Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Review of Our Draft
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
nephillymike
Using the BPA approach, here's how our draft compared to where the players were ranked:

Rnd...Pick....Name.............Pos......Rank......Val/(Reach).Pos of Need..Grade
1........4......Johnson...........OT........8..................(4)............A.......B+
2.......35.....Ertz.................TE........46.................(11)..........C.......B-
3.......67.....Logan..............DT.......119................(47)..........B.....C-
4.......98.....Barkley............QB........35.................+63..........C.....B+
5......136....Wolff...............SS.......181................(45)..........B.....C-
7......212....Kruger.............DE........157................+55.........A....A+
7......218....Poyer...............CB........89................+129.........A....A+
7......239....King................DE........283...............(44)..........A......C

Overall B-

Now, to shed it in a different light, if you move guys around to their proper slots based on rank, the draft looks a little better:

Rnd...Pick....Name.............Pos......Rank.....Val/(Reach).Pos of Need..Grade
1........4......Johnson...........OT........8..................(4)...........A......B+
2.......35.....Barkley............QB........35.................0.............C......B-
3.......67.....Ertz.................TE........46.................+21.........C......B
4.......98.....Poyer...............CB........89................+9...........A.....B+
5.......136...Logan...............DT.......119...............+17.........A.....A+
7......212....Kruger.............DE........157................+55.........A...A+
7......218....Wolff...............SS........181................+37.........B....B+
7......239....King................DE........283...............(44)..........A.....C

Overall B+

So it looks like a solid draft. Hopefully they'll add some UDFa that can compete for jobs and spend some of that $22M on another FA or two and maybe a trade or two to make this roster better more compatible and ready to compete for a playoff spot this year.

Hope springs eternal.

It should be a fun ride.

If anyone followed the prospects closely, I'd be curious if anyone would have selected anyone different at any of the picks we had.
Zero
I disagree with the "C" grade on position of need at TE. In any other offense I'd agree but Kelly has told us he leans heavily on the TE.
Mr. Bonko
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 28 2013, 09:07 AM) *
I disagree with the "C" grade on position of need at TE. In any other offense I'd agree but Kelly has told us he leans heavily on the TE.



Do you guys think Poyer makes the 53? I seem him on the practice squad.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Mr. Bonko @ Apr 28 2013, 09:36 AM) *
Do you guys think Poyer makes the 53? I seem him on the practice squad.


Shouldn't we, you know, see some of these guys play before determining that?
D Rock
Position of need is too heavily weighted IMO.

And

How do you get -11 on value = B-

But a +63 is only a B+?
nephillymike
QUOTE (D Rock @ Apr 28 2013, 10:59 AM) *
Position of need is too heavily weighted IMO.

And

How do you get -11 on value = B-

But a +63 is only a B+?


Position of need. Also, the earlier the round the smaller the window. for instance, if you reach by 16 picks in round one, that is a bigger imapct on reaching by 16 picks in round 4.
D Rock
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 28 2013, 05:31 PM) *
Position of need. Also, the earlier the round the smaller the window. for instance, if you reach by 16 picks in round one, that is a bigger imapct on reaching by 16 picks in round 4.

Makes sense. Thnx for clarifying.
Eyrie
QUOTE (Mr. Bonko @ Apr 28 2013, 03:36 PM) *
Do you guys think Poyer makes the 53? I seem him on the practice squad.

Fletcher and Williams are the starters with Boykin in the slot. After that it's open competition between Poyer, Lindley, Hughes and Marsh so, as mcnabbulous says, let's see how they play.
mcnabbulous
How is position of need determined? Saying our QB need is anything less than a B+ seems ludicrous. It was more likely an A.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 28 2013, 02:35 PM) *
How is position of need determined? Saying our QB need is anything less than a B+ seems ludicrous. It was more likely an A.


Yes by most analysts not subscribing to my we don't need a QB yet mantra!!! rolleyes.gif

I took a little stroll out of the mainstream on that need rating........................
Eyrie
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 28 2013, 08:49 PM) *
Yes by most analysts not subscribing to my we don't need a QB yet mantra!!! rolleyes.gif

I took a little stroll out of the mainstream on that need rating........................

