38 minutes ago, Random Reglar said:

I guess it's hard to be a punt returner?

He was number 8 in yards per punt return.   Not great.  7 were better. 

But there are 32 teams in the NFL, so 8, when there are 32 teams,  is good.  Not best.  But I would argue that udfa rookie who was 8th in yards per punt return did a good job, and maybe we can see more of him on offense.   His video from college shows him doing weapony type stuff, jet sweep,  jet sweep then throw.  He can do things from Quez's spot - slot / versatile back - that Quez can't do. 

So, the points I was trying to make weren't that Covey is great and he should get all the snaps,  but that he did a good job last year as a punt returner,  27 yard punt return in the Super Bowl was good, and it's totally wrong to say Covey can't do anything on offense.  He can do a lot.   Watkins isn't really good at running out of the backfield,  we haven't seen it yet with Covey in the NFL, but it could work, an additional run threat to go with Hurts and RB.   He's more agile than Quez,  turns faster, more moves.  

There is good stuff to look at here - Covey college highlights
 

 

Awesome video. I wish I could say the same about him playing last year. He looked a lot slower and had no real quickness to him last year for us

48 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Part of the issue is that our expectations of all punt returners is based on history … and the historical punters were nowhere near as good as today’s punters, especially with respect to the hang time of their punts.  As a result the options for the returners are significantly reduced.  Holy crap returns (for all 32 teams) simply don’t happen anywhere near as frequently in reality as they do in our memories.

That actually aids my argument that carrying, as active, a player whose only role is as a PR is a highly inefficient use of an asset.  Even the back up active OL tend to get more use on the punt, field goal and PAT teams.  

Only Smith and Ringo left to go

2 hours ago, BigEFly said:

No one really responded to the dilemma of an active fourth RB.  The issue isn’t just that Covey was only a RS that offered nothing on other STs, it was that he is only a PR.  Doesn’t even handle KOR.  Frankly, I think both Scott and Gainwell can handle some routes and possibly some slot at WR.  I wouldn’t mind at all if Scott got a jugs machine, set it on punts and invited Gainwell, Zaccheaus, Ward, Ringo (wonder how he would be as a returner), McPhearson, Rambo, and Allen to join him this offseason learning to field punts.  Catching a Kick off is different than catching a punt but both can be learned if the person could catch. 

I find your love affair for Boston Scott confusing to begin with, and now you want to see him line up in the slot?  He's the definition of a jag, not to mention he has the catch radius of my 1 year old daughter.  His only value to this ultra talented offense is that he knows the offense, but I personally don't really want to see him on this roster since we already have 3 MUCH more talented, athletic RBs.  My guess is because of his contract and the chance that 2 of these RBs will inevitably be hurt at some point, he will be unfortunately.   

43 minutes ago, TEW said:

I like that idea more than I thought I would. An 9 seed conceivably becomes a title contender overnight.

My issue would be that they then leapfrog the lower seeds that actually make the playoffs. The incentive structure is perverse. If I’m a GM, I’d be benching my starters if it looks like I’m a 7 or 8 seed. You know you aren’t winning anything, but you probably are one super star away from title contention.

Yup...that is THE risk with that.  Fringe playoff teams benching starters to just miss.  I'd argue that would at least only impact 1-2 games.  It takes a nearly complete season (in any sport) before the playoff seedings are sufficiently established for teams to make a play for something like that.  

Personally, I'd prefer something like that to a season-long commitment to tanking.  At least every win can mean something and would be something to cheer for...versus fans begrudging their teams' wins.

40 minutes ago, greend said:

Awesome video. I wish I could say the same about him playing last year. He looked a lot slower and had no real quickness to him last year for us

Looked slower when? I don't remember him having any snaps in offense to gauge whether he was quick or not 

On PR he was ok, we'll see if he gets any snaps this year on O if he even makes the roster 

10 minutes ago, hputenis said:

I find your love affair for Boston Scott confusing to begin with, and now you want to see him line up in the slot?  He's the definition of a jag, not to mention he has the catch radius of my 1 year old daughter.  His only value to this ultra talented offense is that he knows the offense, but I personally don't really want to see him on this roster since we already have 3 MUCH more talented, athletic RBs.  My guess is because of his contract and the chance that 2 of these RBs will inevitably be hurt at some point, he will be unfortunately.   

