20 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Tony Gonzalez. Shockey. Greg Olsen (drafted late in the first). Dallas Clark (also late 1st). Vernon Davis (i actually wouldn’t put him here. I thought he underwhelmed for what people thought he’d be). The real question is taking a tight in the top 15. There’s really not Many who have had success. 

Of course, the same holds true for WRs. Value in WRs seems to be in the mid-2nd through the 3rd rd. Same as TEs and RBs.

You can tell that Les has never hired anyone in his life.

Just now, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Yeah but I don’t think the exercise was strictly to the team that drafted them. It was first round tight ends that wound up being worthy of where they were selected. If we were just going based off the first team they went to then yes I would agree with you.  However to say Greg Olsen for his entire career was not worthy of where he went I would say that’s not true.

As productive as he was for his career for 14 years I would say is a very good first round pick. Now wasn’t a good pick for the Bears cause they traded him but for Greg Olsen the talent going 31 in a draft and playing 14 years and putting the numbers he did is really good

See I look at it as was he worth the first-round draft selection by the team that actually gave it up. Tony Gonzalez definitely. Dallas Clark Shore. Shockey yes. Bears only got average production and a third-round pick back. That's kind of what I look at. If we wind up selecting a tight end for example in the first round trade him three years later for a 3rd round pick would you say that it was worth it? LOL

2 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

Kyle Pits isnt even the best tight end in this draft class. 

He was playing with superior talent around him, with superior coaches and a superior scheme. 

The difference between Pitts(top 15ish) and Freiermuth(mid-late 2nd, early 3rd)  isnt worth it. 

Who do you consider the best TE in the draft?

I think Pitts has special/freakish athletic traits which is why I consider him a weapon vs. a TE.  He's a better Darren Waller.

1 minute ago, austinfan said:

Of course, the same holds true for WRs. Value in WRs seems to be in the mid-2nd through the 3rd rd. Same as TEs and RBs.

I agree with the value pick of a wide receiver is in round two and three. However there’s also value in round one. You saw it this year. Lamb, aiyuk and jefferson all had good or great years. Lamb was on pace before dak’s injury for 1400 yards. He was going to be competing with jefferson for that rookie receiving yardage. I am not against taking a wide receiver in the first round because there is value in that if you get the right player into your system. 

2 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Not at 6.  Not for this team.  No way. 

I agree, I don't want Pitts at 6 at all. Just pointing out in the general discussion, that as far as first round TE's have done historically, you can argue Olsen's career was worthy of a 1st rounder. 

At 6, all I want is a stud player. We are lacking that very badly. I don't care if it's Parsons, Surtain/Horn, Chase/Smith, just get a goddamn stud. 

6 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

See I look at it as was he worth the first-round draft selection by the team that actually gave it up. Tony Gonzalez definitely. Dallas Clark Shore. Shockey yes. Bears only got average production and a third-round pick back. That's kind of what I look at. If we wind up selecting a tight end for example in the first round trade him three years later for a 3rd round pick would you say that it was worth it? LOL

Again you’re making a different argument than the argument that was made. All we said was how many of those tight ends that went in the first round wound up living up to the expectations of a first round pick.

your argument is how many of those tight ends were drafted in the first round by their original team and wound up being a good selection for that team. That’s a different argument.

I’m not disagreeing with your evaluation on your argument. However the evaluation based off of is Greg Olsen The player and career worthy of being a first round pick, I would say yes

10 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

 Nah.  He’s right.  They look stupid.  

Caring about optics is the dumbest consideration.

4 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

See I look at it as was he worth the first-round draft selection by the team that actually gave it up. Tony Gonzalez definitely. Dallas Clark Shore. Shockey yes. Bears only got average production and a third-round pick back. That's kind of what I look at. If we wind up selecting a tight end for example in the first round trade him three years later for a 3rd round pick would you say that it was worth it? LOL

Just because the Bears were dumb to trade him away for a 3rd, doesn't mean his career wasn't worthy of a 1st round selection. Also, I don't think the Bears have ever had competent QB play, so he was stunted there. The point is, his talent was absolutely worth a 1st round pick. 

