2 hours ago, joemas6 said:

What is the history.  Favre and Rodgers... for like 30 years.   Who else??? There was a dude who had a great game vs Detroit and signed with Seattle only to lose the job to rookie Russell Wilson.   Forget his name...  who else that you are seeing that I'm completely missing??? 

I mean they had Matt Hasselback at one point who went to Seattle with Holmgren and had a pretty good career. 
 

The QB that your talking about that lost his job to Russ was Matt Flynn 

Wasn’t Aaron Brooks also a Packer at one point before being traded to the Saints had a decent stint on not very good Saints teams  

49 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

I mean they had Matt Hasselback at one point who went to Seattle with Holmgren and had a pretty good career. 
 

The QB that your talking about that lost his job to Russ was Matt Flynn 

There you go... 60 years... Starr, Favre, Rodgers.. Hasselbeck and Aaron Brooks.   QB factory. 

3 hours ago, joemas6 said:

There you go... 60 years... Starr, Favre, Rodgers.. Hasselbeck and Aaron Brooks.   QB factory. 

😂 I mean 30 years 4 QBs isn’t all that terrible can you really name any other team that has 4 QBs over that span. Pretty sure all 4 all made at least 1 pro bowl 

NE is close I guess with Bledsoe, Brady, Cassell and Jimmy G 

1 hour ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

😂 I mean 30 years 4 QBs isn’t all that terrible can you really name any other team that has 4 QBs over that span. Pretty sure all 4 all made at least 1 pro bowl 

Idk... for you does that create any extra interest in Love. Because of Hasselbeck and Brooks?  

10 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Idk... for you does that create any extra interest in Love. Because of Hasselbeck and Brooks?  

No not at all just stating the GB has had a pretty good history with QBs over the last 30 years. Producing 4 guys that have started and started at fairly high levels. 

My interest in Love would be if I watched love which i have not in that same breathe if we could bring love in for like a late rounder sure why not let him compete was a former 1st round QB for a reason 

If reports are serious that SF is looking at Watson and in some way pull off a trade for him. I’d be completely interested in trying to snag Lance from them. Hell try and get a 3 team trade going 

Houston gets- two firsts from SF one of our 1sts Jimmy G and who ever else 

SF- Gets Watson 

Eagles- Lance 

Yes I know this is not going to happen super unlikely but I can dream lol 

9 hours ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

IDK look at GB's history. Seems to me they always find keepers as opposed to teams(of course they develop them also) like us who lose/deflate good QB's and grab as many .500 guys we can find(plug and play for .500 annual bronze contenders). I see no reason to "get off" Love. Obviously your opinion differs,but that has no bearing on me changing mine. I will however review some vids on him to see if I change my mind

  Main reason I knew GB was going to re-sign Rogers. Love played in a couple games last year and looked pitiful. All of the GB fans that come to my house each week to watch GB play say he sucks. Sure you can make your own opinion. But Trading Hurts for Love would be a step backwards IMO. You know what I feel about Hurts too.

 

 

17 hours ago, joemas6 said:

Lol... so if we sign a FA WR then we don't have to draft one in the first round.  If we don't sign a FA WR, that means they signed elsewhere and so we don't have to draft one in the first.

We don't have to draft one in the first.... never did.   But also, whatever happens in FA shouldn't stop us from drafting a WR in round one... if it's thr best player there.

  If the Eagles do sign a #1 WR, I doubt they draft one in the first round this year. You keep say BPA. I highly doubt the Eagles only have one player listed as 1st round grade. I am sure they have others rated the same or very close. So, if they do sign a WR and they have WR, DE, C, CB all available, They are not drafting WR. You seem to think that all teams have players listed 1-150 and those positions are written in stone. That is so far from the truth. They have players on the board 1-150, but each player has a grade. IF those grades are very close, they will make their board listing in terms of need for those players. That could change thru out the draft also depending on who they draft in previous rounds.

