10 hours ago, bpac55 said:

The play at 5:38....my goodness. The speed at 7:01 sheesh. If Siriani is honest about calling plays take advantage of his players strengths I think we could see a breakout season for Reagor.

He 100% needs to work on his route running but it's easy to forget how dynamic he can be.  

Just like the O-Line...if Reagor, Watkins and Fulgham can develop that would be huge.

 

 

The funny thing about Reagor is he consistently got separation last year, and ranked among the top in the NFL in that stat.

He reminded me of Maclin, who didn't look as fast in the NFL as in college but always seemed to get open.

Maclin had a pretty solid career until injuries slowed him down at 28, first six seasons, 5811 yards, 44 TD.

8 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Do you believe playing Rock Paper Scissors for maybe 30 seconds over zoom will give you an idea of how competitive someone is?

If so, how?

Yes, it’s just like any other interview question. You get 30 seconds on zoom call to gage competitiveness face to face. You have to do it will 200 prospects.

Let’s take Horn vs Surtain. Hypothetically, Horn keeps losing and says best out of 3, best out of 7, just tries to keep going. Surtain keeps losing, just sits there and waits till the nest question. They are naturally gonna think Horn is more competitive. That doesn’t mean Surtain won’t be the pick because there is a lot more that goes into this.

Just like if 2 people were going for the same job and both get asked why they would be the best candidate. There answer is important to the interviewer because that’s all the time they get with that prospect to gage them.

I get there is film, combines, etc. just like there is resumes in real job interviewers. 10 people can have the same type of film (resume) so that face to face interaction is super important.

They can’t meet them in person. This is a good, quick way on zoom. It’s just crazy to me that it’s that big of a deal to some of you.

Can't believe people are still obsessing over RPS.

It was just an example of how they do little things to feel out prospects.

To me, the far more important thing is how Sirianni focuses on technique when gauging WRs, not size or speed. He wants to know if a WR can do the things needed to be successful at the next level. Fanboys love to list 40 times, as if that was the key to WR success, when most WRs who put up times under 4.4 never make it in the NFL. Same at CB. Running in a straight line in shorts is rarely seen on a football field.

1 minute ago, austinfan said:

It was just an example of how they do little things to feel out prospects.

He's getting laughed at pretty hard, but honestly RPS is quite brilliant in a way.

You throw somebody completely off their game and you can find a lot out about a person that way.  It's kind of the same reason that Google asks interviewees things like "why are manhole covers round."  It's not really about getting the right answer, they want to throw you off your game and see how you respond.

Stop , Siri said he chose it because it shows competitiveness ,  which is ridiculous 

Asking a thought provoking question is different than, challenging someone to rps , to gauge their competitiveness.

8 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Can't believe people are still obsessing over RPS.

It was just an example of how they do little things to feel out prospects.

To me, the far more important thing is how Sirianni focuses on technique when gauging WRs, not size or speed. He wants to know if a WR can do the things needed to be successful at the next level. Fanboys love to list 40 times, as if that was the key to WR success, when most WRs who put up times under 4.4 never make it in the NFL. Same at CB. Running in a straight line in shorts is rarely seen on a football field.

No S, AF. 

10 minutes ago, MillerTime said:

Yes, it’s just like any other interview question. You get 30 seconds on zoom call to gage competitiveness face to face. You have to do it will 200 prospects.

Let’s take Horn vs Surtain. Hypothetically, Horn keeps losing and says best out of 3, best out of 7, just tries to keep going. Surtain keeps losing, just sits there and waits till the nest question. They are naturally gonna think Horn is more competitive. That doesn’t mean Surtain won’t be the pick because there is a lot more that goes into this.

Just like if 2 people were going for the same job and both get asked why they would be the best candidate. There answer is important to the interviewer because that’s all the time they get with that prospect to gage them.

I get there is film, combines, etc. just like there is resumes in real job interviewers. 10 people can have the same type of film (resume) so that face to face interaction is super important.

They can’t meet them in person. This is a good, quick way on zoom. It’s just crazy to me that it’s that big of a deal to some of you.

I’ll ask again since I didn’t get an answer: In what way does playing Rock Scissors Paper for 30 seconds help shape your opinion of a person’s level of competitiveness?

I think everyone is over blowing this just a little bit with the RPS crap, lol. 

If we are sitting here next year and all the draft picks sucked, the team sucked, we were the laughing stock of the NFL and we have the first pick in the draft Im sure we can say maybe all this mattered. But I'm also sure Nick will be fired if all that happens so who cares. 

3 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

I’ll ask again since I didn’t get an answer: In what way does playing Rock Scissors Paper for 30 seconds help shape your opinion of a person’s level of competitiveness?

Their reaction to playing, how they respond when they lose or win, how aggressive or emotional they become through the process.

Now let me ask you. Why is this such a ridiculous method when all you get is a zoom call? What other serious methods would you use to gage competitiveness if you had 30 seconds with a prospect?

25 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Can't believe people are still obsessing over RPS.

It was just an example of how they do little things to feel out prospects.

