2 minutes ago, T-1000 said:

Some people still don't grasp the most simple of concepts when it comes to football. The teams who are best in the trenches are typically the best teams. Also, more specific to Eagles, they have always viewed OL and DL as the most premium positions in the draft after QB. I'd be surprised if their first two picks aren't on the DL and OL.

How do I not understand the simple concepts?  I'm suggesting they use a lower pick to fill their OL needs.  They have the best OL coach in the game who has shown he can coach up talent drafted in the mid to lower rounds.  

The Eagles have 2 of the best tackles in the NFL locked up.  You don't get top 10 picks very often.  It would be a waste of a premium pick to take a guy who might not even play for 3 years.  OL needs to be addressed but it can be addresseed later in the draft.

1 minute ago, Iggles25 said:

I think he goes Top 25.

There will be a run on CBs at some point in mid RD1.

I don't think he makes it either, unfortunately. 

6 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

How do I not understand the simple concepts?  I'm suggesting they use a lower pick to fill their OL needs.  They have the best OL coach in the game who has shown he can coach up talent drafted in the mid to lower rounds.  

The Eagles have 2 of the best tackles in the NFL locked up.  You don't get top 10 picks very often.  It would be a waste of a premium pick to take a guy who might not even play for 3 years.  OL needs to be addressed but it can be addresseed later in the draft.

I wasn't talking to you. However if you think it's a waste to use a premium pick on the offensive line than yeah you don't get it. The draft is about getting the best player available at the most important positions, not filling more immediate needs. Not to mention what I said, the teams who are best in the trenches are typically the best teams. Good teams like the Eagles recognize this and as a result they will most likely go OL or DL at 10. Furthermore, they just lost Seumalo and Dillard and Kelce and Lane aren't getting any younger. So it's a need as well.

4 hours ago, Utebird said:

Not sure how much talk there's been in the blog lately about new heights, but Jason and Travis are doing a segment about which Hogwarts house players would be in.

Jason said all cowboys are slitherin and Jerry Jones is Voldemort and Jason Garrett is a horcrux 😂

I have no idea what any of that means 

 

16 minutes ago, T-1000 said:

He should still do a better job than this. One DE between the two picks makes sense, two is just overkill.

Huh? No DE taken until later unless you quoted the wrong post

13 minutes ago, greendestiny27 said:

I really like Smith, think he lasts to 30? 

Yea , I think second round . It’s crazy how good and deep this DB class is . My personal favorites

Banks

Gonzales 

Moss

Rush

Williams 

 

2 minutes ago, T-1000 said:

I wasn't talking to you. However if you think it's a waste to use a premium pick on the offensive line than yeah you don't get it. The draft is about getting the best player available at the most important positions, not filling more immediate needs. Not to mention what I said, the teams who are best in the trenches are typically the best teams. Good teams like the Eagles recognize this and as a result they will most likely go OL or DL at 10. Furthermore, they just lost Seumalo and Dillard and Kelce and Lane aren't getting any younger. So it's a need as well.

I think it's a waste of a premium pick given the current makeup of the roster.  Jurgens is plug and play at RG this year wtih a move most likely to center next year.  RG can be filled later in the draft and potentially FA next year.  I think they have a very high opinion of Jack Driscoll and Sua Opeta even though he was released at the end of they year in a roster crunch.  They also kept 3 very large OT on the PS and brought them back this year. I think they want to develop at least one of them.  Again, they are looking for their swing tackle. They also spoke highly of Cameron Tom last year as a center.  They have players here that have been coached up by Stoutland. 

I'm not saying they don't need to add OL at all.  I think it would be great to get a stud RG.  I look at a guy like Cody Mauch out of North Dakota State.  He has plug and play from day 1 written all over him and he's a 2nd round pick.  You're going to get great value for him at a later stage in the draft and he can do everything you're looking to get from pick 10. 

I've also been pounding the pavement for DL at 10 or a possible trade down.

