7 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

Troll

Yes - Also Doug Pederson was a much better coach than Bill Cowher.  Cowher only won because of Lebau.  Basically his Championship came because Peyton Manning choked in their game and they played a turnover prone Jake Plummer in the AFC Championship.  I mean their NFC challenger was Seattle that was a fluke of a team.  

The team got worse after Reich left because of poor drafting, not adequately addressing the receiver position and appeasing a prima-donna QB.  Despite those issues, Pederson took the team to the playoffs.  Pederson won without Reich and without talent.  Calling him a bad coach is idiotic. 

Doug will have success at his next stint as HC when he eventually gets a job. This is a very toxic organization to be able to succeed in once you start having success due to a very insecure GM that doesn't want to lose power again to a HC. 

59 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Probably a combination of both.  I liked him in the draft.  I think he replaces Nelson next year. Not a #1 CB, but a good #2.  That said, I really liked Gowan based on his play the year before last so getting him was a nice move. I also liked Vincent. Thought he might have the best nickel prospects in the draft.  (Having limited film and not being able to see if they would take the next step hurt both Gowan and Vincent in the draft.  Good gambles, both.)Vincent is sort  of what Howie thought he got with Wallace, a DB with S and Nickel skills.  Think Maddox 2.0 but a bit bigger.  Interestingly, they have Vincent listed as a DB like Chachere, who may have passed Wallace on the depth chart.  They seem to like Mayden too.  Both Mayden and Vincent have blazing speed.  Wonder if they see either as a possible FS.  Mayden, Chachere and Vincent have CB skills.  Gowan is an outside CB.  Both he and McPhearson are 4.5 guys like Chachere.  I still want to see some draft capital spent on the secondary next year, but Eagles have stockpiled some decent potential talent at the position. 

And their DC is a former DB coach, so he should be able to recognize talent and coach it up.

3 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

Yes - Also Doug Pederson was a much better coach than Bill Cowher.  Cowher only won because of Lebau.  Basically his Championship came because Peyton Manning choked in their game and they played a turnover prone Jake Plummer in the AFC Championship.  I mean their NFC challenger was Seattle that was a fluke of a team.  

The team got worse after Reich left because of poor drafting, not adequately addressing the receiver position and appeasing a prima-donna QB.  Despite those issues, Pederson took the team to the playoffs.  Pederson won without Reich and without talent.  Calling him a bad coach is idiotic. 

I still don't know how that Bettis fumble wasn't returned for a TD.  How do you let the QB make the tackle out near midfield?  Just run past him.

That Super Bowl run was an all-time fluke.

I'm not worried about Howie and the draft, he's basically as good as the people around him, Howie's gift is reading the board and trading up and down. But he depends on the personnel guys getting on the same page with the coaches and telling him who to draft.

Pederson and Schwartz had a lot of pull on personnel decisions the last few years (I think that was one of the conditions hiring Schwartz). it's obvious Schwartz wanted veterans on defense and Pederson wanted speed on offense. And they overrode the personnel guys.

The last draft I got more of a feel that everyone was on the same page, Donohue may not have liked the Williams trade down and pick, but no one else seemed unhappy.

This year, with Sirianni and Gannon with a good sense of the current personnel, Gannon with experience as a scout, both with recent experience as position coaches, I think they'll work much better with the personnel guys because they're more comfortable with young players and coaching them up, rather than wanting to plug and play. Notice how well they do drafting OL - I think that's because Stoutland knows what qualities he wants in his players b/c he's hands on.

Much of drafting isn't about talent, but fit and intangibles. Having coaches with hands on experience makes them more focused on coachability, not just how athletic a player is, but does he have the work ethic, IQ, motor, etc. to be turned into a NFL player.

 

9 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

Doug will have success at his next stint as HC when he eventually gets a job. This is a very toxic organization to be able to succeed in once you start having success due to a very insecure GM that doesn't want to lose power again to a HC. 

Doug was the one who lobbied for Reagor over Jefferson. He wanted someone to stretch the field.

The mistake the "insecure GM" made was to appease his SB winning HC instead of overriding him.

And anyone watching the Eagles this year can see they're much better coached than last season.