I like Scott but agree he's a JAG, I'd rather see what Sermon offers.

Having said that Scott had some good KRs.

1 hour ago, mattwill said:

Part of the issue is that our expectations of all punt returners is based on history … and the historical punters were nowhere near as good as today’s punters, especially with respect to the hang time of their punts.  As a result the options for the returners are significantly reduced.  Holy crap returns (for all 32 teams) simply don’t happen anywhere near as frequently in reality as they do in our memories.

The longest recorded hang time for a punt is 6 seconds and was set in 1989. Any changes in punting are more to do with special teams being more practiced rather than every modern punter being better than guys like Landeta and Guy.

Sproles retired like 3 years ago, Devin Hester was 5 years ago there hasn't been a revolution in punting since 2019.

24 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Looked slower when? I don't remember him having any snaps in offense to gauge whether he was quick or not 

On PR he was ok, we'll see if he gets any snaps this year on O if he even makes the roster 

On punt returns. What else? Did you watch the video?

27 minutes ago, Utebird said:

I like Scott but agree he's a JAG, I'd rather see what Sermon offers.

Having said that Scott had some good KRs.

I can tell you what Sermon offers, nothing, there's a reason he couldn't make the 49ers roster ahead of guys he was drafted before, and a reason he can't get any snaps here ahead of JAG's it's because he's no good.

8 minutes ago, hputenis said:

I find your love affair for Boston Scott confusing to begin with, and now you want to see him line up in the slot?  He's the definition of a jag, not to mention he has the catch radius of my 1 year old daughter.  His only value to this ultra talented offense is that he knows the offense, but I personally don't really want to see him on this roster since we already have 3 MUCH more talented, athletic RBs.  My guess is because of his contract and the chance that 2 of these RBs will inevitably be hurt at some point, he will be unfortunately.   

I want to see the RAS score of your daughter.  Also, Boston Scott is a competent back up that can catch and get yards running the ball.  Is he a JAG? I don't think so just because we have had situations where backups haven't been as productive.  He also has filled in at spots, like kick returner, and done a decent job.  He's an athletic RB that can make plays and he's low cost.  I don't see him having a bigger role.  I can see where he lines up in the slot to fill in for Gainwell or Swift on  formations.  I think he's competent enough as a receiver that he can fill the roles of other RBs lined up in non-RB positions.  He also probably has a better catch radius than Gainwell who has underwhelmed me as a receiver.  

8 minutes ago, Cochis_Calhoun said:

I can tell you what Sermon offers, nothing, there's a reason he couldn't make the 49ers roster ahead of guys he was drafted before, and a reason he can't get any snaps here ahead of JAG's it's because he's no good.

So why is he still here? We don’t owe him anything ?

5 minutes ago, rrfierce said:

So why is he still here? We don’t owe him anything ?

Because he's a camp RB

36 minutes ago, Utebird said:

I like Scott but agree he's a JAG, I'd rather see what Sermon offers.

Having said that Scott had some good KRs.

I think Sermon is just injury insurance and he's not getting a spot over Scott if they're both healthy.  

Boston Scott has 20 career NFL TDs including 3 in the playoffs. He's a career 4.3 ypc back

Trey Sermon is loved by his momma and 8 randos.

3 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Because he's a camp RB

This was my initial though with him, but why are they carrying a camp RB all year taking up a roster spot? They have a camp RB in Kennedy Brooks, and its not difficult to find other camp RBs.

I just don't understand their handling of Sermon. If he's no good they would have cut him, but they obviously see something in him since he took up a roster spot all year. 9ers tried to stash him on their practice squad, and the Eagles scooped him up. So they must have seen something in him in the first place from their scouting before he was drafted.

