EMB Blog: 2021 Offseason

[eagle45]

3 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

It's not about having a great defense it's about not having a terrible defense. 

Devonta Smith doesn't turn us into a great offense either. 

Who are our cornerstone players on defense? Cox and Graham both drafted around a decade ago and both now in their 30s.

This team desperately needs some some young cornerstone players on defense to build around on that side of the ball so at the very least we have a competent defense going forward.  

Respectfully, I could not disagree more.  

A great offense wins you a superbowl.  You can go from a terrible defense (and we don't even have a terrible defense) to a not terrible one in one offseason.  That's all you need to win a SB.

What is the point of pairing our league worst offense (yup, that's what we've got) with an improved defense?

[Iggles_Phan]

14 minutes ago, The Holy Vagabond said:

When the eagles hired Pederson, did they introduce the entire coaching staff at the same time or am I remembering that wrong?

A lot of it was known.  Schwartz was there for Doug's opening PC, and had a minor PC off to the side right after.   I think Reich was known to being added, and most of the assistants were also known ahead of time - who was retained, etc.   Flajole was leaked as a new hire, but no one knew the role at first, because he was leaked before Schwartz was known and before Doug was hired.

[Mike31mt]

3 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

It's not about having a great defense it's about not having a terrible defense. 

Devonta Smith doesn't turn us into a great offense either. 

Who are our cornerstone players on defense? Cox and Graham both drafted around a decade ago and both now in their 30s.

This team desperately needs some some young cornerstone players on defense to build around on that side of the ball so at the very least we have a competent defense going forward.  

Who are the cornerstone players on offense?

I agree with your premise, but at 6 you either take the great offensive player or trade back. There are no franchise level defensive players this year, really

If we add Smith, that is a legitimate set of skill players to carry us through 2021.  

I would be ok with them blanket drafting defensive players, just not at 6. 

[Iggles_Phan]

10 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Schwartz was hired before Doug in what was some epic foreshadowing

I think this is overblown a little.  Doug was still in the playoffs when the Schwartz news broke, and the Eagles couldn't officially name Doug until he was out.

[hputenis]

4 hours ago, Bacarty2 said:

Am I crazy to think that Siri would bring Rivers in as a QB coach? or Passing Coach? 

He already declined.  Since the stadium will only allow 25% max capacity, his whole family will not be able to attend. 

[austinfan]

36 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

They did have multiple top 10 picks... Johnson and Wentz, and Cox should have been.   But, also other higher draft picks than the 20s, which is where a playoff birth would put them.  Graham was 13, Barnett 14.  I'd rather they not have to trade up to get into the teens.  But, rather they be in a position to move back and get more talent in some drafts.

 

I'm not talking about 'tanking'.  I'm talking about removing old and expensive pieces all at once and ripping it down to the studs (they really don't have any left to build around)... and if they just do enough to get under the cap, rather than truly stripping it down and letting the young guys develop, then they are doing it wrong.  The thought of playoffs should not be a part of the thought process of roster building for 2021.   The thought should be about finding that sustainable core to build around... a group of players that will be here in 2023 and beyond.  

 

Guys like Cox, Graham, McLeod, Brooks, Johnson, Slay, Kelce, Ertz, Ward.... frankly, none of these guys should be back, but some will have to be back due to salary cap restrictions.  Wentz should be gone too, except that he's a QB, and a 29 year old QB could still have a solid 5+ years left... if the other parts of the team around him are in place.  

You don't want to get rid of all your veterans at once, irregardless of cap consequences, otherwise it becomes the blind leading the blind.

You ideally would like to transition over a two year period so you don't have to force rookies into the lineup before they're ready.

We're already dumping DeSean, Jeffrey, probably Ertz, Peters, Curry, Malik. Remains to be seen with Kelce, Brooks, Lane, Graham, McLeod. Most of the veterans who return this year will be gone in 2022, and maybe all by 2023 (depending how Cox ages).

A two year transition will clear the cap before the 2023 season, allowing the addition of 2-3 FAs in their prime years (25-27) to an already young roster.

The key is less about dumping veterans than finding and developing young players, and for the most part that takes 2-3 years, especially for players taken outside the 1st rd.

[Iggles_Phan]

8 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Babe Ruth was stastically unique in his domination over his peers.  His peers were also limited, **** Leagues not assimilated into the majors, no Latin American invasion yet.  Pros trained about as hard back then as elite HS teams now.  Still, he's a uniquely dominant pro athlete in the history of sport.  

