Just now, LeanMeanGM said:

Step up and lead him to the back pylon. Not sure Hurts can actually do all that, but it was there. 

A Real NFL QB steps up and throws that ball to the pylon for a TD

6 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Do you know what this word means?  Because if you did, you would know that the ODDS are not in favor of another Foles winning the Super Bowl....FFS.  I wish dumb people would lose their internet connection.  

Have you ever taken a class in statistics? Since Foles, Eli, Flacco, won a SB, and a number of other similar QBs got to the SB and had a legitimate chance of winning, the odds of winning with less than a franchise QB are significantly greater than zero. Now what are the odds the Eagles land a HOF QB over the rest of this decade?

19 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I do not think they are but I could definitely see howie and Jeff thinking this way. And with 3 quarterbacks in Wilson, rodgers and watson on the trade market I can see them trying their damnedest to get one.

They are nearly a playoff team as is. If they had even slightly below average QB play, theyd be a lock for playoffs already.

Next year add 3 1sts, hopefully building the D. And they will be able to sign a few moderately priced FAs... theyll be improved. You add a QB to that equation...

1 hour 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. 

Alas, Afan thinks the plural of anecdote is data.

2 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Have you ever taken a class in statistics? Since Foles, Eli, Flacco, won a SB, and a number of other similar QBs got to the SB and had a legitimate chance of winning, the odds of winning with less than a franchise QB are significantly greater than zero. Now what are the odds the Eagles land a HOF QB over the rest of this decade?

Just so you know in 2017 in order to win that Super Bowl they needed Carson Wentz to play like an NFL MVP for 13 games. If Carson Wentz doesn’t play like an MVP for 13 games Nick Foles never happens. So your theory that is greater than zero, the Eagles still needed an MVP caliber quarterback for over 75% of the regular season to get them to the point where nick could find lightning in a bottle. So even in the Eagles Super Bowl run, they needed an NFL MVP type quarterback to put them in position for foles to do what he did.

As much as I love Nick Foles if he had to play all 16 games I don’t think the eagles win that Super Bowl because his i don’t believe he would sustained that throughout a season and he’s also shown to be injury prone. 

Sad story.

No relation to former NYG Otis Anderson. Took me a minute to figure that one out.

27 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

23 of 31 are hall of famers..... whats that 75%... I'm fairly sure you dont know what majority means. 

Tom Brady skews the numbers since he accounts for 1/3 of those.

Not to mention like I said Elway wasn't elite when he won his Superbowls, he was elite when he lost 3.

Aikman might be a HOF but come on, there are those that would argue he doesnt even belong in the HOF, he had an incredibly good team.

Peyton Manning did nothing in his last super bowl win nor most of that season.

 

Rothlisberger will most likely be in HOF and again he has the worst rating in a super bowl for a game winning QB.

Again Brady skews the " majority by alot" 

Take out Brady and it's not a majority,

It's a mish mash of once elite vets on their last legs, journey men, a one hit wonders that got hot at the right time and some really elite seasons by qbs.

22 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

You're splitting extreme hairs at this point. 

Game manager Elway and Peyton along with "quasi" rookie Big Ben would make this team a playoff team tomorrow and probably flirt with top 10 in this NFL,. 

Yes but that wasn't the argument.

The argument was one needs an elite QB to win.

I disagree as do you apparently

4 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

They are nearly a playoff team as is. If they had even slightly below average QB play, theyd be a lock for playoffs already.

Next year add 3 1sts, hopefully building the D. And they will be able to sign a few moderately priced FAs... theyll be improved. You add a QB to that equation...

If you are adding a Russell Wilson, Aaron Rodgers or Deshaun Watson you’re not having three first round picks to add. I think howie and lurie view it today that they are closer than what they originally thought at the beginning of the season. And would be willing to part with some of those picks to get that type of quarterback.

imo you are not gonna have three first round picks to spend and then be able to go get a quarterback like Russell Wilson or Aaron Rodgers or Deshaun Watson. You’re gonna have one or the other. So you’re either going to get one of those QBs (which is very unlikely in my opinion) or you’re gonna build up the roster and have to try to find a quarterback next year or hope hurts becomes that quarterback.

