Just now, ManuManu said:

If we’re going to spin safeties and leave one in single high, this isn’t a great pairing with Blankenship. Both of them IMO when charging down from safety. 

First thing I thought of when it was announced was is he playing Blankenship's spot and they still plan to add a coverage safety somewhere.

Kind of think Edmunds is currently better but Blankenship down the road might be. I still think there’s another shoe to drop cause i don’t think edmunds and Blankenship is a tandem you want to head into the season with 

2 minutes ago, Texas Eagle said:

Not a huge fan of PFF but it seems like the biggest difference will be the turnovers.

 

Tad off topic but with as much hate PFF gets why don't people use another source? I only ever see PFF being the reference for stats but their rankings always draw criticism 

1 hour ago, Texas Eagle said:

We only threw to RBs like 10% last season, obviously likely due to having 3 elite pass catchers. If we take Gibbs I would like to see that number increase a good bit. But this still doesn't solve for the need of an every down RB who can take carries away from Hurts.

Sanders is not a good receiving back and he was getting feature back snaps. If you draft Gibbs he’s a featured weapon in both the pass and run game.

I see Gibbs as a 10-15 carry and 4-6 catch per game kind of guy. The type of player who would flirt with 1K rushing and receiving.

Gainwell should be in line for more rushes as well. He only had like 55 last year. He can easily take an extra 100 and leave 150 for Gibbs. And then if Penny is healthy he’s a volume rusher.

11 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

Steelers fans consensus is good box safety, struggles in coverage.

I would agree with that assessment

1 minute ago, ManuManu said:

Beat me to it. My guess is they see Blankenship as a third safety. 

I think they view him that way right now. Got a remember epps didn’t become the starter until the end of his third year. So I’m guessing the Eagles think Edmonds gives them a year. If he excels they can re-sign him. But if he’s just OK, they can move on next off-season when Blankenship has more experience and give him that job.

I still think like you probably do they want to get a cover safety somehow. The one that’s out there in FA that makes the most sense to put with Edmunds is John Johnson. Unless there’s a trade or they’re going to draft a kid relatively high. 

Edmunds has 1st round talent.  More than willing to see if he can figure things out here.  More than likely he doesn't given the Steelers defensive pedigree.  But then again, the Steelers have struggled as of late adding and developing safeties.  Lucky for them they traded for Minkah.

People only use PFF when it supports their agenda.

PFF: Haason Reddick isn't a top 10 pass rusher  "PFF is clueless, no one takes them seriously!111!11"

PFF: Guy you just signed is ranked high on our rankings  "Stop hating on the signing, look at this PFF grade!11!"

Edmunds at least likes to hit. If you come from Pittsburgh, you're physical. Our defense absolutely needed more toughness.

That’s promising at least. Maybe he’s not the bum I thought he was anymore. 

7 minutes ago, RLC said:

The best way to describe Edmunds is replacement-level. You're always trying to upgrade him, but he's not going to get beat out by most rookies. So he plays.

One year deal so we do this same dance next off-season

3 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

People only use PFF when it supports their agenda.

PFF: Haason Reddick isn't a top 10 pass rusher  "PFF is clueless, no one takes them seriously!111!11"

PFF: Guy you just signed is ranked high on our rankings  "Stop hating on the signing, look at this PFF grade!11!"

Which site do you use?

1 hour ago, Utebird said:

Metcalfe was about 190 so not 20 pound less but 10.

Almost same size similar skill sets to me, though Metcalf was also a dangerous returner, 

Metcalf weighed 180 at the combine. Gibbs weighed 199. So 19 pounds if we want to be exact.

They have the same height, but Gibbs is MUCH bulkier. He has an actual NFL RB body which Metcalf did not. And Gibbs is significantly faster, running a tenth of a second faster in the 40 yard dash (4.36 vs 4.46) and 10 yard split (1.52 vs 1.58).

They have comparable skill sets as pass catchers, but physically Gibbs is in a totally different league. He’s much bigger and faster.