7 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

 Nah.  He’s right.  They look stupid.  

A tradition unlike any other— Jim nance (probably talking about the eagles)

1 minute ago, TorontoEagle said:

I agree, I don't want Pitts at 6 at all. Just pointing out in the general discussion, that as far as first round TE's have done historically, you can argue Olsen's career was worthy of a 1st rounder. 

At 6, all I want is a stud player. We are lacking that very badly. I don't care if it's Parsons, Surtain/Horn, Chase/Smith, just get a goddamn stud. 

Out of those players the only one I consider a bonafide stud would be Parsons. Surain, IMO is a Malcolm Jenkins clone, being a great NCAA CB but too stiff for the NFL and should be a safety at the next level.  Chase is a question mark.  He doesn't dominate at any one thing and it's safe to ask if he will be able to do the same at the next level..plus the year off.  Smith, you have to at least question if his size can stand up to 17 NFL games.  

I don't want Pitts at 6 either (hence my trade down scenario).  He is a STUD however.  Watch his highlights.  I'll put money that his 40 is faster or very close to DeVonta Smith.  

Pitts is an offensive weapon.  A mismatch all over the field. 

Just now, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Again you’re making a different argument than the argument that was me. All we said was how many of those tight ends that went in the first round wound up living up to the expectations of a first round pick.

your argument is how many of those tight ends were drafted in the first round by their original team and wound up being a good selection for that team. That’s a different argument

Just giving you my reasons why Olsen to me was not worth the first round pick to since I'm looking at it a different way than you. You're trying to make a point of why draft a tight end with the first round may, I don't care either way. I'm just saying the team should get first-round value out of him from the team that selected him. Which is example of our case if we take Pitts in the first round. Which by the way I dont see happening LOL

10 minutes ago, RLC said:

You can tell that Les has never hired anyone in his life.

Nor does he understand the value of a wide net in a HC search (nor do a lot of teams), a great way to garner information about your team, the league and numerous assistant coaches. The fact that most teams don't do this reflects more on their fear of optics than their embrace of opportunity. Most of the time teams just focus on a hot name that will please either the owner or local media, and rush into their next hire. Given the random nature of success of HC hires, a wide net is the optimal strategy (for one thing, if the HC is a fail, you have more information to start your next search).

3 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

Just because the Bears were dumb to trade him away for a 3rd, doesn't mean his career wasn't worthy of a 1st round selection. Also, I don't think the Bears have ever had competent QB play, so he was stunted there. The point is, his talent was absolutely worth a 1st round pick. 

See the whole point of this argument though is examples of should we take a tight end with a first-round pick? If the exact same situation happened and we took a tight end with a first-round pick and three years later traded him for a 3rd round pick would you feel that you got value out of that first round pick? I think you would say no. That's the actual point of this. And that's why I could not say Greg Olsen was worth his first-round selection.

I think there are examples of players that were worth a first-round pick. As mentioned Gonzalez, Shockey, Clark. I just cannot add Olsen to that list.

2 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Optics is part of the reason why this would not be an attractive place for a head coach.  The optics of Lowie....So unfortunately, optics matter.  

let's not kid ourselves...no candidate is perfect either.  otherwise, they wouldn't be a candidate.  and optics (of our situation and the prospective hire's) are easily cleared with that interview process thingie.

1 hour ago, Solomon said:

Given how wished washy McD has been over the years the Eagles should just continue on unless he comes back to them.

FYP

Just now, DeathByEagle said:

Just giving you my reasons why Olsen to me was not worth the first round pick to since I'm looking at it a different way than you. You're trying to make a point of why draft a tight end with the first round may, I don't care either way. I'm just saying the team should get first-round value out of him from the team that selected him. Which is example of our case if we take Pitts in the first round. Which by the way I dont see happening LOL

I understand that. Again think it is two different arguments being made. Yours is an entirely different argument. Was it worth it for the bears is different then is the player’s overall career worthy of a first round pick where he was selected. 
 

