4 hours ago, EazyEaglez said:

The Eagles can prove to me they believe in Dillard simply by not bringing back Peters. It’s actually very simple. I’ve acknowledged plenty of facts, and have posted facts. It doesn’t matter really. You’re not changing my mind and I’m not changing yours. 

Thing is... I do agree with you to an extent but also its a tricky balance with what's best for the team overall. 

3 hours ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

Thing is... I do agree with you to an extent but also its a tricky balance with what's best for the team overall. 

It's not about me. I hope they don't bring him back. I think they need to turn the page and see what they have in Dillard. We will see how the Eagles do this. 

Let's just break it down with Peters so we are all speaking the same language.

I hear everyone say we know what he can do and who he is.  That's not exactly true.  At 38, you really don't know.  What we do know is his ceiling...an increasingly sluggish pass protector who relies on refs respecting his rep so that he can kick back a half second early and who will force you into a LT rotation, playing 70% of the snaps at best if he's healthy.  His "leadership" will also include not practicing or partaking in training camp.  His sentimental and HOF status means you can't just sign him as "insurance" to "compete" and provide depth.  That's not happening...here or anywhere else.  He's signing to start.  

So here's a few scenarios:

1.  Peters is signed and it's a good idea.  That means Dillard is hot garbage and a bust already because a 38 year old corpse is a better option at LT than our first round pick in year two.  Signing Peters may be the right move for the team, but it's REALLY bad news.  LT will be a problem for 2020 and for the coming years...and our GM can't draft.

2.  Peters is signed and it's a bad idea.  Dillard still has promise and they refuse to give him a shot, instead going with sentimentality again.  Doug/Howie contributed to Darren Sproles' retirement fund for 3 years, paying him to not play football.  Now they have a promising LT stagnating while they pay Peters to rotate at LT, false start, and not practice...because he's their buddy.

3.  Peters is not signed.  Maybe Dillard fails, maybe he's a success.  Need to face the music.  The only way this team moves forward and emerges as a contender again is if Howie can prove that his drafts don't universally suck.  

Maybe signing Peters is right, maybe it's wrong...but it speaks very poorly to our future at LT, our team, and our GM if Peters is signed.  

I want no parts of Peters and I've been saying if for like 3 years now. Move the F on! We risk Wentz's health every damn snap with this LT carousel. Everytime Peters decides to take himself out it instantly leads to a blown up play where Wentz gets crushed plus all the drive killing penalties also from Peters being on the field or Taking himself out. 

Reporter speculation in the last couple days that the Redskins, Jets, Browns and Broncos (has been said all offseason about Denver) are interested in signing Peters.

https://www.hogshaven.com/2020/5/13/21256842/would-a-redskins-contract-with-jason-peters-solve-everyones-problems

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/could-browns-steal-ot-jason-peters-from-eagles/ar-BB13ZpOO

https://thejetpress.com/2020/05/12/ny-jets-interested-signing-jason-peters/

https://factoryofsadness.co/2020/05/12/rumor-cleveland-browns-pursuing-former-eagle-ot-jason-peters/

https://milehighsports.com/the-broncos-pros-and-cons-to-pursuing-jason-peters/

 

 

3 hours ago, eagle45 said:

Let's just break it down with Peters so we are all speaking the same language.

I hear everyone say we know what he can do and who he is.  That's not exactly true.  At 38, you really don't know.  What we do know is his ceiling...an increasingly sluggish pass protector who relies on refs respecting his rep so that he can kick back a half second early and who will force you into a LT rotation, playing 70% of the snaps at best if he's healthy.  His "leadership" will also include not practicing or partaking in training camp.  His sentimental and HOF status means you can't just sign him as "insurance" to "compete" and provide depth.  That's not happening...here or anywhere else.  He's signing to start.  

So here's a few scenarios:

1.  Peters is signed and it's a good idea.  That means Dillard is hot garbage and a bust already because a 38 year old corpse is a better option at LT than our first round pick in year two.  Signing Peters may be the right move for the team, but it's REALLY bad news.  LT will be a problem for 2020 and for the coming years...and our GM can't draft.

2.  Peters is signed and it's a bad idea.  Dillard still has promise and they refuse to give him a shot, instead going with sentimentality again.  Doug/Howie contributed to Darren Sproles' retirement fund for 3 years, paying him to not play football.  Now they have a promising LT stagnating while they pay Peters to rotate at LT, false start, and not practice...because he's their buddy.

3.  Peters is not signed.  Maybe Dillard fails, maybe he's a success.  Need to face the music.  The only way this team moves forward and emerges as a contender again is if Howie can prove that his drafts don't universally suck.  

