I really like Nick Bonitto as I am watching him. I know we drafted a couple LB/DEs in the late round last year. And have Avery. I think Avery is a free agent. And if a guy like Bonitto is BPA at our pick in round 2 then you dont pass on him for those late round guys. 

He reminds me of Okoronkwo who was one of my absolute favorite pass rushers in that draft. Also from Oklahoma. They seem to know how to coach up these 230lb range guys to be great pass rushers. Okoronkwo had a million different pass rush moves and won just about every rep. Bonitto is similar in that, hes gonna get pressure almost time he rushes. Not quite as good there as Okoronkwo, but close. His initial burst is amazing speed rushing around the edge. Hes probably going to have an awesome 10 yard split on his 40. But when he goes inside he does a great job getting lower and using leverage to power through the OL. Even at 6'2'' 231 as listed on TDN he can disengage blockers, and make a physical tackle. Hes a really tough player. 

If we still have Gannon he can play that Avery position. If we go to a more traditional 3-4, I still love him as the OLB. Id probably rank him 3rd in 3-4 OLBs. Thibodeaux, Ojabo and then Bonitto (ranking him above Enegbare)

 

 

3 hours ago, ManuManu said:

I would break something if we traded a first-round pick for Jimmy G.

Yup.  Too expensive (draft picks)... and too expensive (salary).    

4 hours ago, jsb235 said:

So we can lose to teams with a better roster?

You are literally trying to make a point using facts that directly contradict the point you are trying to make.

The 49ers game is the best evidence we have that a team with an average qb can do well as long as you build around them. And if the 49ers had stayed at 12 and drafted Parsons, maybe they win a Super Bowl this year.

Meanwhile, you want us to get a qb who is going to be worse than Rodgers, so we can put him on a roster that is worse than Green Bay's, and somehow that's going to win us a Super Bowl?

No, it doesn’t contradict it at all. For one, the Eagles can both add a QB and improve the roster. It isn’t one or the other. The general point is that when you have the better QB you’re going to win most of the time. Not all the time. Sure, it wasn’t the case for the packers yesterday, but look at the remaining teams in the playoffs otherwise. Mahomes, Burrow, Allen, Brady. It’s the norm, not the anomaly. The point was that there’s a ton of parity in the NFL and any team is beatable, and the best chance to beat one of those teams is to get an elite QB even if it the packers game specifically it didn’t work out that way.

Ya I don’t see anybody saying they want Jimmy G. Just that he’s a better QB than hurts. And that’s sad cause jimmy g isn’t very good

3 hours ago, RLC said:

Still, this shows the importance of teams. It's not just the QB.

I don't think that anyone ever said that it didn't take a team... but that a top QB can elevate a lower level talent team higher, and a bottom talent QB can sink a higher level talent team.

4 hours ago, jsb235 said:

As opposed to your plan of magically acquiring a top 5 qb and letting everything else work itself out.

Yes as opposed to that

 

1 hour ago, eagle45 said:

You can’t have it both ways.  If Hurts is so special because he "took the Eagles to the playoffs” then Jimmy G is better because he "took SF to the NFCCG.”

You can’t elevate Hurts above other qbs simply because the Eagles made the playoffs, equate him to other qbs simply because they all lost in round 1, and then say he’s better than qbs who advanced deep in the playoffs simply because you like Hurts better as a player.  
 

It doesn’t work that way.

That said, no I don't want Jimmy G

29 minutes ago, Original Sin said:

The eagles can’t/ won’t develop Hurts , what makes you think they could develop another young QB ?

just by the things the Eagles ask of hurts , shows they aren’t interested in teaching him how to play the QB position , IMO 

It’s not the coaches, it’s the player. I say draft someone and open competition to start week 1. 

9 minutes ago, Green_Guinness said:

Why do you assume it's that the Eagles can't coach and not that Hurts just doesn't possess the abilities to get it?  I've said it before that things like seeing the field, being able to make quick decisions on when/where to throw the ball, and pocket presence are more natural and innate qualities than ones that can be taught and learned.  And Hurts just doesn't have those natural innate abilities.  He's had TWO different coaching staffs working with him with the Eagles.  It's him.

