Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Pass Drop %
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Pages: 1, 2
Joegrane
This post by Zero deserves its own discussion.

QUOTE (Zero @ Oct 27 2015, 08:30 PM) *
Matthews had 5.8% drops in 2014. Steve Smith 7.5%, Kelvin Benjamin 6.9%, Julian Edelman 6%, Marques Colston 7.1%, Victor Cruz 14.6%, Vernon Davis 10%, Jimmy Graham 6.5% ... Matthews is in a sophomore slump, Huff has never proven anything as a WR and Agholor is a rookie. I can't see any solid conclusions from this.
http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/drops/2014/


I spent too much time looking at the numbers. ( sorry that my formatting was lost)

This one is frightening.

Drop% per team
............Phi....STL...SamB games played

2015.. 6.6.. 6.7.. 7
2014.. 4.2.. 4.0.. 0
2013.. 3.4.. 6.0.. 7
2012.. 4.2.. 4.6.. 16
2011.. 6.1.. 6.2.. 10
2010.. 5.6.. 6.2.. 16

Is there something about Bradford that tends to cause a higher drop %?

I recall that Foles was described as a QB who does not have an especially strong arm but one who throws "a catchable ball." He seemed to be able to deliver appropriate touch. However that is not translating to a good % this year in contrast to the great 2013 season.

In contrast, Bradford rarely throws with touch. The wheel route seems to be a rare exception. Everything is "rifled" as someone recently described it.

Drop%...2014....2015
Maclin.. 1.4%.. 3.6
McCoy.. 8.1.. 0!
Murray.. 1.6.. 10.7
Austin .. 4.2.. 4.8
celek.. 2%.. 0!
cooper.. 3.2.. 8.7
ertz .. 3.4%.. 2.4
matthews.. 5.5.. 4.8
sproles.. 6.5.. 8.3
Huff .. 16.7.. 5.3
Agholor .. ..... 5.9
R Matthews ......... 20

GreenBay
Ran Cobb.. 4.7 .. 4.3
R Rodgers.. 3.3 .. 3.3
Starks .. 10.5.. 13.3

St Louis ( Notice above Phi/Foles' good % in 2013)
Cook (TE).. 5.1.. 9.4
Kendricks .. 2.3.. 14.3
T Austin .. 6.8.. 0
S Bailey .. 4.4 .. 0
B Quick .. 2.6 .. 8.3
Cunningham .. 0!.. 14%
nephillymike
Good stuff.

It looks like there is something there, but I would be accused of hating if I agree too much.

I just watched the drops again.

I think overall Sam is rushed in his tempo and his WR's aren't good.

He's got a really good arm and when you have one like that, a ball off the sweet spot target by 18'' is going to have a lot more drops than a softer throw that is off by 18''. One could argue that an NFL WR should be able to catch every ball at any velocity off by 18'' and there is some validity to that.

But after watching the drops, I notice that some Sam's throws are up on the WR's early in their breaks. This is especially true on three of the out patterns that were dropped.

A WR who does a ten and out, and the ball is on him as soon as he breaks for the out is more likely to drop the ball than the WR who has the ball on him after a stride or two coming out of the "out". Why would that be for a guy like Sam, with reportedly pinpoint accuracy? He's rushing. His style is not to float it on the out for the easy catch, he uses his healthy arm. But by keeping the velocity the same and delivering the ball a split second before our mediocre at best WR's expect it, it results in a higher drop %.

All that said, I say the other night 80% of the blame for the drops was on our stellar by choice WR corps.

On the other hand, for the season to date, 80% of our suffering passing game is on Bradford, and that includes the 20% of the blame for the CAR game.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Oct 27 2015, 09:48 PM) *
I spent too much time looking at the numbers. ( sorry that my formatting was lost)

I may be missing something because of the formatting, but isn't the Rams drop rate this season an indication that either 1) Foles doesn't throw a more catchable ball than Bradford or 2) there isn't a whole lot of consistency from year to year?

It's a small sample size, but I'm not sure I take much from those numbers as-is.

And Mikey -- your "stellar by choice" schtick is kind of annoying at this point. I would go out on a limb and say that there is no way Chip anticipated Maclin leaving this offseason, with the incredibly fair deal he was offered. Not to mention our attempts to sign him to a longer term deal last year.

Maclin made his bed. His team is 1-5 in the games he has played. His presence is missed here, but he's not some game changing playmaker that deserved to be paid an exorbitant amount of money.

