3 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

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. 

I agree.  The quantity vs quality debate, IMO, really involves multiples of 2-4th round picks.

5-7...lottery tickets, roster fillers...not a lot you can't get in UDFA.  Sometimes the best value is as a sweetner in deals to move about the draft.

I think that overlooks the value of the late round guys as special teamers

our STs have sucked as a result of it

I’ve never had a job where I had to sit with my boss every week while he or she dissected my decision making. That has to wear thin, especially for a Super Bowl-winning coach. 

Why did you run the ball so much in gale force winds? Why did you run the ball so much while dropping 30 on Green Bay when you averaged five yards per carry and Kevin King was locking down your washed No. 1 receiver?

We know the Eagles are analytics based, and in green "go” situations we go for it on fourth down. Is it really particularly productive to dissect these "yellow light” moves or game plans each week when you’re the owner? Does that foster a good relationship? There is already so much pressure for every decision, and we have an analytics guy in Doug’s ear in-game telling him when to go for it. Then we have the owner questioning those decisions weekly. Do those conversations creep into the HC/playcaller’s head in the middle of a game?

Lurie sitting in on meetings and asking questions to gain a better understanding is fair game of course. But there’s a not-so-fine line between domineering and micromanaging and trying to gain insight into your coach’s thought process. 

The reports of Pederson not being particularly disappointed about being fired makes a lot of sense. Who wants to work for an owner/GM combo that has no trust in your ability to build a staff, call a game, etc? It’s no wonder this thing completely decayed. There was a lot of BS piling up over the years. 

On 4/12/2021 at 5:40 PM, HazletonEagle said:

@Moderator5 @Moderator6 @Moderator12

clean up in aisle 5?

We got a bunch of dummies who wont go to CVON and we got @Cliftoma race baiting. 

Im normally one to support off topic discussion in the blog, even politic but this is just ridiculous. Especially since no one has even asked for my opinion once yet. 

I understand.  

Everyone refer to the pinned guidelines, there are times politics blends with sports (national anthem kneeling, teams making political statements, etc) but this isn't the place to just rant about politics randomly. Use CVON. 

8 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

I think that overlooks the value of the late round guys as special teamers

our STs have sucked as a result of it

I feel like those guys can be found pretty easily. I’d much rather take chances on higher end talent than take more swings on special teamers. 

That’s a great deal. We should have offered that. 

1 minute ago, ManuManu said:

That’s a great deal. We should have offered that. 

yeah I thought Connor would have been a good idea. But Howard.... has the same name as our GM. So the choice was obvious.

Howie would have had to add four voidable years to match that. Nevermind. 

3 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

That’s a great deal. We should have offered that. 

Lower than i expected but isnt he coming off an injury?

 

Just now, ToastJenkins said:

Lower than i expected but isnt he coming off an injury?

Turf toe surgery. 

1 minute ago, ToastJenkins said:

Lower than i expected but isnt he coming off an injury?

Hes never played a full season yet. So yes hes been coming off a injury every season so far. 

8 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

I’ve never had a job where I had to sit with my boss every week while he or she dissected my decision making. That has to wear thin, especially for a Super Bowl-winning coach. 

Why did you run the ball so much in gale force winds? Why did you run the ball so much while dropping 30 on Green Bay when you averaged five yards per carry and Kevin King was locking down your washed No. 1 receiver?

We know the Eagles are analytics based, and in green "go” situations we go for it on fourth down. Is it really particularly productive to dissect these "yellow light” moves or game plans each week when you’re the owner? Does that foster a good relationship? There is already so much pressure for every decision, and we have an analytics guy in Doug’s ear in-game telling him when to go for it. Then we have the owner questioning those decisions weekly. Do those conversations creep into the HC/playcaller’s head in the middle of a game?

Lurie sitting in on meetings and asking questions to gain a better understanding is fair game of course. But there’s a not-so-fine line between domineering and micromanaging and trying to gain insight into your coach’s thought process. 

The reports of Pederson not being particularly disappointed about being fired makes a lot of sense. Who wants to work for an owner/GM combo that has no trust in your ability to build a staff, call a game, etc? It’s no wonder this thing completely decayed. There was a lot of BS piling up over the years. 

