Just now, Utebird said:

Outspoken guy like say CGJ???

Every point you've made to not get Jenkins has been refuted so now predictably you resort to name calling.

Why the heck would any team sign Jenkins just to keep the eagles from signing him especially if he's so bad???

GMs around the league aren't saying lets sign this trash vet to our PS just to keep him off the eagles, and even if they did you think a divisive Jenkins would put up with some team signing him just to keep him from another team.

I think we're at that point of the day where you need to take that pot walk with your dog brah...

 

 

CGJ leads the league in INTs you dunce, you put up with his weirdness.

Lets just sign every retired ex pro bowler so our entire roster is full of Pro Bowlers! Genius!!

I tried using logic with you, but that didn’t work. So now you get name calling because your primitive brain can’t handle logical arguments

3 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Blankenship is not an on the box run stuffer. 

He's not not an in the box run stuffer.

In college he was a tackling Machine and he was a guy that was better going forward than backwards 

He's a limited athlete so he gets pigeonholed as a run stuffer, and while he showed good instincts over middle of the field he showed his limitations as a deep pass defender against the Watson TD.

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

In hindsight, it was pretty funny how Howie brought in this guy whose supposed to be a master at pre-snap motion and Doug just straight ignored him.

I seem to remember some report where after the season he told a reporter "I’m not really sure why I’m here.”

I liked the hire initially based on his experience with Shanahan, but I definitely underrated the difficulty of meshing that with an already cemented offensive philosophy. 

3 hours ago, MrGreenBay said:

You can live without one kidney too I believe.

To be a jerk... you die without one kidney.  You need at least one.  .       (I know what you meant though.)

 

You can.  I have a friend who was born with only one kidney.  Sadly it is working at only 48% efficiency.  That's good news though.  Not that long ago it was at 24%.   His health is terrible.

3 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Yeah. I think in our quarters-based coverage, he needs to be the safety on the strong side since he’ll have less area to cover. He can’t cover a lot of open space like CJGJ. We don’t really use our safeties in the box that much, but he can definitely spin for depth and attack. 

I knew the misconception was going to come quick because we saw him make a bunch of big hits, and then he took 1 bad angle in coverage. So now many fans will pigeon hole him as an in the box safety.

In reality, the reason you and I had him pegged as a target 2 years ago was that he was a perfect fit for this D with the 2 high safeties. Hes fine in that kind of coverage. Hes decently athletic. Hes not just a big slow box guy. He has 4.4 speed. Hes just not a man cover guy. But we saw him make the best coverage play last night that any of our safeties have made all year as well. When he recognized that route and jumped it for the INT. 

He was a fit because he can cover a deep half of the field. Hes not just a box safety.

 

3 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

I knew the misconception was going to come quick because we saw him make a bunch of big hits, and then he took 1 bad angle in coverage. So now many fans will pigeon hole him as an in the box safety.

In reality, the reason you and I had him pegged as a target 2 years ago was that he was a perfect fit for this D with the 2 high safeties. Hes fine in that kind of coverage. Hes decently athletic. Hes not just a big slow box guy. He has 4.4 speed. Hes just not a man cover guy. But we saw him make the best coverage play last night that any of our safeties have made all year as well. When he recognized that route and jumped it for the INT. 

He was a fit because he can cover a deep half of the field. Hes not just a box safety.

Yep. We’re fine there

2 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

The Eagles defense tends to play downhill.  CJGJ is bigger and a bit faster but their 3 cones and short shuttles are close.  CJGJ has a bit better instincts but Blankenship may be the better tackler albeit he bites and takes worse angles.  There is a drop off, no doubt.  Not sure why Blakenship is seen as stronger against the run.  Probably pretty equal there. But CJGJ has the experience that Blankenship lacks. CJGJ is a better ball hawk. For those bemoaning and cutting Wallace due to instincts and missed angles, not a lot of difference with Blankenship. 

Agree except the instincts part.

Blankenship showed better instincts on his one INT than Wallace ever has in 3 years.

Does he have CGJ instincts in pass coverage? no not even close, and Blankenship is a rookie playing his first game, CGJ is a 4 year guy who played nickel before 

That angle he took on the Watson TD though, that was really bad.

I've actually never seen Wallace take a bad angle, tough to take any angle when one is just standing around with ones thumb up ones ass 

Wallace is the kid that the coach has to play due to participation rules so puts him as far away from the play as possible where he picks daisy's or his nose.

He's the guy on Madden football when your control breaks or gets stuck and just spins in one place or glitches and freezes.

 

17 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Blankenship is not an on the box run stuffer. 

We are going to find  if he can cover.

6 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

I knew the misconception was going to come quick because we saw him make a bunch of big hits, and then he took 1 bad angle in coverage. So now many fans will pigeon hole him as an in the box safety.

