21 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Still,hard to trust them(gnats D). They play AZ. yeah AZ isn't great but this could be their game LOL. It's not like the Gnats D did anything to warrant a start this week

Did you watch?  Dallas offense wasn't that good at all.  

21 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

So just ignore a career high game? OK, well they need to tweak a few things

What does " career high" have to do with anything?   The grades are based on one game...not a career.   

24 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Both SB runs our team had the LB and S covered. Might be something to this.

Both SB runs it was cheap Lb additions… Bradham came in cheap, also landed Jenkins cheap as well.

White was cheap, Johnson was cheap as well rookie deal if I am correct.

Hicks was a LB we developed similar to TJ and  ow the hopes is Dean 

Honestly the way we have targeted S and Lb hasn’t changed 

Jumping back and forth between the Penn game and the FSU game

28 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

What does " career high" have to do with anything?   The grades are based on one game...not a career.   

right he got a career high in ONE game(175 yards) yet Scott got a better ranking???

31 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Might be something to this.

If you think this is key better hope Dean becomes the next TJ(or better) and Blankenship or Browns whoever can take the steps forward to be our next Jenkins/Johnson 

Illini D came to play, Allard not getting protection - where have I seen that before?

PSU only got 6 pts off 2 TO's

28 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Both SB runs it was cheap Lb additions… Bradham came in cheap, also landed Jenkins cheap as well.

White was cheap, Johnson was cheap as well rookie deal if I am correct.

Hicks was a LB we developed similar to TJ and  ow the hopes is Dean 

Honestly the way we have targeted S and Lb hasn’t changed 

Right the targeting method hasn't changed.   The quality of the players is a different story.  But with this group.... Blankenship,  Brown, and Dean are young...  just like last year, all of a sudden Epps and Edwards turned put ok.  It's the unknown... doesn't mean it can't be as good or better 

Didn't really pat attention,  supposedly Cunningham was all over the field.  Looks like the WRs had the big games on the outside for them??

31 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

right he got a career high in ONE game(175 yards) yet Scott got a better ranking???

Sure...the more you are on the field, the more chance for a negative grade on a play.  Then it goes to percentage grade.   Swift was on the field way more.   It's all in the context of their grading system...it's not a cumulative thing for making the most plays... it's percentage of doing your assignment etc.

Swift 76 grade for being on the field all those plays is way more important than Scott getting 80 on a small amount of plays.  

It's why the PFF grade doesn't say much when it's a small sample. 

1 hour ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Both SB runs it was cheap Lb additions… Bradham came in cheap, also landed Jenkins cheap as well.

White was cheap, Johnson was cheap as well rookie deal if I am correct.

Hicks was a LB we developed similar to TJ and  ow the hopes is Dean 

Honestly the way we have targeted S and Lb hasn’t changed 

Totally changed the secondary approach. Not Mills and was it Darby? With Robinson coming in with one great season in his career that year in the slot. But had S. Now it’s opposite. Invested in the older grizzled large contract corners and extremely low investment in S. Edwards was developed from I think even undrafted but then got paid. You might shrug off White’s pay…but it’s a kings ransom compared to the Miles Jack and company. Hicks was invested In a bit. But had Bradham and Kendricks also. Kendricks only year his investment really paid off. Bradham was a sought after FA. Was decent money. The salaries have skyrocketed since then. Wasn’t that long ago…but feels close to the salaries have doubled since then.

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

Totally changed the secondary approach. Not Mills and was it Darby? With Robinson coming in with one great season in his career that year in the slot. But had S. Now it’s opposite. Invested in the older grizzled large contract corners and extremely low investment in S. Edwards was developed from I think even undrafted but then got paid. You might shrug off White’s pay…but it’s a kings ransom compared to the Miles Jack and company. Hicks was invested In a bit. But had Bradham and Kendricks also. Kendricks only year his investment really paid off. Bradham was a sought after FA. Was decent money. The salaries have skyrocketed since then. Wasn’t that long ago…but feels close to the salaries have doubled since then.

Hicks was a 3rd round pick on rookie deal...  basically Dean

Bradham had like five teams offer to him. Cunningham was left on the streets all offseason. There was investment in the LB and S…but also development time in others. 

You also have to look at the current market and what is available.  That is the issue with free agency... you don't dictate the market... you have stud options,  good options,  decent options... cheap options...  but each year not all those types are available at each position.   

3 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Bradham had like five teams offer to him. Cunningham was left on the streets all offseason. There was investment in the LB and S…but also development time in others. 

