29 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

True statement.  Truth be told the Eagles just aren't a good drafting team.  They draft well when they have a very high #1 pick.  They have hit on some 2nd rounders and get lucky with some 6th and 7th round picks.  

I'm going to get flamed for my thoughts but that's my view.  I don't see a team with a ton of homegrown ready to take the next step talent.  

That's not a dramatically controversial statement.   There are two reasons the Eagles have transformed into a very old team before our eyes.  Bad drafting, and limited draft picks.   It goes back to right after the 2012 & 2013 drafts where they came away with Cox, Kendricks, Curry and Foles, then Johnson, Ertz and to a lesser extent Bennie Logan.  And its been exacerbated by poor first round picks.

2014 - Smith, Matthews, Huff - Clearly a Chip influenced draft.  Not a good haul.  Quite terrible.
2015 - Agholor, Rowe, Hicks - Hicks was the only good pick, but his trouble was the reason he was available in Round 3 - injuries.  

The Chip stain is removed. 
2016 - Wentz, Seumalo, Smallwood, Vaitai, Mills - say what you want, that was a good draft, especially for such limited picks, including no 2nd rounder.
2017 - Barnett, Jones, Douglas - Disappointing, no doubt about it.  Barnett isn't terrible, but he's never lived up to the 1st round selection.
2018 - Drafting at 32.  No second round pick due to Wentz trade.  Goedert, Maddox, Sweat.   - Still early to define it, this year will finish the story.  But, that draft was limited for 3 reasons, 1 - Winning the Super Bowl puts you at #32, 2 - trading for Wentz back in the 2016 draft, and 3 - trading Matthews and their 3rd round pick for Darby.  That means the Eagles started the draft with #32 only in the first 3 rounds.  

2019 - way too early to define, but Dillard looked good in limited time at LT.  Sanders looks like the real deal and JJAW looked overmatched.   

 

 

3 minutes ago, greend said:

You always say stuff like this

Because it's true. 

If players want security over growth, that's their call. The idea though that it's a good deal for Dak though is absurd. Signing deals early for good players is almost always better for the team than the player.

46 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

True statement.  Truth be told the Eagles just aren't a good drafting team.  They draft well when they have a very high #1 pick.  They have hit on some 2nd rounders and get lucky with some 6th and 7th round picks.  

I'm going to get flamed for my thoughts but that's my view.  I don't see a team with a ton of homegrown ready to take the next step talent.  

The eagles 2014, 2015 and 2017 (2019 but it’s still early) drafts are really hurting them right now. They legitimately have no one on the team from the 2014 and 2015 drafts. Had 13 draft picks in those two drafts with 6 in the top 100 and yet have none even contributing to the team. That hurts cause both your first rounders were essentially busts where you took them. Second rounders you traded one after his rookie year and Matthews imo was also overdrafted and you traded up to get him. Hicks was a good third but let him go due to injury concerns and huff was a bust and overdrafted. 

2017 draft is also hurting them. Unless jones or douglas turns it around they are both just backups taken in rounds 2 and 3. Gerry and Barnett have been the two best players. Barnett has been Ok but I’d argue not worthy of going 14 based on how his career has been so far (still think he could become what they envisioned). Gerry is a good pick considering where he went but the rest of that draft hasn’t been very fruitful. Had 5 picks in the first four rounds and only Barnett is starting or contributing at a starter level. 

2019 draft besides sanders really didn’t contribute much last year. If dillard pans out then they are OK as you got two quality starters but still you really needed their 3 picks in the top 60 to all have panned out as thorson was a wasted pick and you only had 5 picks in that draft. If dillard doesn’t pan out then you really only hit on sanders which is nice he looks like a stud but That’s really poor job by the eagles having 3 picks in the top 60 and walking away with just one long term starter. 

Just now, RLC said:

Because it's true. 

If players want security over growth, that's their call. The idea though that it's a good deal for Dak though is absurd. Signing deals early for good players is almost always better for the team than the player.

