Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Are We Better? New guys vs. old guys?
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
nephillymike
Here's my take for the projected starters on the new changes:

WR Maclin vs. This year's #1 WR (Algholar or Matthews) = not as good

RB - MCCoy vs, Murray = even

OG - Mathis vs. Barbre = not as good

OG - Herrmans vs. Tobin or Gardner = not as good

CB - Sconces vs. Maxwell = better

CB - Fletcher vs. Rowe/Carroll - if Rowe wins spot better. If Carroll, then not as good as he wasn't good enough to start in '14

SS - Allen vs Thurmond - better

OLB - Cole vs. Graham - close, but give it slightly to Cole as he won the starting spot last year over Graham.-not as good

ILB - Mufasa and Kendricks vs. best two of Mufasa, Kendricks and Alonzo - better. Competion brings cream to top

QB - Bradford vs. Foles - better. I can see Bradford being an upgrade over Foles v2014.

Starting spots come in at 4 better, 4 not as good, one even and one CB up in the air. Not a catastrophe, but not the landslide improvement envisioned at the beginning of the new year with all that ca[p money and all those possibilities.

Keeping Maclin, and Mathis was preferable. Can't help but wonder if we left a few wins on the chopping block.

I think the ILB depth is better, OL depth is worse, DB depth is better, WR depth about the same, RB depth better.

Coaching should see some improvement if what they've been saying about this year's DB coach versus last year's DB coach is true. As long as this one can tell Billy how not to leave a suckass CB one on one vs the top WR's, it will be an improvement.

Anyone.
xsv
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 1 2015, 06:31 PM) *
Here's my take for the projected starters on the new changes:

WR Maclin vs. This year's #1 WR (Algholar or Matthews) = not as good

RB - MCCoy vs, Murray = even

OG - Mathis vs. Barbre = not as good

OG - Herrmans vs. Tobin or Gardner = not as good

CB - Sconces vs. Maxwell = better

CB - Fletcher vs. Rowe/Carroll - if Rowe wins spot better. If Carroll, then not as good as he wasn't good enough to start in '14

SS - Allen vs Thurmond - better

OLB - Cole vs. Graham - close, but give it slightly to Cole as he won the starting spot last year over Graham.-not as good

ILB - Mufasa and Kendricks vs. best two of Mufasa, Kendricks and Alonzo - better. Competion brings cream to top

QB - Bradford vs. Foles - better. I can see Bradford being an upgrade over Foles v2014.

Starting spots come in at 4 better, 4 not as good, one even and one CB up in the air. Not a catastrophe, but not the landslide improvement envisioned at the beginning of the new year with all that ca[p money and all those possibilities.

Keeping Maclin, and Mathis was preferable. Can't help but wonder if we left a few wins on the chopping block.

I think the ILB depth is better, OL depth is worse, DB depth is better, WR depth about the same, RB depth better.

Coaching should see some improvement if what they've been saying about this year's DB coach versus last year's DB coach is true. As long as this one can tell Billy how not to leave a suckass CB one on one vs the top WR's, it will be an improvement.

Anyone.


Maybe, but Cole, Mathis and especially Herrimans are all in the twilight of their careers, and performance declines quickly at that age. Herrimans was already starting to slip. I'd call the Herrimans and Cole changes pretty even due to that. That makes it 4 better, 1 not as good, and 3 even.
Zero
QUOTE (xsv @ Aug 1 2015, 07:12 PM) *
Maybe, but Cole, Mathis and especially Herrimans are all in the twilight of their careers, and performance declines quickly at that age. Herrimans was already starting to slip. I'd call the Herrimans and Cole changes pretty even due to that. That makes it 4 better, 1 not as good, and 3 even.

I think Murray/Mathews will be better than Shady. They'll be fresher trading off and suit what Kelly wants to accomplish with the running game better. I also think Kelly let Mathis go because he was declining and butting heads. I think there's a good chance we should listen to Peters who says it's not a big deal. Even though Algholar won't be as good as Maclin I think by the end of the year he could be better. He won't be as refined as Mac but from what we read, I think he has a chance to be significantly better in RAC. Sanchez '15 will be better than Sanchez '14 so QB will be better no matter.

