3 hours ago, eagle45 said:

I pasted in a couple other takes too. I left off my relatively positive position-by-position evaluation of the defense and just kept it to the critical takes. A negative swing on offense with a positive swing on defense would probably unfairly ground the sum total towards 0. (Although that is my net opinion of the team).

ChatGPT:

es. On the same scale, I’d put this side of the argument at about –2 overall: meaning somewhat too pessimistic, but substantially closer to reality than a truly anti-Eagles take.

Claim	Score	My read
"Least talented initial 53 since 2021.”	–1	Very defensible
"More holes than recent Eagles rosters.”	0	Basically right
RT/Lane is a hole	–2	Conflates risk with an actual hole
Wicks at WR2 is a hole	0	Fair criticism
"Players nobody outside Philly values”	–5	Clearly overstated
Mundt/TE2 is a hole	–2	Real limitation, but rhetoric goes too far
Overall	–2	Pessimistic, not crazy

1. "Least talented initial 53 since 2021”

Score: –1

I actually think this is pretty close to correct.

The 2022 roster was loaded. The 2023 team entered the year with an absurd veteran core. The 2024 initial roster had AJ Brown/DeVonta/Saquon, a still-dominant OL and what became an elite young secondary. The 2025 roster retained most of that championship-level talent.

The 2026 team still has elite/high-end players — Hurts, Barkley, DeVonta, Mailata, Carter, Baun, DeJean, Mitchell, etc. — but there are more positions where you're saying "this could work” instead of "we know this is good.” The official initial 53 makes that pretty obvious at WR, TE and parts of OL.

So I wouldn't call this doomerism. 2026 being the weakest opening roster of the 2022–26 group is a perfectly reasonable position.

2. "This roster has more holes than we've become accustomed to.”

Score: 0

I think this is basically spot-on.

Importantly, that doesn't mean it's a bad roster. The Eagles' standard has become ridiculous.

The legitimate uncertainty list is something like WR2, TE2 until Calcaterra returns/develops, Lane's availability and OT contingency, some secondary depth, and possibly kicker. Even Eagles-oriented preseason analysis has been explicitly questioning WR2, TE depth and tackle availability.

That's noticeably different from some recent years where you had to work pretty hard to identify starting-level weaknesses.

---

3. "Was RT a hole last year?”

Score: –2

This is where I think he's manipulating the definition of hole a little.

Lane Johnson played only 10 games in 2025, and he's now 36. So RT availability is absolutely a legitimate concern. That's not Eagles homer hand-waving.

But:

Lane Johnson himself is not a hole.

There's a distinction between:

and

The second is the Eagles' situation.

I'd call it a major risk point, not a roster hole.

If someone says "RT is totally fine, nothing to see here”, that's homerish.

If someone says "RT is a hole because Lane might get hurt”, that's slightly too negative.

---

4. Wicks: "Bad hands + poor speed + 332 yards = how is that NOT a hole?”

Score: 0

This is probably the strongest point in the entire argument.

Wicks ran 4.62 at the Combine. He had only 30 catches for 332 yards and 2 TDs in 2025. He also has a genuine history of drops: PFF credited him with nine in 2024 and three in 2025.

So if the proposition is:

No. I don't buy that.

There are reasons to like him — route running, physicality after the catch, blocking, prior 581-yard rookie season — but those are reasons to believe he might outperform his recent production, not evidence that WR2 is settled.

I'd call Wicks a legitimate question mark/weakness until proven otherwise.

And there's another distinction:

Wicks can be a good acquisition AND WR2 can still be a hole.

Those aren't contradictory.

---

5. "You're assuming players no teams attribute any value to outside Philly can be meaningful starters.”

Score: –5

This is the weakest part.

It's rhetorically satisfying but factually doesn't work.

Philadelphia literally gave Green Bay a 2026 fifth-rounder and 2027 sixth-rounder for Wicks and then gave him a one-year $12.5 million extension. That's not "nobody values him.”

Mundt has survived nine NFL seasons with the Rams, Vikings and Jaguars before Philadelphia signed him. He received $750,000 guaranteed from the Eagles this offseason.

And there's actually funny contrary evidence here: four Eagles cuts were claimed onto other teams' 53s this week, the highest total in the league, including Cameron Latu and two offensive linemen.

So you can argue:

"These are marginal/questionable starters.”

Totally fair.

But "the rest of the league assigns these guys no value” is just polemical exaggeration.

---

6. The Mundt/TE2 argument

Score: –2

There's a good football point buried inside an overstatement.

He's right that the ideal TE2 isn't simply:

OL who is eligible to catch passes.

