EMB Blog: 2021 Offseason

[DeathByEagle]

21 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

And when you gamble and lose, in the NFL... you get fired.   That is the piece that doesn't add up.    I get that he gambled and lost.  He gambled and lost playing extremely long odds as well.

 

You keep pointing to 2017 and using it as defense of the current situation.  I've already explained why that's a fallacious argument, as the basic structures that led directly to 2017 were completely ignored since.  Summary: 2017 - older players at low salaries and minimal commitments.  2018 and beyond - older/injured players at high salaries and massive commitments.

They didn't have to 'rebuild' in 2018, what they needed to do was bring in new pieces to replace the pieces that they were losing... replacing Torrey Smith with Desean Jackson looks great on paper, right?   But, Jackson is 4 years older, more injury prone, and most costly, both to acquire and to pay.  Jackson cost a draft pick and bigger salary and forced them to keep him around for a 2nd year after a failed first year, and will still be paying for him in 2021 while he's not on the roster.   Grade: F-.  Bad plan to start with, worse in reality than many who were against the move initially feared.  Meanwhile, that same amount of money could have been given to a YOUNGER, speed WR to do the same job as Smith, without the draft pick costs, without the extensive injury history.    AND... the trade for Golden Tate further illustrates this stupid move... giving away a 3rd round pick for a rental that added NOTHING to the offense.  They didn't need another slot WR.  (Yes, I know... a full year later, they got back a 4th round pick... which was a round and a half later than the pick they gave up, AND a year later... essentially a 5th round compensatory pick in the equation, as having to wait a full year for a pick basically lowers its value by a full round.)

Im sure you were one of many including myself that said you would give your left nut to see the Eagles win the Superbowl while you were alive. 

Well guess what, its time to pay the piper.................Drop your pants please. 

[Original Sin]

1 hour ago, ManuManu said:

 

This is an accurate response to Nagy tweet

 

Molly McManimie

 

@MolllyMack

·

5m

 

I understand this rationale but it’s not really a fair one considering some kids had access to full gyms and others couldn’t even get their hands on a dumbbell for months. I hope teams remember how hard this pandemic was for all & maintain reason with these types of measurements

[austinfan]

17 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

And when you gamble and lose, in the NFL... you get fired.   That is the piece that doesn't add up.    I get that he gambled and lost.  He gambled and lost playing extremely long odds as well.

 

You keep pointing to 2017 and using it as defense of the current situation.  I've already explained why that's a fallacious argument, as the basic structures that led directly to 2017 were completely ignored since.  Summary: 2017 - older players at low salaries and minimal commitments.  2018 and beyond - older/injured players at high salaries and massive commitments.

They didn't have to 'rebuild' in 2018, what they needed to do was bring in new pieces to replace the pieces that they were losing... replacing Torrey Smith with Desean Jackson looks great on paper, right?   But, Jackson is 4 years older, more injury prone, and most costly, both to acquire and to pay.  Jackson cost a draft pick and bigger salary and forced them to keep him around for a 2nd year after a failed first year, and will still be paying for him in 2021 while he's not on the roster.   Grade: F-.  Bad plan to start with, worse in reality than many who were against the move initially feared.  Meanwhile, that same amount of money could have been given to a YOUNGER, speed WR to do the same job as Smith, without the draft pick costs, without the extensive injury history.    AND... the trade for Golden Tate further illustrates this stupid move... giving away a 3rd round pick for a rental that added NOTHING to the offense.  They didn't need another slot WR.  (Yes, I know... a full year later, they got back a 4th round pick... which was a round and a half later than the pick they gave up, AND a year later... essentially a 5th round compensatory pick in the equation, as having to wait a full year for a pick basically lowers its value by a full round.)

Actually, they signed Wallace to replace Smith, same one year patch. DeSean was a bad gamble, but he was an elite WR when healthy, the expectation was 10-12 games a year, they got 2-3 games a year. A healthy DeSean is far better than any WR they could afford to bring in.

And you can't always bring in a younger player, because FAs actually chose where they want to go. Unless you overpay, which then creates cap issues.

And if they didn't back load deals, they wouldn't have been competitive, because they were up against the cap, so no room for FAs, and one or two starters would have to leave in FA. So the next year you're signing players to replace the players you had to let walk. And injuries drove a lot of moves, if 26 year old Jerrigan doesn't get a neck injury, they never sign Malik.

The Tate move was driven by injury, and giving up a late 3rd for a late 4th isn't much of a price. Something in the area of a 4th rd pick at worst.