It's a lot easier to say that Hank Aaron would be a stud today. 

 

edit: in case that needed clarifying, I obviously didn't type a slur.  Apparently message board filters still don't like the collective term for the baseball league.

No need for the clarification.   Knee-grow Leagues is the official name of those (now recognized as 'Major' league) organizations.  They even have their own Hall of Fame... https://negroleague.org/

 

[RememberTheKoy]

10 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

All of your points can be made about the offense as well .....

 

I disagree with that. I think you do have some young players on offense that you can grow and develop going forward. 

[RememberTheKoy]

9 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Respectfully, I could not disagree more.  

A great offense wins you a superbowl.  You can go from a terrible defense (and we don't even have a terrible defense) to a not terrible one in one offseason.  That's all you need to win a SB.

What is the point of pairing our league worst offense (yup, that's what we've got) with an improved defense?

 

We don't have a terrible defense but if we don't get some young corner stone players in here on defense then it won't be long at all before we do have a terrible defense. 

And the point is the Eagles aren't contending next year.  The Eagles shouldn't be taking a short term view with the team.  They need to take a long term view to rebuilding. 

[Couch Potato]

7 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

As always, all depends on how the board falls at 1-5.  If the top 5 are Lawrence, Sewell, Smith, Parsons, and Chase — then Howie will have teams calling to jump up and grab the next QB (Wilson or Fields).  If, however, 3 QB get drafted in the top 5, I doubt there will be a trade partner.

To me, the best scenario for rebuilding would be to trade back from #6 to #12 and get a 2nd round pick plus a 2022 1st, and trade Hurts for a 2nd round pick.  Then you have the #12 overall pick, three 2nd round picks, and two 1st round picks in 2022

That would be a very nice haul, but I don't think #6 to #12 gets a 2 this year and a 1 next. More likely it would be either next year's 1 or a R2 and change.

Really can't see Hurts garnering a 2nd rounder either. He put in a couple of OK performances but his most likely outcome is to be a back-up NFL QB. Other than Howie or BOB, I doubt that a GM would spend a R2 pick for a back-up QB

[The Holy Vagabond]

At #6, you take the best, most talented player available. A game-changer. 

[eagle45]

Just now, RememberTheKoy said:

 

I disagree with that. I think you do have some young players on offense that you can grow and develop going forward. 

I am not a believer in Wentz or Hurts.  I think Hurts is a bad passer and always will be, while the goal is to salvage Wentz up to mediocrity.  

We have a LG who is overrated by the board, but is a reasonable starter.  We have a uniquely talented LT...still, no one knows for sure exactly how, when, or where he fits in.

We have an athletic first round pick WR who had, at best, a bad rookie season and, at worst, a horrible one.

And we have a good running back and a good TE, both of whom can't shake the injury prone label.

That's a horrible situation.

[RememberTheKoy]

16 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Who are the cornerstone players on offense?

I agree with your premise, but at 6 you either take the great offensive player or trade back. There are no franchise level defensive players this year, really

If we add Smith, that is a legitimate set of skill players to carry us through 2021.  

I would be ok with them blanket drafting defensive players, just not at 6. 

 

I think Mailata has shown that he can be that LT for the now and the future.  I think Herbig showed he can become a good guard down the line. Miles Sanders and Goedert are obviously talented.  At WR I'm still a big believer in Reagor's talent and I think Watkins showed something.  Hightower I have never been that high on but he showed he can make catches down the field (and drop them too).  Ward I think has proven himself as a very dependable possession slot WR. There are young guys there that can be developed. 

 

The most important cornerstone player on offense though is QB.  That might be what we are missing but we will see if Sirianni can salvage Wentz. 

[RememberTheKoy]

5 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

I am not a believer in Wentz or Hurts.  I think Hurts is a bad passer and always will be, while the goal is to salvage Wentz up to mediocrity.  

We have a LG who is overrated by the board, but is a reasonable starter.  We have a uniquely talented LT...still, no one knows for sure exactly how, when, or where he fits in.

We have an athletic first round pick WR who had, at best, a bad rookie season and, at worst, a horrible one.

And we have a good running back and a good TE, both of whom can't shake the injury prone label.

That's a horrible situation.

 

 

I'm not really a believer in the QBs on the roster either which is why I think the best move is for this team to draft a QB at 6 if someone like Fields drops to them.  Outside of a QB at 6 though the next best move would be a player on the defensive side of the ball. 

