Fixed the Eagles in one offseason. Unless you think QB or LB is important. 

Just because the Eagles traded back from #6 to 12, it doesn’t preclude them from drafting a QB if one is on the board at #12.

You take the BPA.  Deshaun Watson was drafted #12 — sometimes franchise QBs are still on the board at that slot

12 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Fixed the Eagles in one offseason. Unless you think QB or LB is important. 

I saw your first three picks and thought you traded back so many times you drafted the entire 7th round. 

3 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Just because the Eagles traded back from #6 to 12, it doesn’t preclude them from drafting a QB if one is on the board at #12.

You take the BPA.  Deshaun Watson was drafted #12 — sometimes franchise QBs are still on the board at that slot

Chances are if you like a QB enough to take at 12, you liked him enough at 6. You don’t get cute when it comes to drafting a franchise QB. 

4 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I saw your first three picks and thought you traded back so many times you drafted the entire 7th round. 

You wouldn’t be happy with Buddy Johnson as our first pick?

1 hour ago, austinfan said:

The reason you stress process over results, good process usually leads to good results, but good results by themselves may simply be a fluke.

What exactly  is good process if you dont judge by results?

results are the ONLY thing that matters. How you get there is irrelevant. Slaves to process fail consistently. 

48 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

You wouldn’t be happy with Buddy Johnson as our first pick?

Ugh....Jon Harris flashback....

34 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

What exactly  is good process if you dont judge by results?

results are the ONLY thing that matters. How you get there is irrelevant. Slaves to process fail consistently. 

You can only control process, results tend to be stochastic. The ball bounces funny.

Give me a coaching staff that teaches solid fundamentals, proper technique, demands players work hard to improve strength and conditioning, and focuses on field awareness.

Everyone in the stadium knew what Lombardi was going to run, and they couldn't stop it b/c his players executed his scheme perfectly.

The best teams don't have the best players, they have the players who play the best.

1 hour ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I'm not against the trade.  I am against a trade up for a guy like Lance at 8, as hypothesized, or even taking him at 12.

 

Ultimately, if Lance was their guy all along, then you stay at 6 and take him.  If they take him at 12 it just signals that they are once again being reactive and reactionary rather than proactive and carrying out a plan.  But they don't do that, they just roll in the waves, they never make the waves.

If they take Lance at #12, it simply means they like his upside but recognize he was a high risk choice and hedged their bets by getting a 2022 1st rd pick.

Value depends on both upside and risk, and you balance the two.

2 hours ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Dude.  Listen to yourself.  

He's absolutely right on this. It's math. You can make sub optimal decisions that result in good outcomes. Every person who has ever won the lottery has experienced this.

 

41 minutes ago, austinfan said:

If they take Lance at #12, it simply means they like his upside but recognize he was a high risk choice and hedged their bets by getting a 2022 1st rd pick.

Value depends on both upside and risk, and you balance the two.

Exactly this!

Taking Lance at #6 or trading into the top 3 for him is totally different than leveraging an extra first round pick out of #6 and still getting a guy who you think can become a franchise QB.

1 hour ago, ToastJenkins said:

What exactly  is good process if you dont judge by results?

results are the ONLY thing that matters. How you get there is irrelevant. Slaves to process fail consistently. 

The path that leads to the binary outcome should be optimized for the outcome you want.

You can win a football game without running an offensive play. But obviously that would not be the soundest decision. Much the same, you can win a game with a series of slightly sub optimal decision which, in aggregate, make the win much harder and less probabilistic than it needed to be.

1 hour ago, ManuManu said:

Chances are if you like a QB enough to take at 12, you liked him enough at 6. You don’t get cute when it comes to drafting a franchise QB. 

They picked up an extra first round pick.  What’s "cute” about that?

1 hour ago, ManuManu said:

Chances are if you like a QB enough to take at 12, you liked him enough at 6. You don’t get cute when it comes to drafting a franchise QB. 

What if you view the guy as boom or bust?

You don't like him at #6. But would you trade #6 and a 3rd for a possible pro bowl QB and a future first rounder? I'd take that deal every time.

Just now, Alphagrand said:

They picked up an extra first round pick.  What’s "cute” about that?

Seriously -- that's not tip toeing around.

That's extracting serious value.

If you need future picks to feel ok about taking a QB in the top 12, then you don’t feel strongly enough about the QB you’re taking in the top 12. He’s either the guy or he isn’t. If he is, take him at 6. If not, don’t take him

If you like him enough to take him at 12, you just stay at 6 and take him. You don't risk losing out on him. QBs don't grow on trees. If you like one, you get it done. You don't play around with it.

14 minutes ago, blindside said:

If you need future picks to feel ok about taking a QB in the top 12, then you don’t feel strongly enough about the QB you’re taking in the top 12. He’s either the guy or he isn’t. If he is, take him at 6. If not, don’t take him

This mentality is exactly why analytics departments exist.

Instead of "he is the guy" or "he isn't the guy" think "there's an X% chance he is the guy." Because let's be honest -- no one Fing knows. You scout the guy, you put him through some workouts, you talk to his coaches, you run a background check, and you formulate your best guess. You might like one guy over another, but there is no sure thing. 

