Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: We know the Eagles aren't trading for Mariota
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
koolaidluke
There has been a lot of speculation about a possible trade for Mariota, but there is enough info publicly available for us to be sure it is in fact absolutely sure NOT to happen. Here is how we know:

1. Chip's publicly gushing all over Mariota is the exact opposite of what he would be doing if the Eagles were interested in getting him.

2. Chip loathes mobile QBs.

3. Chip publicly and explicitly saying that the Eagles were not trading Bradford and were committed to him. No coach is ever that definitive unless they mean it. Usually coaches are more like politicians and equivocate enough to give themselves wiggle room, like we saw Chip do last year with Desean, if they are looking to, or are open to, cutting or trading a player.

4. Chip is unwilling to pay the price to move up. 20 and Bradford does not get you to the second pick. 20, Bradford, Sanchez, Kendricks, Boykin, Alonso, Smith, Ryan Matthews and Curry, the furthest Chip would ever possibly go, does not get you to the second pick. The only way the Eagles would be able to move up is to give away an elite young player like Ertz, Johnson or Cox, and they are all untouchable as far as Chip is concerned.

5. Lost in all the Mariota hype is the fact that Mariota is a truly terrible quarterback. As his former coach, Chip has seen first hand just how much Mariota sucks so he knows better than to draft him.

6. Spadaro saying absolutely no chance do the Eagles trade Bradford. Spads would not be that explicit unless he knew for certain that the Eagles were keeping Bradford. Remember, Spads is usually certain about nothing, so him being confident that the Eagles are keeping Bradford is a big deal.


So for better or worse, and I think better, the Eagles will not be drafting Marcus Mariota.
JaxEagle
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Apr 24 2015, 06:13 AM) *
There has been a lot of speculation about a possible trade for Mariota, but there is enough info publicly available for us to be sure it is in fact absolutely sure NOT to happen. Here is how we know:

1. Chip's publicly gushing all over Mariota is the exact opposite of what he would be doing if the Eagles were interested in getting him.

2. Chip loathes mobile QBs.

3. Chip publicly and explicitly saying that the Eagles were not trading Bradford and were committed to him. No coach is ever that definitive unless they mean it. Usually coaches are more like politicians and equivocate enough to give themselves wiggle room, like we saw Chip do last year with Desean, if they are looking to, or are open to, cutting or trading a player.

4. Chip is unwilling to pay the price to move up. 20 and Bradford does not get you to the second pick. 20, Bradford, Sanchez, Kendricks, Boykin, Alonso, Smith, Ryan Matthews and Curry, the furthest Chip would ever possibly go, does not get you to the second pick. The only way the Eagles would be able to move up is to give away an elite young player like Ertz, Johnson or Cox, and they are all untouchable as far as Chip is concerned.

5. Lost in all the Mariota hype is the fact that Mariota is a truly terrible quarterback. As his former coach, Chip has seen first hand just how much Mariota sucks so he knows better than to draft him.

6. Spadaro saying absolutely no chance do the Eagles trade Bradford. Spads would not be that explicit unless he knew for certain that the Eagles were keeping Bradford. Remember, Spads is usually certain about nothing, so him being confident that the Eagles are keeping Bradford is a big deal.


So for better or worse, and I think better, the Eagles will not be drafting Marcus Mariota.

I think there may be a little tongue in cheek meant, but for the most past I think you make valid points. I sure hope so. My vote is NO on Mariota.
mcnabbulous
I think you make some reasonable statements, but I also think you're overlooking the fact that Chip isn't a traditional coach. Comparing him to the rest of those guys downplays the clear evidence that he thinks and acts differently.

I think he's gonna do anything he can to land MM and if it doesn't happen, it won't be a lack of trying.
JeeQ
*plugs ears* La, La, La, La, Not Listening, La, La, La, La,

#MariotaOrBust
GroundedBird
Actually, I don't think anything Chip has said couldn't be explained if they get Mariotta.

1. build through the draft? Chip's response: Sure, we're starting to build with MM
2. Draft picks are important? CK: Yes, it depends on how they are used.
3. Sam is the man, we aren't looking to trade him. CK: have stated that we explore every opportunity to improve.

... and so on.

Things that make me wonder:
1. why hasn't Bradford been extended?
2. Why does every team member including Myles Austin have things in their locker but Bradford's is empty?

... just for argument sake: one of our big issues is that we get too many 3 and outs early on. with MM running, we should make positive yards in the first few plays of a drive. I think that changes everything.
koolaidluke
QUOTE (GroundedBird @ Apr 24 2015, 01:49 PM) *
3. Sam is the man, we aren't looking to trade him. CK: have stated that we explore every opportunity to improve.


The only problem with that is when has ANY NFL coach ever categorically named a guy as their starter only to go back on it a few months later? It's one thing to say that it could happen, but in practice it just doesn't.

