9 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

How would the next 3 picks play out? 

10. Broncos - Sewel

11. Cowboys - Surtain

12. Giants - Waddle

If I'm the Giants I would be tempted by the flashy Waddle, but should probably go Slater. The once crap o-line we liked to make fun of isn't so crap anymore.  

26 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

Turf toe surgery. 

Why would Bengals not choose Sewell?

3 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

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?

Doug must have been literally confused thinking what the F is this guy talking about???

3 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Why would Bengals not choose Sewell?

Burrow really wants his old teammate.  Though they probably should go o-line. 

42 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. 

There were reports about Doug being exhausted before the 2020 season even started. Howie and Jeff are pretty terrible at working with their head coach unless it's Andy Reid.

As for the reports about running the ball so much specifically, I think the context of those conversations can be lost a bit. I think it was probably more along the lines of, "Hey, it's great that we ran the ball so well, but why can't we throw it? We're going to need to at some point." But either way, it irks me when people who don't understand the ins and outs of football try to question the decision making of someone who studies tape for a living.

31 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

Turf toe surgery. 

Anyone who still doesn't realize SF is taking Jones isn't paying attention.

6 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

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

Yes, analytics are a tool, but they are there to be used. If you are going an after action report, decision making should absolutely be evaluated, in part, within the context of analytics. If a coach runs when the numbers say pass, you go through the process of why the decision was made. Some decisions that go against the analytics are justified. Weather, matchups, injuries, dynamic performance, etc. are all perfectly reasonable explanations of why a decision might be made against what the numbers say you should do.

I just got done watching an interview with Kapadia, and the way he described the situation in person was a whole lot different than how the article was written. Which is basically what I expected -- sensationalist clickbait that in reality was less witch burning inquisition and more that the coach was annoyed by the process.

Lurie: "Doug, the analytics say we should pass the ball 65 percent of the time, even more in the first half to build a lead.”

Doug: ”There were wind gusts of 50 mph.”

Lurie: "My guy Halaby was just saying...”

Doug: Stares into the distance, internally Simon and Garfunkel sing "Hello darkness my old friend...”

12 minutes ago, TEW said:

Yes, analytics are a tool, but they are there to be used. If you are going an after action report, decision making should absolutely be evaluated, in part, within the context of analytics. If a coach runs when the numbers say pass, you go through the process of why the decision was made. Some decisions that go against the analytics are justified. Weather, matchups, injuries, dynamic performance, etc. are all perfectly reasonable explanations of why a decision might be made against what the numbers say you should do.

I just got done watching an interview with Kapadia, and the way he described the situation in person was a whole lot different than how the article was written. Which is basically what I expected -- sensationalist clickbait that in reality was less witch burning inquisition and more that the coach was annoyed by the process.

Who called it a witch-burning inquisition? The constant second-guessing from a guy who knows roughly 5 percent about the game would wear thin, certainly after a win. Not to mention Lurie telling him who to hire and fire, or which wide receiver bust to draft in round 2. 

This is a direct quote from a source, not the reporters’ own words regarding those weekly meetings: “(Pederson) was ridiculed and criticized for every decision,” one source told The Athletic. "If you won by three, it wasn’t enough. If you lost on a last-second field goal, you’re the worst coach in history.”

I don't get the "Lurie isn't a football guy" argument. He has owned the team since 1994, and has watched film, holds lots of meetings with "football people," and has generally immersed himself in the sport. He loves the game and does the work. Plus, he had the stones to put the money on the line to buy the team.

I would bet he knows more about football than 80 percent of the people in the league.

And the people on here thinking they are qualified to give him advice on how to run his team is somewhat hilarious. Sorry, you are a few billion short of the cover charge to that club.

Hypothetical draft scenario:

Trey Lance drops to #8. Would you give up #12 and #70 to trade up for him?

How about #12, #84 and #150.

Or #12 and our own 2nd rounder in 2022?

According to the NFL pick value chart, all of these trades are fair value, though chances are if he fell that far someone would likely offer a better deal. But just for arguments sake, would you pull the trigger?

I'm beginning to like the idea of a small trade up to grab him if he's available. He's got all the tools -- arm, mobility, and size. From everything I can find he seems to be a good guy off the field and has a great work ethic. Obviously he's extremely raw, so he'd probably hold a clip board for a year. If Hurts has a bad year, you already have your replacement and head into next offseason with 4 picks in the top two rounds and some cap space. If Hurts plays OK, maybe you have a high end backup or maybe you can trade him. If Hurts plays well, you've got a great problem to deal with in figuring out who to trade.

I'm starting to think this is my absolute ideal scenario. He won't make it to #12, but if the other 4 QBs get taken before him and no one offers a mega trade to move up for him, Carolina might be willing to move down a few spots and still get a WR, CB or OT. Obviously a very optimistic scenario, but not one completely out of the realm of possibilities.

41 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

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?

In the pod that the article you posted is referencing, Kapadia brought up a good point. Howie needs to step up and tell Lurie to back the hell off because even if Lurie means well and just want to know the decision making behind it, it comes off as second guessing and can irk any coach mid season who constantly deals will media and fans already second guessing their decisions. 

9 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Who called it a witch-burning inquisition? The constant second-guessing from a guy who knows roughly 5 percent about the game would wear thin, certainly after a win. Not to mention Lurie telling him who to hire and fire, or which wide receiver bust to draft in round 2. 

