39 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

Spent the morning watching more Kwitty Paye highlights.  My initial thought on him was he's Brandon Graham 2.0.  It's easy to do so when they are pretty identical in size, play the same position and both played at UM.

However, after watching more and trying to be more open to him rather than just saying eh, this is BG, I think his game is more Dwight Freeney than it is BG.  He's almost a combination of the two.  He's much more explosive than BG and seems to have violent hands to shed blockers. 

Still not a fan of picking him at 12.  He has the lowest ceiling IMO when comparing him to Jaelan Phillips and Greg Rousseau.  He's also the oldest, turning 23 during his rookie year.  Phillips turns 22 in May and Rousseau just turned 21.  I think Rousseau is the biggest risk of busting but you can't teach that size.  Phillips brings the injury concerns.

I just don't know where the sweet spot for DE is in this draft.  I do think these three guys are tier 1 prospects compared to the rest that are available this year. 12 seems too high but don't know if any of them make it to 37.

I do like Paye and he seems to be a safer pick at 12. I wouldn't dislike it at least. Though I'm not doing cartwheels in the living room if his name is announced at 12. 
 I'm liking these taller DE's, Oweh, Robinson, Turner, Jordan & Elerson Smith, Odeyingbo. Thinking one or two should be there in round three... 

38 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

Spent the morning watching more Kwitty Paye highlights.  My initial thought on him was he's Brandon Graham 2.0.  It's easy to do so when they are pretty identical in size, play the same position and both played at UM.

However, after watching more and trying to be more open to him rather than just saying eh, this is BG, I think his game is more Dwight Freeney than it is BG.  He's almost a combination of the two.  He's much more explosive than BG and seems to have violent hands to shed blockers. 

Still not a fan of picking him at 12.  He has the lowest ceiling IMO when comparing him to Jaelan Phillips and Greg Rousseau.  He's also the oldest, turning 23 during his rookie year.  Phillips turns 22 in May and Rousseau just turned 21.  I think Rousseau is the biggest risk of busting but you can't teach that size.  Phillips brings the injury concerns.

I just don't know where the sweet spot for DE is in this draft.  I do think these three guys are tier 1 prospects compared to the rest that are available this year. 12 seems too high but don't know if any of them make it to 37.

Good stuff

i think the sweet spot for DE is later. Guys like elerson smith.

phillips is the only one i would take rd 1

Just now, greendestiny27 said:

I do like Paye and he seems to be a safer pick at 12. I wouldn't dislike it at least. Though I'm not doing cartwheels in the living room if his name is announced at 11. 
I'm liking these taller DE's, Oweh, Robinson, Turner, Jordan & Elerson Smith, Odeyingbo. Thinking one or two should be there in round three... 

It would be very underwhelming to go from the guys we were discussing at 6 to Paye at 12, even if I love having an extra 1 next year. 

Taking Paye seems like a move to push up the more valuable position than drafting the best player. 

4 minutes ago, greendestiny27 said:

I do like Paye and he seems to be a safer pick at 12. I wouldn't dislike it at least. Though I'm not doing cartwheels in the living room if his name is announced at 12. 
 I'm liking these taller DE's, Oweh, Robinson, Turner, Jordan & Elerson Smith, Odeyingbo. Thinking one or two should be there in round three... 

And that’s why Paye would be the most typical Eagle pick possible.

1 minute ago, eagle45 said:

And that’s why Paye would be the most typical Eagle pick possible.

At least he’s athletic...

DE really feels like a day three pick to me. Agree with Manu

wr/cb round one

add lb and OL to the mix round two

come put of day two with a cb, wr, ol and lb...maybe swap in a safety somewhere depending on how the board breaks

Just now, ManuManu said:

At least he’s athletic...

Doesnt seem to fit the DE mold of our DC though does he?

6 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

It would be very underwhelming to go from the guys we were discussing at 6 to Paye at 12, even if I love having an extra 1 next year. 

Taking Paye seems like a move to push up the more valuable position than drafting the best player. 

Agree it would be totally underwhelming..however, what you described is how the Eagles tend to draft.

49 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

Spent the morning watching more Kwitty Paye highlights.  My initial thought on him was he's Brandon Graham 2.0.  It's easy to do so when they are pretty identical in size, play the same position and both played at UM.

However, after watching more and trying to be more open to him rather than just saying eh, this is BG, I think his game is more Dwight Freeney than it is BG.  He's almost a combination of the two.  He's much more explosive than BG and seems to have violent hands to shed blockers. 

