EMB Blog: 2021 Offseason

[Couch Potato]

1 minute ago, metal said:

Isn't 6 kinda high for Surtain? I thought he'd be going somewhere in the middle of the first round.

Also kinda surprised he has Slater going over Sewell.

Slater has been a hot name recently among the draftniks.

He is slightly under-sized for Tackle at 6-4, but I wouldn't bet against him making it there. Failing that he ought to be a blue-chip G/C prospect.

I was wondering if he might be a trade-back R1 option for the Eagles if they decide to start re-stocking the O-line as @Iggles_Phan mooted earlier, but it seems his stock is now too high for that. 

[greend]

53 minutes ago, Solomon said:

BLG is very anti-Wentz right now so the fact that they hired Siri to help fix Wentz means he'll spin his negativity into it.

And he's a dope

[BigEFly]

6 hours ago, John_C said:

It’s already happening.  These same celebrities are looking to increase followers and reach.  That has peaked and now has begun a decline that will continue.  It will exist for a while, but the change has begun.  Once Twitter made those decisions, it ceased to be a platform entirely.  As utilization plummets, market share will continue to decline as will valuation.  They won’t be able to destroy every alternative indefinitely.  Even if they destroy every competitor, a new technology will emerge.

That Twitter may be replaced by new technology is likely. My Space with Facebook is a good analogy.  But not because they removed some and suspended some participants.  I have a Twitter account.  I follow the same beat reporters I complain about since Doug, Howie and Lurie closed camp.  I also get sports news on my alma mater.  It is a forum for that sort of thing and kind of like the comments sections on publications. But threatening to remove liability  protections afforded platforms on content, which both Twitter and Facebook got a wake up call on this month, made them act.  

Sedition is a dangerous thing to a democracy.  Happened in Russia in October 1917, to the Second Spanish Republic in 1936 helped by the German National Socialists that took power in the 1930s.   We have faced sedition in the past.  The Whiskey Rebellion. The Nullification Crisis of 1832. The Civil War. The Oklahoma City Bombing.  I can see why some large corporations didn’t want to be seen as participants in the failed Election Nullification Crisis.

Not wanting to be liable if Section 230 protection goes away, Twitter and Facebook acted.  So did Amazon’s cloud service.  Now removal of hosting liability protections will stifle platforms and could extend to your email or even this forum, which is why Trump’s knee jerk reaction to his feud with Twitter was so misunderstood by many.  Those internet billionaires want to preserve their businesses.  As a Main Streeter, I also appreciate the benefit of Section 230 protections.  Take, for instance Wells Margo (masked to avoid any claims) that may have defrauded customers by opening up multiple accounts.  Now what would happen if a lot of that took place on the internet and Wells Margo had its internet services hosted by Cloud Giant.  Well Cloud Giant does not have an obligation to police Wells Margo.  Cloud Giant also doesn’t have an obligation to police Build a Wall to prevent Beve Stannon from bilking people on a scheme nor police Humpty Dumpty Construction on building that wall on sand. Cloud Giant also doesn’t have an obligation to monitor emails or message boards.

So some internet giants realized if they didn’t act Section 230 liability protections might be at risk and made corporate decisions on what was a bridge too far for most politicians. After all, the plaintiffs bar’s greatest friends, the Democrats would control the Federal Government.  Make no mistake, the plaintiffs bar typically hates liability restrictions.  Look at how Covid relief got held up because McConnell wanted liability restrictions for Covid and the Democrats don’t feel they can accept liability restrictions.  I have mixed feelings about liability restrictions and some absurd liability claims espoused by some plaintiff attorneys. There has to be a happy medium. For me, Section 230 is a happy medium. 

As Afan pointed out, forums are private properties and no one has the "right” to post on them.  You have the right to not use Twitter.  I choose to not use Facebook, Instagram, What’s App and Tim Tok, for example and my Twitter use is pretty limited.  But as private media providers, they have the right to set terms of service.  The recent moves by Facebook and Twitter were assertions of their terms of service.  Free enterprise.  

[austinfan]

Fans tend to be draft fixated, that is, it's all about the high draft picks (explain Cleveland and Detroit, they've had plenty of high draft picks!).

Sure, you need to hit on a couple the next three drafts, the way they did with Tra and Simon, or Cox and Lane. To me the key areas where you go for premier players are OL, DL, and safety. The lines are self-explanatory, safety b/c they can play into their 30s and raise the play of the rest of the secondary, think Dawkins and Jenkins. WR is a young man's game, go down the list of yardage leaders and they're all 28 or younger, and the majority weren't drafted in the 1st rd. LBs who can play 3 downs at a high level are almost impossible to find. CBs can be neutralized by attacking everyone else and have them chase one guy. QB - there's only a handful of difference makers, otherwise #5-#20 are pretty similar these days.

