EMB Blog: 2021 Offseason

[Mike030270]

4 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

That should be targeting.

How'd they miss that? Browns were screwed

[e-a-g-l-e-s eagles!]

Just now, Mike030270 said:

How'd they miss that? Browns were screwed

At least the browns won their super bowl last week against the Steelers. 

[Sturm]

Welp the Browns are screwed.

Guess the Refs have money on KC to win.

[Desertbirds]

1 minute ago, Mike030270 said:

How'd they miss that? Browns were screwed

They should be fined.

[Mike030270]

Just now, Desertbirds said:

They should be fined.

He should have been ejected for launching a helmet to helmet hit

[e-a-g-l-e-s eagles!]

1 minute ago, Sturm said:

Welp the Browns are screwed.

Guess the Refs have money on KC to win.

Frankly they were kind of screwed when they had to play the chiefs coming off a bye. 

[Iggles_Phan]

51 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

We agree 3 firsts isn't that much of a cost. I just look at what the Eagles gave up to move from 8 to 2, and I'm sure Houston would ask for it, but I'm not sure I'd use that pick in a package with two other firsts. That's just me.

Agreed.  But, the #2 pick was being used to get what you hoped would be a QB like Watson has been.  Trading for Watson, you know what you are getting.  So, the cost of the lack of risk factors in.  I mean, I'd start with the 23rd, 2022, and 2023 pick for Watson, but going to #2 would be on the table for me if I could cut down the 2023 pick.  Because they have extra picks... so it wouldn't feel like it cost as much.

[Mike030270]

 

[Iggles_Phan]

13 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

That should be targeting.

Yup.  Game changing play.   Could have been 13-10...    woulda, coulda, shoulda though.    If the Browns' D could get a stop, it might matter.  Until then though... much less.

[LeanMeanGM]

9 minutes ago, EagleJoe8 said:

I like that rule.

In theory I don’t think it makes much sense, but with all the rules that favor offense I like that there is something in place to throw the defense a bone 

[Iggles_Phan]

13 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Schefter logic.  Least desirable to most undesirable.  

I think what he is saying that they weren't undesirable before, just less attractive.  Now they are looking like a dumpster fire.

[Ipiggles]

20 minutes ago, Right4thePicking said:

You'll get taken. Bend over.

whose bad clone is this guy?  

[greendestiny27]

2 hours ago, eagle45 said:

The Texans have better weapons than we do.  Why would Watson be happy here?

Yeah, he wouldn't. Only Jeff/Howie think that sort of nonsense 

[ManuManu]

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

In theory I don’t think it makes much sense, but with all the rules that favor offense I like that there is something in place to throw the defense a bone 

I like it. The end zone belongs to the defense. If you fumble the ball into their turf and don’t recover it, the defense gets the ball. Makes sense to me. 

[e-a-g-l-e-s eagles!]

7 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Agreed.  But, the #2 pick was being used to get what you hoped would be a QB like Watson has been.  Trading for Watson, you know what you are getting.  So, the cost of the lack of risk factors in.  I mean, I'd start with the 23rd, 2022, and 2023 pick for Watson, but going to #2 would be on the table for me if I could cut down the 2023 pick.  Because they have extra picks... so it wouldn't feel like it cost as much.

This. Justin fields if you select him at 2 may never get to be Deshaun Watson. The odds are he never becomes Deshaun Watson. He’s also only three years younger when he gets drafted than Deshaun Watson. The advantage you have with Justin fields is he’s on a rookie contract. However with the amount of salary cap space the Jets have that makes no difference to them. Pretty remarkable that a 25-year-old perennial pro bowl quarterback who is a top 10 quarterback is even on the market. Almost never happens.

if I’m the jets i look at it this way: We traded Jamal Adams for two first round picks. If I trade 2, 2022 first and even a 2023 first i essentially traded Jamal Adams and a first for watson. Add on in my back pocket I still have Sam Darnold for a team like the Niners or somebody that still believes in him where I can get back some picks. It’s not to be a first but I believe i can get back a second. And I have a ton of cap space this year and next year to infuse even more talent. And even if it’s just those three first round picks i have another first this year, 2nd, two 3rds. Next year I’d still have a first, 2nd. 

[EagleJoe8]

Just now, LeanMeanGM said:

In theory I don’t think it makes much sense, but with all the rules that favor offense I like that there is something in place to throw the defense a bone 

I think once it's accepted that the endzone is a different animal than the rest of the field, then I'm fine with it.

