8 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Must have seen a bunch from Justin Evans in camp cuz he didn't show much of anything.

He flashed to me as a hard hitter in the preseason games. I had him earmarked the whole time as someone who would make the team.

Just now, RememberTheKoy said:

 

 

So if he was traded he'd be magically healed and ready to play?  Is this not blatant roster manipulation?

Did he have surgery?

Covey was cut?!  Only 4 WRs?!  What the hell is going on out there.   They bringing DeSean back to be full time punt returner?

Excited to see Siposs gone but they need tonget someone in quickly to get their holding chemistry down with Jake.  Would love to see then sign Koy for that.

I'm stunned by the CB depth on this team. We have too many guys. What at turnaround to say, 2013.

Some experienced OL have been cut over the past 24 hours - can't help but wonder if a Center will have a claim put in for them.

But this year waivers are different.  You need to make a corresponding cut at claim in order to get a player; rather than knowing you who got and then making a cut.  Could be why we have seen more trades.

2 minutes ago, judunno said:

Did he have surgery?

 

No I think he is suffering from the Ben Simmons doesn't want to play for thst team so he's got a "back injury" thing.

Just now, RememberTheKoy said:

 

No I think he is suffering from the Ben Simmons doesn't want to play for thst team so he's got a "back injury" thing.

Does he throw the ball with his non-dominant had too? If so we don't have a shot

5 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Think Barnett and Street are still on the block, with Williams and Ojoma, they're a bit redundant.

Other thing, you can protect 3 PS spots from being culled, so it's really a 56 man roster after tomorrow.

 

You can protect 4.

3 minutes ago, UK Eagle said:

Some experienced OL have been cut over the past 24 hours - can't help but wonder if a Center will have a claim put in for them.

But this year waivers are different.  You need to make a corresponding cut at claim in order to get a player; rather than knowing you who got and then making a cut.  Could be why we have seen more trades.

That doesn't make sense. Teams who put in a claim proactively need an open spot even if they arern't getting the player necessarily?

Just now, pgcd3 said:

That doesn't make sense. Teams who put in a claim proactively need an open spot even if they arern't getting the player necessarily?

Correct.  But I guess they want to makes teams think about what they are doing when they make claims and in some respects, it helps player out who may well get more choice on where they go

A consumable view of the current roster

 

I think it just means that you have to declare a name in the case where you would actually get the guy you put a claim in on. Rather than after the fact.

1 minute ago, UK Eagle said:

Correct.  But I guess they want to makes teams think about what they are doing when they make claims and in some respects, it helps player out who may well get more choice on where they go

It helps the Eagles who have a later claim. But if it's true then I wonder why more teams didn't cut below 53 especially the bad ones

 

 

8 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

Covey was cut?!  Only 4 WRs?!  What the hell is going on out there.   They bringing DeSean back to be full time punt returner?

Excited to see Siposs gone but they need tonget someone in quickly to get their holding chemistry down with Jake.  Would love to see then sign Koy for that.

I imagine they'll bring him back on PS and he'll be one of the protected PS guys week to week.

Why waste a roster spot on just a PR when one can put him on PS

2 minutes ago, pgcd3 said:

It helps the Eagles who have a later claim. But if it's true then I wonder why more teams didn't cut below 53 especially the bad ones

Better the devil  you know and if you don't get a claim, did you cut a player someone else wants?

It does make waiver claims more strategic now, which maybe a good thing.

 

 

Only 3 true DE on roster....1 of which is on trade block

6 minutes ago, Utebird said:

I imagine they'll bring him back on PS and he'll be one of the protected PS guys week to week.

Why waste a roster spot on just a PR when one can put him on PS

 

I think you can only pull up 3 or 4 times before you gotta bring them up full time.  Also as much grief as I gave Covey last year he did improve down the stretch and had one of the better PR return averages in the league.  I would suspect a greater chance he gets signed by a team than any other player the Eagles cut.  

Just now, Texas Eagle said:

Only 3 true DE on roster....1 of which is on trade block

At least 4. 5 if you want to include Smith.

11 minutes ago, pgcd3 said:

That doesn't make sense. Teams who put in a claim proactively need an open spot even if they arern't getting the player necessarily?

Not an open spot I don't think, just a designated name for who you'll cut if you win the claim.

1 minute ago, RLC said:

At least 4. 5 if you want to include Smith.

So Smith would fill in should Graham/Sweat go down?

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Not an open spot I don't think, just a designated name for who you'll cut if you win the claim.

And they can't use the same name multiple times. So it's on the claimer to think more strategically, rather than waiting and seeing what the claim is and making a corresponding cut

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Not an open spot I don't think, just a designated name for who you'll cut if you win the claim.

That might make it more awkward for teams to put in multiple claims. Rather than simply saying "well, we'll waive Sua Opeta" if we win a claim won't work if you put in multiple claims. You'd have to specify in advance, "if we get player A we'll waive Opeta; if we get player B we'll waive Calcaterra; if we get player C we'll waive Goodrich". You might end up losing the third guy you'd want waived rather than your top guy.

My guess is that there will be fewer waiver claims this year than in the past.

Also I wonder if other teams would get to see who was on your "if" list. I suspect not but I wonder.

2 minutes ago, UK Eagle said:

And they can't use the same name multiple times. So it's on the claimer to think more strategically, rather than waiting and seeing what the claim is and making a corresponding cut

Are you sure on that part? I would think they could, but would just lose out on any subsequent claims if they've already won their first and cut the guy.