Ertz trade talk

[Random Reglar]

6 hours ago, DeathByEagle said:

I started in a Div 1 school and played shortly in the NFL, What you are describing is a Scrambling style QB, also known as a Duel Threat QB. 99% of the world categorizes a running QB as a Scrambler/Duel Threat QB if you are giving them a title. Like a "Mobile QB" or "Gunslinger" style QB. So yes Qbs that run the ball by play design are still titled Scrambling QBs. Google Scrambling Qbs, then Running QBs. You will get the exact same articles. 

You mentioned Cunningham? Randall even wrote a book calling "Im still Scrambling"

Maybe your too young to remember the hat as well 

https://www.amazon.com/Still-Scrambling-Randall-Cunningham-1993-09-01/dp/B01FJ01TAU

ehhhhhh.  maybe.

I still say that when they started handing out labels,  QB runs outside of the context of scrambling were rare.  I hear scrambling, and I think something like Fran Tarkenton.  Someone who often gets out of the pocket but still tries to complete passes.  If you go back to the 1960s or 1970s you really didn't have QBs running 15 times a game, ever, and not running 15 times on read options.    Scrambling is what QBs do in pass plays.  Instead of passing,  getting outside of the pocket and running. 

Dual threat is different.  That means running and passing , and the running could be from either a pass play (scrambling) or from a run play.   So, the specific meaning is not the same.  I use the term running QB, and I define that as 500+ rushing yards in a year.  It could be scrambling, it could be run plays.  There really aren't many QBs who are running QBs, using my definition, there really have been only 9 QBs who both ran for over 500 yards in a year and who were given 16+ NFL starts, drafted in 2009 or later.    And I define running QB in this way because I use the term in arguments about the viability of running QBs.  Like the following,   there have been 9 running QBs,  with 500+ yards rushing, and given 16+ starts, drafted 2009 or later.  3 of them went to the Super Bowl.  33% of the running QBs drafted 2009 or later went to the Super Bowl.    There have been 37 QBs taken in the first round 2009 or later.  3 have made the Super Bowl.  Less than 10% of the first round QBs,  2009 or later, have been to the Super Bowl.   2009 drafted or later,  a running QB is over 4 times more likely to make the Super Bowl than a first round draft pick. 

That's just an example of the type of argument that I'd make using the term "running QB". 

I'm not arguing that the term "running QB" is used more frequently than the terms "scrambling QB" and "dual threat QB".   I'm perfectly fine using a term that is easy enough to explain the definition of.   I assume that we understand that at this point, there really aren't any QBs who don't do any throwing,  so, people would all likely understand that I'm not talking about a QB who doesn't ever throw when I use the term "running QB".   I'm talking about the QBs who are the best runners, who also run frequently enough to get 500+ yards in a  season. 

If someone wants to compare the degree of success of a running QB and a non running QB, or a lesser running QB,  you note that, currently, there were 4 running QBs in the NFL as primary starter (9+ starts).  And 28 who were not running QBs.   You look at the success of the running and the less running, often called "pocket QBs" and you take into consideration that there are 7 times as many lesser running QBs as running QBs.    And you note that 2 of the top 8 teams - Ravens and Seahawks - have 2 of the 4 running QBs.  Half of the running QBs are in the top 1/4,  half of the running QBs are  in the bottom 3/4.  The Cardinals were 8-8.  That was the 7th best record in the NFC.  I'd say Cardinals are top 1/2.    3/4s of the running QBs were in the top half.  And Cam Newton had a record of 7-8.  He's in the bottom half.  But not the bottom 1/4.   2-1-1-0,  if placing the QBs into quarters.  Running QBs do better than pocket QBs.    Anyway, that's another of the basic arguments that I've been making on a lot of message boards over the year.  I just got here.   Fans of other teams have been "lucky" enough to hear these arguments going back a few years now.  The Eagles have 1 QB on the roster now, a running QB (or, technically not, but yes on a per game basis as is Taysom Hill)  and they have 3 college running QBs, 2 at WR and 1 at TE,  so there is a lot they can do with innovation there.  They also have Mailata who could be a huge innovation piece.  As a professional rugby player, he spent a lot of time running with the ball, also pitching and catching.  He could do that again with the Eagles.  A 350 pound fullback.   So,  because running QB,  plus additional running QBs at WR and TE, plus interesting innovation pieces, I'm here.  Teams that are rebuilding, having cap troubles, things like that,  are capable of being more interesting than teams that found a thing and have a thing that works for them.    You pretty much know what you're going to get.  With the Eagles,  they have the stuff I like and I want to see, and they could go in a different direction, where they aren't doing anything innovative with the running QBs and the rugby giant.      Whichever way it ends up going, it's generally more interesting than other teams.   

