Just now, QBhunter58 said:

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

I'm feeling Horn is gone too now by 12, which would really suck. 
If 4 qb's, Pitts, Chase, Horn, 2 OL, Smith, Surtain all go, what do you do with 12? I'd like to trade back a few but who knows if a favorable opportunity presents itself. If forced to make a pick their, I'd love JOK but think that's maybe .05% chance of happening based on this front offices flawed views. A little rich for Newsome and Moehrig there... I'm a little nervous about Waddle personally and Paye is kinda meh. That would be a tough spot. 

5 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

Dane Brugler has him 60th overall. IMO, he's what I'd be ok with in RDs3-5: Developmental EDGE. 

That 3 cone!

If you're wondering why he's not a top 50 pick despite good athleticism and good tape.

"Has battled through numerous injuries the last five years, including a torn ACL (September 2016) as a senior in high school; suffered a foot injury as a sophomore (November 2018), requiring season-ending surgery; played through multiple broken fingers in 2019; missed three games as a senior (November 2020) due to knee, hand and COVID issues."

IMO, RD4 is where the value is given the injury history, but I can see him going earlier.

1 minute ago, greendestiny27 said:

I'm feeling Horn is gone too now by 12, which would really suck. 
If 4 qb's, Pitts, Chase, Horn, 2 OL, Smith, Surtain all go, what do you do with 12? I'd like to trade back a few but who knows if a favorable opportunity presents itself. If forced to make a pick their, I'd love JOK but think that's maybe .05% chance of happening based on this front offices flawed views. A little rich for Newsome and Moehrig there... I'm a little nervous about Waddle personally and Paye is kinda meh. That would be a tough spot. 

Yeah I would lean towards moving back a few slots if possible (pick in the late teens). The guys on the board in this scenario make more sense a few picks back. But if the birds really like a guy at 12, dont get cute, even if it is a slight overvalue (this is where the Paye thing comes in, getting those vibes). 

Drafting a "safe" player with a lower upside than others at the same position...who ends up coming slower out of the gate as a rookie than the higher upside selections.  That's you a prototypical Eagles draft pick.  Paye is the safest best to fill those shoes.

6 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Drafting a "safe" player with a lower upside than others at the same position...who ends up coming slower out of the gate as a rookie than the higher upside selections.  That's you a prototypical Eagles draft pick.  Paye is the safest best to fill those shoes.

You're describing Derek Barnett. Paye is a WAY better athlete.

26 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

Like his game 

21 minutes ago, RLC said:

Dane Brugler has him 60th overall. IMO, he's what I'd be ok with in RDs3-5: Developmental EDGE. 

That 3 cone!

If you're wondering why he's not a top 50 pick despite good athleticism and good tape.

"Has battled through numerous injuries the last five years, including a torn ACL (September 2016) as a senior in high school; suffered a foot injury as a sophomore (November 2018), requiring season-ending surgery; played through multiple broken fingers in 2019; missed three games as a senior (November 2020) due to knee, hand and COVID issues."

IMO, RD4 is where the value is given the injury history, but I can see him going earlier.

He might be one of the most ready of the edge guys 

9 minutes ago, RLC said:

You're describing Derek Barnett. Paye is a WAY better athlete.

Everyone is a better athlete than Barnett.  Paye has a great 40 in an offseason of fraudulent 40’s.  While he does have good burst on the field, I don’t think anyone would label Paye as the highest upside edge rusher in the draft.

8 minutes ago, RLC said:

You're describing Derek Barnett. Paye is a WAY better athlete.

I do agree there, Barnett was really kind of a blah yet safe pick. I like Paye the player more. So I wouldn't hate the pick it's just I like other players better in terms of need and fit who will be there a little later. 

26 minutes ago, greendestiny27 said:

I'm feeling Horn is gone too now by 12, which would really suck. 
If 4 qb's, Pitts, Chase, Horn, 2 OL, Smith, Surtain all go, what do you do with 12? I'd like to trade back a few but who knows if a favorable opportunity presents itself. If forced to make a pick their, I'd love JOK but think that's maybe .05% chance of happening based on this front offices flawed views. A little rich for Newsome and Moehrig there... I'm a little nervous about Waddle personally and Paye is kinda meh. That would be a tough spot. 

Waddle or Parsons, easily.

31 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

Boy is he explosive on tape, embarrassed to have not heard of this guy. He appears to have an elite level motor, those injuries though. Great mid round target

8 minutes ago, Original Sin said:

Like his game 

Good lawd, that motor though 😲

 

Just now, QBhunter58 said:

Good lawd, that motor though 😲

 

I mentioned him awhile back , was on my list of 25 prospects I like that I posted a few weeks back 

If the board falls in a way where Smith, Waddle, Surtain, Horn, Farley, and Parsons are all there, would you trade back a few spots?

5 QBs, Sewell, Slater, Darrisaw, Chase, Pitts, and a reach would have to go for that to occur.

Raiders would be furtherest I would go (17) but would be very hesitant to just give up Horn.

Edit: Just saw a post about this earlier

10 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Waddle or Parsons, easily.

I just don't see the front office taking a linebacker in round 1. I'd actually be thrilled and surprised if they did it in round 2 even. I agree Waddle is the most logical pick then. I just don't know what the best bang for the buck is. Waddle and say a Kelvin Joseph in round 2 which does sound like a pretty enticing combo or  a trade back for Newsome and then a different route in round 2. Whether WR , LB , S or possibly an OL/DE. 

