5 minutes ago, Giddyunc said:

 

So is the nfl going to require all coaches, staffs, and general employees to get the vaccine?

I think they already said no. 

Just now, RememberTheKoy said:

 

I repeat, I'd they were all required to grt the vaccine they would likely still continue to be tested regularly. 

probably not.

Just now, HazletonEagle said:

I think they already said no. 

probably not.

Why wouldn't they? 

Just now, HazletonEagle said:

I think they already said no. 

So the person serving me an overpriced beer doesn't have to be vaccinated, but the fans will be. 

Just now, Giddyunc said:

So the person serving me an overpriced beer doesn't have to be vaccinated, but the fans will be. 

Oh I see. I dont know about stadium staff. Just saw the tweet about not requiring players.

I would think they would/could make their staff vaccinate. Im not sure they are unionized like the players are. 

34 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

"This was not just us calling up a couple people who had been fired, and them venting, and then them having an axe to grind. This was a two-month process where, I don’t know what the final number was it. It was in the dozens of people we talked to. We were trying to paint a fair picture.”

His interview yesterday on WIP was super insightful to what they found out and he explained it better than the written version could. 

2 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

His interview yesterday on WIP was super insightful to what they found out and he explained it better than the written version could. 

So if that article is spot on, which I'm assuming it is because of the reputable reporters, the Eagles true hierarchy is 1) Jeffrey Lurie, 2) his son that most likely didn't deserve to even get into Harvard, 3) his son's nerd friend from Harvard, then 4) Howie.   

Makes sense to me.  This is exactly how I would run my multi-billion dollar business.  Keep all the scouts and football guys as far away as possible.  

13 minutes ago, Giddyunc said:

And what if they have said health/religion excuse?

I dunno 

 

16 minutes ago, Giddyunc said:

So the person serving me an overpriced beer doesn't have to be vaccinated, but the fans will be. 

The person serving you a beer is not an employee of the NFL or the Eagles.

5 minutes ago, hputenis said:

So if that article is spot on, which I'm assuming it is because of the reputable reporters, the Eagles true hierarchy is 1) Jeffrey Lurie, 2) his son that most likely didn't deserve to even get into Harvard, 3) his son's nerd friend from Harvard, then 4) Howie.   

Makes sense to me.  This is exactly how I would run my multi-billion dollar business.  Keep all the scouts and football guys as far away as possible. 

This dude oozes football guy

5 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

This dude oozes football guy

If he's crushing that chick with the Eagles jersey and Motley Crue haircut, he's oozin more than football.  

4 minutes ago, hputenis said:

If he's crushing that chick with the Eagles jersey and Motley Crue haircut, he's oozin more than football.  

The only thing crushing in this pic are that girls chompers.  

1 hour ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

If you want to go through your entire life never drinking any alcohol or whatever then that's cool.  You can live your life as healthy as you can and you might still have the misfortune of developing cancer.

And don't create a risk for any one else when I decide to light up a bowl from the comforts of my house.  

None of that has anything to do with a vaccination

7 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

None of that has anything to do with a vaccination

 

Yeah, so I have no idea why you decided to bring it all up. 

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

They drafted Freddie Milons in 2002, what more do you want?

I can’t say the Eagles have really missed out on that many really good Alabama players, though.  I was the one on the old board touting Derrick Henry being better than Zeke — everyone told me I was crazy.  I had Marlon Humphrey high on my list in 2017 with the #14 pick — very few agreed.

The Eagles were never in position for Julio or Amari Cooper, or Jerry Jeudy or Ruggs for that matter.

6 hours ago, ManuManu said:

Lol

Good ol' Eagles come swooping in and sign a player who seemed shot last year that no one else wanted. Jeff and Howie just sinking the ship deeper and deeper... where it stops nobody knows. It was probably Jeff who commanded him to be signed so when he looks toasted out there there's an excuse to pass it more. 

3 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

I can’t say the Eagles have really missed out on that many really good Alabama players, though.  I was the one on the old board touting Derrick Henry being better than Zeke — everyone told me I was crazy.  I had Marlon Humphrey high on my list in 2017 with the #14 pick — very few agreed.

The Eagles were never in position for Julio or Amari Cooper, or Jerry Jeudy or Ruggs for that matter.

Never forget Siran Stacy! 

6 minutes ago, greendestiny27 said:

Good ol' Eagles to come in and sign a player who seemed shot last year. Jeff and Howie just sinking the ship deeper and deeper... where it stops nobody knows. It was probably Jeff who commanded him to be signed so when he looks toasted out there there's an excuse to pass it more. 

Normally I'd completely agree but if you were expecting the team to compete this upcoming season then you're in for some heartbreak

2 hours ago, bpac55 said:

It's frustrating for sure.  I know people are probably sick of me touting the Cowboys draft classes but you know darn well every draft that the Cowboys are going to draft guys from big time programs and if they go small school guys, they are always guys with superior athleticism.  

It's another part of the smartest guy in the room syndrome that the Eagles FO has.  Let's find guys no one knows about rather than going after guys who prove it every Sunday at the biggest and best schools. 