He's guaranteed 106 million dollars. If he get's a cei  on the tag that's the last money he will ever see. 

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

The eagles 2014, 2015 and 2017 (2019 but it’s still early) drafts are really hurting them right now. They legitimately have no one on the team from the 2014 and 2015 drafts. Had 13 draft picks in those two drafts with 6 in the top 100 and yet have none even contributing to the team. That hurts cause both your first rounders were essentially busts where you took them. Second rounders you traded one after his rookie year and Matthews imo was also overdrafted and you traded up to get him. Hicks was a good third but let him go due to injury concerns and huff was a bust and overdrafted. 

2017 draft is also hurting them. Unless jones or douglas turns it around they are both just backups taken in rounds 2 and 3. Gerry and Barnett have been the two best players. Barnett has been Ok but I’d argue not worthy of going 14 based on how his career has been so far (still think he could become what they envisioned). Gerry is a good pick considering where he went but the rest of that draft hasn’t been very fruitful. Had 5 picks in the first four rounds and only Barnett is starting or contributing at a starter level. 

2019 draft besides sanders really didn’t contribute much last year. If dillard pans out then they are OK as you got two quality starters but still you really needed their 3 picks in the top 60 to all have panned out as thorson was a wasted pick and you only had 5 picks in that draft. If dillard doesn’t pan out then you really only hit on sanders which is nice he looks like a stud but That’s really poor job by the eagles having 3 picks in the top 60 and walking away with just one long term starter. 

2019 will be defined by Dillard.  If he's a fixture at LT for a decade, that's a good draft.  If not, then its bad to terrible.  Sanders is exactly what they drafted him to be.  JJAW could still turn it around, but even if he doesn't... He'll be a footnote if Dillard and Sanders are home runs.

1 minute ago, greend said:

He's guaranteed 106 million dollars. If he get's a cei  on the tag that's the last money he will ever see. 

I think Dak is playing this the same way cousins did. Yeah he has a chance to get injured and wind up losing that gamble. But he’s getting on himself that he doesn’t and if he’s tagged two years in a row he’s guaranteed a total of 69.3 million which is 65% of the 106 million guaranteed. If he just plays like he has and doesn’t get hurt he pockets 69 mil guaranteed gets to go to free agency at 28 years old and likely could pull a deal like cousins got. Cousins got 3 years 84 fully guaranteed. I’m guessing with QB numbers escalating and he is imo better or as good as cousins He likely gets More than that. He realistically could walk away with 169 million in guaranteed money if he walks stays healthy and just plays the franchise tag out. 

20 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I don't know what you are talking about.  I was discussing Goedert and his role in the offense.  I never once talked about myself.    But, if it bothers you to talk about Dallas Goedert, then by all means, use the ignore feature or scroll past without engaging.

Puh-lease, you and 4for4 were tea baggin each other all over the place.  At least own up to having a war of words that had more to do with another poster than talking about Goedert.  

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

I think Dak is playing this the same way cousins did. Yeah he has a chance to get injured and wind up losing that gamble. But he’s getting on himself that he doesn’t and if he’s tagged two years in a row he’s guaranteed a total of 69.3 million which is 65% of the 106 million guaranteed. If he just plays like he has and doesn’t get hurt he pockets 69 mil guaranteed gets to go to free agency at 28 years old and likely could pull a deal like cousins got. Cousins got 3 years 84 fully guaranteed. I’m guessing with QB numbers escalating and he is imo better or as good as cousins He likely gets More than that. He realistically could walk away with 169 million in guaranteed money if he walks stays healthy and just plays the franchise tag out. 

If he waits 2 years he aint getting squat. 100% of 106 mill > 65% of it. Even if he doesn't get injured....................he stinks.

4 hours ago, Wentz_Era said:

Where did you see that he wanted Wash as DC?  I honestly had not seen that.  

Unpopular opinion but Dawk got a contract from Denver that was way more than we should have gave him.  Dawk is a HOF'r and an absolute legend here but he was beyond washed up at that point.  He was more of a liability than an asset on the field.  I know people will point to him having a 'pro bowl' season his first year in Denver but if you go back and watch the game we played against him we routinely picked on him.  He took care of #1 and it was a straight business decision I fault neither side for.

