37 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

People can’t understand that to make a trade there has to be an agreement on compensation.  It’s been reported more than once the Eagles have gotten calls on Dillard. Why would Howie trade Dillard for a late-round draft pick when he has more value to the Eagles as a depth OL?  Johnson and Mailata have not been Iron Men the past few seasons — they both miss time.  Dillard started 5 games just this past season.

If there was an offer of a 3rd round pick or better then Dillard would have been traded by now.  Teams will low-ball an offer or wait for roster cuts before they’ll offer a Day 2 draft pick for a player who isn’t currently a starter.  

 

 

27 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

This is my exact thought. It’s also not impossible Dillard is an Eagles longterm.
 

Lane is 32, how many 35+ year old tackles are currently starting in the NFL? Or how implausible would it be that Dillard says he likes Philly, wants to stay, and Howie says he’ll give him a modest contract to be the swing tackle (or compete at guard), a Derek Barnett-type depth investment. 
 

There are a lot of options with having an extra "starting caliber” LT, and just dumping him for peanuts seems like the worst one. Based on his limited play experience, it’s unlikely he’ll get an open market deal that would out-bid us for what we’d pay a valuable Olineman depth piece. Not saying it’s likely, but it’s far more worthwhile to hold on to him for the possibility than to even accept a couple of 5th rounders 

You guys are both getting a little hung up on a stupid point raised by an obvious troll. 

1 hour ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

This is my exact thought. It’s also not impossible Dillard is an Eagles longterm.
 

Lane is 32, how many 35+ year old tackles are currently starting in the NFL? Or how implausible would it be that Dillard says he likes Philly, wants to stay, and Howie says he’ll give him a modest contract to be the swing tackle (or compete at guard), a Derek Barnett-type depth investment. 
 

There are a lot of options with having an extra "starting caliber” LT, and just dumping him for peanuts seems like the worst one. Based on his limited play experience, it’s unlikely he’ll get an open market deal that would out-bid us for what we’d pay a valuable Olineman depth piece. Not saying it’s likely, but it’s far more worthwhile to hold on to him for the possibility than to even accept a couple of 5th rounders 

I agree on the last part about a couple of 5th isn’t worth what value he has this year as the backup at LT. Additionally that I’m guessing the comp pick the following year could be higher if he signs elsewhere due to his age and potential talent.

That said i don’t see the eagles after this year getting him on a modest contract. The nfl is starved for just solid offensive line play. If he reaches free agency he’s going to be 27 years old. Still young where his second contract you likely could get the best year’s of his career. Plus he has less wear and tear than a normal player after his rookie contract as he’s not played as much (although got hurt missed an entire year) and he still has starting upside. If vaitai who i think is just less talented but more versatile was able to get 5 years $45 mil with $20 mil guaranteed (think he was basically average to slightly above average) then a couple years later with a higher salary cap and a guy who imo is more talented likely gets more from some team. Especially if dillard is able to show some versatility and competency at guard or show he can also play RT.  

15 hours ago, Sack that QB said:

Anyone know what the longest streak in NFL history is of having no back to back division titles? The NFC East has to be coming close since 2004 if it doesn't have the record already.

Longest Streaks by Division. I tried to track through the mergers but there were no significant streaks through the mergers and splits.

1967 NFC East - 17 Years (Current, as if you didn't know)

1967 NFC North - 6 Years

2002 NFC South - 11 Years

1967 NFC West - 8 Years

1960 AFC East - 5 Years

1970 AFC North - 6 Years

2002 AFC South - 1 Year

1960 AFC West - 12 Years

2 hours ago, Bacarty2 said:

The commish of the league came to be mid year and asked if I wanted to be an asst. coach. I assume that meant my son would likely be on it. 

Realistically he's probably way above average with the glove, when you compare him to the ENTIRE league, but compared to the All star caliber kids he's probably bottom tier. But again, his bat is top 3-5 in the league. 

With all that being said, I shut that down before he couldnt even finish the sentence asking me to coach. I dont need a 7 year old losing out on his summer, nor do i want to lose my summer. I'm a firm believer in kids being kids this young. Summer, swim clubs, the beach. Other sports. Just yesterday I flipped on the LPGA yesterday and he asked if we could go to the driving range this week. 

 

Good on you for shutting down that reverse nepotism.

1 hour ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

This is my exact thought. It’s also not impossible Dillard is an Eagles longterm.
 

Lane is 32, how many 35+ year old tackles are currently starting in the NFL? Or how implausible would it be that Dillard says he likes Philly, wants to stay, and Howie says he’ll give him a modest contract to be the swing tackle (or compete at guard), a Derek Barnett-type depth investment. 
 

There are a lot of options with having an extra "starting caliber” LT, and just dumping him for peanuts seems like the worst one. Based on his limited play experience, it’s unlikely he’ll get an open market deal that would out-bid us for what we’d pay a valuable Olineman depth piece. Not saying it’s likely, but it’s far more worthwhile to hold on to him for the possibility than to even accept a couple of 5th rounders 

I'd say its nearly impossible. His 5th year was declined, and he's set to be a free agent. He'll get a deal somewhere that makes him either more money or more likely to play. Wouldn't make any sense for him to stay here. 

