Derek Barnett could be an interesting name to pair with Wentz as well he should have some value 

How about Wentz, Ertz and Graham for two firsts and a third?

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

How about Wentz, Ertz and Graham for two firsts and a third?

Doesn’t trading Graham hurt our cap more? 

7 hours ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Because I don’t think he will be a good QB that we will be stuck in that middle ground think the Bears with Mitch.

They have a good roster good teams but never over the hump. 

If Wentz is still here that changes things slightly 

Back to my question,you have a QB who goes 10-6,why do we need another one? Just get a few more pieces in place???

8 hours ago, EaglesTD123 said:

Good point that I forgot to consider. Hmmmm…………

If we go 10-6 with Hurts, we need to replace him??????? Maybe we just need a few more pieces added?????

6 hours ago, joemas6 said:

f Hurts can get this roster to 10 wins, he is the guy of the future.  When we actually add talent and guys that are in prime stages of their careers...and our younger guys who won 10 games only get better... why would we want to change the QB? 

This was the question I asked earlier lol

Chicago- trade Ertz for Foles. Now we have what we had before a solid BU and a fledgling rookie(like when we got Wentz). Trade Wentz for whatever you can get and let's move on. If it's to Indy for 2-2's so be it

6 hours ago, joemas6 said:

In 2015 Lurie was a laughing stock after committing 100% to Chip.   The humiliation is coming, not so much now because the idea that the coach and/ or QB were the problem still exists.   The continued results of the team will be the humiliation.  It's why I want to go with Hurts... because I agree with BG that another QB would be better, but I think that bails out Howie.  I want him to crash and burn with Hurts. I want Hurts to be his last QB.  I would prefer the team staying in the toilet for a couple years while the old guys finish up and the roster turns over.  Then the next GM can pick the QB in a couple years.

Not both sides of the fence at all. 

LOL Joe, if this team gets 6-7 wins Howie will say "SEE I got our future since we improved!!" You know that's coming. The danger here you are pointing out is,no matter how good or bad we do, Lurie stands by Howie(as he always has because he is not a football guy) Lurie thinks that 1 year off time for Howie becoming a "football guy" will pay dividends. it won't, but he doesn't know that because he is less of a football guy than Howie(2 wrongs making a right lol)

3 hours ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Derek Barnett could be an interesting name to pair with Wentz as well he should have some value 

Why? He played alot and ruled at his position? I think you are overvaluing him. I wouldn't give up a draft pick for him at this point. If he played well next season,you could have a point,but thats next season

6 hours ago, joemas6 said:

Hey I was wrong with Tampa... but not really. I said they won 7 games last year I could see improvement to 10-11 wins. 

Yeah but you also said their defense sucked LOL. The players they added were mostly on offense and their defense SHUT DOWN the KC offense-SHUT THEM DOWN!!! I also told you their D was "not that bad and that they needed consistency on offense" which they got when they lost moronic hot/cold Winston. TB fans knew this 3-4 years running(as I stated often)

20 hours ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Reports saying Seattle/Indy interested in Ertz...

Would think that if Indy has interest in Ertz/Wentz we could get the deal done sooner unless we massively boosting the cost for both.

Wentz/Ertz for what 21st 3rd and a conditional 22 pick be as high as a 1st or as low as a 3rd something like that 

  My thoughts are Ertz will not be traded until Wentz deal is done. Reason is Eagles may want to bundle the two, or at least have that on the table. Once Wentz trade is final, Ertz will be traded within days. Too many teams need a TE and the TE class is way to thin... Some say Eagles have no leverage. Disagree totally. Lack of TE in the draft and interest in Wentz changes that.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, stine said:

Lack of TE

Pitts, he's my #6 pick. There are maybe 2 more 'decent" ones,but pretty thin after that

11 hours ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Why? He played alot and ruled at his position? I think you are overvaluing him. I wouldn't give up a draft pick for him at this point. If he played well next season,you could have a point,but thats next season

DEs are hard to fine and he is a decent player. Saying a guy has some value isn’t a far cry Barnett is what 24-25 has played decent and likely would resign on a manageable deal didn’t say I’d expect him to give us a great return. 

