Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: McNabulous
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Pages: 1, 2
D Rock
I realized that to date . . . Geno Smith and Nick Foles have started roughly the same amount of football games in the nfl.

Smith still lookin like a "can't miss, bonafide 1st rounder?"

For a paltry 3rd round pick, Nick would have to throw 37 (THIRTY SEVEN) consecutive interceptions for Geno to have a better QB rating.

Honestly, I forget the details and terms of our friendly wager. But I AM getting thirsty, my friend.

cool.gif
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Nov 21 2013, 12:23 PM) *
I realized that to date . . . Geno Smith and Nick Foles have started roughly the same amount of football games in the nfl.

Smith still lookin like a "can't miss, bonafide 1st rounder?"

For a paltry 3rd round pick, Nick would have to throw 37 (THIRTY SEVEN) consecutive interceptions for Geno to have a better QB rating.

Honestly, I forget the details and terms of our friendly wager. But I AM getting thirsty, my friend.

cool.gif

Definitely struggling right now, but he's in a pretty terrible offensive situation. He shouldn't be playing as a rookie and I said that all along.

Will admit, had I had any sense that Foles was capable of doing what he has done, I wouldn't have considered a QB at #4. Still think Smith was worth the gamble for a team like Cleveland. Still think he'll be a good QB. And I still wouldn't have drafted Lane Johnson #4.



D Rock
PFF graded Johnson out as a +3.6 last Sunday.

For the life of me, I can't understand how any eagles fan couldn't love this kid. He's phuqing a beast that moves like a TE.

I'll grant you he's shown that he's a rookie here and there, but overall . . . he's been as advertised.

Re: Smith. Any time a rookie qb is playing its because his team sucks. See Foles from last year. Like I said back in April. We "earned" that top 4 pick. We were that bad. You can't piss away that draft "money" on shots in the dark. Now if we were bad enough to pick #4 this year, it'd be a different story. Geno Smith would be the 7th or 8th rated QB in this years crop, or even out of the top 10. That pretty much says it all. And the on field results only back it up.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Nov 21 2013, 11:55 AM) *
PFF graded Johnson out as a +3.6 last Sunday.

For the life of me, I can't understand how any eagles fan couldn't love this kid. He's phuqing a beast that moves like a TE.


I'll grant you he's shown that he's a rookie here and there, but overall . . . he's been as advertised.

It has nothing to do with Lane Johnson. It's entirely about drafting a tackle with a top-5 pick. He'll likely be very good, and he damn well better be.

I just think you can find more than capable tackles for far less than the #4 pick. Finding a defensive back or edge rusher who fits that criteria is much more difficult.


QUOTE
Re: Smith. Any time a rookie qb is playing its because his team sucks. See Foles from last year. Like I said back in April. We "earned" that top 4 pick. We were that bad. You can't piss away that draft "money" on shots in the dark. Now if we were bad enough to pick #4 this year, it'd be a different story. Geno Smith would be the 7th or 8th rated QB in this years crop, or even out of the top 10. That pretty much says it all. And the on field results only back it up.

His results on the field back up the fact that he shouldn't be playing. Not that he didn't warrant a first round pick.

Donovan averaged 4.4 yards per attempt as a rookie with less than 50% completion. Geno is currently averaging 7.1. His turnovers have been brutal, but he's obviously been forcing a lot of things. Like I said, he shouldn't be on the field.

I'm not one of those people who are completely jaded by the recent success of rookie QB's. The Jets were expected to be a very bad team this year. They have virtually no offensive talent. He'll get better.
D Rock
Dion Jordan was gone. Johnson was the obvious pick considering that IMO. He's much more than "capable" at the O Tackle spot. We've seen capable and we've seen top tier. When you draft at #4, I believe you have to take the best bet to be top tier at QB, Pass Rusher, Corner, or O Tackle. Considering there were no good bets at any position beyond Tackle, it was a no brainer. I suspect Chip would have gone w/ Jordan had Miami not, but the fact remains . . . he was off the table at our pick.

................................................

