4 hours ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Oh I see.  First off, don't feed the stray dog and then he won't come back.

 

 

Secondly, without Chip Kelly how should've we won multiple SB?  With Kolb or Vick?  

I’m a Wentz guy but Foles with All that talent Chip let go could’ve done some damage 

55 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

It’s a hobby.  Cool.  I just chuckle when I see posters talking about their "board” and "grades”.  Now I know.  

I'm something of a Civil War buff. I know a number of serious historians and authors and a lot of people who know as much about the subject as they do but do not dedicate their entire livelihood to it. That would, I guess, make them hobbyists, but it does not make them any less knowledgeable. One of these hobbyists designs war games, almost by definition a hobby. He has walked every battlefield of note and many not of note. Other than Ed Bearss, he is the most knowledgeable guy I know for terrain, deployment, armaments, supplies, weaponry, and on and on. Our greatest living CW historian, James MacPherson, would defer to him on specifics of almost any battle. And he's a hobbyist. Makes his living in insurance.

24 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

But you do agree that AR needed to leave, right?

Yes

10 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Never gets old.  I had a necklace with my dad’s wedding band and some of my mothers ashes in a locket.  They both died in 2017.  Actually we had the service for my dad the week before the SB.  I’ve never worn that locket before or since.  I started to lose it after we went up by 8.  2017 was a roller coaster.   

I hadn't seen this video yet.  That is awesome.  No more deserving fan base on the planet.  

25 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Never gets old.  I had a necklace with my dad’s wedding band and some of my mothers ashes in a locket.  They both died in 2017.  Actually we had the service for my dad the week before the SB.  I’ve never worn that locket before or since.  I started to lose it after we went up by 8.  2017 was a roller coaster.   

"Son, back when the Eagles first won the super bowl, we had these things called ‘bars.’ Basically it was like when you and all of your friends drink over hologram chat, except everyone was actually in the same place — a place that wasn’t at someone’s house but rather a place where absolutely anyone could go and sometimes had hundreds or even thousands of people in the same establishment — and we drank together... in the same room!”

1 hour ago, justrelax said:

I'm something of a Civil War buff. I know a number of serious historians and authors and a lot of people who know as much about the subject as they do but do not dedicate their entire livelihood to it. That would, I guess, make them hobbyists, but it does not make them any less knowledgeable. One of these hobbyists designs war games, almost by definition a hobby. He has walked every battlefield of note and many not of note. Other than Ed Bearss, he is the most knowledgeable guy I know for terrain, deployment, armaments, supplies, weaponry, and on and on. Our greatest living CW historian, James MacPherson, would defer to him on specifics of almost any battle. And he's a hobbyist. Makes his living in insurance.

A friend of mine took the test to be a guide at Gettysburg.  It was grueling to say the least.   I majored in history but I would hesitate to say I am an historian although some of my professional colleagues would say I am close to one on the history of insurance and insurance contract language.   Because of my academic background, I retain an immense interest in history.  I, too, am interested in Civil War history.  I had a military historian on Civil War battles named Beaumont to blame for some of that.  He told us you cannot understand a battle unless you have walked the battleground.   To the extent possible, I have tried to walk as many as possible. He was right.  I bet your friend has some interesting takes on things.   Climbing the fence for Pickett’s charge puts a huge perspective on a split rail fence as an obstacle.  Get into the thicket at the Wilderness and imagine how hard it was to identify friend from foe.  Viewing the thicket makes it easy to understand the friendly fire casualties.  A friend, who went on many patrols in Vietnam told me that until you walk a jungle like that you can’t understand.   

39 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Never gets old.  I had a necklace with my dad’s wedding band and some of my mothers ashes in a locket.  They both died in 2017.  Actually we had the service for my dad the week before the SB.  I’ve never worn that locket before or since.  I started to lose it after we went up by 8.  2017 was a roller coaster.   

Lost my dad in 2017.  Two months later celebrated the ‘stros World Series with my in-laws and my best friend from HS and College. Four months later those were some of the first calls I got after the Super Bowl win. 

It would not be a Philly-based montage at all, if there wasn't a clip of some girl climbing over the bar and faceplanting on the other side

 

Fletcher Cox or Geno Atkins ..why?

 

1 minute ago, NoDak Eagle said:

 

Good to see you made it over here.

34 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Good to see you made it over here.

Thanks brother 

3 hours ago, hukdonfoniks said:

It would not be a Philly-based montage at all, if there wasn't a clip of some girl climbing over the bar and faceplanting on the other side

 

That was a dude I thought?

I never see many girls wearing Timb's 😄

It wouldn't be unprecedented for a quarterback to be traded away for a higher draft pick than was used to select him, even if that quarterback rarely, if ever, got any playing time. 

The Packers traded Aaron Brooks (Saints) and Mark Brunell (Jaguars) for significantly more than they had used for them. And Matt Hasselbeck (Seahawks) provided the Packers with a significant "move up" in the first round -- the value of that Green Bay trade with Seattle (17th for a 10th and 72nd) calculates to a high second round pick.