I also like to type out my innovation ideas, and when a team doesn't have running QBs, and a lot of my innovation ideas involve running QBs, there is less of a point to type on a message board for that team.     A couple of months ago I was typing innovation ideas on the Ravens board.  Back in December.  I was telling them that the 2 players the Ravens should get,  for the xtra innovation, and the running QBs and whatnot, were Khalil Tate and Tyree Jackson.  Those have been 2 the Raven fans have been lucky enough to read me typing about a lot.  And then,  about a month ago,  doing one of my periodic "what's happened recently with the players I follow"  I see that the Eagles signed both of them.  Which made me think that someone from the Eagles organization might've seen what I've been writing.  It's not a surprise they signed Tate, because they had Tate last summer, but adding Tyree, there's a low probability there.  Don't know the truth,  but, well, if I'm telling the Ravens with their running QB what the good innovation pieces are for  them, but they're pretty much set, and  the Eagles, who also have a running QB, are doing what I thought the Ravens should do,  I'm going to be telling the Eagles my stuff to fit with Hurts, Ward, Tate, Jackson, Mailata, and others. 

[Random Reglar]

4 hours ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

Your point being?

I saw a sentence with a question mark at the end of it, and I came up with a truthful response.  I understood that you were trying to go somewhere with what you were saying.

Lamar Jackson and the Ravens have had good results with the record breaking run first offense with running QBs.   I think the Eagles should do something similar with basically the players they have and I think they too would have similar results.

Running QBs make the Super Bowl and win the Super Bowl at a 4 times greater rate than QBs drafted in the first round,  when looking at QBs drafted in 2009 or later. 

Nobody planned for a season to be played with empty stadiums,  that's a financial hit.  Cap goes down,  black swan event, and teams are having to do things they don't want to do because of cap problems.   From the situation the Eagles are in now,  run first with running QBs,  duplication or partial duplication with modifications of what the Ravens are doing seems like it would work for the Eagles.    Hurts ran 18 times for 108 yards and the Eagles won.  Every other game he ran fewer times for fewer yards and lost.  Run more.  More designed run plays.   With Ward Tate and Jackson,  more run plays,  them running outside,  one read and run.    Or what Washington did with Logan Thomas a couple of times,  Thomas in motion, gets under center, takes the snap and runs.   Pretty simple plays,  but not too commonly seen,  innovation. 

[weko]

On 2/24/2021 at 12:06 AM, Cochis_Calhoun said:

After last season in this years market?  I'm not sure he is. His catch rate was barely 50% last year, another thing that people are starting to notice is he averages around 3 yards after the catch for his career when guys like Kittle, Kelce and Waller are close to doubling that and more, even average guys like Evan Engram manage 4.5 and his fellow Eagles Tight Ends both managed over 4 last year. He's a decent pass catcher (or rather he was) but when you need someone to break a tackle for the first down he's not in the same league as the best at his position, but he's contracted for less than a year and wants to be paid like the best at his position. Last year showed he isn't willing to put it on the line without that long term deal.

