16 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

That question may have been asked.  But it is possible that there was conversation about collaboration and teamwork.   No one expects Nick to perform data analysis but use the information, sure.  He should not be expected to do all scouting, but he should have significant input into how the information is used.  The question may have been worded a bit differently with a focus on roles, responsibilities, vision, collaboration and areas of authority and accountability.  Most interviews do that.  Full control?   Does that mean spend anything you want with no budget controls?  Performance reviews based only on when and how or if you want to do them? Uncapped raises?  Write your own contracts with customers?   

I expect Nick has more autonomy than recognized.   I do believe the Eagles favor collaboration.   But being a yes man isn’t collaboration.  

Yeah, why? I mean if you have full control you should  know how to decide what kind of money you can spend and still be profitable. I'm not a monkey flinging poo

1 hour ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Agreed on DeFilippo.  I'm not sure how much they really tried to replace that triumvirate though.  No one came in from the outside within that sphere until last season... and that just looked like a mess of organization.  No real chain of command...

I think that goes to a lack of knowledge of other coaches by Pederson.  I wonder if his TC visits this year go towards trying to correct that flaw.  Howie and Lurie catch grief on directing Pederson on coaches but I think blame goes to all three.  I think it was an overreach but also brought about by ineffective decisions by Pederson. Some of that looked like impatience on the part of Lurie and Howie.  Basically, desperation driven by an aging Super Bowl roster.  The last thing Lurie needs is a brown noser, and the moves regarding assistant coaches suggest that Howie is one.

As far as full control by a coach. I think everyone in the room would understand what that means

12 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

I think the starters have played more this preseason than in Doug's tenure.  It seems to be an organizational philosophy rather than limited to Sirianni.

I always thought it was a mistake and contributed to the Eagles early season (and all season) rash of injuries -- expecting guys to go from 0-100 miles per hour in Week 1.  We'll see how the injury report looks after Week 3 or 4 this season.

Depends on what your defining "starters" as. Just in 2019 Jenkins and Graham said they wanted to play preseason snaps. They and most of the starting defense played 13 snaps in Game 2 and 14 snaps in Game 3. So far Graham and the defensive starters have played 8 this year. 

6 minutes ago, greend said:

As far as full control by a coach. I think everyone in the room would understand what that means

Nobody is saying the coach should be the GM, but the coach has to put the best 46 guys on the field, and should have the final say on the 53 man roster.  If guys 47-53 are decided by the GM, and they are not the same 47-53 that the coach wants, it handicaps what he can do.

59 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

I know.  Creepy isn't it?

 

Only if you tell him to stop and he doesn't it. 

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Depends on what your defining "starters" as. Just in 2019 Jenkins and Graham said they wanted to play preseason snaps. They and most of the starting defense played 13 snaps in Game 2 and 14 snaps in Game 3. So far Graham and the defensive starters have played 8 this year. 

True enough; I guess my thoughts were more on the offensive side of the ball.  It seemed like the first team offense was hardly seen out there at all.

12 minutes ago, nipples said:

Teams have always rested starters in the final preseason game for as long as I can remember.  The only reason people are making a big deal about it is because game 3 is now the last game instead of game 4. 

@4for4EaglesNest here is your "and I am sure there is more"

It is a big deal because Hurts has played two series in the preseason, and when he gets on the field week 1, it will have been 31 days since he has taken a snap in a game.

10 minutes ago, downundermike said:

You are correct, my bad, it was Barnett that was drafted way higher than his projection.  As I was looking back, I saw some rankings and mocks that had Barnett as a late 20's / early 2nd rounder.  Jones was considered a top 20 pick before the injury.  But I think he wow'd in his pro day leading up to getting hurt, and that is what I was thinking about.  As a Pac-10 area fan of WSU, I personally was never that impressed with Jones.  

And the board in a pretty strong majority wanted Alvin Kamara.