10 minutes ago, T-1000 said:

I wasn't talking to you. However if you think it's a waste to use a premium pick on the offensive line than yeah you don't get it. The draft is about getting the best player available at the most important positions, not filling more immediate needs. Not to mention what I said, the teams who are best in the trenches are typically the best teams. Good teams like the Eagles recognize this and as a result they will most likely go OL or DL at 10. Furthermore, they just lost Seumalo and Dillard and Kelce and Lane aren't getting any younger. So it's a need as well.

Going OL at 10 would be a pretty bad misallocation of resources in our current situation. We have an immediate need since we'll be short at DT and DE after this year and there isn't a talent gap to warrant a BPA argument. Also since we're obviously attempting to keep our SB window alive you don't use a premium pick on someone that won't see the field.

 

10 minutes ago, bitbased said:

Going OL at 10 would be a pretty bad misallocation of resources in our current situation. We have an immediate need since we'll be short at DT and DE after this year and there isn't a talent gap to warrant a BPA argument. Also since we're obviously attempting to keep our SB window alive you don't use a premium pick on someone that won't see the field.

 

This is EXACTLY the type of thinking that gets teams in trouble. Drafting for "need" is how you end up with guys like Marcus Smith and Jalen Reagor. Either way Im not saying they should go OL at 10. Im saying if the bpa on their board is an OL they should and will go in that direction.  Anyone who thinks that would be a bad thing doesnt know football or this team very well.

4 hours ago, garingovt2000 said:

Who do you see as the most viable trade partner at 10 to move back and what do you think we get in return?

If Richardson or Levis are there…the Bucs. Get 19, a 2nd this year, and a first next year. One of those QB’s falling to 10 is best case scenario for us. 

4 hours ago, garingovt2000 said:

So torn on DT and Edge... Do we go big DT like Mazi and smaller Edge like Nolan Smith...  Or flip that like big DE like Murphy/Van Ness and go smaller DT like Adebawore

 

You have better rotation guys behind Jordan than we do behind Milton. So I go smaller pass rushing DT, and a true EDGE, not a rush LB. 

2 minutes ago, T-1000 said:

This is EXACTLY the type of thinking that gets teams in trouble. Drafting for "need" is how you end up with guys like Marcus Smith and Jalen Reagor. Either way Im not saying they should go OL at 10. Im saying if the bpa on their board is an OL they should and will go in that direction.  Anyone who thinks that would be a bad thing doesnt know football or this team very well.

I agree with what you'r saying but I also think if BPA at 10 is an OL, trading down is the right move.  Of course you have to have a trade partner.

11 minutes ago, T-1000 said:

This is EXACTLY the type of thinking that gets teams in trouble. Drafting for "need" is how you end up with guys like Marcus Smith and Jalen Reagor. Either way Im not saying they should go OL at 10. Im saying if the bpa on their board is an OL they should and will go in that direction.  Anyone who thinks that would be a bad thing doesnt know football or this team very well.

I would feel differently if there was a talent gap where the OL was easily the BPA. I just don't think there's an obvious gap between (projected) DL and OL at 10 to warrant going OL so then you go towards your second criteria of immediate need. I didn't say to pick DL just because.

Also does Reagor and Smith say not to draft for need or does it mean we just sucked at scouting/talent evaluation? I'm leaning towards the latter.

Chris Simms was on Dan Patrick show today and said CJ Stroud is the best QB in this draft by far.  So does that mean he will be a bust?

Was also kinda funny that DP brought up that Simms thought Zach Wilson was better than Trevor Lawrence in their draft. 😄😄

32 minutes ago, QuinnWR4 said:

I have no idea what any of that means 

Again that's ok neither did Travis ...

57 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

I understand the need to buid for the future but I just don't see them, or do I think it's a good idea to take an OT at 10 or even 30.  They just let Dillard walk...an OT they drafted to take over for a veteran.  They got essentially nothing out of him in 5 years. 

I think you are not looking at the whole Dillard picture.  What you are omitting from your assessment is the arrival of the unicorn.

1 minute ago, mattwill said:

I think you are not looking at the whole Dillard picture.  What you are omitting from your assessment is the arrival of the unicorn.

IMO, the arrival of that unicorn made Peters expendable more than it did take Dillard's job.  If Dillard was worth a 1st round pick, he should have been able to fill in anywhere else across the OL.