But building a team, whether it's the 2017 Eagles or 2019 Chiefs, is more of a total effort, using every means.

And one of the keys is developing your "scrubs" - just look at KC, over half their starters are UDFAs, late round picks, SFAs or guys picked up in low cost trades. You make these moves work by identifying the guys you can coach up that other teams have passed over.

You're not going to hit on all these guys, or even a majority, but if you find 2-3 starters and top reserves on the trash pile each year, pretty soon you have a deep, young team. And when you have that, you only need to hit on a couple draft picks and sign a few FAs to quickly turn a franchise around.

[dawkdaballhawk]

Just watched Boris and wondering if any of this matters.

[NCiggles]

6 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

They aren't forcing it to happen yet.   They are forcing the way the interview process goes.  They are changing the rules regarding the incentives to make it happen.  They are doing everything they can to force it to happen, without overtly forcing the hands of individual teams.   It started as one interview, as the Rooney Rule.  Now its 2.  When will it be that they have to interview 50% 'minority' (although, they only seem interested in one particular minority demographic)?  When will they limit the number of 'white' candidates a team is allowed to interview (that would be the reverse of the Rooney Rule... the Yenoor Rule, if you will)?   

 

The issue is that the 'black' coaches aren't really involved with coaching the QB position right now.  I believe when that changes, then the HC positions will start to follow.   But, if you look around the league, a lot of the coaches are either from the defensive side of the ball... or QB background driven offensive coaches.

Look back a bit... Ray Rhodes, Tony Dungy, Marvin Lewis, Lovie Smith, Mike Singletary, etc. ... all defensive guys.  Even more recently... Ron Rivera, Robert Salah, Todd Bowles, Mike Tomlin... all minority defensive coaches.  Who are the offensive minority head coaches?  Anthony Lynn and Tom Flores...

Again opportunities are not obligations - it's a question of having a better practice that allows for more opportunities.  I think you're right about part of the root cause of the issue.  I don't think that means what they are doing is wrong or doesn't address the issue.  Part of the fix is people who want to coach knowing that they will have an opportunity.  The changes in the rule don't limit any team's ability to hire whoever they think is the best choice.  

 

[Iggles_Phan]

4 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Fans tend to be draft fixated, that is, it's all about the high draft picks (explain Cleveland and Detroit, they've had plenty of high draft picks!).

Sure, you need to hit on a couple the next three drafts, the way they did with Tra and Simon, or Cox and Lane. To me the key areas where you go for premier players are OL, DL, and safety. The lines are self-explanatory, safety b/c they can play into their 30s and raise the play of the rest of the secondary, think Dawkins and Jenkins. WR is a young man's game, go down the list of yardage leaders and they're all 28 or younger, and the majority weren't drafted in the 1st rd. LBs who can play 3 downs at a high level are almost impossible to find. CBs can be neutralized by attacking everyone else and have them chase one guy. QB - there's only a handful of difference makers, otherwise #5-#20 are pretty similar these days.

But building a team, whether it's the 2017 Eagles or 2019 Chiefs, is more of a total effort, using every means.

And one of the keys is developing your "scrubs" - just look at KC, over half their starters are UDFAs, late round picks, SFAs or guys picked up in low cost trades. You make these moves work by identifying the guys you can coach up that other teams have passed over.

You're not going to hit on all these guys, or even a majority, but if you find 2-3 starters and top reserves on the trash pile each year, pretty soon you have a deep, young team. And when you have that, you only need to hit on a couple draft picks and sign a few FAs to quickly turn a franchise around.

You say that as if it is not something that is 100% acknowledged by everyone.   Meanwhile, the Eagles are about $65M over the cap, so their other means are rather muted right now... so, its mostly about draft picks, and hoping to get lucky on the scrap heap.  Until they get the cap squared away, it will remain that way as well.

[hputenis]

6 minutes ago, dawkdaballhawk said:

Just watched Boris and wondering if any of this matters.

Becker?

[Michaels maniacs]

Can't we make a black and white thread and get this bulls... off of this one

 

 

[BigEFly]

4 hours ago, TEW said:

The negatives are that (1) he’s a terrible interviewer and (2) he has off field legal problems in his past. When you combine that with coming from a Chiefs offense which was clearly built and coached by AR, it’s pretty understandable that he’s not as in-demand as the woke crowd would like.

