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

This is exactly how I feel. I feel like the value of the six pack is only if there’s a quarterback there that some team wants to trade up for.
 I don’t think it’s a great year to be picking in the top 6 unless you need a quarterback. I like surtain and Farley but I’m with you I don’t think either one of them is a six overall pick. To me Sewell is the only olineman that should be taken in the top 10 and he’s unlikely to be there at 6

The question is though is the player going to be a quality starter?  I agree with BPA to a certain extent, but if we can get a legit starting caliber CB that might be overinflated by 5 to 10 draft spots vs. getting a player in an area where we are fairly solid in...then at that point draft position shouldn't matter.  If there is doubt about the CB prospect being a capable starter, then I agree...don't draft him at #6.

8 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

The more I look into the draft, the more I come out thinking this is just not a good top 10 draft class. 

QB: Probably the strongest position, but not amazing. Lawrence, Fields and Wilson should be locks. Lance maybe. 

RB/TE: None, unless someone reaches for Pitts at the back end.

WR: Chase, Smith, maybe Wadle.

OL: Sewell. Maybe Slater, but feel like it would be a reach for a team with a need.

DL: IMO, none. Paye and Rousseau would both be reaches but are probably the top 2.

LB: Parsons

CB: Farley and Surtain. Personally I don't think either are top 10 prospects and will only go because its a weak top end class. 

S: None.

What this all tells me is there should be a run on QB's early and often. You pretty much have to hope Lance or Wilson slip to 6 if you want any shot of trading back. If you stay put, there's not many options. It's easy to say OL/DL should be the pick, but in this class it would be a reach. CB is a big need, but again, probably would be a reach, imo. Parsons I'm not even going to consider based on the Eagles history. Maybe this is the year they over correct at LB and take him, but I'm betting they don't. 

It's not a good top end draft at all.  I mentioned it a few times.  Typical Eagles fashion to finally get a high draft pick and the talent isn't there.  Trading down is the only option to make it worhtwhile.

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

The thing that irritates me with the Eagles coaching and front office is they want Guys that fit their system. It shouldn’t be just draft guys that fit their system. You should adapt your system to fit the best most talented player so you can have success with that particular player. You have to be flexible. It’s what the great teams in this league are able to do. They adjust. The eagles took reagor cause he fit their offense the best meanwhile they still didn’t maximize his strengths and adjust to him. So they should’ve taken jefferson and adjusted to his strengths as he was the more talented player leading up to the draft. 

But the front office brings in guys that they don't know how to use... 🤔

1 hour ago, Wentz_Era said:

He was probably shocked because of the timing.  He came out of the half starting...which wasn't the plan all week.  More than likely Doug wanted to see if he could get his ish together.  He couldn't, so Doug benched him and went along with the plan.  Hurts is a young QB who could use the reps, but he wasn't improving his play and was hurting the team.

A QB with 7 completions in 3 quarters (roughly 2 per quarter) should NEVER truly be surprised when he gets pulled out of a game...

11 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Singleton is a 28 year old LB who is just now playing any noise, playing on a defense that is desperate for any competent LB.  He's a case of the tallest midget in the circus.  He's better than Gerry.  He might be an average starting LB.  He's more likely a quality backup... he's far more Ike Reese than anything else... and I'd say he's got a ways to go to reach Ike levels.

 I can make the reasoning the Steelers didn’t get their left tackle until he was 28 years old. Villanueva was not a starting offensive line until he became 28 years old. Granted different circumstances but he wasn’t young when he became a starter.  So the 28-year-old thing doesn’t really bother me as much. If you show that you can play and he showed he get least could be competent as a starter then I’m fine that he’s 28. you still have 3 to 4 years of good football left in you especially when he didn’t play as much as a normal 28-year-old veteran starter

I think he’s an average starter. I know tackles are not everything but he’s the only player of the Eagles have had record 100 tackles since Nigel bradham in 2016. I don’t even think Ike ever got to that number and he did it not starting for like half the season. I think it’s a little disingenuous to say he’s not an average starter. average starting linebackers around the league they’re doing the same thing that Alex Singleton is doing every week. I think that’s more of a slight to Singleton to say he’s not average. He showed he was average and at least competent for most of his starts. Was he perfect? No but that’s why i said average starter. 

53 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

Wallace is not a hill I'm willing to die on (to use a common Board metaphor). I do, however, reject Afan's claim (implicit or explicit) that Roseman has stocked the Eagles with all this young talent.

There are a lot of young players... whether or not they are talented remains to be seen... as of right now they don't have a heck of a lot of talent - period... young or old.

2 minutes ago, CaliEagle said:

The question is though is the player going to be a quality starter?  I agree with BPA to a certain extent, but if we can get a legit starting caliber CB that might be overinflated by 5 to 10 draft spots vs. getting a player in an area where we are fairly solid in...then at that point draft position shouldn't matter.  If there is doubt about the CB prospect being a capable starter, then I agree...don't draft him at #6.