Maybe signing Peters is right, maybe it's wrong...but it speaks very poorly to our future at LT, our team, and our GM if Peters is signed.  

nah

2 hours ago, greend said:

nah

Nah, you're right.  Dillard is right on track and Howie is a great drafter.  

14 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Nah, you're right.  Dillard is right on track and Howie is a great drafter.  

1+1= 14, bro

Just now, greend said:

1+1= 14, bro

I explained in depth why an emergency Peters signing means Dillard is not on track and how Dillard busting would be a last straw for Howie, so it's really just 1+1=2.

3 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

I explained in depth why an emergency Peters signing means Dillard is not on track and how Dillard busting would be a last straw for Howie, so it's really just 1+1=2.

You may have explained it in depth but you don't have the inside info to make that determination so 1+1=14

26 minutes ago, greend said:

You may have explained it in depth but you don't have the inside info to make that determination so 1+1=14

Inside info is necessarily to know IF they are signing Peters because they lost confidence in Dillard.

I have no idea if the above is true.

But if they DO sign Peters, it doesn’t take inside info or a leap of logic to determine that they have no faith in Dillard.

2 hours ago, eagle45 said:

Inside info is necessarily to know IF they are signing Peters because they lost confidence in Dillard.

I have no idea if the above is true.

But if they DO sign Peters, it doesn’t take inside info or a leap of logic to determine that they have no faith in Dillard.

Or, they sign JP who couldn't get signed by 31 other teams in 2 months of free agency so he comes back on a temp deal to provide depth at the position, they still have faith in Dillard but are adding talent.

They drafted a 2nd round QB to be a backup for Wentz.  They drafted JJAW in the 2nd to groom for 2 years behind Jeffrey knowing the contract they gave him.  

None of you who believe the narrative that the Eagles have doubts about Dillard have answered the question posed many times:  if they didn't trust Dillard, why let both JP and Big V walk in free agency?  

They did, so that means if JP signed somewhere else they were fine with Dillard as the starter.  

If they decide to sign JP again, it doesn't definitely mean they have "no faith" in Dillard.  It could mean they want JP as a backup, it could mean they will have him start but know that he might get hurt again and Dillard would step in at that point, it could mean they believe in Dillard as the future of the franchise but why not have him learn some more behind a Hall of Fame player.  It could mean a number of things.

So what if they sign JP and they said Dillard is the starter and JP is here for depth?

Jason Kelce on Peters and Dillard

https://www.nj.com/eagles/2020/05/eagles-jason-kelce-weighs-in-on-jason-peters-potential-return-at-some-point-its-going-to-be-the-end-for-all-of-us.html

Quote

 

Jason Kelce would love to play with Jason Peters again, but he still believes in Andre Dillard at the left tackle position.

The longtime Eagles center called Peters "the best player I’ve ever played with” during a teleconference on Thursday. Kelce has played his entire nine-year career with Peters in the locker room.

With Peters still on the free-agent market, rumors have linked the legendary left tackle to his longtime squad. A potential reunion could be on the horizon.

"It is hard to imagine potentially playing without Jason Peters, the personality and the guy that he’s been to this organization, but at some point, it’s going to be the end for all of us," Kelce said. "I don’t know what’s going to happen. Again, I’d love to play with the guy again, but obviously this is in the hands of the people who are making important decisions and cap decisions and all these decisions that are way over my head.”

Peters’ return would probably lead to a slide down the depth chart for Dillard, who has been projected as the starting left tackle throughout the offseason. While the Eagles are dealing with a limited offseason program due to the coronavirus pandemic, Kelce believes Dillard will still have the ability to progress in his development during training camp, whenever that takes place.

"To be honest, OTAs and minicamps and everything are important, but the biggest thing for returning guys, Andre being one of them, is going to be the training camp and physically going against somebody in pads,” Kelce said. "You don’t improve that much physically in OTAs and minicamps. It’s more of a mental improvement, and you’re getting a little bit of technique work, but you’re not putting shoulder pads on and that’s where Andre needs to continue to get reps at.”

Kelce says Dillard has the athletic ability to excel at the left tackle position. Still, last year’s first-round pick has a weakness that Kelce thinks he can improve on moving forward.

"Andre is a guy who I think has incredible physical abilities,” Kelce said. "He’s very quick-twitched, he can move his feet really well, he’s athletic, he’s smart, he’s got a lot of the things that are hard to get if you don’t have them. If there was one weakness in his game last year, it was power. I think he knows that and everybody knows that. It wasn’t even that big of a weakness that we couldn’t go out there and win games with him because we did, at times. Now, he gets a whole offseason to improve on that.”