2 hours ago, Ipiggles said:

The problem with that thinking is: We dont know what that class will be like, and we dont know if we will be in a position to draft a good QB if there is one in 2023. And if we are not in position to draft them in 2023, then what? Will any QB's the likes of Rodgers, Wilson or Watson even be avail in 2023?   Was any avail last year? Not likely. 

 

It is a conundrum that's for sure. But here is the thing... Rodgers, Wilson and Watson are not turning this team in to a contender. Watson would be the best pick of the 3 but we all know his issues. Wilson would be an awful move. 

1 hour 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.

There's not an elite long-term solution available at QB either through the draft or via trade. To be a contender, the team needs a top 5 defensive unit.  They could make more progress in improving the defense next season by spending the three first round picks there instead of on a trade for a QB.  They could always trade up in the future with future picks.  

1 hour ago, austinfan said:

With 3 first rd picks, a high 2nd, and a bunch of lottery tickets in a deep draft, not that hard.

You don't need to add a bunch of all pros, just 4-5 guys who are athletic and not brain dead, a lot of building a defense is plugging weaknesses, other than a great DL, most defensive players can be schemed around (just don't throw at a top CB), but it's hard to hide glaring weaknesses. Like slow safeties and LBs who can't cover.

It is for Roseman who has had many  more than 3 firsts to work with.

6 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Howie doing the drafting....

What QB are you adding......?

Stop gap QBs I would add.  Mitch Trubisky, Jimmy Garoppolo, Tyrod Taylor, Mason Rudolph, Derek Carr, Easton Stick, Drew Lock, Case Keenum.

Nothing exciting but I think any of those QB could be acquired and would be a good bridge QB until there is one available in the draft. 

Looking at FA QBs....would any of these names intrigue you for a year or two?

Jameis

Teddy B

Mariota

Trubisky

Honestly....I'd take a shot on all but Mariota. Maybe not Teddy B, but he could be cheap. Winston also prob not, but again, could be cheap, on a one year prove it deal. And Trubisky is the most intriguing to me as far as cost/reward. 

9 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Howie doing the drafting....

What QB are you adding......?

I dont know if the right QB is out there this year. But the premise wasnt that none of these QBs can help. It was that we arent a QB away. 

To be fair however, it wouldnt be the only move made in the offseason. With the rest of the offseason considered, they may well be a QB away from a decent playoff run. 

1 hour ago, ManuManu said:

Here’s one stud. Maybe Hargrave too? So we can snap our fingers and add 2-3 more easily?

Neither were drafted by the birds.

1 minute ago, TorontoEagle said:

Looking at FA QBs....would any of these names intrigue you for a year or two?

Jameis

Teddy B

Mariota

Trubisky

Honestly....I'd take a shot on all but Mariota. Maybe not Teddy B, but he could be cheap. Winston also prob not, but again, could be cheap, on a one year prove it deal. And Trubisky is the most intriguing to me as far as cost/reward. 

I wouldn’t touch bridgewater. I rather just go with hurts for another year rather than spend the money on bridgewater who i know is mediocre. I’d take a chance on mariota and hope to hit a jackpot type of situation. Jameis coming off the ACL not sure when he returns to the field. I rather just not go down the trubisky rabbit hole.  

10 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Again Brady skews the " majority by alot" 

Take out Brady and it's not a majority,

I don't agree with this theory. Take out Tom Brady and you have to replace him with someone else that would win. How many more Super Bowls would Peyton Manning be in without Tom Brady around? Just award the SB losers in Brady's SB games. You'd have SB winners of:

Warner (HOF. Franchise)

Delhomme (non elite)

McNabb (franchise QB)

Wilson (Franchise, elite)

Ryan (Franchise)

Goff (non elite)

Mahomes (Franchise, elite)

 

 

5 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

Looking at FA QBs....would any of these names intrigue you for a year or two?

Jameis

Teddy B

Mariota

Trubisky

Honestly....I'd take a shot on all but Mariota. Maybe not Teddy B, but he could be cheap. Winston also prob not, but again, could be cheap, on a one year prove it deal. And Trubisky is the most intriguing to me as far as cost/reward. 