Still not a fan of picking him at 12.  He has the lowest ceiling IMO when comparing him to Jaelan Phillips and Greg Rousseau.  He's also the oldest, turning 23 during his rookie year.  Phillips turns 22 in May and Rousseau just turned 21.  I think Rousseau is the biggest risk of busting but you can't teach that size.  Phillips brings the injury concerns.

I just don't know where the sweet spot for DE is in this draft.  I do think these three guys are tier 1 prospects compared to the rest that are available this year. 12 seems too high but don't know if any of them make it to 37.

The only things holding Graham back from being an all time elite DE prospect was arms and height.  He was drafted a long time ago so it's easy to forget how dominant he was in college.  50+% of his tackles in college were TFL or sacks.  Many coming across the line making a play behind the LOS, he was absolutely violent and explosive for a DE.  An absolute freak of nature at his bowling ball size.

1 minute ago, Wentz_Era said:

The only things holding Graham back from being an all time elite DE prospect was arms and height.  He was drafted a long time ago so it's easy to forget how dominant he was in college.  50+% of his tackles in college were TFL or sacks.  Many coming across the line making a play behind the LOS, he was absolutely violent and explosive for a DE.  An absolute freak of nature at his bowling ball size.

It's funny how difficult it is to find highlights even from just 10-12 years ago that are good quality tape.  I watched some BG tape before I posted this morning and his UM tape doesn't jump off from what I could find.  He looked steady but not explosive.  A high energy guy for sure but I didn't see an explosion in his game.

10 hours ago, TEW said:

You might want to hold off on calling other people stupid and asking if other people have studied history when so much of what you said is factually false.

The New Deal had nothing, at all, to do with "the recovery." We have actual data on this.  The US didn't recover from 1929 for over a decade. UE was still in the high teens through the entire decade of the 1930's. There were multiple recessions within the 1930's. It accomplished virtually nothing in terms of a recovery. Not opinion. Fact. Data.

What started the recovery is what almost always, historically, causes the recovery from a super cyclical depression: war.

We went to war, that employed every man in the country, we destroyed the industrial capacity of basically the entire planet, and we were left as the sole productive center for the rest world. We then grabbed global currency reserve status, lent money to all of Europe to buy our goods from us, and that series of events actually caused the recovery and created the conditions for the halcyon days of the 1950's.

If you want to argue that The New Deal prevented something like the The Business Plot or our own version of an October Revolution, maybe there is some merit to that, but simply put The New Deal did not lead to a recovery at all.

Little more complicated than that.

The New Deal did provide a needed stimulus that helped recover from the depths of the Great Depression, then in 1937, Roosevelt reverted to traditional 'balanced budget' fiscal policy and triggered a second recession (Eckles, the Utah banker who was the Fed Chairman, was one of the few who read and understood Keynes). The war forced a Keynesian stimulus that ended the Great Depression.

21 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

DE really feels like a day three pick to me. Agree with Manu

wr/cb round one

add lb and OL to the mix round two

come put of day two with a cb, wr, ol and lb...maybe swap in a safety somewhere depending on how the board breaks

Doesnt seem to fit the DE mold of our DC though does he?

Zimmer likes length at DE but obviously got a lot out of Everson Griffen, who seems like a good comp for Paye. 

And Oweh would comp to Hunter , almost to a T , both about the same stage coming out of school , too .

9 hours ago, BigEFly said:

Naive, romanticized version?  Who the f do you think you are talking with?  I have a BA in history and worked towards a Masters until I thought I needed to get a professional job (At which I was pretty damn successful).  I read histories as recreation. That is why I engaged in the discussion about use of the atom bomb as I alway enjoy historical discussion with JR, AFan and NCIggles.    I try to read divergent opinions in history because all historians have a bias.  What the f is your background to call me naive?  

You **** about social security taxes and Medicare taxes.  I invested in those with the anticipation that the programs would be available to me.  Unlike you, I have no issue with social programs.  WTF did you think the Homestead Act was?  or the General Railroad Right of Way Act, for that matter.  You think public support started with the New Deal? BTW, I recognize my ancestors benefited from both of those. 

 I believe in governments’ role in the collective good. Does that mean that sometimes programs I don’t support get funded?  Yes, but we all have a voice (mob), in this republic. 