 

 

So here's some actual credible info from Kelce.  He acknowledges he'd love to have the great JP back, but also praises Dillard and highlights a list of his strengths and acknowledges one weakness...then says that weakness isn't that big of a weakness and that they can win games with him and he has opportunity to improve.

Sounds to me like any rookie heading into their 2nd season:  a list of promising skills and an area to improve on.

Now those of you who - for whatever reason, did Dillard steal your girlfriend or something? - hate on Dillard and believe these narratives by negative Philly media looking for clicks, will read Kelce's comments the same way you did Lane Johnson, Brandon Brooks, Stoutland and Pederson...all of them have praised Dillard and lauded his skill set and said great things about him...

...but you're going to ignore all the positives Kelce just said, the fact that they're comfortable with Dillard as starter and you're going to focus only on the one weakness and ignore the strengths.  You're going to ignore the part where he says it's not that big of a weakness and they can win games, and he's a rookie who is going to improve.  

No, you're going to filter this info through your negative lens and the only thing you'll hear in there is Kelce wants Peters back, says Dillard doesn't have the power to play in the NFL.  It's inevitable.

Brian Baldinger on Dillard's starts last year.

https://www.inquirer.com/eagles/eagles-andre-dillard-jason-peters-left-tackle-first-round-pick-starter-hall-of-fame-injury-prone-sacks-20191107.html

On playing against Khalil Mack and other rushers on the Bears:

Quote

 

The rookie faced all three of the Bears’ top edge-rushers in the Eagles’ 22-14 win: Mack, Leonard Floyd, and Aaron Lynch. Dillard made some mistakes, including allowing a third-quarter sack to Floyd. But overall, he took another step forward in his NFL education.

Brian Baldinger, a former NFL offensive lineman and an analyst for the NFL Network, has been impressed by Dillard’s "steady growth" in his first three NFL starts.

"You go up against [the Bills’] Jerry Hughes two weeks ago; you go up against Khalil Mack. Those are two really experienced upper-level pass-rushers," Baldinger said. "But he held his own.

"Rookie year for an offensive lineman is kind of like a pitcher going through the batting order for the first time. You kind of need to see everybody, see different rushes, different looks and schemes. But I think he looks fine out there.

"He needs to get stronger. But the thing I like about him is, he’s got a really good [pass] set and is in position to protect. He’s got good feet."

 

 

On Dillard being thrown in at RT with no reps.

https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelphia/eagles/andre-dillards-switch-left-tackle-right-tackle-trying-write-left-handed

Brandon Brooks:

Quote

"Anytime you go from left to right side, it's a lot harder than people think," right guard Brandon Brooks said. "Not only are you flipping all the plays completely opposite but the muscle memory, your stance, everything's completely different. I have nothing but faith in Andre Dillard. Everything he's done, busting his a** out there, all the reps, all the extra time I've seen him after practice and stuff? It's different obviously. You don't replace Lane Johnson. He's a one-of-a-kind talent, a one-of-a-kind player. But at the same time, Dillard has more than enough talent. He's more than capable of handling his own out there."

Jason Kelce:

Quote

"In the heat of the game I think Stout (offensive line coach Jeff Stoutland) for sure felt that Big V had more work on the right side," Jason Kelce said. "Andre, he's a tackle by trade and there's a little bit of a difference and a little bit of balance and body control that you have to get used to going on the right side, but he'll be able to get it done. He's a really athletic kid."

 

Doug on January 21, 2020:

https://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/news/andre-dillard-first-year-was-an-incredible-learning-experience

Quote

"That's why we drafted him," Pederson said. "We have total confidence in Andre. He is a tremendous athlete. He's smart. We have a lot of confidence in him."

Stoutland on Oct 2nd:

Video:  tremendous, quick twitch, use of his hands, angles, movement, great balance...  on RT early on a little uncomfortable, but made tremendous improvements there, very happy with his progress.  See video for the comments beginning at 2:42

3 hours ago, eagle45 said:

Inside info is necessarily to know IF they are signing Peters because they lost confidence in Dillard.

I have no idea if the above is true.

But if they DO sign Peters, it doesn’t take inside info or a leap of logic to determine that they have no faith in Dillard.

Afraid it does. Unless you are there or they announce a reason you only have a leap. I mean you might be right, and you might not. Right now let's just agree that Jason needs to move on.

4 hours ago, NOTW said:

Or, they sign JP who couldn't get signed by 31 other teams in 2 months of free agency so he comes back on a temp deal to provide depth at the position, they still have faith in Dillard but are adding talent.

They drafted a 2nd round QB to be a backup for Wentz.  They drafted JJAW in the 2nd to groom for 2 years behind Jeffrey knowing the contract they gave him.  

