1 hour ago, schuy7 said:

Part of the reason for the Steelers' drop rates being a little high is because the whole league knew Pittsburgh wanted to throw short on pretty much every play. Every pass was highly contested.

I remember one specific game where that wasn't the case.

25 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

I remember one specific game where that wasn't the case.

Not every defense can scheme to have Nate gerry on claypool! 

36 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

I remember one specific game where that wasn't the case.

Don't remind me... 🤣

They made it work for 11 games. Teams caught on to it finally, and they couldn't really adjust.

 

9 hours ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

If Buffalo was the second best team in the afc last year, if you put watson in Miami i don’t think the gap between Buffalo and Miami is all that much to say Miami wouldn’t have been a contender. 

Sure, but you could say that about pretty much everyone in the AFC besides Cincy, Jacksonville, and the Jets.  It's a league of parity so of course they're not that far away; but it's not like they're that close, either.  Even with Watson I'd probably pick them no higher than 5th or 6th.  I'm still not sold on Flores and I'm definitely not sold on the front office.  Offensive line play is too important in this league to have them much higher than that.

2 hours ago, jmac+djaxallday said:

NeSure, but you could say that about pretty much everyone in the AFC besides Cincy, Jacksonville, and the Jets.  It's a league of parity so of course they're not that far away; but it's not like they're that close, either.  Even with Watson I'd probably pick them no higher than 5th or 6th.  I'm still not sold on Flores and I'm definitely not sold on the front office.  Offensive line play is too important in this league to have them much higher than that.

So you’re saying they are close to the other true contenders but getting a top 10 QB isn’t enough to put them on the level below the chiefs with the bills, Ravens, colts, Titans and browns? They won 10 games with Fitzpatrick and a crappy rookie tua along with a below average oline starting 3 rookies. If they have watson they are significantly upgrading at QB. If they have Watson, I’d take the chiefs and possibly the bills depending on if Allen can replicate his 2020 year over them. other than that i think with watson a top 6 QB they are better or equal to the browns, ravens, titans and colts in the afc (colts could be better depending on what the hell wentz is). browns, Titans and colts don’t have as good of a defense only Baltimore, none have as good of special teams and none would have a better QBs if watson was on Miami. 

watson isn’t some small upgrade at QB.  It’s going from like 22nd to 27th best quarterback (even worse with tua) in the league to a top seven quarterback. That is a massive upgrade

as for the oline I’m guessing the 3 rookies in 2020 they picked somewhat high last year (Austin jackson in the first, Robert hunt in the second and Solomon Kindley in the 4th) probably improve since they’re not going through a pandemic offseason and had an off-season with the team. And not rookies. And they added in the draft again and FA

6 hours ago, bpac55 said:

Back to the RB competition.  If the reports are true that Jordan Howard is healthy and dare I say in the best shape of his life, he needs to be RB2 without questions.  Heck, a healthy, best shape of his life Howard could push Miles Sanders to be RB1.  It's easy to forget how good Howard was his first few years.  It seems to me that Boston Scott is RB2 by default for the time being.  No disrespect to Scott, who can do some OK things, but a healthy Howard, heck a healthy Kerryon Johnson should be ahead of him on the depth chart.

I'm excited to see these guys in live games.

A 100% Jordan Howard is probably the best RB on the team. Unfortunately, he will likely never get back to that point. If he can at least stay healthy I think he would be a good #2. Boston Scott is a fine 3rd option but idk if I would ever really consider him as a #2.

Whichever of Johnson/Howard looks better will probably be #2, Scott #3 and maybe gainwell or Huntley makes it on ST. I don't really see a scenario where they keep both Johnson and Howard unless they don't mind playing a lot of ST

5 hours ago, schuy7 said:

Part of the reason for the Steelers' drop rates being a little high is because the whole league knew Pittsburgh wanted to throw short on pretty much every play. Every pass was highly contested.

That brings into question what statisticians do and do not consider a drop.  If it’s a contested pass, I wouldn’t call it a drop.   

Scott doesn’t have quite as much wiggle as he led us to believe with some of his Giants matchups in 2019.  Still, he seems to have the ingredients of an acceptable 3rd down scatback.  He goes off the rails when Sanders is injured and they ask him to be a 3 down rb.

Scott can be used in the offense, but his problem is the actual backup part of being the backup rb.  Even if he gets the 2nd most touches in the rotation, someone else needs to leapfrog him when Sanders goes down.   

