1 hour ago, Waiting4Someday said:

The Jets stink, so their rookies had an opportunity to play. Howie was able to fill holes with free agents/trades for immediate gain, and the team has been remarkably healthy until recently… tough scenario for rookies wanting to see the field.

But if we were better in the draft you wouldn't need to fill all these holes in FA and trade, not including injuries. Basically my feeling is it seems as though they miss the boat in the draft and go outside the box when they don't have to. Overthinking and trying to be the smartest in the room. 

I would love to draft young studs on defense, but would Gannon even use them?

Just now, bpac55 said:

I don't trust Howie drafting CB that high.  We need it and there are players available but Howie's track record at CB/DB is bad.  Hell, his track record at drafting defense isn't that great.  Having needs at every level on defense is not a good way to enter the draft.   

If the Saints pick is any lower than 14, I'm looking to trade back. 

Howie’s track record drafting anything but OL is bad.  

27 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

Everything you said is correct.  No one is saying the results of the last 2 games would be different if Hurts played.  The initial post was about the writing by Zangaro and thinking Jalen can do no wrong.  Listen RTK, no one is saying Minshew is better than Hurts or that the Eagles don't lose either game if Hurts is in there.  

How does anyone know what Jalen Hurts would have done?  To write this is just silly. 

Jalen Hurts would have looked up. Jalen Hurts wouldn’t have thrown the pass.

Jalen Hurts would have won the game

 

Because we have the body of work of this season to see. Hurts isn't making huge backbreaking mistakes in big clutch moments.  He isn't opening games with 3-4 straight 3 and outs. 

7 minutes ago, greendestiny27 said:

I'm not sure about that yet, the combine will help clear that up. But there's some pretty good ones. Good enough that I don't know if you HAD to go out and draft Cam round 2 last year when there's other immediate areas of need. I just don't know why they always have to take players so high that don't see the field or expected to see the field. 
Look at the Jets draft for instance. They got great and immediate production from their picks. This is a trend in the Roseman regime that is frustrating to me. 

I don’t mind if they draft and sit a player outside of the 1st, but when they do it with both their 2nd and 3rd round picks I think that can be an issue. 
 

This team just needs to draft better in general so they aren’t so reliant on filling so many holes through FAs.

1 hour ago, downundermike said:

Another thing I will point out, for all this is it Hurts or is it the system discussion, it is quite clear Sirianni and Steichen believe it is their system.

I don't believe this for a second. 

I've heard Sirriani give interviews where he details how much Hurts abilities affect the backside of the play and his quote was "You can win games on the frontside of the play, you win championships by affecting the backside". Clearly he thinks it's more than just his system.

But, if they were to think this, they are stupid.

As bad as we need young, fast corners, are they even worth the 1st round investment with Gannon as DC? He's just going to play basic zones. You might as well draft a couple zone corners in the 2nd and 3rd and save the resources. Gannon is terrified of letting his CBs cover.

They could ghost in the playoffs which could make it moot, but the most frustrating part to me is that they’re wasting a great effort from defensive line if they somehow blow the one seed and dump out in the first round. Four guys with 10+ sacks and the most sacks in the league in 20 years. Probably the best effort we’ve seen from that group in a very long time. It felt like they rallied after Sweat went out yesterday and were lights out in the second half. 

21 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

I mentioned yesterday that the must re-signs on defense to me in order are Gardner-Johnson, Hargrave, and Edwards. I’d prioritize them over Bradberry and White. Corner will be higher on their radar in the draft with both Slay and Bradberry north of 30. 

I think as the NO pick has decreased in value we are moving away from the realm of blue chip DL talent to area where the 1st CB off the board can be found. Still got to take the best players when it makes sense (or trade down to recoup that value). 

I’m still of the mind that Dean plays best in the TJ role, and White can be had on the cheap (he’s kind of cooled off since the beginning of the season).

Hargrave resigning… I think that’s just our MO… and double digit sacks are tough to walk away from.

 

2 minutes ago, Parrot Head said:

I don't believe this for a second. 