There was a lot of speculation about it, I don't think it was ever confirmed.  But, it does explain the time line.  Hire the DL coach first, be so desperate for him to bring in Mudd at OL, create a need to move Juan.  And let the DL coach dictate to the DC that he'll only play one front.... no matter what.  And we saw the outcome.  3rd and 1 was an easy Off-tackle play every time.  Let the doofus (Babin) run up the field unblocked, then run underneath him for the easy conversion.  

 

Dawk got too good a contract from Denver, which I think is the only way he'd have left.  But, just adding a 2nd year to his offer here, and I think he stays and joins a very exclusive list of Eagles' greats who never wore another uniform.   It's a short list.  And its one that he deserved to be on.

1 minute ago, Iggles_Phan said:

2019 will be defined by Dillard.  If he's a fixture at LT for a decade, that's a good draft.  If not, then its bad to terrible.  Sanders is exactly what they drafted him to be.  JJAW could still turn it around, but even if he doesn't... He'll be a footnote if Dillard and Sanders are home runs.

Agreed. I think what’s hurt them more the last two years is the 2014,2015 and 2017 drafts not being very good. They had 21 picks in those drafts. 9 of them in the top 100 and only Barnett is starting out of them. Only 4 of those picks even remain on the tram (douglas and jones might be on the way out after this year). Out of the 21 picks only gerry and Barnett start With the eagles and jones with an outside shot but not looking good. That really hurts. 

56 minutes ago, RLC said:

Dak is worth mroe than Brees/Brady in 2020+. He's guaranteed 31.5M on the franchise tag.
If he gets franchised again, he gets 37.8M....and then he'll never be franchsied after that.

Dak is better off going year to year, or signing short-term deals, than taking "guaranteed" money that already comes with his 2 tags. 

$175M over 5 years is $35M per year.  That's slightly more than the 2 year average of those franchise tags.  And... he has the security of $106M guaranteed... 

The two tags money isn't both guaranteed.  Only the first one is.  The second is dependent on his play (he can bet on himself) and his health (he can bet on himself here too, but having played 4 years without injury... the one constant we know in football is that injuries happen to everyone.  Sooner or later, it will happen to him).

13 minutes ago, greend said:

If he waits 2 years he aint getting squat. 100% of 106 mill > 65% of it. Even if he doesn't get injured....................he stinks.

You can say he stinks but he doesn’t stink. He might not be elite but some team will overpay him. Cousins got overpaid and I’d argue Dak is better than cousins was. I don’t think Dak is elite or great but if you are telling me teddy bridgewater got 3 years 60 million (33 mil guaranteed) for a handful of games then I’m guessing if Dak plays the way he did the last 4 years and stays healthy he’s going to make a ton on the FA market at 28. He’s better than cousins and he’s better than bridgewater 

Also he could get hurt. However he’s not missed a game in his career. That could change. He had the shoulder issue last year but he still managed to play. However he’s played all 64 games in his career which is 100 percent of the allotted games. So you’re argument could apply to almost anyone but at least he’s shown he’s going to play every Sunday so far. So that gamble makes sense on his part. The gamble to me is him playing well. In his mind he likely believes he will with having cooper, Gallup, lamb and zeke as his weapons and a solid oline (not what it was but it’s not awful like the jags). 

9 minutes ago, MediterraneanDiet said:

Puh-lease, you and 4for4 were tea baggin each other all over the place.  At least own up to having a war of words that had more to do with another poster than talking about Goedert.  

I was discussing Goedert.  But, its nice to know that you can't have a conversation without bringing in childish commentary to try to prove your point.  