No offense if I’m picking at six I want an impact starter. A capable starter for the six overall pick is not good enough. Barnett is a capable starter and do you think he was worthy of 14th overall? Now imagine that at 6

42 minutes ago, NOTW said:

This is the same response many would have if Carson said the rumors aren't true.  Even when direct sources of players and coaches refute things, people don't believe it.  But they believe "unnamed sources" from national media who don't even live in the city.

confirmation bias.   

1 minute ago, Alphagrand said:

Agree with pretty much all of this.  What do you think the Eagles will do (and should do) if the top 5 before the Eagles pick goes — Lawrence, Fields, Sewell, Parsons, Chase?

I'd call up every team below them to get a trade for someone that wants Wilson. If you want to trade back, this is probably the best outcome of the first 5 picks you could wish for. 

What they will do depends on a lot. If Wentz is gone they probably take Wilson themselves. I don't think they are really willing to go into next year and rely on Hurts to be the guy. 

Nightmare scenario for me is top 5 is some order of Lawrence, Fields, Sewell, Wilson, Chase. I don't know what you do or want at that point. I'd guess Smith (not a fan personally) or Surtain (very meh pick for #6). 

11 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Agree with pretty much all of this.  What do you think the Eagles will do (and should do) if the top 5 before the Eagles pick goes — Lawrence, Fields, Sewell, Parsons, Chase?

Devonta 

6 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

It's not a good top end draft at all.  I mentioned it a few times.  Typical Eagles fashion to finally get a high draft pick and the talent isn't there.  Trading down is the only option to make it worhtwhile.

A weak top draft makes it that much harder to trade down, and also lessens the return, unfortunately. 

13 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

 

He's the only one... 

Thought this was funny

 

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

No offense if I’m picking at six I want an impact starter. A capable starter for the six overall pick is not good enough. Barnett is a capable starter and do you think he was worthy of 14th overall? Now imagine that at 6

Barnett has injury issues.  I'm not really feeling that comparison. What I'm saying, is if you have a chance to get a solid starting CB in Round 1 and if there isn't talent at CB in the later rounds, then you have to consider CB. Our secondary is horrid.   Most people say that shutdown CBs are going to be thing of the past due to rules, but top CBs are going to go early off the board.  Would you take Pitts over Surtain or Farley? Most people would say Pitts is BPA if you compare those 3 players. I wouldn't take Pitts. I don't think a #2 TE (for a year or two) is worth more position-wise than a starting CB, even if he could end up being great.   

12 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Singleton is going to be the Greg Ward of the defense this offseason. I already know it.

 

11 minutes ago, RLC said:

But Singleton is actually good.

3 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

 Nightmare scenario for me is top 5 is some order of Lawrence, Fields, Sewell, Wilson, Chase. I don't know what you do or want at that point. I'd guess Smith (not a fan personally) or Surtain (very meh pick for #6). 

That's a possible outcome. If so, trade down to the team that wants Trey Lance.

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I'd call up every team below them to get a trade for someone that wants Wilson. If you want to trade back, this is probably the best outcome of the first 5 picks you could wish for. 

What they will do depends on a lot. If Wentz is gone they probably take Wilson themselves. I don't think they are really willing to go into next year and rely on Hurts to be the guy. 

Nightmare scenario for me is top 5 is some order of Lawrence, Fields, Sewell, Wilson, Chase. I don't know what you do or want at that point. I'd guess Smith (not a fan personally) or Surtain (very meh pick for #6). 

Your nightmare is exactly how I think this is going to go. I don’t think Zack Wilson gets out of the top five by the time we get to the draft. He’s already being considered for top-five this draft by a lot of mock drafts. I think there’s a team that’s going to try to jump Atlanta at 4 and get into the three spot by trading with Miami to get Wilson. And at that point Atlanta is sitting there probably needing a future quarterback also needing OlIne and secondary help so you might see them go Sewell or surtain. And that i think leaves the bengals at 5 less likely they trade out unless someone really loves lance. And they likely take chase or Sewell depending on who’s there. There’s a good chance the best non QB player available is surtain. 

Were they? I'm not sure they were both healthy at the same time besides week 1

2 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Thought this was funny

 

Kliff is not a good coach. 

3 minutes ago, CaliEagle said:

Barnett has injury issues.  I'm not really feeling that comparison. What I'm saying, is if you have a chance to get a solid starting CB in Round 1 and if there isn't talent at CB in the later rounds, then you have to consider CB. Our secondary is horrid.   Most people say that shutdown CBs are going to be thing of the past due to rules, but top CBs are going to go early off the board.  Would you take Pitts over Surtain or Farley? Most people would say Pitts is BPA if you compare those 3 players. I wouldn't take Pitts. I don't think a #2 TE (for a year or two) is worth more position-wise than a starting CB, even if he could end up being great.   

Even with his injury issues when he plays his only a capable starter. He’s not a all pro or pro bowl caliber player. And people are down on him at pick 14 because he’s just a solid starter.