16 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

True, but the Switzer DAL got wasn't a prime Barry Switzer; he'd already been out of coaching for 5 years when Jerry brought him in to replace Jimmy Johnson.  As soon as he won that Super Bowl he went into semi-retirement mode -- much to the frustration of Troy Aikman and some other DAL players   lol

Switzer at Oklahoma was a force ... until many of his players got into trouble with the law.

Yup gotta love a coach that is handed a championship team wins a Superbowl then mails it in for 3 more years.

3 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Defense is less about stars than avoiding weaknesses that a good OC can exploit.

So you want solid depth and guys who fill roles well, a great CB can be negated by a subpar nickel back who gets burned all game.

A team can't have a good defense if they have key weaknesses at multiple levels. It leads to too many mistakes and mismatches that can be exploited during a game.  I can't recall a top 10 defense, however, that didn't have a HOF/type all-star player at more than one position. 

2 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

yep 15 seasons as an HC, 10 winning seasons, all because of the DC who was with him for 3 years lol. 

As far the doug thing goes. Whatever you have to tell yourself. This teams looks better with out him, Wentz looks better with out him. Players whove moved on look better with out him. The stats show you he isnt a good coach. 

Funny stat I heard during the Cards/Colts game. In his first game with the Cardinals Ertz had his longest touchdown of his career 

And I bolded the last part... he won cause the NFC east was GARBAGE!... HOT TRASH. nothing more nothing less. 

I'll give Dougie P credit where credit is due, I think he was in a good situation with a really good locker room with a lot of talent utilizing an offensive scheme that defenses hadn't quite caught up too and he put together a good staff, and course he was emotionally Intelligent, at least more so than Chip Kelly, which isn't saying much.

Oh and he was good at banging secretaries and sucking on water bottles at pressers.

 

49 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

Doug Pederson >>>>>> Bill Cowher

You hooked him, you hooked him real good..

25 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

Yes - Also Doug Pederson was a much better coach than Bill Cowher.  Cowher only won because of Lebau.  Basically his Championship came because Peyton Manning choked in their game and they played a turnover prone Jake Plummer in the AFC Championship.  I mean their NFC challenger was Seattle that was a fluke of a team.  

The team got worse after Reich left because of poor drafting, not adequately addressing the receiver position and appeasing a prima-donna QB.  Despite those issues, Pederson took the team to the playoffs.  Pederson won without Reich and without talent.  Calling him a bad coach is idiotic. 

I'll always believe the NFL gave the refs a directive in that Superbowl to help the Steelers win. That game was so ridiculously refereed, it was awful. I think the NFL wanted to get Bettis and Cowher a ring right before they rode off into the sunset. 

1 minute ago, TorontoEagle said:

I'll always believe the NFL gave the refs a directive in that Superbowl to help the Steelers win. That game was so ridiculously refereed, it was awful. I think the NFL wanted to get Bettis and Cowher a ring right before they rode off into the sunset. 

I've never seen that Superbowl🤷‍♂️

15 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Doug was the one who lobbied for Reagor over Jefferson. He wanted someone to stretch the field.

The mistake the "insecure GM" made was to appease his SB winning HC instead of overriding him.

And anyone watching the Eagles this year can see they're much better coached than last season.

 

No, recent interview by Doug indicates that the Reagor decision was a Howie decision. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

No, recent interview by Doug indicates that the Reagor decision was a Howie decision. 

 

 

Do you have a link to that interview by chance?

6 minutes ago, Utebird said:

I've never seen that Superbowl🤷‍♂️

Neither did the refs.

7 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

Do you have a link to that interview by chance?

The interview I watched was an interview that John Clark did with Doug, and Clark asked point-blank why Reagor was the pick instead of Jefferson.  Doug smiled and replied "You're asking me?"

The exchange requires context.  All Doug meant was the pick is not made by one person unilaterally; the draft process is a collaborative effort between scouting, coaches, and GM.  He went on to say they liked Reagor's speed and ability to stretch the field (to paraphrase).

IMO the coaches should never be involved with selecting any particular player in the draft -- except perhaps QB.  The coaches should give the GM and scouting department the type of player they want to match their philosophy -- measureables, traits, etc., and the scouting department finds and evaluates the prospects who match those traits most closely.

