49 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Landon Dickerson: People mover. 

This matches the eye test for Dickerson. Crossing my fingers he stays healthy.

Happy for Ereck Flowers and Justin Pugh. Those guys were total punching bags with the Giants. Glad they turned it around (although I hope Cox, Hargrave, and Williams demolish Flowers in a few weeks).

7 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

and again, none of that stops me from trying. I'd take any of those three for 5 years. And gaurantee we make the playoiffs every year, and have a legit shot each year!

Especially in our division. 

Funny, didn't Houston go 4-12 WITH Watson? And this year they may win 4 games without Watson (more if Tyrod had stayed healthy).

4 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

and again, none of that stops me from trying. I'd take any of those three for 5 years. And gaurantee we make the playoiffs every year, and have a legit shot each year!

Especially in our division. 

What would you give up to obtain one of those 3 guys? 3 firsts? That pretty much screws the rest of the team. So we go 9-8, 10-7 and lose in the playoffs. Is that what you want? And, Watson and Wilson are no guarantee of playoffs....Wilson looks washed, and Watson had a spotty record with Houston, nevermind his legal issues.

It's fun to just repeat over and over "FRANCHISE QB!!" but you have to be realistic. There's about 25 other teams looking for a franchise QB as well. The Eagles don't exist in some vacuum where they can just get anybody they want. If the cost is right to obtain one of the three vets, then go for it. If your scouts think a guy in the draft is worth taking, then go for it. If neither thing happens, then you're probably looking at the Carr's of free agency to help for a year while we build up the rest of the roster. Yes, we need a franchise QB....but the cost of obtaining one isn't necessarily a given. And the NFL is a wild place, you never know what will happen next year. One positive of Howie is that he is aggressive at making trades, so if he thinks he can get a franchise QB, he's certainly not afraid to go after it. 

You don't HAVE to draft or acquire a QB this off season. Sure, it could increase the chances of the Eagles playing better next year but for the long term future it might be best to sit this off season out on QB's.

This team is not a top QB away from going deep into the playoffs.

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Yes, the Eagles will be in a tough spot without a QB... but overpaying for the wrong one is even worse than not having one. 

Forcing a QB is the worst decision. 

The absolute ideal scenario for us this year is to deal one of our firsts for a late round first this year, plus a first next year. Yes, you need a partner to do that, but draft day trades are a pretty common thing these days, and teams love to overpay for draft hype. We just need a team to fall in love with a prospect who falls a bit. It may not happen, but to have 5 firsts over 2 years would go an extremely long way in rebuilding this team into a contender. You could then use the two firsts next year to go after whatever QB is the flavour of the year if you want. 

4 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Is it?  A 38 year old disgruntled QB that thinks he's bigger than his coach... that will mesh with Sirianni?  

A 33 year old QB with aging legs, and a wonky finger on his throwing hand, with a no trade clause and gets to decide where he wants to go?

A 27 year old QB with a laundry list of issues, not the least of which is his legal issues, but also his entitlement in having a say in the GM and HC of the team he no longer wants to play for?   

 

Hard pass even if one of them wanted to come here... but I don't think the Eagles are at the top of any of their lists.  And I'd love to see a single precedent of a team making a move even remotely close to this and having it pay off?   Any team give up 3 first round picks for a QB at the top of the pay scale and end up hoisting the Lombardi?  

I know my opinion isn't popular. Mainly because I am telling everyone we have no shot at really competing if we dont have a Franchise QB, and that means we really have no shot the next few years.

 

However, you asked, so take The Bucs, great example. Got a franchise QB (albeit the GOAT) and went straight to the SB. SO you cant say it never happened. 

Bottom line is, when you lack a franchise QB, you lack a chance to compete in the playoffs. PERIOD. News flash we dont have one, and there doesn't apear to be one avail in the 2022 draft class. And this is when we have the capital to make it happen. Now. When have we ever had 3 potential first rd picks? We wont have them next year, and in our pittiful division, if we do upgrade our defense this year in the draft, then next year we likely have 1 mid first rd pick, no where near a top pick or enough capital to get there.