 

goodbye

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

You can say he stinks but he doesn’t stink. He might not be elite but some team will overpay him. Cousins got overpaid and I’d argue Dak is better than cousins was. I don’t think Dak is elite or great but if you are telling me teddy bridgewater got 3 years 60 million for a handful of games then I’m guessing if Dak plays the way he did the last 4 years and stays healthy he’s going to make a ton on the FA market  

Also he could get hurt. However he’s not missed a game in his career. That could change. He had the shoulder issue last year but he still managed to play. However he’s played all 64 games in his career which is 100 percent of the allotted games. So you’re argument could apply to almost anyone but at least he’s shown he’s going to play every Sunday so far. So that gamble makes sense on his part. 

Cousins gets a lot of grief on here, but I'd say he's better than Dak -- by more than a little bit.  Neither one of them come up big in big games, which for some reason Dak has gotten a pass on, so far.

4 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I was discussing Goedert.  But, its nice to know that you can't have a conversation without bringing in childish commentary to try to prove your point.  

 

goodbye

Caio. 

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

You can say he stinks but he doesn’t stink. He might not be elite but some team will overpay him. Cousins got overpaid and I’d argue Dak is better than cousins was. I don’t think Dak is elite or great but if you are telling me teddy bridgewater got 3 years 60 million (33 mil guaranteed) for a handful of games then I’m guessing if Dak plays the way he did the last 4 years and stays healthy he’s going to make a ton on the FA market at 28. He’s better than cousins and he’s better than bridgewater 

Also he could get hurt. However he’s not missed a game in his career. That could change. He had the shoulder issue last year but he still managed to play. However he’s played all 64 games in his career which is 100 percent of the allotted games. So you’re argument could apply to almost anyone but at least he’s shown he’s going to play every Sunday so far. So that gamble makes sense on his part. The gamble to me is him playing well. In his mind he likely believes he will with having cooper, Gallup, lamb and zeke as his weapons and a solid oline (not what it was but it’s not awful like the jags). 

My argument does apply to everyone (except the stink part) take the money and run that's my advice. Football is too dangerous of a sport.

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

You can say he stinks but he doesn’t stink. He might not be elite but some team will overpay him. Cousins got overpaid and I’d argue Dak is better than cousins was. 

Also he could get hurt. However he’s not missed a game in his career. That could change. He had the shoulder issue last year but he still managed to play. However he’s played all 64 games in his career which is 100 percent of the allotted games. So you’re argument could apply to almost anyone but at least he’s shown he’s going to play every Sunday so far. So that gamble makes sense on his part. 

Nah... Dak stinks.  Romo stunked.  Aikman stunked the mostest.  And Starbach was the dirty rotten mostest stunker that ever stunk.

 

Dak is way way way overrated.  He's following the Romo career arc.  Put up numbers, without wins.  Get the adulation from the media (because Dallas is always overrated) but no playoff success.   The Dallas Cowboys are the Detroit Lions with a better press agent.  Same colors, both play on Thanksgiving, both watch the playoffs from their living room, year after year.  And every year, people talk about how this will be the year they put it together.    People around here gripe about the Eagles trying to outsmart everyone else around the league.  Ok.  Let's go with that.  But, who is really trying to outsmart the league?  Dallas has gone nearly 15 years with an undrafted QB and a 4th rounder at the helm, and they wonder why they are struggling to win big games.   Look, everyone knows that Tom Brady was a 6th round pick, and Joe Montana was a 3rd.  But, over the course of the history of the NFL... the Super Bowl is won, by and large, by the QBs taken at the top of round 1 up to about the middle of round 2.  There are exceptions, but they are few and far between.  And they usually only win when the team built around them is built primarily defensively.  Brady got his early SB wins due to the defense, not his passing.  Russell Wilson got his from a running game and a suffocating defense.  Dallas ignored the defense, and put more emphasis on offense.  All that will really do is help Dak put up better numbers (shoot-out games are great stat builders) and win less games.  But, the stats will dictate his price goes even higher.  

1 minute ago, Alphagrand said:

Cousins gets a lot of grief on here, but I'd say he's better than Dak -- by more than a little bit.  Neither one of them come up big in big games, which for some reason Dak has gotten a pass on, so far.