The situation on offense for the long term is far better than the one on defense.  Defense is better for the short term but the cupboard is bare for the long term. 

[Couch Potato]

11 minutes ago, The Holy Vagabond said:

At #6, you take the best, most talented player available. A game-changer. 

And that may well be Micah Parsons, but it's 50 years since this organisation drafted a LB in R1.

I'm not sold on Surtain (too stiff to be a true lock-down CB) or Farley (has all the tools but also has an injury history) at #6.

Don't see any other Defensive players worthy of #6.

Edit - It's 40 years, but you get my drift

[eagle45]

5 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

We don't have a terrible defense but if we don't get some young corner stone players in here on defense then it won't be long at all before we do have a terrible defense. 

And the point is the Eagles aren't contending next year.  The Eagles shouldn't be taking a short term view with the team.  They need to take a long term view to rebuilding. 

I do agree about the long view...and that's exactly why I don't even care about the defense.

There is no correlation between defensive dominance and stringing up 13-14 wins in a season anymore.  It's all offense paired with mediocre defense.  And if we ever start to hit on draft picks and acquire some studs who require big 2nd contracts...teams simply can't afford to pay for major talent on both sides of the ball.  You can't have a Fletcher Cox contract and an elite QB contract and big-time WRs on second contracts.  

And you can go from a terrible defense to an average one very quickly.  So that's why I'd choose to rebuild the offense with most of our draft capital from the ground up.

[Giddyunc]

7 hours ago, austinfan said:

Trump is a Russian spy!

Actually I never saw that, even the collusion argument was held by a minority (I always felt that Putin thought the Trumps were too stupid to collude with, rather, the Russians just used them to create chaos by supporting their campaign through information leaks and troll farms), the better question was why was he so friendly with Putin? (follow the money, wait until Vance finishes his investigation and files charges - my suspicion is money laundering for Russian oligarchs and mafia, Deutsche Bank has been laundering money for Russians and who was their favorite client? Russian Mafia money has been used to make purchases at Trump Towers). Because Trump never released his financials and tax information, these accusations aren't lies but simply unconfirmed - if they were false, Trump could easily have shown that by disclosing this information. Since Manhattan DA Cy Vance will have access to this information, we should learn the truth in a few months.

Four years later and still clinging to the tax returns! There was a Title I FISA warrant on Cater Page (that was completely and totally illegally obtained). Given the presence of this warrant, the FBI and DOJ had Trump's tax returns, and a hell of a lot more, since 2016. What do you think happened? Do you think they decided to just sit on and squash evidence of "Trump-Russian Mafia ties?" 

That's a far cry from false accusations of stolen votes without a shred of evidence, in the most closely scrutinized election in American history. There were no legitimate questions concerning the process, Dan Patrick offered a million dollars for evidence of fraud, Lt Gov Fetterman was the only claimant with two documented cases of fraud by Trump voters. Notice no Trump lawyer made those fraud claims in front of a judge, because falsely testifying to a judge will get you disbarred, if not jailed. Instead they made vague allegations which had a couple judges on the verge of asking for disciplinary action and all complaining about a lack of substantiation. And let's not mention the Qucumbers and their insane theories (pedophiles in Pizza joints?). The final vote closely paralleled the polls, including the jump Trump got in 2016 due to the polls being skewed (not deliberately, as pollsters have a lot of money riding on being accurate so they have no interest in "rigging" the results, but due to the way they're conducted, they are biased samples). And vote totals in urban areas were similar to 2016, it was the mostly white educated suburbanites who shifted their votes, note, those aren't the counties where the false accusations of vote rigging were centered. 

No offense, but it's hard to take you seriously when you say that there "wasn't a shred of evidence," "most scrutinized election in history," or "no legitimate concerns." First of all, there's over 400 sworn affidavits alleging issues ranging from improprieties to outright fraud. As you know, every single one of these people face prosecution if their claims are proven false. Second, there's the undeniable fact that in at least one Michigan district, Trump votes were erroneously counted as Biden votes. Three percent of Trump votes were shifted to Biden for an overall 6% swing. That is a fact. After the district, on their own, decided to conduct a manual recount and discovered this, it was explained away by claiming that software wasn't updated. Third, you claim that vote totals in urban areas were relatively the same. Again, that's simply not true. In regards to the minority vote, Biden did worse than any Democrat in over 60 years. Inexplicably however, in just the handful of states that stopped counting on election night, the early morning vote dumps made Biden outperform even Obama in regards to the inner city districts. So Biden performed historically bad with minorities throughout the country, but in the states that had next-day vote dumps Biden did historical good with minorities. 