And the success of AR OCs as head coaches, Doug, Nagy, Childress, and the former two seemingly limited abilities as play callers once out from under AR?

[TorontoEagle]

I think those that discount the players on the roster are doing themselves a disservice. I think Doug was so bad this year, (he was bad last year too, but this year was on a whole other level of bad), that you can't properly assess much of the talent on offense. 

I'm OK if we don't go WR with #6, because I'd like to see what Reagor/Watkins/Hightower/Fulgham can do. It's really crappy that in a lost year, these guys weren't given extensive playing time, or used to their strengths to see what we might have. They all flashed some potential though. And considering the train wreck that was our QB situation, I don't think you can make any definitive statement that they suck at this juncture. I'd like to see how they do this year, and considering we need to dig out of cap trouble, we should get a good look at exactly what we have at WR. 

Goedert likely settles in as a non-elite TE, but an above average starter. Maybe he can become elite, that would be his ultimate ceiling, but he's not there yet. And may never be. Ertz can go to another team, thanks for all you've done but it's ova. 

We have Sanders at RB, and then....nothing. As much as the general consensus is RBs are undervalued and shouldn't be drafted high, we need a guy. I don't know that I trust Howie to get an RB past round 3, he hasn't really shown an ability to do so. So I'd be fine if we could land Najee Harris or Etienne in round 2. 

Our o-line is generally set for 2021. We will live or die with the injuries and aged veterans. It will be some combo of Dillard-Seumalo-Kelce-Brooks-Lane, with Mailata at swing T, Herbig as the G, and a general shuffling if Kelce gets hurt (if he retires, things need to be re-evaluated). 

QB, you have to see if Wentz is repairable. His contract dictates it, as does his prior history. It's a make or break year for him though. Hurts is a fine back-up, but if you can move him for a reasonable pick, then fine. 

So then at pick #6, it comes down to BPA to me. If it's Sewell, grab him and let's figure out the OL. If it's Parsons, I'm OK with that, at least we'd have something at LB for the first time in a long time. If it's Surtain/Farley/Horn, then good, let's get some CB talent. I think we should only grab Smith/Chase/Pitts at #6 if you truly believe they're going to be an elite player, like top 3 at their position over their career. If you're looking at them as just an upgrade over what we have, I think that's foolish, as again, I don't really know what we have, one way or the other. If our guys are as bad as some in here think they are, we'll be picking very high again next year, and can land whatever flavour of the day is available to be the saviour. I hate the idea of trading down from 6, unless the haul is extravagant, because we just need to land a blue chip player, at a number of positions, and one should be there for us to take. 

[315Eagles]

31 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

He has it shaking out as:

Lawrence

Wilson

Chase

Lance

Slater

#6: Surtain

 

gross.

 

Also has Fields going to Panthers at #8 and Sewell dropping to #10 to... drum roll... Dallas

If it was me, I'm not drafting a CB top 10 unless they are a standout, top notch CB.  Dont think Surtain falls in that category.

[LeanMeanGM]

3 minutes ago, 315Eagles said:

If it was me, I'm not drafting a CB top 10 unless they are a standout, top notch CB.  Dont think Surtain falls in that category.

Same. I think he's a "just an upgrade" guy. I'd take Smith, Fields and Sewell well before him.

[315Eagles]

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Same. I think he's a "just an upgrade" guy. I'd take Smith, Fields and Sewell well before him.

You can find solid CBs in the late 1st and beyond.

Just tell Howie to avoid the smaller, undersized guys coming off an achilles tear.

[BigEFly]

1 hour ago, HazletonEagle said:

Colts have Hines at 5'9'' under 200lbs

Mack is your average sized back kind of like Sanders

And then they have a physical freak in Jonathan Taylor. 

 

We have Sanders. We dont have a good hammer, and we dont have a good pass catching back. Huntley doesnt factor in to a discussion for me. 

Felton is 5'9'' 185 (probably will be heavier at pro day). Hes a great pass catching back. He would be like our version of Hines. And hes better than Huntley. 

Sanders and Scott are not "good” pass catching backs?  Disagree  We need a hammer that can sub for Boobie and that means he needs to be able to catch too.  I actually liked Huntley as a late day 3 pick last year.  Behind this season’s OL he showed nothing.  He was also back for KORs in the last game.  Felton may be better than Huntley but a #4 RB is not where the Eagles need to focus.

[TorontoEagle]

For the college football guys, what's the assessment on Dylan Moses? I've seen a few mocks have him going in the first, most seem to have him going in the 2nd. If we pass on Parsons in the first, is he a viable target in the 2nd for us? 