14 hours ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I think Washington needs badly to find their long term answer at QB. I actually think that team has the potential to be extremely good if they found it. They have weapons on offense with mclaurin, Samuel, gibson and Logan Thomas. Oline could use some help but their defense has the chance to be very good. 

Washington the receiver 

6 hours ago, devpool said:

A 100% Jordan Howard is probably the best RB on the team. Unfortunately, he will likely never get back to that point. If he can at least stay healthy I think he would be a good #2. Boston Scott is a fine 3rd option but idk if I would ever really consider him as a #2.

Whichever of Johnson/Howard looks better will probably be #2, Scott #3 and maybe gainwell or Huntley makes it on ST. I don't really see a scenario where they keep both Johnson and Howard unless they don't mind playing a lot of ST

Im sure one if not more will be injured by week 1. Hate to say it but Sanders/Howard and Johnson don;t have the greatest track record. Im sure it would be Sanders, Johnson, Gainwell and Scott. But for sure Howard will be on speed dial. Only way I see Huntley making the team is if there are multiple injuries before the cuts, he is used more as a WR option and bumps someone else out or if Scott is traded. 

18 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Scott needs to be a return guy or PS guy.  He shouldn’t be getting many touches.  We can do better.  Or at least we should do better.  

As far as I'm concerned he can play against the Giants and that's it.

15 hours ago, bpac55 said:

Back to the RB competition.  If the reports are true that Jordan Howard is healthy and dare I say in the best shape of his life, he needs to be RB2 without questions.  Heck, a healthy, best shape of his life Howard could push Miles Sanders to be RB1.  It's easy to forget how good Howard was his first few years.  It seems to me that Boston Scott is RB2 by default for the time being.  No disrespect to Scott, who can do some OK things, but a healthy Howard, heck a healthy Kerryon Johnson should be ahead of him on the depth chart.

I'm excited to see these guys in live games.

Not feeling all the Boston Scott hate.

Dude ave 4.7 yards/ carry had 25 catches all as a backup with limited touches so what's the problem???

What are people expecting from a back up RB???

From reports at camp sounds like Scott is getting the most touches and run with the 1st team other than Sanders, seems the coaches like him and why not???

Guy isn't an all pro and last I checked most teams don't have an all pro RB on the bench.

So again why all the Scott bashing???

1 hour ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Scott needs to be a return guy or PS guy.  He shouldn’t be getting many touches.  We can do better.  Or at least we should do better.  

I expect about 2 peak years from anyone at the RB position at this point.

The exceptions to that rule and the RBs who get offenses built around them are even worse...then you build your offense around an entity that will be expired a couple years into a very long deal.  But I digress; this is about backup RB's.

Because you generally get 2 peak years from RB's, backups are generally 1 of the following:

1.  Players with prior productivity and name recognition who have clearly exceeded their expiration date as primary backs. (Howard)

2.  Players early on rookie deals from later rounds who have surprised a bit and are very effective in their role.  

3. Players later on rookie deals from later rounds who are just hanging on as situational depth.  (Scott, although not drafted)

4.  Players drafted later or signed for less for a specific, limited role as scatbacks.  (Tarik Cohen, Pumphrey)

5.  Players on teams with idiot GM's who invest high draft picks in their #2 backs.

 

Much like a MLB bullpen, I just don't think it's an area worth investing in until your franchise has a winning foundation.

7 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Not feeling all the Boston Scott hate.

Dude ave 4.7 yards/ carry had 25 catches all as a backup with limited touches so what's the problem???

What are people expecting from a back up RB???

From reports at camp sounds like Scott is getting the most touches and run with the 1st team other than Sanders, seems the coaches like him and why not???

Guy isn't an all pro and last I checked most teams don't have an all pro RB on the bench.

So again why all the Scott bashing???

I'm *fine* with Scott.  He's had his moments.  New HC and scheme or not, he's one of the veteran RB's in the room with experience playing in green.  He's going to bring a comfort level for the coaches that Gainwell, Huntley, and Kerryon Johnson will not.

Now, if the rest of the roster were rocking and ready to go...and Scott was our primary backup RB and primary 3rd down guy, then I might have some reservations.

But Scott won't even be on this roster in 2 years when this really matters.

15 hours ago, Alphagrand said:

I like Jordan Howard, but you might be drinking some I need to find a new cliche here:

Lol I didn't know they brought that over to the new board as well

45 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Not feeling all the Boston Scott hate.