In reality, the reason you and I had him pegged as a target 2 years ago was that he was a perfect fit for this D with the 2 high safeties. Hes fine in that kind of coverage. Hes decently athletic. Hes not just a big slow box guy. He has 4.4 speed. Hes just not a man cover guy. But we saw him make the best coverage play last night that any of our safeties have made all year as well. When he recognized that route and jumped it for the INT. 

He was a fit because he can cover a deep half of the field. Hes not just a box safety.

Here is Lance Zierlein’s scouting report, which seems about right based on an incredibly small sample size so far…

"Versatile safety with adequate size and good athleticism. Blankenship is a team leader who is aggressive and heavily experienced in a defense that required his versatility. He's ready and willing in run support but has a problem with tackle angles that causes too many misses from a variety of locations around the field. He's athletic and his route recognition is good when he's playing from up top; however, he lacks top-end speed to stay with downfield assignments. He will need to shine on special teams to improve his chances of making it in the league.”

13 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

CGJ leads the league in INTs you dunce, you put up with his weirdness.

Lets just sign every retired ex pro bowler so our entire roster is full of Pro Bowlers! Genius!!

I tried using logic with you, but that didn’t work. So now you get name calling because your primitive brain can’t handle logical arguments

So if a guy leads the league in INTs it's ok if he's divisive???

No one said anything about signing anybody else.

I used logic to refute your points that you don't agree doesn't mean they're not logical.

Like I said bro you take this place too serious chill out brah go smoke a joint ...😒

This guy.

2 minutes ago, Parrot Head said:

This guy.

No way. I mean give the guy credit for at least having two eye balls and stating the obvious, now WTF is he going to do about it.

Dude has the worst special teams in the league.😡

8 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Here is Lance Zierlein’s scouting report, which seems about right based on an incredibly small sample size so far…

"Versatile safety with adequate size and good athleticism. Blankenship is a team leader who is aggressive and heavily experienced in a defense that required his versatility. He's ready and willing in run support but has a problem with tackle angles that causes too many misses from a variety of locations around the field. He's athletic and his route recognition is good when he's playing from up top; however, he lacks top-end speed to stay with downfield assignments. He will need to shine on special teams to improve his chances of making it in the league.”

Let's see how Sunday Night checked the boxes...

Aggressive? - check.  Had a few big hits and even a PF.  Double check. 
Experienced? - check.  Didn't seem like the moment was too big for him Sunday night... knew his assignments.
Willing in run support? - check.  Big hits coming from deep.
Poor tackle angles?  - check.  TD by Watson was a classic example.  And just didn't have the speed to make up for it.  (BUT... few do - Watson has after burners!)
Athletic?  - Looked great on the INT.  Saw the route, jumped it and had the quickness to get there to make it clean.  
Route Recognition?  - see above

The last bit might be the incorrect part.  He showed enough Sunday Night for me to be very comfortable with him as a backup safety moving forward until more evidence comes in.  BUT... he will need to be a solid ST player.  So far that piece seems to be lacking.  None of the ST coverage guys seems to be able to 'shine' currently.  

6 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Here is Lance Zierlein’s scouting report, which seems about right based on an incredibly small sample size so far…

"Versatile safety with adequate size and good athleticism. Blankenship is a team leader who is aggressive and heavily experienced in a defense that required his versatility. He's ready and willing in run support but has a problem with tackle angles that causes too many misses from a variety of locations around the field. He's athletic and his route recognition is good when he's playing from up top; however, he lacks top-end speed to stay with downfield assignments. He will need to shine on special teams to improve his chances of making it in the league.”

Yeah pretty good.

A lot of people are not going to realize he is athletic and can cover.

Theyll see his lack of man coverage, and assume he is unathletic and needs to be in the box.

21 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Outspoken guy like say CGJ???

Every point you've made to not get Jenkins has been refuted so now predictably you resort to name calling.

Why the heck would any team sign Jenkins just to keep the eagles from signing him especially if he's so bad???

GMs around the league aren't saying lets sign this trash vet to our PS just to keep him off the eagles, and even if they did you think a divisive Jenkins would put up with some team signing him just to keep him from another team.

I think we're at that point of the day where you need to take that pot walk with your dog brah...

 

 

To prevent the Eagles from helping themselves. And GM's and Jenkins feelings is a moot point. All they are doing is claiming his rights. They can simply leave him on the reserve/retired list. 

35 minutes ago, jojodancer said:

Wallace is a minus on and off the field. Jenkins only needs to give you a handful of snaps and provide leadership. And already has good chemistry with Gardner. How is that bad?

Why is Wallace a minus off of the field? Also it's not a thing because he's under contract with NO. 

6 minutes ago, Parrot Head said:

This guy.