We'll be lucky to get a 4th

 

Exactly.  We'd be lucky to get a 4.  A 5 is more like it

[time2rock]

On 2/24/2021 at 5:06 AM, Cochis_Calhoun said:

After last season in this years market?  I'm not sure he is. His catch rate was barely 50% last year, another thing that people are starting to notice is he averages around 3 yards after the catch for his career when guys like Kittle, Kelce and Waller are close to doubling that and more, even average guys like Evan Engram manage 4.5 and his fellow Eagles Tight Ends both managed over 4 last year. He's a decent pass catcher (or rather he was) but when you need someone to break a tackle for the first down he's not in the same league as the best at his position, but he's contracted for less than a year and wants to be paid like the best at his position. Last year showed he isn't willing to put it on the line without that long term deal.

We'll be lucky to get a 4th

 

Exactly.  People really tend to overvalue some of our own and ignore the red flags.  Adding to everything you stated is the fact that this draft class is supposedly loaded with TE talent.  Why pay top dollar for an underperforming (or slowing down?) TE when you can one on a much cheaper rookie contract.  

[UK_EaglesFan89]

41 minutes ago, Random Reglar said:

I saw a sentence with a question mark at the end of it, and I came up with a truthful response.  I understood that you were trying to go somewhere with what you were saying.

My issue with what you said though isn't even around the whole running QB debate. You used Wentz as an example to justify your Lamar credit? But that is a bad example as Wentz is now out of Philly in part because he wasn't the answer. 

[brkmsn]

48 minutes ago, Random Reglar said:

I saw a sentence with a question mark at the end of it, and I came up with a truthful response.  I understood that you were trying to go somewhere with what you were saying.

Lamar Jackson and the Ravens have had good results with the record breaking run first offense with running QBs.   I think the Eagles should do something similar with basically the players they have and I think they too would have similar results.

Running QBs make the Super Bowl and win the Super Bowl at a 4 times greater rate than QBs drafted in the first round,  when looking at QBs drafted in 2009 or later. 

Nobody planned for a season to be played with empty stadiums,  that's a financial hit.  Cap goes down,  black swan event, and teams are having to do things they don't want to do because of cap problems.   From the situation the Eagles are in now,  run first with running QBs,  duplication or partial duplication with modifications of what the Ravens are doing seems like it would work for the Eagles.    Hurts ran 18 times for 108 yards and the Eagles won.  Every other game he ran fewer times for fewer yards and lost.  Run more.  More designed run plays.   With Ward Tate and Jackson,  more run plays,  them running outside,  one read and run.    Or what Washington did with Logan Thomas a couple of times,  Thomas in motion, gets under center, takes the snap and runs.   Pretty simple plays,  but not too commonly seen,  innovation. 

One of the interesting things factoring into the Ravens' success, is that so many teams have built their defenses around stopping the pass in the NFL. So pass rushers are getting faster, but smaller. LBs are being replaced with extra DBs and sometimes are hybrids (DBs converted to LB). Actual LBs are coveted for their coverage ability and/or ability to rush the QB. 

If more teams start using the Ravens' strategy as a model, defensive philosophy in the NFL will eventually shift. 

[DeathByEagle]

9 hours ago, NOTW said:

that's kinda where I'm at.  I don't get the 5th round pick talk.  He's been one of the top TEs in the league.  He had a down year this year but was injured and the team stunk and had drama.  So another team will be thinking a fresh start will get him back to his level before this season.

I agree he is worth a 3rd as a player. I think what drops his value is having only 1 year left on his contract and teams knowing he turned down a contract last year to make top 3 TE money. You add that to teams knowing the Eagles have to trade him or release him to get under the cap. Hes not an asset the Eagles can afford to keep. This all drops his value to other teams. They only way that price increases to fair value is when multiple teams start trying to out bid each other. We have to hope there is more interest out there for Ertz services then we saw for Wentz. 

[DeathByEagle]

1 hour ago, Random Reglar said:

ehhhhhh.  maybe.

