3 minutes ago, justrelax said:

Perhaps, but Grant wasn’t thinking of trading Phil Sheridan to Lee.

Andre Dillard is no Phil Sheridan.   At best a George Meade, but more likely a Irvin McDowell, quite frankly.

6 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Y'know what I hate most about the "we could have picked" draft arguments? It's that it's very difficult to find a scenario where there wasn't a better player who was picked later that you passed on at the time. The only way that doesn't happen is if you pick the very best player when it's your turn. While not impossible, it's highly unlikely.

Say for example you have the tenth pick in the draft. You're probably going to get a very good player, and there are probably about a half dozen guys under consideration at that time. But hell, there are about 250 draftable players who are sitting there. The odds that you're getting the best out of 250 is not good. The best you can realistically hope for is to get someone good who is going to help you win games and who won't be a bust.

Regarding Barnett. I remember following that draft pretty closely. And I remember names like O.J. Howard, Malik Hooker, Gareon Conley, Jabrill Peppers, and Reuben Foster being names that were frequently talked about as candidates for us. Have any of those guys panned out? Is Barnett really any worse than those guys? Okay, sure, TJ Watt turned out to be better -- by a wide margin -- but I don't remember people pining for him at the time. Heck, Charles Harris, Takkarist McKinley, and Taco Charlton were pass rushers who were picked before Watt. To be fair, Jonathan Allen was also, and he was someone who was widely regarded to be someone who would be off the board at the time the Eagles were picked. So in my mind, there is some validity to arguments that "we should have picked Allen" whereas claims that "we should have picked Watt" are just hindsight taken to extremes.

My view is that they valued Barnett as a 1st round type talent.  He has not played to that level.  The question is whether they misevaluated him or whether he failed to develop for some other reason.  If they mis-evaluated him, then what was the trait or traits that led to the poor evaluation.  I think that's what matters.  Barnett has not played like a first round pick. It's too late to do anything about that for the team.  So what can be done to avoid the mistake in the future.  

1 minute ago, TorontoEagle said:

Nice. Woulda been free for me! 

Hamilton is similar to Pittsburgh. Even called Steeltown as well, I think. 

I have a bunch of friends in Ontario,  All over, from Point Edward, Caledonia, Hamilton, Guelph, Wairton, Ottawa. Some are up camping at Algonquin Park this week.  

29 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Y'know what I hate most about the "we could have picked" draft arguments? It's that it's very difficult to find a scenario where there wasn't a better player who was picked later that you passed on at the time. The only way that doesn't happen is if you pick the very best player when it's your turn. While not impossible, it's highly unlikely.

Say for example you have the tenth pick in the draft. You're probably going to get a very good player, and there are probably about a half dozen guys under consideration at that time. But hell, there are about 250 draftable players who are sitting there. The odds that you're getting the best out of 250 is not good. The best you can realistically hope for is to get someone good who is going to help you win games and who won't be a bust.

Regarding Barnett. I remember following that draft pretty closely. And I remember names like O.J. Howard, Malik Hooker, Gareon Conley, Jabrill Peppers, and Reuben Foster being names that were frequently talked about as candidates for us. Have any of those guys panned out? Is Barnett really any worse than those guys? Okay, sure, TJ Watt turned out to be better -- by a wide margin -- but I don't remember people pining for him at the time. Heck, Charles Harris, Takkarist McKinley, and Taco Charlton were pass rushers who were picked before Watt. To be fair, Jonathan Allen was also, and he was someone who was widely regarded to be someone who would be off the board at the time the Eagles were picked. So in my mind, there is some validity to arguments that "we should have picked Allen" whereas claims that "we should have picked Watt" are just hindsight taken to extremes.

Barnett was a downright bad talent for the top half of round 1, almost inexcusably bad.  His motor on the field (which also generates those penalties) and his technique caused him to stick despite not really being someone who moves the needle for the defense in a positive way.  It was just a bad swing, even if his contribution was comparable to some disappointing guys in that range.