[austinfan]

31 minutes ago, Giddyunc said:

No offense, but it's hard to take you seriously when you say that there "wasn't a shred of evidence," "most scrutinized election in history," or "no legitimate concerns." First of all, there's over 400 sworn affidavits alleging issues ranging from improprieties to outright fraud. As you know, every single one of these people face prosecution if their claims are proven false.

Actually they don't. You can swear to anything in a notarized affidavit, but as long as it isn't an actual lie there is no wrong doing, i.e., a sincere but mistaken impression would not be perjury. And many claims, "I saw trucks with out of state license plates," might be true but totally meaningless (did they rent them from the local U-haul for the night?).

And most of the affidavits attested not to facts but "I though I saw", that is, untrained and ill-informed observers jumping to conclusions without actually knowing what they were watching.

Many of these affidavits were hearsay affidavits, "I heard somebody else say something" and some were just plain loony:

https://www.ydr.com/story/news/2020/12/08/witness-pa-election-fraud-suit-ghost-hunter-long-criminal-record/6496500002/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8938507/Donald-Trumps-234-pages-fraud-affidavits-include-unusual-claims.html

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/12/maricopa-county-judge-hear-trump-team-case-maricopa-county-votes/6260414002/

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judges-increasingly-frustrated-trumps-legal-claims-2020-election/story?id=74211479

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2020/12/03/trump-lawsuits-challenging-election-michigan-arizona-pennsylvania-georgia/6425725002/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/election-fraud-claims-a-state-by-state-guide-11609962846

https://apnews.com/article/ap-explains-fail-prove-election-fraud-d0f13ae6ca370c8716706d3f7d85659e

https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/11/22/trumps-legal-team-cried-vote-fraud-but-courts-found-none/

Note that many of the judges that found these fraud claims to be baseless were Trump appointees. Were they part of the "Deep State" conspiracy?

Once upon a time there was real voter fraud, while I think many of the Chicago stories were apocryphal, having written a book on Texas history and politics, elections in the 1930s and 1940s were rife with voter fraud (See Caro, The Path to Power). But that is ancient history. The only documented frauds the last couple decades have been local elections and primaries, and as much by Republicans as Democrats. For one thing, the stakes in bigger elections and the money involved means both sides have the resources to research and expose real fraud.

[Sack that QB]

It's depressing knowing that as long as the Howie/Lurie combo is acting the way they currently are, things probably won't get any better. Decisions will always be made with their specific agenda in mind. Decisions will always be made with not bringing in anyone who is too alpha to where there'd be any concern whatsoever of them trying to usurp Howie and ask for more roster control. There will always be general dysfunction. Hell, part of the reason it was tough for us to find a coach was because they started a week late. I don't know how it's gotten to this point with those two, but it has, and until that tandem is broken up I fear that years like this past year are going to be the norm around here for the most part.

I honestly think as grim and awful as things have been, firing Howie would breathe life into a fan base that has been totally demoralized for the last year and would get people optimistic about it again. But it's not happening.

If Sirianni bombs, I won't even be mad at the guy. All he did was accept a job that was offered for him, it wouldn't be his fault per se. I'll be mad at the Eagles for the whole process that led to Sirianni. I actually feel for the dude, he's been put in an impossible situation. Barring a miracle the team is going to absolutely Fing suck in year one, so whatever happens, the fan base will likely already doubt the dude heading into year 2 of his tenure. It's just such a crap situation, everything about the Eagles right now.

[austinfan]

6 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Sanders and Scott are not "good” pass catching backs?  Disagree  We need a hammer that can sub for Boobie and that means he needs to be able to catch too.  I actually liked Huntley as a late day 3 pick last year.  Behind this season’s OL he showed nothing.  He was also back for KORs in the last game.  Felton may be better than Huntley but a #4 RB is not where the Eagles need to focus.

We just need that middle round 220 lb RB with a good burst and vision, good blocker but below average speed (which is why these types of backs drop in the draft).

Not every play has to be a game breaker, Blount and Ajayi were just fine pounding the rock as a change of pace.

Just now, Sack that QB said:

It's depressing knowing that as long as the Howie/Lurie combo is acting the way they currently are, things probably won't get any better. Decisions will always be made with their specific agenda in mind. Decisions will always be made with not bringing in anyone who is too alpha to where there'd be any concern whatsoever of them trying to usurp Howie and ask for more roster control. There will always be general dysfunction. Hell, part of the reason it was tough for us to find a coach was because they started a week late. I don't know how it's gotten to this point with those two, but it has, and until that tandem is broken up I fear that years like this past year are going to be the norm around here for the most part.

