2 hours ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

Not at 10 though, a fringe pro bowl DT > an all pro RB. The impact just isn’t there

I wouldn’t be hugely against moving up from 30 if he’s oddly still around after the first 20 picks

If there is a DL worth drafting with a top-15ish pick, then yes, take him over Robinson.

What I don't want is a Marcus Smith III situation where we reached for a position.

If there isn't a DL/CB worth a high pick, then give me the All-Pro RB.

4 minutes ago, MidMoFo said:

We had the lead going into the 4th quarter. You don’t think having the ability to to impose our will on the Chiefs defense running the ball in the 2nd half, drain the clock, score TDs on 8-10 minute drives, keeping Mahomes off the field, would have won us the Super Bowl?

We had 0 sacks after leading the league in team sacks on the regular season. Remember that.

It’s funny how you present your argument because you kinda screw your own argument. The 0 sacks was a far bigger issue than the 16 yards. Pressuring and sacking Mahomes would have had way more of an effect on the game. 

2 minutes ago, MidMoFo said:

So adding a weapon at RB to take pressure/carries off Jalen Hurts, and who could drain the clock with time consuming drives in the 2nd half, keeping Mahomes on the sideline isn’t an option?

At 10 it would be a poor use of that asset and it's really not even that complicated or worth debating. I respect your opinion and a lot of people feel the way you do. However, taking a RB at 10 isn't how high level franchises operate or how teams succeed. Tell me how much success Carolina and NY had with studs like McCaffrey and Saquon.

7 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I think either Berman or solak used this anology  with taking a RB that high in the first round, the issue is you’re drafting a RB that high they’re a depreciating asset at that point. Because the more years or more miles you put on them their value decreases. likely hit their peak 2-3 years into the rookie contract and then you are gonna have to pay on the depreciating and years where he’s not at his peak. 

Meanwhile other positions they’re gonna have miles put on them and years put on them as well. but each year going forward they usually hold their residual better and even increase value as they get better and better learning the position. usually when you pay the second contract you are likely not paying on a depreciating asset whereas running backs in their second contract a majority of the time you are already spending on the assets that’s depreciating. 

I would disagree, RBs hit their peak at 26-27 years old. Usually right at the end of their rookie contract if they’re a first rounder with the 5th year option. It’s perfectly fine to let them go after that and not sign them to a 2nd contract.

8 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

In 2021 we had 3 1st round picks and only used 1. in 2021 we had Minnesota’s first round pick, and we traded ours away the year before. In 2009 we had 2 first round picks and only used 1. 
 

Maybe it’s avoiding multiple fifth round options hitting at the same time, maybe it’s the continued spread-the-wealth mentality for future drafts, or maybe it’s Howie with too many draft assets burning a hole in his pocket and he can’t resist the trade block. But Until I see it happen one day, I continue to believe Howie will not use both.

Honestly wouldn’t be surprised if it’s the 5th year option and not wanting both as that’s harder to juggle with the cap.

Just feels like #10 is destined to be an uninspiring pick. People can push for Bijan but it’s just not an Eagles move. I’d try to trade back from both. 

4 minutes ago, Dwide Schrude said:

That’s such a tough one to peg. I think that’s where we see the trade down to add a 4th and/or a 5th at least. Gibbs makes a ton of sense if they trade back and don’t go back too far. I’ve wondered if they’d be ok with Forbes given his light frame considering the success they’ve seen with Devonta. It entirely depends on what happens at 10 first though.