I still say that when they started handing out labels,  QB runs outside of the context of scrambling were rare.  I hear scrambling, and I think something like Fran Tarkenton.  Someone who often gets out of the pocket but still tries to complete passes.  If you go back to the 1960s or 1970s you really didn't have QBs running 15 times a game, ever, and not running 15 times on read options.    Scrambling is what QBs do in pass plays.  Instead of passing,  getting outside of the pocket and running. 

Dual threat is different.  That means running and passing , and the running could be from either a pass play (scrambling) or from a run play.   So, the specific meaning is not the same.  I use the term running QB, and I define that as 500+ rushing yards in a year.  It could be scrambling, it could be run plays.  There really aren't many QBs who are running QBs, using my definition, there really have been only 9 QBs who both ran for over 500 yards in a year and who were given 16+ NFL starts, drafted in 2009 or later.    And I define running QB in this way because I use the term in arguments about the viability of running QBs.  Like the following,   there have been 9 running QBs,  with 500+ yards rushing, and given 16+ starts, drafted 2009 or later.  3 of them went to the Super Bowl.  33% of the running QBs drafted 2009 or later went to the Super Bowl.    There have been 37 QBs taken in the first round 2009 or later.  3 have made the Super Bowl.  Less than 10% of the first round QBs,  2009 or later, have been to the Super Bowl.   2009 drafted or later,  a running QB is over 4 times more likely to make the Super Bowl than a first round draft pick. 

Too much to read, best to keep it to one paragraph. No one here will spend time read the book posts just for future reference. lol.But I read your first 2 paragraphs. 

Fran Tarkenton would be labeled as  Mobile QB in today's game. Yes he ran more then everyone back then with his 300 yards per season roughly. But in today's game hes more of a Mobile QB. He more ran all over the place to give time for his recs to get open. Completely different then a guy like Randal who's biggest threat was taking off and gaining big chunks of yardage with his legs. Might have started with Fran being mobile but the true first scrambling/Duel threat QB was Randal in my eyes. 

[DeathByEagle]

45 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

One of the interesting things factoring into the Ravens' success, is that so many teams have built their defenses around stopping the pass in the NFL. So pass rushers are getting faster, but smaller. LBs are being replaced with extra DBs and sometimes are hybrids (DBs converted to LB). Actual LBs are coveted for their coverage ability and/or ability to rush the QB. 

If more teams start using the Ravens' strategy as a model, defensive philosophy in the NFL will eventually shift. 

The Ravens scheme will not be a long term success. Its the same scheme they tried with Kapernick and RG3. We saw it have great success for one year then drop down huge. We even saw this with the Ravens last year. 2 seasons  ago that Ravens offense seamed unstoppable. The following year was a massive drop off. They went into 2020 expected to be a top 5 offense in the league. they ended in the 2nd half of the league, close to the middle of the pack. Big drop off there.

Once you make these Qbs have to throw they fall apart. I want nothing to do with this style. Ill take a mobile Qb who will take off once in a while. If your QB has more then the 500 range in rushing yards its too much. I want my QB to be a QB, not a running back. 

[NOTW]

3 hours ago, DeathByEagle said:

I agree he is worth a 3rd as a player. I think what drops his value is having only 1 year left on his contract and teams knowing he turned down a contract last year to make top 3 TE money. You add that to teams knowing the Eagles have to trade him or release him to get under the cap. Hes not an asset the Eagles can afford to keep. This all drops his value to other teams. They only way that price increases to fair value is when multiple teams start trying to out bid each other. We have to hope there is more interest out there for Ertz services then we saw for Wentz. 

If I'm his agent, I sell this to teams wanting to trade for him:

The Eagles were a mess last year. Fired their SB Winning HC, traded their starting QB, only won 4 games and are rebuilding.  They drafted a TE to replace Ertz, he was looking to get paid (like every NFL player).  Sell them on his value, his stats, talent, etc. and what he can do to elevate your team.  Negotiations with a new team will be different than his situation a year ago with this previous team.  Don't let contract talks with Howie cloud your mind, let's talk you and me about what you want to do.  

