23 minutes ago, Saltpeter said:

Peters is still a startable LT. People act like just because he's old and gets annoying injuries that he sucks. Dallas is lucky a guy like that is even available in September.

True story. He actually played well for the Bears last year. 

What if Peters arrives day 1 as a Cowboy like this?

Howie has always seemed to be really good at making the best of his own mistakes.  It seems like he is starting to learn from those mistakes with the past 2 drafts looking solid and not being in total cap hell with a bunch of bloated contracts and deferred money (or at least as many as before).  Time will tell.  

6 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

What if Peters arrives day 1 as a Cowboy like this?

It would show he has no taste at all?

10 minutes ago, mattwill said:

As both justrelax and I have pointed out drafting and trading are two separate and distinctly different activities.  Together (along with other job description components) they are part of the total GM responsibilities, but the original tweet was talking about the trades, not the aggregate General Manager responsibilities.

Further, once the Draft is over, you move into the realm of sunk costs.  You can't change the history of each individual player, and any team looking to trade with you couldn't care less about where the player they are looking to trade for was taken.  For example, Jordan Mailata was taken in the 7th Round.  Do you think any GM who approaches Howie with a trade offer for Mailata gives any consideration to that piece of Draft history.  No, they don't.  They simply look at the value of the player in the present time, as well as their expectation of what that player can contribute in the future.  Same goes for Jason Kelce.  Wat meaning does his 6th Round selection in the Draft have in any trade scenario? None.  Same was true recently for Vaitai.  Same was true years ago for Peters.  

Criticize Howie left right and sideways for poor drafts.  His record is less than stellar in that arena.  But he can only trade with the immediate and future value of the then-current Eagles resources.  It is like a poker hand.  You play the cards you have.  What happened in the prior hands does not change the value of the five cards in your fist.  You have to play those cards.

If I remember correctly you are a collector of NFL and Eagles memorabilia.  When you give consideration to selling any of your items, how much does what you paid for them figure into your sell vs. don't sell decision process?

----------------------------- 

With that said, what do you think the components of an NFL General Manager's job description are?

I understand the sunk costs part of it. I wasn’t arguing what he brought back for any of them. The fact that he got draft picks for JJAW and Reagor is fantastic.  Getting a 1st and 2nd for Wentz all things considered was great.  

I’m not a collector but if I were, I 100% would have my original investment in mind if I was going to sell or not sell.  You’d be foolish not to keep that in mind. 

I read that tweet a lot different than others   It’s trying to put a positive light on 3 Howie draft blunders.   It’s positive in the sense that yes he got a return when many thought he couldn’t   He also used that return to make other moves.  Great, good for Howie. 
 

However, it’s hard not to look at that after all of the Wentz drama, all of the DK/JJAW and Reagor/JJ  stuff and scratch your head a little.  
 

 

 

On 8/29/2022 at 8:48 AM, Connecticut Eagle said:

Two questions to start the dialogue.

1) What are you most looking forward to?

2) What is your bold prediction?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1) The additions of Reddick, Davis, etc. making the front seven more disruptive.

2) Kelce will score a TD.  Either as a lead back or some sort of hook-and-ladder near the goal line.

Looking forward to:

1. A fast 7-2 start
2. They win a playoff game or 2

Both depend on what Hurts actually is.

19 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

I understand the sunk costs part of it. I wasn’t arguing what he brought back for any of them. The fact that he got draft picks for JJAW and Reagor is fantastic.  Getting a 1st and 2nd for Wentz all things considered was great.  

I’m not a collector but if I were, I 100% would have my original investment in mind if I was going to sell or not sell.  You’d be foolish not to keep that in mind. 

I read that tweet a lot different than others   It’s trying to put a positive light on 3 Howie draft blunders.   It’s positive in the sense that yes he got a return when many thought he couldn’t   He also used that return to make other moves.  Great, good for Howie. 
 

However, it’s hard not to look at that after all of the Wentz drama, all of the DK/JJAW and Reagor/JJ  stuff and scratch your head a little.  
 

 

 

Howie understands trade value and negotiates well.

he is terrible at projecting talent and synthesizing data into a projection of performance however

1 hour ago, UK Eagle said:

He was, but he's verging on a JAG now - not through age, but through physical ability and his unemployment status reflect it.  There were times last season he was awful  in Chicago and it's no crime at all; happens to all players, even the great ones

Reminds me of the Steve Carlton tour of the American League that he took as his career wound down. He sucked at every one of his stops yet refused for years to hang em up.

6 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Howie understands trade value and negotiates well.

he is terrible at projecting talent and synthesizing data into a projection of performance however

That’s a good distinction. Trades involve known quantities for the most part. Drafts require projection.

I would like to think Howie has learned from his mistakes and that drafts like the last two will be more the rule than the exception. For example, would he have drafted Dickerson if not for the DK debacle? I don’t know the answer but I think it might have played a part.

