13 minutes ago, Shepard Wong said:

Isn't Gainwell switching to 0?

That was debunked.

42 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

This picture would have way more power if the offense wasn't on the 1" line.

Georgia spotted them the yards and then said... "I bet you can't score a TD." 

8 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

Do we have to sit through another night of Goodell bro hugging or is that just a 1st round thing?

2nd round is players. Eagles have Trent Cole to announce the pick.

1 hour ago, paco said:

I read that 4 times and I can only come to one conclusion........

 

.... Irsay starts earlier than @hputenis when the wife is away.

Omg what is he trying to say?  I’ve tried to read that 10x now.  Pills and powder must have been involved for a tweet like that.  Good for him. I continue to be jealous of Jim Irsay.  He’s living the life that we all really want. 

10 minutes ago, T-1000 said:

Remember when the Eagles passed on Warren Sapp over "character concerns" and drafted Mike Mamula? It's nice to be on the other side of the coin this time. In addition to the weed, Sapp was said to have been lazy and unmotivated at times too.

Speaking from experience the two are related

40 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

#98 is available for Carter. Wonder what number Nolan picks. 4's taken by the all important kicker.

Carter with 98 seems inevitable. Figure Smith will settle for something in the 40s. I hate the idea of 0 for him. And I hate wasting numbers between 1 and 19 on defensive players. That’s the reason we ran into such a numbers crunch last year. 

1 minute ago, D-Shiznit said:

Is it a stretch to say that Carter is the most physically talented player on the Eagles?

The guy was the runaway consensus #1 player in the draft, who else fits that type of profile?

Lane? Mailata lol?

I love Smitty but he's more technician than raw talent, same with Kelce.

The Eagles used to be all about the lunch-pale, blue collar, under-explosive "football guys."  They've had an uptick in the draft since changing that philosophy.

But Lane, Davis, Sweat, Mailata, and Nolan Smith are all extreme physical talents.  Reddick too.  Lane, Davis, and Nolan Smith, on paper, are probably the rarest of the group.

2 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Carter with 98 seems inevitable. Figure Smith will settle for something in the 40s. I hate the idea of 0 for him. And I hate wasting numbers between 1 and 19 on defensive players. That’s the reason we ran into such a numbers crunch last year. 

Outside of 55, it doesn't get any better than this for a LB.

13 minutes ago, RLC said:

He wasn't getting punished by the coaches, because he was so good. If he had any "real" concerns, they would have suspended/released him.

You keep taking it to the extreme.  They can be dissatisfied with his work ethic without going the nuclear route that you are repeating.  Jimmy Rollins was frustrating to Charlie Manuel too when he'd not run a ball out down the first base line and he benched him a few times in the middle of games over it.  Carter could have easily been benched from time to time by the coaches, and no one would have been the wiser with how the games often went for them and how frequently they'd rotate the DL.  

 

The point is, the fact that the coaches weren't glowing when discussing him is a cautionary flag.  Is it enough to pass on him at 10, or to not grab him at 9?  Absolutely not.  But, it speaks to something.  Compare that to Bijon Robinson for a moment, and tell me if you heard any negative thing about him from anybody anywhere?  

 

I think the point is that there's a chance that Carter is not a 'can't miss' prospect (there's truly no such thing).  There have been plenty of 'studs' that just didn't pan out in the NFL because they didn't have the drive and desire to be a professional and they thought they could skate by on talent alone.  Talent alone might carry him very far as well.  But, I don't think there's any chance that he can become a truly dominant NFL player, unless he learns how to hone his skills and develop his immense talent even further.  So, again, we hope that the culture of the locker room and the players around him, both familiar faces and new ones, can help to mold him into the stud that he's capable of being.

1 minute ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Carter with 98 seems inevitable. Figure Smith will settle for something in the 40s. I hate the idea of 0 for him. And I hate wasting numbers between 1 and 19 on defensive players. That’s the reason we ran into such a numbers crunch last year. 

40 and 44 are retired. 42, 45, and 48 are taken. That leaves 41, 43, 46, 47, and 49. I don't see him taking any of those numbers other than maybe 43. I think it'll be 0 or 3.

For those looking askance at Carter, check out the reaction of the players - A.J. Brown, Micah Parsons, Slay, etc. The players know better than the talking heads.

1 minute ago, eagle45 said:

The Eagles used to be all about the lunch-pale, blue collar, under-explosive "football guys."  They've had an uptick in the draft since changing that philosophy.

But Lane, Davis, Sweat, Mailata, and Nolan Smith are all extreme physical talents.  Reddick too.  Lane, Davis, and Nolan Smith, on paper, are probably the rarest of the group.

Honorable mention AJ. Dude is a rock solid WR 6’ 230 of muscle running a 4.49. 

1 minute ago, bpac55 said:

Outside of 55, it doesn't get any better than this for a LB.

I remember back in the day when all of the best LB's wore 56 and all of the best RB's wore 32 and 34. Times have changed since the 80's and 90's.

Just now, T-1000 said:

40 and 44 are retired. 42, 45, and 48 are taken. That leaves 41, 43, 46, 47, and 49. I don't see him taking any of those numbers other than maybe 43. I think it'll be 0 or 3.

The Eagles REALLY need to consider unretiring numbers and just doing a ring of honor.  You know there's going to be a push for 65, 62, 55 and 91 to be retired once those 4 hang them up.  You just can't field a team when so many numbers are unavailable. 