For one, I agree completely that I'm fine with something favoring the defense, but it also further emphasizes the need to protect the ball, especially near the endzone. 

[UK_EaglesFan89]

1 minute ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

This. Justin fields if you select him at 2 may never get to be Deshaun Watson. The odds are he never becomes Deshaun Watson. He’s also only three years younger when he gets drafted than Deshaun Watson. Pretty remarkable that a 25-year-old perennial pro bowl quarterback who is a top 10 quarterback is even on the market. Almost never happens.

Agreed. I'm a big Fields fan and think he is going to be really good in the NFL but there's a good chance he isn't. There's a very good chance he's never as good as Watson has been so far and so if the Jets can give up #2 to get Watson? Even with the contract? They would be pretty dumb not to do it I think. Build that roster around him.

[Ipiggles]

So anyone even hint at interest in interviewing Doug for a HC job? 

And if not, pretty, pretty much should tell you what the league things of how Doug was coaching. Despite winning the SB only 3 years ago. 

[Iggles_Phan]

11 minutes ago, EagleJoe8 said:

I like that rule.

Its just about the only rule that leans towards the defense.  All other rules are extremely over the top for the offense.    And that rule has existed since the beginning of the game.  It's not a new rule.   Long story short, it is a rule that makes the extension of the ball at the goal line, especially at the pylon a risky proposition so that offensive players might want to consider being a little more conservative, especially since the rule isn't that you have to possess the ball on the far side of the goalline, just break the plane with the ball in your possession, after that... you can drop the ball.  But, just don't drop the ball early.   OOB goal line to far end line is an extra 'offensive player' to recover the ball.   The defense's goal line is like an extra 'defensive player' to recover the ball.   Had he fumbled there, and there was a defender there to scoop it up, no one would say a word about it.  

 

Now, the targeting hit with the crown of the helmet down is a different story.  That's a danger to the players.  It should have been called.  And I could see that play leading to targeting becoming a 'reviewable' penalty, similar to NCAA.

[LeanMeanGM]

4 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

I like it. The end zone belongs to the defense. If you fumble the ball into their turf and don’t recover it, the defense gets the ball. Makes sense to me. 

Yea but if that’s the rule it would make more sense to have every fumble that goes out of bounds go to defense 

[e-a-g-l-e-s eagles!]

3 minutes ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

Agreed. I'm a big Fields fan and think he is going to be really good in the NFL but there's a good chance he isn't. There's a very good chance he's never as good as Watson has been so far and so if the Jets can give up #2 to get Watson? Even with the contract? They would be pretty dumb not to do it I think. Build that roster around him.

The Jets have a ton of salary cap space. So money is not an issue here. They can do whatever they want with their salary cap they’re probably not gonna even come close to how much money they have to spend. They’re gonna have rollover from this off-season into 2022. So the money aspect makes no difference to the Jets

I am guessing the Texans are going to ask for 2 overall and a first in 2022. I’m not sure it takes a third but I’m not unwilling to do that considering the fact the Jets still have first round picks in 2021 and 2022 if they trade 2 firsts from those draft classes. 

like you said I think it would be dumb of the Jets to not consider trading for Deshaun Watson. 25-year-old quarterbacks of his ilk do not become available very often. And when they do teams tend to over pay even if the Texans are a dumpster fire. There’s going to be a market for him. And it’s not gonna be small 

[ManuManu]

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Yea but if that’s the rule it would make more sense to have every fumble that goes out of bounds do to defense 

I think of the field of play between the end zones as a neutral field with the tie going to the offense. 

[Iggles_Phan]

6 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

whose bad clone is this guy?  

Not worthy of bothering with.

[EagleJoe8]

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Yea but if that’s the rule it would make more sense to have every fumble that goes out of bounds do to defense 

Nah, this goes back to what I said about the endzone being a different animal. Just like if the QB commits intentional grounding near midfield, it's a 10 yard penalty and loss of down, but they maintain possession. In the endzone, it's 2 points the other way, and you give up possession. Same thing with holding at midfield, vs the endzone.

[Iggles_Phan]

Bad Mayfield.    Dangerous dangerous throw.   7 points for KC here and you can turn out the lights.

5 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Yea but if that’s the rule it would make more sense to have every fumble that goes out of bounds go to defense 

He said the defensive END ZONE belongs to the defense.  The rest of the field belongs to the offense.   It's a fine rule.