Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: In the words of Donovan McNabb
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
nephillymike
I will get into it more later, but we just drafted 6 players and only one of them, Shepherd, can be considered a "value" pick.

Value is defined here as drafting a guy in a draft slot that was rated to go higher, thus the draft value.

To be fair, it has nothing to do with if the guys can play. If we drafted Tom Brady #1 instead of the sixth round, it would have been a HORRIBLE draft day value, but an all time winning draft pick.

But it has everything to do with how many lottery tickets you get for the NFL draft lottery.

Also, in a somewhat related issue, it looks like we missed our chance at getting fair value for two players on the outs, Boykin and Kendricks.
mcnabbulous
I think you put too much value in predraft rankings.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ May 2 2015, 06:08 PM) *
I will get into it more later, but we just drafted 6 players and only one of them, Shepherd, can be considered a "value" pick.

Value is defined here as drafting a guy in a draft slot that was rated to go higher, thus the draft value.

To be fair, it has nothing to do with if the guys can play. If we drafted Tom Brady #1 instead of the sixth round, it would have been a HORRIBLE draft day value, but an all time winning draft pick.

But it has everything to do with how many lottery tickets you get for the NFL draft lottery.

Also, in a somewhat related issue, it looks like we missed our chance at getting fair value for two players on the outs, Boykin and Kendricks.

I'm not sure why so many put so much stock on 'value' over success. I understand the concept, but if a team rates a player higher for what they're looking for than others do, doesn't it make sense to trust your rating over that of others? Pass on a player because of value and maybe you don't end up getting him. The draft geeks never know you wanted or valued him but the guy you end up getting at 'value' isn't as good for what you're looking for than the guy you missed. If it turns out your rating is flawed, then give the GM a promotion and let the coach do the rating. biggrin.gif
Birdwatcher
QUOTE (nephillymike @ May 2 2015, 06:08 PM) *
I will get into it more later, but we just drafted 6 players and only one of them, Shepherd, can be considered a "value" pick.

Value is defined here as drafting a guy in a draft slot that was rated to go higher, thus the draft value.

To be fair, it has nothing to do with if the guys can play. If we drafted Tom Brady #1 instead of the sixth round, it would have been a HORRIBLE draft day value, but an all time winning draft pick.

But it has everything to do with how many lottery tickets you get for the NFL draft lottery.

Also, in a somewhat related issue, it looks like we missed our chance at getting fair value for two players on the outs, Boykin and Kendricks.


Look, just because NFL evaluators rate a guy high (example Landon Collins was ranked one of the best Safeties in the draft) yet he was not for the Eagles board. I like what Chip looks for in a draftee: Athletic ability, success on the field, steady improvement in career (aka: coachability), coupled with intelligence and love of the game. Fucking hard to find those qualities in general, let alone specifically for positions you need to fill.

Look at this draft, all these guys have those qualities and should improve over time, which is what they want to create, looks like a good haul to me.
nephillymike
I hear what all of yuse are saying, but we all heard about how Chip was all ready to pick guys a round or two earlier than where that were projected to go last year an Howie had to talk him down.

It doesn't seem like they had a voice there this year.

The #1 key to the draft is getting good players, obviously.

But the draft is such a crap shoot, that you need to be able to get your players and get as many picks as possible to increase your odds of doing that. Knowing the board and how to manipulate it helps.

Here's what I think may be happening with our philosophy.

It seems that Chip places a lot of requirements for draft picks. It seems more than other teams.

The more requirements, the more prospects who do not meet them.

The more prospects who are eliminated in the vetting process, the more shallow your draft board.

The more shallow your draft board, the greater likelihood that the tiers of talent will be more shallow.

If at a certain point in the draft, there are only two players at a certain tier, you will not feel safe about trading back as you will fear losing the opportunity to draft either of them. You stay where you are, losing out on the possibility of a drop back and pick up of an extra pick to do so, with a high probability of one of your guys being there.

Also, from the other side, you are sitting there at 50 say, and your tiers being shallow, there are only two guys left that you have rated at that level, you are more inclined to trade up because you have to get one of them. There is a cost to do that.

So you have a lost opportunity of not getting an extra pick plus the extra cost of moving up to get your guy. The two result in fewer lottery tickets for the team and less chance of success.

IMO, it stems from all the criteria and a resulting shallow board. I remember when this administration came in, they said they would adjust their scheme to fit the talent of the players. Most, including I, lauded that. Happy days! Imagine that, fitting the scheme to fit the talents of the players. But in the third year, it seem to me that Chip and his staff do not seem interested, or maybe not confident enough in their abilities to coach players of different strengths into a winning team. They seem to want everyone similar and we are seeing there is a cost on draft day of using that approach.