Ultimately his decision to leave changed the offseason plans, but it's the nature of NFL free agency. Get over it.
Zero
I think if Mac were still here the WRs may have the mentor they need to help get over their drop/route issues. Who knows. I also think the team may be 4-2 if he were here but I agree it's not on the Eagles.
D Rock
Blaming the QB for a WR dropping a ball that hits him in the hands is fucking lunacy.

Seriously, people.

Get a clue.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 27 2015, 11:43 PM) *
Good stuff.

It looks like there is something there, but I would be accused of hating if I agree too much.

I just watched the drops again.

I think overall Sam is rushed in his tempo and his WR's aren't good.

He's got a really good arm and when you have one like that, a ball off the sweet spot target by 18'' is going to have a lot more drops than a softer throw that is off by 18''. One could argue that an NFL WR should be able to catch every ball at any velocity off by 18'' and there is some validity to that.

But after watching the drops, I notice that some Sam's throws are up on the WR's early in their breaks. This is especially true on three of the out patterns that were dropped.

A WR who does a ten and out, and the ball is on him as soon as he breaks for the out is more likely to drop the ball than the WR who has the ball on him after a stride or two coming out of the "out". Why would that be for a guy like Sam, with reportedly pinpoint accuracy? He's rushing. His style is not to float it on the out for the easy catch, he uses his healthy arm. But by keeping the velocity the same and delivering the ball a split second before our mediocre at best WR's expect it, it results in a higher drop %.

All that said, I say the other night 80% of the blame for the drops was on our stellar by choice WR corps.

On the other hand, for the season to date, 80% of our suffering passing game is on Bradford, and that includes the 20% of the blame for the CAR game.


you just keep hanging on...lol

The whole idea of timing routes is to hit the WR as he makes his break....not after the CB has time to rcover asfter "1-2 strides....none of these drops were an example of that....I can give a pass to Austin's drop...that was a tough catch....but the rest are on the WRs and on Kelly....
Joegrane
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 28 2015, 12:44 PM) *
Blaming the QB for a WR dropping a ball that hits him in the hands is fucking lunacy.

I blame the Austin drop mostly on the QB. I understand he is supposed to throw that Out high and on the outside shoulder to avoid the pick-6 but he was wide open.

It was off Austins hands as he jumped a little and stretched out. It was a high throw unnecessarily.
Joegrane
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 28 2015, 10:25 AM) *
I may be missing something because of the formatting, but isn't the Rams drop rate this season an indication that either 1) Foles doesn't throw a more catchable ball than Bradford or 2) there isn't a whole lot of consistency from year to year?

It's a small sample size, but I'm not sure I take much from those numbers as-is.

Agree about the sample size but a few things are interesting.

When Sam B plays his team's Drop% is usually around 6%--well below average. Notice STL's 4% rate in 2014 when Bradford was out. They probably had most of the same receivers from the other years with 6% drop rates.

I fear this does not bode well for the future.

Foles' numbers were too varied but not surprisingly, they were quite good in 2013.

Green Bay's receivers were rather consistent.

The numbers for D Murray and L McCoy are VASTLY different. Sproles is not good either. I wonder if this supports my theory that Bradford lacks touch. This might not matter as much to a big, strong guy such as Celek. However to backs who are much closer to the QB, it would probably be nice if Bradford could throw a softer ball.

I still think the situation will improve somewhat as the QB and receivers become more familiar with each other. The recent injuries to WRs can't be helping. They need practice time to become more in sync.

This does not seem to be an issue of poor character, poor work ethic or lack of intelligence. I think it will improve somewhat with time. However I fear there is something about Bradford that will limit them somewhat in this area.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 28 2015, 09:25 AM) *
I may be missing something because of the formatting, but isn't the Rams drop rate this season an indication that either 1) Foles doesn't throw a more catchable ball than Bradford or 2) there isn't a whole lot of consistency from year to year?

It's a small sample size, but I'm not sure I take much from those numbers as-is.

And Mikey -- your "stellar by choice" schtick is kind of annoying at this point. I would go out on a limb and say that there is no way Chip anticipated Maclin leaving this offseason, with the incredibly fair deal he was offered. Not to mention our attempts to sign him to a longer term deal last year.

