id like to lodge a formal complaint about the lime green on PE.com

That should have stayed in '19-'20

Just now, Mike31mt said:

id like to lodge a formal complaint about the lime green on PE.com

That should have stayed in '19-'20

Never would have seen it since I don't visit the site

11 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

id like to lodge a formal complaint about the lime green on PE.com

That should have stayed in '19-'20

Normally I would agree... but lime green is the color of "Headstrong Foundation"... so I'll put up with it and think of that.

27 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Feels like a major pitfall for conservative teams.  Drafting a player you KNOW isn't that good, but who has NCAA production and tape available, over someone with less tape and more upside.  

Teams and even high end armchair GM's know where a player has value based on year to year experience.  A 3rd round talent with 3rd round upside should not be going late 1st or early 2nd just because they played a ton of football this year.

The name Pumphrey comes to mind.

We protected Burnett, Ostman, Opeta and Trevor Williams. 

1 minute ago, ManuManu said:

We protected Burnett, Ostman, Opeta and Trevor Williams. 

..... but, what of Killins?

Some random hoe is making millions just by saying OBJ wants to be pooped on 

1 minute ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

Some random hoe is making millions just by saying OBJ wants to be pooped on 

1 hour ago, RLC said:

Odd strategy

Yeah it's a bunch of baloney.  I'll explain why below.

1 hour ago, ManuManu said:

I think it makes sense though. You have more complete information with the player who played. 

"If there are two players that are close or equal, we’ll take the one that has played most recently,” Colbert said.

That strategy would only be applicable to borderline/marginal later round picks, imo.

For example, I'd like to see that GM pass on Trevor Lawrence if Lawrence decides to sit out the season.  

Or any other top 50 ranked player for that matter.  If your scouting staff can't determine what a kid can do after 2 (maybe 3) seasons in College Football, then maybe you need a new scouting staff.

When it gets down to the 5th, 6th 7th rounds maybe...but even then you should have a decent idea of who you want...especially after the combine, pro days, etc etc.

 

8 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

..... but, what of Killins?

Might have been someone we wanted to protect before we got Huntley. Seems more redundant now. 

10 minutes ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

Some random hoe is making millions just by saying OBJ wants to be pooped on 

Explain 

Ostman and Burnett?

5 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Yeah it's a bunch of baloney.  I'll explain why below.

That strategy would only be applicable to borderline/marginal later round picks, imo.

For example, I'd like to see that GM pass on Trevor Lawrence if Lawrence decides to sit out the season.  

Or any other top 50 ranked player for that matter.  If your scouting staff can't determine what a kid can do after 2 (maybe 3) seasons in College Football, then maybe you need a new scouting staff.

When it gets down to the 5th, 6th 7th rounds maybe...but even then you should have a decent idea of who you want...especially after the combine, pro days, etc etc.

Again, they’re using it as a tie breaker according to the quote. He didn’t say the guys who sat out all go below the guys who did play.

10 minutes ago, OCEaglefan said:

Explain 

Check out Twitter 

52 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

My buddies and I called him Najeh Poopinport.  Or Davenpoop.  Either one.  

And?

Hence the poop jokes 

10 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Again, they’re using it as a tie breaker according to the quote. He didn’t say the guys who sat out all go below the guys who did play.

I think it makes perfect sense to slightly adjust your board based on added information. 

I would guess a really bad season versus a sit out would benefit the player sitting out.

I read it as we have 2 players =but 1 sits the other performs as expected nod goes to the player who played.

He wasn't saying a top 50 player is off the board for sitting out 

2 minutes ago, In2football said:

I think it makes perfect sense to slightly adjust your board based on added information. 

I would guess a really bad season versus a sit out would benefit the player sitting out.

I read it as we have 2 players =but 1 sits the other performs as expected nod goes to the player who played.

He wasn't saying a top 50 player is off the board for sitting out 

Thank you. 

3 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Thank you. 

You were clear and probably didn't need me jumping in but this was starting to feel like a rabbit hole that we not ever escape from 🤣

9 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

No Ish

🤷‍♂️💩

We keep going back to the well.

1 minute ago, RLC said:

We keep going back to the well.

He knows our system....

@Connecticut Eagle 

Eagles -12 and 4

On offense Improved WR, continued improvement from Miles and top notch TE play help Carson shine and over shadow a slight dip in Oline play 

On defense the pressure and pocket collapse from the DT combined with improved play at corner makes the difference early. LB play improves as the season goes on and we enter the playoffs in great shape. 

Too optimistic? 

 

18 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Again, they’re using it as a tie breaker according to the quote. He didn’t say the guys who sat out all go below the guys who did play.

For "borderline/marginal" later round picks, yeah, I can see that being a "tie breaker".  Top 50-60 talent?  Nope. 

If anything, I would want a guy that has a year less wear and tear on him...especially for RB's, TE's, D-Line, O-Line and LB's. 

It's only a matter of time before College Football players will be allowed to declare after 2 years....what will his "strategy" be then?  Is he going to pass on a top 50 talent because he only played 2 seasons vs a guy that played 3? 

And how close does it need to be for it to be a "tie breaker"?  How often does that happen with top talent? At that point you go with a position of need if it's that close, then combine/pro-day performance, interview etc ....those should be your tie breakers, imo. 

If it gets down to the later rounds (I still would only use it as a last resort, depending on position) but then I could see with going for a WR or a QB that played 3 years vs one that played 2.  But that would be the "last" tie breaker, imo..after "position of need",  combine, pro-day. interview, etc 

11 minutes ago, RLC said:

We keep going back to the well.

He's serviceable, knows the offense....why not.