Geno's turn overs will eventually relegate him to that which I said he was . . . a career backup. I don't care what else you bring to the table if you can't avoid turning the ball over, you can't play quarterback in the NFL. I don't think McNabb was a legitimate NFL quarterback. BUT, he managed to stick around and fool folks long enough simply because he was good at avoiding turn overs. McNabb without that was just a fat Vince Young.

Time will tell on Geno. But at this point in time, the Lane Johnson pick looks like a slam dunk to my eyes.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Nov 21 2013, 04:41 PM) *
When you draft at #4, I believe you have to take the best bet to be top tier at QB, Pass Rusher, Corner, or O Tackle.


Having O Tackle on that list is old school thinking. I just simply don't subscribe to it. The "best" tackles in football are routinely on the worst teams, because the worst teams routinely draft offensive tackles very high and continue to be bad, because the position offers very little value from an upside perspective.

The OL is about weakest link more than being about having studs.

QUOTE
Considering there were no good bets at any position beyond Tackle, it was a no brainer. I suspect Chip would have gone w/ Jordan had Miami not, but the fact remains . . . he was off the table at our pick.

I would have taken Ansah or Mingo.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Nov 21 2013, 04:41 PM) *
Geno's turn overs will eventually relegate him to that which I said he was . . . a career backup. I don't care what else you bring to the table if you can't avoid turning the ball over, you can't play quarterback in the NFL.

Agreed, but putting an ill-prepared person into a bad situation is a recipe for disaster. I'm not putting them on the same level, but Peyton threw 100 picks his first 5 years in the league, including 28 as a rookie. And he was much more prepared to play in the league.

You said yourself, Geno's college game was not exactly pro-style. To think he can jump into the league and play in a variation of a the west coast offense from day-1 is foolish. He'd be having significantly more success in Chip's system.

He's simply being asked to do too much, too soon.




Jax
QUOTE (D Rock @ Nov 21 2013, 04:41 PM) *
Dion Jordan was gone. Johnson was the obvious pick considering that IMO. He's much more than "capable" at the O Tackle spot. We've seen capable and we've seen top tier. When you draft at #4, I believe you have to take the best bet to be top tier at QB, Pass Rusher, Corner, or O Tackle. Considering there were no good bets at any position beyond Tackle, it was a no brainer. I suspect Chip would have gone w/ Jordan had Miami not, but the fact remains . . . he was off the table at our pick.

................................................

Geno's turn overs will eventually relegate him to that which I said he was . . . a career backup. I don't care what else you bring to the table if you can't avoid turning the ball over, you can't play quarterback in the NFL. I don't think McNabb was a legitimate NFL quarterback. BUT, he managed to stick around and fool folks long enough simply because he was good at avoiding turn overs. McNabb without that was just a fat Vince Young.

Time will tell on Geno. But at this point in time, the Lane Johnson pick looks like a slam dunk to my eyes.

D, I mostly agree with you in this thread however it is way over the top to categorize McNabb in that way. I'm not arguing he is a Hall of Famer but he also wasn't Vince Young and not even Michael Vick. He certainly was a legitimate NFL quarterback. To suggest otherwise is discrediting your football knowledge which I happen to respect.

Now if you want to say he was stupid for his remarks about Jimmie Johnson, then I agree that was stupid to say. It may not be a bad argument with some race drivers or golfers but there's no need for a NFL guy to comment like that. I thought it was a PR screw up by the usually good in front of the mic DMAC.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (Jax @ Nov 21 2013, 06:43 PM) *
He certainly was a legitimate NFL quarterback. To suggest otherwise is discrediting your football knowledge which I happen to respect.


That's a level of politeness reserved for 18th century British aristocrats. More like "to suggest otherwise is a signal of lunacy and football stupidity that is almost beyond comprehension." How did he manage to fool everyone all those years? rolleyes.gif

Haters gonna hate.
TGryn
QUOTE (D Rock @ Nov 21 2013, 01:41 PM) *
Dion Jordan was gone.


Speaking of whom...

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200000028...-miami-dolphins
QUOTE
The Miami Dolphins don't plan on increasing the defensive end Dion Jordan's role during the season's stretch run.

