Just now, bpac55 said:

They will double the salary but you have the coach the Devils for free.

I'd love to.  I can't stand the devils and would love to coach them into a worse franchise than what Gretzky did to the Coyotes.  Then I'd quit a week before the regular season starts like he did, and whine that they owe me $7M.

3 minutes ago, Westbrook#36 said:

Anyone else have his feeling of impending doom? Like, last season was [almost] too good to be true and the difficulty level can only go up? Super Bowl loser curse?

Nah, when SB loser curse stuff happens it’s because that team was lucky to be there in the first place or at the end of their run. 2018 rams, 2019 9ers, 2015 Panthers, 2016 Falcons, 2014 Seahawks….

But when the SB loser is loaded and has an MVP caliber QB in his mid 20’s… 2020 KC, 2021 Cincy, 2022 Philly, that overcomes those narratives

2 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

Nah, when SB loser curse stuff happens it’s because that team was lucky to be there in the first place or at the end of their run. 2018 rams, 2019 9ers, 2015 Panthers, 2016 Falcons, 2014 Seahawks….

But when the SB loser is loaded and has an MVP caliber QB in his mid 20’s… 2020 KC, 2021 Cincy, 2022 Philly, that overcomes those narratives

It is really hard to get to back to back super bowls though. So I do expect a small decline. 

Another day, another delivery of some new autographed rookie cards…

 

1 minute ago, WentzFan11 said:

It is really hard to get to back to back super bowls though. So I do expect a small decline. 

I think the entire division will take a 1-2 game regress, like @BigEFly said.  The AFC East and NFC West will be tougher opponents than the AFC South and NFC North were last year.  I expect the Commanders will slide all the way down to 5-6 wins, the Giants will miss the playoffs at 7-8 wins, and The Eagles and Turds will drop 1 or 2 games from last season's win totals.  

The Eagles might still get the #1 seed at 12-13 wins, though.  The Niners draw the NFC East and AFC North, which stands to be a really tough schedule.  I don't see anyone else in the NFC strong enough to win 13 games.  

4 minutes ago, Outlaw said:

Another day, another delivery of some new autographed rookie cards…

 

Two questions:

How much money did you drop on the Quez Watkins card?

Was the seller stiff in their stance for the Ringo card?

19 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

I think the entire division will take a 1-2 game regress, like @BigEFly said.  The AFC East and NFC West will be tougher opponents than the AFC South and NFC North were last year.  I expect the Commanders will slide all the way down to 5-6 wins, the Giants will miss the playoffs at 7-8 wins, and The Eagles and Turds will drop 1 or 2 games from last season's win totals.  

The Eagles might still get the #1 seed at 12-13 wins, though.  The Niners draw the NFC East and AFC North, which stands to be a really tough schedule.  I don't see anyone else in the NFC strong enough to win 13 games.  

I think 12 wins will be enough to win this division.   12-5 is a good season... and depending on how they get there, it might be enough for HFA... or at least the 2 seed.  BUT... the 1 seed is such a massive advantage now with the new set-up where only the 1 gets the bye.  I don't see this as the long term solution though.   It won't be too long before there are not 7 teams to make the playoffs, but 12.  

1-4 get a bye, while 5 plays 12, 6 plays 11 and 7 plays 10 and 8 plays 9... 

Then 1-4 match up against the winners, where they reseed each round.  

That makes for 1 more round of playoff football.  AND... that last week will likely be much more important for seeding, so there will be fewer walk throughs in the last week.

 

I think that would be a better option than adding an 18th regular season game... but it still should include a 2nd bye... which means 2 extra weeks of football and the Super Bowl moves to Presidents Day Weekend.... meaning that the Monday AFTER the Super Bowl is a National Holiday.

Random question: let’s say Reddick continues to kill it for us and we extend him, and he plays well into his 30’s…

But before that happens, someone offers 2 1sts, a 2nd, and a 3rd for him. Would you take that, if you knew he’d be a perennial pro bowler for the next 5+ years ?