To me, the far more important thing is how Sirianni focuses on technique when gauging WRs, not size or speed. He wants to know if a WR can do the things needed to be successful at the next level. Fanboys love to list 40 times, as if that was the key to WR success, when most WRs who put up times under 4.4 never make it in the NFL. Same at CB. Running in a straight line in shorts is rarely seen on a football field.

Most wrs who put up times over 4.4 never make it in the nfl either.

9 minutes ago, MillerTime said:

Their reaction to playing, how they respond when they lose or win, how aggressive or emotional they become through the process.

Now let me ask you. Why is this such a ridiculous method when all you get is a zoom call? What other serious methods would you use to gage competitiveness if you had 30 seconds with a prospect?

I would simply rely on what my scouts learned through the process since a 30 second "competitive test” is a waste of time in this setting. 

39 minutes ago, Original Sin said:

I wait to after rd 1 and 2  for a backer , and go Barnes , Werner , McGrone , Browning or McDuffie 

 

Think I like McGrone but I can’t judge LBs because unassailed on blitzes and assisted tackles but that’s just me, I guess I expect too much. I like to see shedding blocks and making the tackle. Who do you prefer ?

13 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

I think everyone is over blowing this just a little bit with the RPS crap, lol. 

If we are sitting here next year and all the draft picks sucked, the team sucked, we were the laughing stock of the NFL and we have the first pick in the draft Im sure we can say maybe all this mattered. But I'm also sure Nick will be fired if all that happens so who cares. 

If people could just accept that RPS is a total waste of time and has zero bearing on what level of competitor a person is then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. This is a classic case of overthinking it. They’re getting no information on competitiveness from it. 

Don't know if it's been brought up but did anyone see the EDP (that fat guy that screams about the Eagles on YouTube) getting caught in trying to meet up with a 13 year old?!?!  He sent a pic of his poop to this someone trying to 'catch a predator' him.

 

17 minutes ago, MillerTime said:

Their reaction to playing, how they respond when they lose or win, how aggressive or emotional they become through the process.

I let you off the hook earlier, but decided to circle back: In what way would they need to react for you to feel like they’re a competitive person? If the guy shrugs off a loss, does that mean they aren’t competitive? 

33 minutes ago, Original Sin said:

Stop , Siri said he chose it because it shows competitiveness ,  which is ridiculous 

Asking a thought provoking question is different than, challenging someone to rps , to gauge their competitiveness.

Media overblown narrative 

11 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

I would simply rely on what my scouts learned through the process since a 30 second "competitive test” is a waste of time in this setting. 

People keep saying ridiculous or a waste of time and never give a reason why. So far no proof have been presented it doesn’t have value or it’s a waste of time. Obviously they found value in it for Siri to bring up the process after the fact. 

18 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

I let you off the hook earlier, but decided to circle back: In what way would they need to react for you to feel like they’re a competitive person? If the guy shrugs off a loss, does that mean they aren’t competitive? 

It doesn’t mean they aren’t competitive. It means they might not be as competitive as the next guy. Mix that with the scout responses and you start to get an idea. Siri is obviously looking for certain responses in his players. It has value to him and what he wants.

And for me I would want to see them get excited about winning and annoyed about losing/want to keep playing. I have been to sales trainings where people get super intense over 2 truths and a lie. Competitiveness shows.

18 hours ago, aptosbird said:

The biggest impact to a rebuild is an elite OL. I have no problem with Slater who can play IOL if need be. I just don't think the Eagles can roll into the season expecting Johnson, Brooks, and Kelce staying healthy.

Moesher keeps putting out there little hints about the Eagles moving Brooks. He said it when the season ended and again on a newer podcast. I didn't think it's possible especially since we restructured him but looking at this, a post June 1 trade is entirely possible. The cost savings is big time and Brooks being 33 isn't the future. Slater can be moved inside to LG. Is using 12 the smartest thing though on a LG? Maybe another trade down to 16 or so for Vera-Tucker? Still not sure... There's guys in round 2/3 like Carman, Mayfield, Radunz, Jenkins (trade up into round 1 option) I think I'd rather and go a different route in round 1
 

after restructure this is eye opening:

https://overthecap.com/player/brandon-brooks/1644/

The idea of a trio of Smith, Reagor and Watkins is starting to grow on me. At times you want the big WR out there (Fulgham, JJAW or whomever they find), but having 3 quick, explosive WRs has its own merits, especially in an Indy type offense. NE has utilized smaller quick WRs to great advantage, Branch (5'9 195), Welker (5'9 185), Edelman (5'10 198), Amendola (5'11 185). Now they also had the TE target and usually a killer H-back.

Having a combination of quick WRs who get open quickly and big targets who can win one on one battles, gives your QB options within 3 seconds and takes a lot of pressure off your OL.

