$450 for sunday ticket is disgusting. What a joke. This is what happens though when the NFL sells the rights exclusively to one "provider" it creates a situation where the winning bidder can price gauge. 

Been mulling the apparent consensus that we should not draft Robinson at #10. While I would always and forever prefer to draft an OL or DL in that slot, I'm not sure any of those linemen is worth #10, save possibly for Jalen Carter, who is a huge risk, we all agree. I would argue that Robinson is far less a risk. RBs come in nearly as good as they ever will be and having a top level RB at a controlled price for five years is a pretty good thing. Also, he starts right away, whereas pretty nearly anyone else we might draft there will ride the bench or play only sporadically, for a year, and possibly for two. With that in mind, is Robinson still a bad use of a pick?

3 minutes ago, T-1000 said:

$450 for sunday ticket is disgusting. What a joke. This is what happens though when the NFL sells the rights exclusively to one "provider" it creates a situation where the winning bidder can price gauge. 

Yet they cant even get multiple helmets with the correct colors 

Of all the UGA defenders, I'd rather come away with Robert Beal Jr. and Kelee Ringo.

8 minutes ago, just relax said:

Been mulling the apparent consensus that we should not draft Robinson at #10. While I would always and forever prefer to draft an OL or DL in that slot, I'm not sure any of those linemen is worth #10, save possibly for Jalen Carter, who is a huge risk, we all agree. I would argue that Robinson is far less a risk. RBs come in nearly as good as they ever will be and having a top level RB at a controlled price for five years is a pretty good thing. Also, he starts right away, whereas pretty nearly anyone else we might draft there will ride the bench or play only sporadically, for a year, and possibly for two. With that in mind, is Robinson still a bad use of a pick?

RB is probably a bad use of the pick, but if you were going to take a RB, Robinson is about as good as it gets b/c he's a perfect fit in this offense.

He's the complete package, size, speed, vision, elusiveness, power, receiving, blocking. Maybe not elite in any one aspect of his game, but an elite package overall.

I'm a Longhorn fan, and there's no hype, Texas has struggled on the offensive line since forever, yet he was dominant game in and game out.

1 minute ago, austinfan said:

RB is probably a bad use of the pick, but if you were going to take a RB, Robinson is about as good as it gets b/c he's a perfect fit in this offense.

He's the complete package, size, speed, vision, elusiveness, power, receiving, blocking. Maybe not elite in any one aspect of his game, but an elite package overall.

I'm a Longhorn fan, and there's no hype, Texas has struggled on the offensive line since forever, yet he was dominant game in and game out.

I don't get overwhelmed with this top ten. I do like Wilson a lot but he will be long gone. Carter has issues and will most likely be gone anyway, i'm not blown away by the o-linemen. The two corners are nice but they're not Sauce Gardner type of prospects. So thats another reason why I see Bijan as not a bad pick at all. If Skowronski was 20 pounds heavier with great strength and longer arms, then ok, but he'd go top 8 easily if that were the case. Paris is a nice prospect but i'm not blown away there. Van Ness, Murphy? Yeah i'd be 100% fine with Bijan over both. 

16 minutes ago, just relax said:

Been mulling the apparent consensus that we should not draft Robinson at #10. While I would always and forever prefer to draft an OL or DL in that slot, I'm not sure any of those linemen is worth #10, save possibly for Jalen Carter, who is a huge risk, we all agree. I would argue that Robinson is far less a risk. RBs come in nearly as good as they ever will be and having a top level RB at a controlled price for five years is a pretty good thing. Also, he starts right away, whereas pretty nearly anyone else we might draft there will ride the bench or play only sporadically, for a year, and possibly for two. With that in mind, is Robinson still a bad use of a pick?

I just got through writing that the opportunity cost in RD 1 would be too high but your take on OL and DL talent is compelling. Also, in the current NFL, a ball control offense might be the best defense a team can field. Add in some turnover specialists, draft Forbes -- I don't have the same issues with his size because he showed he could hold his own in the SEC, and its a strategy for today's NFL. Maybe.

16 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

Of all the UGA defenders, I'd rather come away with Robert Beal Jr. and Kelee Ringo.

I like Ringo, i would move him to the slot and let him learn safety too. 