I mean we had a franchise QB, and we drove him out of town, I can see why others may not be interested in playing here. BUt That doesn't stop me from trying. 

5 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Really, tell that to Nick Foles, Flacco, Eli, etc. None who I'd consider "franchise QBs." Heck I don't consider McNabb one. Delhomme and Hasselback got to the SB. Just need a good defense and an average QB having a good game to win.

Outside of a handful of elite QBs, the rest of the top 15-20 are pretty interchangeable, they have a great season or two, some good seasons, some putrid seasons.

So a guy on the edge of the top 20 with the right supporting cast can outperform a top 10 guy a lot of seasons.

"Build it and they will come." Build a team that consistently wins 10-12 games, and a top veteran QB will consider you a prime landing spot.

LOL, yes by all means pick out the few outliers that have won a SB.  Then go back and see how many SB's were won by teams with Eliete QB's. News flash : The majority. 

You don't force it and do something like trade a 2nd for Sam Darnold, but you also can't be afraid to pay a premium price and take a shot at someone. You identify your QB whether it be draft, FA or trade and you do what it takes to get him (reasonably speaking). 

3 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Funny, didn't Houston go 4-12 WITH Watson? And this year they may win 4 games without Watson (more if Tyrod had stayed healthy).

The Texans have improved from 30th last year to 8th in defensive DVOA. They are 32nd in offense this year.

3 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

Wilson and Watson wont be a locked to win this division was my point. 

wow have you seen this division play? We easily win last sunday even with Baker Mayfield, imagine having Rodgers dish the ball to Smith and Goedert? 

8 minutes ago, wussbasket said:

You don't HAVE to draft or acquire a QB this off season. Sure, it could increase the chances of the Eagles playing better next year but for the long term future it might be best to sit this off season out on QB's.

This team is not a top QB away from going deep into the playoffs.

When you have great lines, you're really a few signings/picks away from a great team. I think it's fair to say adding a great QB to this group would make the Eagles a playoff threat.

But yeah, you can't be reckless or commit to a draft pick just to do it. Gotta be sold he's the QB long-term.

So, if I get this straight... adding Rodgers, Wilson or Watson immediately makes this team a legit contender... except for the fact that: 

2 out of the last 4 seasons, the Packers missed the playoffs with Rodgers at QB.  Looks like they will go back this year.

Last 4 seasons with Wilson, Seahawks have missed the playoffs once, lost in the Wild Card round twice and only beaten the Eagles in the WC round when Wentz was knocked out on a cheap shot and the 40 year old McNown ripped his hamstring off the bone.  And this year with Wilson, they have a losing record are likely to miss the playoffs again.

Last 4 seasons with Watson, Houston missed the playoffs twice, Lost in the Wild Card round once (scoring only 7 points), and advanced to the divisional round once.  

 

None of these track records says to me that any of the three of them can carry a bad roster to contention on their own.   Seems to me that all of them need pieces around them to really be contenders every year.

6 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

What would you give up to obtain one of those 3 guys? 3 firsts? That pretty much screws the rest of the team. So we go 9-8, 10-7 and lose in the playoffs. Is that what you want? And, Watson and Wilson are no guarantee of playoffs....Wilson looks washed, and Watson had a spotty record with Houston, nevermind his legal issues.

It's fun to just repeat over and over "FRANCHISE QB!!" but you have to be realistic. There's about 25 other teams looking for a franchise QB as well. The Eagles don't exist in some vacuum where they can just get anybody they want. If the cost is right to obtain one of the three vets, then go for it. If your scouts think a guy in the draft is worth taking, then go for it. If neither thing happens, then you're probably looking at the Carr's of free agency to help for a year while we build up the rest of the roster. Yes, we need a franchise QB....but the cost of obtaining one isn't necessarily a given. And the NFL is a wild place, you never know what will happen next year. One positive of Howie is that he is aggressive at making trades, so if he thinks he can get a franchise QB, he's certainly not afraid to go after it. 