Jordan, the No. 3 overall pick in April's draft, played just nine snaps in the Dolphins' Monday night loss to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

Jordan had played between 20 and 30 snaps per game throughout most of his rookie season. Defensive coordinator Kevin Coyle contributed the drop-off in playing time to Tampa Bay's game plan. He said Jordan will continue to be featured just in passing situations.


Considering the unhappiness among the fans with Curry's lack of playing time, imagine what it'd be like if we'd taken Jordan and were only able to use him that much.
Jax
QUOTE (TGryn @ Nov 22 2013, 07:14 AM) *
Speaking of whom...

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200000028...-miami-dolphins


Considering the unhappiness among the fans with Curry's lack of playing time, imagine what it'd be like if we'd taken Jordan and were only able to use him that much.

Agree! Lane was a much more conservative pick.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Jax @ Nov 22 2013, 08:23 AM) *
Agree! Lane was a much more conservative pick.

Which is exactly why I don't agree with it.

Remind me how the Giants handled having too many pass rushers during their SuperBowl runs?
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 22 2013, 10:11 AM) *
Which is exactly why I don't agree with it.

Remind me how the Giants handled having too many pass rushers during their SuperBowl runs?

We're not the Giants.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 22 2013, 11:28 AM) *
We're not the Giants.

Yeah, I know. They've won two of the last five titles.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 22 2013, 10:45 AM) *
Yeah, I know. They've won two of the last five titles.

We may have done the same, with Coughlin at the helm....or perhaps there are other tangibles that allowed them to journey to the promised land.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 22 2013, 11:11 AM) *
We may have done the same, with Coughlin at the helm

Oh jesus christ.

QUOTE
....or perhaps there are other tangibles that allowed them to journey to the promised land.

Yeah, not wasting premium draft picks on non-critical positions.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 22 2013, 11:24 AM) *
Yeah, not wasting premium draft picks on non-critical positions.

In hindsight, would you rather have Johnson or Geno? or isn't it a wasted "premium draft pick" as long as it's on a QB. Even one that isn't ready for the NFL.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 22 2013, 11:55 AM) *
In hindsight, would you rather have Johnson or Geno? or isn't it a wasted "premium draft pick" as long as it's on a QB. Even one that isn't ready for the NFL.

I'd rather have neither at the #4 pick. You don't have to be NFL ready to warrant a top-5 pick. Donovan wasn't. If you're counting on rookies to be big time contributors, you're likely not a very good team.

If I knew what we had in Foles, and that he could fit so well within what Chip is doing, than I wouldn't have been clamoring for a QB. That still doesn't mean drafting a tackle is worth it.

Johnson may very well turn into a stud and that will add just about the same value as Jake Long did in Miami. Or Joe Thomas in Cleveland. Not much.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 22 2013, 12:11 PM) *
I'd rather have neither at the #4 pick. You don't have to be NFL ready to warrant a top-5 pick. Donovan wasn't. If you're counting on rookies to be big time contributors, you're likely not a very good team.

If I knew what we had in Foles, and that he could fit so well within what Chip is doing, than I wouldn't have been clamoring for a QB. That still doesn't mean drafting a tackle is worth it.

Johnson may very well turn into a stud and that will add just about the same value as Jake Long did in Miami. Or Joe Thomas in Cleveland. Not much.

If you value your QB, isn't it logical to place a significant amount of value on the player(s) protecting him?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 22 2013, 02:56 PM) *
If you value your QB, isn't it logical to place a significant amount of value on the player(s) protecting him?

Only if you don't care about positional value. If you have a QB capable of winning a SuperBowl, their abilities limit the need for excellence at the tackle position. Satisfactory is more than sufficient.

The OL is all about the weakest link. Assuming you're good across the board, you don't need to be great. Conversely, having a great tackle doesn't matter if your guard is a sieve.

The bottom line, you don't need to have great tackles to be a successful team. Their value is simply overstated at this point. It's an old school, outdated mentality. Praising a draft pick for being conservative does nothing for me.
D Rock
I get it. You don't value the Offensive Tackle and feel doing so is "old school" thinking.

That's fine. You've explained your opinion clearly. It's wrong. But it's clear nonetheless.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Nov 22 2013, 04:27 PM) *
I get it. You don't value the Offensive Tackle and feel doing so is "old school" thinking.