48 minutes ago, shlo said:

True story. He actually played well for the Bears last year. 

Maybe, but it seemed like every time I watched them play, he was either injured prior to the game, or was forced out of the game after being injured.

3 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Reminds me of the Steve Carlton tour of the American League that he took as his career wound down. He sucked at every one of his stops yet refused for years to hang em up.

You know why, right?

Just now, justrelax said:

That’s a good distinction. Trades involve known quantities for the most part. Drafts require projection.

I would like to think Howie has learned from his mistakes and that drafts like the last two will be more the rule than the exception. For example, would he have drafted Dickerson if not for the DK debacle? I don’t know the answer but I think it might have played a part.

Thats the distinction i was getting at

some are good at dealing with incomplete data sets. Howie not so much. He is good once he has a known quantity but weak when dealing with uncertainty. 

1 minute ago, justrelax said:

That’s a good distinction. Trades involve known quantities for the most part. Drafts require projection.

I would like to think Howie has learned from his mistakes and that drafts like the last two will be more the rule than the exception. For example, would he have drafted Dickerson if not for the DK debacle? I don’t know the answer but I think it might have played a part.

The Eagles have been consistently good at pro personnel (trades for players, signing free agents, off the street free agents, etc.) . Just look at the 2017 team: Blount, Robinson, Long...

The investment in analytics pays off.

11 minutes ago, RLC said:

The Eagles have been consistently good at pro personnel (trades for players, signing free agents, off the street free agents, etc.) . Just look at the 2017 team: Blount, Robinson, Long...

The investment in analytics pays off.

I would argue thats the easy part

the hard part is dealing with incomplete data and probabilities

1 hour ago, shlo said:

True story. He actually played well for the Bears last year. 

He played so well that the Bears were one of the worst teams in the league and the Bears were number 1 in the league in sacks allowed at 58. 

1 minute ago, DeathByEagle said:

He played so well that the Bears were one of the worst teams in the league and the Bears were number 1 in the league in sacks allowed at 58. 

Love JP but would rather be playing against him than have him as the Birds LT.

2 minutes ago, Next_Up said:

Love JP but would rather be playing against him than have him as the Birds LT.

I agree, I appreciate what he did while he was with us. For the last few years now he has been more of a liability for teams with him slowing down, his penalties and he can't stay on the field. Some just think cause he played here and well for many years that we cant be honest and say he is not that good anymore. Like you, I'm just glad he is playing for the Cowboys. 

3 hours ago, matchew88 said:

Someone is going to fill the role of so-so LT for the Cowboys. Might was well be Peters giving up the sacks, or whoever is in for him by the 3rd quarter. 

They are looking for depth. Their first round pick,is starting at LT. 

Tracking this is the first game of the season, however...

I'm sure it's been discussed at length but while Richardson's two point conversion play was impressive, i feel like the rest of his performance left a little to be desired passing wise. All of his TDs were rushing, had less than 200 yards passing.

Electric, yes. Clutch, absolutely. But hopefully he has some more clutch passing games as the season progresses.

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

I mean in this circumstance i think it warrants both. It’s great to get good value out of sunken cost. It also should be noted they are only sunk cost because of poor scouting and drafting. They kind of go hand-in-hand in the situation. You don’t get good value in a trade from a sunk cost unless you identify the fact we made a mistake for it to be a sunk cost. 

You clearly don't understand the concept "sunk cost"  The minute a Draft pick is used by any team, the draft pick resource becomes a sunk cost.  If the player goes on to be the GOAT, the resources used to get him are sunk. If the player goes on to be an All Pro, the resources used to get him are sunk. If the player goes on to be a solid starter, the resources used to get him are sunk. If the player goes on to be a serviceable backup, the resources used to get him are sunk. If the player goes on to be a bust, the resources used to get him are sunk.

Sunk costs are simply used resources that you can't get back.  If you think like a Balance Sheet, up until Draft Day the team has its draft picks recognized as an asset.  The minute that (or any other ) asset is used (cash is an asset), then the asset is removed from the Balance Sheet and whatever assets are acquired in return now appear on the Balance Sheet as new entries.

The value of those new assets (for that matter any assets) then goes up and/or down based on the market value of that asset.  The market does not carewhat was paidfor the asset,only what the value of that asset would be to the purchaser if they acquired it.  The market value trajectory of Jalen Reagor as an asset of the Eagles started reasonably high and then slowly but surely that market value evaporated.  Similarly, the market value trajectory of Justin Jefferson started out at a modest value because of the injury concerns teams had about him and then climbed as those injury concerns evaporated and he turned in on-field performance.

1 hour ago, DeathByEagle said:

He played so well that the Bears were one of the worst teams in the league and the Bears were number 1 in the league in sacks allowed at 58. 

He gave up 5 sacks. He was one player on a terrible team with a terrible O Line and no offensive weapons with a rookie QB who held onto the ball too long. 