None of those players (Brooks, Brunell, Hasselbeck) ever played much for the Packers, apart from the preseason. Brooks never threw a pass for them. Brunell only had 27 attempts, and Hasselbeck had only 29. Still they were admired around the league. Heck, although Ty Detmer wasn't traded, he still got a notable contract from the Eagles as a free agent when his contract with the Packers was finished.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Doug Pederson was a part of that Packers regime back them. He was there to witness the developments. If you can properly develop a quarterback prospect, like the Packers routinely did back in those days, the rest of the league will notice even if there isn't much game film on him.

In other words, if Jalen Hurts doesn't see the field apart from a few plays here and there, as well as some occasional mop-up moments at the end of games, it doesn't mean that there will be zero chance the Eagles could ever get anything of value in trade for him. I don't think it's as black-and-white as some folks are making it out to be. 

19 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

It wouldn't be unprecedented for a quarterback to be traded away for a higher draft pick than was used to select him, even if that quarterback rarely, if ever, got any playing time. 

The Packers traded Aaron Brooks (Saints) and Mark Brunell (Jaguars) for significantly more than they had used for them. And Matt Hasselbeck (Seahawks) provided the Packers with a significant "move up" in the first round -- the value of that Green Bay trade with Seattle (17th for a 10th and 72nd) calculates to a high second round pick.

None of those players (Brooks, Brunell, Hasselbeck) ever played much for the Packers, apart from the preseason. Brooks never threw a pass for them. Brunell only had 27 attempts, and Hasselbeck had only 29. Still they were admired around the league. Heck, although Ty Detmer wasn't traded, he still got a notable contract from the Eagles as a free agent when his contract with the Packers was finished.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Doug Pederson was a part of that Packers regime back them. He was there to witness the developments. If you can properly develop a quarterback prospect, like the Packers routinely did back in those days, the rest of the league will notice even if there isn't much game film on him.

In other words, if Jalen Hurts doesn't see the field apart from a few plays here and there, as well as some occasional mop-up moments at the end of games, it doesn't mean that there will be zero chance the Eagles could ever get anything of value in trade for him. I don't think it's as black-and-white as some folks are making it out to be. 

Very good point, and one that's not been discussed much.

I think the Eagles can only forecast the next 3-4 years based on what has happened the previous 3-4 years.  Wentz will play like a top 5-10 QB when healthy, but there will be a few games (maybe very important games) where a #2 guy will be required to come in and keep the season on course.  If Hurts can win more of those games than he loses, he will fetch a pretty good return.

Nice to see we have a new discussion board... 

On topic of off-season... 

I like the add at CB and DT... 

I am a fan of what they did in the draft... On a facebook group page,  I had QB on my draft wish list... some folks thought I was nuts... I think the Eagles made a great 2nd round pick on QB

I was not as up on the draft as I usually am,  rather disappointed Dallas got Lamb,  they made a good move there... I did have Reagor on my radar as option if Eagles stood pat... so,  not overly disappointed in that pick

At this point,  just hope we have a season

7 hours ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

It wouldn't be unprecedented for a quarterback to be traded away for a higher draft pick than was used to select him, even if that quarterback rarely, if ever, got any playing time. 

The Packers traded Aaron Brooks (Saints) and Mark Brunell (Jaguars) for significantly more than they had used for them. And Matt Hasselbeck (Seahawks) provided the Packers with a significant "move up" in the first round -- the value of that Green Bay trade with Seattle (17th for a 10th and 72nd) calculates to a high second round pick.

None of those players (Brooks, Brunell, Hasselbeck) ever played much for the Packers, apart from the preseason. Brooks never threw a pass for them. Brunell only had 27 attempts, and Hasselbeck had only 29. Still they were admired around the league. Heck, although Ty Detmer wasn't traded, he still got a notable contract from the Eagles as a free agent when his contract with the Packers was finished.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Doug Pederson was a part of that Packers regime back them. He was there to witness the developments. If you can properly develop a quarterback prospect, like the Packers routinely did back in those days, the rest of the league will notice even if there isn't much game film on him.

In other words, if Jalen Hurts doesn't see the field apart from a few plays here and there, as well as some occasional mop-up moments at the end of games, it doesn't mean that there will be zero chance the Eagles could ever get anything of value in trade for him. I don't think it's as black-and-white as some folks are making it out to be. 

On the flipside, Favre was and 2nd round pick by the Falcons and the Packers gave up a first for him.

8 hours ago, NoDak Eagle said:

 

Trust me, you don't have to tell us. Carson stays in the game in the playoffs round 1 we win

On the topic of developing QB, Sudfeld is the current #2.  He has been with the team going into the 4th season.  He did not play much and he is not generating much interests either.  Missing last season due to injury hurts.  If the team wants to give snaps to Hurts (assuming he can be ready with an abbreviated pre-season), Sudfeld would be the one get moved this pre-season.  We shall see what returns he would give the team.