Waiting for a year doesn't necessarily lower the value, only to GMs who need to win now, for Howie, a pick in 2022 has close to the same value as 2021, so he can exploit his lower discount rate in trades this year.

[bpac55]

I just don't know what to think of Barnett.  Is he worth $40 million over 5?.  Chris Long gave the Eagles the same production for roughly $6 million over 2 years.  Even Vinny Curry produced similar stats. I think we can plug and play with veterans until they add legitimate DE prospects.  

Signing DB to a 5 year deal is just going to eat up more cap than he's worth.  I think we have to almost look at the next few years the way Billy Beane built the A's.  They won't but they should.  Contract vs. production. 

Here's a comparison of Chris Long, Vinny Curry, Derek Barnett and Josh Sweat.  I know there are more things to consider such as situations they were in.  Long was 3rd down for the most part.  But still. these are ALL very comparable numbers.

They are going to have to pay Sweat either this year or next year too.  Based on his numbers vs snaps, he deserves the same contract that Barnett is looking for, if not more based on potential.  Do you want to sign 2 DE to $40 million contracts when one is giving you the same production in almost half the snaps?  I think Josh Sweat is still improving too whereas Barnett is what he is.  The production they get from Sweat and Barnett is very good compared to the investment of their rookie contacts, however, if we are looking at $8 million plus per year for that same production...well that's not smart roster construction.

Chris Long   

2017-   5 sacks 28 tackles 2 TFL 18 QB hits  48% of snaps   $2.5 million 

2018-   6.5 sacks 23 tackles 3 TFL 20 QB hits  59% of snaps   $3 milion after restructure 

Vinny Curry

2017-  3 sacks 42 tackles 10 TFL 18 QB hits 56% of snaps

2018-  2.5 sacks 15 tackles  5 TFL 7 QB hits (Tampa Bay)

2019-  5 sacks  27 tackles  5 TFL 12  QB hits 39% of snaps    1 year/$2.25 million

2020-  3 sacks 16 tackles 3 TFL 10 QB hits 28% of snaps        1 year/$2 million

Derek Barnett

2017-  5 sacks 21 tackles 8 TFL 16 QB hits  41% of snaps

2018-  2.5 sacks 16 tackles 5 TFL 11 QB hits  23% of snaps

2019-  6.5 sacks 30 tackles 10 TFL 22 QB hits  68% of snaps

2020-  5.5 sacks 21 Tackles 6 TFL 16 QB hits  49% of snaps

Josh Sweat

2019-  4 sacks 21 tackles 7 TFL 10 QB hits  35% of snaps

2020- 6 sacks 24 tackles 9 TFL 12 QB hits  38% of snaps

 

 

 

[Alphagrand]

1 hour ago, RememberTheKoy said:

Besides Rice, who before 1998 was better than Moss and TO? 

Not sure I’d argue better, but I’d say Tim Brown was as good.  Since I view ST ability as part of the criteria Tim Brown is vastly underrated — very solid PR and was a weapon on KR in his rookie year (only year they really used him there)

[Original Sin]

You have to have some quality vets to play along side the young guys . Teach them how to be pros , you already have a young coaching staff , who I think either has success or flops , won’t be no in between.

[Freshmilk]

6 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

I just don't know what to think of Barnett.  Is he worth $40 million over 5?.  Chris Long gave the Eagles the same production for roughly $6 million over 2 years.  Even Vinny Curry produced similar stats. I think we can plug and play with veterans until they add legitimate DE prospects.  

Signing DB to a 5 year deal is just going to eat up more cap than he's worth.  I think we have to almost look at the next few years the way Billy Beane built the A's.  They won't but they should.  Contract vs. production. 

Here's a comparison of Chris Long, Vinny Curry, Derek Barnett and Josh Sweat.  I know there are more things to consider such as situations they were in.  Long was 3rd down for the most part.  But still. these are ALL very comparable numbers.

They are going to have to pay Sweat either this year or next year too.  Based on his numbers vs snaps, he deserves the same contract that Barnett is looking for, if not more based on potential.  Do you want to sign 2 DE to $40 million contracts when one is giving you the same production in almost half the snaps?  I think Josh Sweat is still improving too whereas Barnett is what he is.  The production they get from Sweat and Barnett is very good compared to the investment of their rookie contacts, however, if we are looking at $8 million plus per year for that same production...well that's not smart roster construction.