That's fine. You've explained your opinion clearly. It's wrong. But it's clear nonetheless.


The most recent string of SB winning tackles says otherwise.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 22 2013, 09:54 PM) *
The most recent string of SB winning tackles says otherwise.

You've made this specious argument a number of times and each time, it's been shredded. I'm not going to bother doing it again.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Nov 22 2013, 04:58 PM) *
You've made this specious argument a number of times and each time, it's been shredded. I'm not going to bother doing it again.


Yeah. That's all true, other than all of it. Our best OL was acquired from the scrap heap. Our premier OT was originally an undrafted free agent and later acquired for a late first round pick.
OL is the one position that is proven time and time again to produce quality players from either late in the draft or free agency.
I can't even name the current starting LT on Denver. Can you?
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 22 2013, 04:06 PM) *
OL is the one position that is proven time and time again to produce quality players from either late in the draft or free agency.

That seems to be the case for pretty much every position. Your scouting team earns their money by finding the draft diamonds.

QUOTE
I can't even name the current starting LT on Denver. Can you?

I bet you Peyton Manning can name him. I can also bet their will be some sort of luxury time piece given to him by P. Manning if they win the SB. Those that have played organized football seem to differ from the opinion that you offer.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 22 2013, 05:14 PM) *
That seems to be the case for pretty much every position. Your scouting team earns their money by finding the draft diamonds.

Nope. Not QBs. Not pass rush specialists. Not #1 wideouts. There are exceptions, but those guys come from the top of the draft.
You can find capable OL all over the place. Consistently.

QUOTE
I bet you Peyton Manning can name him. I can also bet their will be some sort of luxury time piece given to him by P. Manning if they win the SB. Those that have played organized football seem to differ from the opinion that you offer.

Those who played organized professional football played when it was a more logical and conventional opinion. Which is why they still believe it. It's safe and secure and bull shit.
I really don't care that the circle jerk of NFL GM's think it's safe. Those guys care more about keeping their jobs than anything else. Doing the safe thing is the best way to keep a job.
The best way to win is to have impact players at impact positions.

xsv
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 22 2013, 04:28 PM) *
Not #1 wideouts. There are exceptions, but those guys come from the top of the draft.

Wes Welker, Victor Cruz, Miles Austin, Malcom Floyd, Nate Washington, Lance Moore, Davone Bess, Danny Amendola, Mike Furrey ...

There's a long list here, and this is just the guys that went undrafted.

The best undrafted tackle of all time? Jason Peters. The second best? Nobody.
xsv
QUOTE (xsv @ Nov 22 2013, 06:27 PM) *
Wes Welker, Victor Cruz, Miles Austin, Malcom Floyd, Nate Washington, Lance Moore, Davone Bess, Danny Amendola, Mike Furrey ...

There's a long list here, and this is just the guys that went undrafted.

The best undrafted tackle of all time? Jason Peters. The second best? Nobody.


I realize you didn't specifically mean undrafted, but I couldn't find a list of number of starters in the nfl by draft round and position.

I would think that in general that the average round drafted for an OT is higher than the average round drafted by starting receiver.
nephillymike
Hey McN, don't you remember the analyses that were posted near draft time that had success rates of drafting by position? I don't have much time now to dig them up. But OT was a very good early draft pick.
mcnabbulous
You guys are changing the conversation. Yes, I know that drafting a tackle is a "safe" pick because statistically they are less likely to bust out. IMO, that doesn't make it a good pick.

The on-field impact of a great tackle compared to a capable tackle is negligible. That isn't the case with an impact QB, an impact edge rusher, an impact WR.

Sure, you can reel off a list of WR's who were undrafted or drafted late and found success in the league. But if you're going to get an impact guy, one of the guys that defenses have to gameplan around, you're going to have to take him early in the draft. None of the guys X mentioned are #1 wideouts. Some are really good players or had a nice year at one point, but they don't have the on-field impact as the #1 guys on a yearly basis.

