Someone in my work draft took Brian Robinson at 9 thinking it was Bijan so things could be worse

42 minutes ago, greendestiny27 said:

13-4, go big or go home. The cherry on top is a Super Bowl victory 

Thanks for resending that.  I had it, but somehow lost it.  I blame 75 year old brain cells.

42 minutes ago, jamiller said:

Is this from this year or last?  I'm going with 13 and 4 this season.

And 31-13 Eagles for Sunday.    

Wasn't following along closely enough as I saw some references to who was going to track game predictions. 

This year.  I’ve been stepping in for @LeanMeanGM for the first seven weeks.

43 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

The age of consent in 31 states is 16...

Does that mean your prediction for Sunday is Eagles 31 Pats 16?

44 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

The age of consent in 31 states is 16...

So do you think it’s okay to look at 16 year olds? The only thing stopping you is the law?

1 minute ago, mattwill said:

Does that mean your prediction for Sunday is Eagles 31 Pats 16?

42-13. 

 

2 hours ago, RLC said:

OL depth is paramount.

Sadly ours isn’t that great. Not what it has been lately anyway.

31 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Sadly ours isn’t that great. Not what it has been lately anyway.

Define "great" OL depth.  It is X number of players that could start elsewhere?  Is it position versatility?

Here are the OL snap counts from last regular season.

Looking at the backups, Driscoll was the primary one.  He's still around.  Then there was Opeta.  He's here too.  Kelce never missed a material snap, so Jurgens was only used as a 6th OL and in garbage time.  Dillard may have been the most talented of the bunch, but he wasn't available the first few weeks of the season.

As for 2023, Jurgens is still the backup C.  Based on camp and preseason work, Steen may be the backup RG and LT.  Driscoll is still the backup RT (and maybe RG/LT if they don't think Steen is ready).  Opeta is probably the backup LG.  So, IMO, the difference between '22 and '23 is Dillard -> Steen.  It's a downgrade for sure.  Hopefully we won't need to find out for an extended period of time.

36 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Sadly ours isn’t that great. Not what it has been lately anyway.

I think our OL depth isn’t bad.  There is the Stoutland factor that presumably will have our backups more ready than most.  Additionally, the depth situation this year might actually prevent shuffling dominos if someone needs to slide in.  Aside from Steen, just about every backup has one position to really hone in on.

My concern is that the starting 5 is injury prone and highly likely to give way to backups early and often.

Although unproven, I think I like  Steen and Johnson additons better than Sills and Dillard from last year. Dillard is a 1 tricked pony as well. Mainly a left tackle although he had a handful of snaps AT LG. Played only 37 snaps last year. After all these years here, still don't know if he's any good. Offensive line is actually more versatile this year with the new guys playing guard and tackle. Think Jurgens will be fine at RG as well for one year. With Stoutland, that's the ultimate equalizer. Got some raw talent to work with and they get caught up to speed faster.

1 hour ago, mattwill said:

This year.  I’ve been stepping in for @LeanMeanGM for the first seven weeks.

Copy that. Thank you.  

2 hours ago, Desertbirds said:

The age of consent in 31 states is 16...

 

42 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

Define "great" OL depth.  It is X number of players that could start elsewhere?  Is it position versatility?

Here are the OL snap counts from last regular season.

Looking at the backups, Driscoll was the primary one.  He's still around.  Then there was Opeta.  He's here too.  Kelce never missed a material snap, so Jurgens was only used as a 6th OL and in garbage time.  Dillard may have been the most talented of the bunch, but he wasn't available the first few weeks of the season.

As for 2023, Jurgens is still the backup C.  Based on camp and preseason work, Steen may be the backup RG and LT.  Driscoll is still the backup RT (and maybe RG/LT if they don't think Steen is ready).  Opeta is probably the backup LG.  So, IMO, the difference between '22 and '23 is Dillard -> Steen.  It's a downgrade for sure.  Hopefully we won't need to find out for an extended period of time.

Here’s what I would say about depth. Last year we had seven guys I felt we could trust. The five starters plus Dillard and Jurgens. Driscoll and Opeta were on the fringe. They could play but it felt like a notable drop off. But we had seven. This year we have five. Plus the aforementioned Driscoll and Opeta. Right now I don’t trust Steen but I would agree that I eventually expect that trust to arrive. As far as Fred Johnson is concerned, who the hell knows what we have? He’s been cut several times already by other teams so I’m not really expecting much despite the presumed Stoutland stamp of approval. 