6 minutes ago, greendestiny27 said:

Moesher keeps putting out there little hints about the Eagles moving Brooks. He said it when the season ended and again on a newer podcast. I didn't think it's possible especially since we restructured him but looking at this, a post June 1 trade is entirely possible. The cost savings is big time and Brooks being 33 isn't the future. Slater can be moved inside to LG. Is using 12 the smartest thing though on a LG? Maybe another trade down to 16 or so for Vera-Tucker? Still not sure... There's guys in round 2/3 like Carman, Mayfield, Radunz, Jenkins (trade up into round 1 option) I think I'd rather and go a different route in round 1
 

after restructure this is eye opening:

https://overthecap.com/player/brandon-brooks/1644/

Brooks will be 32 in August. He should have 3-4 years of top flight play left in him if he's healthy.

Peters had a similar injury at 30, came back at 31 and made the pro bowl 4 straight times and all pro once, and that was at LT.

With this discussion about Slater at LG...I really don't like the idea of drafting someone high for their flexibility.  Draft someone as an all pro-LG if you think they project that way.  But don't draft someone because of optionality....Someone who isn't long enough for OT but has great athleticism for OG.

That sent me down a rabbit hole....we drafted a college OT in Shawn Andrews who was a prototypical RG in round 1.  And this article popped up:

https://www.inquirer.com/philly/sports/eagles/111913_Former_NFL_OL_Shawn_Andrews_Time_with_Eagles_was_like_I_was_in_a_living_hell.html

We haven't had a good Mcnabb bashing in a while, so maybe worth a read.

 

5 minutes ago, austinfan said:

The idea of a trio of Smith, Reagor and Watkins is starting to grow on me. At times you want the big WR out there (Fulgham, JJAW or whomever they find), but having 3 quick, explosive WRs has its own merits, especially in an Indy type offense. NE has utilized smaller quick WRs to great advantage, Branch (5'9 195), Welker (5'9 185), Edelman (5'10 198), Amendola (5'11 185). Now they also had the TE target and usually a killer H-back.

Having a combination of quick WRs who get open quickly and big targets who can win one on one battles, gives your QB options within 3 seconds and takes a lot of pressure off your OL.

I'd take Waddle over Smith, but I think Smith is the one who will be there at 12.  I wouldn't hate it.

11 minutes ago, greendestiny27 said:

Moesher keeps putting out there little hints about the Eagles moving Brooks. He said it when the season ended and again on a newer podcast. I didn't think it's possible especially since we restructured him but looking at this, a post June 1 trade is entirely possible. The cost savings is big time and Brooks being 33 isn't the future. Slater can be moved inside to LG. Is using 12 the smartest thing though on a LG? Maybe another trade down to 16 or so for Vera-Tucker? Still not sure... There's guys in round 2/3 like Carman, Mayfield, Radunz, Jenkins (trade up into round 1 option) I think I'd rather and go a different route in round 1
 

after restructure this is eye opening:

https://overthecap.com/player/brandon-brooks/1644/

Spending pick 12 on a guard with so many other glaring holes on this team would be maddening.  There are solid OG's in round 3.

Herbig was not the problem last year.  Yes he has a ways to go and body fat to lose but he showed promise.

The #1 problem for the offensive line last year was having 14 different line combos out of 16 games.

I don't care who you line up across the line.  If there is someone different next to you 87% of the time, your chance for success is going to be minimal.  Continuity across the offensive line is one of the key factors in having a great line.

Yes, there are health, age and development questions but they've invested in the line.

Mailata Seumalo Kelce Brooks Johnson     Dillard/Herbig/Driscoll/draft pick.

Mailata Seumalo Kelce Herbig Johnson      Dillard/Driscoll/Toth/draft pick.

Dillard Seumalo Kelce Brooks Johnson        Mailata/Herbig/Driscoll/draft pick

 

Again, I think Mailata has All-Pro potential.  He's not there yet, he's also just 24.  We keep talking about 2021 is a lost season.  If there ever was a year to see what our tackles have this is it.  Throw Mailata out there.  If he fails, put Dillard in.  If he fails then you know, OK in 2022 when we have 3 first round picks, LT should be one of them.

I'm not ready to say our 2019 1st rounder who we traded up for was a waste.  We already know JJAW, Shareef Miller and Clayton Thorson are wastes.  

The Eagles used 3 draft picks to get Dillard.  Before you spend ANOTHER 1st on a tackle, you find out what you have in him.  If Mailata is the LT, you make sure you cross train Dillard all over the line.  MAYBE he can become a guard.  Who knows.  At the very least Dillard needs to be the swing tackle this year.

But it all goes back to the o-line staying healthy and playing as one unit for 17 games.  

 

 

 

1 hour ago, austinfan said:

Can't believe people are still obsessing over RPS.

It was just an example of how they do little things to feel out prospects.

To me, the far more important thing is how Sirianni focuses on technique when gauging WRs, not size or speed. He wants to know if a WR can do the things needed to be successful at the next level. Fanboys love to list 40 times, as if that was the key to WR success, when most WRs who put up times under 4.4 never make it in the NFL. Same at CB. Running in a straight line in shorts is rarely seen on a football field.

I remember egging on a guy on the old board to photo shop DP on the shoe phone ala Maxwell Smart during the headset caper and look where that got us. 

I’d like to see the progress of the team by the end of the season before I pile on, give him a fair chance. I haven’t watched or listened to any of his spiel ... well maybe a little