If these six guys can net a greater return than the eight or nine guys we could have had this year with a few trade downs, then we'll be OK. If the odds keep consistent to the past where more darts at the dart board is best, than we will drop back a bit.

We'll see.
Zero
I think it's possible that Kelly may be in a 'reset' mode with the roster. He's essentially building the new foundation of his team and maybe he believes that he has to be very precise with the players he's bringing in. Just guessing here, but maybe going forward he is more flexible because he has the big brothers of his family nucleus in place who will show the younger guys the way it's done.

Don't know how much influence he had his first two drafts, but it seems he's taking a different angle this year. Does that mean there's a trend or, like a I said, a reset?
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ May 2 2015, 07:39 PM) *
I think it's possible that Kelly may be in a 'reset' mode with the roster. He's essentially building the new foundation of his team and maybe he believes that he has to be very precise with the players he's bringing in. Just guessing here, but maybe going forward he is more flexible because he has the big brothers of his family nucleus in place who will show the younger guys the way it's done.

Don't know how much influence he had his first two drafts, but it seems he's taking a different angle this year. Does that mean there's a trend or, like a I said, a reset?


I would be disappointed if after two years he didn't have enough of the guys who believe in what he is doing to float some new rookies and FA's coming in. The NFL careers aren't long enough to get the longevity of the roster.
Eyrie
I follow Mikey's logic here.

The draft is a crap shoot, and the more specific our requirements are, the greater the pressure to get every pick right. Inevitably some won't work out and this is an increased risk when you make fewer selections.

As regards Kelly, he sensibly adapted his plans to suit the players he inherited but is using FA and the draft to restructure the roster with his type of players. Effectively we're in "reset" mode just now.
nephillymike
I just saw comcast sportsnet and Mosher brought up a similar point about his criteria limiting the draft board.

Mosher, what's your screen name? biggrin.gif

R. Diddy said the reach for Hicks cost them an OL.

Better move was to draft the best available OL in the 3rd and Hicks or a comparable player would be there in the 4th.

Right before the Eagles pick at 113 in the 4th round, there was a run on OL, Williams (102), Clemmings (110), Jackson (111), Kouandijo (112).

Clemmings 32, Jackson 69 would have been good values at #84 in the 3rd.
Williams 102, and Kouandijo 124 would have been similar reaches to Hicks.

Chip came out and said that he had no discussions on trading Kendricks.

My question would have been, with the addition of Alonzo, the FA from GB (name?), the returning players from injury, Goode and Long, why the NEED to add another ILB?
Zero
All valid. And that's my only concern is the neglect of OL additions for two straight years. First year running the show, he's a smart guy and so is Manwich. Let's hope they're better next year.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ May 3 2015, 08:11 AM) *
All valid. And that's my only concern is the neglect of OL additions for two straight years. First year running the show, he's a smart guy and so is Manwich. Let's hope they're better next year.


We know from Chip that Howie helped tame his enthusiasm last year by trying to convince him to take guys in the round they would be available. Judging by the reaches, it looks like we needed a Howie type voice in there this year.
mcnabbulous
The alternative is focusing on getting guys you want vs. getting guys who are good value.

If they didn't pick Hicks (who Chip says was by far the highest rated player on their board) and instead took a less rated (by their standards) OL, they would have been settling. Ultimately, they would have a LB who they don't like as much and an OL who they may or may not have loved.

The alternative is that they got a player in the third who they love, while also getting an extra asset for next year's draft. Now, if they have a highly rated OL, they can use that extra asset to make sure they get the guy they really want next year.

If you have requirements for players, and you constantly settle for less, you'll be building a team that doesn't look or play like the one you want to be fielding. We should all be happy that Chip is clearly playing the long game.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ May 3 2015, 10:20 AM) *
If you have requirements for players, and you constantly settle for less, you'll be building a team that doesn't look or play like the one you want to be fielding. We should all be happy that Chip is clearly playing the long game.


True, but is Algholar a long term play,or does a team with Maclin have the luxury of drafting a WR with more upsdie but may need a year as opposed to NA who is more ready to step in but not as much upside?

If you have so many requirements that you constantly have less to choose from, you need to trade up and avoid trade downs for more picks because you have fewer acceptable prospects to chose from.
mcnabbulous
Nelson is a great prospect. Had we resigned Maclin, I'm not sure if he is the choice, but who knows.

Sure, we may have fewer guys to choose from than most teams, but I think it's clear that Chip is willing to bail out if perceived value isn't there. It seems clear he didn't think there was great value in the mid rounds.

I really like our draft. No mid-round OL was going to come in and beat out Barbre for a guard spot this year. Next year, we can target a guy we really like.