Maclin made his bed. His team is 1-5 in the games he has played. His presence is missed here, but he's not some game changing playmaker that deserved to be paid an exorbitant amount of money.

Ultimately his decision to leave changed the offseason plans, but it's the nature of NFL free agency. Get over it.



I agree my stellar by choice schtick is annoying.

It annoys me every fucking week when I watch our WR's try to be adequate catching balls from a QB who is trying to be adequate.

It should annoy you more than me.

If you think that Chip Kelly, in hindsight, would not have signed Maclin, you are crazy.

We created a need that we didn't have to create.

Chip blew the talent evaluation at WR.

Big time.

And unfortunately we will be reminded on most game days the rest of the year.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 28 2015, 07:40 PM) *
If you think that Chip Kelly, in hindsight, would not have signed Maclin, you are crazy.

CHIP TRIED TO SIGN HIM!!!

Even in that pathetic puff piece, that much is made very clear.

QUOTE
That Sunday, while Maclin was on the golf course, the Eagles called and countered by shifting money from year three of their offer to year two which contrary to Kelly and published reports made it close enough to the same deal Maclin was offered with the Chiefs that Maclin was ready to stay.


http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-colum...l#storylink=cpy

Jeez. No one, including Kelly, wanted Maclin to go elsewhere. But you have to have a number that is the limit for what you will pay a player. If we had offered more, Andy could have matched. Then what?

He didn't want to be here. Get over it.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 28 2015, 08:55 PM) *
CHIP TRIED TO SIGN HIM!!!

Even in that pathetic puff piece, that much is made very clear.



http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-colum...l#storylink=cpy

Jeez. No one, including Kelly, wanted Maclin to go elsewhere. But you have to have a number that is the limit for what you will pay a player. If we had offered more, Andy could have matched. Then what?

He didn't want to be here. Get over it.


He didn't want him to stay. He didn't think he needed him. His system would win out.

Get over it!
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 28 2015, 09:18 PM) *
He didn't want him to stay. He didn't think he needed him. His system would win out.

Get over it!

There is literally not one piece of evidence to back this bs up.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 29 2015, 01:55 AM) *
CHIP TRIED TO SIGN HIM!!!

Even in that pathetic puff piece, that much is made very clear.



http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-colum...l#storylink=cpy

Jeez. No one, including Kelly, wanted Maclin to go elsewhere. But you have to have a number that is the limit for what you will pay a player. If we had offered more, Andy could have matched. Then what?

He didn't want to be here. Get over it.


You guys stating that Chip wanted to keep Maclin have to stop. Chip chose not to franchise Maclin. He would be here if Chip really wanted him.
Phits
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Oct 29 2015, 07:45 AM) *
You guys stating that Chip wanted to keep Maclin have to stop. Chip chose not to franchise Maclin. He would be here if Chip really wanted him.

If Maclin wanted to be here he would have accepted one of the multiple offers that he received from Philly. He chose another option.

The franchise tag would have costed (approx) $12.71M, which exceeded the $11M annual salary he received from KC. More than 80% of people polled didn't think he was worth $11M.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Oct 29 2015, 07:21 AM) *
If Maclin wanted to be here he would have accepted one of the multiple offers that he received from Philly. He chose another option.

The franchise tag would have costed (approx) $12.71M, which exceeded the $11M annual salary he received from KC. More than 80% of people polled didn't think he was worth $11M.

No shit. Chip wanted to bring Maclin back. He, according to that puff piece, basically matched KC's $11M offer. Despite the clear evidence that is more than what they believed he was worth. Suggesting they should have paid him an additional $1.7M over an amount that they deemed to high is silly.

What if they offered him $13M a year and Andy matched. Should they have gone to $15M? Where is the limit?

It's a total BS argument.

Chip has now spent a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round draft picks on wide receivers. But yeah, he doesn't need them. His system will win out.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (Phits @ Oct 29 2015, 12:21 PM) *
If Maclin wanted to be here he would have accepted one of the multiple offers that he received from Philly. He chose another option.


I agree and I never stated otherwise. That does not change the fact that if Chip wanted Maclin here he would have used the Franchise tag.

QUOTE
The franchise tag would have costed (approx) $12.71M, which exceeded the $11M annual salary he received from KC. More than 80% of people polled didn't think he was worth $11M.