4 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Tad off topic but with as much hate PFF gets why don't people use another source? I only ever see PFF being the reference for stats but their rankings always draw criticism 

There is no other source available to us. People like to rip PFF, which is silly IMO. No one should take it as gospel or act like the grades 100 percent on the mark. Use it as a rough guide for how a player played and it’s a nice tool. None of us has the time to watch these guys play every snap. PFF, for all their warts, does. 

1 minute ago, Texas Eagle said:

One year deal so we do this same dance next off-season

Think they expect Blankenship will be ready to start at that position by then. Probably edmunds is seen as the starter now but maybe there’s competition in camp between he and Blankenship. Don’t think both can start together. Neither are good enough in coverage. 

Hearing Edmonds is good on special teams is good enough for me. Probably cost us a SB last year. 

Just now, ManuManu said:

There is no other source available to us. People like to rip PFF, which is silly IMO. No one should take it as gospel or act like the grades 100 percent on the mark. Use it as a rough guide for how a player played and it’s a nice tool. None of us has the time to watch these guys play every snap. PFF, for all their warts, does. 

Agree. Plus teams with basically unlimited resources use it to evaluate players. Can’t be too off the mark. 

15 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

There is no other source available to us. People like to rip PFF, which is silly IMO. No one should take it as gospel or act like the grades 100 percent on the mark. Use it as a rough guide for how a player played and it’s a nice tool. None of us has the time to watch these guys play every snap. PFF, for all their warts, does. 

Outside of Qb grades which are sometimes if not more often off the wall the rest are usually pretty relatively close. Can say what we want about CJGJ he didn’t get top safety money and they had him graded at 64. So they were closer in their grade to what he received then what his perceived value was. 

1 hour ago, ToastJenkins said:

Love the player but do you bench Jurgens again? Or have jones sit a yr before guard and 2 before tackle? Bad resource allocation

 Those players go early and we shouldnt be this high again, but i am think lanes new deal pushes his heir off a year unless you get a raw kid later (with picks we dont have this year but lots of next yr)

Personally that depends on what Stout says. In a vacuum I would probably pass on drafting an OL in the first, but if we think Jones is a slam dunk and Kelce retires next year, take Jones and let them battle for the starting spot. You never know what happens with injuries.

2 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Which site do you use?

I don't use sites to form opinions on players. I go by what I see when I watch and if I haven't seen enough on a player myself, I don't really have strong opinions on them.

1 hour ago, Texas Eagle said:

You're prioritizing a backup who won't get an opportunity to be a full time starter until his rookie deal is over? Yes it's to have a backup because Lane tends to get injured but we can't be drafting for insurance that high. We need DE, DT, CB, S, LB, RB, WR this year and next.

I wouldn’t bet that Lane plays 4 more years. I’d guess 2 right now. You see the drop off when Lane is out. I think prioritizing a backup at OT is essential. Between Lane and Mailata that pick would probably get 3+ starts and that’s being conservative. 

Everyone is saying the Eagles aren’t done at safety either, if that eases anyone’s concerns. 

Eagles collecting former high pick defensive backs who disappointed the team that drafted them.  Can't say I really remember that strategy working but we'll see where this all goes. 

4 minutes ago, Estasi said:

Agree. Plus teams with basically unlimited resources use it to evaluate players. Can’t be too off the mark. 

To be fair, they don’t really use their grades. They use their charting for snap counts, alignment, etc. 

Just now, EaglePhan1986 said:

I wouldn’t bet that Lane plays 4 more years. I’d guess 2 right now. You see the drop off when Lane is out. I think prioritizing a backup at OT is essential. Between Lane and Mailata that pick would probably get 3+ starts and that’s being conservative. 

Why I don’t rule them taking an offensive tackle with positional versatility in the first round.. Especially if he can play guard and they believe he’s a great talent. In the now, we don’t know what cam Jurgens can do at guard nor have a great replacement if he struggles as Driscoll doesn’t stay healthy. you’d have a good competition there for that starting spot and a quality backup for mailata or lane. I think Lane likely retires in two or three years. I don’t think he sees that fourth year. Add on when lane missed time the eagles aren’t the same. I’m sure some of that creeps into the eagles minds if they make that selection. 

I am not saying that it is likely, but I don’t rule it out because if there is an offensive tackle with positional versatility that they think is a really good player it’s a position they value.