Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: What positions are viable picks at #4
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Zero
1. QB - I know the debate, I've been reading all about it. It's a possibility. Do the Eagles need a QB in round one? Maybe.
2. LB - Are they set with who they have? Maybe.
3. CB - Are they set? Maybe
4. OL - OK here? Maybe
5. DE - Set? Maybe
6. DT - OK? Maybe

The point is that the Eagles seem to have set themselves up to take the real, true BPA when they pick. They're also OK to trade back if they get a good offer. The guys they just signed may not be playing in Hawaii. What they will do is improve their respective positions on the team and provide legitimate depth if they stay healthy.

This team was a young team in January and it's getting younger. I'd think their first three picks should be pushing to start by November or pushing the guys ahead of them to play better.
iggleslover49
It's all about depth at this point. We definitely need more of it at LB. Look who we got behind the starters at their respective spots. If we are going 34 then we need more versatility outta the OLBs and as of now, in my mind, we don't have that. They just don't move well in space. Chaney is the only inside LB that I feel comfortable with as a back up. I know nothing about Ryan Rau and Casey Matthews struggles shedding blocks. The addition of supoaga(?) should help the LBs stay clean, but ya never know. You can never have too much LBs in the 34
nephillymike
According to Mayock's ratings and analysis, here are the players and postions that are worthy of a pick in the top four:

1. Warmack OG
2. Joeckel OT
3. Floyd DT (can be NT in 3-4)
3. Jordan OLB (in 3-4)
5. Fisher OT
6. Milliner CB
7. Lotullelei DE (in 3-4)

Because of health issues (Lotu's heart and Jordan's shoulder op) I would remove them and make it just a five person pool.
Eyrie
QB is always too important a position to be discounted and a need for us, but this year it depends on your belief in Smith.

T is a good move for us, because the pick can start at RT (moving Herremans to RG) and eventually succeed Peters at LT. It's the other missing piece on offense.

The move to a 3-4 means that we need to re-tool our LBs, so I'm not averse to this pick.

And a premier CB is essential in a pass happy league.

I'm sticking with Joekel if he falls, or Fisher is he's still there. If not, then defence with Jordan or Milliner.
Zero
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Mar 17 2013, 04:37 AM) *
QB is always too important a position to be discounted and a need for us, but this year it depends on your belief in Smith.

T is a good move for us, because the pick can start at RT (moving Herremans to RG) and eventually succeed Peters at LT. It's the other missing piece on offense.

The move to a 3-4 means that we need to re-tool our LBs, so I'm not averse to this pick.

And a premier CB is essential in a pass happy league.

I'm sticking with Joekel if he falls, or Fisher is he's still there. If not, then defence with Jordan or Milliner.

As I said in another post, recent history shows that a Super Bowl QB isn't necessarily taken in round one. Too many questioning voices about Smith for me to waste that high of a pick on someone.

OT is, IMO, the best option for the reason you stated - either Joekel or Fisher should be there for us. Second for me would be one of the two DT, Floyd or Lotullelei. Floyd is the hometown guy that would be cool.

In the second they need to think about a S, if for no other reason than insurance for the injury history of the two FA pickups.
mcnabbulous
Z, I think your use of the term "recent" is quite flawed. Since the illegal contact rules were implemented around 2004, the only non first round QB to win a SB was Brees. And he was the first pick in the second.

I worked it out a while back, and I think the average draft position was around 11 or 13 since 2004. And that includes the likes of Rodgers, who obviously dropped to far.
Zero
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Mar 17 2013, 08:38 AM) *
Z, I think your use of the term "recent" is quite flawed. Since the illegal contact rules were implemented around 2004, the only non first round QB to win a SB was Brees. And he was the first pick in the second.

I worked it out a while back, and I think the average draft position was around 11 or 13 since 2004. And that includes the likes of Rodgers, who obviously dropped to far.