FWIW Watson hanging out with some Fins players

11 hours ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Back to my question,you have a QB who goes 10-6,why do we need another one? Just get a few more pieces in place???

Again back to my point how has that worked for the bears lol I think we would be 10-6 in spite of Hurts=Mitch to me 

2 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

DEs are hard to fine and he is a decent player. Saying a guy has some value isn’t a far cry Barnett is what 24-25 has played decent and likely would resign on a manageable deal didn’t say I’d expect him to give us a great return. 

Either he is valuable enough to get a good pick for, or he is not valuable enough so you keep him as a BU/WIP

2 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Again back to my point how has that worked for the bears lol I think we would be 10-6 in spite of Hurts=Mitch to me 

So "in spite" of your QB going 10-6, just trash him for someone else? This makes zero sense. Changing QB's at 10-6 means we would be 11-5? Noone knows that

13 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Again back to my point how has that worked for the bears lol I think we would be 10-6 in spite of Hurts=Mitch to me 

IDK bro,according to this thinking we should have gone 10-6 LAST year "in spite" of Wentz

18 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

IDK bro,according to this thinking we should have gone 10-6 LAST year "in spite" of Wentz

Considering the mess that was the O line, i'm surprised we won at all

32 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

So "in spite" of your QB going 10-6, just trash him for someone else? This makes zero sense. Changing QB's at 10-6 means we would be 11-5? Noone knows that

Lmao so why are the bears moving from Mitch got them to the playoffs multiple seasons. Again Hurts= Mitch to me 

11 hours ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

LOL Joe, if this team gets 6-7 wins Howie will say "SEE I got our future since we improved!!" You know that's coming. The danger here you are pointing out is,no matter how good or bad we do, Lurie stands by Howie(as he always has because he is not a football guy) Lurie thinks that 1 year off time for Howie becoming a "football guy" will pay dividends. it won't, but he doesn't know that because he is less of a football guy than Howie(2 wrongs making a right lol)

This won't be a one year process. The 2 things that need to happen... 1. We stay in the basement for a couple years.  2.  Wentz would need to have success elsewhere,  considerable success and for multiple years.    If we go a few more years without drafting a pro bowl player, that helps.  And if Doug gets a job elsewhere and does well,that also helps. 

We aren't talking about a one year process.  

24 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

IDK bro,according to this thinking we should have gone 10-6 LAST year "in spite" of Wentz

Not all we had 10 injured OL and if you actually read the post I stated I see us as an 8-8 to 10-6 to anywhere in between those numbers with Hurts basically middle of the pack squad that will never get over the hump.

Now if you disagree with that fine I don’t care that much but my stance why I think we need QB.

I understand joe point he think we will be terrible all around so let’s be terrible get couple new pieces and in two years(or more )  we will be back in position for a QB. I see it as the opposite we have a decent roster but the QB will hold us back.

11 hours ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Yeah but you also said their defense sucked LOL. The players they added were mostly on offense and their defense SHUT DOWN the KC offense-SHUT THEM DOWN!!! I also told you their D was "not that bad and that they needed consistency on offense" which they got when they lost moronic hot/cold Winston. TB fans knew this 3-4 years running(as I stated often)

And again.... this was not the whole season.  What were you saying after week 12 and they got lit up by KC.  

44 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Again back to my point how has that worked for the bears lol I think we would be 10-6 in spite of Hurts=Mitch to me 

Bears vs Eagles .... Foles was 2 -5.

The defense is considered a good one,especially once they got Hicks back.   Our defense has Cox, Graham, Slay and McCloud..  all older guys.  

9 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Lmao so why are the bears moving from Mitch got them to the playoffs multiple seasons. Again Hurts= Mitch to me 

Agree on the QB... we disagree on the rest of the team.  It's ok, you aren't used to the Eagles ever being bad for an extended period of time.  It's been a while.  

Barnett, Ertz...etc... no trade leverage there without multiple years left on the contract and teams knowing we need to cut them to get under the cap.

Great articles yesterday pointing out that " adding Ertz or anyone else " may force the Eagles to give back picks.  As teams would have to deal with more salary. 

Right now teams are strapped for cap space. It's almost necessary to wait for guys to get released and sign them on your own terms.