5 minutes ago, Swoop said:

Unrelated...

Rumor is Calvin Ridley will be on the move from Atlanta. Would you take him/what would you be willing to give up?

Probably worth a 1st but whether he's going to come back and be the same is a big unknown. We've had both sides of the coin with how they handled the situation with Lane Johnson and Shawn Andrews.

51 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I was hoping for better than that... Maybe something like Demarcus Lawrence, and like him, take a year or two to really get his feet under him.

I think Sweat is just coming into his own and from here on out will be better than Lawrence. Ojabo with Sweat and Graham for a year in rotation, then look out.

1 hour ago, Bacarty2 said:

Ok, well then we disagree. 

If you think playing Washington state and Colorado's offense is the same as playing Alabama and Ole Miss  offense I'll never change your mind. 

 

I don't think either of those.

If you think playing at Georgia is the same as playing in the NFL I don't know what to tell you.

Dean is a circus midget, it's illogical to think he'd be a better nfl prospect just because he plays in a conference that's minimally better than the one a guy with actual NFL size plays in 

If I'm looking at Lloyd and Dean I'm not taking conference into my evaluation 

I'm taking size, Dean is 5'11" 210 pounds, playing in a tougher conference than Lloyd isn't going to make him have size to hold up in nfl.

Now let's say I'm looking at two LBs one from pac 12 and one from SEC and both have relative sane size and athletic numbers and stats then I'd probably take the guy that played in the bigger conference.

No one is arguing that when evaluating a player scouts don't take level of competition into consideration but it's not the end all and be all you are making it out to be.

You said you wouldn't take Lloyd because he played in an inferior conference then listed Nakobi Dean as a guy you would take over Lloyd simply because dean played at a bigger school in a better conference disregarding in your eval that Dean is a 210 circus midget LB.

Now that to me is insane.

2 minutes ago, bitbased said:

Probably worth a 1st but whether he's going to come back and be the same is a big unknown. We've had both sides of the coin how they handled the situation with Lane Johnson and Shawn Andrews.

That and he only has one year left on his contract, I believe. 

I would give them a second at most. Worth the risk, but not worth a first rounder.

2 minutes ago, bitbased said:

Probably worth a 1st but whether he's going to come back and be the same is a big unknown. We've had both sides of the coin how they handled the situation with Lane Johnson and Shawn Andrews.

No disrespect for Ridley or anyone fighting a mental health struggle, but do we really want to add another player to the team who could  decide one week to walk away for an undisclosed amount of time?

9 minutes ago, aptosbird said:

I have never once said that Hurts is a long term answer so I am being misrepresented...not that I really care what other's  opinions might be. I have been very outspoken that QB is currently a concern.

Trust me…I know 

Pass on trading a 1st for Ridley, might as well draft one of Olave/Wilson/Williams.

2nd is something to consider.

10 minutes ago, Swoop said:

That and he only has one year left on his contract, I believe. 

I would give them a second at most. Worth the risk, but not worth a first rounder.

Our 2nd is the most I'd give up for him as well. I could see a team sending a late 1st for him though. Unless if we traded down one of our 1sts into a 2022 late 1st/early 2nd + a 2023 1st I would avoid it if they wanted more than our late 2nd. 

40 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

In other news.  

 

I worked with a person once that identified as non binary, they were biologically female but identified as a male homosexual, so they were attracted to men.

So their name was Donny that's what they preferred to be called and I thought so basically you are a biological female that is attracted to males and I was like oh I'm biological male that is attracted to the females, I identify as heterosexual and in binary terms so would Donny but since Donny didn't they were non binary🤷‍♂️

It's very confusing but hey you be you...

1 minute ago, Utebird said:

I worked with a person once that identified as non binary, they were biologically female but identified as a female lesbian, so they were attracted to men.

So their name was Donny that's what they preferred to be called and I thought so basically you are a biological female that is attracted to males and I was like oh I'm biological male that is attracted to the females, I identify as heterosexual and in binary terms so would Donny but since Donny didn't they were non binary🤷‍♂️

It's very confusing but hey you be you...

Extremely confusing and I'm leaving my thoughts at that.  

2 minutes ago, Utebird said:

I worked with a person once that identified as non binary, they were biologically female but identified as a female lesbian, so they were attracted to men.

So their name was Donny that's what they preferred to be called and I thought so basically you are a biological female that is attracted to males and I was like oh I'm biological male that is attracted to the females, I identify as heterosexual and in binary terms so would Donny but since Donny didn't they were non binary🤷‍♂️

It's very confusing but hey you be you...

45 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

In other news.  