Was the money used elsewhere or is it sitting in Lurie's pocket? If it is sitting in Lurie's pocket it is a wasted asset that could have been used to improve the team this year.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 29 2015, 03:36 PM) *
No shit. Chip wanted to bring Maclin back. He, according to that puff piece, basically matched KC's $11M offer. Despite the clear evidence that is more than what they believed he was worth. Suggesting they should have paid him an additional $1.7M over an amount that they deemed to high is silly.

What if they offered him $13M a year and Andy matched. Should they have gone to $15M? Where is the limit?

It's a total BS argument.

Chip has now spent a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round draft picks on wide receivers. But yeah, he doesn't need them. His system will win out.


If the franchise tag was used the price would have stopped at 12.7m per Phit's post above. Talk of 13m and 15m has absolutely nothing to do with Maclin, Chip and the tag.

For the record, I don't think it is Chip's position that he believes he does not need WRs and that his system will win out. I think he made the decision that his picks would pan out and that Maclin was not needed.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Oct 29 2015, 03:32 PM) *
If the franchise tag was used the price would have stopped at 12.7m per Phit's post above. Talk of 13m and 15m has absolutely nothing to do with Maclin, Chip and the tag.

For the record, I don't think it is Chip's position that he believes he does not need WRs and that his system will win out. I think he made the decision that his picks would pan out and that Maclin was not needed.


Exactly.....He expects Agohlar to pan out.....unfortunately people here expect him to go to the pro bowl this year...

How is that 11 million dollars helping the Chiefs?...Maclin is having a good year on a team about to have their coach fired..
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Oct 29 2015, 02:32 PM) *
If the franchise tag was used the price would have stopped at 12.7m per Phit's post above. Talk of 13m and 15m has absolutely nothing to do with Maclin, Chip and the tag.

Chip didn't want to give him $11M. He certainly wasn't going to give him $12.7M. That's the point.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 29 2015, 09:10 PM) *
Chip didn't want to give him $11M. He certainly wasn't going to give him $12.7M. That's the point.


So did Chip match KC's 11m offer or not? I am getting confused by your statements.

I guess Chip wanted to keep that money in Lurie's pocket more than he wanted Maclin.
xsv
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Oct 29 2015, 03:44 PM) *
Exactly.....He expects Agohlar to pan out.....unfortunately people here expect him to go to the pro bowl this year...

How is that 11 million dollars helping the Chiefs?...Maclin is having a good year on a team about to have their coach fired..


Isn't Reid exactly 1 game behind Kelly in wins in the last 3 years, with the same number of playoff appearances (1) and the same number of playoff wins? (0)

I'm doubtful he's about to get fired.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Oct 29 2015, 03:14 PM) *
So did Chip match KC's 11m offer or not? I am getting confused by your statements.

I guess Chip wanted to keep that money in Lurie's pocket more than he wanted Maclin.

Yes, they did. Begrudgingly according to that article. They shifted money around to try to make it work:
QUOTE
That Sunday, while Maclin was on the golf course, the Eagles called and countered by shifting money from year three of their offer to year two which contrary to Kelly and published reports made it close enough to the same deal Maclin was offered with the Chiefs that Maclin was ready to stay.


You're suggesting they allocated even more money to a position and player they didn't think (rightfully so) warranted it.

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (xsv @ Oct 29 2015, 03:27 PM) *
Isn't Reid exactly 1 game behind Kelly in wins in the last 3 years, with the same number of playoff appearances (1) and the same number of playoff wins? (0)

I'm doubtful he's about to get fired.

The difference is that Reid settled for Alex Smith in an effort to be competitive immediately with extremely limited upside. Chip looked at that same situation with Foles and correctly realized he needs more from the position.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 29 2015, 09:39 PM) *
Yes, they did. Begrudgingly according to that article. They shifted money around to try to make it work:


You're suggesting they allocated even more money to a position and player they didn't think (rightfully so) warranted it.



As I have posted repeatedly, I am saying that if Chip truly wanted Maclin, Chip would have used the franchise tag on him and Maclin would be an Eagle.

Since the tag was available and Chip did not use it the only thing you are left with is that Chip did not want Maclin at the price that the tag would have cost. As I stated in the post last week, that makes Chip penny wise and pound foolish. This team would be better with Maclin on the roster and Lurie's pockets 1.7 mil lighter then the cost under Chip's final offer.
D Rock
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Oct 29 2015, 09:50 PM) *
As I have posted repeatedly, I am saying that if Chip truly wanted Maclin, Chip would have used the franchise tag on him and Maclin would be an Eagle.