 

I believe it was Bill Barnwell who just published an excellent read on why drafting in the RB is a bad idea because of the contracts rookies will make at their given draft slot compared to what low level players make at highly valuable positions. Once I read the article I was firmly against taking Bijan at 10

If you can find the article, I love to read it. I love bichon Robinson. I met the kid when he was in high school. Great kid with a great head on his shoulders. I watched some of his games here. He was an awesome talent then and he didn’t disappoint at Texas.
 

if you take bijan you are doing what Dallas did with Zeke Elliott. granted Dallas had better players in that position to take over Zeke. But they took Zeke anyways. Zeke was good the first 3 to 4 years. But when it came up to getting a second contract, he just wasn’t the same at that point. He was depreciating at that point in time. So they were paying on his past performance and on the decline in the second contract. when he got to the second contract he was nowhere close to the same player he was when he came out. they paid him cause they invested so highly in him and he was still good but the cliff coming was noticeable. I’d argue he wasn’t the best back on that team the last two years of his contract. 

2 minutes ago, MidMoFo said:

I would disagree, RBs hit their peak at 26-27 years old. Usually right at the end of their rookie contract if they’re a first rounder with the 5th year option. It’s perfectly fine to let them go after that and not sign them to a 2nd contract.

Most RB's are starting to decline by their late 20's, toast by 30. Their best years are typically their first 4 or 5. Zeke is a prime example. He took the league by storm as a rookie and since his 4th year his YPC has declined every year. Now at 27 years old nobody even wants him.

4 minutes ago, Dwide Schrude said:

It’s funny how you present your argument because you kinda screw your own argument. The 0 sacks was a far bigger issue than the 16 yards. Pressuring and sacking Mahomes would have had way more of an effect on the game. 

Sacking Mahomes would have made more of an impact than keeping him on the sidelines? That seems pretty stupid.

We had the most sacks as a team for the regular season, so we had the assets to get it done… just didn’t happen.

4 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

If there is a DL worth drafting with a top-15ish pick, then yes, take him over Robinson.

What I don't want is a Marcus Smith III situation where we reached for a position.

If there isn't a DL/CB worth a high pick, then give me the All-Pro RB.

Even then, I’d say move down until you’re at a spot where the best line prospect available is considered apt for that draft slot. Even the idyllic RB prospect I don’t think is worthwhile for a top 20 pick. If we’re at 30 and he’s somehow still there, then sure go ahead. 
 

But keep in mind Bijan is no assured all pro. And even if he’s great, it may not do much for Philly. Think of the last handful of top prospect RBs. Gurley, Saquon, Zeke, Fournette, Richardson, Mccafffrey… all combined they have maybe 5 outstanding seasons on their rookie deals. Were any of them worth the pick if the team could do it over again? Did any of them have any impact on the fortunes of their franchises?

2 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

If you can find the article, I love to read it. I love bichon Robinson. I met the kid when he was in high school. Great kid with a great head on his shoulders. I watched some of his games here. He was an awesome talent then and he didn’t disappoint at Texas.
 

if you take bijan you are doing what Dallas did with Zeke Elliott. granted Dallas had better players in that position to take over Zeke. But they took Zeke anyways. Zeke was good the first 3 to 4 years. But when it came up to getting a second contract, he just wasn’t the same at that point. He was depreciating at that point in time. So they were paying on his past performance and on the decline in the second contract. when he got to the second contract he was nowhere close to the same player he was when he came out. they paid him cause they invested so highly in him and he was still good but the cliff coming was noticeable. I’d argue he wasn’t the best back on that team the last two years of his contract. 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/draft2023/story/_/id/36098056/2023-nfl-draft-running-back-round-1-risk-value-cost-picking-bijan-robinson
 

no paywall either. I could have explained it better but would have just butchered Barnwell’s excellent writing in this

2 minutes ago, T-1000 said:

Most RB's are starting to decline by their late 20's, toast by 30. Their best years are typically their first 4 or 5. Zeke is a prime example. He took the league by storm as a rookie and since his 4th year his YPC has declined every year. Now at 27 years old nobody even wants him.

So you agree with me.

2 minutes ago, MidMoFo said:

Sacking Mahomes would have made more of an impact than keeping him on the sidelines? That seems pretty stupid.

We had the most sacks as a team for the regular season, so we had the assets to get it done… just didn’t happen.