A TE who presents essentially zero receiving threat lets defenses react differently to personnel. And with Stowers struggling both as a blocker and through camp, the Eagles haven't gotten the clean complementary TE they presumably hoped for yet. That's a legitimate weakness. Recent reporting has specifically identified TE depth as an issue.

But he's underselling Mundt.

Mundt isn't just some tackle wearing No. 83. He's regarded as a very good NFL blocking TE — Philadelphia cites PFF grades of 7th among qualifying TEs in pass blocking and 9th in run blocking in 2025.

And while he's certainly not a receiving weapon, he caught 9 balls for 111 yards last year, with six producing first downs, and has 74 career receptions.

Nobody is rolling a safety over Mundt.

But defenses also can't literally treat him like Jordan Mailata.

And TE2 is one of the positions where specialization is acceptable. If Goedert is playing most obvious passing downs, Mundt's blocking has substantial value even if he's an unexciting receiver.

So I'd phrase it:

TE2 = genuine weakness/question mark.
Mundt = useful role player.
Mundt = "basically an offensive lineman” = too negative.

---

The interesting thing is where the two sides miss each other

I think the anti-homer side is much stronger on identifying weaknesses, while the homer side is stronger on recognizing that a weakness doesn't automatically equal a fatal roster hole.

For me the accurate middle ground is:

2026 is probably the least overwhelmingly talented Eagles roster entering a season since 2021. It has legitimate weaknesses at WR2 and TE2 and meaningful age/injury exposure at RT. But it's still unusually strong at premium/high-impact positions, and calling Wicks/Mundt/other complementary players "guys nobody else values” significantly overstates the case.

That's almost exactly –2 to me.

If the first person's argument you showed me was "there are literally no holes among the 24 starters,” I actually think this second person's basic roster diagnosis is considerably closer to 0 — they just periodically turn a legitimate criticism into an unnecessarily extreme one.

CLAUDE:

Alright, grading each claim on the homer scale — 0 spot on, negative = too pessimistic, positive = too rosy.

"Least talented initial 53 since 2021" — Score: -3

Directionally defensible, stated too confidently. Losing a target monster like A.J. Brown (130 targets per season and the franchise single-season receptions record) is a real talent drain, and the pass-catching group behind Smith is unproven. But this roster still has Hurts, Barkley, Smith, Carter, the full returning starting five up front, plus a Greenard trade and two premium picks (Lemon, Stowers) injected into it. Local coverage is calling the OL the deepest and most talented group the Eagles have had in years. The 2021 roster had an unproven Hurts, a rookie WR1, and Reagor/Watkins as the supporting cast — this isn't that. "Least talented since 2022 or 2023" would score closer to 0; anchoring it to 2021 overshoots. ESPNMetro Philadelphia

"More holes than we're accustomed to" — Score: -1

Basically fair. WR2/WR3 are projection, TE2 is a specialist, and the secondary is patched with one-year vets. Recent Eagles rosters didn't ask you to squint at this many spots. Nearly spot on.

"Was RT a hole last year?" (implying Lane is one now) — Score: -5

This is where you tip over. A risk is not a hole. Lane at 36 with an injury history in what's expected to be the final year of a Hall of Fame-caliber career is a legitimate durability concern — but when healthy he's still a top-shelf RT, and the swing depth behind him is better than it's been. Treating age/injury probability as equivalent to a talent deficiency is the pessimist's version of homerism. NBC Sports Philadelphia

Wicks as a hole (bad hands, poor speed, 332 yards) — Score: -3

Half right. The drops are real and documented, the long speed is ordinary, and the production is genuinely thin — that's why "question mark" is the correct label. But two things cut against "hole": he's 25 with legit separation/route-running traits that got buried in a crowded Green Bay room, and your next claim is factually undercut by his own acquisition —

"Players no team outside Philly attributes value to" — Score: -4

This one's just wrong for Wicks specifically. The Eagles sent a 2026 fifth and a 2027 sixth for him and he signed a one-year, $12.5 million extension worth up to $14.75M. That's a real market price for a projected starter, not a scrap-heap flyer. Now, Hollywood Brown and Elijah Moore on one-year prove-it deals? That's the profile you're describing, and if you'd aimed the claim there it scores near 0. Aiming it at the WR2 misses. CBSSports.com