I've heard Sirriani give interviews where he details how much Hurts abilities affect the backside of the play and his quote was "You can win games on the frontside of the play, you win championships by affecting the backside". Clearly he thinks it's more than just his system.

But, if they were to think this, they are stupid.

 

1 hour ago, downundermike said:

Another thing I will point out, for all this is it Hurts or is it the system discussion, it is quite clear Sirianni and Steichen believe it is their system.

Why else would Minshew pass 72 times to 39 RB carries in his two starts.

Saints #3 pass defense, Cowboys #9 pass defense.

Saints #5 in sacks, Cowboys #3 in sacks.

Saints #22 run defense, Cowboys #21 run defense.

 

Just now, downundermike said:

 

 

I know you think this is some brilliant analysis, but it's not.

Sirriani has told us what he believes. I can re-quote myself too if you need.

And since (according to you) they have the "Best backup in the league" I suppose they expected him to come in and play competent QB.

But he didn't.

So, yes, in hindsight they should have never trusted Gardner as much as they did.

4 minutes ago, schuy7 said:

As bad as we need young, fast corners, are they even worth the 1st round investment with Gannon as DC? He's just going to play basic zones. You might as well draft a couple zone corners in the 2nd and 3rd and save the resources. Gannon is terrified of letting his CBs cover.

As long as Gannon is the DC, the secondary is devalued. He wants to put lots of bodies in coverage. There is logic to that. However, then you don't need as many studs. You don't want Kvon Wallace or Josiah Scott, but you can get by with Reed Blankenship.

Honestly, LB is more important in this defense than CB. We need LBs who can cover in space, and also fill the run with 6 man boxes. 

3 minutes ago, Parrot Head said:

I know you think this is some brilliant analysis, but it's not.

Sirriani has told us what he believes. I can re-quote myself too if you need.

And since (according to you) they have the "Best backup in the league" I suppose they expected him to come in and play competent QB.

But he didn't.

So, yes, in hindsight they should have never trusted Gardner as much as they did.

Then bring some facts to the table that prove my analysis is incorrect.

Is Sirianni talking today? 

1 minute ago, wussbasket said:

I don’t mind if they draft and sit a player outside of the 1st, but when they do it with both their 2nd and 3rd round picks I think that can be an issue. 
 

This team just needs to draft better in general so they aren’t so reliant on filling so many holes through FAs.

Right on. It happens a lot. One exception I could think of in last years draft was taking Dean in round three. That seemed like a no brainer that fell to them which made perfect sense. But that is one of the only times as of late that they did it. Even though I didn't like his stature and measurables for the NFL game, it seemed to be the right pick at the time. 

1 hour ago, Iggles_Phan said:

They should just help Driscoll more... I don't want to weaken another spot and still have a weakness at RT.

No convinced Cam is weakening.

and leave Mailata at LT he is having enough trouble as it is

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

Then bring some facts to the table that prove my analysis is incorrect.

I just told you what the coach actually said.

1 minute ago, RLC said:

As long as Gannon is the DC, the secondary is devalued. He wants to put lots of bodies in coverage. There is logic to that. However, then you don't need as many studs. You don't want Kvon Wallace or Josiah Scott, but you can get by with Reed Blankenship.

Honestly, LB is more important in this defense than CB. We need LBs who can cover in space, and also fill the run with 6 man boxes. 

Blankenship needs to be a box safety.  If you ask him to turn and run downfield, he’s going to get torched.

But if you know his limitations, use him accordingly, and have a defensive scheme that wants that role…then great.  

I didn’t know Washington’s mascot is named "Major Tuddy”.

 

1 hour ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

He has been the least mistake prone QB in the league. Lowest interceptions total and interception rate. 

No idea at all why some of you in the blog continue to die on this hill of trying to belittle how great Jalen is and how much of a positive impact his play has on this team. 

He is a FAR superior QB to Minshew.  There is no doubt about that.  There is no doubt with Jalen in there that our offense is much better.  It's no coincidence that we went 13-1 with Jalen Hurts and 0-2 with Minshew.