When Allen Barbre has come into the game for Peters this year, our offense has been fine. How many 6 year journeyman WR's could we bring in and impact a game like one of the impact WR's in the league? There were probably a dozen OT options that we could have signed and plugged in to do an adequate job this year.

As long as you have five guys that are solid along the OL, you have everything you need to succeed. You don't need spectacular. Long-term, we would have benefitted more from a guy at a more difficult position to fill.

The difference here is that you guys are clearly more worried about missing with a first round pick than I am. From my perspective, the upside of hitting with an OT is not much greater than missing with a position that would offer more value.
xsv
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 23 2013, 10:17 AM) *
You guys are changing the conversation. Yes, I know that drafting a tackle is a "safe" pick because statistically they are less likely to bust out. IMO, that doesn't make it a good pick.

The on-field impact of a great tackle compared to a capable tackle is negligible. That isn't the case with an impact QB, an impact edge rusher, an impact WR.

Sure, you can reel off a list of WR's who were undrafted or drafted late and found success in the league. But if you're going to get an impact guy, one of the guys that defenses have to gameplan around, you're going to have to take him early in the draft. None of the guys X mentioned are #1 wideouts. Some are really good players or had a nice year at one point, but they don't have the on-field impact as the #1 guys on a yearly basis.

When Allen Barbre has come into the game for Peters this year, our offense has been fine. How many 6 year journeyman WR's could we bring in and impact a game like one of the impact WR's in the league? There were probably a dozen OT options that we could have signed and plugged in to do an adequate job this year.

As long as you have five guys that are solid along the OL, you have everything you need to succeed. You don't need spectacular. Long-term, we would have benefitted more from a guy at a more difficult position to fill.

The difference here is that you guys are clearly more worried about missing with a first round pick than I am. From my perspective, the upside of hitting with an OT is not much greater than missing with a position that would offer more value.



Are you saying the difference between a probowl OT and an average OT isn't as big as the difference between a probowl WR and an average WR?


mcnabbulous
As it relates to their impact on a game, yes.
Jax
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 22 2013, 10:11 AM) *
Which is exactly why I don't agree with it.

Remind me how the Giants handled having too many pass rushers during their SuperBowl runs?

What it means is we couldn't afford a bust at that spot and Jordan might be a bust. Lane isn't likely to be a total bust.
Jax
QUOTE (D Rock @ Nov 22 2013, 03:27 PM) *
I get it. You don't value the Offensive Tackle and feel doing so is "old school" thinking.

That's fine. You've explained your opinion clearly. It's wrong. But it's clear nonetheless.

Correct!
Jax
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 23 2013, 10:17 AM) *
You guys are changing the conversation. Yes, I know that drafting a tackle is a "safe" pick because statistically they are less likely to bust out. IMO, that doesn't make it a good pick.

Uh, yes it does when you need almost every position on the field like we did.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Jax @ Nov 23 2013, 01:44 PM) *
What it means is we couldn't afford a bust at that spot and Jordan might be a bust. Lane isn't likely to be a total bust.


Ugh...this conversation is circular. If Barbre was playing instead of Johnson, we'd be in the exact same spot, regardless of Jordan, Ansah, Mingo, or Milliner busting out.
But we still need edge pass rushers and we still need corners. Those are much harder to find than capable OL.
Being safe doesn't win championships. Getting impact players does. OL aren't impact players.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 23 2013, 11:20 AM) *
As it relates to their impact on a game, yes.


I am a simple guy...money always tells the story.....how much does a great Tackle make?

Seems to me most people here and the management of NFL teams disagree with you because elite tackles make big dollars.....

Beyond that we certainly needed O Line help and last year drove that point home......ask Nick...so it may have been a safe pick but it was a very needed one as well.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Nov 23 2013, 02:44 PM) *
I am a simple guy...money always tells the story.....how much does a great Tackle make?

Seems to me most people here and the management of NFL teams disagree with you because elite tackles make big dollars.....

Beyond that we certainly needed O Line help and last year drove that point home......ask Nick...so it may have been a safe pick but it was a very needed one as well.


