EMB Blog: 2021 Offseason

[ManuManu]

2 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

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.

Carl Lawson will get a lot more than that. 

[NVeagle]

1 hour ago, downundermike said:

Thanks, was just coming to post this.

One you hear it, you can't get it out of your head.

[DeathByEagle]

Lets just say if they do give Barnett an extension, it would be the ONLY current player deal that makes somewhat sense for the future. All these restructures are needed to save cap this year but they are horrible at the same time going forward. At least Barnett would be playing for the team in the future and can grow. 

[SBorBust]

10 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

Lets just say if they do give Barnett an extension, it would be the ONLY current player deal that makes somewhat sense for the future. All these restructures are needed to save cap this year but they are horrible at the same time going forward. At least Barnett would be playing for the team in the future and can grow. 

Once people in charge start making short term decisions based on their own job status things start going very poorly. We’re seeing it now.

[Iggles_Phan]

1 hour ago, DeathByEagle said:

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. 

Wow... you really aren't tracking at all.  The argument is the mismanagement (gross mismanagement, btw) since the Super Bowl. Not a single thing I've complained about goes back to pre-2017 season, in fact, I've argued that Howie has lost sight of what worked in 2017.  Try to keep up.  

[Saltpeter]

I recall Adam Caplan saying Barnett came into camp last year at 240-245 lbs. Is that even gonna work with Gannon? I guess he'll have to make it work...

[austinfan]

24 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

I just think the Eagles can improve from Barnett.

Eventually. But it's doubtful they're gonna draft a starter caliber DE this year, at best a development project.

So you need a capable body for the next couple seasons.

[austinfan]

The Chris Longs of this world don't sign to be backups on rebuilding teams.

And there's a big difference between the production of a starter, who plays a lot of run downs, and a backup coming off the bench with fresh legs in passing situations.

A lot of players put up good numbers per snap in a backup role, but fade when they play 50+% of the snaps.

Most of the veterans they're retaining are there to fill spots for a couple of years until a critical mass of young players is built up.

For every draft pick that start as rookies, there will probably be 3 that need 2-3 years before they play a major role. Look at Sweat, Mailata -  the reason players are available on the 3rd day is they're developmental projects (take time) or just not good enough and not worth drafting in a rebuild (we don't need NFL ready backups whose ceiling is backup).

[bpac55]

2 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Eventually. But it's doubtful they're gonna draft a starter caliber DE this year, at best a development project.

So you need a capable body for the next couple seasons.

I get that and again, that's why I posed the other guys who compare.  Let's say his cap hit is $8 million instead of a vet who could produce the same at $2 million.  Couldn't that $6 million go towards a different player?  I'm sure the cap hit will be lower this year and all but that's the way I'm looking at it.  

Until we know that a player is worth building around/draft players to build around or sign above average FA, I think 1-year vet deals make sense.

Maybe Barnett is a building piece, I don't know but I also don't think he is.  I think he's completely average and that's a lot of coin to throw at him when the same production can be had at a fraction of the cost.

[bpac55]

Just now, austinfan said:

The Chris Longs of this world don't sign to be backups on rebuilding teams.

And there's a big difference between the production of a starter, who plays a lot of run downs, and a backup coming off the bench with fresh legs in passing situations.

A lot of players put up good numbers per snap in a backup role, but fade when they play 50+% of the snaps.

Most of the veterans they're retaining are there to fill spots for a couple of years until a critical mass of young players is built up.

For every draft picks that start as rookies, there will probably be 3 that need 2-3 years before they play a major role. Look at Sweat, Mailata -  the reason players are available on the 3rd day is they're developmental projects (take time) or just not good enough and not worth drafting in a rebuild (we don't need NFL ready backups whose ceiling is backup).

I understand that but it's also why I posted 4 different players and even alluded to the fact that I know they play in different situations.  Barnett, Sweat, Curry and Long are all very comparable statistically vs snap counts.

[DeathByEagle]

14 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Wow... you really aren't tracking at all.  The argument is the mismanagement (gross mismanagement, btw) since the Super Bowl. Not a single thing I've complained about goes back to pre-2017 season, in fact, I've argued that Howie has lost sight of what worked in 2017.  Try to keep up.  

So we won a SB and now suck and you want to cry about because Howie tried to keep it going and made some very bad choices. We get it, the story is old at this point. Anyone paying attention the last few years knew this was coming. Get a box of tissues, cry it out and move on. 

[Iggles_Phan]

1 hour ago, austinfan said:

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.

They brought in Desean for the Torrey Smith role, actually... after the Wallace experiment failed (who was also older than Smith).  I abridged the argument, because you've been making the same stupid defense of Howie since you've come back.  Forgive me for not recounting every single one of Howie's failed moves since 2018.   Its a long list though, so at times, I condense for the sake of space.   Combined Wallace and Desean have played in 9 games for this team over 3 seasons.... but in 3 of those games Desean was injured extremely early in the game and produced very little (though one of them was a highlight deep TD... where he proceeded to aggravate his injury while doing a somersault into the end zone).   You can call it 'bad luck' or whatever you want, but when you bring in older players they are prone to get injured more often, and take longer to recover than younger players.  That's irrefutable fact.  So, it was a DUMB gamble, and a DUMBER contract that Howie gave to Desean (you don't give big money that commits you to a player that has a history of injuries who is 33 years old).