4 hours ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

Who are these teams that don’t currently have a LT that is good enough to be a starter?

 

I'd imagine you have more than a fair share around the league that don't have good starting LTs.  Just like every other position. 

15 hours ago, Wentz_Era said:

I think a gentle nudge into sports is a good thing.  Learning a team game, the skills for playing is invaluable for kids IMO.  They can make their decision from there if it's not their thing.

Yup totally agree, I played sports from kindergarten through high school, then I coached freshman football for 7 years so maybe I'll nudge my son towards some sport.

16 hours ago, justrelax said:

Kempski has a history of personal animus toward Dillard. Nothing, I mean nothing, he says about him should be taken as true.

Kempski also is an idiot about line play.

Just my two cents.

I don't think Kempski has any particular dislike of Dillard.  He has criticized his play but I don't think it has been unfair.  If you watch those highlights there are times where Dillard gets to the 2nd level and doesn't seem to aggressively attack the defenders.  He does have a hard time anchoring against bull rushes.  

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I'd say its nearly impossible. His 5th year was declined, and he's set to be a free agent. He'll get a deal somewhere that makes him either more money or more likely to play. Wouldn't make any sense for him to stay here. 

This is why he won't get traded for less than a 3.  I expect that's the value Howie thinks he will get in a comp pick if he leaves via FA. 

14 hours ago, eagle45 said:

The post-mortem on Dillard will be an interesting one (and we are basically already there).

I wanted Montez Sweat or Hollywood Brown, in that order, with that pick.  (For better or worse).  I actually got bashed for saying I was disappointed in the pick because it reflected a lack of a reliable succession pathway for Mailata as the LT of the future.  If Mailata was SO talented (he was/is) and Stoutland was SUCH a good coach (he was/is), then what was the rush to burn a first round pick (plus other picks) on a LT when there were DE/WR prospects on the board that fit what we needed?

That’s the bad.  I hated the circumstances of the pick given the above.  Dillard the prospect?  A freakishly quick OT with a silky smooth kick back who basically neutralized outside speed rushers with ease…in this passing league?  At #22?  I’ve said a lot of bad things about Howie, but that’s a good draft pick, even if he ended up failing.  Dillard was 1 year older than most of his draft class, which does piss me off.  I firmly believe that older players generally have much less upside in this league.  But still…that’s good value.   

Yup, i wanted Sweat as well, wasnt mad at the Dillard pick, though I had said previously that I thought Mailata could be the LT so as said I didn't see the need for Dillard thought eagles could have gone elsewhere with the pick but at the time it was a solid value pick.

24 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

This is why he won't get traded for less than a 3.  I expect that's the value Howie thinks he will get in a comp pick if he leaves via FA. 

Maybe. I always think it's kind of dumb to bank on a comp pick and put yourself in a corner. 

14 hours ago, eagle45 said:

The post-mortem on Dillard will be an interesting one (and we are basically already there).

I wanted Montez Sweat or Hollywood Brown, in that order, with that pick.  (For better or worse).  I actually got bashed for saying I was disappointed in the pick because it reflected a lack of a reliable succession pathway for Mailata as the LT of the future.  If Mailata was SO talented (he was/is) and Stoutland was SUCH a good coach (he was/is), then what was the rush to burn a first round pick (plus other picks) on a LT when there were DE/WR prospects on the board that fit what we needed?

That’s the bad.  I hated the circumstances of the pick given the above.  Dillard the prospect?  A freakishly quick OT with a silky smooth kick back who basically neutralized outside speed rushers with ease…in this passing league?  At #22?  I’ve said a lot of bad things about Howie, but that’s a good draft pick, even if he ended up failing.  Dillard was 1 year older than most of his draft class, which does piss me off.  I firmly believe that older players generally have much less upside in this league.  But still…that’s good value.   

I'm not mad at the Dillard pick. We had Jason Peters in what should have been his last year. Mailata had a stress fracture in his back at the end of his rookie season, and was already raw, so he couldn't be counted on. Dillard plays a premium position that we value highly.

The biggest failings of the Dillard pick was not knowing his personality better. They should have anticipated that he could fall. 

Dillard was the right pick, wasn't mad about it then, not mad about it now. Dillard was a consensus top half of the 1st rd pick, and Peters was on his last leg. It made all the sense in the world

Mailata becoming who he became was not something the Eagles could have or should have counted on. Dillard would be our starting LT for the next decade if Jordan hadn't had his miraculous rise.

7 minutes ago, RLC said:

I'm not mad at the Dillard pick. We had Jason Peters in what should have been his last year. Mailata had a stress fracture in his back at the end of his rookie season, and was already raw, so he couldn't be counted on. Dillard plays a premium position that we value highly.

The biggest failings of the Dillard pick was not knowing his personality better. They should have anticipated that he could fall. 

I absolutely understand that Peters was toast and Mailata, at best, needed more time, and at worst was a total unknown who might never be able to play in this league.  But given the marriage of his unique talent with Stoutland's coaching, I would have preferred to try to save the first round pick and address a different position, as there was very good talent on the board at their pick.