While I think that's a fair argument, it doesn't really change the conversation. It's no different than saying, "Tackles are really valuable because NFL GM's spend premium picks on them."
I just think it's an outdated mindset. I realize I'm in the minority on this, but people used to think the earth was flat.
Foles sack percentage is exactly .01% lower this year despite having a far superior OL from a talent perspective and being a year more experienced. I realize the OL impacts far more than just sacks, but that is pretty telling IMO.
I agree that our offensive line was in need of improvement. I just think that could have come at a lesser cost than a top-5 pick. I don't know when the next opportunity for us to get physical specimens at those other positions will present themselves. They were more worth the risk.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 23 2013, 02:10 PM) *
Foles sack percentage is exactly .01% lower this year despite having a far superior OL from a talent perspective and being a year more experienced. I realize the

His sack % may only be 0.1 lower but there is a difference of 8 sacks (20 last season, 8 this season). In 7 games, last season, he had 6TD and 5 INT and a 79.1 QBR. In 8 games, this season, he has 16 TDs and 0 INTS and a 128.0 QBR.

I wonder which line he would rather play behind, 2012 or 2013?

The game (as they say) is won ion the trenches. Whomever controls the LOS usually wins the game. The O-line protects a teams most valuable asset. Giving them top priority is never a bad decision, even if it is conservative.
mcnabbulous
Oh geez, I wonder which line. As if that's what this conversation is about. Suggesting the OL is the primary reason for the difference in Foles game is speculation at best. Him being an improved passer in a better offensive scheme is far more likely, in my opinion.

He's been sacked 12 times this year. Not 8. In just over 100 fewer attempts. The difference there is negligible.

You can win a game in the trenches without wasting picks on non-impact players. And generating a pass rush happens in the trenches too.
TGryn
I'm also a simple guy. Our 1st round pick is starting every down competently and improving, I don't expect more than that. I'd like to see him be Pro Bowl level in a couple of years, and hopefully start for a good 6-8 years. Jordan isn't starting, and that's a problem for the Dolphins.

I'd like to see what this defense could do if we had a #1 CB in the toolbox, hopefully we'll have that next year. At the same time, being unhappy because we have Johnson instead of Milliner (or Geno) doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And, drafting for position/need has dealt up most of our worst busts, by trying to fill an immediate need; Watkins was just the latest in a long line of that here.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 23 2013, 02:38 PM) *
Oh geez, I wonder which line. As if that's what this conversation is about. Suggesting the OL is the primary reason for the difference in Foles game is speculation at best. Him being an improved passer in a better offensive scheme is far more likely, in my opinion.

I am quite certain that a good o-line will help improve a QB's performance. Whether it is the 'primary' reason can be debated, but the contribution cannot be ignored.

QUOTE
He's been sacked 12 times this year. Not 8. In just over 100 fewer attempts. The difference there is negligible.

It was a typo. I stated that the difference between his sack totals is 8.

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (TGryn @ Nov 23 2013, 04:59 PM) *
I'm also a simple guy. Our 1st round pick is starting every down competently and improving, I don't expect more than that. I'd like to see him be Pro Bowl level in a couple of years, and hopefully start for a good 6-8 years. Jordan isn't starting, and that's a problem for the Dolphins.

I'd like to see what this defense could do if we had a #1 CB in the toolbox, hopefully we'll have that next year. At the same time, being unhappy because we have Johnson instead of Milliner (or Geno) doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And, drafting for position/need has dealt up most of our worst busts, by trying to fill an immediate need; Watkins was just the latest in a long line of that here.

Your two paragraphs kind of contradict one another. One of the primary reasons we drafted Johnson was because of the positional need. Which is why he was penciled in as the starter the moment he was drafted. Drafting a guy like Mingo or Ansah would have been a big picture selection. Both would have likely been more situational guys.

QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 23 2013, 04:01 PM) *
I am quite certain that a good o-line will help improve a QB's performance. Whether it is the 'primary' reason can be debated, but the contribution cannot be ignored.

And you're twisting my argument to suggest that I don't value the OL. I simply don't think valuable resources need to be spent on those positions when they are consistently proven able to be filled with lower draft picks or via free agent pickups.