I disagree with that. I don’t think cousins is better If anything they are equal or i think Dak is better simply as Dak has played at the level he has since day one as a rookie. I think Dak is a better QB. I think Dak can also beat you with his legs way more consistently. It’s why he has 21 rushing tds to cousins 10 over the last 4 years and 1200 to cousins 400 (really cousins the last two years has also run much less most of those stats are from 3 to 4 years ago). 

I think you need to see more details on that Dak deal to determine whether he should sign or just play the tag game. The report says $106M guaranteed but you don’t know what the actual guarantee is vs guaranteed for injury only. Could also be a small signing bonus with higher guaranteed salaries for the first two years vs big signing bonus with low base salaries. The first gives them an easier out while the second ties him closer to the team. 

IMO the Eagles have been middle-of-the-pack in terms of draft success.   What are some teams that do it consistently better?

If the Eagles are so bad, it should be easy to find these teams.

 

And to peel back a little bit--the fact is that thr Eagles are just about as competitive as any other team from year to year.   There are maybe a handful of teams who you could say have been more consistently in contention, but not many.   So if that is the case, maybe the Eagles draft strategy isnt really that bad when you consider the bigger picture. 

Looking at the Hurts pick, that is an unconventional move if youre just flatout trying to build for the future with every draft pick.  I still hate the pick, but my point is that the draft is just one facet of team-building, and the approach may change over time based on the team (FA vs draft vs trading)

 

Also, please stop with this Dak love.  The guy has had literally the BEST set up a young Qb could ever ask for and he hasnt won anything.  Wentz beat him in a must-win game with a bunch of dudes who wont be in the NFL. If they pay him $30M+ they are stupid.  Dalton is a better passer than Dak and thats what wins

1 hour ago, bpac55 said:

True statement.  Truth be told the Eagles just aren't a good drafting team.  They draft well when they have a very high #1 pick.  They have hit on some 2nd rounders and get lucky with some 6th and 7th round picks.  

I'm going to get flamed for my thoughts but that's my view.  I don't see a team with a ton of homegrown ready to take the next step talent.  

Our under 25 talent is pretty minimal, which made drafting a QB in round 2 and a raw, developmental LB in round 3 all the more frustrating. Add in that we missed on Darby, Jones and Douglas and then Byron Jones in FA, we had to throw more resources into a trade for Slay. 

Thankfully we had more rolls of the dice on day 3 this year. Hopefully a few of them become contributors at some point. I’m fairly optimistic on Wallace, one of the WRs and Prince. 

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Nah... Dak stinks.  Romo stunked.  Aikman stunked the mostest.  And Starbach was the dirty rotten mostest stunker that ever stunk.

 

Dak is way way way overrated.  He's following the Romo career arc.  Put up numbers, without wins.  Get the adulation from the media (because Dallas is always overrated) but no playoff success.   The Dallas Cowboys are the Detroit Lions with a better press agent.  Same colors, both play on Thanksgiving, both watch the playoffs from their living room, year after year.  And every year, people talk about how this will be the year they put it together.    People around here gripe about the Eagles trying to outsmart everyone else around the league.  Ok.  Let's go with that.  But, who is really trying to outsmart the league?  Dallas has gone nearly 15 years with an undrafted QB and a 4th rounder at the helm, and they wonder why they are struggling to win big games.   Look, everyone knows that Tom Brady was a 6th round pick, and Joe Montana was a 3rd.  But, over the course of the history of the NFL... the Super Bowl is won, by and large, by the QBs taken at the top of round 1 up to about the middle of round 2.  There are exceptions, but they are few and far between.  And they usually only win when the team built around them is built primarily defensively.  Brady got his early SB wins due to the defense, not his passing.  Russell Wilson got his from a running game and a suffocating defense.  Dallas ignored the defense, and put more emphasis on offense.  All that will really do is help Dak put up better numbers (shoot-out games are great stat builders) and win less games.  But, the stats will dictate his price goes even higher.  

Argument wasn’t if Dak was overrated. I think he is along with cousins.