1 minute ago, D-Shiznit said:

Dillard was the right pick, wasn't mad about it then, not mad about it now. Dillard was a consensus top half of the 1st rd pick, and Peters was on his last leg. It made all the sense in the world

Mailata becoming who he became was not something the Eagles could have or should have counted on. Dillard would be our starting LT for the next decade if Jordan hadn't had his miraculous rise.

It's fine that you couldn't count on Mailata, but LT also was not the only pressing need.  It was absolutely a bit disappointing to have an exciting (although longshot) talent at LT from the year before (Mailata) just to see 1st round pick burnt on the position 1 year later.

8 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

I absolutely understand that Peters was toast and Mailata, at best, needed more time, and at worst was a total unknown who might never be able to play in this league.  But given the marriage of his unique talent with Stoutland's coaching, I would have preferred to try to save the first round pick and address a different position, as there was very good talent on the board at their pick.

I agree with you, though with Howie, he probably would have taken N'Keal Harry or LJ Collier instead of Sweat/Abram/whoever else. 

6 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

I absolutely understand that Peters was toast and Mailata, at best, needed more time, and at worst was a total unknown who might never be able to play in this league.  But given the marriage of his unique talent with Stoutland's coaching, I would have preferred to try to save the first round pick and address a different position, as there was very good talent on the board at their pick.

I disagree. They just gave Wentz a huge deal and was coming into a season where he didn’t finish the previous two. Like you said, Mailata was a huge unknown and Peters was already shot. LT had to be the top priority to protect the (what they thought) franchise QB. 

3 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

I absolutely understand that Peters was toast and Mailata, at best, needed more time, and at worst was a total unknown who might never be able to play in this league.  But given the marriage of his unique talent with Stoutland's coaching, I would have preferred to try to save the first round pick and address a different position, as there was very good talent on the board at their pick.

That's a different argument, one that I'm fine with. If we have a great OL coach, why take OL early? That's fair.

Conversely, if we can't draft WRs, might as well trade picks for established ones. 

While we are doing Dillard, let's do Miles Sanders.

After a promising rookie year, he was immediately labeled a great Howie pick. 

#53 overall.  RB.  818/3TD, 867/6TD, 754/0TD....and a regressing presence in the passing game with durability problems.  

This is reason #782 not to draft RB's high.  Sure, you could do worse.   But I wouldn't draft a crystal ball Miles Sanders 2.0 anywhere in round 2.

1 minute ago, RLC said:

That's a different argument, one that I'm fine with. If we have a great OL coach, why take OL early? That's fair.

Conversely, if we can't draft WRs, might as well trade picks for established ones. 

It was fine to take Dillard there, just disappointing for a fan who might be wide-eyed over Mailata's talent and eager to think of him as the future at LT and was ready to add talent at a different position.  

24 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Maybe. I always think it's kind of dumb to bank on a comp pick and put yourself in a corner. 

Maybe but Dillard is a competent starter and there's value to keeping him on the roster.  I think a 3rd round pick is a fair value for a competent starting LT.  They do not need to trade him.  Why take what is less than a reasonable value? 

Just now, NCiggles said:

Maybe but Dillard is a competent starter and there's value to keeping him on the roster.  I think a 3rd round pick is a fair value for a competent starting LT.  They do not need to trade him.  Why take what is less than a reasonable value? 

LT is a bit like QB in that regard.  A merely competent starter is what you call a really good backup.  A competent starter who is actually starting is a bridge.  While the Commanders just did it, I wouldn't want my team to be in the habit of trading 3rd round picks for bridges.

17 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

While we are doing Dillard, let's do Miles Sanders.

After a promising rookie year, he was immediately labeled a great Howie pick. 

#53 overall.  RB.  818/3TD, 867/6TD, 754/0TD....and a regressing presence in the passing game with durability problems.  

This is reason #782 not to draft RB's high.  Sure, you could do worse.   But I wouldn't draft a crystal ball Miles Sanders 2.0 anywhere in round 2.

Miles Sanders in RD2 is average. It's neither good, nor bad.

The problem was that Sanders was the best pick in a bad 2019 draft.

13 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

LT is a bit like QB in that regard.  A merely competent starter is what you call a really good backup.  A competent starter who is actually starting is a bridge.  While the Commanders just did it, I wouldn't want my team to be in the habit of trading 3rd round picks for bridges.

I think it depends on where the rest of your roster is. If team that believes they are contending loses their starting LT, I would bet they think a 3rd round pick isn't much to pay for Dillard.  

2 hours ago, Vileborg said:

Longest Streaks by Division. I tried to track through the mergers but there were no significant streaks through the mergers and splits.

1967 NFC East - 17 Years (Current, as if you didn't know)

1967 NFC North - 6 Years

2002 NFC South - 11 Years

1967 NFC West - 8 Years

1960 AFC East - 5 Years

1970 AFC North - 6 Years

2002 AFC South - 1 Year

1960 AFC West - 12 Years

I did a quick look and it seems the AFC West had back to back division champs in 86 and 87 and then after that didn't have one until 99-2000.