So to me, it’s a numbers thing. The number of guys we have that should be able to give you winning football. And that does include Jurgens, who if we’re being truly honest still hasn’t proven us anything yet. But I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, even though he’s not going to be playing the position he appears best suited for. 

Last year the OL backups were Dillard, Opeta, Jurgens, and Driscoll. This year they have Fred Johnson, Opeta, Steen, and Driscoll.

I had more confidence in Dillard plugging into G or LT than I do with Steen or Fred Johnson right now, and Jurgens was good enough that he's now the starting RG. I know they felt they threw Seumalo into the fire too early and he needed a bit more time, but it took him 2.5 years before it clicked with him. Steen may take awhile before he's ready. Stoutland seems to like Fred Johnson, but all we have really seen was pre-season against backups and 3rd stringers.

Last season the Eagles starting OL stayed intact almost all season:

Kelce — 98% of snaps

Seumalo — 96%

Dickerson — 93%

Mailata — 87%

Lane — 83%

 

The interior OL was especially durable.  Dickerson always seems to be hobbling off the field with something, but always goes back in.  Truth be told, there were pundits last year who believed the Eagles OL was "too old” — obviously, they were proven wrong for 2022, but Kelce and Lane especially are another year older.  It’s almost certain the OL depth will be tested more this season.

What we hope for is to avoid numerous injuries at the same position.  Down one OL an offense can keep going with minimal disruption.  Two OL down is big trouble for any team.  Down more than that can sewer a season for even the most talented teams.

Solves all of the sixers problems 

 

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

Solves all of the sixers problems 

 

Elite 3 point shooter 

1 hour ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

Define "great" OL depth.  It is X number of players that could start elsewhere?  Is it position versatility?

Here are the OL snap counts from last regular season.

Looking at the backups, Driscoll was the primary one.  He's still around.  Then there was Opeta.  He's here too.  Kelce never missed a material snap, so Jurgens was only used as a 6th OL and in garbage time.  Dillard may have been the most talented of the bunch, but he wasn't available the first few weeks of the season.

As for 2023, Jurgens is still the backup C.  Based on camp and preseason work, Steen may be the backup RG and LT.  Driscoll is still the backup RT (and maybe RG/LT if they don't think Steen is ready).  Opeta is probably the backup LG.  So, IMO, the difference between '22 and '23 is Dillard -> Steen.  It's a downgrade for sure.  Hopefully we won't need to find out for an extended period of time.

Actually have decent PS players too in Toth (G/T wannabe C), Good-Jones (all five positions), Clark (experienced G/T) and Phillips (experienced G).  Plus F Johnson (experienced G/both T).  Wouldn’t want all of them starting but beside most of the existing OL, one can do it.   Arguably better than last year’s PS depth.  

4 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Youve made a mockery of intelligent discussion since you oozed into this place

that's yet another personal attack.

7 minutes ago, Random Reglar said:

that's yet another personal attack.

I don't think criticizing your "discussion" is crossing the line into personal. He's saying your arguments suck, which isn't the same as saying you suck.

46 minutes ago, Random Reglar said:

that's yet another personal attack.

One of the tried and true Logical Fallacies is Ad Hominem where the message is not engaged, but instead the messenger is the focus of the response.  His words "mockery of intelligent discussion" is all about the quality of your message, not about you personally.  I suspect you need a thicker skin if you are going to consistently swim upstream the way you do.

I just looked at the weather forecast for Sunday in Foxborough. Doesn’t look good. Might be rainy. 

1 hour ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

I don't think criticizing your "discussion" is crossing the line into personal. He's saying your arguments suck, which isn't the same as saying you suck.

maybe.  but it had a big YOU in it.  And it had absolutely nothing specific about arguments.  I think it falls into the category I put it in.  It's not that it really matters. 

Don't talk about the people,  talk about the specific thing being presented. 

51 minutes ago, mattwill said:

One of the tried and true Logical Fallacies is Ad Hominem where the message is not engaged, but instead the messenger is the focus of the response.  His words "mockery of intelligent discussion" is all about the quality of your message, not about you personally.  I suspect you need a thicker skin if you are going to consistently swim upstream the way you do.

Well, I think you're wrong.  Let's look closely at the comment.

 

1 hour ago, Random Reglar said:

Youve made a mockery of intelligent discussion since you oozed into this place

I'd say it's a personal attack.  It did not at all refer to my comment.

It referred to me,  and it was about multiple comments.  It changed the subject.  It was off the topic.  It was a personal attack. "oozed".   I'm just saying that that's the class or category it belongs in.  Not saying it's a big deal.

Your last sentence might be good advice though.   I'm not going to be typing out "that's a personal attack" every time it happens.