If you honestly think the results of the past two games wouldn't have been different with Jalen in there then I have no idea what you're watching. 

Speaking of lazy... your continual push of this narrative is tired.   We don't all have to bow down at the altar of Jalen Hurts that you've built.  He's had a great season.  That's been acknowledged by just about everyone.  So, maybe try to read what is actually being said versus through your biased viewpoint that any post that isn't dripping with effusive praise of Hurts is an attempt to degrade him.

 

I will break it down for you.  The article is a very lazy narrative.  "Team X would have been better if they had their starting QB."  Duh!  Why not focus on the RT?  "The Eagles have lost more 80% of the games that they've played without Lane Johnson."    

Here's the deal... a better article would have actually broken down what the coaching staff should have done differently with their backup QB in place, rather than simply putting it all on the shoulders of the backup QB.  The backup QB is the backup for a reason.  He's not as good.  Once that is established, and it has been... then you move on to identifying the job of the coaching staff and their role.  The job of the coaches is to put the players that are on the field in the best position to win the game.  They are NOT supposed to just throw out the same game plan as if Hurts was playing and then act surprised when a different QB isn't able to execute it the same way.  (Just as they don't just throw Driscoll in and expect him to perform at the same level as Lane Johnson.)   I wonder how Hurts would perform if he were thrown into the Bucs system, tailored specifically to Tom Brady.  Would he fare the same as he does here in a system clearly tailored to his unique traits?   Doubtful.   Similarly, asking Minshew to execute the same game plan as they've used with Hurts is folly and that would have been a much more interesting article to read.   Focusing the beginning of the article on one play once the entire tenor of the game was firmly established as... the coaching staff didn't do anything to help their backup QB perform better... is a lazy article.   The Eagles DID NOT lose the game because of that pick 6.  That pick 6 was just the final nail in the coffin.  It would be more realistic to say that they lost the game more on the failed QB sneak on 4th and 1 at mid-field with the score 13-10 and 10 minutes left on the clock.  That failure put the Saints in great field position and the next possession for the Eagles, deep in their own end, with less time available and having much farther to go, led to more desperation and panic, and forced more reliance on the passing game rather than finally turning the game over to the running backs and OL to run out the clock and either score a TD to win it at the end, or a FG to send it to OT.  Perhaps playing a bit more conservatively and playing the field position game would have been more prudent with the backup QB, than asking him to be a battering ram and push his way to a first down. (Especially since EVERYONE knows its coming and teams are OVERCOMMITTING to stop it.)  Maybe coming up with a short yardage play that is NOT tailored directly to Hurts being able to squat 600 lbs.  Minshew is not that guy.  And its not his fault that he's not.  It's the coaches' fault that they didn't know that.  Maybe sucker them in for that and run it wide... have a TE squirt free for an easy pitch and catch over the over committed DL/LBs. (See below.)

 

 

So, do you understand now what was lazy about the article?   

And lastly, while Hurts is at the top of the pile for not turning the ball over this season... that does not guarantee that he wouldn't have turned the ball over in that exact same set of circumstances.  Hurts has turned the ball over.  Hurts has thrown a pick 6 this year in a very similar situation (Jacksonville).  So, to declare that he absolutely would not have in that situation is fallacious; no one can know that.  So, it's just not a good way to start an article and have any credibility.  

 

5 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

No convinced Cam is weakening.

and leave Mailata at LT he is having enough trouble as it is

I don't see Cam as a good OG option... I think he's a C only.  Same as Kelce.  

20 minutes ago, RLC said:

I would love to draft young studs on defense, but would Gannon even use them?

I'd love to draft young studs on defense, can Howie identify them?

20 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

Because we have the body of work of this season to see. Hurts isn't making huge backbreaking mistakes in big clutch moments.  He isn't opening games with 3-4 straight 3 and outs. 

38 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

He has been the least mistake prone QB in the league. Lowest interceptions total and interception rate. 

No idea at all why some of you in the blog continue to die on this hill of trying to belittle how great Jalen is and how much of a positive impact his play has on this team. 