I'm glad we have a coach with a clear plan who is sticking to it. It was when Reid got away from his that things really went south.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ May 3 2015, 11:42 AM) *
If you have so many requirements that you constantly have less to choose from, you need to trade up and avoid trade downs for more picks because you have fewer acceptable prospects to chose from.

True, but if doing that means you miss on fewer players and hit on more it may just balance out.
JaxEagle
QUOTE (nephillymike @ May 2 2015, 06:08 PM) *
I will get into it more later, but we just drafted 6 players and only one of them, Shepherd, can be considered a "value" pick.

Value is defined here as drafting a guy in a draft slot that was rated to go higher, thus the draft value.

To be fair, it has nothing to do with if the guys can play. If we drafted Tom Brady #1 instead of the sixth round, it would have been a HORRIBLE draft day value, but an all time winning draft pick.

But it has everything to do with how many lottery tickets you get for the NFL draft lottery.

Also, in a somewhat related issue, it looks like we missed our chance at getting fair value for two players on the outs, Boykin and Kendricks.

Pay no attention to the world according to Kiper and company.
nephillymike
QUOTE (JaxEagle @ May 3 2015, 07:27 PM) *
Pay no attention to the world according to Kiper and company.


Who do I pay attention to, Spads?

Listen to him tell me how so and so was going to pick Marcus Smith right after us if we didn't get him or how Ray Bob was right and dammit Jon Harris is the next Charles Haley or how there were plenty of teams interested in Danny Watkins if we didn't pick him in the first.

As the cop said in the Irish Mob movie, Millers Crossing,

"You know me Johnny, I don't know nuthin'. I'm just specalatin' on a hypotunuse"

I just summarize what other people say ahead of time in the hopes of getting a consensus and some non biased opinions.

Getting it ahead of time is important because the pundits are very reluctant to rip teams after the fact in their draft grades for fear of being cut off out of the loop. But before hand, you get an honest assessment of the players, IMO.
mcnabbulous
Make your own evaluations. I realize it's hard to gain info about all of the guys before the fact, but afterwards you can catch up on the choices.

With the exception of an Achilles tear, which Chip is proving to not get too stressed about, Hicks looks like a really solid prospect. His athletic comparisons are solid, his measurables stack up, and he looks like a legit ballhawk.

If Chip isn't worried about these injuries, I'm going to wait until I have reason to be.
Zero
I absolutely understand looking at and compiling 'expert' evaluations. It' s really the only way fans have of measuring a player besides watching him play against college competition which I don't do. Gathering the information and opinions provided by a wide range of sources obviously provides the best crystal ball view of the player and gives the best statistical analysis of who a player is and, comparatively, where he should be selected.

My hesitation with that this year is simply Chip's approach. So much of what he does is different, he goes cross grain to established, accepted NFL ways. That's what is making this ride enjoyable for me, because we don't know if it will work or not. The culture thing, the practice schedule, elevated sports science seem to be working but two years isn't a big enough sampling to have a clear answer. This is his first jump into doing a draft without the help of an established NFL draft guy (we think) and using all the old metrics to judge how he did may or may not be valid.

I am as pumped for this season as I ever have been and it's not just because I think they're on the cusp of really competing. I'm really curious if Chip is the next Bill Walsh or just another flash in the pan.
Zero
Add this to what I just wrote:
QUOTE
Asked to elaborate on how the relationship between the scouts and coaches is unique, Kelly replied: "I'd like to, but I really don't want to share that. I think everybody's voice is heard, and I think everybody is allowed to have their own opinion. We want people to not be on the same page as us because that's not what we're looking for. We're looking for everybody to see it from a different view. Everybody has a different set of lenses. Everybody has a different set of perspectives based upon their experiences in terms of what they bring. ...There's a lot of things we've changed since Ed has taken over. You know what? That's really good. Let's see if we can move in that direction because we all believe that's going to make us better.

"I think we've got a bunch of coaches and scouts that are really growth-minded and not fixed-minded, and we're going to continue to do whatever we can to see if we can make this thing work."

Linc ...

Despite his adopting the royal 'we', this is one of the things I really like about Kelly. I truly believe that managers who want their personnel all headed in the same direction are limiting their potential. You want a strong manager with a clear vision but someone who accepts that he doesn't know everything and that others may have a better idea about a given situation than he does. This is the foundation of the greatness of America, a melting pot of difference joined and pointed in the same direction to achieve greatness. I hope it works in football.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ May 4 2015, 05:26 AM) *
Add this to what I just wrote:

Linc ...

Despite his adopting the royal 'we', this is one of the things I really like about Kelly. I truly believe that managers who want their personnel all headed in the same direction are limiting their potential. You want a strong manager with a clear vision but someone who accepts that he doesn't know everything and that others may have a better idea about a given situation than he does. This is the foundation of the greatness of America, a melting pot of difference joined and pointed in the same direction to achieve greatness. I hope it works in football.