3 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

My view is that they valued Barnett as a 1st round type talent.  He has not played to that level.  The question is whether they misevaluated him or whether he failed to develop for some other reason.  If they mis-evaluated him, then what was the trait or traits that led to the poor evaluation.  I think that's what matters.  Barnett has not played like a first round pick. It's too late to do anything about that for the team.  So what can be done to avoid the mistake in the future.  

Barnett had big sack numbers.  He had late round athleticism and explosion as an edge rusher.

5 hours ago, UndyTaker said:

It works both ways though. Whats also best for the Eagles is to not help Dallas. Any team thats willing to give up significant draft capital for Dillard will have an extension signed the day he is traded. Dallas is going to be about as desperate as it gets for a need at LT. I would tell them a 1st this year, and a 2nd next year. 

This is overblown, quite frankly.  Be the best team in your division based on making moves that benefit your team to the best of your ability.  Frankly, if Dillard is such an important asset, that he couldn't be permitted to be traded to Dallas, then he should have been given the 5th year.  But, he's not, so what's the big deal?  (And I say that as a fairly strong supporter of DIllard in the past.). He is expendable for two reasons.   One is his own play, and frankly the greatest reason.  Two is the obsession this team had with Peters at the end, and the fact that they didn't give the kid the opportunity soon enough... and then when that chance came, a poorly timed injury undercut the whole thing.  He's worth more to this team as a trade chip than as depth, honestly.  And... if Dallas is the highest bidder, so be it.  I'd rather use Dallas to drive the price up from another team, but I don't see Dillard as anything more than a potential solid pass blocking LT, who will never be a great run blocker.

Lol I love Peters but by all means, let Dallas sign him now. Not that I really buy this anyway. 

6 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Lol I love Peters but by all means, let Dallas sign him now. Not that I really buy this anyway. 

Only trade Dillard to Dallas at a MASSIVE premium price. Better be min 1st rounder which we know wont happen

45 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

The Eagles seem to disagree, as all reporters and writers say they are looking for TE depth.

Howie is always looking and the beats are always looking for a story.  I don't rule it out, but also believe Stoll, Togiai, Calcaterra, and Jackson is quite good young depth. 

6 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

 Nope.  Not me.  12 winters in Altoona Pa changed me forever. 

To be fair, part of that could have also just been living in Altoona.

11 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Lol I love Peters but by all means, let Dallas sign him now. Not that I really buy this anyway. 

Please I hope he goes, he is good for 2 False starts a game....when he plays.

He cant stay healthy

I popped on WIP to listen to Eagles talk and Giglio is filling in for Ike Reese. Giglio's take to start off the show:

The Eagles will re-sign Hurts in the offseason to a 4 year 140 million contract.

29 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

Calgary has nothing on Edmonton for cold, at least as far as I know. 

I've never been into Alberta, it's sorta like the elephant graveyard from the Lion King. 

 

I really have fond memories of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia but it has been decades since I was in the first two. I haven’t been to the five eastern provinces nor to the territories, although the Yukon is on my list. Wife and I have been discussing the eastern provinces in a couple separate trips.  Northern lights are part of that discussion. I have barely touched Manitoba but I plan to cure that on my trip to the notch.  Fishing is supposed to be even better than northern Minnesota, although at my age lake canoeing is probably behind me.  

I honestly would not care if Peters went to Dallas. Howie and co letting him stick around as long as they did put me kind of out of favor with him. And yeah… always thought he was a tad overrated… 

33 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Probably an unpopular opinion but I would take the cold winters up north over the hot summers down south in a heartbeat.  I can always put on more clothes, pour a whiskey and make a fire.  100 degree 100% humidity days can F right off.  

Now obviously there's a limit to how far north that applies (especially once you go inland)

I don't think its that unpopular of an opinion, but I'll add your body adjusts to the environment and it's not nearly as bad once you acclimate 

 

55 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Methinks IP is just mad that even in the red light district no one would bang him and is holding a grudge. Montreal is a very nice city. 