If Chip was looking to moving Bradford he would have been non committal, like he was with Desean and Foles. Spads would also be hedging his bets. But to come out and say "no way, no how"


Not selling the Bradford jersey's is the only real evidence that the Eagles might be open to moving him. But what seems more likely is that they are committed to Bradford but are open to moving him if another team makes an offer that knocks their socks off.
JeeQ
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Apr 24 2015, 12:41 PM) *
The only problem with that is when has ANY NFL coach ever categorically named a guy as their starter only to go back on it a few months later? It's one thing to say that it could happen, but in practice it just doesn't.


Andy Reid would like a word with you
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (GroundedBird @ Apr 24 2015, 12:49 PM) *
... just for argument sake: one of our big issues is that we get too many 3 and outs early on. with MM running, we should make positive yards in the first few plays of a drive. I think that changes everything.

Even with Bradford, our offense is built to be much more efficient. With MM, it's other worldly.

So excited to see a team that, for the first time since 2004, isn't living and dying by big plays.
koolaidluke
MM is a big play guy.


The offense I enjoyed watching the most over these many years was the 2006 Garcia Eagles. 2nd most was the post benching, McNabb 2008 Eagles. And third favorite was last year's O with Sanchez. The Sanchez hate was really based on looking for a scapegoat, the guy had a great season.

I'm excited to see what Bradford with his all world accuracy can do in this O.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Apr 24 2015, 02:42 PM) *
MM is a big play guy.

Just because they had big plays, doesn't mean that he's dependent on them. He's perfectly suited to control the field and had plenty of success moving the chains consistently.

Our offense will always have big plays, but the problem was that our success has been almost entirely dependent on them for a decade (minus the Garcia run in 2006).

MM, Demarco/Mathews, and our TE's will be extremely efficient at moving the chains. We'll continue to score fast, because that's how we operate, but it will be the result of fast moving, chain moving drives. Not boom or bust, big plays.
samaroo
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Apr 24 2015, 08:13 PM) *
There has been a lot of speculation about a possible trade for Mariota, but there is enough info publicly available for us to be sure it is in fact absolutely sure NOT to happen. Here is how we know:

Here's a counter-argument. And here's the gist:

QUOTE
I’ll just lay the one out for you that I actually heard. The Cleveland Browns have the 12 and the 19 and they’re interested in Bradford. They’re interested in Bradford. It would include Manziel going back to the Eagles and Bradford going to the Browns, the 12 and the 19 going to the (Eagles), the 20 going to the (Browns)… one spot doesn’t make much difference, but that was the trade as explained to me… and Manziel’s contract going to the Eagles.


That's from Mike Francesa, requoted by Jimmy Kempski. I'm still holding out hope it happens, and if that's the price, it's well worth it in my eyes.

On this, JeeQ, we agree.

#MariotaOrBust
Eyrie
So we'd get #12 for Bradford, and then swap #20 for #19 and Manziel's cap hit?

Looks too good to be true, but it would give us a good starting point to trade up for Mariota if he falls to #5 or #6.
Joegrane
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Apr 25 2015, 05:37 AM) *
So we'd get #12 for Bradford, and then swap #20 for #19 and Manziel's cap hit?

Looks too good to be true, but it would give us a good starting point to trade up for Mariota if he falls to #5 or #6.


I think that trade makes less sense than the three team trade with SDiego and Tenn.

P Rivers does not want to move to LA if the chargers indeed move the team. He is a somewhat conservative christian who does not want to raise his kids in LA. He is from the South East. He'd be okay going to Tenn.

No team is going to do the deal without contract extensions for the QBs. What is Bradford's reason for doing that with Cleveland? There are few better situations than ending up with the playoff contending Chargers in a big market.

Everyone involved gets something they want.
koolaidluke
Just to be clear, is this one of those NBA type trades where part of the trade is the Browns unloading Johnny's contract?

Aren't the Browns on the hook for the bonus money whether they trade Johnny or not? Trading Manziel does nothing for their cap situation that cutting him wouldn't do.
nephillymike
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Apr 25 2015, 04:34 PM) *
Just to be clear, is this one of those NBA type trades where part of the trade is the Browns unloading Johnny's contract?

Aren't the Browns on the hook for the bonus money whether they trade Johnny or not? Trading Manziel does nothing for their cap situation that cutting him wouldn't do.


Correct.
samaroo
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Apr 26 2015, 06:34 AM) *
Just to be clear, is this one of those NBA type trades where part of the trade is the Browns unloading Johnny's contract?

Aren't the Browns on the hook for the bonus money whether they trade Johnny or not? Trading Manziel does nothing for their cap situation that cutting him wouldn't do.

Why would they cut him if there's a trade to be made?
nephillymike
QUOTE (samaroo @ Apr 26 2015, 07:20 PM) *
Why would they cut him if there's a trade to be made?


True
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.