Not sure where this is coming from. Barnett when right around when he was mocked to go. 

Some mock drafts from 2017:

Taken 11th by New Orleans in these three  - https://www.espn.com/nfl/draft2017/story/_/id/19241424/2017-nfl-nation-mock-draft-cleveland-browns-get-myles-garrett-texas-aggies-mitchell-trubisky-north-carolina-tar-heels

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/2017-nfl-mock-draft-three-round-mock-includes-15-trades-seven-quarterbacks/amp/

https://www.si.com/.amp/nfl/2017/04/12/nfl-mock-draft-round-1-picks-projections

Went 15th to Indy in this one:

https://www.theringer.com/platform/amp/2017/4/26/16038106/nfl-mock-draft-2017-myles-garrett-deshaun-watson-debf9d62a79f

 Don’t have the link at the moment but I remember Daniel Jeremiah correctly mocked Barnett to the Eagles at 14

 

1 minute ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

No.  The only reason/s people are making a big deal out of this is:

- The first team has played a total of what, 10 snaps?

- They have had soft, short practices.

- Other more established teams have had real practices and have had their first team getting more reps in previous pre-season games.

- There is more than 2 weeks from the opening game.

- We essentially have a rookie starting QB, with a rookie HC and new coaches all across the board.

- There is a young WR core, with a 1st rounder who has barely been on the same GAME field with said QB.

- Week 1 is winnable...if you're prepared.

- This team will see a rash of injuries because they will not be in game shape

 

 

I'm sure there is more.  

Noticed how you tried to slip in a prediction there at the end.

Nothing gets by the Fact Police.

Just now, greend said:

Yeah, why? I mean if you have full control you should  know how to decide what kind of money you can spend and still be profitable. I'm not a monkey flinging poo

Impressive level of control.  

There really is no justification for resting starters tonight just because it's the last preseason game. If this were a year ago (if their was a preseason) it would be the equivalent of playing Preseason game 3 where most of the starters play. They have 16 days after tonight until the first real game. 

3 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

No.  The only reason/s people are making a big deal out of this is:

- The first team has played a total of what, 10 snaps?

- They have had soft, short practices.

- Other more established teams have had real practices and have had their first team getting more reps in previous pre-season games.

- There is more than 2 weeks from the opening game.

- We essentially have a rookie starting QB, with a rookie HC and new coaches all across the board.

- There is a young WR core, with a 1st rounder who has barely been on the same GAME field with said QB.

- Week 1 is winnable...if you're prepared.

- This team will see a rash of injuries because they will not be in game shape

 

 

I'm sure there is more.  

Ah I see. The difference I guess then is that this entire season is an evaluation in my mind. They are not going to be a good team. They have 17 weeks of regular season to evaluate every single player. So yeah, I don’t much care about what they do in week 3 of the preseason.  

6 minutes ago, downundermike said:

@4for4EaglesNest here is your "and I am sure there is more"

It is a big deal because Hurts has played two series in the preseason, and when he gets on the field week 1, it will have been 31 days since he has taken a snap in a game.

Like I said in my post above, you clearly have a different expectation for this season than I do. They are going to be BAD, and won’t be anywhere near a playoff team. They have 17 regular season games to evaluate everyone, so I really couldn’t care less about week 3 or preseason. 

I would have been fine if they had rested the 1s on Defense and let Hurts and co. play for just a quarter.

I think the verdict on this will be seen when we play the Falcons.

But hey, it's a discussion board, so judge away!

7 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

True enough; I guess my thoughts were more on the offensive side of the ball.  It seemed like the first team offense was hardly seen out there at all.

Yea, offense was different. Wentz/Johnson/Brooks didnt play at all. The rest barely played. It was mostly the Mailata/Pryor/McCown show.

Just now, LeanMeanGM said:

Yea, offense was different. Wentz/Johnson/Brooks didnt play at all. The rest barely played. It was mostly the Mailata/Pryor/McCown show.