Wait, you think giving up the 3 firsts we have this year would screw the team for years to come? Normally if you give up 3 firsts you are giving up 3 years of first rd draft choices. Not so this year. 

Wilson has a horrible Oline this year, Yes I think he would flourish here. Watson is less of a sure thing. My list would start at Rodgers, Wilson and then Watson. 

1 minute ago, Ipiggles said:

Wait, you think giving up the 3 firsts we have this year would screw the team for years to come? Normally if you give up 3 firsts you are giving up 3 years of first rd draft choices. Not so this year. 

Wilson has a horrible Oline this year, Yes I think he would flourish here. Watson is less of a sure thing. My list would start at Rodgers, Wilson and then Watson. 

Our defense has been ignored for so long, it's become like a 50 year old woman's uterus....completely barren and without life. We need to infuse it with young talent. It happens to be a draft which has lots of talented defensive players available in the first round. It's a perfect marriage for us. 

Just now, Iggles_Phan said:

So, if I get this straight... adding Rodgers, Wilson or Watson immediately makes this team a legit contender... except for the fact that: 

2 out of the last 4 seasons, the Packers missed the playoffs with Rodgers at QB.  Looks like they will go back this year.

Last 4 seasons with Wilson, Seahawks have missed the playoffs once, lost in the Wild Card round twice and only beaten the Eagles in the WC round when Wentz was knocked out on a cheap shot and the 40 year old McNown ripped his hamstring off the bone.  And this year with Wilson, they have a losing record are likely to miss the playoffs again.

Last 4 seasons with Watson, Houston missed the playoffs twice, Lost in the Wild Card round once (scoring only 7 points), and advanced to the divisional round once.  

 

None of these track records says to me that any of the three of them can carry a bad roster to contention on their own.   Seems to me that all of them need pieces around them to really be contenders every year.

We will agree to dissagree.

 

Yes I think any of those 3 Qb's would raise the level of QB play on our team to put us into the playoffs. Maybe you think Hurts has been good this year? I dont. He has been horrible. The only thing he has been good at is running the ball.

 

 

Just now, TorontoEagle said:

Our defense has been ignored for so long, it's become like a 50 year old woman's uterus....completely barren and without life. We need to infuse it with young talent. It happens to be a draft which has lots of talented defensive players available in the first round. It's a perfect marriage for us. 

And we would still be able to, we would have every pick from the 2nd round on this year and all our picks next year, and still have a franchise QB. 

whats not to like. 

 

Well Howie is drafting sooo.... 

I knew it wouldn't be popular. But it's the way I see it. No Franchise QB, means you are spinning your wheels. Yes we may not get one, but you have to TRY when you have the ammo. 

 

You miss 100% of the shots you dont take. 

11 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

I know my opinion isn't popular. Mainly because I am telling everyone we have no shot at really competing if we dont have a Franchise QB, and that means we really have no shot the next few years.

 

However, you asked, so take The Bucs, great example. Got a franchise QB (albeit the GOAT) and went straight to the SB. SO you cant say it never happened. 

Bottom line is, when you lack a franchise QB, you lack a chance to compete in the playoffs. PERIOD. News flash we dont have one, and there doesn't apear to be one avail in the 2022 draft class. And this is when we have the capital to make it happen. Now. When have we ever had 3 potential first rd picks? We wont have them next year, and in our pittiful division, if we do upgrade our defense this year in the draft, then next year we likely have 1 mid first rd pick, no where near a top pick or enough capital to get there.

I mean we had a franchise QB, and we drove him out of town, I can see why others may not be interested in playing here. BUt That doesn't stop me from trying. 

Yes, a lot of people agree that they won't be competitive for a few years. Howie has put them in this situation.

 

The Bucs also brought in Grownkowski, Antonio Brown, Leonard Forunette, JPP, Suh, and several others. The Eagles are absolutely nowhere near that talent level. They didn't have the team set and just add a QB. They added a TON of talent in FA.