You’re right, I’m just stupid. You’re vastly smarter than me, absolutely wise beyond your years & I’m an absolute fool for not believing that taking a RB at 10 is quality team building because history of the modern era shows how effective it is. I’m so sorry to have doubted you. May we take Bijan at 10 and forever prosper 

14 minutes ago, MidMoFo said:

I would disagree, RBs hit their peak at 26-27 years old. Usually right at the end of their rookie contract if they’re a first rounder with the 5th year option. It’s perfectly fine to let them go after that and not sign them to a 2nd contract.

Most running backs are 26 in the last year of their rookie contract. If they come out at 22 or 23 in year four they are 26 or 27. Essentially, when you start the second contract, they’re gonna give you one (maybe two years) of high-level production. And at that point there’s gonna be a decline. I will look at Zeke Elliott. That is exactly what happened. He was never the same in the second contract and he was only 25 when that one started.

You can give me McCaffrey, but I think mccaffrey is a whole other level of wide receiver skills than bijan. That’s not a knock on bijan that is McCaffrey was so valuable because he could play running back. but also if you wanted too you could have him out a slot wide receiver, and he wouldn’t miss a beat. the  reason why the Eagles were very interested in him was because they saw him as a 2 position player. While bijan is a good receiver i don’t see him being like mccaffrey was as a receiver. 

I would tell you to look up all the running backs who got a second contract. And tell me how the next three years on the second contract look as compared to the first four or five (depending on how long the rookie contract was). the decline starts usually around when the second contract hits. Now there are some exceptions but that is not the majority. So if you’re not gonna re-sign the back after year 5 and let him go the value is nowhere close to if you draft correctly at another position and get potentially 8 to 10 and when you pay the position in his second contract he’s less likely declining or depreciating asset at that point. 

11 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Honestly wouldn’t be surprised if it’s the 5th year option and not wanting both as that’s harder to juggle with the cap.

Just feels like #10 is destined to be an uninspiring pick. People can push for Bijan but it’s just not an Eagles move. I’d try to trade back from both. 

This conversation about Bijan tonight has totally convinced me of our draft plan this year: 

We’re moving down from 10. Probably to Tampa or Washington’s pick if Richardson or Levis is still there in exchange for their 2024 1st. Otherwise just for some needed day 2 draft assets. In the late teens or early 20’s we will take Kancey/Nolan. Then we will take 30 overall and trade down for a 2 and a 4, something to that effect. Then if we didn’t get a 2024 1st earlier, we move down again with one of our 2 2’s to recoup mid round picks. It would be hard to see this playing out differently than that based on how this board is expected to go.

1 pick around 20

a couple 2’s

2-3 3’s

a couple 4’s

 

1 minute ago, Dwide Schrude said:

You’re right, I’m just stupid. You’re vastly smarter than me, absolutely wise beyond your years & I’m an absolute fool for not believing that taking a RB at 10 is quality team building because history of the modern era shows how effective it is. I’m so sorry to have doubted you. May we take Bijan at 10 and forever prosper 

I’m just trying to make the argument that IF the top DLine options are gone at 10 … we shouldn’t rule out a player who could make a real upgrade to our offense just because "you can’t take a RB in rd 1”

Don't rule it out…

14 minutes ago, T-1000 said:

At 10 it would be a poor use of that asset and it's really not even that complicated or worth debating. I respect your opinion and a lot of people feel the way you do. However, taking a RB at 10 isn't how high level franchises operate or how teams succeed. Tell me how much success Carolina and NY had with studs like McCaffrey and Saquon.

Tell me how our roster resembles Carolina or NYG?  Chase yesterdays nfl and you’ll always be behind. The chiefs are the new standard. Win with offense, support with defense. 

3 minutes ago, MidMoFo said:

I’m just trying to make the argument that IF the top DLine options are gone at 10 … we shouldn’t rule out a player who could make a real upgrade to our offense just because "you can’t take a RB in rd 1”

Don't rule it out…

We can debate it all we want. It doesn’t matter. Howie won’t take a RB at 10. I’d even wager money on it. If he does, come find me and gimme your best "I told you so” because I’m that confident it won’t happen. 