Given the fact that we haven't drafted an impact pass rusher since 2005 and a starting corner since 2002, I'd think this would be more obvious to others.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 23 2013, 04:41 PM) *
And you're twisting my argument to suggest that I don't value the OL. I simply don't think valuable resources need to be spent on those positions when they are consistently proven able to be filled with lower draft picks or via free agent pickups.

Aren't most rosters are filled with "lower draft picks or via free agent pickups"?

QUOTE
Given the fact that we haven't drafted an impact pass rusher since 2005 and a starting corner since 2002, I'd think this would be more obvious to others.
Using your earlier logic, why would you need to draft a impact pass rusher/starting corner (early) if you could pick them through FA? or draft them in later rounds (I believe more than a few greats in Eagles lore were late round picks Wilbert Montgomery, Harold,Carmichael, Clyde Simmons & Seth Joyner) Hell Trent Cole was a 5th round pick and Dawk was a late 2nd round pick>

Bottom line is that the value is based on team evaluation. You don't value the tackle position, so the discussion is moot.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 23 2013, 06:12 PM) *
Aren't most rosters are filled with "lower draft picks or via free agent pickups"?

I'm not talking about filling a roster. I am talking about acquiring stars. Acquiring stars at the positions I am referencing is exponentially more difficult later in the draft.

QUOTE
Using your earlier logic, why would you need to draft a impact pass rusher/starting corner (early) if you could pick them through FA?

Because you can't consistently do that. Whereas you can along the OL. I'm not sure why you don't get that.

QUOTE
or draft them in later rounds (I believe more than a few greats in Eagles lore were late round picks Wilbert Montgomery, Harold,Carmichael, Clyde Simmons & Seth Joyner) Hell Trent Cole was a 5th round pick and Dawk was a late 2nd round pick>

I'm not going to have a conversation about the history of the NFL draft. I'm talking about the modern NFL. You can spew your cliches about what it takes to win in the NFL, but that's all they are.

QUOTE
Bottom line is that the value is based on team evaluation. You don't value the tackle position, so the discussion is moot.

There is a difference between player value and positional value.
Reality Fan
So 4 of the top 11 picks were offensive lineman but your way of thinking must be right even though the NFL values it very differently? You feel you are wiser than not one but virtually every NFL FO?

That is the part that has me scratching my head. Evan Mathis was a find but there are examples like him at every position in the NFL but you seem to suggest that finding Evan Mathis stories is common.(by the way, he makes a bunch of money now). Why not point out that there are plenty of QBs to succeed picked after the first round. Drew Brees, Andy Dalton, Tom Brady, Tony Romo(UDFA by the way) Russel Wilson and that is just off the top of my head.

I just think it is funny that after this last draft you make this argument when 3 of the first 4 picks were OTs. Seems odd because you basically are saying you know better than 3 FOs in the NFL.

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Nov 23 2013, 07:45 PM) *
So 4 of the top 11 picks were offensive lineman but your way of thinking must be right even though the NFL values it very differently? You feel you are wiser than not one but virtually every NFL FO?

Do I need to remind you how many people didn't think Chip's offense would work in the NFL? Yeah, this is a progressive league.

QUOTE
That is the part that has me scratching my head. Evan Mathis was a find but there are examples like him at every position in the NFL but you seem to suggest that finding Evan Mathis stories is common.(by the way, he makes a bunch of money now). Why not point out that there are plenty of QBs to succeed picked after the first round. Drew Brees, Andy Dalton, Tom Brady, Tony Romo(UDFA by the way) Russel Wilson and that is just off the top of my head.

Well, Tom Brady is a complete anomaly. He is one of the greatest QB's of all-time and it wasn't identified for whatever reason. Brees and Wilson dropped exclusively because of their size. I'm not quite ready to annoint Dalton as anything. I'd be especially curious what he'd be doing if he wasn't chucking it to AJ Green.

Only two of those guys have any rings to show for their efforts. Do I need to run down the list of how the most recent left tackles were acquired for SuperBowl winners? Let me assure you, it's an unimpressive list.

QUOTE
I just think it is funny that after this last draft you make this argument when 3 of the first 4 picks were OTs. Seems odd because you basically are saying you know better than 3 FOs in the NFL.