I honestly think as grim and awful as things have been, firing Howie would breathe life into a fan base that has been totally demoralized for the last year and would get people optimistic about it again. But it's not happening.

If Sirianni bombs, I won't even be mad at the guy. All he did was accept a job that was offered for him, it wouldn't be his fault per se. I'll be mad at the Eagles for the whole process that led to Sirianni. I actually feel for the dude, he's been put in an impossible situation. Barring a miracle the team is going to absolutely Fing suck in year one, so whatever happens, the fan base will likely already doubt the dude heading into year 2 of his tenure. It's just such a crap situation, everything about the Eagles right now.

Name me all the HCs that were successful when they were given control over personnel.

Now name me all that screwed up, including McDaniels, Chip, AR, etc.

[Mike31mt]

37 minutes ago, dawkdaballhawk said:

Just watched Boris and wondering if any of this matters.

Do you mean Borat?

[TorontoEagle]

3 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

It's depressing knowing that as long as the Howie/Lurie combo is acting the way they currently are, things probably won't get any better. Decisions will always be made with their specific agenda in mind. Decisions will always be made with not bringing in anyone who is too alpha to where there'd be any concern whatsoever of them trying to usurp Howie and ask for more roster control. There will always be general dysfunction. Hell, part of the reason it was tough for us to find a coach was because they started a week late. I don't know how it's gotten to this point with those two, but it has, and until that tandem is broken up I fear that years like this past year are going to be the norm around here for the most part.

I honestly think as grim and awful as things have been, firing Howie would breathe life into a fan base that has been totally demoralized for the last year and would get people optimistic about it again. But it's not happening.

If Sirianni bombs, I won't even be mad at the guy. All he did was accept a job that was offered for him, it wouldn't be his fault per se. I'll be mad at the Eagles for the whole process that led to Sirianni. I actually feel for the dude, he's been put in an impossible situation. Barring a miracle the team is going to absolutely Fing suck in year one, so whatever happens, the fan base will likely already doubt the dude heading into year 2 of his tenure. It's just such a crap situation, everything about the Eagles right now.

Dude, take a step back from the ledge and breathe a bit. Go outside for a walk or something. 

[RLC]

The Eagles will be bad in 2021 and fix their cap situation and be "fine" in 2022. 

[Sack that QB]

9 minutes ago, austinfan said:

We just need that middle round 220 lb RB with a good burst and vision, good blocker but below average speed (which is why these types of backs drop in the draft).

Not every play has to be a game breaker, Blount and Ajayi were just fine pounding the rock as a change of pace.

Name me all the HCs that were successful when they were given control over personnel.

Now name me all that screwed up, including McDaniels, Chip, AR, etc.

Totally irrespective to what I was saying. Whether or not it's a smart idea wasn't the point. I don't think as long as Howie is here, Lurie would ever hire someone who he thinks may want those powers one day. Not that Lurie has to give the coach those powers, I'd prefer they didn't. But the point is Lurie will always create a "snowplow" atmosphere for Howie to where he never has to ever worry about his authority being challenged by anyone.

[aptosbird]

12 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

It's depressing knowing that as long as the Howie/Lurie combo is acting the way they currently are, things probably won't get any better. Decisions will always be made with their specific agenda in mind. Decisions will always be made with not bringing in anyone who is too alpha to where there'd be any concern whatsoever of them trying to usurp Howie and ask for more roster control. There will always be general dysfunction. Hell, part of the reason it was tough for us to find a coach was because they started a week late. I don't know how it's gotten to this point with those two, but it has, and until that tandem is broken up I fear that years like this past year are going to be the norm around here for the most part.

I honestly think as grim and awful as things have been, firing Howie would breathe life into a fan base that has been totally demoralized for the last year and would get people optimistic about it again. But it's not happening.

If Sirianni bombs, I won't even be mad at the guy. All he did was accept a job that was offered for him, it wouldn't be his fault per se. I'll be mad at the Eagles for the whole process that led to Sirianni. I actually feel for the dude, he's been put in an impossible situation. Barring a miracle the team is going to absolutely Fing suck in year one, so whatever happens, the fan base will likely already doubt the dude heading into year 2 of his tenure. It's just such a crap situation, everything about the Eagles right now.

Seriously, you need to take a break and chill. You are just repeating yourself at this point.....

[tuffstuff07]

1 hour ago, NCiggles said:

I wonder if it is related to naming assistants.  

I could see that and have been wondering about this. Siri could be making calls and is busy trying to assemble his staff.