5 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Most running backs are 26 in the last year of their rookie contract. If they come out at 22 or 23 in year four they are 26 or 27. Essentially, when you start the second contract, they’re gonna give you one (maybe two years) of high-level production. And at that point there’s gonna be a decline. I will look at Zeke Elliott. That is exactly what happened. He was never the same in the second contract and he was only 25 when that one started.

You can give me McCaffrey, but I think mccaffrey is a whole other level of wide receiver skills than Nina. That’s not a knock on bijan that is McCaffrey was so valuable because he could play running back. but also if you wanted too you could have him out a slot wide receiver, and he wouldn’t miss a beat. the  reason why the Eagles were very interested in him was because they saw him as a 2 position player. While bijan is a good receiver i don’t see him being like mccaffrey was as a receiver. 

I would tell you to look up all the running backs who got a second contract. And tell me how the next three years on the second contract look as compared to the first four or five (depending on how long the rookie contract was). the decline starts usually around when the second contract hits. Now there are some exceptions but that is not the majority. So if you’re not gonna re-sign the back after year 5 and let him go the value is nowhere close to if you draft correctly at another position and get potentially 8 to 10 and when you pay the position in his second contract he’s less likely declining or depreciating asset at that point. 

Yep. Sure. Fine.

We get a comp pick when we let them walk after 5 years of production on a rookie deal?

Just saying the two best running backs on the chiefs were a 7th round rookie in Pacheco and McKinnon who was a 3rd rounder in 2014. CEH who was taken late in the first turned out to be injury prone and mostly a dud. 

 

12 minutes ago, MidMoFo said:

Yep. Sure. Fine.

We get a comp pick when we let them walk after 5 years of production on a rookie deal?

Who says you’re going to get a good comp pick? Unless he’s putting up pro bowl caliber stats every year he’s likely not getting paid in the FA market. And if you are allowing him to walk I’m guessing the eagles don’t think he’s worth that value nor does the rest of the league.  And if you sign him because he’s playing so well, but that doesn’t prevent an inevitable decline because of that position and what has been shown. The analytics still bare that out it’s more likely he is a depreciating asset as compared to other positions when the second contract is signed

Running backs usually don’t get paid in free agency. So you might get a third round comp but he better look like prime AP and Henry and at that point why are you letting him walk? And if you re-sign him the second contract risk is still there. the reality is if he’s in free agency and you’re letting him go and test the waters because you don’t think he’s worth being paid. The rest of the league is not gonna give him a huge contract. So your compensatory pick is not likely going to be that high if at all cause you likely are signing some people that cancel it out. 

 

5 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Who says you’re going to get a good comp pick? Unless he’s putting up pro bowl caliber stats every year he’s likely not getting paid in the FA market. And if you are allowing him to walk I’m guessing the eagles don’t think he’s worth that value nor does the rest of the league.  And if you sign him because he’s playing so well, but that doesn’t prevent an inevitable decline because of that position and what has been shown.

Running backs usually don’t get paid in free agency. So you might get a third round comp but he better look like prime AP and Henry and at that point why are you letting him walk? And if you re-sign him the second contract risk is still there. the reality is if he’s in free agency and you’re letting him go and test the waters because you don’t think he’s worth being paid. The rest of the league is not gonna give him a huge contract. So your compensatory pick is not likely going to be that high if at all cause you likely are signing some people that cancel it out. 

The depreciating argument doesn’t matter…

You can cut him after year 2 if he sucks, he’s on a rookie contract which is limited the ENTIRE time he’s in his prime. When/if he plays the entire 5 year contract, because he must be good… let him walk and take the comp.

23 minutes ago, Allhaildawk said:

Tell me how our roster resembles Carolina or NYG?  Chase yesterdays nfl and you’ll always be behind. The chiefs are the new standard. Win with offense, support with defense. 