But only because you were right wink.gif
chuckp
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 28 2013, 08:55 AM) *
Using the BPA approach, here's how our draft compared to where the players were ranked:

Rnd...Pick....Name.............Pos......Rank......Val/(Reach).Pos of Need..Grade
1........4......Johnson...........OT........8..................(4)............A.......B+
2.......35.....Ertz.................TE........46.................(11)..........C.......B-
3.......67.....Logan..............DT.......119................(47)..........B.....C-
4.......98.....Barkley............QB........35.................+63..........C.....B+
5......136....Wolff...............SS.......181................(45)..........B.....C-
7......212....Kruger.............DE........157................+55.........A....A+
7......218....Poyer...............CB........89................+129.........A....A+
7......239....King................DE........283...............(44)..........A......C

Overall B-

Now, to shed it in a different light, if you move guys around to their proper slots based on rank, the draft looks a little better:

Rnd...Pick....Name.............Pos......Rank.....Val/(Reach).Pos of Need..Grade
1........4......Johnson...........OT........8..................(4)...........A......B+
2.......35.....Barkley............QB........35.................0.............C......B-
3.......67.....Ertz.................TE........46.................+21.........C......B
4.......98.....Poyer...............CB........89................+9...........A.....B+
5.......136...Logan...............DT.......119...............+17.........A.....A+
7......212....Kruger.............DE........157................+55.........A...A+
7......218....Wolff...............SS........181................+37.........B....B+
7......239....King................DE........283...............(44)..........A.....C

Overall B+

So it looks like a solid draft. Hopefully they'll add some UDFa that can compete for jobs and spend some of that $22M on another FA or two and maybe a trade or two to make this roster better more compatible and ready to compete for a playoff spot this year.

Hope springs eternal.

It should be a fun ride.

If anyone followed the prospects closely, I'd be curious if anyone would have selected anyone different at any of the picks we had.

Nice job!

HOUSEoPAIN
I'm happy with the draft overall. We'll see how it works out in August. One thing's for damn sure, we don't just have a QB controversy, we have a QB clusterfuck. It'll be like watching a soap opera to see who gets the job - as in, preseason games will actually matter for the whole damn game because we have 5 QBs, 3 QBs who could end up being the starter (4 if you want to count Dixon, who has experience working with Kelly)! At least we have something fresh and new to watch.
nephillymike
Others reviews (of course all positive from the home site:

http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/news/art...81-264cf60f61bc
Zero
More:

QUOTE
QB: Matt Barkley, Southern Cal, 6-3, 227, 4.93
I have long argued that the two most overrated elements to quarterback play in the NFL are height and arm strength. Barkley does not possess ideal grades in either of these traits. He does, however, possess the best combination of any quarterback in the 2013 class in the Three A's - accuracy, anticipation and awareness - which I believe to be more important indicators of future success in the NFL.
DE: Joe Kruger, Utah, 6-6, 269, 4.81
Considering that he played alongside Star Lotulelei, it is easy to understand why Kruger hasn't received more attention. Furthermore, he's often been cast off as the younger brother of former Baltimore Raven and new Cleveland Browns' outside linebacker Paul Kruger. A passionate player who possesses a very intriguing skill-set of powerful long arms (34 3/8), surprising get-off and good overall athleticism, Joe, like his older brother, could surprise at the next level.

Link ...

QUOTE
Best pick: I love third-round pick Bennie Logan. He had a really good 2011 season and should be in the mix to be a part of the rotation.

Questionable move: Taking Zach Ertz in the second round is an odd move when you consider they have Brent Celek and James Casey.

Third-day gem: USC quarterback Matt Barkley is a nice choice in the fourth round. The value was there. But how does he fit in Chip Kelly's scheme?

Analysis: They did some good things in this draft, but are they things that help right away? First-round pick Lane Johnson will be a special player. It was a nice start for the new regime.

Link ...

QUOTE
T Lane Johnson (No. 4 overall) projects as a special player and, given his rare athleticism, is uniquely qualified for Chip Kelly's high-octane offense. However, until the curtain goes up on Kelly's attack and the revamped defense we're not going to claim we understand how all this fits ... or if making a move for QB Matt Barkley was the right thing to do.

Link ...