1) Absolutely, yes.  This SOP in most high level positions. You go over the decision making process in fine detail. This is the only way you can improve it.

2) It depends on the individuals. Some people are good at being "the red team" and some rub people the wrong way. Some people are good at receiving criticism and some can't handle it.

Hire good people and get out of their way

2 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Hire good people and get out of their way

Yep. 

4 minutes ago, TEW said:

1) Absolutely, yes.  This SOP in most high level positions. You go over the decision making process in fine detail. This is the only way you can improve it.

2) It depends on the individuals. Some people are good at being "the red team" and some rub people the wrong way. Some people are good at receiving criticism and some can't handle it.

Responding to 1... In your business your boss can reasonably argue that he or she knows as much or close to as much about the business, right?

Do you think Lurie does?

4 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Hire good people and get out of their way

If Lurie wants a pass-first coach who decides when to go for it on fourth down based on analytics, fine. That’s his prerogative as owner. Once you hire the guy, let him do his thing. Lurie doesn’t know more about football than any coach or scout in the organization. Let them do their jobs. 

1 hour ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Until Lurie manages less and we get a GM that learns how to manage upwards, nothing will change.  Lurie doesn’t trust Howie (rightfully so) to manage the team without intervention.  Lurie has probably enjoyed his new role, which is partly why he keeps Howie around.  Because he doesn’t manage upwards.  It all started when they fired Chip.  Lurie got more involved and likes it.  And since they won the SB, Lurie thinks he’s got the answers.  Howie is just a pawn.  Because he’s not dynamic enough to be a anything but Lurie’s pawn.  But when the gates start to open and more fans allowed back in the stadium, the delta between how the linc looked in years past and how it’ll look in 2021 will grow.  That will force change.  

This is exactly true. Lurie actually believes he's a football guy now.  We all know he isn't, but how long until he figures it out.

9 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

 

How would the next 3 picks play out? 

10. Broncos - Sewel

11. Cowboys - Surtain

12. Giants - Waddle

  

3 hours ago, RememberTheKoy said:

And everyone like yourself who is vaccinated can still transmit the virus as well.

 

We really don't know for sure one way or another yet, but that's actually even more reason to get vaccinated so that we can achieve herd immunity. Early indications, however, seem to be that transmission from vaccinated people is likely to be extremely low.

 

4 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Responding to 1... In your business your boss can reasonably argue that he or she knows as much or close to as much about the business, right?

Do you think Lurie does?

Yes.

Lurie does not, but the analytics department knows more about analytics than anyone else in the building. If you don't believe analytics adds value, then you don't hire an analytics team. If you do believe they add value, then certainly the decision making process needs to be evaluated within that context. That's how they add value.

Again, I would reiterate that a decision that "works" does not necessarily mean it was the best decision at the time it was made.

2 minutes ago, TEW said:

Yes.

Lurie does not, but the analytics department knows more about analytics than anyone else in the building. If you don't believe analytics adds value, then you don't hire an analytics team. If you do believe they add value, then certainly the decision making process needs to be evaluated within that context. That's how they add value.

Again, I would reiterate that a decision that "works" does not necessarily mean it was the best decision at the time it was made.

I’m not arguing against analytics. I’m arguing against Lurie nitpicking these decisions (among other things) on a weekly basis. 

10 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Responding to 1... In your business your boss can reasonably argue that he or she knows as much or close to as much about the business, right?

Do you think Lurie does?

Nope. Many of mine havent either. Life of a niche specialist

i am all for a post mortem if things go wrong but the micromanaging by an inferior skillset is insulting and erodes morale

There is simply no rational reason for Lurie to question Doug on running so much vs GB/Buffalo. How the hell is that even a productive conversation for anyone involved?

4 minutes ago, TEW said:

Yes.

Lurie does not, but the analytics department knows more about analytics than anyone else in the building. If you don't believe analytics adds value, then you don't hire an analytics team. If you do believe they add value, then certainly the decision making process needs to be evaluated within that context. That's how they add value.

Again, I would reiterate that a decision that "works" does not necessarily mean it was the best decision at the time it was made.

Ots about understanding that analytics are the cart not the horse. They are a tool be used but models are very limited. Analytics are weak where you try to analyze very incomplete data sets

ypu are taking this kids into an entirely new environment eqch week