If you start thinking in terms of probability, you'll make much better choices. If you think he's a 30% chance to be a franchise QB, taking him at #6 makes no sense because at that draft spot you should have a slightly greater than 50% chance to find a starter. But if you can trade #6 for him and a future first, your expected value of a 30% chance at a franchise QB plus a 50% chance at a starter from the future first is greater than the expected value at #6.

You guys understand the Eagles current starting QB is Jalen Hurts, right?  All 5 first round QB prospects are better on Day 1 than Hurts — right out of the box.

The Eagles may or may not take a QB if one is on the board at #12.  Their current stance seems to be that they’ll give Hurts one season and try to build around him.  I’ve said previously my preference is to build the roster first, then draft the QB — even though if I had to bet I’d bet against Hurts becoming a top 15 NFL QB.

To assert that it would be some sort of mismanagement by the Eagles to draft a QB available at #12 because they should have stayed put at #6 and drafted him is complete stupidity.

53 minutes ago, blindside said:

If you need future picks to feel ok about taking a QB in the top 12, then you don’t feel strongly enough about the QB you’re taking in the top 12. He’s either the guy or he isn’t. If he is, take him at 6. If not, don’t take him

Wrong.

Stop with the binary thinking. It's not yes or no. It's probability.

1 hour ago, TEW said:

This mentality is exactly why analytics departments exist.

Instead of "he is the guy" or "he isn't the guy" think "there's an X% chance he is the guy." Because let's be honest -- no one Fing knows. You scout the guy, you put him through some workouts, you talk to his coaches, you run a background check, and you formulate your best guess. You might like one guy over another, but there is no sure thing. 

If you start thinking in terms of probability, you'll make much better choices. If you think he's a 30% chance to be a franchise QB, taking him at #6 makes no sense because at that draft spot you should have a slightly greater than 50% chance to find a starter. But if you can trade #6 for him and a future first, your expected value of a 30% chance at a franchise QB plus a 50% chance at a starter from the future first is greater than the expected value at #6.

Yep. And I believe this is exactly how Howie was thinking when agreeing to the trade. Moving back six spots and getting that extra first round pick is definitely the more economically sound decision. It’s similar to the moneyball philosophy. 

5 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I'm not against the trade.  I am against a trade up for a guy like Lance at 8, as hypothesized, or even taking him at 12.

 

Ultimately, if Lance was their guy all along, then you stay at 6 and take him.  If they take him at 12 it just signals that they are once again being reactive and reactionary rather than proactive and carrying out a plan.  But they don't do that, they just roll in the waves, they never make the waves.

Eh it’s not that simple. He could be "their guy” that they’re not entirely sold on, or believe the delta between him and the next qb is smaller than the delta between two first round picks next year and none. I’m against taking another qb because I think you just repeat last year’s mistake and in all likelihood waste the kid’s cap friendly years, but the idea that trading back means you don’t think your guy will be there isn’t quite that simple. What if they think he makes it to 15?  Then they get their guy and a first rounder. 

3 hours ago, austinfan said:

If they take Lance at #12, it simply means they like his upside but recognize he was a high risk choice and hedged their bets by getting a 2022 1st rd pick.

Value depends on both upside and risk, and you balance the two.

 

3 hours ago, TEW said:

Exactly this!

Taking Lance at #6 or trading into the top 3 for him is totally different than leveraging an extra first round pick out of #6 and still getting a guy who you think can become a franchise QB.

This is logical in a vacuum only.  The reality and totality of circumstances is...the QB position is the most important position on a football team.  The demand for QB's this draft vastly exceeds the supply.  The Eagles originally held a pick where the probability of one of the top QB's being there was high.  They traded back to 12, which drops that probability quite a bit (probably to 0). 

Furthermore, look at the state of the team and the roster.  If the end goal is getting a potential franchise QB the move to 12 is equivalent to being homeless and using whatever you've collected that day at a high stakes poker game hoping to get off the streets.  Let's not spin this into Elon Musk investing into Doge Coin or them playing 3D chess while the rest of the league is playing checkers.  This team simply does not have the resources to bet like that unless Howie is truly untouchable and Lurie is completely senile.

If somehow this is the motive behind the trade and the ultimate end goal, the league should just force Lurie to sell the team.

 

7 hours ago, ManuManu said:

I read that he returned for another year at TCU. 

Ooooh. That makes sense why no one talks about him. 

I'm pretty sure he's still available in the TDN mocks way way down the rankings. 

I like how no one can agree on what good process even is. They just "know" that the Eagles process is wrong. 

58 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

I like how no one can agree on what good process even is. They just "know" that the Eagles process is wrong. 

The thing is I don’t think they have a collective process. It seems like you got two or more agendas in that building even after axing Pederson. 

This is a team that says it wants to be a QB factory, that allegedly looked into trading up for Zach Wilson, traded the farm for Wentz, drafted a backup QB in the second round. 

They value the position so much that they were content with missing out on a potential franchise QB for a first-round pick next year?

I don’t buy that for a second. Everything points to them knowing they weren’t getting a QB they loved so they traded down for the optionality of getting one they loved at a time to be determined. I also don’t believe they saw the QBs at 6 as enough of an upgrade over Hurts to invest heavily in.