 

I was going to post that your entire argument is flawed but there is one part that isn't. "Seeing the field" or spacial awareness is innate - Tom Brady has spacial awareness on a level that I've only seen in 1 other player - Wayne Gretzky. BUT - spacial awareness is an ability all people have - it is a skill that can be improved. Everything in your post "can" be improved but as with all things there exists a different ceiling for each individual. Everyone starts at a different level and finishes at a different level. 

QBs rarely make huge improvements in season. The notion that Sirianni's staff failed to coach him up is flawed. Hurts has been in 4 different offenses in the past 4 seasons. That would be a hindrence to any QBs development. I expect him to make a huge leap this offseason which is why unless a bonafide better alternative presents itself I want to see him as an Eagle next season. I welcome real competition.

I dont know what to make of Josh Paschal. He reminds me a lot of Vinny Curry. Pretty much same size. 6'3'' 278. He is muscular, but almost as wide as a DT. Curry played OLB for us, as well as just about any position on the DL. Paschal has similar versatility (minus OLB), he does anything, in any formation on the DL. He is dominant against the run. He can knife through gaps, or he can just shed blockers at the right time. He completely ives in the backfield. Yet... only 5 sacks last year. I dont really know how you can have 15 TFLs and be in the backfield so much. But not sack the QB. 

I want to say this guy is a 2nd rounder because he is so dominant. But that low sack total makes me want to say round 3. I dont know.... Despite the sacks though, I really, really like watching him play. 

1 minute ago, HazletonEagle said:

I dont know what to make of Josh Paschal. He reminds me a lot of Vinny Curry. Pretty much same size. 6'3'' 278. He is muscular, but almost as wide as a DT. Curry played OLB for us, as well as just about any position on the DL. Paschal has similar versatility (minus OLB), he does anything, in any formation on the DL. He is dominant against the run. He can knife through gaps, or he can just shed blockers at the right time. He completely ives in the backfield. Yet... only 5 sacks last year. I dont really know how you can have 15 TFLs and be in the backfield so much. But not sack the QB. 

I want to say this guy is a 2nd rounder because he is so dominant. But that low sack total makes me want to say round 3. I dont know.... Despite the sacks though, I really, really like watching him play. 

Run defense, pressures, but no sacks.  Sounds like an Eagle DL already.  

Just now, HazletonEagle said:

I dont know what to make of Josh Paschal. He reminds me a lot of Vinny Curry. Pretty much same size. 6'3'' 278. He is muscular, but almost as wide as a DT. Curry played OLB for us, as well as just about any position on the DL. Paschal has similar versatility (minus OLB), he does anything, in any formation on the DL. He is dominant against the run. He can knife through gaps, or he can just shed blockers at the right time. He completely ives in the backfield. Yet... only 5 sacks last year. I dont really know how you can have 15 TFLs and be in the backfield so much. But not sack the QB. 

I want to say this guy is a 2nd rounder because he is so dominant. But that low sack total makes me want to say round 3. I dont know.... Despite the sacks though, I really, really like watching him play. 

Curry was drafted in 2012 as a DE and played DE in Reids last year. Then CK happened and the experiment with the 3/4 moved Curry to OLB primarily. Once CK was gone Curry reverted to DE and finished his career there.

8 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

Not really.

There are plenty of mediocre salesmen that are great at managing sales.  Different skill set and those leadership skills are harder to find.  We've seen plenty of 'hot' coordinators fail because being a HC is more than just game planning.

6 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Run defense, pressures, but no sacks.  Sounds like an Eagle DL already.  

Possible

Paschal is a beast.  I just dont know what allows him to get in to the backfield so quickly to stop the RB behind the LOS, but you cant do that to the QB? I cant make that make sense. 

I know if Im ranking guys who are going to improve the physicality and toughness of the D upront so far its 4 guys. 