 

Waiting a year for a draft pick absolutely lowers the value.  You can't argue that.  That's why a 2nd round pick in this year's draft costs a 1st round pick the following year.   You can't argue anything else.  You are just making crap up.

 

I can't wait to see all these marvelous trades Howie will be making though.   

[aptosbird]

2 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

I get that and again, that's why I posed the other guys who compare.  Let's say his cap hit is $8 million instead of a vet who could produce the same at $2 million.  Couldn't that $6 million go towards a different player?  I'm sure the cap hit will be lower this year and all but that's the way I'm looking at it.  

Until we know that a player is worth building around/draft players to build around or sign above average FA, I think 1-year vet deals make sense.

Maybe Barnett is a building piece, I don't know but I also don't think he is.  I think he's completely average and that's a lot of coin to throw at him when the same production can be had at a fraction of the cost.

I agree with most of what you shared..it does make sense. I have a similar opinion and in a typical Eagle year for the past decade or so ( possible contender status), keeping Barnett would a serious consideration....I am not sure I would do it personally. But...these are not normal circumstances...

Instead, I am just reading tea leaves...if the "brain trust" is considering a negotiation with Barnett, it would be for a couple of reasons. For example.... The new coaching staff sees something and would like to hold onto him or the secondary effects of losing a player and needing to fill a hole. I think this is not the best year to find his replacement. 

[RememberTheKoy]

1 hour 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)

 

I don't know why you would include ST in evaluation of a WR.  I'm not going to Big Ben is a better QB than someone because he might be a better LB.  

[austinfan]

4 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Waiting a year for a draft pick absolutely lowers the value.  You can't argue that.  That's why a 2nd round pick in this year's draft costs a 1st round pick the following year.   You can't argue anything else.  You are just making crap up.

Not making anything up, it's basic economics, two people trading with different discount rates will value the future differently.

If I'm on the cusp of a SB, talent today has more value than talent in two years when I might be an 8-8 team. And a GM who is under pressure to win is going to discount the future (and why HCs discount the future, they're always under pressure to win now, Licht survived his 7 year rebuild, but he's on his 3rd HC).

So Howie in 2021 is going to have a lower discount rate because a 1st rd pick this year or next year have similar value in terms of winning in 2023, and he's not concerned about winning in 2021. Which means he has an advantage trading during the draft, he's willing to give up 2021 picks for more value in 2022 - potential trade partners may value 2021 picks at a higher rate b/c they want to win in the next couple years.

[Iggles_Phan]

2 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

So we won a SB and now suck and you want to cry about because Howie tried to keep it going and made some very bad choices. We get it, the story is old at this point. Anyone paying attention the last few years knew this was coming. Get a box of tissues, cry it out and move on. 

Anyone paying attention the last few years knew this was coming because the moves made by Howie were almost all bad.  Bad moves always lead to collapse.  The Super Bowl had NOTHING to do with this... zero, zip, zilch, nada.   

Did the contract to LaGarrette Blount put us here?  The one for Chris Long?  Patrick Robinson?  Torrey Smith?

Or, are we here because of the failed moves of the likes of: extending Alshon (not the 2018 extension, the 2019 extension... Howie has been kicking that one for a while now... even restructured him a 3rd time just to make the release easier).   The Malik Jackson contract (signed after 2018 season), the Desean Jackson contract (after 2018), Golden Tate trade (2018 mid-year), excruciatingly bad drafting, extensions for aging players who are more prone to injury (Extended Brooks and Johnson before the conclusion of the 2019 season... and both are reaching the end of that plateau where you start to see diminishing returns, but Howie extended them both... while BOTH had 2 more years to go on their contract, AND paid them both at the HIGHEST level for BOTH at their respective positions).  

 

So, when I come with facts, don't come with nonsense.   The issue is that there is accountability for everyone but Howie.  Doug... gone.  Schwartz... gone.  Wentz... gone.  Where's Howie?   Masterminding more can kicking.       Yeah... its old.  But, its still happening.  If you don't like reading about it, put your head back in the sand, and put me on ignore.

[austinfan]

4 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

I don't know why you would include ST in evaluation of a WR.  I'm not going to Big Ben is a better QB than someone because he might be a better LB.  

Because in most cases you're not talking an elite player, you're talking a 2nd or 3rd WR, and ST play adds to the value of that player. If a WR is also a plus PR, he has more value.

With elite WRs it's a different calculation b/c you're not going to risk them on STs.

[Iggles_Phan]

Just now, austinfan said:

Not making anything up, it's basic economics, two people trading with different discount rates will value the future differently.