He is a FAR superior QB to Minshew.  There is no doubt about that.  There is no doubt with Jalen in there that our offense is much better.  It's no coincidence that we went 13-1 with Jalen Hurts and 0-2 with Minshew.

If you honestly think the results of the past two games wouldn't have been different with Jalen in there then I have no idea what you're watching. 

I don't know if the results would have been different.  The team had problems in Chicago because they passed the ball to start the game and Hurts had 2 early turnovers.  Hurts is the starting QB for a reason.  I don't know how much better he would have looked in this game given the apparent game plan.  The team looked unprepared.  

Can’t believe this team sucks so bad and it was top of the mtn just a few weeks ago

Well the cowboy game wasn’t bad it was a coin toss game.  Yesterday to lose to the Saints at home was unacceptable 

14 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Speaking of lazy... your continual push of this narrative is tired.   We don't all have to bow down at the altar of Jalen Hurts that you've built.  He's had a great season.  That's been acknowledged by just about everyone.  So, maybe try to read what is actually being said versus through your biased viewpoint that any post that isn't dripping with effusive praise of Hurts is an attempt to degrade him.

 

I will break it down for you.  The article is a very lazy narrative.  "Team X would have been better if they had their starting QB."  Duh!  Why not focus on the RT?  "The Eagles have lost more 80% of the games that they've played without Lane Johnson."    

Here's the deal... a better article would have actually broken down what the coaching staff should have done differently with their backup QB in place, rather than simply putting it all on the shoulders of the backup QB.  The backup QB is the backup for a reason.  He's not as good.  Once that is established, and it has been... then you move on to identifying the job of the coaching staff and their role.  The job of the coaches is to put the players that are on the field in the best position to win the game.  They are NOT supposed to just throw out the same game plan as if Hurts was playing and then act surprised when a different QB isn't able to execute it the same way.  (Just as they don't just throw Driscoll in and expect him to perform at the same level as Lane Johnson.)   I wonder how Hurts would perform if he were thrown into the Bucs system, tailored specifically to Tom Brady.  Would he fare the same as he does here in a system clearly tailored to his unique traits?   Doubtful.   Similarly, asking Minshew to execute the same game plan as they've used with Hurts is folly and that would have been a much more interesting article to read.   Focusing the beginning of the article on one play once the entire tenor of the game was firmly established as... the coaching staff didn't do anything to help their backup QB perform better... is a lazy article.   The Eagles DID NOT lose the game because of that pick 6.  That pick 6 was just the final nail in the coffin.  It would be more realistic to say that they lost the game more on the failed QB sneak on 4th and 1 at mid-field with the score 13-10 and 10 minutes left on the clock.  That failure put the Saints in great field position and the next possession for the Eagles, deep in their own end, with less time available and having much farther to go, led to more desperation and panic, and forced more reliance on the passing game rather than finally turning the game over to the running backs and OL to run out the clock and either score a TD to win it at the end, or a FG to send it to OT.  Perhaps playing a bit more conservatively and playing the field position game would have been more prudent with the backup QB, than asking him to be a battering ram and push his way to a first down. (Especially since EVERYONE knows its coming and teams are OVERCOMMITTING to stop it.)  Maybe coming up with a short yardage play that is NOT tailored directly to Hurts being able to squat 600 lbs.  Minshew is not that guy.  And its not his fault that he's not.  It's the coaches' fault that they didn't know that.  Maybe sucker them in for that and run it wide... have a TE squirt free for an easy pitch and catch over the over committed DL/LBs. (See below.)

 

 

So, do you understand now what was lazy about the article?   

And lastly, while Hurts is at the top of the pile for not turning the ball over this season... that does not guarantee that he wouldn't have turned the ball over in that exact same set of circumstances.  Hurts has turned the ball over.  Hurts has thrown a pick 6 this year in a very similar situation (Jacksonville).  So, to declare that he absolutely would not have in that situation is fallacious; no one can know that.  So, it's just not a good way to start an article and have any credibility.  

 

I don't see Cam as a good OG option... I think he's a C only.  Same as Kelce.