There are a lot more questions than just those (including those with video supporting the claims). However, does that mean that Biden lost the election? Of course not. All of these issues don't automatically add up to "Trump won the election." However, for the media to unanimously proclaim that voter fraud didn't occur is spurious at best. 

Given these false accusations helped fuel a riot that left 5 dead, and was a direct assault on our government (an attack with the intent to disrupt Congress from carrying out its constitutional duty is sedition), it's understandable that those involved were censored - there is no right to be on Twitter or Facebook, they are private property. The 1st amendment only prevents the government from censoring speech. You have no more right to post on Twitter or Facebook than you have to force the Washington Post to print your letters. Twitter and Facebook understandably did not want to be a party to those counseling treason, whatever the merits, that's bad for business.

One of the most fascinating things to occur over the past four years is to watch how Liberals now defend censorship. Of course Facebook, Twitter, etc are private companies that are free to conduct their business as they see it. However, there's a fundamental difference between social media companies and businesses like a bakery. The latter provides a service, while the former provides a PUBLIC service. For better or worse, social media has become the most dominant and influential means of distributing information. It has become THE mechanism by which the masses are informed. Given this, would you characterize social media platforms as a private company like a small bakery, or would you say that they provide a service similar to your local power company? Like power companies, they provide an essential, public service to the masses (again, for better or worse). 

You state that raising legitimate election concerns constitutes, in your own words, "a direct assault on our government," "sedition," and "treason." Without directly responding to these utterly absurd accusations, I'll ask you this:

Bernie Sanders went on TV repeatedly and said that Trump and the Republicans are going to cause people to die by destroying Obamacare and we must do something about it. For a two week period, he went on every news outlet that would have him on and loudly proclaimed that if we don't take some type of action, people are going to needlessly die. Shortly thereafter, a paid Bernie campaign employee sought out, and gunned down a group of Republican Congressmen. Given your statement that it's "understandable to censor"  those that "were involved in the direct assault on our government," I guess you think Bernie should have been muzzled. Simple question...were you calling for the censorship of people whose rhetoric incited a "direct assault on our government?" 

 

[Iggles_Phan]

6 minutes ago, austinfan said:

You don't want to get rid of all your veterans at once, irregardless of cap consequences, otherwise it becomes the blind leading the blind.

You ideally would like to transition over a two year period so you don't have to force rookies into the lineup before they're ready.

We're already dumping DeSean, Jeffrey, probably Ertz, Peters, Curry, Malik. Remains to be seen with Kelce, Brooks, Lane, Graham, McLeod. Most of the veterans who return this year will be gone in 2022, and maybe all by 2023 (depending how Cox ages).

A two year transition will clear the cap before the 2023 season, allowing the addition of 2-3 FAs in their prime years (25-27) to an already young roster.

The key is less about dumping veterans than finding and developing young players, and for the most part that takes 2-3 years, especially for players taken outside the 1st rd.

Johnson can't be gone this year, the cap just won't allow it.  Brooks could be but only if traded, which won't happen coming off the Achilles.  McLeod could, but won't coming off the ACL.  So those guys will all be back.  

 

But, they can also have cheaper vets in some of these roles.   Everything is new with a new HC, so having those particular vets doesn't matter.  And you only need to have a few vets at each position group.   And too many vets means not enough reps for youth.

OL: Johnson and Brooks basically have to return.  Seumalo is a veteran.  Even Mailata has been in the league for 3 years now.  He's raw as an OL, but he's not new to the league.   The OL doesn't need any more vets, especially if they manage to retain Stoutland.  The team does desperately need youth on the OL though.  
WR: No need for vets there.  They have the venerable Greg Ward.
TE: Goedert is sufficiently veteran, and they can bring back Richard Rodgers for cheap.  No need for Ertz.
LB: Singleton & Edwards are 'vet enough'.  Singleton isn't young, by any measure.
DB:  McLeod is going to be back. Bring back Mills for cheap (he's not getting much on the free market) and there are your vets at DB.  No need for Slay.
DL: Graham and Cox can go (and it kills me to say it).  Moving Graham  in 2021 saves huge money for 2022, same with Cox.  Bring Curry back, he's cheaper and will cost very little in 2022, unlike Cox and Graham (and Graham won't even be under contract for 2022 with that huge hit!)  Curry, Barnett, Hargrave (yes, I don't see him moving on), Sweat... they have plenty of 'vets' there.  No need for Cox and Graham to provide stability.  This is the place that Howie put the team, they have to make the hard choices... and move on from old, expensive players who are only getting older and more expensive.