 

 

 

Someone should let Timothy know that it's alright for him to just come out of the closest instead of claiming whatever this non-binary nonsense is.  We all know already.  

 

 

2 hours ago, Freshmilk said:

What if you can get Wilson for a 1st, 3rd and Hurts?

I actually think Pete Carroll would want hurts tbh. He wants to run an offense that’s ball control and TOP which plays into jalen hurts’ favor in that offense. That said i don’t know if Pete Carroll is back next year. There’s been rumors out there that Jody Allen is willing to move on from him. 

2 hours ago, austinfan said:

So, if you have one of those elite QBs you're guananteed a SB run? (of which Wilson no longer counts, see how good Seattle has been the last few years? (missed PO twice, knocked out in first rd twice). When Seattle went on their run, it wasn't b/c of Wilson, it was b/c they had the top defense in the NFL for four seasons.

GB missed the PO two years running WITH Rodgers, b/c their defense was bottom ten, they bounced back when the defense bounced back.

If you mortgage the future without first building a championship caliber defense, you're going to get knocked out of the playoffs in the first or second rd every year - and if you mortgage the future for a QB at the end of his career, that window will slam shut when he declines.

 

 

Actually no they didn’t. He got hurt for like 9 weeks where they missed in 2017. They were 4-1 before he got hurt in week 6. And to add onto this they still had the crap browns (won even without rodgers), two games against the lions remaining, game against the tampa and bears (which they won both without rodgers). That right there Very easily could be 9 wins if they had rodgers. And I’m guessing since rodgers is elite That they likely win 1 or 2 of the games against the ravens, Steelers, Carolina, Vikings, New Orleans (which in 3 of those games it was relatively close heading into the 4th quarter without him). So really they didn’t have Aaron rodgers for the majority of that season after the hit in week 6. He came back week 15 of the season to try to sneak them into the playoffs and it was obvious he wasn’t fully healthy. His injury cost basically cost them a potential playoff spot that year.  

That was 2017 where rodgers got hurt. Aaron Rodgers doesn’t get hurt that there’s a chance the Eagles might run into the Packers in the playoffs that year. And I’d add up until that point in his career the eagles owned a 1-3 record against rodgers. 
 

1 hour ago, Bacarty2 said:

Luis Zendejas or Corey Clement 

Can't hate Corey Clement.  

1 hour ago, downundermike said:

Adding to my previous @NCiggles, I showed you teams outside of the top 10 in points allowed are tops in super bowl odds.  Continuing to prove that this is an offensive league, if the Chargers get in, the top 13 teams in PPG are all in the playoffs, and the Titans at 15.  You do not need an elite defense as much as you need a QB and be able to score.

But look at who has won the Super Bowl over the last 10 years.  I don't think high powered offense is unimportant.  I think a franchise QB is the most important position on the team.  I just don't think this offseason is the time to go all in with all of the picks to get a franchise QB.  

1 hour ago, Swoop said:

Unrelated...

Rumor is Calvin Ridley will be on the move from Atlanta. Would you take him/what would you be willing to give up?

Did it ever come out why he just stepped away for the whole year?

2 hours ago, austinfan said:

GB missed the PO two years running WITH Rodgers, b/c their defense was bottom ten, they bounced back when the defense bounced back.

If you mortgage the future without first building a championship caliber defense, you're going to get knocked out of the playoffs in the first or second rd every year - and if you mortgage the future for a QB at the end of his career, that window will slam shut when he declines.

 

Do you hate being wrong so much.

@e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! already laid out 2017 below.  2018 they missed the playoffs, NFC representative in the Super Bowl was the Rams.

Packers 25 PPG allowed ( 22nd ) Rams 24 PPG allowed ( 20th ).  Packers 354.4 YPG allowed (18th),  Rams, 358.6 YPG allowed ( 19th )

So a team with a defense identical to Green Bay was in the Super Bowl.  

 

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

Actually no they didn’t. He got hurt for like 9 weeks where they missed in 2017. They were 4-1 before he got hurt in week 6. And to add onto this they still had the crap browns (won even without rodgers), two games against the lions remaining, game against the tampa and bears (which they won both without rodgers). That right there Very easily could be 9 wins if they had rodgers. And I’m guessing since rodgers is elite That they likely win 1 or 2 of the games against the ravens, Steelers, Carolina, Vikings, New Orleans (which in 3 of those games it was relatively close heading into the 4th quarter without him). So really they didn’t have Aaron rodgers for the majority of that season after the hit in week 6. He came back week 15 of the season to try to sneak them into the playoffs and it was obvious he wasn’t fully healthy. His injury cost basically cost them a potential playoff spot that year.  

