1 minute ago, austinfan said:

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.

And that's fine, if it were someone that knew what they were doing. Not sure Howie does, but I guess we'll see how he does this go around.

I mean, does this seem out of the realm of possibility to anyone:

Eagles take Paye at 12 (who I like, just not at 12). Half of the board says it's a reach. The other half tries to justify it by saying the last "reach" from Michigan turned out okay.

When asked, Howie says he was at (or near) the top of their board and they like to build the lines. Points to success of Brandon Graham from the same school and Derek Barnett (as DEs taken early )who made a big play in the Vikings game the year they won the Super Bowl, proving that they are once again living in the past.

Yeah, Paye is going to be the pick. I'm convinced.

39 minutes ago, austinfan said:

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!

Keynes has absolutely not been proven right by history. He’s been proven wrong by history. The government couldn’t let off the stimulus during the 30’s and WW2 because it didn’t create escape velocity. We still can’t stop the stimulus from 2008 because we haven’t achieved escape velocity.

Stimulus is life support, not a cure. You need some other event to get away from the government spending, and we just haven’t had it.

21 minutes ago, Swoop said:

I mean, does this seem out of the realm of possibility to anyone:

Eagles take Paye at 12 (who I like, just not at 12). Half of the board says it's a reach. The other half tries to justify it by saying the last "reach" from Michigan turned out okay.

When asked, Howie says he was at (or near) the top of their board and they like to build the lines. Points to success of Brandon Graham from the same school and Derek Barnett (as DEs taken early )who made a big play in the Vikings game the year they won the Super Bowl, proving that they are once again living in the past.

Yeah, Paye is going to be the pick. I'm convinced.

Agree. And I don’t like it

16 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

The New Deal was the worst legislation ever. Sadly many never learned that lesson. Capitalism is supposed to have periods of destruction 

Your slavish obeisance to an ideology blinds you to reality and the condition of human beings.

37 minutes ago, Swoop said:

I mean, does this seem out of the realm of possibility to anyone:

Eagles take Paye at 12 (who I like, just not at 12). Half of the board says it's a reach. The other half tries to justify it by saying the last "reach" from Michigan turned out okay.

When asked, Howie says he was at (or near) the top of their board and they like to build the lines. Points to success of Brandon Graham from the same school and Derek Barnett (as DEs taken early )who made a big play in the Vikings game the year they won the Super Bowl, proving that they are once again living in the past.

Yeah, Paye is going to be the pick. I'm convinced.

I don’t think so.  Jeffery is gone, Jackson is gone, Ertz is very likely gone.  Those are three guys who were penciled or penned in as starters for 2020.  All appearances are the Eagles are willing to run with basically a rookie starting QB for 2021.

There are 7 rounds in the draft, of course, and the Eagles have 11 picks — but they already took late-round flyers on Hightower and Watkins in 2020 (168 and 200).  It’s tough to imagine either of those guys are starters for 2021.  WR needs a starter-caliber player.

Paye, or any other DL player, would be a backup/rotational piece.  Simply put, Barmore is the only DL player in this draft worth a 1st round pick.  Paye would be an even worse first round pick than Agholor was.

1 hour ago, Swoop said:

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

If a QB is on the board at #12, I'm immediately calling Chicago and asking for their 2022 1st rounder.

I thought politics were axed from the blog?  There's an entire forum for that garbage.  

4 minutes ago, What The F said:

I thought politics were axed from the blog?  There's an entire forum for that garbage.  

Crazy uncles gonna crazy uncle. I can't wait for the draft to wipe this out for a week or so.

1 hour ago, TEW said:

Keynes has absolutely not been proven right by history. He’s been proven wrong by history. The government couldn’t let off the stimulus during the 30’s and WW2 because it didn’t create escape velocity. We still can’t stop the stimulus from 2008 because we haven’t achieved escape velocity.

Stimulus is life support, not a cure. You need some other event to get away from the government spending, and we just haven’t had it.

Like a global war?

1 hour ago, justrelax said:

Your slavish obeisance to an ideology blinds you to reality and the condition of human beings.

Quite the contrary. You are projecting. I see humans for what they are.

50 minutes ago, What The F said:

I thought politics were axed from the blog?  There's an entire forum for that garbage.  

This BS has been going on with some of the same people since last night.

6 hours 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.

 

Great writeup!

3 hours ago, Swoop said:

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

Depends how the board falls. If they trade back again there’s a good chance Howie confuses himself again and takes Marcus Smith. 

I am fully against trading down again.  The further back you go in the draft the higher percentage you are going to have of Howie screwing the pick up.  We don't need to get more picks anyway.  We have the most picks in the draft.  We have potentially 3 first round picks next year.  We won't even be using all 11 picks in the draft this year.  If anything they should trade back into the back end of the first round after making their pick at 12.  