 

And yes, the key is finding and developing young players, but its also about digging out of the cap hell for the future.  The more hits you can take now, the less you carry forward, making a faster turn around as you can actually fill holes with veteran free agents that might actually fit together.   More reps for young guys gives more opportunities to teach, to evaluate and to get better.  

[LeanMeanGM]

He has it shaking out as:

Lawrence

Wilson

Chase

Lance

Slater

#6: Surtain

 

gross.

 

Also has Fields going to Panthers at #8 and Sewell dropping to #10 to... drum roll... Dallas

[metal]

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

He has it shaking out as:

Lawrence

Wilson

Chase

Lance

Slater

#6: Surtain

 

gross

Isn't 6 kinda high for Surtain? I thought he'd be going somewhere in the middle of the first round.

Also kinda surprised he has Slater going over Sewell.

[Iggles_Phan]

3 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

He has it shaking out as:

Lawrence

Wilson

Chase

Lance

Slater

#6: Surtain

 

gross.

 

Also has Fields going to Panthers at #8 and Sewell dropping to #10 to... drum roll... Dallas

Going 100% strictly by 'needs', that makes a lot of sense.  I think there's a good chance Sewell drops due to sitting out as does Chase.  If Sewell is sitting there at #6, you grab him up quick and then figure out the rest later.  

[Mike31mt]

24 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I think this is overblown a little.  Doug was still in the playoffs when the Schwartz news broke, and the Eagles couldn't officially name Doug until he was out.

True, but do you think Doug picked Schwartz, or did the FO pick Schwartz for him?

That was kind of the point.  We immediately saw that Doug really didnt have that authority from day 1

[RememberTheKoy]

8 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

I do agree about the long view...and that's exactly why I don't even care about the defense.

There is no correlation between defensive dominance and stringing up 13-14 wins in a season anymore.  It's all offense paired with mediocre defense.  And if we ever start to hit on draft picks and acquire some studs who require big 2nd contracts...teams simply can't afford to pay for major talent on both sides of the ball.  You can't have a Fletcher Cox contract and an elite QB contract and big-time WRs on second contracts.  

And you can go from a terrible defense to an average one very quickly.  So that's why I'd choose to rebuild the offense with most of our draft capital from the ground up.

 

 

If you don't care about the defense in the long run then you better be building the best offense the league has ever seen. 

 

And again, please stop saying dominant defense.  I'm talking about building a great defense over a great offense.  I'm talking about making sure we have a competent defense.  If you don't have a competent defense it really doesn't matter if you have a good offense.  

You say you can't afford to pay a Cox, a QB and a WR.  Okay then you pay the QB and the great defensive lineman. 

 

If you want to strive for mediocrity then you build a team with your mentality of focusing on one side of the ball and neglecting the other side. 

[LeanMeanGM]

1 minute ago, metal said:

Isn't 6 kinda high for Surtain? I thought he'd be going somewhere in the middle of the first round.

Also kinda surprised he has Slater going over Sewell.

imo, yes. I don't like Surtain as a top 10 guy. I think he will hover around 10-14.

Slater as T1 has been buzzing the last few days, but not sure he's better than Sewell. I also don't think Fields is QB4. This is his first version so I'm guessing he isn't really trying and just doing more shakeup moves to get talked about it. 

[Iggles_Phan]

Just now, Mike31mt said:

True, but do you think Doug picked Schwartz, or did the FO pick Schwartz for him?

That was kind of the point.  We immediately saw that Doug really didnt have that authority from day 1

Frankly, I don't know.  It is possible that Doug had a list of DCs he'd be ok working with, and they went off that list while he was busy with KC.  It is equally possible they showed him a list of DCs and he had veto rights on them and they picked the DC from their list.... or maybe he was a puppet from the beginning.   I doubt they presented it to him as puppetry, but as a way of making the transition easier for him.  

 

There's a lot that we don't really know about the inner workings.   I also know that Doug and Frank are friends, and that if Doug were 100% unhappy with how this all ended, that he'd have told Frank about it... and maybe Sirianni thinks twice.   At the same time, maybe Sirianni just wants his shot. Lots of unknowns.