Chris Long   

2017-   5 sacks 28 tackles 2 TFL 18 QB hits  48% of snaps   $2.5 million 

2018-   6.5 sacks 23 tackles 3 TFL 20 QB hits  59% of snaps   $3 milion after restructure 

Vinny Curry

2017-  3 sacks 42 tackles 10 TFL 18 QB hits 56% of snaps

2018-  2.5 sacks 15 tackles  5 TFL 7 QB hits (Tampa Bay)

2019-  5 sacks  27 tackles  5 TFL 12  QB hits 39% of snaps    1 year/$2.25 million

2020-  3 sacks 16 tackles 3 TFL 10 QB hits 28% of snaps        1 year/$2 million

Derek Barnett

2017-  5 sacks 21 tackles 8 TFL 16 QB hits  41% of snaps

2018-  2.5 sacks 16 tackles 5 TFL 11 QB hits  23% of snaps

2019-  6.5 sacks 30 tackles 10 TFL 22 QB hits  68% of snaps

2020-  5.5 sacks 21 Tackles 6 TFL 16 QB hits  49% of snaps

Josh Sweat

2019-  4 sacks 21 tackles 7 TFL 10 QB hits  35% of snaps

2020- 6 sacks 24 tackles 9 TFL 12 QB hits  38% of snaps

 

 

 

I'm in favor of cutting him and signing a vet to a 1 year deal at DE.  Barnett is just so average.  Anymore than 2 years for average is a waste

[DeathByEagle]

8 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Not sure I’d argue better, but I’d say Tim Brown was as good.  Since I view ST ability as part of the criteria Tim Brown is vastly underrated — very solid PR and was a weapon on KR in his rookie year (only year they really used him there)

What makes ranking WRs difficult is the era that they played the game. You really need two different categories. There were great WRs back int he day but limited by the era and the mind set of the coaches and run first offenses. The QBs of that era, etc. Its just not a very good topic to combine all into one metric. 

[bpac55]

1 minute ago, Freshmilk said:

I'm in favor of cutting him and signing a vet to a 1 year deal at DE.  Barnett is just so average.  Anymore than 2 years for average is a waste

After doing that little bit of research and looking at stats lined up, I agree.  He's had 4 years, his numbers are average and nothing has improved.  His game has been the same since he entered the league.  I know we want young players on the team but there's no benefit in paying to keep a guy whose production you can replace for under $3 million.

[ManuManu]

I just saw a Domo story that according to two league sources the Eagles are talking to Rosenhaus about a contract extension for Barnett. 

[ManuManu]

2 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

After doing that little bit of research and looking at stats lined up, I agree.  He's had 4 years, his numbers are average and nothing has improved.  His game has been the same since he entered the league.  I know we want young players on the team but there's no benefit in paying to keep a guy whose production you can replace for under $3 million.

The numbers might be similar, but there’s no question Barnett has gotten better. He actually has a spin move now, which was embarrassingly bad his first couple of years. 

[DeathByEagle]

3 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

After doing that little bit of research and looking at stats lined up, I agree.  He's had 4 years, his numbers are average and nothing has improved.  His game has been the same since he entered the league.  I know we want young players on the team but there's no benefit in paying to keep a guy whose production you can replace for under $3 million.

By that theory Brandon Graham would have been gone after his rookie contract as well. Food for thought

[bpac55]

1 minute ago, ManuManu said:

I just saw a Domo story that according to two league sources the Eagles are talking to Rosenhaus about a contract extension for Barnett. 

It's going to happen.  It shouldn't but it will.  Are the only outcomes cut or extension?  Is there anyway to trade?

[aptosbird]

1 minute ago, ManuManu said:

The numbers might be similar, but there’s no question Barnett has gotten better. He actually has a spin move now, which was embarrassingly bad his first couple of years. 

yup...he is only 25...young athletic DE's are still gold...we need to hold onto him

[bpac55]

1 minute ago, DeathByEagle said:

By that theory Brandon Graham would have been gone after his rookie contract as well. Food for thought

Not quite.  BG battled injuries, scheme changes, different line coaches.  

It's also not so much about Barnett but the production.  The stats I posted clearly show that Chris Long and Vinny Curry produced similar numbers at a fraction of what he will cost.

Barnett is average.  Bringing him back doesn't improve the team.  

[bpac55]

4 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

The numbers might be similar, but there’s no question Barnett has gotten better. He actually has a spin move now, which was embarrassingly bad his first couple of years. 

I was going to post his highlights and that's the one thing that jumped off.  His spin move is nice.  He isn't a bad player, he's just so average. I want the Eagles to improve, not stay the course.  I know you can't have Pro Bowlers at every position but I also know that Barnett is who he is and I don't think he's worth the estimated $40 million.  

