12 hours 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?

Responding to your response.  The boss couldn’t argue he new as much as I did but we still needed to talk through decisions that had significant impacts.  The boss did not need to get down into the gears but needed to know that we had.  And Lurie has owned and been CEO of an NFL team for over twenty years.  The presumption that because he did not play and does not coach or scout that he doesn’t understand the business is a falsehood.  He has put too many winning seasons out as a product to make that assumption. 

12 hours ago, ManuManu said:

 

Measurables don’t include technique skills and at the Surtain is higher.  I do think the question has to be asked, has Surtain reached his ceiling.  I also think that with Horn we have to accept his ceiling could be either lower or higher than Surtain. If not were there at 12, I would take Surtain. If Waddle, Smith, Surtain and Horn are there at 12, I take Surtain. 

4 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Responding to your response.  The boss couldn’t argue he new as much as I did but we still needed to talk through decisions that had significant impacts.  The boss did not need to get down into the gears but needed to know that we had.  And Lurie has owned and been CEO of an NFL team for over twenty years.  The presumption that because he did not play and does not coach or scout that he doesn’t understand the business is a falsehood.  He has put too many winning seasons out as a product to make that assumption. 

There's a VAST difference between understanding the 'business' of football, and understanding the 'game' of football.    I posit that while Lurie absolutely gets the business, he doesn't get the game, but dangerously, believes that he does.  

 

From Tommy's piece: 

 

It is dysfunctional. Highly dysfunctional. And you can argue that winning the Super Bowl made things worse. Lurie and Roseman now feel vindicated that they have the right ideas and that others in the organization should really buy into them.

I agree 100% with Tommy's assessment.  

(And as I've pointed out a TON recently, Lowie went AWAY from what got them to the Super Bowl in 2017 ever since that final gun.  They changed how to manage the roster, manage the cap and manage the draft.   And it has ALL been bad since then.)

 

And to finish it off with the quote from the great Samuel Clemons.

 

1 hour ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Kapadia has no history of being an axe grinder, whereas some other beat writers do.   I give Kapadia the benefit of the doubt that he was looking to uncover 'the truth' rather than just get quotes for his angle.

I always thought Les Nessman never had an axe to grind either, he was just looking for a story

Lurie asking questions every week to both the HC and the GM = fair. He should do that. That's what managers do.
Lurie breaking any ties regarding personnel = absurd. He's not an expert. If he doesn't trust the GM/HC, fire them. 

Traded Ertz, 37, and 70 for 33 and 65.  Which option do you like better..

 

Option 1 

 

Option 2 

 

11 hours ago, ManuManu said:

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...”

Oh c’mon, Manu.  No one gets more defensive when journalists are challenged than you.  What makes Jeff McLane or Sheil Kapadia more qualified to question a coach that Lurie. Or whoever their "sources” are. Let’s not pretend that Jeff questioning Doug was not also watching Green Bay in the same game.  And all questioning isn’t second guessing.  It can be a way to gather knowledge and it can also be a way to assess performance.  

Anyone that works in an analytic intense area understands that analytics are a tool and not a tool to be strictly deferred to.  But they can also identify tendencies including tendencies the person is unaware of.  QB has this tendency when throwing into the wind so go with short routes and runs.  Wind at our backs, use this tendency to increase the intermediate throws and lessen the run.  So Doug, why did you run so much with the wind at your back, would be a viable question it seems. 

5 minutes ago, garingovt2000 said:

Traded Ertz, 37, and 70 for 33 and 65.  Which option do you like better..

 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Ignoring all the rest, I prefer Tremble in the 4th over Freiermuth in the 2nd.  And frankly, I prefer Tremble to Freiermuth.  

5 minutes ago, garingovt2000 said:

Traded Ertz, 37, and 70 for 33 and 65.  Which option do you like better..

 

Option 1 

 

Option 2 

 

Definitely Option 2 in this scenario. Horn, Marshall Jr., Humphrey, and Davis is a solid haul out of the gate. Difference makers on each side of the ball.

12 minutes ago, RLC said:

Lurie asking questions every week to both the HC and the GM = fair. 

I disagree.  When the running game can't be stopped, he should not need to ask.  Especially in Buffalo, with 25 + MPH winds.

If he has to ask, then he does not understand the game and should not be involved.

3 minutes ago, Iggles25 said:

Definitely Option 2 in this scenario. Horn, Marshall Jr., Humphrey, and Davis is a solid haul out of the gate. Difference makers on each side of the ball.

No doubt.  That 1st draft was horrible.

11 hours ago, TEW said:

Hypothetical draft scenario:

Trey Lance drops to #8. Would you give up.......

Right there, no. Analytically the success rate of a QB with so little starting experience in a lower division turning into a franchise QB is pretty low.   If he is there at 12, there may be other players I would choose over him.  He is so raw, there is no guarantee he has the football IQ to succeed at the NFL level.  The probability of him failing is greater than the probability of him succeeding. 

27 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Responding to your response.  The boss couldn’t argue he new as much as I did but we still needed to talk through decisions that had significant impacts.  The boss did not need to get down into the gears but needed to know that we had.  And Lurie has owned and been CEO of an NFL team for over twenty years.  The presumption that because he did not play and does not coach or scout that he doesn’t understand the business is a falsehood.  He has put too many winning seasons out as a product to make that assumption. 

I’m not saying Lurie shouldn’t ask questions. I’m not saying he doesn’t know football at a decent level. But just because he read Sharp Football doesn’t mean he knows nearly as much as Pederson or any other coach. 

And what you’re describing about your boss is not the same as what Lurie is doing. He’s getting into the gears.