And not much investment at CB..  remember your argument when I said the Eagles had the best roster... you go right too..." really No Mas, the CBs are not the best "   

5 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Bradham had like five teams offer to him. Cunningham was left on the streets all offseason. There was investment in the LB and S…but also development time in others. 

Bradham wanted to play for Schwartz... wasn't a huge cap hit at all.  Obviously more than Cunningham... but again, I'll ask you...who was the Nigel Bradham of this offseason?    

You can't just create one if he isn't there?

The way I see things is you can find a gem of a player and develop him at any position. Then just need to fill out the rest of the team needs. Pay whoever is needed to get the job done. Work every angle possible to build the team. But then it’s just a matter of finishing the roster puzzle. I’m not really antipaying most any position. Might come up with cheap options that work at expensive positions. So might need to cough up money for what some theorize is a position not to spend on. I don’t buy into that stuff much once you have a contending team. If there is only one decent real option available at an inexpensive position…that’s still the guy you gotta pay. Putting together good rosters that have holes because you refuse to pay that position is a failure at being a GM. Whole Championship Puzzle is the job. Not winning the on paper cheapskate smartest GM in the room award.

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

The way I see things is you can find a gem of a player and develop him at any position. Then just need to fill out the rest of the team needs. Pay whoever is needed to get the job done. Work every angle possible to build the team. But then it’s just a matter of finishing the roster puzzle. I’m not really antipaying most any position. Might come up with cheap options that work at expensive positions. So might need to cough up money for what some theorize is a position not to spend on. I don’t buy into that stuff much once you have a contending team. If there is only one decent real option available at an inexpensive position…that’s still the guy you gotta pay. Putting together good rosters that have holes because you refuse to pay that position is a failure at being a GM. Whole Championship Puzzle is the job. Not winning the on paper cheapskate smartest GM in the room award.

Ohhh.  You can just find a gem and develop him... it's just thst easy... lol.

3 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

The way I see things is you can find a gem of a player and develop him at any position. Then just need to fill out the rest of the team needs. Pay whoever is needed to get the job done. Work every angle possible to build the team. But then it’s just a matter of finishing the roster puzzle. I’m not really antipaying most any position. Might come up with cheap options that work at expensive positions. So might need to cough up money for what some theorize is a position not to spend on. I don’t buy into that stuff much once you have a contending team. If there is only one decent real option available at an inexpensive position…that’s still the guy you gotta pay. Putting together good rosters that have holes because you refuse to pay that position is a failure at being a GM. Whole Championship Puzzle is the job. Not winning the on paper cheapskate smartest GM in the room award.

Lynch is the smartest GM in the room...we established that.  

17 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

You might shrug off White’s pay

Not really we paid White 3m we are paying Cunningham just under 2m not a drastic difference in the grand scheme of things 

The thing I'm trying to point out...  when looking to " finish the puzzle " the realty is that not all the pieces are always available. 

Let's not be ignorant and arrogant to act like they are always there.  

Tell me who the LB that was available... this year? 

"No Mas...they could have resigned Edwards "  They obviously wanted to move on though right? 

All 

4 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Not really we paid White 3m we are paying Cunningham just under 2m not a drastic difference in the grand scheme of things 

All this being said. We were a couple of Boston Scott rushing attempts away from a parade last year.

 

23 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Hicks was invested In a bit. But had Bradham and Kendricks also. Kendricks only year his investment really paid off. Bradham was a sought after FA. Was decent money. The salaries have skyrocketed since then. Wasn’t that long ago…but feels close to the salaries have doubled since then.

Hicks 3rd round like idk Dean our 3rd round Lb again guy stepped up and developed it’s been our go to at LB.

Bradham signed for 2 year 7m so 3.5m again still not a huge investment at LB not far off the 1y 3m for White… Little more then the 1.75m to Cunningham/Jack but who was that LB at Bradham/White level that we were getting at 3m??? 

Overall point being we DONT INVEST AT LB this ain’t some new thing regarding Philly…

We have had some good LB play no doubt but it was more cheap FAs and young guys stepping up why is this so hard to see????

When we originally signed Jenkins in 2014 it was 3 years 15m… Mind you a top S in that same span like Eric Weddle was on 5 year 40m.

Johnson was on his rookie deal still wasn’t wasn’t a huge investment either then of course Epps stepped up for us.

Its not really hard to see that lot of our good S play and Lb play has been more form guys stepping up v investing capital into them 

I'd love to see a 1st round LB or S..   I've been saying that for years I thought they over did this position priority thing.

I get the strategy...overall it works.  But my point is BPA... don't pass up Ray Lewis for Todd Heriman.     

What we do know...if they draft a 1st round LB...we know they definitely think that is the BPA.