Dude ave 4.7 yards/ carry had 25 catches all as a backup with limited touches so what's the problem???

What are people expecting from a back up RB???

From reports at camp sounds like Scott is getting the most touches and run with the 1st team other than Sanders, seems the coaches like him and why not???

Guy isn't an all pro and last I checked most teams don't have an all pro RB on the bench.

So again why all the Scott bashing???

Because context matters.

Scott had 374 rushing and 212 receiving on the year. He had 1 rushing and 1 receiving TD.

The problem aren't the numbers themselves, but the big picture. Scott had a three game stretch against a pitiful Giants team and an even worse Dallas defence. Over those three games, in total, he had:

30 carries for 179 and 1 TD (5.96 ypc)
6 receptions for 66 yards and 1 TD (11 y/r)

He had almost half of his rushing yards in those three games, a large chunk of his receiving yards and scored his only two touchdowns of the season.

He had a stretch of games where he had:

8 carries for 13 yards over 4 games.

10 carries for 22 yards over 4 games.

Half the season. 18 carries for 35 yards.

That's why he gets hate. He can have a great game or he's utter garbage. There's no in between and there's far more garbage than there is good. He's Wendell Smallwood.

 

 

2 hours ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Scott needs to be a return guy or PS guy.  He shouldn’t be getting many touches.  We can do better.  Or at least we should do better.  

Sure.  Scott 4.7 yards a carry with Herbig and Pryor at G should be a PS player.  70% catch rate with zero drops should sit the pine.  JFC that’s observant.  

IMO, the ideal RB stable consists of 3 oft-used backs.  2 well rounded backs whose biggest flaw and reason they arent more expensive "franchise backs" is that they lean a little bit more towards the "dangerous in space" end of the spectrum instead of big and bruising.  They keep each other fresh.  One scatback who picks up blitzers well for his limited size, is active in the passing game, and makes people miss.

Of those 3, the lightly used scatback generally has the best longevity and is the one you can get a modest, but multi-year deal.  The other 2...just keep churning and burning them with 3-5th round picks on rookie deals.

On a good team, Scott is a viable third or fourth back. He has value. He does some things well. If he were released, he would certainly be picked up by another team, and they'd probably be pleased with what he provides for them.

But he's not really what you're looking for in a "number two" back. If you're Darren Sproles (which he clearly is NOT, metaphorically speaking), you can have a guy that tiny in that role. But right now, the Eagles should be looking for someone better, and bigger, than Scott to be the primary backup and semi-important contributor.

1 minute ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

On a good team, Scott is a viable third or fourth back. He has value. He does some things well. If he were released, he would certainly be picked up by another team, and they'd probably be pleased with what he provides for them.

But he's not really what you're looking for in a "number two" back. If you're Darren Sproles (which he clearly is NOT, metaphorically speaking), you can have a guy that tiny in that role. But right now, the Eagles should be looking for someone better, and bigger, than Scott to be the primary backup and semi-important contributor.

While obviously not as good or dangerous, I'd argue that both Scott and Sproles are similar in that neither should be a "number two" back.  Sproles was at his best in a specific role in the offense.  While that role may line up in the same position as any RB, it's as different from the primary RB as the slot WR is from the Z.  

The Eagles got themselves into trouble with both Sproles and Scott when the primary backs got hurt and they were inserted into those roles.  Sproles/Scott are players who need to keep their same role when the starter goes down; it should be for someone else to step up.

 

Addendum....I am referring to vintage Sproles.  Sproles truly stole money from the Eagles for a few years and was not as good as Scott is now during much of his time here.

 

47 minutes ago, Swoop said:

Because context matters.

Scott had 374 rushing and 212 receiving on the year. He had 1 rushing and 1 receiving TD.

The problem aren't the numbers themselves, but the big picture. Scott had a three game stretch against a pitiful Giants team and an even worse Dallas defence. Over those three games, in total, he had:

30 carries for 179 and 1 TD (5.96 ypc)
6 receptions for 66 yards and 1 TD (11 y/r)

He had almost half of his rushing yards in those three games, a large chunk of his receiving yards and scored his only two touchdowns of the season.

He had a stretch of games where he had:

8 carries for 13 yards over 4 games.

10 carries for 22 yards over 4 games.

Half the season. 18 carries for 35 yards.

That's why he gets hate. He can have a great game or he's utter garbage. There's no in between and there's far more garbage than there is good. He's Wendell Smallwood.

 

 

You mean super bowl winning Wendell Smallwood😉