31 minutes ago, greendestiny27 said:

I understand thats the overall generalized view but guys like this do not come around often. I do feel like its a perfect storm set up for us with where this team is at but the defense needs a lot and o-line is always an option. So i get its not likely, but i just see so many positives from Bijan i think it does put the offense over the top  and open things up even more for Hurts and the pass game and have a ripple effect across the offense and even the defense by owning the time of possession and being able to close games out on the shoulders if Bijan. Plus he's elite in the passing game which is just another added bonus. 

Nah. And we dont pass to the rbs

28 minutes ago, just relax said:

Been mulling the apparent consensus that we should not draft Robinson at #10. While I would always and forever prefer to draft an OL or DL in that slot, I'm not sure any of those linemen is worth #10, save possibly for Jalen Carter, who is a huge risk, we all agree. I would argue that Robinson is far less a risk. RBs come in nearly as good as they ever will be and having a top level RB at a controlled price for five years is a pretty good thing. Also, he starts right away, whereas pretty nearly anyone else we might draft there will ride the bench or play only sporadically, for a year, and possibly for two. With that in mind, is Robinson still a bad use of a pick?

This is basically my thought process as far as using the #10 pick on Bijan. I could practically hear see Lurie now after the selection is made.  Bijan is a special talent and person and they felt he was just too good to pass on. 

30 minutes ago, just relax said:

Been mulling the apparent consensus that we should not draft Robinson at #10. While I would always and forever prefer to draft an OL or DL in that slot, I'm not sure any of those linemen is worth #10, save possibly for Jalen Carter, who is a huge risk, we all agree. I would argue that Robinson is far less a risk. RBs come in nearly as good as they ever will be and having a top level RB at a controlled price for five years is a pretty good thing. Also, he starts right away, whereas pretty nearly anyone else we might draft there will ride the bench or play only sporadically, for a year, and possibly for two. With that in mind, is Robinson still a bad use of a pick?

Yes bc he will be overpaid for his position and will want an extension after 3 to be overpaid. Poorest roi for a rd1 pick

1 minute ago, ToastJenkins said:

Nah. And we dont pass to the rbs

Because we haven't had anyone to pass it too. 

12 minutes ago, greendestiny27 said:

I like Ringo, i would move him to the slot and let him learn safety too. 

That would probably be the worst spot to put him in

If i'm thinking about the needs of the team they would be:

1) DL

2) Safety

3) LB

4) RB

5) OL

Considering the Eagles have shown a history to not invest heavily in needs 2-4, I would imagine they are going to look at DL and OL. I'm not a fan of Carter, but could see the Eagles taking him at 10 if he's there. This is a pretty thin class at IDL, and it isn't much better with edge. Paris Johnson would be nice at 10 since he could play guard for the next 2-3 years and then move over to tackle once Lane retires, but then you make Jurgens ride the bench another year. Could Wilson fall? While I would love to actually draft a CB high, I just don't see the Eagles doing so since they've hitched their wagon to two 30+ year olds for the next 2 years. They won't use a top 10 pick to have them ride the bench or play the slot.

5 hours ago, greend said:

Got it. So in your books stats are stats So all sacks are the same and the one that B.G. got in the super bowl is the same as any sack in garbage time in a regular season game.  T.P. was not over rated you're letting your jealousy rule your thinking. 

Stats are severely important, is BG a hall of famer because of that sack? No. A (hypothetical) guy who had 400 career regular season sacks and no super bowls would deservedly get into the HOF over BG. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise

15 minutes ago, greendestiny27 said:

Because we haven't had anyone to pass it too. 

False

we dont have a qb thats good at it. Gainwellnis a fine receiver

1 hour ago, just relax said:

Been mulling the apparent consensus that we should not draft Robinson at #10. While I would always and forever prefer to draft an OL or DL in that slot, I'm not sure any of those linemen is worth #10, save possibly for Jalen Carter, who is a huge risk, we all agree. I would argue that Robinson is far less a risk. RBs come in nearly as good as they ever will be and having a top level RB at a controlled price for five years is a pretty good thing. Also, he starts right away, whereas pretty nearly anyone else we might draft there will ride the bench or play only sporadically, for a year, and possibly for two. With that in mind, is Robinson still a bad use of a pick?

I’ve said in the past if you are picking late first round it actually makes some sense since you get the fifth year option on the RB so essentially you are getting him for the five best years of his career on a rookie contract. At worse can just franchise him year 6 and/or 7. If he’s great then you get potentially 7 years without having to enter a huge 2nd contract when he likely declined. That said only back i could ever see the eagles taking this high was mccaffrey due to his ability to play WR and there was a thought he could be rb and slot. Love robinson don’t see them taking him at 10. 