However like you said his numbers are still likely going to go up unless he gets a major injury. Which likely means if his stats go up then Dallas is going to tag him again next year until they draft his replacement or they still believe he’s the guy. At that point And after 2021 If he reaches FA, there’s always one dumb team that will overpay him In FA. The Vikings did it with cousins. The panthers with bridgewater (not as gross as Dak would get but still overpaid as he had arguably one of the most talented rosters and performed ok for 4-4 weeks after doing much of nothing prior to that in his career (some on injury and some i don’t think he was great prior to the injury)). It’s why i don’t think Dak and his agent have signed that contract. I think they are using the cousins template. 

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

I disagree with that. I don’t think cousins is better If anything they are equal or i think Dak is better simply as Dak has played at the level he has since day one as a rookie. I think Dak is a better QB. I think Dak can also beat you with his legs way more consistently. It’s why he has 21 rushing tds to cousins 10 over the last 4 years and 1200 to cousins 400 (really cousins the last two years has also run much less most of those stats are from 3 to 4 years ago). 

You're trying to compare apples across to oranges.  I could care less about Dak's ability to run -- they play a different style and you can't penalize Cousins for that.  Dak has had far more to work with than Cousins; Cousins had very little in WAS, and didn't have a run game in MIN until last season.

To say that Dak has played at a consistent level since he was a rookie is foolish; he dropped off badly in his play his second season until they brought him Cooper to be a WR1 for him -- even with Zeke their offense was anemic before Cooper came in.  

If I had one game I had to win; that's where they're equal -- I wouldn't trust either of them.

10 hours ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

My buddy is a scout for a pro team and he hated that pick. He studied Taylor at Colorado and doesn't think much of him. He took him off his board for the team he reps. He could obviously be wrong, but he has a pretty good track record. 

I would imagine he was a difficult player to evaluate. He played on a bad defense.  It seems some of his best plays were chasing down players.  

2 hours ago, ManuManu said:

 

Some folks talked about the salary cap ramifications of the pandemic. A snippet from the article...

Looking to the CBA for guidance on what would happen in that event, it addresses this regarding the cap formula of All Revenue (AR):

"If one or more weeks of any NFL season are cancelled or AR for any League Year substantially decreases, in either case due to a terrorist or military action, natural disaster, or similar event, the parties shall engage in good faith negotiations to adjust the provisions of this Agreement with respect to the projection of AR and the Salary Cap for the following League Year so that AR for the following League Year is projected in a fair manner consistent with the changed revenue projection caused by such action.”

Translation: If and when the NFL loses revenue due to an event beyond its control—and the pandemic certainly qualifies—the players feel the pain along with them.

Obviously canceled games will negatively impact the 2021 cap. Even without canceled games, however, realistic projections about the pandemic do not forecast packed stadiums in September. And although the NFL is better insulated against lack of fans than other leagues—with massive national media contracts and shared revenue—it is not immune to significant revenue losses that the lack of fans would bring. Losses would stem not only from vanishing gate receipts but also from ancillary revenue streams such as gameday sponsor activations, premium seating sales, parking, concessions, merchandise, etc. And these losses will be reflected in AR and manifested in a difficult and painful collective "pay cut” for players in 2021.

As to how much lower the cap sink from 2020 to 2021, that is unclear. My sense, though, is that players and owners would work to "smooth” the decrease over multiple years ahead. Usually, any smoothing or "flattening” discussion is about future increases in cap, but we’re well beyond the word "usually” right now.

It will be interesting.  It's not clear whether they can spread out the cap hit over years as the agreement just specifies the adjustment taking place in the following year.  

7 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I think you need to see more details on that Dak deal to determine whether he should sign or just play the tag game. The report says $106M guaranteed but you don’t know what the actual guarantee is vs guaranteed for injury only. Could also be a small signing bonus with higher guaranteed salaries for the first two years vs big signing bonus with low base salaries. The first gives then an easier out while the second ties him closer to the team. 

But we like to argue