Nobody in their right mind wants Maclin at the nearly $13 mil the franchise tag would have cost.

Get over it already.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Oct 29 2015, 03:50 PM) *
As I have posted repeatedly, I am saying that if Chip truly wanted Maclin, Chip would have used the franchise tag on him and Maclin would be an Eagle.

Since the tag was available and Chip did not use it the only thing you are left with is that Chip did not want Maclin at the price that the tag would have cost.

Applying the tag essentially locks Maclin in, which harbors ill will. We've seen it before. Chip expected Maclin to resign at a fair market value. Maclin didn't.

QUOTE
As I stated in the post last week, that makes Chip penny wise and pound foolish. This team would be better with Maclin on the roster and Lurie's pockets 1.7 mil lighter then the cost under Chip's final offer.

Tagging Maclin would have been a short sighted strategy that inevitably would not have ended well. Maclin would have been pissed. He would have played this year with the goal of not getting hurt so he could sign a long term deal elsewhere next year. That's how it goes.

It wasn't an option, especially at $12.8M.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 29 2015, 08:53 PM) *
Nobody in their right mind wants Maclin at the nearly $13 mil the franchise tag would have cost.

Get over it already.


Get over what? I will decide what I want to comment on and you can choose to participate in the conversation or ignore it. Makes no difference to me but I will get "over it", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, when I decide.

WRT to the topic at hand, the team would be better with Maclin at an extra 1.7 mil than without him. Obviously you agree with Chip's penny wise pound foolish approach in this instance.
mcnabbulous
And they'll be better off next year with a 2nd year Agholor than the rookie they would have to inevitably draft when Maclin bolted in free agency.
Phits
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Oct 29 2015, 06:07 PM) *
WRT to the topic at hand, the team would be better with Maclin at an extra 1.7 mil than without him. Obviously you agree with Chip's penny wise pound foolish approach in this instance.

I think its obvious that Maclin would (statistically) help the WR core. He would obviously be the number one option on this team....this season. However, what would happen next season if/when he opts to sign a longer deal somewhere else? Using the tag on a player, who is looking for long term deal with a bunch of guaranteed money ($22M) and big bucks, usually results in ill will between player/team. Besides Maclin wouldn't assure us of additional wins (as noticed in KC). As a matter of fact, 8 out f the top 10 receivers this season are playing for teams with sub .500 records.

The failure on the team, thus far, has been Bradford's slow development (in this system) and the inability to build synergy between QB and receivers. Chip trusted Shurmur's evaluation of Bradford and the 'high pedigree' of the former number one pick. It's part of the risk that you have to take in order to find your franchise QB. We should know in a few weeks whether it's Bradford or not.

Had Bradford been a home run, nobody would be talking about Maclin, the o-line or the (pending) RB controversy. It just goes to show you how important good QB play is.

CT_Eagle
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 29 2015, 08:57 PM) *
Applying the tag essentially locks Maclin in, which harbors ill will. We've seen it before. Chip expected Maclin to resign at a fair market value. Maclin didn't.


Tagging Maclin would have been a short sighted strategy that inevitably would not have ended well. Maclin would have been pissed. He would have played this year with the goal of not getting hurt so he could sign a long term deal elsewhere next year. That's how it goes.

It wasn't an option, especially at $12.8M.


We have also seen the tag used on players with good results. From my perspective, most players that get tagged perform well because they know if they mail it in, their value will be decreased as they attempt to earn the big pay day the following season. I won't waste your time with anectodal examples of it working out and I sure as hell am not going to take the time to list enough examples to provide a sufficient sample size to back up my position. So unless you are willing to take on this task, we will have to chalk this up to a difference of opinion on the effectiveness of using the franchise tag.

With regards to how Maclin would perform after getting tagged, neither you, I nor anyone else knows how it would have ended. Any attempt to predict the result is pure conjecture.

Since my opinion that the franchise tag should of been used on Maclin was to gain a short term benefit that would pay long term dividends, namely Maclin providing leadership and experience during the transition to a new QB and a new young WR corp, I agree with that part your post.

With regards to the tag not being an option, well, as long as it is an option, it is an option and Chip had that option. He chose not to exercise it and I think that was a mistake on his part. Especially since it was only 1.7m more than Chip's offer. Now that 1.7m of cap space is sitting there, unused, collecting dust.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 29 2015, 10:12 PM) *
And they'll be better off next year with a 2nd year Agholor than the rookie they would have to inevitably draft when Maclin bolted in free agency.