I think hes obviously to blame. But I also wonder, how many guys did we actually keep on this roster JUST for special teams ability? I think we lack the Chris Maragos/Bryan Braman types on this roster.

In the past, Boston Scott has made this roster just because of returns. Same this year for Covey. So 2 of the guys who have made it based on special teams ability are returners, and they arent even good at it. Who is just here to cover kicks and punts? I dont think we focused there with personnel this year at all. 

It was destined to be a bit of a weakness.

BUT, it should still be better.

1 minute ago, HazletonEagle said:

Yeah pretty good.

A lot of people are not going to realize he is athletic and can cover.

Theyll see his lack of man coverage, and assume he is unathletic and needs to be in the box.

We are going to find out very quickly as the middle of the defense is now exposed. I think he is being over-hyped right now. I want to see how he holds up when reality sets in.

25 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Outspoken guy like say CGJ???

Every point you've made to not get Jenkins has been refuted so now predictably you resort to name calling.

Why the heck would any team sign Jenkins just to keep the eagles from signing him especially if he's so bad???

GMs around the league aren't saying lets sign this trash vet to our PS just to keep him off the eagles, and even if they did you think a divisive Jenkins would put up with some team signing him just to keep him from another team.

I think we're at that point of the day where you need to take that pot walk with your dog brah...

You go to this well far too frequently.   

8 minutes ago, Utebird said:

So if a guy leads the league in INTs it's ok if he's divisive???

No one said anything about signing anybody else.

I used logic to refute your points that you don't agree doesn't mean they're not logical.

Like I said bro you take this place too serious chill out brah go smoke a joint ...😒

Yeah, funny how great players can get away with stuff lesser players can’t. 
 

And CGJ hasn’t been divisive at all, so far. Came in a bit cocky but has settled in pretty nicely from what I’ve seen.

But sure, keep pounding the table to replace 3 snaps a game from our 4th safety, longing for a guy that would be nearly impossible to sign, only because he used to play for us. Some logic

Just now, aptosbird said:

We are going to find out very quickly as the middle of the defense is now exposed. I think he is being over-hyped right now. I want to see how he holds up when reality sets in.

Hes not here for man coverage. If hes going to have to be stuck in that role, he will fail. That doesnt mean its correct to label him as a box safety. Thats completely incorrect.

20 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

I knew the misconception was going to come quick because we saw him make a bunch of big hits, and then he took 1 bad angle in coverage. So now many fans will pigeon hole him as an in the box safety.

In reality, the reason you and I had him pegged as a target 2 years ago was that he was a perfect fit for this D with the 2 high safeties. Hes fine in that kind of coverage. Hes decently athletic. Hes not just a big slow box guy. He has 4.4 speed. Hes just not a man cover guy. But we saw him make the best coverage play last night that any of our safeties have made all year as well. When he recognized that route and jumped it for the INT. 

He was a fit because he can cover a deep half of the field. Hes not just a box safety.

White guy = box safety

14 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

I knew the misconception was going to come quick because we saw him make a bunch of big hits, and then he took 1 bad angle in coverage. So now many fans will pigeon hole him as an in the box safety.

In reality, the reason you and I had him pegged as a target 2 years ago was that he was a perfect fit for this D with the 2 high safeties. Hes fine in that kind of coverage. Hes decently athletic. Hes not just a big slow box guy. He has 4.4 speed. Hes just not a man cover guy. But we saw him make the best coverage play last night that any of our safeties have made all year as well. When he recognized that route and jumped it for the INT. 

He was a fit because he can cover a deep half of the field. Hes not just a box safety.

To be fair I'm not sure how many if any teams cover just box safeties anymore.

In today's passing NFL if one can't cover one will be on the bench or out of the league.

Guys like Atwater and Rodney Harrison would be LBs in today's game.

Safeties are getting smaller and quicker every year and are basically just  slower corners who can tackle a little better than your average corner.

I like Blankenship, I liked his college tape and I liked what I saw in pre season.

He needs to clean things up and hopefully he can improve, he gets a bad rep for that horrible angle he took yet people forget to mention that slay was no where near Watson and slay didn't track Watson down either 

Watson has some wheels.

1 minute ago, aptosbird said:

We are going to find out very quickly as the middle of the defense is now exposed. I think he is being over-hyped right now. I want to see how he holds up when reality sets in.

More exactly, we'll see how he sets in as team specifically target him.  GB didn't get a chance to game plan against him... only against CJGJ.  Now it will be him, most likely.  And there's a bit of film on him now.  Let the adjustments begin.

Just now, LeanMeanGM said:

White guy = box safety

yeah... white = unathletic = box safety.

The one play where he took a bad angle to Watson and got outran will define the type of player he is for many eagles fans for his whole career.