LMAO, the Chiefs just won the SB with a 7th round RB and another guy who has been on 3 or 4 teams. Both has significantly outplayed the late first round RB they have on their roster. Andy Reid has ALWAYS built teams from the QB and lines out. Where the heck do you think Howie got this from. You walked yourself right into disproving your own opinion.

21 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Just saying the two best running backs on the chiefs were a 7th round rookie in Pacheco and McKinnon who was a 3rd rounder in 2014. CEH who was taken late in the first turned out to be injury prone and mostly a dud. 

 

BINGO

30 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Most running backs are 26 in the last year of their rookie contract. If they come out at 22 or 23 in year four they are 26 or 27. Essentially, when you start the second contract, they’re gonna give you one (maybe two years) of high-level production. And at that point there’s gonna be a decline. I will look at Zeke Elliott. That is exactly what happened. He was never the same in the second contract and he was only 25 when that one started.

You can give me McCaffrey, but I think mccaffrey is a whole other level of wide receiver skills than bijan. That’s not a knock on bijan that is McCaffrey was so valuable because he could play running back. but also if you wanted too you could have him out a slot wide receiver, and he wouldn’t miss a beat. the  reason why the Eagles were very interested in him was because they saw him as a 2 position player. While bijan is a good receiver i don’t see him being like mccaffrey was as a receiver. 

I would tell you to look up all the running backs who got a second contract. And tell me how the next three years on the second contract look as compared to the first four or five (depending on how long the rookie contract was). the decline starts usually around when the second contract hits. Now there are some exceptions but that is not the majority. So if you’re not gonna re-sign the back after year 5 and let him go the value is nowhere close to if you draft correctly at another position and get potentially 8 to 10 and when you pay the position in his second contract he’s less likely declining or depreciating asset at that point. 

Exactly right on CMC. And also why I’m interested in Gibbs and not Bijan. He can give you a similar skill set.

1 hour ago, MidMoFo said:

The depreciating argument doesn’t matter…

You can cut him after year 2 if he sucks, he’s on a rookie contract which is limited the ENTIRE time he’s in his prime. When/if he plays the entire 5 year contract, because he must be good… let him walk and take the comp.

First you can’t always cut him after 2. Ask the Cowboys why Zeke Elliott still remained on the team besides Jerry Jones liked him. That was part of it but also the dead money and cap number didn’t allow for them to do it.

second depreciating value argument sure as hell does. The eagles are an analytics based organization. So if you are gonna tell me they are gonna ignore those analytics/numbers that show a lot of RBs begin declining after their rookie contracts? I’ll will say BS. if the analytics/numbers are telling you it’s much higher chance that a RB is going to decline heading into or early in their second contract then other positions and have a shorter career it 100% matters.  

If you are drafting a player on the assumption he’s only here for 5 years max then we are letting him walk so we get a likely comp pick and one that may never come that’s a horrific way of drafting. You might never even get a comp pick. The whole formula for that depends on a multitude of factors. Hypothetically the Eagles to go in the FA and sign a defensive end to a massive contract that cancels out that comp pick you were going to get.

Also, your argument where you could just cut him year 2 into the second contract doesn’t help the fact he wasn’t depreciating heading into that second contract. The fact you should have realized it was coming and now are taking on dead money and money you could’ve spent elsewhere. Second contracts you get into with other positions there’s less chance of a steep decline or cliff early on that contract so chance you get good years in years 5-10. Hence the depreciating value and miles put on a RB after playing 4-5 years heading into a second contract matters. One of the reasons Miles Sanders isn’t here right now is because the Eagles didn’t think he was worth the money due to his value heading a second contract. he had miles out on him as well as injuries that accumulated over the 4 years. along with the money to spend on a RB in the second contract wasn’t worth it for that position. Additionally they probably evaluated that there was depreciation/decline that was likely coming  in that second contract where they might regret spending the money there. Now he got it OK contract but the Eagles are not getting some great comp pick out of him and that was never their intended plan when selecting him in round 2