I was in on Jameis as a stop gap but not coming off an ACL

6 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

If you are adding a Russell Wilson, Aaron Rodgers or Deshaun Watson you’re not having three first round picks to add. I think howie and lurie view it today that they are closer than what they originally thought at the beginning of the season. And would be willing to part with some of those picks to get that type of quarterback.

imo you are not gonna have three first round picks to spend and then be able to go get a quarterback like Russell Wilson or Aaron Rodgers or Deshaun Watson. You’re gonna have one or the other. So you’re either going to get one of those QBs (which is very unlikely in my opinion) or you’re gonna build up the roster and have to try to find a quarterback next year or hope hurts becomes that quarterback.

Well, Ive said repeatedly that if I was the GM I use all of our draft picks to build the D, and then go offer future picks to secure the final piece/QB.

If they miss out on the QB with that strategy, so be it. But its the best way to handle the resources to build our future. 

 

In a hypothetical trade scenario, I feel a team like Seattle can use Sanders since their run game has consistently sucked despite numerous draft picks and FA additions at the RB position. You know theyve been trying and an established player like Sanders should be attractive to them. And I think they would accept Hurts  as well. Not that theyd consider him the future, but considering theyd be trading away their starting QB, hes an ok starting point for them so as not to leave the cupboard bare after that trade.

With those 2 players in the deal, I dont think it should require a boat load of 1sts to get it done. Sanders, Hurts, and 2 future 1sts? I could probably live with that.

 

For us, we would have a re-stocked defense. A QB, and Minshew as the backup. And a few free agent signings. Should be looking pretty good.

 

6 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I don't agree with this theory. Take out Tom Brady and you have to replace him with someone else that would win. How many more Super Bowls would Peyton Manning be in without Tom Brady around? Just award the SB losers in Brady's SB games. You'd have SB winners of:

Warner (HOF. Franchise)

Delhomme (non elite)

McNabb (franchise QB)

Wilson (Franchise, elite)

Ryan (Franchise)

Goff (non elite)

Mahomes (Franchise, elite)

 

 

Just to add, even with the two non elite guys listed here you can make the argument that the 2018 SB is probably Chiefs vs Rams, which I would bet Mahomes wins. Or back in 2003 it would be Colts vs Panthers which Manning probably wins also. 

8 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Well, Ive said repeatedly that if I was the GM I use all of our draft picks to build the D, and then go offer future picks to secure the final piece/QB.

If they miss out on the QB with that strategy, so be it. But its the best way to handle the resources to build our future. 

 

In a hypothetical trade scenario, I feel a team like Seattle can use Sanders since their run game has consistently sucked despite numerous draft picks and FA additions at the RB position. You know theyve been trying and an established player like Sanders should be attractive to them. And I think they would accept Hurts  as well. Not that theyd consider him the future, but considering theyd be trading away their starting QB, hes an ok starting point for them so as not to leave the cupboard bare after that trade.

With those 2 players in the deal, I dont think it should require a boat load of 1sts to get it done. Sanders, Hurts, and 2 future 1sts? I could probably live with that.

 

For us, we would have a re-stocked defense. A QB, and Minshew as the backup. And a few free agent signings. Should be looking pretty good.

 

I think seattle would take hurts. I actually mentioned this a couple weeks ago that what Pete Carroll wants to do it makes a lot of sense for him to go after Jalen hurts if he was forced to lose Russell Wilson.

Frankly I don’t think Miles Sanders moved the needle a lot for them because they have Chris Carson. Unless he’s unable to come back from his neck injury. Also Miles Sanders is coming up for a new contract. He has 1 year left on his rookoe deal. so they have to pay him in a new contract which hurts some of his value that they are forced to pay him once they acquire him. Add on sanders has missed time with injuries the past 3 seasons. 

with sanders and hurts, I still think Seattle wants picks this year. they don’t have a first rounder this year based off the Jamal Adams trade. So you’re likely going to have to give up to first rounders this year along with Myles sanders and Jalen hurts to get that deal done for Russell Wilson. I don’t think you can tell go with we will give you a 2023 and a 2024 first and they’ll just accept that. They could probably get a better offer from the Giants who might be willing to give up (according to the beat reporters) there 2 first round picks this year which are likely both top 10.