I hope Sermon gets some looks in Preseason... I think he's better than a lot of you think

9 minutes ago, wussbasket said:

This was my initial though with him, but why are they carrying a camp RB all year taking up a roster spot? They have a camp RB in Kennedy Brooks, and its not difficult to find other camp RBs.

I just don't understand their handling of Sermon. If he's no good they would have cut him, but they obviously see something in him since he took up a roster spot all year. 9ers tried to stash him on their practice squad, and the Eagles scooped him up. So they must have seen something in him in the first place from their scouting before he was drafted.

Because they only had 3 other RB's on the roster and no one on the practice squad last year, so they carried him all year for insurance and now to give him a full off-season with the team. They can cut him at the end of the TC and it's the same end result as cutting him now. They aren't trying to upgrade RB5 so why cut him just to get him off the team now?

He has talent, but hasn't reached anywhere close to his potential. So they carried him to see if he can develop. Re-signing Scott, signing Penny and trading for Swift indicates he has not developed. 

49ers cut him as a 3rd round, top 100 pick after 1 year. He cleared waivers all the way to the Eagles who were a playoff team the year before so that's around pick 18. It's worth the gamble to claim him but for only being active maybe 1 game all year and everything else that's happened since it's pretty clear at best he's a longshot to make the roster but more than likely just a camp body. This isn't the first time they have carried bottom of the roster RB's from year to year. We carried Elijiah Holyfield for over 2 years and carried him on the active roster at first and he never did anything either. 

17 minutes ago, wussbasket said:

This was my initial though with him, but why are they carrying a camp RB all year taking up a roster spot? They have a camp RB in Kennedy Brooks, and its not difficult to find other camp RBs.

I just don't understand their handling of Sermon. If he's no good they would have cut him, but they obviously see something in him since he took up a roster spot all year. 9ers tried to stash him on their practice squad, and the Eagles scooped him up. So they must have seen something in him in the first place from their scouting before he was drafted.

I am not sure I understand it but they only ever activated 3 RBs.  Gainwell came in and played really well in the playoffs and they like him and Scott is their KR person.  He was just their 4th RB. 

2 hours ago, wussbasket said:

Covey is fine as a punt returner, but I would like him to be more than just that. Would like to see him contribute more to the offense.

How many players did the Eagles carry last year that were essentially inactive or had extremely limited roles? Sermon, Covey, and Jobe? 

No idea why Sermon was on the roster all year and never really played. With Stout being the run game coordinator and also known for quizzing the players on assignments, I wonder if Sermon wasn't able to answer the questions in order to get playing time. Covey is extremely one dimensional and the needs to able to contribute on offense or I would rather them go with someone else. Jobe primarily played on ST, but got very limited snaps towards the end of the season. Now with a crowded DB corps, its going to be tough for him to get some more playing time.

In order for him to justify his roster spot as a PR only, he needs to be more than 'fine'.  He's not.  Therefore, they should absolutely be looking to replace him.  I've got no problem with a PR only guy on the roster, but in order to justify it, he needs to be an asset.  He needs to make other teams game plan around him.  He's not close to that.

 

Now, if we want a guy that's just middle of the pack as a returner at PR... then he could probably also be middle of the pack as a KOR.  It can't be that hard to cross train.  KOR many times is just a matter of watching the ball land in the end zone anyway.  Not a big deal.  

 

As I pointed out yesterday, Brian Mitchell never returned a punt or kickoff in college.  He might not have even done it in high school.  Generally, even high school teams don't expose their QBs like that.  Anyway, the point is... anyone with a desire to get on the field more should be tried out at PR and KOR.  If we could just combine those roster positions into a single player, that frees up another spot on the game day roster (and the active roster) to carry someone else that offers something else unique.  There's no reason that PR needs to be a specialized position like P, PK, or LS.  

LOL, it never stops with morons. They take 6th and 23rd and pretend it means 1st. Saying the Eagles had the easiest schedule last year is like saying the Seahawks had the best defense  (8th in points and 26th in yards obviously means 1st overall)

The Eagles had the 6th easiest SoS last year, the 49ers had the easiest ( 1st ) schedule and the Chiefs had the 3rd easiest.

