7 hours ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Well Donald was a 1st rounder in 2014. He was actually their last first round defensive pick. So 9 drafts ago is the last time they used a first rounder on a defensive player (including this year cause they have no first rounder). the rams drafted one first rounder in 9 drafts on defense (Donald) then built the entire rest of the defense via trades, FA and drafting in rounds 2-7.

I mean maybe if we didn’t turn 3 first round picks into Derek Barnett, Andre Dillard, Jalen Reagor and then second round picks on a "backup” quarterback, Sidney jones and JJAW the Eagles might have some players like that. Idk maybe we should’ve done a better job scouting and drafting early rounds from 2017-2020. 

Elite GM

Rams took SS Nick Scott out of Penn State in the 7th round in 2019. What a find that was

21 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

He's a poor man's Chris Olave.  I love both of these guys but the only drawback is the Eagles would probably be the only team in NFL history with 2 starting WR hovering around 170 lbs. 

I’ve more come around to this way of thinking. I’d prefer a guy with some size and playmaking ability (NOT a 50/50 ball guy) in R2/3 like Pickett, Ross, Pierce, Ekunama, etc. and then also try and grab Rambo on day 3. I mean this:

Smith

Pierce

Watkins

Rambo

Ward

Reagor

looks way better than:

Smith

Watkins

Reagor

JJAW

Ward

17 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

What did Strong measure?

9 1/4”

49 minutes ago, greend said:

Is that from PFF? Don't forget the "should have been longer" category.

Don't neglect the interceptable balls

10 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

My hands are 9 1/4 inches.  I used to be able throw a football far.  But could never throw a tight spiral, don't know why.  I used to be able to throw a baseball fast, but was a little wild.  My first LL game I struck out 11 and walked 12. 

 

I have always had big hands....you know what that means..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Big gloves

Nuke LaLoosh … "in addition he hit the mascot twice, also, new league records”

31 minutes ago, greend said:

Critique away fellas

• 2023 TEN 2nd
• 2023 TEN 3rd

WR with the first pick would be wasted with our current QB.   And personally, I'm not in on Pickett.  I think everyone knows which QB I want.  So, I give you a C+.  I like a lot of the other selections though.   Still rather offensive dominant, specifically the early picks with 3 out of the first 4 on offense.    I do like the future picks being added though.

Perhaps one thing on the roster build vs QB trade is how bad the depth on the Eagles is.  The D side of the ball is so light on talent, the FO are stuck in a position where they can't ignore it or solve it in one off season with a couple of picks and FA and then trade picks for a star QB.  Whatever they do will be wrong; do you keep Hurts and draft to build the roster, or trade multiple high picks and go back to the likes of Singleton and Ridgeway getting a lot of snaps next season and signing players like Eric Wilson in FA?

The playoff loss highlighted that both Hurts is not the long term solution and the D is so untalented across the board, a good QB just picks them apart with ease.  Wasting picks on players like JJAW or drafting Goedert when you had an elite TE created this position. 

If ever there was a case study for organisational hubris, the Eagles did it all.

1 hour ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

He hasn't.  He just goes to stats like most of the Hurts Squirters....Analytics and stats.  

So you are disparaging folks that are at least humble enough to admit that they aren’t pro scouts? I mean, if making these sweeping conclusions from your couch based on what you watched was all it took to be an NFL scout, all these GMs that sign/draft the wrong players should all get canned and you can send in your resume.

Even the NFL guys admit that being able to determine good v bad NFL play is extremely difficult, even for the pros. They rely on analytics to give them context. If a measuring criteria produces absurd results (i.e., doesn’t reflect that Justin Herbert and Josh Allen are playing at a silly high level), you toss it out. But you don’t dismiss it just because it hints that you have no idea what you’re looking at when you watch football.

5 minutes ago, UK Eagle said:

Perhaps one thing on the roster build vs QB trade is how bad the depth on the Eagles is.  The D side of the ball is so light on talent, the FO are stuck in a position where they can't ignore it or solve it in one off season with a couple of picks and FA and then trade picks for a star QB.  Whatever they do will be wrong; do you keep Hurts and draft to build the roster, or trade multiple high picks and go back to the likes of Singleton and Ridgeway getting a lot of snaps next season and signing players like Eric Wilson in FA?