Don’t get me wrong what you suggested I would be OK with but I don’t think future first are going to get it done in this deal. I think they are team’s that are going to be willing to give them up this upcoming draft in order to acquire him and I don’t see the Seahawks waiting on future firsts with a team that has Russell Wilson on it as those picks likely will not be as good as the ones the eagles possess in 2022 draft

19 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

LOL, OK So Elway, Young, Brees, Brady, Manning's, Rodgers, WIlson, Mahommes, Aikman, Warner, Favre, Rothlisberger...

I guess these names aren't Franchise QB's? 

 

And you are more likely to win a SB with a Flacco, Dilfer, Foles???  Amirite? 

 

You didn't say franchise QB whatever that means, you said elite 

At the end if their careers most the qbs mentioned would be considered elite to really good and but we're they when they win Superbowls?

Payton and elway were on their last legs on their last super bowls aided greatly by elite running games and or defenses 

I refuse to include Eli Manning In Any list that mentions him as elite.

Again Rothlisberger win his first super bowl with the worst rating for a super bowl winning QB.

Aikman in my eyes wasn't elite, he had an elite team, elite O line elite running game elite WR elite defense, all he had to do is not screw it up.

And again Brady totally skews the argument as he's won a 1/3 of the super bowls in the last 30 years.

You said a team needs an elite QB to win because majority of super bowl winning qbs are elite.

I disagree.

Though having an elite QB or at least one that plays that way for a season definitely increases one chance at winning.

Problem is it's tough to find those guys  and tough to have resources to build around them once they hit their second contracts.

Dont get me wrong I'm all for having an elite QB but not at the expense of the rest of the team.

Wilson Rodgers Mahomes all won their first and only super bowls in their rookie contracts.

Once they got the big money it was more difficult to build a team around them if one doesn't draft well.

I guess what it comes down to is I don't really trust Howie. 

 

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I don't agree with this theory. Take out Tom Brady and you have to replace him with someone else that would win. How many more Super Bowls would Peyton Manning be in without Tom Brady around? Just award the SB losers in Brady's SB games. You'd have SB winners of:

Warner (HOF. Franchise)

Delhomme (non elite)

McNabb (franchise QB)

Wilson (Franchise, elite)

Ryan (Franchise)

Goff (non elite)

Mahomes (Franchise, elite)

 

 

Fair enough except now were blurring the lines between elite and franchise QB.

Not to mention we have yet to come to a consensus on what qualifies one as elite?

Just now, Utebird said:

You didn't say franchise QB whatever that means, you said elite 

At the end if their careers most the qbs mentioned would be considered elite to really good and but we're they when they win Superbowls?

Payton and elway were on their last legs on their last super bowls aided greatly by elite running games and or defenses 

I refuse to include Eli Manning In Any list that mentions him as elite.

Again Rothlisberger win his first super bowl with the worst rating for a super bowl winning QB.

Aikman in my eyes wasn't elite, he had an elite team, elite O line elite running game elite WR elite defense, all he had to do is not screw it up.

And again Brady totally skews the argument as he's won a 1/3 of the super bowls in the last 30 years.

You said a team needs an elite QB to win because majority of super bowl winning qbs are elite.

I disagree.

Though having an elite QB or at least one that plays that way for a season definitely increases one chance at winning.

Problem is it's tough to find those guys  and tough to have resources to build around them once they hit their second contracts.

Dont get me wrong I'm all for having an elite QB but not at the expense of the rest of the team.

Wilson Rodgers Mahomes all won their first and only super bowls in their rookie contracts.

Once they got the big money it was more difficult to build a team around them if one doesn't draft well.

I guess what it comes down to is I don't really trust Howie. 

 

 

 

 

I use Franchise and Elite in the same breath, as interchangebale, and myabe thats not fair, but to me, i see them as the same. You either have one, or you dont. 

 

Secondly, I also dont trust Howie, which is why I would gladly throw away 3 first rd picks on a proven commodity. VS drafting the likes of Reagor, Hurts, Jjaw, Sidney Jones. Sure howie may have hit on Smith, and Goedert, but thats less than 50% success rate. More likely in the 30% success rate. 

Am I missing something on Mel Tucker?  Big 10 Coach of the Year now after signing that 10-year contract??  Jim Harbaugh has Michigan in the Big 10 Championship after his best season at UM and finally beating OSU.  What the heck did Tucker accomplish?  I know they beat UM but they are 3rd in the Big 10 East.  How does that get you Coach of the Year?