37 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

Two questions:

How much money did you drop on the Quez Watkins card?

Was the seller stiff in their stance for the Ringo card?

Got Quez for $8. Clarify on Q2

4 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

Random question: let’s say Reddick continues to kill it for us and we extend him, and he plays well into his 30’s…

But before that happens, someone offers 2 1sts, a 2nd, and a 3rd for him. Would you take that, if you knew he’d be a perennial pro bowler for the next 5+ years ?

I don't see 5+ years as likely.  He's undersized.  He'll be 29 this season.  I think he's got 2, maybe 3 more years before he starts to drop off dramatically and would need to be much more of a rotational player. 

 

So, that said... I'd absolutely trade him at the end of the year for that haul, especially if its from a team that I could see being back a top 10 pick.

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I don't see 5+ years as likely.  He's undersized.  He'll be 29 this season.  I think he's got 2, maybe 3 more years before he starts to drop off dramatically and would need to be much more of a rotational player. 

 

So, that said... I'd absolutely trade him at the end of the year for that haul, especially if its from a team that I could see being back a top 10 pick.

This is a hypothetical where he’s dominant into his 30’s. Still do it?

5 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

This is a hypothetical where he’s dominant into his 30’s. Still do it?

Well, like I said, I don't believe that's likely given his age and size.  So, I'd play the odds of finding a replacement with one of those picks.

My answer is that I think the odds of the Eagles getting that level of production from a draft pick in 2026 is higher than from Reddick.  So, I'll take the trade.  

Anyone up to play the hypothetical?

18 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

Anyone up to play the hypothetical?

Yes. I would absolutely make that trade.

11 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

Anyone else who’s actually willing to play the hypothetical?

You're basically asking if I would want to do the trade the Raiders made when they sent Khalil Mack to the Bears.  Even the Raiders didn't get quite that much for Mack, although comparable.

The answer is yes -- you make that trade if you're the Eagles.  Mack gave the Bears 36 sacks in 4 seasons, finished 2nd in DPOY in his first year with the Bears in 2018, and helped them to a 12-4 record.  The problem is, the next 3 seasons the Bears went 8-8, 8-8, and 6-11.  One elite edge rusher can't do it all, so the trade didn't have the desired outcome for the Bears in the long run, and now he's been sent to the Chargers.

Mack was also a 5th overall pick where Reddick was 13th overall, and Mack was only 26 where Reddick will be 29 in September.  You make that trade all day, and replenish the edge rusher position through the draft. 

9 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Yes. I would absolutely make that trade.

 

8 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

You're basically asking if I would want to do the trade the Raiders made when they sent Khalil Mack to the Bears.  Even the Raiders didn't get quite that much for Mack, although comparable.

The answer is yes -- you make that trade if you're the Eagles.  Mack gave the Bears 36 sacks in 4 seasons, finished 2nd in DPOY in his first year with the Bears in 2018, and helped them to a 12-4 record.  The problem is, the next 3 seasons the Bears went 8-8, 8-8, and 6-11.  One elite edge rusher can't do it all, so the trade didn't have the desired outcome for the Bears in the long run, and now he's been sent to the Chargers.

Mack was also a 5th overall pick where Reddick was 13th overall, and Mack was only 26 where Reddick will be 29 in September.  You make that trade all day, and replenish the edge rusher position through the draft. 

Alternate Question:

Let’s say you know with a crystal ball that Nolan Smith will have 50 sacks by the end of his rookie 5 year contract. He may start slow the first 1-2 years but he’ll pick it up, you know for a fact he’ll become a perennial-pro-bowl-but-not-quite-all-pro player. However, after year three you’re offered that same deal:

2 1sts, one is definitely top 10 and possibly top 5, the other is near top 10. Let’s say… 12th. Plus a second rounder, top 5 of that round, and a third rounder, top 10 of that round.

Do you make that trade for a young, pro bowl DE on a Rookie deal vs insane draft assets?

1 hour ago, Westbrook#36 said:

Anyone else have his feeling of impending doom? Like, last season was [almost] too good to be true and the difficulty level can only go up? Super Bowl loser curse?