That makes it 7 better, 1 not as good and 2 even.

WR - Not as good
RB - Better
OG - Even
OG - Even
CB - Better
CB - Better
SS - Better
OLB - Better
ILB - Better
QB - Better
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 1 2015, 06:31 PM) *
Here's my take for the projected starters on the new changes:

WR Maclin vs. This year's #1 WR (Algholar or Matthews) = not as good

Agreed

RB - MCCoy vs, Murray = even

Take this in total because you have 2 players to cover this and they are both very good......Better(also...Murray may be plain better....if you want to debate that we can...the numbers are interesting as are the ratings of their respective lines)

OG - Mathis vs. Barbre = not as good

His replacements played as well as he did last year...but I will give him a little edge

OG - Herrmans vs. Tobin or Gardner = not as good

OK...disagree....Herremnas was done 2 years ago...at worst...even

CB - Sconces vs. Maxwell = better

CB - Fletcher vs. Rowe/Carroll - if Rowe wins spot better. If Carroll, then not as good as he wasn't good enough to start in '14

Worst case is even....and with the new DB coach I say better

SS - Allen vs Thurmond - better

OLB - Cole vs. Graham - close, but give it slightly to Cole as he won the starting spot last year over Graham.-not as good

ILB - Mufasa and Kendricks vs. best two of Mufasa, Kendricks and Alonzo - better. Competion brings cream to top

QB - Bradford vs. Foles - better. I can see Bradford being an upgrade over Foles v2014.

Starting spots come in at 4 better, 4 not as good, one even and one CB up in the air. Not a catastrophe, but not the landslide improvement envisioned at the beginning of the new year with all that ca[p money and all those possibilities.

Keeping Maclin, and Mathis was preferable. Can't help but wonder if we left a few wins on the chopping block.

I think the ILB depth is better, OL depth is worse, DB depth is better, WR depth about the same, RB depth better.

Coaching should see some improvement if what they've been saying about this year's DB coach versus last year's DB coach is true. As long as this one can tell Billy how not to leave a suckass CB one on one vs the top WR's, it will be an improvement.

Anyone.

nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Aug 1 2015, 06:58 PM) *
I think Murray/Mathews will be better than Shady. They'll be fresher trading off and suit what Kelly wants to accomplish with the running game better. I also think Kelly let Mathis go because he was declining and butting heads. I think there's a good chance we should listen to Peters who says it's not a big deal. Even though Algholar won't be as good as Maclin I think by the end of the year he could be better. He won't be as refined as Mac but from what we read, I think he has a chance to be significantly better in RAC. Sanchez '15 will be better than Sanchez '14 so QB will be better no matter.

That makes it 7 better, 1 not as good and 2 even.

WR - Not as good
RB - Better
OG - Even
OG - Even
CB - Better
CB - Better
SS - Better
OLB - Better
ILB - Better
QB - Better


Methinks the beers are going down way too easy for you tonight Z!!

Sober up and remember what your name stands for!


BKRuger
Bradford and Murray are upgrades, but they have less talent to throw to and to protect them. Our defense will still be pretty bad. Overall we're worse.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 1 2015, 10:31 PM) *
Sober up and remember what your name stands for!

Hahaha. WW Z maybe? biggrin.gif You apparently forget my alter ego OptiMystic too.

The guards were in decline. Would they be better than Mofit/Tobin/Gardner and Barbre? Optimism says no, logic says even. How often have we been disappointed by a coach or a player trying to squeeze one more year out of a declining talent/body? Do you really believe that McCoy by his lonesome would be as effective as two pounders playing tag team on the defense? I can be wrong, but not because of hops and yeast ... brain damage, maybe. Man crush on Cole but he also was sliding. I wish he were still here doing a Mathews/Murray skit with Graham. As a young DE his weakness was against the run. When he moved to OLB it was coverage. Sounds like Graham, doesn't it? Logic says even with the exception of losing a leader. Optimism says better because Graham is younger and hungry to prove himself. All the 'bust' years are driving him. You don't want to hear my optimism for Smith. laugh.gif

Eyrie
I'm basing this on how players performed last year vs how their replacements should perform this year. No point to saying that someone would be worse (eg Herremans) when they're not here in 2015.

