.  Otherwise, I need to prioritize the other more important positions and can find a good TE when I need one.

 

9 hours ago, eagle45 said:

Well, a 6'2" 230lb RB isn't going to have much of a future in the NFL outside of RB rotations, unless someone out there is secretly coveting the next Brandon Jacobs or Eddie George, 2 decades later.

I guess you haven't been keeping up on Derrick Henry who is the best RB in the NFL right now.  6'3" 240+ lbs.  He's the reason for the success of the Titans' O.    But, it will be short-lived.  In 2 years, he'll be a shell of himself.

Schwartz will be coaching for his job. Pretty sure he doesn’t care about a draft pick

24 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

You cant predict, guess, or even suggest what this team should do with draft picks until we figure out who the coach is. 

I want Arthur Smith or Daboll. 

Those guys dont want a TE first round, wont want Sewell first round. 

My guess, try to trade Ertz, Hurts and Reagor (ya I said it) if those 2 coaches get they'd also probably look at trading back, grabbing who ever is left of the big 3(wide reecievers) Grabbing a heavy duty running back(bowling ball from North Carolina in the 3rd) and this offense looks totally different

If Doug stays we probably stay at 6ish, Grab Tammorian Terry. A 6'5'' wide receiver from FSU who should go in thre 5th but because he "plays above the rim" Doug gets him early. 

If the Eagles can't get a top flight coordinator to come here it will give evidence of the relationship between the coaching staff and the FO.

If Howie stays that is.

Just now, Br3 said:

Schwartz will be coaching for his job. Pretty sure he doesn’t care about a draft pick

Coaching for his next job.  He's not under contract after this game.  Not sure why he'd want to come back.  He'll get a job elsewhere easily.

15 minutes ago, olsilverhair said:

I’m baaaaaaaack

So are you admitting to being a troll. Just looking for clarification, will help a bunch of us add you to our ignore list.

1 minute ago, Bacarty2 said:

Those guys dont want a TE first round, wont want Sewell first round. 

 

Not sure who would not want an elite tackle if you are drafting at the beginning of round 1.  Mailata has been very promising, but you don't pass an elite talent at such a premium position.  Dillard has been disappointing, and the major questions about his desire/love of the game and mental toughness are huge red flags, but his talent (especially his quickness and feet) are undeniable. 

We don't know what kind of player Lane Johnson will be with his latest injury.  Some reports seemed to indicate it could be debilitating, or at least limit him to be less of what he has been.  Every year there are rumors that Kelce is going to retire.  There could be starting slots for Mailata and Dillard on the line even if they took an elite LT.  This is all a moot point, though, because outside of the Eagles getting extremely lucky for once (which we know happens very infrequently) they aren't getting to 3rd overall.  From what I have seen it does not seem likely that Sewell falls beyond the third pick.

Great teams are built from the lines out.  We knows this all too well.  This has always been what the Eagles are about, since Andy came here and set the owner straight on that.  That philosophy has persisted.  That is a core fundamental reason why the team won a super bowl with a backup QB.

I'd like to see the Eagles add elite offensive lineman who excel in protection, as well as elite pass rushers.  I'd take difference makers at any position.  There are few perceived strengths at all on the team, especially when you consider the age of the good and great players on the team.  The league worst drafting for the better part of a decade has left the cupboard bare.

None of this speculation matters if the Eagles do not make a complete and total change in the personnel group and especially the GM.

3 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Coaching for his next job.  He's not under contract after this game.  Not sure why he'd want to come back.  He'll get a job elsewhere easily.

whether it’s here or somewhere else I’m sure his next employer will want to see how this particular game turned out. 

3 minutes ago, Br3 said:

whether it’s here or somewhere else I’m sure his next employer will want to see how this particular game turned out. 

Of course, which is why 'tanking' is a fan thing in the NFL, not the coaches or the players.   The new coaches to come here will want to see which players fought in a meaningless game, versus packing it in for the offseason.

 

The coaches need to get new jobs.  The players need to keep their job over someone else, or get a new job elsewhere.  Its about food money for those guys.   