No, I'm saying I'm less conservative than 3 FO's in the NFL. One of which consists of Andy Reid, whom has a proven track record of abysmal drafts.

How does a team generally achieve the status of having one of those valuable 4 picks, by the way? Usually it's because the guys making decisions don't make very good decisions.

I can tell you this -- If the Eagles had drafted the players that I wanted in the first few rounds in lieu of the guys we've ended up with, our roster would be a hell of a lot more talented. Danny Watkins certainly wouldn't have been in the mix.
Reality Fan
San Fran Anthony Davis.....Seattle Okung......Michael Oher baltimore...Oh wait...they just won a SB.....When Green Bay won it they had a 1st round Tackle on one side and 2nd rounder on the other....and I have barely looked.


So now we can add Green Bay's FO office and Baltimore's as well to the growing list of FO's you are smarter than....


I will stop now....before you get any more ridiculous.


Just look at the salaries teams pay to good tackles.......that says all you need to know about the value of that position even if you don't feel that the league is progressive enough for your tastes.......so if you can get one in the current draft environment then teams will jump on them.
TGryn
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 23 2013, 04:30 PM) *
I can tell you this -- If the Eagles had drafted the players that I wanted in the first few rounds in lieu of the guys we've ended up with, our roster would be a hell of a lot more talented. Danny Watkins certainly wouldn't have been in the mix.

Pretty much every draftnik seems to think that. They forget that the bust rate of 1st and 2nd rounders is around 40%-50%, and that's with the actual professionals picking with access to all the scouting info that's available, including the stuff that doesn't reach the public.

There's a huge amount of uncertainty in the draft process. A guy who's a bust one place may have been a success elsewhere, and vice-versa. Maybe the rookie didn't have a support system of veterans that he needed and would have had on another team, or is drafted to fit one system then has to work in another because the coaches that took him got fired, or blows out his knee without any warning and is never the same afterwards. A guy may also have been so dominant in college that a poor work ethic went unnoticed, but it manifests itself in the NFL where everybody is a special athlete and being willing to put in the hard work is what makes a difference. Or he develops a partying and drug habit that he couldn't have financed before he hit the NFL jackpot. None of that can be 100% anticipated.

One guy that often gets brought up on the other side of it is S Earl Thomas, who we passed over for Graham in 2010 and is working on his third Pro Bowl...there's no guarantee that Thomas doesn't come here and do as badly or worse than Graham (or Allen) did, because the situations from one team to another differ so much. Even a guy like Nnambi, who was a four-time All Pro and regarded as arguably the best CB in the league in '10, as surefire a FA signing as they come, changed teams and we know what happened with that. The reverse of that is Mathis, who was a journeyman who for no obvious reason found his stride in Philly.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Nov 23 2013, 08:59 PM) *
San Fran Anthony Davis.....Seattle Okung......Michael Oher baltimore...Oh wait...they just won a SB.....When Green Bay won it they had a 1st round Tackle on one side and 2nd rounder on the other....and I have barely looked.


So now we can add Green Bay's FO office and Baltimore's as well to the growing list of FO's you are smarter than....


I will stop now....before you get any more ridiculous.


Just look at the salaries teams pay to good tackles.......that says all you need to know about the value of that position even if you don't feel that the league is progressive enough for your tastes.......so if you can get one in the current draft environment then teams will jump on them.


Well jeez, if you just start making up arguments I've never made, I sure do sound like a jackass. I've been very clear about the fact that I'm only talking about premium draft picks at the very top of the draft. I've emphasized top-5 countless times. Drafting a tackle in the 20's is fine by me. So you can only imagine how I'd feel about a late second rounder. I loved the late first rounder we gave up for Peters. Emphasis on the late.
But since you asked, Oher was relegated to right tackle duty because he couldn't cut it on the left side. They subsequently signed Bryant McKinnie off the scrap heap and have cut him since. How about David Diehl and Jermon Bushrod? You didn't mention those guys.
And that valuable #6 pick the Seahawks used on Okung. Well he's missed 8 games due to injury this year. What a dramatic setback for that franchise.
So yeah, I guess you can say that I think I'm smarter than many front offices if they continue using top picks on offensive tackles.
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.