QB - Foles/Sanchez vs Bradford/Sanchez = better, because Foles was poor

RB - McCoy/Sproles vs Murray/Mathews/Sproles = better due to the fit and increased depth

WR - Maclin/Cooper/Mathews vs Agholor/Cooper/Mathews = worse, because Maclin played well and it will take Agholor time to settle in

OG - Mathis/Herremans vs Barbre/AN Other = worse, because AN Other was behind Herremans last year and Mathis was a Pro Bowler.

ILB - Ryans/Kendricks vs Alonso/Kendricks/Ryans = better, due to competition

OLB - Cole/Barwin/Graham vs Barwin/Graham/Smith = worse, as Smith has yet to show anything

CB - Williams/Fletcher/Boykin vs Maxwell/Rowe/Carroll = better, simply because of Maxwell

S - Jenkins/Allen vs Jenkins/Thurmond = even, because poor play from Allan matches inexperience for Thurmond

TE, T, DL and STs should be similar.

So I make it four better, one even and three weaker.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Aug 2 2015, 05:40 AM) *
Hahaha. WW Z maybe? biggrin.gif You apparently forget my alter ego OptiMystic too.

The guards were in decline. Would they be better than Mofit/Tobin/Gardner and Barbre? Optimism says no, logic says even. How often have we been disappointed by a coach or a player trying to squeeze one more year out of a declining talent/body? Do you really believe that McCoy by his lonesome would be as effective as two pounders playing tag team on the defense? I can be wrong, but not because of hops and yeast ... brain damage, maybe. Man crush on Cole but he also was sliding. I wish he were still here doing a Mathews/Murray skit with Graham. As a young DE his weakness was against the run. When he moved to OLB it was coverage. Sounds like Graham, doesn't it? Logic says even with the exception of losing a leader. Optimism says better because Graham is younger and hungry to prove himself. All the 'bust' years are driving him. You don't want to hear my optimism for Smith. laugh.gif



Why not have Mathis and Boykin still on the roster and let them compete for the job? If they aren't good enough to start, or are a distraction, cut or trade them then. Have the others prove they are better. That's a novel concept. Who knows, by then maybe PIT suffers another CB blow or maybe we do and we need Boykin. Either way his value goes up either to us or PIT.

Like I said when they cut Mathis, if he let Mathis come to camp and he played well and kept his mouth shut, he would have no reason to get rid of him and he would lose the upper hand. Same thing with letting Boykin compete on the outside. If he played better than the taller others, it would have been exhibit A disproving the one size fits all theory.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 2 2015, 08:25 AM) *
Why not have Mathis and Boykin still on the roster and let them compete for the job? If they aren't good enough to start, or are a distraction, cut or trade them then. Have the others prove they are better. That's a novel concept. Who knows, by then maybe PIT suffers another CB blow or maybe we do and we need Boykin. Either way his value goes up either to us or PIT.

Like I said when they cut Mathis, if he let Mathis come to camp and he played well and kept his mouth shut, he would have no reason to get rid of him and he would lose the upper hand. Same thing with letting Boykin compete on the outside. If he played better than the taller others, it would have been exhibit A disproving the one size fits all theory.

Have to agree about Mathis, but Boykin was gone next year if he wasn't on the outside this year. With Rowe and Maxwell he wasn't going there so why not get something for him? I hope he plays and that 5th becomes a 4th. They're supposedly high on Shepard so even though I like Boykin this makes sense. The only reasons to not keep Mathis were either to get value in return or if he were to be a cancer in the locker room. He didn't do that last year so there's no reason to think he'd do it this year. And, they got nothing for him.

Stay away from the bridges, mikey. It ain't perfect but the Axis is in disarray and we still have to see how Kelly's plan works out.
mcnabbulous
We are going to be much better this year. Our offense will consistently move the chains and put up the number of plays Chip wants to run. That will trickle down to the defensive side of the ball, where we already will have a more talented roster.

Anyone that thinks we are worse off this year is dramatically underestimating just how bad Foles was last year. And Shady was awful too.
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.