Montreal produced this guy, I can not say anything bad about it.

 

5 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

I really have fond memories of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia but it has been decades since I was in the first two. I haven’t been to the five eastern provinces nor to the territories, although the Yukon is on my list. Wife and I have been discussing the eastern provinces in a couple separate trips.  Northern lights are part of that discussion. I have barely touched Manitoba but I plan to cure that on my trip to the notch.  Fishing is supposed to be even better than northern Minnesota, although at my age lake canoeing is probably behind me.  

My folks are doing a "Rocky Mountaineer" train trip through the Canadian rockies.  Seems like a nice easy way for older folks work their way through some of those towns (and sip booze for most of the trip).

48 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

From my perspective, when I was there in 2009 we had a terrible time. The people are miserable aholes, it' was a dirty hell hole.  I would not waste another dime in that place. 

Perhaps it was what you chose to put on your list of activities that was the problem.  When I look at the "Top 10 Things To Do" list from Trip Advisor (shown below), I have a hard time finding even one of the 10 that would provide me with a "terrible time"

1. Mount Royal Park
2. Old Montreal
3. Notre-Dame Basilica
4. Saint Joseph's Oratory of Mount Royal
5. Montreal Botanical Garden
6. Musée des beaux-arts de Montréal
7. Barbie Expo
8. Jean-Talon Market
9. Pointe-a-Calliere, Montreal Archaeology and History Complex
10. Old Port of Montreal

 

 

2 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

My folks are doing a "Rocky Mountaineer" train trip through the Canadian rockies.  Seems like a nice easy way for older folks work their way through some of those towns (and sip booze for most of the trip).

I used the Alaskan Railroad to travel around Alaska and really enjoyed letting them do the driving.  I have thought about that railroad trip in the Canadian Rockies but if the wife is willing, I will likely drive it. 

13 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

I popped on WIP to listen to Eagles talk and Giglio is filling in for Ike Reese. Giglio's take to start off the show:

The Eagles will re-sign Hurts in the offseason to a 4 year 140 million contract.

Ridiculous.  There hasn't been QB contract extension for under $40M per year in quite awhile.

If Kyler Murray just bilked ARI out of $46M per season, why would Giglio think the market can be reset to $35M? 

1 minute ago, mattwill said:

Perhaps it was what you chose to put on your list of activities that was the problem.  When I look at the "Top 10 Things To Do" list from Trip Advisor (shown below), I have a hard time finding even one of the 10 that would provide me with a "terrible time"

1. Mount Royal Park
2. Old Montreal
3. Notre-Dame Basilica
4. Saint Joseph's Oratory of Mount Royal
5. Montreal Botanical Garden
6. Musée des beaux-arts de Montréal
7. Barbie Expo
8. Jean-Talon Market
9. Pointe-a-Calliere, Montreal Archaeology and History Complex
10. Old Port of Montreal

 

 

I enjoyed a lot of your list on visits to Montreal but I will say that Quebec is the rudest part of Canada that I have been in.  Not a Franco bias either as I live in New Orleans in the sixties where when you got out into the swamplands folks still talked the Acadian patois.  That said, I have been to north Jersey where Quebecians would probably say the same thing. 

3 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Ridiculous.  There hasn't been QB contract extension for under $40M per year in quite awhile.

If Kyler Murray just bilked ARI out of $46M per season, why would Giglio think the market can be reset to $35M? 

Thank goodness Hurts is a RB and not a QB. Contract will be much lower. 

3 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Ridiculous.  There hasn't been QB contract extension for under $40M per year in quite awhile.

If Kyler Murray just bilked ARI out of $46M per season, why would Giglio think the market can be reset to $35M? 

Cause he knows it's too hot of a take to suggest a player like Hurts as is will get more than Murray

Would like to see a trade like this:

Cowboys get:

T Andre Dillard

Eagles get:

Dallas 2023 2nd round pick

Dallas 2023 4th round pick

S Markquese Bell