If you go by SoV the Eagles had the 23rd easiest schedule, the 49ers the 9th, and the Chiefs the 11th.

BTW, SoS gives the 49ers credit for facing the Chiefs while SoV gives them no credit for losing to the Chiefs by 21. If regression based on schedule is due then it is due in SF, not Philly.

http://www.nflgsis.com/standings.aspx

 

So the Eagles did not have an easy schedule in 2022 and they don't have an actual hard schedule in 2023 yet unless you can turn those 2023 teams back into 2022 teams and make them play the same exact way in another random simulation. This entire dead-horse schedule angle is perpetuated by ignorant losers who refuse to do even the basic homework required to understand anything.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, TEW said:

I like that idea more than I thought I would. An 9 seed conceivably becomes a title contender overnight.

My issue would be that they then leapfrog the lower seeds that actually make the playoffs. The incentive structure is perverse. If I’m a GM, I’d be benching my starters if it looks like I’m a 7 or 8 seed. You know you aren’t winning anything, but you probably are one super star away from title contention.

Been saying it for a while.  Even if you just give the top 3 spots to the top 3 that miss out on the playoffs, and then let the worst teams go in order after that starting at the 4th spot, they'd get a little more of a boost up, but they'd lose the incentive to tank.  Meanwhile, teams that are really close to the playoffs would be massively incentivized to push hard.  There might be a situation where the team just on the outside looking in might tank if a true generational talent is sitting there.  So maybe mix it up a bit and have the top 3 teams that miss the playoffs go into the lottery process.  Top team to miss the playoffs gets a 50% chance of the top pick.  The 2nd team gets a 33% chance and the 3rd team gets a 17% chance.  That keeps any of them from going straight tank, even in the final couple games of the year to guarantee the top spot for a true dynamo.  

And the worst teams getting the 4th pick and onward still gives them first crack at the talent pool amongst the weakest teams so that they might be able to climb the ladder.

5 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

In order for him to justify his roster spot as a PR only, he needs to be more than 'fine'.  He's not.  Therefore, they should absolutely be looking to replace him.  I've got no problem with a PR only guy on the roster, but in order to justify it, he needs to be an asset.  He needs to make other teams game plan around him.  He's not close to that.

 

Now, if we want a guy that's just middle of the pack as a returner at PR... then he could probably also be middle of the pack as a KOR.  It can't be that hard to cross train.  KOR many times is just a matter of watching the ball land in the end zone anyway.  Not a big deal.  

 

As I pointed out yesterday, Brian Mitchell never returned a punt or kickoff in college.  He might not have even done it in high school.  Generally, even high school teams don't expose their QBs like that.  Anyway, the point is... anyone with a desire to get on the field more should be tried out at PR and KOR.  If we could just combine those roster positions into a single player, that frees up another spot on the game day roster (and the active roster) to carry someone else that offers something else unique.  There's no reason that PR needs to be a specialized position like P, PK, or LS.  

Meh - In an offense that is going to target 3 receivers, having a 5th WR as a punt returner who is the best option to return punts isn't a terrible use of resources.  You could find a better all around WR but lose production because the primary role is to return punts.  That being said, he shouldn't have a guaranteed spot.  He was OK towards the end of the year.  

5 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

Meh - In an offense that is going to target 3 receivers, having a 5th WR as a punt returner who is the best option to return punts isn't a terrible use of resources.  You could find a better all around WR but lose production because the primary role is to return punts.  That being said, he shouldn't have a guaranteed spot.  He was OK towards the end of the year.  

Agree and the PR blocking was consistently so bad most the year that If Devin Hester was back there he's not getting anything.

Tough to get any return when there are 5 guys on ya as soon as you catch the ball.

The blocking needs to be much better or it won't matter whose back there, having said that at least covey is sure handed and won't let the ball bounce over his head for 20 more yards.

Boston Scott is more than capable of handling special teams duties.  We don't necessarily *need* Covey for anything. 

If a guy like Rambo or Haselwood, or even someone elsewhere like Ricks or VanSumeren shows something in TC, we shouldn't be losing out on that for Covey of all people.