Not doom but I don't think it's going to be as easy and I think there will be some natural regression with sacks, turnovers and injury luck. I think games will be closer than most were last year. The first month of the season will be telling. They cannot afford a SB hangover against the easy teams. If they don't stack wins right away they will be in some trouble with that gauntlet in the middle. 

5 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

 

Alternate Question:

Let’s say you know with a crystal ball that Nolan Smith will have 50 sacks by the end of his rookie 5 year contract. He may start slow the first 1-2 years but he’ll pick it up, you know for a fact he’ll become a perennial-pro-bowl-but-not-quite-all-pro player. However, after year three you’re offered that same deal:

2 1sts, one is definitely top 10 and possibly top 5, the other is near top 10. Let’s say… 12th. Plus a second rounder, top 5 of that round, and a third rounder, top 10 of that round.

Do you make that trade for a young, pro bowl DE on a Rookie deal vs insane draft assets?

I think a lot will depend on how Davis and Carter perform.  From a roster construction standpoint I would likely keep and pay the two dominant DT while re-drafting edge rushers every 3-4 years.  There might not be enough cap dollars to pay second contracts to the entire DL, and I think finding a dominant DT through the draft would be more difficult.

2 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

I think a lot will depend on how Davis and Carter perform.  From a roster construction standpoint I would likely keep and pay the two dominant DT while re-drafting edge rushers every 3-4 years.  There might not be enough cap dollars to pay second contracts to the entire DL, and I think finding a dominant DT through the draft would be more difficult.

Do you think there’s any scenario where you’d prefer to keep Nolan over acquiring those assets?

1 hour ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

Nah, when SB loser curse stuff happens it’s because that team was lucky to be there in the first place or at the end of their run. 2018 rams, 2019 9ers, 2015 Panthers, 2016 Falcons, 2014 Seahawks….

But when the SB loser is loaded and has an MVP caliber QB in his mid 20’s… 2020 KC, 2021 Cincy, 2022 Philly, that overcomes those narratives

2022 Bengals had a SB hangover, they just survived it at 4-4 and then went rolling on the rest of the schedule. Same thing happened to the Chiefs in 2021 when they started 3-4. The only game they looked good in that stretch was against Jonathan Gannon and the 2-4 Washington Football Team.

I think Eagles could be in a similar situation. I wouldn't be surprised if we started out slow especially with two new coordinators on both sides of the ball. Desai seems to say the right things, but who knows how long he'll take to establish his defense on the field. Brian Johnson should have an easier transition since he's been here for 2 years, but who knows how he'll be at play calling.  Sirianni is a good coach but was a disaster with play calling for the first half of 2021. It only turned around after he gave it up. Hopefully Johnson won't skip a beat but there could be an adjustment there too.

50 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

Anyone up to play the hypothetical?

Perhaps.

12 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

Do you think there’s any scenario where you’d prefer to keep Nolan over acquiring those assets?

I don't think so; not at the current rate of second contracts for edge rushers.  There is a significant supply of edge rushing talent in most drafts.  If Smith were 15+ sacks per season like Nick Bosa or TJ Watt, etc. that might be a different discussion.

One Bulldog I'm glad they stayed away from.

Really interesting with the schedule being back loaded. 

That could create a false sense of security which leads to more of a SB hangover.

Or we could just benefit by playing weaker opponents, where any such hangover gets factored out by the lack of strong opponents.

Either way the the Eagles should have no more than 2 losses heading into the bye, and I could even seen another undefeated run to start out. 

Ideally, any team wants to start with the weaker part of the schedule in the beginning. It's better for a variety of reasons. For one, statistically, it's hard to recover from bad starts. A team with new coordinators should want the easier games first. And also, as the season goes on, volatility increases because of injuries and circumstances, so while that could also apply to your team, it could also apply to other teams as well. How many of those teams they play in 'The Gauntlet' are going to be as good as they looked right now, when they play them? The chances of them being that good are greater the earlier you face them.