1 minute ago, eagle45 said:

The Eagles used to be all about the lunch-pale, blue collar, under-explosive "football guys."  They've had an uptick in the draft since changing that philosophy.

But Lane, Davis, Sweat, Mailata, and Nolan Smith are all extreme physical talents.  Reddick too.  Lane, Davis, and Nolan Smith, on paper, are probably the rarest of the group.

Davis, Nolan, and Reddick are no doubt very physically gifted but they were never in the running for #1 overall prospect, let alone being the census best player in the draft.

The only two that fit that profile to me are Lane and Mailata, if he had played in HS/College.

Just now, bpac55 said:

The Eagles REALLY need to consider unretiring numbers and just doing a ring of honor.  You know there's going to be a push for 65, 62, 55 and 91 to be retired once those 4 hang them up.  You just can't field a team when so many numbers are unavailable. 

I agree. Its damn near impossible for rookies to have any decent choices for numbers these days and even veteran free agents who sign before the draft have limited options.

7 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

I get the point you're making but counterpoint is that Sapp DOMINATED and did it on the stat sheet.  For his career Sapp had nearly 180 tackles and 19.5 sacks.  Jalen Carter had 44 tackles and 6 sacks.

Besides what has already been said, college football offenses looked a lot different back then as teams weren't passing like they do today. A majority of teams were running teams. Back then, Nebraska still ran out of the Power I, Oklahoma still employed the Wishbone. When teams did pass they weren't looking to pick defenses apart with quick passes. They often just hung their QBs out to dry attempting to use the pass for chunk plays.  College defenses have evolved a lot too. It's hard to contextually compare a player's dominance just using stats. Heck, Mike Mamula's college stats were more impressive than Sapp's.

 

Sapp was a tremendous player and the tape shows it in college and in the NFL. Carter still has to prove himself in the NFL, but the college tape shows a tremendous player at that level. Smart teams were regularly doubling Carter and he was still beating them. 

 

I've never been a fan of drafting players with baggage. But this young man is an Eagle now. I'm pulling for him to mature and make smart decisions regarding his life and his career. I'm sure we all are. 

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

You keep taking it to the extreme.  They can be dissatisfied with his work ethic without going the nuclear route that you are repeating.  Jimmy Rollins was frustrating to Charlie Manuel too when he'd not run a ball out down the first base line and he benched him a few times in the middle of games over it.  Carter could have easily have gotten benched from time to time by the coaches, and no one would have been the wiser with how the games often went for them and how frequently they'd rotate the DL.  

I have no patience for coaches who say a player has bad character, but won't discipline them or let them go. They could have kicked him off the team if he had a bad work ethic. Of course, he'd go to Alabama and crush them. 

One of the reasons Lamar Jackson dropped was Bobby Petrino saying Lamar didn't study enough. Lamar was the only thing keeping Petrino at his job. 

1 minute ago, T-1000 said:

I remember back in the day when all of the best LB's wore 56 and all of the best RB's wore 32 and 34. Times have changed since the 80's and 90's.

Yep.  I like those days.  I love college numbers and pro numbers.  You knew any DL/LB wearing any single digit was a STUD in college.  Those guys then became the players that wore 55, 56, 90, 99. I can go on and on with number aesthetics! 

6 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

Outside of 55, it doesn't get any better than this for a LB.

98 & 9 imo for Carter & Smith

2 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

The Eagles REALLY need to consider unretiring numbers and just doing a ring of honor.  You know there's going to be a push for 65, 62, 55 and 91 to be retired once those 4 hang them up.  You just can't field a team when so many numbers are unavailable. 

Only McNabb and Dawkins had their numbers retired, and that was a long run of good teams. Kelce for sure, but I don't know if they'll do any of the others. If they do 55, they have to do 91, so they probably don't do either. And how much better is Lane Johnson than Runyan, Tra Thomas, Jason Peters, etc.? 

This is just one idiot's opinion.

4 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

The Eagles REALLY need to consider unretiring numbers and just doing a ring of honor.  You know there's going to be a push for 65, 62, 55 and 91 to be retired once those 4 hang them up.  You just can't field a team when so many numbers are unavailable. 

 

2 minutes ago, T-1000 said:

I agree. Its damn near impossible for rookies to have any decent choices for numbers these days and even veteran free agents who sign before the draft have limited options.

It's time to break out the letters, underscore or dash. 

We didn't retire Eric Allen, Seth Joyner, Troy Vincent. I know a lot of the guys I mentioned have had good years on other teams, but they are as deserving as 55, 91, and 65 IMO.

2 minutes ago, 91defense said:

Only McNabb and Dawkins had their numbers retired, and that was a long run of good teams. Kelce for sure, but I don't know if they'll do any of the others. If they do 55, they have to do 91, so they probably don't do either. And how much better is Lane Johnson than Runyan, Tra Thomas, Jason Peters, etc.? 

This is just one idiot's opinion.

I agree but Lane, Cox, BG and Kelce all did something the rest didn't do and that's win a Super Bowl.  Not only are that, but all 4 are looking to be drafted and retire as only ever playing as Eagles.  That goes a long way IMO when it comes to the jersey retiring situation.  I don't want them to but I think that's a big part of the criteria that would be used.

Eeeh....the Eagles have had a nice run over the last decade, but there are a lot of teams with a lot more retire-able numbers than the Eagles.  We can't be close to alone with this issue.