It's beyond frustrating at this point. 

2 hours ago, Iggles25 said:

Yeah would be pretty disappointed if true. They're projected to have 7-8 players drafted in the first two rounds.

I would be a lot more than pretty disappointed. That would be flat out inexcusable. 

11 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Normally I'd completely agree but if you were expecting the team to compete this upcoming season then you're in for some heartbreak

Lol Where did I give off that vibe ? I thought we were gonna suck this past year never mind next. 

Couple thoughts on the Athletic article that I didn't read:

1.  Lurie is an NFL owner and probably part of the competition committee or whatever you call it...so he shares the blame that the NFL is bastardizing football and destroying the run game/physicality while turning the league into a flag football track meet.

2.  Point #1 is neither here nor there.  While I am anti-Lurie because that is somewhat my nature and because his influence over personnel decisions has been horrid, I can't get past the fact that I don't disagree with him.  It's a passing league, even if, as an owner, he is partly responsible for that glitch in the game.  I find the calls to become a 1980's style running offense to be extremely ignorant and short-sighted (respectfully).  If you have a coach running a congested offense that can't pass or push the ball downfield, I can't really blame Lurie for challenging Doug to join this decade with the offensive system.

3.  There is a way to go about #2.  Sounds like it wasn't done tactfully and there is a ton of discord in the organization.  There is a narrow sweet spot between disinterested owner and meddlesome owner to land on engaged, but deferential owner.  Lurie really enjoys patting himself on the back as sitting in that sweet spot.  Perhaps that's the most irritating part.  Jerry Jones owns his meddling and takes the heat.  Lurie wants the control without the exposure.  And that's the main reason the friction within the franchise is starting to visibly steam out for all to see.

2 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Your drinking hurts only you. Smoking less so but you create risk for many others as a viral vector. Or do you only care about yourself?

if so thats fine just dont ask for help when you have a heart attack or get cancer. Stay in your vacuum.

I would say no. We need the volume

We need both volume and quality IMO. We have lots of holes, but also a lack of top end talent. Does the 37th best player have a near equal probability of becoming a high end starter as the player you could trade up for? That's the real question. If they're near equal, then sure, take the volume. But if a top 15 type of player drops into the 20's, then you have something to think about.

3 hours ago, QBhunter58 said:

not immuno suppressed either and I am fatigued. Been holding it together all day after getting final vaccine last night, just gotta make it through this last meeting and then I am going to sleep. I had the bright idea earlier to push through it thinking a little bit of physical activity would "energize" me... 🤦‍♂️

it affects everybody different from what i can tell

Yeah get some rest when you can!

18 minutes ago, TEW said:

We need both volume and quality IMO. We have lots of holes, but also a lack of top end talent. Does the 37th best player have a near equal probability of becoming a high end starter as the player you could trade up for? That's the real question. If they're near equal, then sure, take the volume. But if a top 15 type of player drops into the 20's, then you have something to think about.

The debate of volume of picks vs. consolidated higher quality picks is unanswerable.  Just depends on the given draft.

But the pro-quantity rationale really doesn't apply if the draft picks aren't making it out of training camp.  We cut 1 draft pick out of camp last year, 1 midseason after sitting inactive all year.  That was a year with 10 draft picks.

We have 11 this year, 5 of which are in rounds 6 and 7.  That's going to be multiple training camp cuts.  On top of that, they have 3 first round picks next year.

I think it would be in their best interest to consolidate some of their picks this year, because so many of them won't even get a shot.  The best opportunity to do so would be to package some of our mid-rounders with #37 to sneak into the back end of round 1.  It gives us 5 first round picks in 3 years and gives us an extra year of control on that contract.  If we are cutting our last 6th and 7th round pick anyway, then think of it as simply trading down from round 4 to 7.  #37 + 4th + 5 + any number of our late rounders to sneak into 1.  We'd still end up with a 7+ pick draft class...and that would include 2 one's and 2 three's, so heavy with talent too.

9 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

The debate of volume of picks vs. consolidated higher quality picks is unanswerable.  Just depends on the given draft.

But the pro-quantity rationale really doesn't apply if the draft picks aren't making it out of training camp.  We cut 1 draft pick out of camp last year, 1 midseason after sitting inactive all year.  That was a year with 10 draft picks.

We have 11 this year, 5 of which are in rounds 6 and 7.  That's going to be multiple training camp cuts.  On top of that, they have 3 first round picks next year.

I think it would be in their best interest to consolidate some of their picks this year, because so many of them won't even get a shot.  The best opportunity to do so would be to package some of our mid-rounders with #37 to sneak into the back end of round 1.  It gives us 5 first round picks in 3 years and gives us an extra year of control on that contract.  If we are cutting our last 6th and 7th round pick anyway, then think of it as simply trading down from round 4 to 7.  #37 + 4th + 5 + any number of our late rounders to sneak into 1.

Rounds 5-7 are basically head starts on UDFAs. That’s doesn’t mean you give them away, but the odds of hitting on those picks are slim, so I’m all for using some to target guys.