Yeah i don’t see it remotely happening. I do think they draft a tight end in the middle to late rounds. I actually would guarantee they do with ertz being gone and losing togiai to the colts. the Togiai loss could have also been avoided if the eagles weren’t stupid with alshon and just Pup listed him for 6 weeks. Now togiai might never be anything but he was impressive in camp according to mosher and caplan QBs the colts liked him enough to get him 

Just now, DeathByEagle said:

See the whole point of this argument though is examples of should we take a tight end with a first-round pick? If the exact same situation happened and we took a tight end with a first-round pick and three years later traded him for a 3rd round pick would you feel that you got value out of that first round pick? I think you would say no. That's the actual point of this. And that's why I could not say Greg Olsen was worth his first-round selection.

I think there are examples of players that were worth a first-round pick. As mentioned Gonzalez, Shockey, Clark. I just cannot add Olsen to that list.

I think it matters where in the first. Top 10? Helllll no, never for a TE. Pick 15 and onwards? Yeah, and considering Olsen was taken 31st overall, it's insane you'd argue his career production didn't live up to that selection. You can't project that a guy will just flame out with the team that drafts him and be dealt for relative peanuts after. Based on his talent and production, he was very worthy of pick 31. 

Just now, TorontoEagle said:

I think it matters where in the first. Top 10? Helllll no, never for a TE. Pick 15 and onwards? Yeah, and considering Olsen was taken 31st overall, it's insane you'd argue his career production didn't live up to that selection. You can't project that a guy will just flame out with the team that drafts him and be dealt for relative peanuts after. Based on his talent and production, he was very worthy of pick 31. 

Nevermind, ur looking at it much differed way, we will leave it at that.

1 minute ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

I wouldn't say that Clark or Shockey would justify it either.  Again, we are talking about a team with a ton of holes.  We had a lot of holes and more valuable needs in the draft when we drafted Goedert with our first pick.  And we have even more now.  We just gotta hope someone around 8-15 wants to trade up to 6 for one of the other QB's.  

I honestly would hate a trade down. Simply because I don't trust Lowie to make the right choice. If you want, take Parsons at 6 and set it and forget it. They trade down to 15 let's say, and all of a sudden we have Marcus Smith 2.0 on the team. No thanks. 

45 minutes ago, Wentz_Era said:

What 1st round TE has ever been worth their pick?

Gonzalez, maybe Olsen and Heath Miller

1 minute ago, TorontoEagle said:

I honestly would hate a trade down. Simply because I don't trust Lowie to make the right choice. If you want, take Parsons at 6 and set it and forget it. They trade down to 15 let's say, and all of a sudden we have Marcus Smith 2.0 on the team. No thanks. 

Honest question because I don’t have the answer but how many top 10 drafted linebackers in the past 30 years wound up being worthy of that pick?

3 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

I don't disagree with any of that.  But none of that has anything to do with the context of the discussion.  I think they look stupid interviewing everyone under the sun, even though we all know most of the guys aren't even serious candidates.  Someone said we should worry about optics.  I disagree.  

maybe I misunderstood the conversation then.  I thought we went from "looks like they have no plan" to "that creates bad optics" to "optics matter because it sends negative impressions to prospective coaches."

My point was, yeah, optics matter a little, but unless you are a pristine top tier coach with lots of options, I doubt the optics matter enough to stop you from interviewing here.  And during that process, you can clear anything that is simply bad optics.

Optics to the fans shouldn't matter a lick if it all works out in the end.

10 hours ago, NCiggles said:

So you’re saying Doug wasn’t to blame for the offense sucking this season?

I don't know how anyone can say Wentz got Doug fired

Just now, Mike030270 said:

I don't know how anyone can say Wentz got Doug fired

Doug got Doug fired.  Wentz may have thrown some accelerant on the fire instead of water...