QUOTE
Until we know more about Chip Kelly's plans, let's just chalk the Matt Barkley pickup to finding a potential first-round QB at No. 98. The rest of this class figures to be more important in 2013. No one more so than OT Lane Johnson, who has the athleticism to thrive under Kelly. TE Zach Ertz could be a dangerous weapon in this offense, too. Defensively, expect DT Bennie Logan to help and CB Jordan Poyer to possibly prove the steal of the draft.

Link ...

QUOTE
The draftnik community should love this group because aside from seventh-rounder King every member has a big name. They are all identifiable. The first two picks look like surefire hits; Johnson is an outstanding match for Chip Kelly's fast-paced offense as a well-oiled athlete with second- and even third-level blocking skills. Ertz can stretch the field vertically and creates downfield separation better than consensus top tight end Tyler Eifert. Logan and Barkley were odd picks because the former's fit is questionable in Philly's new three-man front and Barkley lacks athleticism in addition to starting-caliber arm strength. All of Philly's rookies look like good values -- particularly Kruger and Poyer -- but this haul included a lot of head scratchers. I still feel confident saying the Eagles' roster improved with this draft, and quite possibly significantly.

Link ...

QUOTE
Top to bottom, Chip Kelly had a great first NFL draft using his college knowledge, especially from the Pac-12, to the Eagles' advantage. Oklahoma left tackle Lane Johnson and Stanford tight end Zach Ertz are ideal athletes for what Kelly wants to do, and he ended up just needing a fourth-rounder to bring USC's Matt Barkley into his quarterback competition. Defensively, with Philadelphia transitioning to a 3-4, it got the key elements of a nose tackle (LSU's Bennie Logan), edge rusher (Utah's Joe Kruger) and a starting-caliber corner (Oregon State's Jordan Poyer) in Round 7.

Link ...


mcnabbulous
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Apr 28 2013, 06:28 PM) *
One thing's for damn sure, we don't just have a QB controversy, we have a QB clusterfuck.

That's a good thing. The fact that we have 5 QB's on our roster means our staff knows we don't yet have 1. It's going to facilitate competition and the cream (Barkley) will ultimately rise to the top.
Eyrie
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 29 2013, 03:40 PM) *
That's a good thing. The fact that we have 5 QB's on our roster means our staff knows we don't yet have 1. It's going to facilitate competition and the cream (Barkley) will ultimately rise to the top.

Only problem is designing an offense which fits both the Foles/Barkley and Vick/Dixon skill sets.

I think one of the few things we can agree on at present is that it will be the former, and that is the better choice for the pro as opposed to college game.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 29 2013, 03:40 PM) *
That's a good thing. The fact that we have 5 QB's on our roster means our staff knows we don't yet have 1. It's going to facilitate competition and the cream (Barkley) will ultimately rise to the top.

So long as it's not Vick that starts, I don't give a rat's ass if Foles or Barkley wins. I'm partial to Nick, but I really don't care. I just don't want to be forced to see another 6 games of turnover fest before Vick gets hurt again.

nephillymike
QUOTE (D Rock @ Apr 29 2013, 02:10 PM) *
So long as it's not Vick that starts, I don't give a rat's ass if Foles or Barkley wins. I'm partial to Nick, but I really don't care. I just don't want to be forced to see another 6 games of turnover fest before Vick gets hurt again.



What if Vick is the clear best QB in the QB competition, do you still not start him?
D Rock
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 29 2013, 10:35 PM) *
What if Vick is the clear best QB in the QB competition, do you still not start him?

That's mighty big IF.

Considering what we know of Vick and what we've been told by Kelly are the characteristic traits of a "good quarterback" I think it a virtual certainty that Vick doesn't win this QB competition. He holds the ball too long, takes too many sacks, is a turnover machine, is slow to make decisions, too often makes the wrong ones, and is the polar opposite of "durable."
Bocadelphia Eagles John
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 28 2013, 10:46 AM) *
Shouldn't we, you know, see some of these guys play before determining that?


since when is any evidence needed before we spew out our highly refined opinions of any of this ? Opine away I say !
nephillymike
QUOTE (Bocadelphia Eagles John @ Apr 30 2013, 01:07 PM) *
since when is any evidence needed before we spew out our highly refined opinions of any of this ? Opine away I say !



Like I always say, don't let the facts interrupt a good rant!!
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.