That said if he’s great after year 3 then you have a holdout situation potentially on your hands. So there’s pros and cons to this 

CEH when drafted by the chiefs fit what i talked about. But he busted so it didn’t work out that way.

20 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

False

we dont have a qb thats good at it. Gainwellnis a fine receiver

Not really. He doesn’t get a ton of targets but his catch rate is only 70.9% for his career with 79 targets. That’s not great for a RB. Derrick Henry is at 76% and has 166 targets in his career.

1 hour ago, just relax said:

Been mulling the apparent consensus that we should not draft Robinson at #10. While I would always and forever prefer to draft an OL or DL in that slot, I'm not sure any of those linemen is worth #10, save possibly for Jalen Carter, who is a huge risk, we all agree. I would argue that Robinson is far less a risk. RBs come in nearly as good as they ever will be and having a top level RB at a controlled price for five years is a pretty good thing. Also, he starts right away, whereas pretty nearly anyone else we might draft there will ride the bench or play only sporadically, for a year, and possibly for two. With that in mind, is Robinson still a bad use of a pick?

In that scenario you trade down and take a lineman there. In no scenario is taking Robinson at 10 the right move. Even if you can’t trade down, it’s still better to take a lineman because the drop off on linemen from 1st round to later rounds is far more significant than RB. So you are still much more likely to find value at RB later in the draft than you are with your line picks. That method gives you a better chance at coming out of the draft with more impact players at more positions.

And also you gotta factor in that if an OL is the Eagles pick he gets a strong Stoutland endorsement which is good enough for me.

Guess what Zangaro and Reuben Frank argued over on their latest pod?

”Is Jordan Poyer considered a great draft pick for the Eagles”.

Can’t wait for next week when they somehow bring up Polamalu vs Dawkins.

1 hour ago, just relax said:

Been mulling the apparent consensus that we should not draft Robinson at #10. While I would always and forever prefer to draft an OL or DL in that slot, I'm not sure any of those linemen is worth #10, save possibly for Jalen Carter, who is a huge risk, we all agree. I would argue that Robinson is far less a risk. RBs come in nearly as good as they ever will be and having a top level RB at a controlled price for five years is a pretty good thing. Also, he starts right away, whereas pretty nearly anyone else we might draft there will ride the bench or play only sporadically, for a year, and possibly for two. With that in mind, is Robinson still a bad use of a pick?

The reflexive smackdown to that notion is that I cannot recall the last time a team used a first round pick on a RB and didn't truly regret it.  And then how long since we've seen that from a top 10 pick at RB?  And for the "success stories"...how truly impressive were any of them?  How many were a component of an elite offense?...versus a mere workhorse who put up nice rushing numbers in a backwards offense.

But the aforementioned question...how many were a component of an elite offense?  The answer is zero.  But this is already an elite offense.  A RB is NOT a building block to an offense, not anymore at least.  We have our building blocks.  We are drafting a weapon.  In that light, I can find it interesting.  But I still don't think I can get behind the notion of drafting someone top 10 who is unlikely to be with the team in 6 years...and knowing it going into the marriage.

3 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Guess what Zangaro and Reuben Frank argued over on their latest pod?

”Is Jordan Poyer considered a great draft pick for the Eagles”.

 

No.  It's reflective of good scouting and a good process in that they identified a player who had a nice career in the NFL late in the draft (as they often do).  But a draft pick that gets cut after 1 year and does nothing for you is a draft pick that gets cut after 1 year and does nothing for you.  

4 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

No.  It's reflective of good scouting and a good process in that they identified a player who had a nice career in the NFL late in the draft (as they often do).  But a draft pick that gets cut after 1 year and does nothing for you is a draft pick that gets cut after 1 year and does nothing for you.  

This was a multi day debate like a week or so ago in here. 

Kempski and Gowton both had Nolan Smith as the most likely Eagles first pick.

7 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

That would probably be the worst spot to put him in

I don't know, he seems more comfortable when its front of him and he can read/react, he has great explosiveness & speed, excellent against the run, has pretty good instincts off the ball but seems to lose the ball when lined up on the outside pressing. Maybe better at safety then rather than slot.