18 minutes ago, RLC said:

Lurie asking questions every week to both the HC and the GM = fair. He should do that. That's what managers do.
Lurie breaking any ties regarding personnel = absurd. He's not an expert. If he doesn't trust the GM/HC, fire them. 

There are levels here. Question asking isn’t a bad thing. It’s the degree of the questioning, and insulting a coach’s intelligence with ridiculous questions like "why did you run so much” in a win where the answer was beyond obvious. Read the room, Jeff. 

11 hours 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. 

The source could be an administrative assistant.   The source could have been the IT guy.  This is the source’s viewpoint.  Did the source have as much football knowledge as Lurie, Howie, etc.?

18 minutes ago, garingovt2000 said:

Traded Ertz, 37, and 70 for 33 and 65.  Which option do you like better..

#2.

The first option made me physically ill. 

42 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Kapadia has no history of being an axe grinder, whereas some other beat writers do.   I give Kapadia the benefit of the doubt that he was looking to uncover 'the truth' rather than just get quotes for his angle.

I have been a fan of his since he had the 24/7 Birds website.  I think it's a well written story.  I think we can nitpick the language but I don't think we can ignore the underlying facts and sources.  I have been quoted in news stories.  I can tell you that I vetted every single one of my quotes with the journalist.  My guess is that is what happened for this story.

12 hours ago, TEW said:

Hypothetical draft scenario:

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

No.   And if the Eagles do that, it will just go ahead and prove once again that they have no idea what they are doing.   

 

You NEVER trade down from a higher pick (6) to a lower pick (12) before the draft starts if there is a player that you love so much (especially a QB) that requires you to make a trade back up to 8.  You can't know that you'll be able to make the move to 8 when the time comes, the team there might be targeting the exact same player you are.

And if its a QB... and they are that sold on Lance that they'd want to trade up for him at #8, then they should have been that sold on him to take him at #6.  

 

So, it would once again show that they are not following some grand architectural scheme of how to build the franchise, but flying by the seat of their pants and just swaying in the breeze of the currents of the fads of the NFL.

20 minutes ago, garingovt2000 said:

Traded Ertz, 37, and 70 for 33 and 65.  Which option do you like better..

 

Option 1 

 

 

Option 2 

 

I think TE isn't worth a 2nd round pick in this draft given the team's needs.  I am starting to think that from a talent perspective Pasons might be the surest bet at 12 but I can't see the Eagles making the pick.  I like Marshall but I also really like Humphrey.  I just think he will be a long-term above average starter at either G or C.  

55 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Andre Dillard has played more than 30 snaps in only 5 games in his career, and more than 60 snaps only 3 times — and a lot of you have already given up on him, traded him, cut him ..... You guys are such great NFL evaluators.  Dillard is already a bust, Reagor is already a bust ..... whoever the draft pick at #12, who hasn’t even been picked yet, is already a terrible pick because Howie is making the pick.  
 

All is doom because the team owner is mean and doesn’t just sit in his office like Mr. Carlson from WKRP .....

If you’re resigned that the team is a laughing stock or doomed because you don’t think the owner is capable — why are you still watching?  Because the bad news for you is, the owner isn’t going anywhere.

Agreed.

5 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

I’m not saying Lurie shouldn’t ask questions. I’m not saying he doesn’t know football at a decent level. But just because he read Sharp Football doesn’t mean he knows nearly as much as Pederson or any other coach. 

And what you’re describing about your boss is not the same as what Lurie is doing. He’s getting into the gears.

Lurie has been intensely involved with this team and football for more than a quarter century. He's had a number of coaches, good, bad, and atrocious. He's sat down with all of them and studied their approaches and witnessed their successes and failures and asked why. I think he knows way more about football than any of us.

9 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

There are levels here. Question asking isn’t a bad thing. It’s the degree of the questioning, and insulting a coach’s intelligence with ridiculous questions like "why did you run so much” in a win where the answer was beyond obvious. Read the room, Jeff. 

My experience sitting down with bosses and going over analytics has been through a learning experience lens. I didn't always enjoy the scrutiny and the tough questions, but I never found anything wrong with reviewing my thought process. Such work can be done in a very professional and constructive way. The results for me were great growth, especially self-awareness to my thinking and not falling into unhealthy patterns.

I think we do not have the context, but I doubt every probe was meant as a "gotcha".

My bigger issue is the level of involvement with Lurie...it makes more sense that he detach from such conversations and only sek clarification when involved.

8 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

The source could be an administrative assistant.   The source could have been the IT guy.  This is the source’s viewpoint.  Did the source have as much football knowledge as Lurie, Howie, etc.?

Lol. Sure, the source is the IT guy. We’ll go with that. 

8 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

I have been a fan of his since he had the 24/7 Birds website.  I think it's a well written story.  I think we can nitpick the language but I don't think we can ignore the underlying facts and sources.  I have been quoted in news stories.  I can tell you that I vetted every single one of my quotes with the journalist.  My guess is that is what happened for this story.

 

 

lol j/k

9 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

 

 

lol j/k

I would be famous but nobody reads newspapers anymore. 

1 hour ago, Alphagrand said:

Andre Dillard has played more than 30 snaps in only 5 games in his career, and more than 60 snaps only 3 times — and a lot of you have already given up on him, traded him, cut him ..... You guys are such great NFL evaluators.  Dillard is already a bust, Reagor is already a bust ..... whoever the draft pick at #12, who hasn’t even been picked yet, is already a terrible pick because Howie is making the pick.  
 

Yeah, the doomsday talk about Dillard and Reagor is crazy. Not the biggest fan of Dillard (as I described above), but we haven't seen anything to suggest he's a lost cause. Reagor certainly isn't.