We hope they are better but that is just a hope.

Why would they have to draft a rookie after Maclin bolted? With Agholor, Matthews and Huff as your top 3, the only need would be for a #4 or 5. No need to spend a draft pick on that.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (Phits @ Oct 29 2015, 10:28 PM) *
I think its obvious that Maclin would (statistically) help the WR core. He would obviously be the number one option on this team....this season. However, what would happen next season if/when he opts to sign a longer deal somewhere else? Using the tag on a player, who is looking for long term deal with a bunch of guaranteed money ($22M) and big bucks, usually results in ill will between player/team. Besides Maclin wouldn't assure us of additional wins (as noticed in KC). As a matter of fact, 8 out f the top 10 receivers this season are playing for teams with sub .500 records.

The failure on the team, thus far, has been Bradford's slow development (in this system) and the inability to build synergy between QB and receivers. Chip trusted Shurmur's evaluation of Bradford and the 'high pedigree' of the former number one pick. It's part of the risk that you have to take in order to find your franchise QB. We should know in a few weeks whether it's Bradford or not.

Had Bradford been a home run, nobody would be talking about Maclin, the o-line or the (pending) RB controversy. It just goes to show you how important good QB play is.



You posted this as I was responding to McNabbulous. To summarize that post, I would have signed Maclin to give the new QB and WRs a year to work with a vet that has knowledge of the system. After this season the WRs would have to sink or swim on their own. The one year tag of Maclin would just put them in a better position to succeed.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Oct 29 2015, 05:33 PM) *
We hope they are better but that is just a hope.

Why would they have to draft a rookie after Maclin bolted? With Agholor, Matthews and Huff as your top 3, the only need would be for a #4 or 5. No need to spend a draft pick on that.

They wouldn't have drafted Agholor this year had Maclin not left.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 29 2015, 11:51 PM) *
They wouldn't have drafted Agholor this year had Maclin not left.


Says who? Maybe it is out there but I have not seen anything from Chip or another Eagles representative stating such. I would hope that if Chip used the tag on Maclin that he would be smart enough to realize he would still need to draft another threat at WR.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Oct 29 2015, 05:57 PM) *
Says who? Maybe it is out there but I have not seen anything from Chip or another Eagles representative stating such. I would hope that if Chip used the tag on Maclin that he would be smart enough to realize he would still need to draft another threat at WR.

It's entirely hypothetical. Of course no one knows for sure, but using the tag was not an option. It wasn't going to happen.

Maclin is barely worth what he got paid this year. He's not a top-5 receiver. That's what the tags are for.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 29 2015, 11:14 PM) *
It's entirely hypothetical. Of course no one knows for sure, but using the tag was not an option. It wasn't going to happen.

Maclin is barely worth what he got paid this year. He's not a top-5 receiver. That's what the tags are for.


I don't know why you keep saying the tag was not an option. It was an option although not exercised.

I agree that Maclin is not a top 5 in KC and would not be here. His value would have been in providing some stability on the offense for all of the new faces. Running a successful offense with a new QB, WR, 2 RBs and 2 OL is a huge task. I think that Maclin would have helped with that transition and that the 1.7m difference in price would have been worth it. Obviously you join Chip in disagreeing with that approach.
Eyrie
QUOTE (xsv @ Oct 29 2015, 08:27 PM) *
Isn't Reid exactly 1 game behind Kelly in wins in the last 3 years, with the same number of playoff appearances (1) and the same number of playoff wins? (0)

I'm doubtful he's about to get fired.

Agreed, and I'd toss in that Reid has an established track record as a head coach in the NFL.

I'd be very surprised if Kelly is fired at the end of this season, but he's still closer to the door than Reid.
nephillymike
Geez Louise!!

I may have missed it, but did anyone say to use the tag to bring the parties together for a more tenable long term deal?

Maclin realizes that he wants more guaranteed money than the 12.8M, Eagles realize that they want a lower cap hit than the 12.8 and the two meet somewhere in the middle.

Remember Maclin being upset about the Eagles signing everyone else and putting him on the back burner?

His cap hit for this year was $3.4 fucking million.

Do you think we could have squeezed that in?

Do you?