Robin Williams as the genie in Aladdin is the best voice-over and character in animated history. Fight me. 

1 hour ago, mattwill said:

You clearly don't understand the concept "sunk cost"  The minute a Draft pick is used by any team, the draft pick resource becomes a sunk cost.  If the player goes on to be the GOAT, the resources used to get him are sunk. If the player goes on to be an All Pro, the resources used to get him are sunk. If the player goes on to be a solid starter, the resources used to get him are sunk. If the player goes on to be a serviceable backup, the resources used to get him are sunk. If the player goes on to be a bust, the resources used to get him are sunk.

Sunk costs are simply used resources that you can't get back.  If you think like a Balance Sheet, up until Draft Day the team has its draft picks recognized as an asset.  The minute that (or any other ) asset is used (cash is an asset), then the asset is removed from the Balance Sheet and whatever assets are acquired in return now appear on the Balance Sheet as new entries.

The value of those new assets (for that matter any assets) then goes up and/or down based on the market value of that asset.  The market does not carewhat was paidfor the asset,only what the value of that asset would be to the purchaser if they acquired it.  The market value trajectory of Jalen Reagor as an asset of the Eagles started reasonably high and then slowly but surely that market value evaporated.  Similarly, the market value trajectory of Justin Jefferson started out at a modest value because of the injury concerns teams had about him and then climbed as those injury concerns evaporated and he turned in on-field performance.

No I understand sunk cost. Sunk cost you accept the loss and hopefully take whatever you get because the values already gone from the initial investment. whatever value is at that point you’ve accepted its value  

However sunk cost doesn’t mean you just completely forget what happened and how it affects you going forward still. Just because you got new today’s value out of a sunk cost and they’re no longer here does not mean the residual effects of that sunk costs aren’t still hurting you now and into the future. The sunk cost lingering affects still can be felt on your future roster and present. Those affects don’t  just disappear just cause you traded the sunk cost and got its value of what it’s worth today. 

You guys seem to think you could just say  sunk cost that means it’s over. What the sunk cost returnee back is over. The affects from sunk cost is still present on this roster and potentially future roster. Just because you got new value for the sunk cost does not mean the longer term effects of the sunk cost disappear cause you want to claim sunk cost. 
 

there’s two different points to sunk cost.

1. It’s a loss that you accept as a loss that you are never getting back from the initial investment. The value decreased and it is what it is at that point. At that point, usually  you take whatever you can get and you’re happy with whatever you get at that point in time. Cause it was never going to be worth what it once was. And that’s what the asset is worth now  

2. Just cause 1 is true doesn’t mean the sunk cost isn’t still affecting your roster and future rosters because of said sunk cost. Just because you make a sunk cost go away and get other/new value does not mean the sunk cost doesn’t still affect you after that. You still have potential lingering issues stemming from that sunk cost. 

I run a business. If I buy a piece of aesthetics machinery for $50,000 and it doesn’t work out. I don’t like the machine and not drawing enough clients in so I decide to sell it at a cost of 20,000. I still owe 30,000 to the bank in the loan I took out which makes it difficult on me to do other things i want to do and buy with my business. CONSEQUENCE of my sink cost. So the return from sunk cost is better than nothing and I’m happy it wasn’t completely worthless. That $30,000 that I still have to pay back is still there and i still am affected by the depreciated asset and initial sunk cost present and future. Saying sunk cost doesn’t give you a clean slate to say it doesn’t matter anymore. There’s still affects on my business from that sunk cost even if i get some sort of new value/return for it and no longer have to deal with it. 

2 hours ago, bpac55 said:

I understand the sunk costs part of it. I wasn’t arguing what he brought back for any of them. The fact that he got draft picks for JJAW and Reagor is fantastic.  Getting a 1st and 2nd for Wentz all things considered was great.  

I’m not a collector but if I were, I 100% would have my original investment in mind if I was going to sell or not sell.  You’d be foolish not to keep that in mind.

My bad on the collector thing.  I thought you posted a bunch of pictures of your "den" a week or so ago.  Must have been another person.

I couldn't disagree with your second paragraph more.  If you bought an item for a dollar or bought that same item for $100, both those historical facts are irrelevant if you get an offer for the item regardless of what the offer is.  In each case you no longer have the dollar or the $100.  All you have is the collectible item.  You have a simple decision, which do I want more, retention of the collectible item or the cash you are being offered.  Let's say the offer is $120.  Is the value of that $120 any different if you bought it for $100or bought it for $.  The simple answer to that question is "No, the six $20 bills I will be getting are worth the same ... $120.

19 minutes ago, devpool said:

Tracking this is the first game of the season, however...

I'm sure it's been discussed at length but while Richardson's two point conversion play was impressive, i feel like the rest of his performance left a little to be desired passing wise. All of his TDs were rushing, had less than 200 yards passing.

Electric, yes. Clutch, absolutely. But hopefully he has some more clutch passing games as the season progresses.