 

Your entire argument is that you should swing for the fences every year you don't have a franchise QB. That is a terrible long term strategy and how you become the browns.

 

11 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

I know my opinion isn't popular. Mainly because I am telling everyone we have no shot at really competing if we dont have a Franchise QB, and that means we really have no shot the next few years.

 

However, you asked, so take The Bucs, great example. Got a franchise QB (albeit the GOAT) and went straight to the SB. SO you cant say it never happened. 

Bottom line is, when you lack a franchise QB, you lack a chance to compete in the playoffs. PERIOD. News flash we dont have one, and there doesn't apear to be one avail in the 2022 draft class. And this is when we have the capital to make it happen. Now. When have we ever had 3 potential first rd picks? We wont have them next year, and in our pittiful division, if we do upgrade our defense this year in the draft, then next year we likely have 1 mid first rd pick, no where near a top pick or enough capital to get there.

I mean we had a franchise QB, and we drove him out of town, I can see why others may not be interested in playing here. BUt That doesn't stop me from trying. 

The Bucs got Brady thru free agency didn't they? So they didn't have to pay diddly squat

The difference between most QBs in terms of creating offense (not stats) isn't that great.

Eagles are 12th in points per game (15th offense at 23 ppg), 14th in total yards, that's with Hurts, without Ertz, inexperienced WR group and 2 starters and a key backup injured on the OL.

Packers with Rodgers are scoring the same per game.

TB 30 ppg, Bills 28.0 ppg, Bengals 27.5, Rams 27.2, Colts 27.1, Zona 26.7, Dallas 26.4, KC 25 ppg on offense, so there's not a huge scoring gap.

A gap that could be closed with just adding 2-3 studs on defense.

9 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

wonder what it would take to get Carr out of Vegas. 

If you can keep your 3 first rounders this year, and get carr to be close to a top 10ish QB you could defiantly make some waves. 

Yup Carr is solid, not sure what Raiders would ask for a 31 year old Carr on last year of contract.

Carr reminds me a lot of cousins in that he puts up lots of yards not lots of tds or wins.

12 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

LOL, yes by all means pick out the few outliers that have won a SB.  Then go back and see how many SB's were won by teams with Eliete QB's. News flash : The majority. 

Take Brady out of that sample and get back to me. Unless you think you're gonna find the next Brady.

2 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

The Bucs got Brady thru free agency didn't they? So they didn't have to pay diddly squat

The Bucs also didn't have 3 first rd picks to give, like we do. 

6 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

I know my opinion isn't popular. Mainly because I am telling everyone we have no shot at really competing if we dont have a Franchise QB, and that means we really have no shot the next few years.

 

However, you asked, so take The Bucs, great example. Got a franchise QB (albeit the GOAT) and went straight to the SB. SO you cant say it never happened. 

I was waiting for you to take that bait.  That's a COMPLETELY different scenario.  How much draft capital did the Bucs give up to grab him?   

 

Exactly ZERO.  They signed him as a FREE AGENT.  Which means that they only had to pay his contract.  Then you look at his contract, and see that he's the 15th! Highest paid QB in the league, and that Watson is under contract for MUCH MORE, and that Wilson and Rodgers are basically rentals... and then you have to franchise or renegotiate new higher deals.  

Watson: 

 

Wilson:

He'd be 'cheap' comparatively, but would likely require a new contract and won't be signing cheaply...  Likely looking at $35M-$40M for him.

 

Rodgers:

One year left... he's a rental... what will it cost in draft capital to rent him for 1 year?

 

 

The Tom Brady move is so completely different from the acquisition of Rodgers, Wilson or Watson that it can't be compared at all.   If any of them were free agents and would only require signing them on the dotted line, that changes the entire dynamic of the conversation.  But, that's not the situation with those 3, so... hard pass.  None of them are worth the cost required for this franchise.  Let another team make that mistake.