The playoff loss highlighted that both Hurts is not the long term solution and the D is so untalented across the board, a good QB just picks them apart with ease.  Wasting picks on players like JJAW or drafting Goedert when you had an elite TE created this position. 

If ever there was a case study for organisational hubris, the Eagles did it all.

What available QB is actually even worth the cost of multiple first round draft picks AND $30M-$40M in annual salary?   

That's a splash move that would completely undercut any kind of sustainability, as you say.  And we'd still have the same issues on defense.

 

Nah, skip the QB auction, and just build the team the right way.  But, if one of these QBs is there and they've done their due diligence and think he's a potential long term solution, they can't pass him up.   They also shouldn't throw him to the wolves immediately.  They have Hurts and Minshew who can start until the kid has developed in practice a bit.  BUT... that kid should be getting 50% of the first team reps the whole time.   And if a game comes along that's out of hand (like many games were this past year...) he gets the full second half or as much of the game as he can to work on things.

2 minutes ago, Thrive said:

So you are disparaging folks that are at least humble enough to admit that they aren’t pro scouts? I mean, if making these sweeping conclusions from your couch based on what you watched was all it took to be an NFL scout, all these GMs that sign/draft the wrong players should all get canned and you can send in your resume.

Even the NFL guys admit that being able to determine good v bad NFL play is extremely difficult, even for the pros. They rely on analytics to give them context. If a measuring criteria produces absurd results (i.e., doesn’t reflect that Justin Herbert and Josh Allen are playing at a silly high level), you toss it out. But you don’t dismiss it just because it hints that you have no idea what you’re looking at when you watch football.

What do these advanced metrics that you want to use tell you about his field of vision?  What do they tell you about his pocket presence?  What do they tell you about his arm strength, delivery and accuracy?  What do the advanced metrics say about tendencies?  What do they tell you about timing and anticipation?  What do they tell you about 'throwing guys open'?  

 

You are right that finding the next great QB is hard.   But, generally, once they get to the NFL, it's pretty easy to see the guys who really have a shot of developing into something and those that don't. 

2 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

The problem is, these NFL scouts, GM's, etc etc are saying the same thing that us "couch sitters" are saying AND the stats back up both parties. 

He cant read a defense. He cant throw in the middle of the field. he can throw to the left side of the field and outside of garbage time points in big games he's looked completely lost. 

 

Fair enough but I’d be curious to see which NFL scouts/GMs are saying these things. All I have heard is the sideline clip from the Bucs’ game.

3 minutes ago, Thrive said:

So you are disparaging folks that are at least humble enough to admit that they aren’t pro scouts? I mean, if making these sweeping conclusions from your couch based on what you watched was all it took to be an NFL scout, all these GMs that sign/draft the wrong players should all get canned and you can send in your resume.

Even the NFL guys admit that being able to determine good v bad NFL play is extremely difficult, even for the pros. They rely on analytics to give them context. If a measuring criteria produces absurd results (i.e., doesn’t reflect that Justin Herbert and Josh Allen are playing at a silly high level), you toss it out. But you don’t dismiss it just because it hints that you have no idea what you’re looking at when you watch football.

Analytics should be the leading tool in a sport like baseball. The sample sizes are enormous, and because it's much more of an "individual" sport, it works far better there.

In football, analytics can be useful, but only taken in context with what we also see with our eyes. There is a much smaller sample size to draw from, but more than that, there are assignments and routes being run that analytics may not take into account. PFF was an example of this earlier in the year, when they assigned no pressures to one of our o-linemen (I forget who, maybe Mailata); you look at the tape, and the DE bull rushed him right into the QB. The argument made by PFF was another defender had caused Hurts to move to his left, right into the pressure, thus Mailata was absolved of being guilty, according to "analytics".

Just now, Thrive said:

Fair enough but I’d be curious to see which NFL scouts/GMs are saying these things. All I have heard is the sideline clip from the Bucs’ game.

I asked you this last night, and here's another example....what more do you need to see? An actual opposing coach, mocking Hurts inability to read a defense; which was bore out by the actual results on the field. 