I believe in Social Security and Medicare.  I paid into both during my years of employment and expect a return on such. You chose to opt out.  Well, don’t look to Medicaid if catastrophe hits.  Yes, I believe in grants to research in the sciences that lead to things like mRNA that will result in my upcoming vaccine against Covid. Frankly, I would pay a lot for the vaccine but am happy the ability to pay doesn’t restrict the ability to get the vaccine. 

Yes, it is about bloody time that our Highway taxes (on liquid fuels) go to some f’in infrastructure in this country instead of a promise of an "infrastructure " week so that we can repair or replace some of the infrastructure my grandfather helped build through the WPA as a roads chief that helped him retain the family farm.  I support the GI Bill, that helped my dad get his MS and his first mortgage.  

You apparently don’t eat, don’t drive, don’t drink water, breathe air, don’t need police or fire protection, schools etc. so you’re so f’in self reliant that you need no cooperation from other citizens. 

I try really hard not to attack others in the Blog but f if you think you can call me naive and having a romanticized understanding of our history.  

Government intervention in the economy goes back to colonial days. And the legal basis goes back to medieval and Roman law.

Regulation of commerce at the state and federal level was ubiquitous, one reason for the commerce clause in the Constitution was to keep states from "beggar thy neighbor" policies.

The reason this isn't understood is the economy before the Civil War was primarily small scale agriculture, with the bulk of output for subsistence (though as the Whiskey revolt shows, government taxes reached those farms) where there wasn't as much economic activity to subsidize and regulate, even then, tariff policy was designed to promote domestic industry. States subsidized first canals and then railroads, the Federal government national highways, and the expansion of transportation and improvements in technology created a national market economy. The cotton gin and English textile mills brought the South into the world economy, grain exports would tie the Midwest to Europe.

The Jeffersonian "small government" philosophy comes from an era where markets tended to be small and local, except for the large port cities (not surprising, Hamilton who proposed industrial policy was from NYC). Jefferson romanticized the yeoman farmer while living the life of the rural gentry (wealthy farmers) who dominated social life and politics (the English class system transported to America, with slaves replacing farmer workers). This system was less brutal in America (except for the slaves) than England, only b/c of land abundance (though much of the land was controlled by rich and well connected speculators like Washington) and labor shortages.

"Modern" government was the outgrowth of the Populist and Progressive movements, the first the opposition of small farmers to the expansion of the market system and the emergence of the modern corporation, the second a movement of elites to regulate the new corporate giants (Antitrust, FDA, etc). The New Deal was a second progressive movement (SEC, etc), with a populist element (social security, medicare, public works), a half-hearted attempt at Keynesian stimulus, and some ill thought direct interventions into the economy (NIRA). Facing an existentialist crisis, FDR tried everything.

And of course, let us not forget the biggest government economic program, the conquest and seizure of Indian lands which created land abundance.

American economic history is my first love.

21 hours ago, Original Sin said:

The world just witnessed the absolute worst president in US history , yes even worse than Nixon . 

It's FAR too early to make that judgement. Check back in 50 years or so when the current media management is forgotten.

1 hour ago, ToastJenkins said:

Good stuff

i think the sweet spot for DE is later. Guys like elerson smith.

phillips is the only one i would take rd 1

same, and it would be in the 20s. Kid looks like he will be pretty good

Just now, QBhunter58 said:

same, and it would be in the 20s. Kid looks like he will be pretty good

If you aren’t scared off by his 3 concussions , and him retiring from football , once already . I would have to pass 

1 minute ago, Original Sin said:

If you aren’t scared off by his 3 concussions , and him retiring from football , once already . I would have to pass 

Yeah the injuries are worrisome, but he produces when healthy. Luckily, it wont be an issue for us, we have other needs in the 1st and I dont see us trading back into the mid/late 20s

3 minutes ago, QBhunter58 said:

same, and it would be in the 20s. Kid looks like he will be pretty good

Why not take Farley then? If you are going to roll the dice on a player with an injury history, why not make it at a position that we need a lot more and with a guy whose ceiling is a lot higher?

If I were eagles , I would trade back again , try and land one of 

Newsome , Davis , JOK , Moehrig or Marshall 

2 minutes ago, Original Sin said:

If I were eagles , I would trade back again , try and land one of 

Newsome , Davis , JOK , Moehrig or Marshall 

Id be looking to do that if Horn is off the board. 

1 hour ago, austinfan said:

Little more complicated than that.