I didn't say "winning" SB QB.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Zero @ Mar 17 2013, 08:41 AM) *
I didn't say "winning" SB QB.


It's a crucial detail.
Zero
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Mar 17 2013, 08:45 AM) *
It's a crucial detail.

Yes and no. Naturally the ultimate objective is to win that last game but it's probably harder to get there than it is to win ... very much in debate, I realize. But the odds of winning the Lombardi are much greater if you're in the game than they are trying to get to the game.
D Rock
With new schemes and new regimes . . . you gotta walk before you can fly.

That's why I go Chance Warmack, solidify the O Line as one of (if not the) best in the league and lean on your best player, Lesean who plays at a position with the most depth (Hello Bryce) and just pound the shit out of the league while you instill your philosophies, schemes, and standards.

It's time to go to Step 1. Get a fresh start.

You look at this roster from 30K feet and what pops out? Lesean and perhaps Desean. Lean on it. Milk it. Let it carry you through the transition. Look at what Duce did for Andy in '99 and 2000.

It's not rocket science.

Accept that you don't have franchise QBs available this year and build the foundation on which the program can be constructed.
Zero
And that raises a question. If the offense is built on passing a team obviously needs a very special QB to get to the promised land. But, if the offense is built on running does the same hold true?
JeeQ
After Roseman, Lurie, and Chip all visiting Geno. I'd be shocked if it's anyone else. Jordan would be the only other choice I'd see
Eyrie
QUOTE (Zero @ Mar 18 2013, 09:06 AM) *
And that raises a question. If the offense is built on passing a team obviously needs a very special QB to get to the promised land. But, if the offense is built on running does the same hold true?

In both cases the OL is vital, hence my interest in Joekel/Fisher and DRock favouring Warmack.

At RB back though there is a need for a good back up because whilst* a QB can take every snap, a RB can't and needs a credible back up to spell him. If Brown can resolve his fumble issues then we have a solid 1-2 that we can rely on. If not, then we have a problem.





*I like to toss in a "whilst" every now and again for Mikey and Dutch.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Mar 18 2013, 02:08 PM) *
In both cases the OL is vital, hence my interest in Joekel/Fisher and DRock favouring Warmack.

At RB back though there is a need for a good back up because whilst* a QB can take every snap, a RB can't and needs a credible back up to spell him. If Brown can resolve his fumble issues then we have a solid 1-2 that we can rely on. If not, then we have a problem.





*I like to toss in a "whilst" every now and again for Mikey and Dutch.



I thought that was on purpose!!! It's not only being "whilsted". It's the defence and the favours to go with it!!
iggleslover49
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Mar 18 2013, 03:08 PM) *
In both cases the OL is vital, hence my interest in Joekel/Fisher and DRock favouring Warmack.

At RB back though there is a need for a good back up because whilst* a QB can take every snap, a RB can't and needs a credible back up to spell him. If Brown can resolve his fumble issues then we have a solid 1-2 that we can rely on. If not, then we have a problem.





*I like to toss in a "whilst" every now and again for Mikey and Dutch.

No love for Deon Lewis?
iggleslover49
QUOTE (JeeQ @ Mar 18 2013, 11:45 AM) *
After Roseman, Lurie, and Chip all visiting Geno. I'd be shocked if it's anyone else. Jordan would be the only other choice I'd see

Honestly these are truly the only two guys I see us picking. I don't buy the shenanigans. Shenanigans being FO showing up to put pressure on the league to move up to four. They were their to check him out and he rose to the occasion.
Eyrie
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Mar 18 2013, 07:15 PM) *
I thought that was on purpose!!! It's not only being "whilsted". It's the defence and the favours to go with it!!

I like your spelling of "favour" biggrin.gif

QUOTE (iggleslover49 @ Mar 19 2013, 03:12 AM) *
No love for Deon Lewis?

I've not seen enough of him yet. Whether that was due to too few running plays to go round under Andyball or him not showing enough in practice remains to be seen.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.