The Mundt/TE2 argument — Score: -3

Your logic is actually sound in the abstract: a TE with zero route credibility lets defenses treat 12 personnel as a run tell, and "if he's purely a blocker he's just a sixth lineman" is a fair jab. Where it overreaches is treating TE2 as a starter-level hole. Mundt is a ~300-snap role player behind Goedert, signed specifically because he's a blocker with familiarity in the new offensive system — that's a scheme-fit depth signing, not a spot the offense lives or dies on. And the Stowers comparison is a training-camp snapshot of a second-round rookie who had a rough camp and a hamstring injury, not his established level. TE2 is a mild weakness, not a hole. NBC10 PhiladelphiaNBC10 Philadelphia

Overall: -3

You're not being irrational — the concerns are the right concerns (pass-catcher proven production, age at RT, thin margins if injuries hit). The pattern that drags you negative is converting every risk into a hole and every unproven player into a proven negative. The honest version of this roster is: high floor in the trenches and backfield, unusually wide error bars in the passing game. That's a "we'll know by Halloween" roster, not a 2021 rebuild roster.

Thanks for doing it and sharing. It was a fun read, and a very positive outcome of our yammering at each other. I look forward to our continuing conversations. Bottom-line, I am just as much of an optimist as you are a pessimist. We both are guilty of some pendulum swinging.

1 hour ago, Joe Ball said:

Studies have shown that weed is much less harmful to the body than alcohol, according to my son’s research 😂.

If you have chronic pain, sleep problems, weed is much better than alcohol imo.

Too much THC can lead to a hangover as well, I would never have thought that as a youngster.

Well, when you compare weed from yesteryear to today, it’s night and day in terms of strength. I have it microdose even the ‘weak’ stuff out there now to not be completely useless.

3 hours ago, eagle45 said:

We aren't at the point where AI should be settling any debates.

Agreed

3 hours ago, eagle45 said:

But...I do feel this is our least talented roster since 2021 with the most questions heading into the season. Teams have won the SB with rosters less talented than they had in previous years. It doesn't mean they are dead on arrival.

Time will tell on all your points. I believe injury risk is separate from talent. When a player gets injured his talent level doesn’t change, the availability of that talent is what is impacted. It is possible that you disagree, and I can respect that. On the other hand, age definitely does impact talent level.

3 hours ago, eagle45 said:

I will throw in one other negative take...this offense is an unknown...to everyone including Howie, Siri, Mannion, and Hurts. They absolutely could surprise us all (and the sky is the limit for this team with a good offense). BUT...I don't think the smart money is on that happening. I do feel the personnel/talent level on offense has had a critical shift towards mediocrity. And I think it is entirely possible that this offense could be worse than last year, whereas almost every single other person tossing in opinions labels that as an impossibility.

I’m with you 100% on this point. I’m optimistic about the new Offense, but recognize the inherent risk the change to it brings.

3 hours ago, eagle45 said:

I see a very deep, low downside for this offense. Not predicting it. But there are a wide range of possibilities here with no safety net. I think it's going to require an against-the-odds and unexpected massive boost from the OL staying healthy all year and someone like Wicks being a WR Baun (not seeing that) or Barkley somehow repeating 2024.

Barkley doesn’t need to repeat 2024 because Biggs is now a complementary RB to Barkley. So it is more like the combination of Barkley/Biggs putting up 2024 numbers.

Baun 2024 was IMO a unicorn. Wicks doesn’t need to be a unicorn, just a serviceable WR2. 64/916/5 has a nice ring to it as a season total. If he hits that I will be a happy camper.

3 hours ago, Freshmilk said:

@mattwill

13-4

Got it

1 hour ago, justwinbaby said:

Now do Rams

All time 24-18-1. 11-2 in the last 13.

2 hours ago, BigEFly said:

According to NORML, real young aren’t really impacting weed sales where it is legal but the amount of seniors embracing it is significant. But alcohol is getting a pretty bad rap for health impact.

As an aging person, we're in a lot of pain and there aren't many options outside opiates. Weed is that option.

8 minutes ago, Wentz_Era said:

Well, when you compare weed from yesteryear to today, it’s night and day in terms of strength. I have it microdose even the ‘weak’ stuff out there now to not be completely useless.

Absolutely, I don't smoke or vape weed (both make me cough too much) but I do smoke cigs. I will microdose gummies or gel tabs when I can get them at a dispensary (requires a trip to CA) which I used to visit each time I was there. The gel tabs come in 10mg, 20mg, 25mg, 50mg. If I am hurting pretty bad I'll take a 50mg on the weekend afternoons after golf, as long as I have nothing planned away from the house. I typically would use 10-20mg at 7:30 - 8:00 to get some solid sleep. The 50mg definitely caused brain fog the following morning so I stopped using those.

The amount of THC in the newer weed (flower) is astounding, my brother who beat stomach cancer uses it regularly, I took two hits of some stuff he gets, coughed my a$$ off but I was high for 2-3 hours.