3 minutes ago, 315Eagles said:

Chris Simms was on Dan Patrick show today and said CJ Stroud is the best QB in this draft by far.  So does that mean he will be a bust?

Was also kinda funny that DP brought up that Simms thought Zach Wilson was better than Trevor Lawrence in their draft. 😄😄

If I were forced to pick at #1 as CAR is now, Stroud would definitely be my choice.  I’m not sure at all he’s a franchise QB (I’d even wager against it), but there’s no way in hell I would draft a 5’10, 204 lb (bulked up from 195) QB like Young and stake my livelihood on him developing.  The other QBs are quite a bit behind the top two IMO.

So much depends on the environment a prospect is drafted into.  I do think Frank Reich will build a good team in CAR if he is given time.  He brings along Jim Caldwell and Josh McCown to help, and Andy Dalton can play until the #1 pick forces him to the bench.

I’m very curious to see where Hendon Hooker goes because I think he has a shot to have the best career of any QB in this class.

3 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

IMO, the arrival of that unicorn made Peters expendable more than it did take Dillard's job.  If Dillard was worth a 1st round pick, he should have been able to fill in anywhere else across the OL.

The most disappointing thing about him was just how inflexible he was. It was LT or bust. We should've been grateful for him to finally fill in at LG occasionally lol

 

Edwards and Epps ARE low level starters who were surrounded by good talent, are not playmakers, weren’t really worth those contracts…

But they did work and do the job.  THAT…distinguishes them from the other low end investment revolving door types we have seen at their respective positions.

LB has been a parade of embarrassments for almost 20 years.  Safety has had multiple guys who routinely get picked on.

So while Edwards and Epps are nothing special, let’s not pretend that it’s this certainty that they are adequately replaced.  The Eagles have struggled for years to get their low end investments to perform at that level.

Be interesting to see if the Eagles go OT with one of their picks. Is it Lane’s eventual replacement at RT? Or is it the future LT with the plan being to move Mailata to RT. I’m hoping it’s the latter since I think JM is best suited for RT. Or maybe he just gets thrown in at RG and stays there. 

I'd rather get a stud at (insert position here) than a bust at (insert whatever you think our biggest need is here).

The debate over need versus BPA will rage eternal, but everyone knows both factor into the decision, every time, for every team.

Even at 10, I'd take a stud WR, DT, DE, OL, CB, or even a nearly generational safety.  So that's basically ANY position besides QB and LB/RB, which just don't factor into that conversation.  Subtract WR because we have 2 good starters AND there is no prospect in this draft that is just too good to pass up.  No one with that value at safety.  So that leaves you taking the best DL, CB, or OL on the board with our first pick.

And I wouldn't hit the same position twice (even CB now that they retained both starters), so the second first round pick really should be limited to best DL/CB/OL minus whatever they went with on the first pick.

19 minutes ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

Be interesting to see if the Eagles go OT with one of their picks. Is it Lane’s eventual replacement at RT? Or is it the future LT with the plan being to move Mailata to RT. I’m hoping it’s the latter since I think JM is best suited for RT. Or maybe he just gets thrown in at RG and stays there. 

Im.not a fan of taking an OT at ten so he can sit on the bench for a couple years.

Especially when Eagles have the best O line coach in the universe 

Can get some OL with a later pick.

10 or 30 too rich for me.

1 minute ago, Utebird said:

Im.not a fan of taking an OT at ten so he can sit on the bench for a couple years.

Especially when Eagles have the best O line coach in the universe 

Can get some OL with a later pick.

10 or 30 too rich for me.

For the record, I’ll be shocked if the Eagles go with anything besides DL with their first pick. I’m guessing they trade back 3-7 spots, pick up a couple mid round picks, and go DL. 

I wouldn’t completely rule out an OL at 10 but if that were to happen I’m assuming it’s someone they could plug him in at RG right away then bump him out to either tackle spot when the time comes. At 30 it’d more than likely be a swing tackle for a year with the assumption that Lane has a strong chance to retire, a similar thought process for the Jurgens pick last year.

Side note: @hputenis pees sitting down