When did they re-sign McCown?

10 minutes ago, nipples said:

Teams have always rested starters in the final preseason game for as long as I can remember.  The only reason people are making a big deal about it is because game 3 is now the last game instead of game 4. 

Conversely starters have usually played most of the 3rd game especially since they essentially had the week off for game 4.  If the preseason helps  preparing the starters by having game situations, they are not going to be as prepared as they should be.  The argument for rest is that pre-season isn't about preparation but about assessing the bottom of the roster.  We have seen the Eagles look fantastic in pre-season games only to go out and look terrible during the regular season.  The games don't matter but what could matter is whether it helps prepare the team for real games.  

Just now, NCiggles said:

Conversely starters have usually played most of the 3rd game especially since they essentially had the week off for game 4.  If the preseason helps  preparing the starters by having game situations, they are not going to be as prepared as they should be.  The argument for rest is that pre-season isn't about preparation but about assessing the bottom of the roster.  We have seen the Eagles look fantastic in pre-season games only to go out and look terrible during the regular season.  The games don't matter but what could matter is whether it helps prepare the team for real games.  

They’ll be lucky to win 6 games regardless. They have 17 regular season games to evaluate and develop the players for the future. The coaches and players of course should TRY to win, but I can say that for me this entire year is about evaluation. 

17 minutes ago, greend said:

Yeah, why? I mean if you have full control you should  know how to decide what kind of money you can spend and still be profitable. I'm not a monkey flinging poo

I mean... that's your story, but I think we are going to need to have a bit more evidence of this.  

We do have footage of you at work...

10 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Impressive level of control.  

Yeah, you only know me as a goof on a message board. In real life I'm like responsible and stuff. 

5 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

I would have been fine if they had rested the 1s on Defense and let Hurts and co. play for just a quarter.

I think the verdict on this will be seen when we play the Falcons.

But hey, it's a discussion board, so judge away!

I judge that usernames that include the state in which the poster resides are far better than ones that do not.  

Just now, 4for4EaglesNest said:

I thought it was about "competing" and getting better by 1% everyday.  I am sure the FO is not wanting to show their offense tonight because of "evaluation".  

I doubt very seriously that Lurie will have his press conference in the next week or so and talk about "evaluating", as being the goal of the 2021 season.  Hell who knows if even talks about football.  Last year he was on his social justice and pandemic soap box during the start of the season presser.  

 

I didn’t say it is what the coaches or Lurie will (or should) be publicly saying. But as a fan, I really don’t care much about the win total this year. It’s all about eval and development. They’ll never say it, but deep down even the coaching staff has got to see that they simply don’t have enough talent to work with yet to truly be competitive. 

21 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

I think that goes to a lack of knowledge of other coaches by Pederson.  I wonder if his TC visits this year go towards trying to correct that flaw.  Howie and Lurie catch grief on directing Pederson on coaches but I think blame goes to all three.  I think it was an overreach but also brought about by ineffective decisions by Pederson. Some of that looked like impatience on the part of Lurie and Howie.  Basically, desperation driven by an aging Super Bowl roster.  The last thing Lurie needs is a brown noser, and the moves regarding assistant coaches suggest that Howie is one.

That's one way of looking at it.  The other side is the timing of the Reich move really screwed them.  I think the bigger issue was more related to the excessive loyalty shown.. we have seen this as an organizational milieu... especially after the Super Bowl.

18 minutes ago, downundermike said:

Nobody is saying the coach should be the GM, but the coach has to put the best 46 guys on the field, and should have the final say on the 53 man roster.  If guys 47-53 are decided by the GM, and they are not the same 47-53 that the coach wants, it handicaps what he can do.

Those last few spots should be a collaborative effort amongst the GM and coaching staff, but the HC should have final say.  The GM should have final control of the 90 brought to camp... after that, its up to the coach to get the best out of them.