Travon Walker

Logan Hall

Josh Paschal

Nick Bonitto

 

If you have a few of those guys on your D, it will be feared by offenses. No one will want to play against them. Theyre gonna beat you up all game.

19 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

the Eagles can both add a QB and improve the roster. It isn’t one or the other.

Walk me through this. What qb are you adding that will be a significant upgrade and also allow them to make the roster better at the same time?

Because I don't see it.

3 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Possible

Paschal is a beast.  I just dont know what allows him to get in to the backfield so quickly to stop the RB behind the LOS, but you cant do that to the QB? I cant make that make sense. 

 

He blows up / past run blocking but lacks the skill set to beat pass blocking. The good news is if you have the quickness and strength to do the former than the skills to do the latter can be taught.

23 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

No, it doesn’t contradict it at all. For one, the Eagles can both add a QB and improve the roster. It isn’t one or the other. The general point is that when you have the better QB you’re going to win most of the time. Not all the time. Sure, it wasn’t the case for the packers yesterday, but look at the remaining teams in the playoffs otherwise. Mahomes, Burrow, Allen, Brady. It’s the norm, not the anomaly. The point was that there’s a ton of parity in the NFL and any team is beatable, and the best chance to beat one of those teams is to get an elite QB even if it the packers game specifically it didn’t work out that way.

Say, did anyone score 20 points yesterday?

Guess defense and special teams still matter.

Just now, jsb235 said:

Walk me through this. What qb are you adding that will be a significant upgrade and also allow them to make the roster better at the same time?

Because I don't see it.

Because we are pulling a Ditka and trading our entire draft for QB.

Just now, austinfan said:

Say, did anyone score 20 points yesterday?

Guess defense and special teams still matter.

Yesterday was the exception, not the rule.

1 minute ago, Nivraga said:

I was going to post that your entire argument is flawed but there is one part that isn't. "Seeing the field" or spacial awareness is innate - Tom Brady has spacial awareness on a level that I've only seen in 1 other player - Wayne Gretzky. BUT - spacial awareness is an ability all people have - it is a skill that can be improved. Everything in your post "can" be improved but as with all things there exists a different ceiling for each individual. Everyone starts at a different level and finishes at a different level. 

QBs rarely make huge improvements in season. The notion that Sirianni's staff failed to coach him up is flawed. Hurts has been in 4 different offenses in the past 4 seasons. That would be a hindrence to any QBs development. I expect him to make a huge leap this offseason which is why unless a bonafide better alternative presents itself I want to see him as an Eagle next season. I welcome real competition.

That's fair.  I appreciate your differing opinion.  I do agree that everyone's ceiling is different so if the Eagles don't make a move at QB then we'll most likely get to see what his ceiling of learning is.  I don't especially think his is high and would be very surprised if he improved enough to be a solid quality starting NFL QB. 

And maybe I wrote it wrong, but I wasn't suggesting these abilities can't be improved upon at all, but IMO they can only be improved upon marginally or maybe moderately at most.  And as poor as he has been in these areas he's going to have to improve at least moderately and perhaps more to be good enough. 

1 hour ago, Original Sin said:

 

I think this reflects defenses moving to more "prevent" schemes, more zone, faster, smaller guys in the back seven, better pass rushers.

This will make a balanced attack with a power running game more valuable going forward, and pass happy QBs less valuable - Tannehill has a great arm, but has too much confidence n that arm. And it cost his team. Burrow didn't show a lot of arm, but he did show a lot of patience.

3 minutes ago, Nivraga said:

He blows up / past run blocking but lacks the skill set to beat pass blocking. The good news is if you have the quickness and strength to do the former than the skills to do the latter can be taught.

Or he might just be a vinny curry type player who is always gonna be a playmaker in the run game but only a few sacks each year. I dont know...

Even if thats the case, somehow I still love him.

2 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Say, did anyone score 20 points yesterday?

Guess defense and special teams still matter.

So do sox.

But the shoes still matter more.