11 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

I am fully against trading down again.  The further back you go in the draft the higher percentage you are going to have of Howie screwing the pick up.  We don't need to get more picks anyway.  We have the most picks in the draft.  We have potentially 3 first round picks next year.  We won't even be using all 11 picks in the draft this year.  If anything they should trade back into the back end of the first round after making their pick at 12.  

That's exactly what I'd like to see them do. Get Horn and then snag one of the two second tier WR. Unless they think a good OL will still be there in the second. 

4 hours ago, greendestiny27 said:

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. 

Reid and JJ took a fair amount of LBs for them in the Second Round.

First draft went Mcnabb then Barry Gardner in the second 

Matt McCoy was a 2nd rounder as was Mychal Kendricks, so I don't think it's totally out of the realm if possibility that they go LB in the 2nd if they like a LB there.

I think there's zero chance they take a LB in the first, just because they never do. If they did I think eagle nation might all die if dis belief would be a huge shock.

2 hours ago, What The F said:

I thought politics were axed from the blog?  There's an entire forum for that garbage.  

It's all fine and dandy until one runs out of illogical points and then it's all, let's not talk politics in the blog...🤔

1 hour ago, RememberTheKoy said:

I am fully against trading down again.  The further back you go in the draft the higher percentage you are going to have of Howie screwing the pick up.  We don't need to get more picks anyway.  We have the most picks in the draft.  We have potentially 3 first round picks next year.  We won't even be using all 11 picks in the draft this year.  If anything they should trade back into the back end of the first round after making their pick at 12.  

The Eagles don’t have nearly as much trade up ammunition as 11 picks would make you believe.  Picks 224, 225, 234, and 240 carry a grand total of 1 point each on the Trade Value Chart.  Even pick 189 carries 14 points, so packaging up all of their last 5 draft picks would move them all the way up to about — #180 overall

Far better off to keep all of the late picks and try to keep spinning the wheel 

2 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Like a global war?

Quite the contrary. You are projecting. I see humans for what they are.

And without compassion or understanding.

8 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

The Eagles don’t have nearly as much trade up ammunition as 11 picks would make you believe.  Picks 224, 225, 234, and 240 carry a grand total of 1 point each on the Trade Value Chart.  Even pick 189 carries 14 points, so packaging up all of their last 5 draft picks would move them all the way up to about — #180 overall

Far better off to keep all of the late picks and try to keep spinning the wheel 

 

No, they do actually.  Eagles can use their 2nd round pick and their second 3rd round pick to move up to around 26 in the first round.  They would still keep their original and better 3rd round pick. 

https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp?RequestTeam=Phi

 

4 minutes ago, justrelax said:

And without compassion or understanding.

Understanding is easy

compassion has to be earned

the problem here, like with afan, is a hypothesis driven approach leading to confirmation bias. The data say your core beliefs are faulty

6 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

No, they do actually.  Eagles to use their 2nd round pick and their second 3rd round pick to move up to around 26 in the first round.  They would still keep their original and better 3rd round pick. 

https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp?RequestTeam=Phi

 

Is the difference in talent between #26 and 37 in this draft enough to justify burning your #84 pick?

Not saying it can’t or won’t happen, but there would have to be a top 15 prospect on their board unexpectedly sitting there to make that move worthwhile 

5 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Is the difference in talent between #26 and 37 in this draft enough to justify burning your #84 pick?

Not saying it can’t or won’t happen, but there would have to be a top 15 prospect on their board unexpectedly sitting there to make that move worthwhile 

Yes, it could very well be.  Not uncommon at all for players projected to go in the top half of the draft to slide towards the end of the first.  Happens just about every draft actually.  Howie ain't exactly batting that good of a hit % in the 3rd anyway. Giving up the worse of two 3rd round picks that the Eagles have in order to add a second 1dt round talent to the team makes a lot of sense. 

 

Maybe the Eagles snag something like Smith/Waddle/Horn and Moehrig/Paye/Rousseau. 

18 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Understanding is easy

compassion has to be earned

the problem here, like with afan, is a hypothesis driven approach leading to confirmation bias. The data say your core beliefs are faulty

If understanding was easy you would not comment as you did about the New Deal.  The misery of the time demanded it.

Compassion is not earned, it is given.

2 hours ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

I’m all for it.  

Unless someone is shockingly sitting there (like Sewell), it's a no brainer to me. I use this basic example:

Parsons at 12 or Zaven Collins + 2 picks.

To me, it's a no brainer. No, I don't think Collins is a better prospect, but I have confidence both will be good LBs in the league. The 2 picks are just the cherry on top.