The New Deal did provide a needed stimulus that helped recover from the depths of the Great Depression, then in 1937, Roosevelt reverted to traditional 'balanced budget' fiscal policy and triggered a second recession (Eckles, the Utah banker who was the Fed Chairman, was one of the few who read and understood Keynes). The war forced a Keynesian stimulus that ended the Great Depression.

Excellent points.  Hard to look at the current Credit Suisse/Archego situation and not recall the margin calls from borrowed money in 1929.  The interesting thing about the 1937-38 recession is that through it, the GDP continued to rise.  

1 hour ago, austinfan said:

Government intervention in the economy goes back to colonial days. And the legal basis goes back to medieval and Roman law.

Regulation of commerce at the state and federal level was ubiquitous, one reason for the commerce clause in the Constitution was to keep states from "beggar thy neighbor" policies.

The reason this isn't understood is the economy before the Civil War was primarily small scale agriculture, with the bulk of output for subsistence (though as the Whiskey revolt shows, government taxes reached those farms) where there wasn't as much economic activity to subsidize and regulate, even then, tariff policy was designed to promote domestic industry. States subsidized first canals and then railroads, the Federal government national highways, and the expansion of transportation and improvements in technology created a national market economy. The cotton gin and English textile mills brought the South into the world economy, grain exports would tie the Midwest to Europe.

The Jeffersonian "small government" philosophy comes from an era where markets tended to be small and local, except for the large port cities (not surprising, Hamilton who proposed industrial policy was from NYC). Jefferson romanticized the yeoman farmer while living the life of the rural gentry (wealthy farmers) who dominated social life and politics (the English class system transported to America, with slaves replacing farmer workers). This system was less brutal in America (except for the slaves) than England, only b/c of land abundance (though much of the land was controlled by rich and well connected speculators like Washington) and labor shortages.

"Modern" government was the outgrowth of the Populist and Progressive movements, the first the opposition of small farmers to the expansion of the market system and the emergence of the modern corporation, the second a movement of elites to regulate the new corporate giants (Antitrust, FDA, etc). The New Deal was a second progressive movement (SEC, etc), with a populist element (social security, medicare, public works), a half-hearted attempt at Keynesian stimulus, and some ill thought direct interventions into the economy (NIRA). Facing an existentialist crisis, FDR tried everything.

And of course, let us not forget the biggest government economic program, the conquest and seizure of Indian lands which created land abundance.

American economic history is my first love.

Not sure that the stimulus was half hearted as much as challenged every step of the way.   It is not as though the war mobilization and production was not a focused level of control of industry during the war.  I wonder how rationing would play out today.

I can't be hellbent on a receiver in the first two rounds. Just too many needs, I'm not passing on better players at other positions to force feed a Marshall in here. I do really like Marshall and some of these other 2nd round type receivers and it's definitely one avenue to take, I just am not force feeding it or keen on moving up for one.
This back 7 needs, a lot. I wouldn't hate just adding a small haul to the defense overall and possibly even a versatile o-lineman if the right one is there. Can get a WR with upside later and that position becomes more priority next year. This is a three year type build in my mind and we can't get everything this year. Something must be sacrificed and WR may have to be that position and I don't think that would be a fail, if they go D heavy and possibly an o-lineman. But if they start doing stupid crap with their early picks and pass on a good WR, then I'd say it's a fail. Which is entirely possible. 

7 minutes ago, greendestiny27 said:

I can't be hellbent on a receiver in the first two rounds. Just too many needs, I'm not passing on better players at other positions to force feed a Marshall in here. I do really like Marshall and some of these other 2nd round type receivers and it's definitely one avenue to take, I just am not force feeding it or keen on moving up for one.
This back 7 needs, a lot. I wouldn't hate just adding a small haul to the defense overall and possibly even a versatile o-lineman if the right one is there. Can get a WR with upside later and that position becomes more priority next year. This is a three year type build in my mind and we can't get everything this year. Something must be sacrificed and WR may have to be that position and I don't think that would be a fail, if they go D heavy and possibly an o-lineman. But if they start doing stupid crap with their early picks and pass on a good WR, then I'd say it's a fail. Which is entirely possible. 

Yeah I kind of agree give me Horn in the 1st and a guy like creed humphrey, an athletic DE or LB, or a value pick (someone who has slipped) in the second. WR might just need to wait a year... Chase/Pitts would be a totally different story