Sorry Z, no offense, this was a layup.

Today, the Eagles fired Head of Pro Personnel and Head of college scouting plus a lead scout from the Southeast.

Do you think these were guys who had different opinions than Chip?? devil03.gif
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ May 4 2015, 08:27 PM) *
Do you think these were guys who had different opinions than Chip?? devil03.gif

I have no idea? Do you have information?

Any chance the guys weren't doing their jobs or didn't mesh with Manwich? Or maybe they were Howie's boys?
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ May 4 2015, 07:31 PM) *
I have no idea? Do you have information?

Any chance the guys weren't doing their jobs or didn't mesh with Manwich? Or maybe they were Howie's boys?

"I think everybody's voice is heard, and I think everybody is allowed to have their own opinion. We want people to not be on the same page as us because that's not what we're looking for. We're looking for everybody to see it from a different view. Everybody has a different set of lenses. Everybody has a different set of perspectives based upon their experiences in terms of what they bring."

Do you think the guys they let go were more in agreement or more in disagreement with Chip's opinions of prospects?

I'm just poking fun but since I just watch Comcast and just heard about the blowup of the scouting dept, I thought it was funny they he would trot out the "we value opinions that are different than ours" line. Bad timing on his part to go down that line given he knew waht was about to happen.

No big deal. I just found it to be funny he would say that given the events of the day
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ May 4 2015, 08:39 PM) *
Do you think the guys they let go were more in agreement or more in disagreement with Chip's opinions of prospects?

I think this could be a reasonable explanation of what's going down in Eagleland.
QUOTE
"Ed [Marynowitz] is in the process of finding guys he's comfortable with, that he trusts, that he knows and that in any way aren't executing an end around. Or going behind his back. Or possibly trying to undermine anything that he's trying to accomplish. That's not taking a shot at anyone who was let go from there, but he's trying to get comfortable. It's his right to do that. And quite honestly it needed to happen there. That process will be ongoing, for sure."
Linc ...
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ May 5 2015, 07:16 PM) *
I think this could be a reasonable explanation of what's going down in Eagleland.
Linc ...



To me this was the most telling thing:

"It doesn't matter if it's coaching staff, if it's personnel," he said. "You need to eliminate as much politics and as much of the possibility for people to exercise their own agendas as possible. Those sort of things makes your organization rot from the inside out. It manifests itself in your guys not producing. That's what was happening there.

"That's just what was happening. They're trying to clean it up now. This isn't just about football. It isn't just about scouting. It happens in all walks of life. In all businesses. You need a healthy working environment where everyone is pulling in the right direction. They're trying to get it that way now.

"When you have it that way, it's awesome. When you feel like you're constantly trying to do that little political dance, you spend more time messing around with that BS than you do trying to be a professional. That is tiring. It's really tiring. They've had enough of it."

Chip also referenced it by saying in another article that coaches and scouts need to work together. It doesn't matter if scouts or coaches, it's the Eagles.

It makes sense. Word had trickled out over the last few months that Howie fostered that division, just like his ex boss did, Banner. I remember what Barrett Brooks said on a Saturday 97.5 show soon after Howie's "promotion". He described the scene when he hitched a ride on the Eagles plane going down to the Senior Bowl. He described how there was the coaching area of the plane and the scouting area of the plane and not once did either side interact with the other! He knew that was an unhealthy environment back then. I could only imagine what it was like to work in it. I can see why they did what they did. I have no problem with it.
nephillymike
And here's the other article from Eagles 24/7

The word thrown around the building often nowadays is integrated. No one wants to offer specific details, but the indications are that there was a divide between the scouting/personnel side and the coaches the previous two years. Clearly, Kelly and Roseman were not always on the same page.

With the shakeup in January, Kelly laid out a new way of doing things - one in which the two sides worked better together. So far, he seems pleased with the results, and he offered Marynowitz a favorable review.

"We got together that first day after he got hired and organized the scouts and really integrated our scouts and our coaches," Kelly said. "I think the group of them did an outstanding job, and if you watched how well our scouts and coaches worked together, it's unique, I think, in terms of how we do it. But as we look at it, as we're trying to make the Eagles the best team out there, it can't be personnel department against coaches, coaches against personnel. You guys coach, we pick. We're all on the same side, and all we want at the end of the day is the same goal, is we want to win a championship."


Read more at http://www.phillymag.com/birds247/2015/05/...KZ1eu1Bmplms.99
Zero
Yeah, I don't really understand the logic of keeping them separate. I wonder if that's the norm in the NFL.
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.