That was 2017 where rodgers got hurt. Aaron Rodgers doesn’t get hurt that there’s a chance the Eagles might run into the Packers in the playoffs that year. And I’d add up until that point in his career the eagles owned a 1-3 record against rodgers. 
 

 

1 hour ago, mattwill said:

Two rounds later?  I thought the formula was only one round. 

EDIT: you are taking the 1st in 2024 which is two years later rather than one year.  Is that correct?

Yes... which is why its 2 rounds rather than 1.

27 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

But look at who has won the Super Bowl over the last 10 years.  I don't think high powered offense is unimportant.  I think a franchise QB is the most important position on the team.  I just don't think this offseason is the time to go all in with all of the picks to get a franchise QB.  

I’m just gonna point out there’s never gonna be a time where people want to give up the capital it’s going to cost to get themselves a quarterback. Unless Jalen hurts becomes that type of quarterback that’s the only way it’s gonna work to where you’re going to not have to give up capital and build the roster up. There’s always going to be positions that the Eagles need to fill with those picks. In 2 Years Maybe Lane decides to retire and hargrave isn’t that good anymore. Slay is done and you also need a corner cause some of your picks didn’t hit. And still need a lb. You aren’t gonna want to do it then either if that’s the case. And as much as I want the Eagles to hit on all five of their picks in the top 100 they are not going to hit on all five. so there’s gonna be areas that they’re gonna need to fix in the year or two years from now when we need those picks  

there is a possibility this goes down. You build up the roster like you guys want to do. Meanwhile in two years when you want to go get your quarterback: a. You don’t have the draft capital to move up to get that quarterback over other teams who have more and better capital, B. There’s not a team willing to trade back with you so you can’t get that quarterback you covet and C. Not a QB on the market worth trading for. 

In theory it sounds great to go build up your roster and when you need the quarterback quarterback one magically fall into laps of the eagles and the eagles going be able to acquire one. However that doesn’t necessarily have to happen that way. They might get stuck not being able to acquire one and get stuck in purgatory searching for a QB as they can’t pull the trigger on one due to multiple factors outside of their control. 

let me just say I’m fine with whatever decision they want to make and route they want to go. i’m just pointing out there is definitely potential downfalls in this theory just wait to go get the QB. However I’m betting they are going to be involved on one of those three quarterbacks that are available this off-season. I just don’t think they’re gonna be able to pull it off.

1 hour ago, justrelax said:

I think Sweat is just coming into his own and from here on out will be better than Lawrence. Ojabo with Sweat and Graham for a year in rotation, then look out.

I dont see that, but would love to be proven wrong.

 

Wait, better than Lawrence will be moving forward or better than he was?

1 hour ago, Utebird said:

I worked with a person once that identified as non binary, they were biologically female but identified as a male homosexual, so they were attracted to men.

So their name was Donny that's what they preferred to be called and I thought so basically you are a biological female that is attracted to males and I was like oh I'm biological male that is attracted to the females, I identify as heterosexual and in binary terms so would Donny but since Donny didn't they were non binary🤷‍♂️

It's very confusing but hey you be you...

I call that crazy as f mental illness and anyone feel free to go ahead and cancel me 🙂

1 hour ago, Utebird said:

I don't think either of those.

If you think playing at Georgia is the same as playing in the NFL I don't know what to tell you.

Dean is a circus midget, it's illogical to think he'd be a better nfl prospect just because he plays in a conference that's minimally better than the one a guy with actual NFL size plays in 

If I'm looking at Lloyd and Dean I'm not taking conference into my evaluation 

I'm taking size, Dean is 5'11" 210 pounds, playing in a tougher conference than Lloyd isn't going to make him have size to hold up in nfl.

Now let's say I'm looking at two LBs one from pac 12 and one from SEC and both have relative sane size and athletic numbers and stats then I'd probably take the guy that played in the bigger conference.

No one is arguing that when evaluating a player scouts don't take level of competition into consideration but it's not the end all and be all you are making it out to be.

You said you wouldn't take Lloyd because he played in an inferior conference then listed Nakobi Dean as a guy you would take over Lloyd simply because dean played at a bigger school in a better conference disregarding in your eval that Dean is a 210 circus midget LB.

Now that to me is insane.

My sense is that Dean is a lot like Roquan Smith was when he came out of Georgia to the NFL in the 2018 Draft.  How did that work out for the Chicago bears?

19 minutes ago, mattwill said:

My sense is that Dean is a lot like Roquan Smith was when he came out of Georgia to the NFL in the 2018 Draft.  How did that work out for the Chicago bears?

Good to very good LB, but not as good as some expected him to be: Perennial Pro-Bowler/All-Pro/DPOY level player.