 

9 minutes ago, Penn7980 said:

On the topic of developing QB, Sudfeld is the current #2.  He has been with the team going into the 4th season.  He did not play much and he is not generating much interests either.  Missing last season due to injury hurts.  If the team wants to give snaps to Hurts (assuming he can be ready with an abbreviated pre-season), Sudfeld would be the one get moved this pre-season.  We shall see what returns he would give the team.

 

That is an assumption I do not believe the team will make and for the reason you state.

8 hours ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

It wouldn't be unprecedented for a quarterback to be traded away for a higher draft pick than was used to select him, even if that quarterback rarely, if ever, got any playing time. 

Yup. QB thirst is real 

In the 2021 draft, there are going to be at least 3 franchise QBs (Lawrence, Fields, Lance). Maybe a 4th sneaks in like Love this year.
By the end of this season, we're losing Brees, Minshew (likely) and Trubisky/Foles as starters. That's a wash. If anything happens to Roethlisberger/Rivers, that's 2 extra spots. There's also shaky QB situations in Vegas (Carr), Carolina (Bridgewater), New England (Stidham). Particularly in places like Carolina, Tampa and Pittsburgh, they could easily draft a 2021 QB high to sit. Guys like Darnold, Allen, Jones, Haskins will likely stay starters in 2022 even if they''re bad.

This doesn't mean Hurts has value; but there will be vacancies. 

15 minutes ago, justrelax said:

That is an assumption I do not believe the team will make and for the reason you state.

I also think that we are still undervaluing QB depth compared to the Eagles valuation of QB depth.

They really, truly, want a "QB factory.” They want 3 good QBs on the roster. We, as fans, want to flip QBs for draft picks but I don’t think that’s the eagles primary objective.

 Yes, they’ll make the smart move when they know they can’t keep a guy and are offered good value, but I don’t think Doug and Howie are actively looking to trade QBs. They want to keep good QBs.

I never checked myself but, in 4 years Wentz is 7- 20 versus teams over 500  ?

There could be 6 first round QBs next year, and the 2 best college QBs aren't eligible.  Slovis and Howell 

 

And  better WO class next year.

9 hours ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

It wouldn't be unprecedented for a quarterback to be traded away for a higher draft pick than was used to select him, even if that quarterback rarely, if ever, got any playing time. 

The Packers traded Aaron Brooks (Saints) and Mark Brunell (Jaguars) for significantly more than they had used for them. And Matt Hasselbeck (Seahawks) provided the Packers with a significant "move up" in the first round -- the value of that Green Bay trade with Seattle (17th for a 10th and 72nd) calculates to a high second round pick.

None of those players (Brooks, Brunell, Hasselbeck) ever played much for the Packers, apart from the preseason. Brooks never threw a pass for them. Brunell only had 27 attempts, and Hasselbeck had only 29. Still they were admired around the league. Heck, although Ty Detmer wasn't traded, he still got a notable contract from the Eagles as a free agent when his contract with the Packers was finished.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Doug Pederson was a part of that Packers regime back them. He was there to witness the developments. If you can properly develop a quarterback prospect, like the Packers routinely did back in those days, the rest of the league will notice even if there isn't much game film on him.

In other words, if Jalen Hurts doesn't see the field apart from a few plays here and there, as well as some occasional mop-up moments at the end of games, it doesn't mean that there will be zero chance the Eagles could ever get anything of value in trade for him. I don't think it's as black-and-white as some folks are making it out to be. 

I understand your point 100%.  The Eagles got EXTREMELY lucky when Bridgewater went down with the knee.  The Vikings were desperate for a quarterback and overpaid for sleeves.

It seems that everyone is saying that if we can get a 2nd back for Hurts then drafting him is successful.  I see that as a major loss.  A 4 year rental at a 2nd round pick is just terrible.

In my opinion, the way you become a quarterback factory and get the best value is to draft a quarterback in the 6th or 7th round and then a few years later you trade him away for maybe a 3rd round pick.  That's value.  Taking a risk in the lower rounds of the draft where players are more developmental and then flipping them for a higher pick.  That's how you play the game.  I think they had in mind when they drafted Clayton Thorson and he just was a total bust.  Even he was drafted too high.

I've always had the mindset that Rounds 1-3 need to be used on players who are ready to come in and play day 1, contribute and then be a part of your starting lineup in year 2.  These should be impact players.  It seems to me that the Eagles like to use round 2 as a gamble round for some reason.  Let's take a chance instead of a sure thing (I know the draft has no sure things).  I just feel their mindset is backwards.  Time will tell.  

I hope we never see Hurts play.  How often do gadget or package plays really work?  Yes, we had the Philly Special but the Eagles can't even execute successful WR screens as of late let along a 2nd quarterback coming in.  They need to build this team around Carson with legit targets.  Reagor is a start.  Goodwin, Hightower and Watkins are all wildcards and maybe two of them stick.  Drafting JK Dobbins, who they were rumored to be considering, would have been huge.  Can you imagine Sanders and Dobbins in the same backfield?