   Yes, you don't EVER draft a player listed as possible starter ahead of Definite starter. But to think each player listed in their top 120 as "Do not Deviate from this order" is not realistic...

 

 

36 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

No not at all just stating the GB has had a pretty good history with QBs over the last 30 years. Producing 4 guys that have started and started at fairly high levels. 

My interest in Love would be if I watched love which i have not in that same breathe if we could bring love in for like a late rounder sure why not let him compete was a former 1st round QB for a reason 

Favre was an ATL draft pick.... so I guess he doesn't count....lol

4 minutes ago, stine said:

  If the Eagles do sign a #1 WR, I doubt they draft one in the first round this year. You keep say BPA. I highly doubt the Eagles only have one player listed as 1st round grade. I am sure they have others rated the same or very close. So, if they do sign a WR and they have WR, DE, C, CB all available, They are not drafting WR. You seem to think that all teams have players listed 1-150 and those positions are written in stone. That is so far from the truth. They have players on the board 1-150, but each player has a grade. IF those grades are very close, they will make their board listing in terms of need for those players. That could change thru out the draft also depending on who they draft in previous rounds.

   Yes, you don't EVER draft a player listed as possible starter ahead of Definite starter. But to think each player listed in their top 120 as "Do not Deviate from this order" is not realistic...

 

 

So... who is the #1 WR we are signing?  We will sign a Vet WR most likely.  Maybe a 2 year deal.   So for me, that should have zero impact on when we draft one.    It's not fantasy football where you say, oh I drafted this, now we need to go here next.  

You don't pass on a player because you sign a mediocre vet for 2 years.  Not if your goal is to eventually win a Superbowl. 

9 minutes ago, stine said:

 

   Yes, you don't EVER draft a player listed as possible starter ahead of Definite starter. But to think each player listed in their top 120 as "Do not Deviate from this order" is not realistic...

 

 

That's absolutely a load of crap. We traded up for Wentz. He wasn't supposed to start game 1.   Your Packers did it with Aaron Rodgers.  Plenty of years have drafted players for their future potential,  not what year 1 is going to look like.    Simply looking at year 1 and letting mediocre vets that are placeholders  impact your draft decision is absolutely stupid.   Was Fletcher Cox or Graham starters in their first year?  

At WR you use multiple guys during a game.  Lamb worked out pretty well for Dallas even though he was the #3 his rookie year on paper.  Why would we pass on a stud because a guy like Zach Pascal is acquired and slated to be the #2 on opening day?  The only reason is because we see a better career from another guy that's available when we pick. No other reason makes long term sense.

1 hour ago, joemas6 said:

So... who is the #1 WR we are signing?  We will sign a Vet WR most likely.  Maybe a 2 year deal.   So for me, that should have zero impact on when we draft one.    It's not fantasy football where you say, oh I drafted this, now we need to go here next.  

You don't pass on a player because you sign a mediocre vet for 2 years.  Not if your goal is to eventually win a Superbowl. 

No, but if you have three players rated very closely, you draft the one that is most needed of the three. WR would not fall into that category if we signed a vet. If WR is the only one left then he is the obvious choice.

1 hour ago, joemas6 said:

That's absolutely a load of crap. We traded up for Wentz. He wasn't supposed to start game 1.   Your Packers did it with Aaron Rodgers.  Plenty of years have drafted players for their future potential,  not what year 1 is going to look like.    Simply looking at year 1 and letting mediocre vets that are placeholders  impact your draft decision is absolutely stupid.   Was Fletcher Cox or Graham starters in their first year?  

At WR you use multiple guys during a game.  Lamb worked out pretty well for Dallas even though he was the #3 his rookie year on paper.  Why would we pass on a stud because a guy like Zach Pascal is acquired and slated to be the #2 on opening day?  The only reason is because we see a better career from another guy that's available when we pick. No other reason makes long term sense.