@mattwill

13-4

34 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

100% guaranteed to be wrong, but it does add up to 272-272. Didn't bother with tie breakers, just predicting records based on the schedule:

Packers 12-5 without Jacobs?

(Frustrating, because Dallas has their 1st round pick.)

1 hour ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

Every other post from me is

Is that because Shocker was an Odd Ball?

36 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

100% guaranteed to be wrong, but it does add up to 272-272. Didn't bother with tie breakers, just predicting records based on the schedule:

I will record your 13-4 prediction in the master list

37 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

100% guaranteed to be wrong, but it does add up to 272-272. Didn't bother with tie breakers, just predicting records based on the schedule:

Wrong

2 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

Packers 12-5 without Jacobs?

Getting the NFC South and AFC East (Dolphins and Jets) is huge for the NFC North.

EDIT: Schedule is a joke to start the season - Vikings, Jets, Falcons, Bucs, Bears @ home. Parsons may be back before they play any hard games.

5 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

@mattwill

13-4

Got it

5 hours ago, Talkingbirds said:

What does Maggie think of this roster ?

Who is Maggie?

@mattwill

12-5

Barkley 1400+ rushing & 500+ receiving as long as the OLine remains effective the whole year.

3 minutes ago, Joe Ball said:

@mattwill

12-5

Barkley 1400+ rushing & 500+ receiving as long as the OLine remains effective the whole year.

Got it

32 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Thanks for doing it and sharing. It was a fun read, and a very positive outcome of our yammering at each other. I look forward to our continuing conversations. Bottom-line, I am just as much of an optimist as you are a pessimist. We both are guilty of some pendulum swinging.

The board has taught me a little about myself. I used to tell people I was pessimistic on the boards because it was my outlet. I sign on to complain, not to celebrate. That may have been true for a time, but it’s definitely not it anymore.

Then I said I was pessimistic because I have high standards. I like to think there’s truth to that, but it probably comes off more as a hollow flex.

What it really is….ive learned….im not actually pessimistic in life at all, for those that know me. Quite the opposite actually. But where I am pessimistic…things I care about over which I have absolutely zero control. I tend to perseverate and conflate negativity on things I don’t agree with and can’t control. (I don’t like the way the eagles build an offense, I just don’t). My job is to control every imaginable variable and outcome…and when I come across something I care about that I can’t control…boom….frustration and assume the worst.

39 minutes ago, Vileborg said:

the mail cheerleader

19 hours ago, Mike030270 said:

In fairness to him he was ganged up on a lot for pages

Well, that guy was a dick and deserved it.

3 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

The board has taught me a little about myself. I used to tell people I was pessimistic on the boards because it was my outlet. I sign on to complain, not to celebrate. That may have been true for a time, but it’s definitely not it anymore.

Then I said I was pessimistic because I have high standards. I like to think there’s truth to that, but it probably comes off more as a hollow flex.

What it really is….ive learned….im not actually pessimistic in life at all, for those that know me. Quite the opposite actually. But where I am pessimistic…things I care about over which I have absolutely zero control. I tend to perseverate and conflate negativity on things I don’t agree with and can’t control. (I don’t like the way the eagles build an offense, I just don’t). My job is to control every imaginable variable and outcome…and when I come across something I care about that I can’t control…boom….frustration and assume the worst.

Bro, in all respect: the Eagles won 2 SBs within 8 years after not winning your entire life. There were long droughts of losing and disappointments. The pessimism made sense decades ago. Time to shake off those old feelings and embrace we're a top team that has won SBs and in a good place. It doesn't mean don't complain, but put it in perspective. There are things to be concerned about (like any team), and things to be optimistic about as well.

9 minutes ago, NOTW said:

I am so surprised that this tradition of cheating has continued under Vrabel's leadership.

54 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

100% guaranteed to be wrong, but it does add up to 272-272. Didn't bother with tie breakers, just predicting records based on the schedule:

I just can't see how the Eagles, even if firing on all cylinders, or any team this year, can get that 14th win. Just so tough. With that said, give me 14-3 since so many are at 13-4. I'm not high now, but might as well be, with this prediction!

Bonus: Eagles make the NFCC...and the Rams do not.

@mattwill

Thx for doing!

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

100% guaranteed to be wrong, but it does add up to 272-272. Didn't bother with tie breakers, just predicting records based on the schedule:

I like where your head’s at. Only major difference for me is Minnesota just had a winning record with the worst QB play in the conference. They beat Green Bay and Detroit and Chicago last year.

If Kyler even plays at a below average level and can occasionally get the ball to Jefferson, that’s an 11-12 win team