None of you who believe the narrative that the Eagles have doubts about Dillard have answered the question posed many times:  if they didn't trust Dillard, why let both JP and Big V walk in free agency?  

They did, so that means if JP signed somewhere else they were fine with Dillard as the starter.  

If they decide to sign JP again, it doesn't definitely mean they have "no faith" in Dillard.  It could mean they want JP as a backup, it could mean they will have him start but know that he might get hurt again and Dillard would step in at that point, it could mean they believe in Dillard as the future of the franchise but why not have him learn some more behind a Hall of Fame player.  It could mean a number of things.

So what if they sign JP and they said Dillard is the starter and JP is here for depth?

I don't believe or disbelieve the narrative that the Eagles have doubts about Dillard.  I have no idea.  But I am sticking to the stance that if they sign Peters, they must have doubts about Dillard.

If they sign JP and say Dillard is the starter, I will be absolutely stunned.  Shocked.  I think it's an impossibility.  If they do that, fine, that doesn't say anything bad about anyone.  But I think it's absolutely, definitely, no doubt about it, never happening.

And saying "why not have him learn some more behind a HOF player" is a really misleading way of summing up the situation.  Peters is so far removed from being that type of player.  It would really be hard to justify Dillard as the future of the franchise if he can't start over Peters.  If we just continue to put all our draft picks on this "why not sit on the bench and take 2 years to help the team" plan, we are destined for problems.  

Call me short sighted, but if they sign Peters, it can only mean one thing.

1 hour ago, eagle45 said:

I don't believe or disbelieve the narrative that the Eagles have doubts about Dillard.  I have no idea.  But I am sticking to the stance that if they sign Peters, they must have doubts about Dillard.

If they sign JP and say Dillard is the starter, I will be absolutely stunned.  Shocked.  I think it's an impossibility.  If they do that, fine, that doesn't say anything bad about anyone.  But I think it's absolutely, definitely, no doubt about it, never happening.

And saying "why not have him learn some more behind a HOF player" is a really misleading way of summing up the situation.  Peters is so far removed from being that type of player.  It would really be hard to justify Dillard as the future of the franchise if he can't start over Peters.  If we just continue to put all our draft picks on this "why not sit on the bench and take 2 years to help the team" plan, we are destined for problems.  

Call me short sighted, but if they sign Peters, it can only mean one thing.

If the Eagles bring back Peters no one can tell me they think OT is to be some backup. Bottom line they don’t need Peters if they believe Dillard is ready. It is illogical to sit Dillard for Peters if at this moment Dillard is the better player. Anyone trying to come up with that idea is only fooling themselves. 

On 5/10/2020 at 4:14 AM, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

I see what you've done there... But isn't it 7 dog years for every 1 human year?

For what it's worth:

 

• 15 human years equals the first year of a medium-sized dog’s life.
• Year two for a dog equals about nine years for a human.
• And after that, each human year would be approximately five years for a dog.

🐕 🐩

On 5/14/2020 at 3:46 PM, eagle45 said:

Inside info is necessarily to know IF they are signing Peters because they lost confidence in Dillard.

I have no idea if the above is true.

But if they DO sign Peters, it doesn’t take inside info or a leap of logic to determine that they have no faith in Dillard.

I disagree.  If they traded for a stud LT or signed one in free agency I’d be concerned.  But bringing back the greatest offensive lineman who ever wore an Eagles uniform for another season at the right price is smart.

1 hour ago, Hawkeye said:

I disagree.  If they traded for a stud LT or signed one in free agency I’d be concerned.  But bringing back the greatest offensive lineman who ever wore an Eagles uniform for another season at the right price is smart.

Maybe Dawk is available for the right price for safety help too.  

4 hours ago, Hawkeye said:

I disagree.  If they traded for a stud LT or signed one in free agency I’d be concerned.  But bringing back the greatest offensive lineman who ever wore an Eagles uniform for another season at the right price is smart.

Not if Dillard is supposed to be ready and better than him right now. He had a full year of grooming, and he’s still not ready? It’s like stating the Eagles traded for Jason Peters, but they still should have resigned Tre Thomas. 

5 hours ago, EazyEaglez said:

Not if Dillard is supposed to be ready and better than him right now. He had a full year of grooming, and he’s still not ready? It’s like stating the Eagles traded for Jason Peters, but they still should have resigned Tre Thomas. 

I don't even necessarily think it's about whether Dillard is better right now. I mean he's going in to his second year, it's a lot to ask for him to be better than Peters right now. But he can't really get to the, hopefully, top level if he doesn't play. 

14 hours ago, eagle45 said:

Maybe Dawk is available for the right price for safety help too.  

It was a mistake to let him go when they did.  Maybe they learned something.