3 hours 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.

Well, of course a few paragraphs aren't going to be detailed enough to provide every nuance of 10 years of economic history during the most eventful depression in human history. Overall though, it's true. The New Deal did not, in any way, shape or form, cause or lead to a recovery. Bretton Woods and net exports in the post war period are what dragged us out. That's what replaced the increase in government spending allowed us "escape velocity" from the deflationary pressures that Keynesian spending was attempting to counter act.

If you want to say the stimulus was necessary to prevent some kind of revolution or civil war from developing, I suppose there might be some truth to that argument.

 

I think Waddle is going to be long-gone by 12.  The league is trying to stack up on Tyreek Hill types, and Waddle is the best prospect in that mold in years.  Yea, yeah, Ruggs had an ordinary rookie year, Ross was a bust, Reagor had a crap rookie year, and there are many others.

But the NFL is forcing teams to play flag football in space.  These are the players that are typically the best weapons.

Waddle probably has the chance to be the most dangerous offensive weapon out of the group.

18 minutes ago, eaglesflyers#1 said:

If the board falls in a way where Smith, Waddle, Surtain, Horn, Farley, and Parsons are all there, would you trade back a few spots?

5 QBs, Sewell, Slater, Darrisaw, Chase, Pitts, and a reach would have to go for that to occur.

Raiders would be furtherest I would go (17) but would be very hesitant to just give up Horn.

Edit: Just saw a post about this earlier

Word is they would take Waddle.

Trust the Board, Howie, trust the Board.

If you put together a good draft board, the decisions are easy, what am I offered v whether I have to go down a tier in talent.

You can't really plan what you're going to do, just set your board and let it dictate strategy.

This draft will have a lot of "reaches", especially outside the top ten.

9 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

I think Waddle is going to be long-gone by 12.  The league is trying to stack up on Tyreek Hill types, and Waddle is the best prospect in that mold in years.  Yea, yeah, Ruggs had an ordinary rookie year, Ross was a bust, Reagor had a crap rookie year, and there are many others.

But the NFL is forcing teams to play flag football in space.  These are the players that are typically the best weapons.

Waddle probably has the chance to be the most dangerous offensive weapon out of the group.

I still think teams want Megatron or Metcalf type receivers over Hill or Jackson. But, it is nice to have those explosive home run threats on the roster to give you that quick strike capability on any given play.

As always, I think an offense needs to be balanced. If you have 3 WRs on the field, at least one of them would ideally be in the Tyreek Hill mold. But you'd also want at least one big WR who can dominate contested catches, win red zone battles, etc.

2 hours ago, BigEFly said:

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.

Horribly. Because people, led by the boomers, are entitled children. The ME generation. Worst american generation ever

you cant talk about this equation without cost. Its why Keynes is the problem not the solution. 

11 minutes ago, TEW said:

I still think teams want Megatron or Metcalf type receivers over Hill or Jackson. But, it is nice to have those explosive home run threats on the roster to give you that quick strike capability on any given play.

As always, I think an offense needs to be balanced. If you have 3 WRs on the field, at least one of them would ideally be in the Tyreek Hill mold. But you'd also want at least one big WR who can dominate contested catches, win red zone battles, etc.

Absolutely, plan A is Moss/Megatron/TO/Metcalf/Julio.  I have 2 problems with that type of WR, neither of which is relevant to what they do on the football field.

1.  They are so hard to find.  I hate to build a blueprint on offense around a unicorn.

2.  They can be prohibitively expensive.  IMO, I'd rather have 3 really good, really fast, smaller WRs who always get open than 1 megatron surrounded by crap.  And if the Megatrons require a top 5 pick plus a record setting non-QB contract, then it's almost a given we'll just have to accept that we won't have enough left over to have much at all with our other offensive weapons.

I agree with everything you are saying about Megatron/Metcalf still being the true prototype and I certainly wouldn't pass on them if they were just sitting there for us.

Not that anyone cares, but if possible I am all for trading down in the first again.

9 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Horribly. Because people, led by the boomers, are entitled children. The ME generation. Worst american generation ever

you cant talk about this equation without cost. Its why Keynes is the problem not the solution. 

No. Keynes has been proven right by history. Fiscal stimulus is more effective than monetary stimulus in a deep recession/depression b/c as interest rates approach zero, monetary policy has little impact.

The problem comes with a Keynesian stimulus when the economy is booming, like the Trump tax cut which was a mistake on various levels (supply side effects are minor from tax cuts, most of the impact is from the fiscal stimulus). You should be reducing deficits during boom times (as was done by the Clinton administration) by raising taxes and keeping the economy from being overstimulated, and cut taxes/increase spending during recessions.

Republican tax cuts have used supply side economics as a fig leaf for reducing revenues and starving spending (other than military).

Under Trump, that fell apart b/c he wanted to be both a corporatist and a populist at the same time - talk about cognitive dissonance!

2 minutes ago, Swoop said:

Not that anyone cares, but if possible I am all for trading down in the first again.

Trust the Board, Swoop, Trust the Board.

It depends on how the draft falls, if there is a clear top player or two at #12, take him regardless of need, if there is little difference between the best 5 or 6, trade down if a good opportunity presents itself.