 

[UK_EaglesFan89]

4 hours ago, NOTW said:

If I'm his agent, I sell this to teams wanting to trade for him:

The Eagles were a mess last year. Fired their SB Winning HC, traded their starting QB, only won 4 games and are rebuilding.  They drafted a TE to replace Ertz, he was looking to get paid (like every NFL player).  Sell them on his value, his stats, talent, etc. and what he can do to elevate your team.  Negotiations with a new team will be different than his situation a year ago with this previous team.  Don't let contract talks with Howie cloud your mind, let's talk you and me about what you want to do.  

 

I think for a team ready to contend it shouldn't be too hard a sell. He's still a top 5 TE. His game lends itself to being able to play at a pretty good level for a couple more years at least. 

[jsdarkstar]

22 hours ago, NOTW said:

that's kinda where I'm at.  I don't get the 5th round pick talk.  He's been one of the top TEs in the league.  He had a down year this year but was injured and the team stunk and had drama.  So another team will be thinking a fresh start will get him back to his level before this season.

Agreed. The team will be a lot younger at the start of the season. Hopefully, that will reduce injuries. 

The team had so many problems. Revolving door on the O Line, Wentz getting sacked more than any QB in the league, Injuries, decimated secondary, poor coaching, bad play calls, and the players failed to execute so many times. Yet on WIP Angelo Cataldi blames Wentz for all of it, and encourages his listeners to do the same thing. Hater.

[NOTW]

1 hour ago, jsdarkstar said:

Agreed. The team will be a lot younger at the start of the season. Hopefully, that will reduce injuries. 

The team had so many problems. Revolving door on the O Line, Wentz getting sacked more than any QB in the league, Injuries, decimated secondary, poor coaching, bad play calls, and the players failed to execute so many times. Yet on WIP Angelo Cataldi blames Wentz for all of it, and encourages his listeners to do the same thing. Hater.

man, they need to figure out the injuries.  Last year they hired new directors over conditioning and medical who had a lot of success at their prior teams, and both of them won awards in recent years for great success.  It didn't help here. Something isn't right, it's been 3-4 years of injuries. It even affected younger players like Reagor, Driscoll and others.

[PoconoDon]

23 hours ago, NOTW said:

man, they need to figure out the injuries.  Last year they hired new directors over conditioning and medical who had a lot of success at their prior teams, and both of them won awards in recent years for great success.  It didn't help here. Something isn't right, it's been 3-4 years of injuries. It even affected younger players like Reagor, Driscoll and others.

Well, they probably built Nova Care on an Indian burial ground.

Spoiler

Sometimes dead is better...

 

[weko]

On 2/24/2021 at 7:06 AM, RememberTheKoy said:

 

This. 

Ertz value has plummeted after this past season and the current cap situation league wide. 

I'll go a step further and say we will be lucky to get any lick at all for Ertz.  I think the most likely scenario at this point is that we will be forced to just release him. 

There are multiple teams interested.  Agents and GMs all talk to each other and some of these teams realize he will sign elsewhere.  The only way they can get him is to trade for him.  Ertz is in a contract year,  He's give maximum effort all year to get a new one.  The team acquiring him can either re sign him or let him walk and get a comp pick.  Worst case scenario, they get top effort and production from him,  trade a mid to late 5th round pick for him and get a 5th or 6th comp pick back a year later if he walks.  It makes perfect sense in that case for a team to trade for him.

[RememberTheKoy]

11 minutes ago, weko said:

There are multiple teams interested.  Agents and GMs all talk to each other and some of these teams realize he will sign elsewhere.  The only way they can get him is to trade for him.  Ertz is in a contract year,  He's give maximum effort all year to get a new one.  The team acquiring him can either re sign him or let him walk and get a comp pick.  Worst case scenario, they get top effort and production from him,  trade a mid to late 5th round pick for him and get a 5th or 6th comp pick back a year later if he walks.  It makes perfect sense in that case for a team to trade for him.