5 minutes ago, Br3 said:

Schwartz will be coaching for his job. Pretty sure he doesn’t care about a draft pick

 

4 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Coaching for his next job.  He's not under contract after this game.  Not sure why he'd want to come back.  He'll get a job elsewhere easily.

Winning this game would be terrible for the franchise.  We want to try like hell to keep Washington out of the playoffs, why?  Because we want to hand a title to the Cowboys or Giants, our even bigger rivals?  We want the one team without a quarterback to have better draft position?  There is absolutely nothing good about winning this game.  The best case scenario for us is the Skins win the division.

The owner should take decisive action.  We've learned over time that unfortunately he is not a very smart guy, but maybe in his late years here he will wise up.  Maybe he has taken voluminous notes on which teams benefited from meaningless late season wins and which benefited from draft position.  It's actually easy, you don't need any notes, just an internet search or two.

An edict to "play the kids" and hold certain players out should get it done.  Be strategically smart, for once, like the Jaguars were when they were gifted the #1 overall pick and a once every 5+ years QB prospect by a completely inept franchise with absent leadership.

9 hours ago, eagle45 said:

Well, a 6'2" 230lb RB isn't going to have much of a future in the NFL outside of RB rotations, unless someone out there is secretly coveting the next Brandon Jacobs or Eddie George, 2 decades later.

Henry says hello

2 hours ago, ManuManu said:

By the way, if we draft around pick 10, people are gonna lose their mind when Kyle Pitts is far and away the top remaining player. He is a blue chip talent. 

You mean when we don't pick him?

Just now, John_C said:

Winning this game would be terrible for the franchise.  We want to try like hell to keep Washington out of the playoffs, why?  Because we want to hand a title to the Cowboys or Giants, our even bigger rivals?  We want the one team without a quarterback to have better draft position?  There is absolutely nothing good about winning this game.  The best case scenario for us is the Skins win the division.

The owner should take decisive action.  We've learned over time that unfortunately he is not a very smart guy, but maybe in his late years here he will wise up.  Maybe he has taken voluminous notes on which teams benefited from meaningless late season wins and which benefited from draft position.  It's actually easy, you don't need any notes, just an internet search or two.

An edict to "play the kids" and hold certain players out should get it done.  Be strategically smart, for once, like the Jaguars were when they were gifted the #1 overall pick and a once every 5+ years QB prospect by a completely inept franchise with absent leadership.

You aren't wrong... from a fan perspective, and even from an organizational one.

Jim Schwartz isn't tied to this organization past Sunday.  What incentive does he have to mail it in and put a 3rd terrible game on his resume.  500+ yards in back to back games already.  It would be horrible for him to have that again to whomever Washington throws out there at QB.

The players need to play well, because every bit of good tape helps them get/keep a job.  Every bit of bad tape hurts that. 

 

I don't see the organization putting out an edict.  But, I am hoping to lose, push Washington to #19 in the draft order and make them have to pay a ton to get a QB.

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Of course, which is why 'tanking' is a fan thing in the NFL, not the coaches or the players.   The new coaches to come here will want to see which players fought in a meaningless game, versus packing it in for the offseason.

 

The coaches need to get new jobs.  The players need to keep their job over someone else, or get a new job elsewhere.  Its about food money for those guys.   

This is 100% correct of course.  No one would expect the coaches or players not to try like hell to win any game, even this one.  Every game is an opportunity and part of your legacy.  

This is why you need leadership and strategic thinking.  This is where a great owner comes in.  What is better, the end result or an opportunity to get your young players experience against a team fighting for a playoff spot?

The edict should be that any injured veterans like Fletcher Cox, Barnett et al do not see the field.  Their season is over.  Start rehabbing.  You have someone like Barnett, who is in a tenuous spot with the 5th year option etc, get injured and your options are limited, you are on the hook for him.  No value in it.  Save your veterans, give all of your young players a great opportunity to play in a real game.  Give them the reps all week to be prepared.  That is how you get value out of this game.  If the kids win, hey, that really says something.  But if you win a meaningless game with guys that shouldn't even be here and won't be here, that hurts your franchise long term, that is just plain stupid.  No other way to look at it.