If I'm on the cusp of a SB, talent today has more value than talent in two years when I might be an 8-8 team. And a GM who is under pressure to win is going to discount the future (and why HCs discount the future, they're always under pressure to win now, Licht survived his 7 year rebuild, but he's on his 3rd HC).

So Howie in 2021 is going to have a lower discount rate because a 1st rd pick this year or next year have similar value in terms of winning in 2023, and he's not concerned about winning in 2021. Which means he has an advantage trading during the draft, he's willing to give up 2021 picks for more value in 2022 - potential trade partners may value 2021 picks at a higher rate b/c they want to win in the next couple years.

The NFL draft is not economics, so you can't compare the two.   Or, is economics also like quantum physics? 

 

Howie should NOT have the type of job security you are (and Lurie) ascribe to him.  He should be held accountable for his failures.  Yet, he's not.  Lurie's defense of him in that ridiculous PC where he announced that Doug was gone never addressed Howie's failed process.  Instead, he deflected talking about how they identified the right players, but just couldn't seem to bring them in... DUH!  In the draft, every team is identifying those same players.  You either get aggressive to bring them in, or you find a suitable alternative.  You don't just shrug, draft a stiff like JJAW and say, "Aw. Shucks.  Stymied again."  For Lurie to say that is awful.  Scarier yet, he might actually believe it.

[aptosbird]

1 minute ago, Iggles_Phan said:

The NFL draft is not economics, so you can't compare the two.   Or, is economics also like quantum physics? 

 

 

The draft is certainly about economics with cost/benefit analysis as well as game theory. 

[austinfan]

Actually injuries aren't strongly correlated with age, probably because of self-selection, injury prone players don't stay around until they're 30 or so.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2015/nfl-injuries-part-iii-variation-position-and-age

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2015/nfl-injuries-part-i-overall-view

 

[Iggles_Phan]

3 minutes ago, aptosbird said:

The draft is certainly about economics with cost/benefit analysis as well as game theory. 

There are aspects of it that relate.  That doesn't it make it the same.    The history of the draft and draft trades shows that a draft pick this year is worth a draft pick one round higher in the following year.   That's not debatable.  That's historical precedence.  

[RLC]

3 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

There are aspects of it that relate.  That doesn't it make it the same.    The history of the draft and draft trades shows that a draft pick this year is worth a draft pick one round higher in the following year.   That's not debatable.  That's historical precedence.  

It's also a dumb practice. 

[DeathByEagle]

10 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Anyone paying attention the last few years knew this was coming because the moves made by Howie were almost all bad.  Bad moves always lead to collapse.  The Super Bowl had NOTHING to do with this... zero, zip, zilch, nada.   

Did the contract to LaGarrette Blount put us here?  The one for Chris Long?  Patrick Robinson?  Torrey Smith?

Or, are we here because of the failed moves of the likes of: extending Alshon (not the 2018 extension, the 2019 extension... Howie has been kicking that one for a while now... even restructured him a 3rd time just to make the release easier).   The Malik Jackson contract (signed after 2018 season), the Desean Jackson contract (after 2018), Golden Tate trade (2018 mid-year), excruciatingly bad drafting, extensions for aging players who are more prone to injury (Extended Brooks and Johnson before the conclusion of the 2019 season... and both are reaching the end of that plateau where you start to see diminishing returns, but Howie extended them both... while BOTH had 2 more years to go on their contract, AND paid them both at the HIGHEST level for BOTH at their respective positions).  

 

So, when I come with facts, don't come with nonsense.   The issue is that there is accountability for everyone but Howie.  Doug... gone.  Schwartz... gone.  Wentz... gone.  Where's Howie?   Masterminding more can kicking.       Yeah... its old.  But, its still happening.  If you don't like reading about it, put your head back in the sand, and put me on ignore.

You need to face the fact you cant do **** about it. Crying about the same thing for months and years is dull at this point. Time to get some new topics. The Howie needs to be fired just is not happening this year, so until next year comes around its time to move on to the next topic. 

[austinfan]

10 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

There are aspects of it that relate.  That doesn't it make it the same.    The history of the draft and draft trades shows that a draft pick this year is worth a draft pick one round higher in the following year.   That's not debatable.  That's historical precedence.  

To whom. That's what you're missing.

It take two to tango and to make trades. Trades are usually made b/c each party has different valuations/goals so there's an optimal solution that at least ex ante, benefits both parties.

A 2022 1st is worth more than a 2021 2nd to Howie, but it may be worth less to someone who needs to draft a player to win now.

[Iggles_Phan]

4 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Actually injuries aren't strongly correlated with age, probably because of self-selection, injury prone players don't stay around until they're 30 or so.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2015/nfl-injuries-part-iii-variation-position-and-age

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2015/nfl-injuries-part-i-overall-view

 

So, the injuries that have piled up on Jason Peters has nothing to do with his age and his body breaking down.

 

Those types of statistics are very nice... measuring the aggregate.    What does it look like regarding the number of snaps played?   A lot of these old vets sign and play on a 'pitch count'.  But, we'll let it go.  Howie can do no wrong.   I get it.