 

I got a bridge to sell you if you think multiple teams are interested in trading for Wentz.  Have you learned nothing from Howie trying to create a Wentz market that wasn't there by having all these reports put out of multiple teams with heavy interest in Wentz? 

[NOTW]

10 hours ago, PoconoDon said:

Well, the probably built Nova Care on an Indian burial ground.

  Reveal hidden contents

Sometimes dead is better...

 

I blame Howie.  He sold his soul for a Super Bowl and then the team fell apart.  Injuries, cap hell, a former MVP candidate became the worst QB in football, they ship off the first QB and coach to win the SB for us...we finally got that SB.

The only way is to sacrifice fire Howie Roseman and get a priest in there to exorcise any lingering Roseman presence.  

[CheesesteakNBeer]

4 hours ago, weko said:

There are multiple teams interested.  Agents and GMs all talk to each other and some of these teams realize he will sign elsewhere.  The only way they can get him is to trade for him.  Ertz is in a contract year,  He's give maximum effort all year to get a new one.  The team acquiring him can either re sign him or let him walk and get a comp pick.  Worst case scenario, they get top effort and production from him,  trade a mid to late 5th round pick for him and get a 5th or 6th comp pick back a year later if he walks.  It makes perfect sense in that case for a team to trade for him.

That was maximum effort!?

[EagleVA]

On 2/25/2021 at 6:50 AM, Random Reglar said:

I saw a sentence with a question mark at the end of it, and I came up with a truthful response.  

That's the weirdest thing I've ever seen, ending a sentence with question mark with out asking a question? 🙂

[EagleVA]

19 hours ago, NOTW said:

man, they need to figure out the injuries. 

One thing that comes to mid for me is players see the team isn't going to amount to much in a given season and look for a reason to not be a prat of it........oh, I pulled a hammy.

[CheesesteakNBeer]

On 2/25/2021 at 6:32 AM, Random Reglar said:

ehhhhhh.  maybe.

I still say that when they started handing out labels,  QB runs outside of the context of scrambling were rare.  I hear scrambling, and I think something like Fran Tarkenton.  Someone who often gets out of the pocket but still tries to complete passes.  If you go back to the 1960s or 1970s you really didn't have QBs running 15 times a game, ever, and not running 15 times on read options.    Scrambling is what QBs do in pass plays.  Instead of passing,  getting outside of the pocket and running. 

Dual threat is different.  That means running and passing , and the running could be from either a pass play (scrambling) or from a run play.   So, the specific meaning is not the same.  I use the term running QB, and I define that as 500+ rushing yards in a year.  It could be scrambling, it could be run plays.  There really aren't many QBs who are running QBs, using my definition, there really have been only 9 QBs who both ran for over 500 yards in a year and who were given 16+ NFL starts, drafted in 2009 or later.    And I define running QB in this way because I use the term in arguments about the viability of running QBs.  Like the following,   there have been 9 running QBs,  with 500+ yards rushing, and given 16+ starts, drafted 2009 or later.  3 of them went to the Super Bowl.  33% of the running QBs drafted 2009 or later went to the Super Bowl.    There have been 37 QBs taken in the first round 2009 or later.  3 have made the Super Bowl.  Less than 10% of the first round QBs,  2009 or later, have been to the Super Bowl.   2009 drafted or later,  a running QB is over 4 times more likely to make the Super Bowl than a first round draft pick. 

That's just an example of the type of argument that I'd make using the term "running QB". 

I'm not arguing that the term "running QB" is used more frequently than the terms "scrambling QB" and "dual threat QB".   I'm perfectly fine using a term that is easy enough to explain the definition of.   I assume that we understand that at this point, there really aren't any QBs who don't do any throwing,  so, people would all likely understand that I'm not talking about a QB who doesn't ever throw when I use the term "running QB".   I'm talking about the QBs who are the best runners, who also run frequently enough to get 500+ yards in a  season. 