11 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

You are right that finding the next great QB is hard.   But, generally, once they get to the NFL, it's pretty easy to see the guys who really have a shot of developing into something and those that don't. 

To an extent, yes.  There's also cases like Josh Allen, who many wrote off early on but was able to make adjustments/develop into a star. 

I'm not sure what the exact success rate of 1st round pick QB's is but it's likely similar to other positions (or worse)...meaning that even 1st round pick QB's only have around a 50%-60% success rate,  (Meaning starting or playing a significant amount of snaps after 5 years).  

 

And for what it's worth, this is the reason that I'm not against them drafting QB's "to develop".  Say you have a 60% success rate (at best)...that means you could always have at least 2 (1st or 2nd round pick) QB's on your roster.   I think there's a ton of "logic" behind this type of strategy.  

3 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

Analytics should be the leading tool in a sport like baseball. The sample sizes are enormous, and because it's much more of an "individual" sport, it works far better there.

In football, analytics can be useful, but only taken in context with what we also see with our eyes. There is a much smaller sample size to draw from, but more than that, there are assignments and routes being run that analytics may not take into account. PFF was an example of this earlier in the year, when they assigned no pressures to one of our o-linemen (I forget who, maybe Mailata); you look at the tape, and the DE bull rushed him right into the QB. The argument made by PFF was another defender had caused Hurts to move to his left, right into the pressure, thus Mailata was absolved of being guilty, according to "analytics".

Agreed that issues exist with these advanced metrics (and quite frankly, I’d suspect that teams use far more nuanced and detailed measures than what we have publicly available) but they grade on a curve so if they measure the same way across the entire league, theoretically you should still come away with an overall clearer picture of a players play versus the league.

Listening to the ITB podcast, Spielman said if Jefferson was gone the Vikings would have taken Reagor or Aiyuk. 

Just now, Ace Nova said:

To an extent, yes.  There's also cases like Josh Allen, who many wrote off early on but was able to make adjustments/develop into a star. 

I'm not sure what the exact success rate of 1st round pick QB's is but it's likely similar to other positions (or worse)...meaning that even 1st round pick QB's only have around a 50%-60% success rate,  (Meaning starting or playing a significant amount of snaps after 5 years).  

I am so sick of this argument.  Josh Allen, even in his first two years, had plays that made your jaw drop.  His issue wasn't his talent, it was his consistency.   

 

Some players, like Allen, demonstrate flash plays that let you see and you continue to go down the road with them further.   But, tell me... what makes Jalen Hurts a better QB to invest in than Gardner Minshew?  Why have we written him off, but not Hurts?  

55 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

My hands are 9 1/4 inches.  I used to be able throw a football over that mountain there .  But could never throw a tight spiral, don't know why.  I used to be able to throw a baseball fast, but was a little wild.  My first LL game I struck out 11 and walked 12. 

 

I have always had big hands....you know what that means..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Big gloves

FYP

13 minutes ago, Thrive said:

Fair enough but I’d be curious to see which NFL scouts/GMs are saying these things. All I have heard is the sideline clip from the Bucs’ game.

That sideline clip is pretty bad.  An NFL defensive coach straight up saying a QB can not read a defense.

58 minutes ago, greendestiny27 said:

Rams took SS Nick Scott out of Penn State in the 7th round in 2019. What a find that was

PSU DBs... the get no hype,  and they just turn out to be good NFL players. 

 

5 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

I asked you this last night, and here's another example....what more do you need to see? An actual opposing coach, mocking Hurts inability to read a defense; which was bore out by the actual results on the field. 

This is a good question and it’s the same question the Eagles have to answer.
 

For me, I see a QB who, at Alabama, didn’t look like he could even become a backup QB in the NFL. Then I saw growth at Oklahoma but still certainly not backup QB level. He then shocked everyone at the Combine but even then there were folks who generally believed that he couldn’t play QB in the NFL.
 

I thought in 2020 he showed that his speed translated to the league but his passing was still bad (but better than what we saw in college). Like real bad - check out the thread on analytics. The analytics supported the view that he was a terrible passing QB. 