  Wentz was ranked at the top of their board. So was Cox and Graham. You are missing the point entirely. If our WR room is in good shape for two years, you then set up your board with that in mind. They have 4 players ranked as Year one starters. Of those 4 you have WR, CB, DE and C. If WR and CB are the only two left, they take the CB. Not rocket science. Just forming your team as best you can. How does that correlate to Fantasy Foot Ball? I need to put the best team on the field as possible. That is what I am doing. Maybe it takes 3 years, but I am filling in as many as possible....

  There are many WR's that come out each year lately as round 1 players. So you can grab one next year or the following if you have other players available in this year's draft.

Sure, there may be no one that can fill in a need when they draft. So they try and trade down. If they can't then grab the best Player. That is the only time it won't fill a need, but is the only choice they have. You never reach for any player. We agree on that. I am just looking at it differently

So far quiet start for the Eagles in FA got Reddick who has shown to be a good pass rusher whether we line him up as a LB or DE. 
 

Had the almost signing supposedly of Saints S that opted for the Ravens over us.

haven’t huge much else couple in house moves not tendering Singleton so he is a FA and putting the tender on Herbig. Of course Kielce new deal 

17 minutes ago, stine said:

No, but if you have three players rated very closely, you draft the one that is most needed of the three

We seem to have this talk every year lol. I agree with the logic of you have 3 guys graded the same you take the one you need over the guys you don’t. 

12 minutes ago, stine said:

WR and CB are the only two left, they take the CB.

Not sure it’s that easy a call. In the long term yea CB is a need but in the short term Slay is far better then anything we have at WR right now. Maddox was actually quite good in the slot. 
 

Honestly our WR at best has two quality guys Smith Quez nothing else same boat as CB Slay/Maddox. 

Letting Boston Scott hit the FA market 

Just now, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Not sure it’s that easy a call. In the long term yea CB is a need but in the short term Slay is far better then anything we have at WR right now. Maddox was actually quite good in the slot. 
 

Honestly our WR at best has two quality guys Smith Quez nothing else same boat as CB Slay/Maddox. 

OK, what happens if we sign Robinson for 1 year at a prove it deal?

This is what the Eagles Draft board looks like from 11-20:

Potential Pro- Bowlers:

Gardener -CB

Booth - CB

Wilson - WR

Williams - WR

Green - G

Potential day 1 starters:

Ojabo - Edge

Davis - DT

McCreary - CB

Dean - LB

Olave - WR

   If they pick and all but Wilson or Williams are gone they would pick that person. Yes he is a WR and probably not the biggest need, but he has pro bowl potential per the Eagles board. If all of them are gone and you only have Ojabo, McCreary, Davis and Olave to choose from, They would take Ojabo as they feel he fits the greatest need and is ranked on the same plateau. IT is just going by their board as they have it. This is the best way I can put it. Now, if they feel WR is the greatest need, then the WR would be placed ahead of the others in that group.

Of course, Howie is running the draft. He is great at the Cap. He is real good at trades and FA signing. He sucks at drafting. So what you or I feel is a potential Day 1 starter may be entirely different than what Howie thinks...

39 minutes ago, stine said:

No, but if you have three players rated very closely, you draft the one that is most needed of the three. WR would not fall into that category if we signed a vet. If WR is the only one left then he is the obvious choice.

All positions are needed at this point.  All of them, with the exception of TE.    All of them.  Wrong year to worry about that stuff. 

3 minutes ago, stine said:

what happens if we sign Robinson for 1 year at a prove it deal?

We signed Reddick does that take LB off your board then or pass rusher which ever you view him as 

23 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

So far quiet start for the Eagles in FA got Reddick who has shown to be a good pass rusher whether we line him up as a LB or DE. 
 

Had the almost signing supposedly of Saints S that opted for the Ravens over us.

haven’t huge much else couple in house moves not tendering Singleton so he is a FA and putting the tender on Herbig. Of course Kielce new deal 

 They may sit and wait for a bit now. Wait until the signings settle down and then try and get a deal for someone.....