If someone wants to compare the degree of success of a running QB and a non running QB, or a lesser running QB,  you note that, currently, there were 4 running QBs in the NFL as primary starter (9+ starts).  And 28 who were not running QBs.   You look at the success of the running and the less running, often called "pocket QBs" and you take into consideration that there are 7 times as many lesser running QBs as running QBs.    And you note that 2 of the top 8 teams - Ravens and Seahawks - have 2 of the 4 running QBs.  Half of the running QBs are in the top 1/4,  half of the running QBs are  in the bottom 3/4.  The Cardinals were 8-8.  That was the 7th best record in the NFC.  I'd say Cardinals are top 1/2.    3/4s of the running QBs were in the top half.  And Cam Newton had a record of 7-8.  He's in the bottom half.  But not the bottom 1/4.   2-1-1-0,  if placing the QBs into quarters.  Running QBs do better than pocket QBs.    Anyway, that's another of the basic arguments that I've been making on a lot of message boards over the year.  I just got here.   Fans of other teams have been "lucky" enough to hear these arguments going back a few years now.  The Eagles have 1 QB on the roster now, a running QB (or, technically not, but yes on a per game basis as is Taysom Hill)  and they have 3 college running QBs, 2 at WR and 1 at TE,  so there is a lot they can do with innovation there.  They also have Mailata who could be a huge innovation piece.  As a professional rugby player, he spent a lot of time running with the ball, also pitching and catching.  He could do that again with the Eagles.  A 350 pound fullback.   So,  because running QB,  plus additional running QBs at WR and TE, plus interesting innovation pieces, I'm here.  Teams that are rebuilding, having cap troubles, things like that,  are capable of being more interesting than teams that found a thing and have a thing that works for them.    You pretty much know what you're going to get.  With the Eagles,  they have the stuff I like and I want to see, and they could go in a different direction, where they aren't doing anything innovative with the running QBs and the rugby giant.      Whichever way it ends up going, it's generally more interesting than other teams.   

I also like to type out my innovation ideas, and when a team doesn't have running QBs, and a lot of my innovation ideas involve running QBs, there is less of a point to type on a message board for that team.     A couple of months ago I was typing innovation ideas on the Ravens board.  Back in December.  I was telling them that the 2 players the Ravens should get,  for the xtra innovation, and the running QBs and whatnot, were Khalil Tate and Tyree Jackson.  Those have been 2 the Raven fans have been lucky enough to read me typing about a lot.  And then,  about a month ago,  doing one of my periodic "what's happened recently with the players I follow"  I see that the Eagles signed both of them.  Which made me think that someone from the Eagles organization might've seen what I've been writing.  It's not a surprise they signed Tate, because they had Tate last summer, but adding Tyree, there's a low probability there.  Don't know the truth,  but, well, if I'm telling the Ravens with their running QB what the good innovation pieces are for  them, but they're pretty much set, and  the Eagles, who also have a running QB, are doing what I thought the Ravens should do,  I'm going to be telling the Eagles my stuff to fit with Hurts, Ward, Tate, Jackson, Mailata, and others. 

 

[EagleVA]

31 minutes ago, CheesesteakNBeer said:

 

While it was long he was on the money with what he wrote.

I was very high on Tyree Jackson and I find it amazing that he wasn't drafted......something just ain't right with the NFL

[Captain F]

Time to accept the fact that No YAC Zach will bring us no more than a 4th. Likely a 5th if not outright cut after that geriatric attempt at a contract last year. 

[PoconoDon]

The decision seems easy to me. Take what you can get for Ertz now. 

[Random Reglar]

5 hours ago, EagleVA said:

That's the weirdest thing I've ever seen, ending a sentence with question mark with out asking a question? 🙂

Wait,  there was a question mark,  a question,  and I answered the question.  Not sure what is being meant here.