However, his play this year is so far better than anything we’ve seen from Jalen over the course of his college career and his first year (the analytics support this view and so do MY eyes ) that it begs to wonder exactly what this kid has.

The key here is projection and I have no idea how to project him. Will he take another jump? Based on trajectory, that seems likely. How high will the jump be? No clue. If it is similar to the jump he made this year, I think we are in business. If the jump is nominal, well he probably won’t be starting in 2023.

Reminds me a lot of what happened with Nick - huge jump from year 1 to 2 and seemingly plateaued in year 3. He was subsequently traded.

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I am so sick of this argument.  Josh Allen, even in his first two years, had plays that made your jaw drop.  His issue wasn't his talent, it was his consistency.   

 

Some players, like Allen, demonstrate flash plays that let you see and you continue to go down the road with them further.   But, tell me... what makes Jalen Hurts a better QB to invest in than Gardner Minshew?  Why have we written him off, but not Hurts?  

I like Gardner Minshew as a player/QB.  I think he's a currently a solid #2, someone you could "plug & play" and could win you a few games.   His scouting report, from what I've read, is his consistency.   I'd have no issues keeping him on the roster "to develop".  At the same time, I think Hurts has also shown "enough" to continue to develop.   It's not a "this or that" issue for me.  

And the main reason it's not a "this or that" type of issue for me...and I touched on this earlier...is the reason that I'm not against them drafting QB's "to develop".  Say you have a 60% success rate (at best)...that means you could always have at least 2 (1st -2nd round pick) QB's on your roster.    I think there's a ton of "logic" behind this type of strategy.   

14 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I am so sick of this argument.  Josh Allen, even in his first two years, had plays that made your jaw drop.  His issue wasn't his talent, it was his consistency.   

 

Some players, like Allen, demonstrate flash plays that let you see and you continue to go down the road with them further.   But, tell me... what makes Jalen Hurts a better QB to invest in than Gardner Minshew?  Why have we written him off, but not Hurts?  

I would also add Josh Allen if you go look at the roster on offense of the Buffalo Bills when he got there they had bad wide receivers, a poor offensive line and mccoy was done in his rookie year. This whole notion is like Jalen hurts is playing with a team on par that Josh Allen had early in his career. Jalen hurts has a top 5 oline, a better running game and more capable receiving threats in goedert and smith than anything Allen had as a rookie. Josh Allen didn’t have that as a rookie. They upgrade his second year with Beasley and John brown but still were building their oline and RBs up. 

I would also add Josh Allen was way more raw of a prospect than Jalen hurts coming out of Wyoming. Even though hurts is 23, he played in 56 games in college at two of the best programs in the country. Josh Allen played in 27 at Wyoming. The jump from Wyoming and that talent they played comparatively to Oklahoma and Alabama is a significantly bigger jump. Add on Josh Allen might have a top five arm in the history of the NFL. That’s how elite his arm talent was coming out of college.

people wanna be like you have to give them time like Josh Allen and look what happens. Josh Rosen got one year and the organization knew he wasnt what they thought and they were right. Paxton lynch had 5 starts in two years and they figured out he wasn’t very good.  So sometimes you could get Josh allen reward allowing him to develop. And sometimes it might just be theyre not as good as you thought Josh Rosen and Paxton lynch. But nobody wants to mention those two quarterbacks who didn’t get the time because they knew they weren’t good enough cause apparently everyone is josh Allen. 

19 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

To an extent, yes.  There's also cases like Josh Allen, who many wrote off early on but was able to make adjustments/develop into a star. 

I'm not sure what the exact success rate of 1st round pick QB's is but it's likely similar to other positions (or worse)...meaning that even 1st round pick QB's only have around a 50%-60% success rate,  (Meaning starting or playing a significant amount of snaps after 5 years).  

 

And for what it's worth, this is the reason that I'm not against them drafting QB's "to develop".  Say you have a 60% success rate (at best)...that means you could always have at least 2 (1st or 2nd round pick) QB's on your roster.   I think there's a ton of "logic" behind this type of strategy.  

Josh Allen started out with the physical tools though, he had the arm talent to make all the throws.

Hurts has mediocre arm talent.