The GM is accountable for the pick and the result -- even though it's the coaches' job to develop the prospect once he's chosen.

16 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

Do you have a link to that interview by chance?

I think he's referring to the quote that starts around 24:10

 

 

22 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

No, recent interview by Doug indicates that the Reagor decision was a Howie decision. 

 

 

You will have to excuse afan.  Howie Roseman is his personal Jesus and can do no wrong.  If it was a bad pick, it is everyone but Howie Rosemans fault.

6 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

The interview I watched was an interview that John Clark did with Doug, and Clark asked point-blank why Reagor was the pick instead of Jefferson.  Doug smiled and replied "You're asking me?"

The exchange requires context.  All Doug meant was the pick is not made by one person unilaterally; the draft process is a collaborative effort between scouting, coaches, and GM.  He went on to say they liked Reagor's speed and ability to stretch the field (to paraphrase).

IMO the coaches should never be involved with selecting any particular player in the draft -- except perhaps QB.  The coaches should give the GM and scouting department the type of player they want to match their philosophy -- measureables, traits, etc., and the scouting department finds and evaluates the prospects who match those traits most closely.

The GM is accountable for the pick and the result -- even though it's the coaches' job to develop the prospect once he's chosen.

What other employment situation doesn't let the boss supervisor  play a role in selecting the preferred candidate? Of course head coaches should be involved in meeting with any high draft pick.  The problems occur when the person making the decision doesn't have good judgment about what is the best football decision.  

The draft pick always goes on the GM, good or bad. Could never understand that, it was Doug's pick, it was Howie's pick, it was Lurie's pick, it was Chip's pick. Winning or Losing eventually falls on the Head Coach, the personal belongs to the GM. No wonder we've been a clusterf___ lately. When draft day comes do we ask who wants to pick next? Howie has RD 1, Nick you got RD 2, Gannon your taking 3, Stout has 4 !

14 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

The interview I watched was an interview that John Clark did with Doug, and Clark asked point-blank why Reagor was the pick instead of Jefferson.  Doug smiled and replied "You're asking me?"

The exchange requires context.  All Doug meant was the pick is not made by one person unilaterally; the draft process is a collaborative effort between scouting, coaches, and GM.  He went on to say they liked Reagor's speed and ability to stretch the field (to paraphrase).

IMO the coaches should never be involved with selecting any particular player in the draft -- except perhaps QB.  The coaches should give the GM and scouting department the type of player they want to match their philosophy -- measureables, traits, etc., and the scouting department finds and evaluates the prospects who match those traits most closely.

The GM is accountable for the pick and the result -- even though it's the coaches' job to develop the prospect once he's chosen.

 The  Bill Parcells mentality as a head coach. He gave the scouts and GM, heights, weight, arm lengths, and speed for each position, no exceptions.   If you have exceptions, then your team is full of them. 

1 minute ago, The Blackfish said:

 The  Bill Parcells mentality as a head coach. He gave the scouts and GM, heights, weight, arm lengths, and speed for each position, no exceptions.   If you have exceptions, then your team is full of them. 

Sounds like a guy who knew what the F___ he was doing.

5 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

What other employment situation doesn't let the boss supervisor  play a role in selecting the preferred candidate? Of course head coaches should be involved in meeting with any high draft pick.  The problems occur when the person making the decision doesn't have good judgment about what is the best football decision.  

Nick did play PRS with the prospects in the pre-draft process, but I'm referring most specifically to the draft itself when the team is on the clock -- which is why I said 'selecting'.  If I'm the GM and there's any doubt on who the pick is I'm looking to the VP of Player Personnel before I'm looking to the head coach.

34 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

I'll always believe the NFL gave the refs a directive in that Superbowl to help the Steelers win. That game was so ridiculously refereed, it was awful. I think the NFL wanted to get Bettis and Cowher a ring right before they rode off into the sunset. 

The first time I had no doubt they fixed a game was the 1999 NFC Championship.   I can't remember what the call (or maybe non-call) that the refs absolutely hosed the Bucs on, but even the color commentator was shocked.   The league wanted "The Greatest Show on Turf" in the playoffs and they made sure it happened.