The authors of the article literally called it an "inquisition." Their exact word.

1 minute ago, ManuManu said:

This is a direct quote from a source, not the reporters’ own words regarding those weekly meetings: “(Pederson) was ridiculed and criticized for every decision,” one source told The Athletic. "If you won by three, it wasn’t enough. If you lost on a last-second field goal, you’re the worst coach in history.”

Sounds like hyperbole from a second hand source to me.

Does anyone really think Jeffery Lurie is telling his coach he's the worst in history because of losing on a last second field goal? That he marches in there yelling and screaming and degrading Pederson?

Or do we think it's more likely that the conversation went over a series of decisions that caused the last second loss, and that the analytics showed why it could have been prevented?

6 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

I don't get the "Lurie isn't a football guy" argument. He has owned the team since 1994, and has watched film, holds lots of meetings with "football people," and has generally immersed himself in the sport. He loves the game and does the work. Plus, he had the stones to put the money on the line to buy the team.

I would bet he knows more about football than 80 percent of the people in the league.

And the people on here thinking they are qualified to give him advice on how to run his team is somewhat hilarious. Sorry, you are a few billion short of the cover charge to that club.

No chance. 

Just now, TEW said:

The authors of the article literally called it an "inquisition." Their exact word.

Sounds like hyperbole from a second hand source to me.

Does anyone really think Jeffery Lurie is telling his coach he's the worst in history because of losing on a last second field goal? That he marches in there yelling and screaming and degrading Pederson?

Or do we think it's more likely that the conversation went over a series of decisions that caused the last second loss, and that the analytics showed why it could have been prevented?

Did they call it a witch burning inquisition?

1 minute ago, ManuManu said:

No chance. 

Did they call it a witch burning inquisition?

They literally called it an inquisition.

Having recently just watched an interview with Kap, it's clear that's not how he thinks Lurie treated Pederson. It was sensationalism to cause exactly what is happening now -- a bunch of people talking about their article.

2 minutes ago, TEW said:

They literally called it an inquisition.

Having recently just watched an interview with Kap, it's clear that's not how he thinks Lurie treated Pederson. It was sensationalism to cause exactly what is happening now -- a bunch of people talking about their article.

Inquisition: a period of prolonged and intensive questioning or investigation.

I think you’re putting way too much power into that word. 

Just now, schuy7 said:

 

He's not a football guy because if you asked him to draw a few plays up on a board, he would be lost.

I would imagine he could do that, not that this in itself makes him a "football guy."

I mean, the guy has owned an NFL team for a quarter century. He's not dumb. I'm sure he understands football at a reasonably high level.

2 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Inquisition: a period of prolonged and intensive questioning or investigation.

I think you’re putting way too much power into that word. 

We all know the connotation of that word. We all know what quotes they chose to use. And we can all go watch the authors talk about the article. When speaking about the situation live in front of a microphone, they paint a far less dramatic situation.

2 minutes ago, TEW said:

I would imagine he could do that, not that this in itself makes him a "football guy."

I mean, the guy has owned an NFL team for a quarter century. He's not dumb. I'm sure he understands football at a reasonably high level.

Compared to us? Of course. Compared to Doug Pederson? That’s laughable. 

1 minute ago, TEW said:

We all know the connotation of that word. We all know what quotes they chose to use. And we can all go watch the authors talk about the article. When speaking about the situation live in front of a microphone, they paint a far less dramatic situation.

They got those quotes from someone, and he himself said these weren’t guys who left that were venting. Clearly those people in the know felt differently than how you’re trying to portray it. 

4 hours ago, downundermike said:

I am not an Alabama fan in the slightest, but this is a problem.  Why are we not drafting players from the best programs.

 

I blame Siran Stacy. 

4 hours ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

 

Wasn't there a report too where the Eagles were the one team that didn't show up to Alabama's pro day this year?  

So much of what I want to say in response to this will only get the blog moved down the road of CVON. 

6 minutes ago, TEW said:

I would imagine he could do that, not that this in itself makes him a "football guy."

I mean, the guy has owned an NFL team for a quarter century. He's not dumb. I'm sure he understands football at a reasonably high level.

Sure, he could draw up Cover 2. Maybe even some passing plays from the WCO. But if he's drawing up individual blocking assignments on all the different run plays, he wouldn't look very good. Does he know which formation alignments are necessary for the defense based on how the OL lines up? I think some people don't realize how much football NFL head coaches know. There's a lot of detail involved.

 

1 minute ago, ManuManu said:

They got those quotes from someone, and he himself said these weren’t guys who left that were venting. Clearly those people in the know felt differently than how you’re trying to portray it. 

It's not clear at all. Was it said literally or with hyperbole? You take it literally. I take it as hyperbole.

The actual authors of the article seem to think it wasn't nearly as confrontational or dramatic as that quote or their article made it seem when they speak about the situation live and at length.

8 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Inquisition: a period of prolonged and intensive questioning or investigation.

I think you’re putting way too much power into that word. 

Amongst Howie’s weaponry are fear, surprise, and almost fanatical devotion to analytics. 

1 minute ago, NCiggles said:

Amongst Howie’s weaponry are fear, surprise, and almost fanatical devotion to analytics. 

Is that a quote from the article?