Now you’re talking about picks six. You know in most drafts pick six is a major impact starter. I don’t want a capable starter at six. If that’s the case trade out of six because you can get a capable starter a few picks later and put some extra picks in your pocket. I understand surtain is a much better pick then pitts but I wouldn’t take either one of them at six I will try to get the hell out of six if i only viewed him as a capable starter and not an impact starter and he was the best player.
I’m not happy just getting a capable starter at six. I want one that is a impact player. You’re not picking at six just to get capable starters. 

10 minutes ago, CaliEagle said:

The question is though is the player going to be a quality starter?  I agree with BPA to a certain extent, but if we can get a legit starting caliber CB that might be overinflated by 5 to 10 draft spots vs. getting a player in an area where we are fairly solid in...then at that point draft position shouldn't matter.  If there is doubt about the CB prospect being a capable starter, then I agree...don't draft him at #6.

Understood what you are saying, and it makes sense. I just think this team is so devoid of young talent and is a solid 2 years from being serious competitors that they need to focus on this daft just getting a stud. Anywhere. Even if WR isn't the most pressing need, if the guy is there you think is a legitimate pro bowl talent, take him instead of getting a capable CB starter, even though CB is a bigger need. Teams that are closer or on the rise should be filling out their roster using the pseudo BPA vs need approach. Everything on this team is a need at this point. 

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

 I can make the reasoning the Steelers didn’t get their left tackle until he was 28 years old. Villanueva was not a starting offensive line until he became 28 years old. Granted different circumstances but he wasn’t young when he became a starter.  So the 28-year-old thing doesn’t really bother me as much. If you show that you can play and he showed he get least could be competent as a starter then I’m fine that he’s 28. you still have 3 to 4 years of good football left in you especially when he didn’t play as much as a normal 28-year-old veteran starter

I think he’s an average starter. I know tackles are not everything but he’s the only player of the Eagles have had record 100 tackles since Nigel bradham in 2016. I don’t even think Ike ever got to that number and he did it not starting for like half the season. I think it’s a little disingenuous to say he’s not an average starter. average starting linebackers around the league they’re doing the same thing that Alex Singleton is doing every week. I think that’s more of a slight to Singleton to say he’s not average. He showed he was average and at least competent for most of his starts. Was he perfect? No but that’s why i said average starter. 

Wow.  You are going to use Alex Villaneuva as a case study?   1 - He was an Army ranger before he came to the NFL.  2 - He was changing positions.  3 - He was an athletic freak.  (And a helluva nice guy.  I'm friends with one of Villaneuva's HS coaches... )

Singleton is a guy who's been a LB for the longest time, couldn't catch on in the NFL, so he went to the CFL... so, he's not new to the position.

 

And a 28 year old OL with low tread on the tires can be a high production LT for a good 5 years.  A LB who's been playing a ton over the years, who gets his shot at 28... might really only have about 2-3 years max (Singleton's game is largely speed).  But, he's just not that good.  We've seen such terrible LB play recently that adequate play all of a sudden looks stellar.   No OC in the NFL is being kept awake over night worrying about how to stop Singleton from disrupting his plans.  Singleton is much better than Nate Gerry.  I am also much taller than Emmanuel Lewis.  What does that mean?

7 minutes ago, RLC said:

That's a possible outcome. If so, trade down to the team that wants Trey Lance.

If a team is calling absolutely. I'm not sure how hot of a commodity he is for a team to trade up to #6 though. It's possible, and what I would do.

1 hour ago, Bacarty2 said:

We dont have a top 50 maybe even a top 60 Wide receiver in a passing league. It's probably one of the biggest needs we have 

 

In the Pederson era we have the 2nd most passing attempts in the league ... now look at what we put out there at wide receiver. 

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

Even with his injury issues when he plays his only a capable starter. He’s not a all pro or pro bowl caliber player. And people are down on him at pick 14 because he’s just a solid starter.

Now you’re talking about picks six. You know in most drafts pick six is a major impact starter. I don’t want a capable starter at six. If that’s the case trade out of six because you can get a capable starter a few picks later and put some extra picks in your pocket. I understand surtain is a much better pick then pitts but I wouldn’t take either one of them at six I will try to get the hell out of six if i only viewed him as a capable starter and not an impact starter and he was the best player.
I’m not happy just getting a capable starter at six. I want one that is a impact player. You’re not picking at six just to get capable starters. 

DBs will always be drafted earlier than their worth in these days of the NFL. The rules benefit WRs.  The chances of getting a Deion Sanders type of talent at CB in a draft is almost zero. Most younger players with those kinds of skills will play WR in high school or college.  Teams are going to pay a higher draft price to get good corners because of the current state of the League.  If we had a capable starting CB opposite Slay, it would have a domino effect on our secondary and immediately make this team better.  We haven't had two legit outside CBs since Vincent and Taylor.  I understand the desire to have a stud WR, but you can win SBs with average WRs and a good QB.  it's harder to win a SB with a leaky defense. We were fortunate that Nick had a career game at the right time. If he would've had an average Nick Foles game, we would've lost by double digits.