Again, I'm not hating on Barnett, I just think the same production can be found in plug and play vets until there is a must have D-end in the draft or FA.  

4 minutes ago, aptosbird said:

yup...he is only 25...young athletic DE's are still gold...we need to hold onto him

DE's who average 5.5 sacks and 15 QB hits a year are gold?  

[DeathByEagle]

6 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

Not quite.  BG battled injuries, scheme changes, different line coaches.  

It's also not so much about Barnett but the production.  The stats I posted clearly show that Chris Long and Vinny Curry produced similar numbers at a fraction of what he will cost.

Barnett is average.  Bringing him back doesn't improve the team.  

So Barnett didnt battle injuries of different line coaches? Got it. 

Oh BG didnt really even have success in his second contract till the end of it. BG and Barnett are more similar then you think with there numbers. when you look back in BGs first 5-7 years even taking away both of their injury years. BG didnt stand out till the back end of his career and is a Philly legend now. Oh who recovered the fumble that BG stripped in the SB? The strip dont mean a think if Barnett didnt recover it. 

The contract you purpose 40 mill  at 5 years is a bargain. Dont think he would even take that cheap a deal. 

[Freshmilk]

I just don't want to be committing 6-8 million a year the next 3 years to him- that is just my guess for an extension.

[aptosbird]

1 minute ago, bpac55 said:

 

DE's who average 5.5 sacks and 15 QB hits a year are gold?  

We have a new coaching staff and yes, Barnett has average numbers. He is still growing and progressing. Who knows what a new staff can get out of him. I don't see the need to clean out the team and leave multiple holes beyond what the Eagles already have. 25 year old DE's have value. What I see by the "brain trust" is an attempt to solidify both OL and DL. I would assume so they can focus on other positions of need. 

[bpac55]

4 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

So Barnett didnt battle injuries of different line coaches? Got it. 

Oh BG didnt really even have success in his second contract till the end of it. BG and Barnett are more similar then you think with there numbers. when you look back in BGs first 5-7 years even taking away both of their injury years. BG didnt stand out till the back end of his career and is a Philly legend now. Oh who recovered the fumble that BG stripped in the SB? The strip dont mean a think if Barnett didnt recover it. 

The contract you purpose 40 mill  at 5 years is a bargain. Dont think he would even take that cheap a deal. 

I see your argument and I get it.   I'd argue that a torn ACL is much different than a rotator cuff.  I'm not dismissing anything Barnett has done.  Yes, he recovered the fumble (it also bounced right to him) and he also had the strip sack against the Vikings so he has made some big plays.

I just think the Eagles can improve from Barnett.

 

[ManuManu]

4 minutes ago, Freshmilk said:

I just don't want to be committing 6-8 million a year the next 3 years to him- that is just my guess for an extension.

I bet it’s more than that. Shaq Lawson got 3-$30M. 

[Swoop]

2 hours ago, RememberTheKoy said:

Besides Rice, who before 1998 was better than Moss and TO? 

Agreed, but the way it read was that TO was 2 and the only WR that could be argued above him was Moss.

[Alphagrand]

I think Barnett and Seumalo are the only players from the 2014-2017 draft classes who are still under contract with the Eagles.  Is it possible Howie has a little extra motivation to keep Barnett signed instead of flushing him?

[bpac55]

3 minutes ago, aptosbird said:

We have a new coaching staff and yes, Barnett has average numbers. He is still growing and progressing. Who knows what a new staff can get out of him. I don't see the need to clean out the team and leave multiple holes beyond what the Eagles already have. 25 year old DE's have value. What I see by the "brain trust" is an attempt to solidify both OL and DL. I would assume so they can focus on other positions of need. 

I've considered the new coaching staff and what that would mean so I agree there.  He could also be a total scheme misfit so if he's locked up for 5 years and he's better in a wide-9 then we're stuck.  

The point I was trying to make is that if you make a Derek Barnett sized hole, you can easily replace his production and fill that hole with a Chris Long or even Vinny Curry type of veteran signing.  

I'd much rather let this staff have a bare cupboard and let them build the roster they want.  Not bring back guys just so we don't have a hole.  

[bpac55]

3 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

I bet it’s more than that. Shaq Lawson got 3-$30M. 

I don't know how accurate Spotrac is but they've predicted Carl Lawson to average about $8.8 million in his new contract.  Lawson and Barnett are very comparable IMO so I think he's looking around that same deal.