If it was real money you are talking about, his guaranteed money was $22.5M, which is all that matters long term.

Bradford 12.9M guaranteed.
Maxwell 25.0M guaranteed
Murray 21.0M guarnateed
Kendricks 16.1M guaranteed
Graham 13.0M guaranteed

It's FA. Everything is inflated.

If they didn't want to spend too much on WR, they could have not signed Austin and cut Cooper and saved 6.2M to offset Maclin's guarantee or to offset his 12.75 sal and SB.

We're debating whether or not we should have paid a guy who played great for us, dropped one pass all of last year, was a high character guy, and is on pace for 104 catches and 1400 yards with Alex Smith as his QB, to be top dog on a WR corps here that absolutely blows without him.

Go argue that Bradford is great.
Or that Chip is a great GM
Or that Mathis sucks

but man, after all of the "I must solely blame the WR because if I don't blame them I may have to realize that Bradford isn't that good" that has been opined here, you would think just maybe, an obvious miss by Chip would be at least begrudgingly acknowledged. If nothing else, he might make Bradford look like less of a failure.
Phits
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 29 2015, 09:57 PM) *
We're debating whether or not we should have paid a guy who played great for us

No. We're debating how much that guy is worth. $11M is too much for Maclin, especially based on a single season of high performance. That means $12.7M (cost of the franchise tag) is insane.

I'm glad he got his money. He was my favorite Eagles receiver. I wish he was here, but he chose to go on his way. No harm, no foul. He isn't a game breaker and wouldn't assure us of additional wins (KC is 2-5). He isn't irreplaceable.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Phits @ Oct 29 2015, 09:12 PM) *
No. We're debating how much that guy is worth. $11M is too much for Maclin, especially based on a single season of high performance. That means $12.7M (cost of the franchise tag) is insane.

I'm glad he got his money. He was my favorite Eagles receiver. I wish he was here, but he chose to go on his way. No harm, no foul. He isn't a game breaker and wouldn't assure us of additional wins (KC is 2-5). He isn't irreplaceable.



I don't understand the attaching a W-L record to a WR or any non QB position.

Is Mathis having a great year because he is 6-0?

When we're dealing with the ever escalating salary cap, and the way you move money around over years and the huuuge surplus we came in with, it's all funny money.

The risk of NOT paying him the extra $1 or $2M he got above what you considered market value is just too high. We've seen it all year and we will continue to see it. And that 1-2M is below market next year the way it escalates every year.

And compared to the guaranteed money we paid out elsewhere?

It's just like people blaming Dawk or Trot for going elsewhere back in the day despite the shit we brought in to replace them.

I don't get it.

Even if you're a cap fanatic, are you really telling me that you wouldn't rather have Maclin and his 3.4M cap hit versus the net cap hit of 2.25M for Austin? Is he worth 1.2M in net cap on this year to make us better?
Phits
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 29 2015, 10:32 PM) *
I don't understand the attaching a W-L record to a WR or any non QB position.

I don't feel you should attach w/l to any single position. I only brought up the w/l to demonstrate that Maclin's presence on KC has not made them a better team....neither statistically nor in the win/loss column. Based on this fact, there should be no reasonable expectation that we would fare any better with him on our roster.
Eyrie
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 30 2015, 02:32 AM) *
It's just like people blaming Dawk or Trot for going elsewhere back in the day despite the shit we brought in to replace them.

From memory (and we're going back to 2002 here) Trotter wanted way more money than he was offered. However the lowballing of Dawkins was a disgrace, even before we consider that he continued to play at a high level for the Broncos.
mcnabbulous
I can't believe our in-house numbers guy thinks it's a solid precedent to pay guys $2M more than you believe they're worth.

We, according to that article, basically gave him the same offer as KC. He chose KC. You guys should be upset with Maclin. Not Chip.

Good for Mac, he got his. But he wasn't worth any more than that. You don't pay good players special amounts of money. You reserve that for guys like Fletcher Cox.
Zero
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 30 2015, 12:28 PM) *
I can't believe our in-house numbers guy thinks it's a solid precedent to pay guys $2M more than you believe they're worth.

It's a proven, scientific fact that people from the NE have a dangerously high level of nitro glycerine in their green blood. laugh.gif
xsv
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 30 2015, 12:28 PM) *
I can't believe our in-house numbers guy thinks it's a solid precedent to pay guys $2M more than you believe they're worth.

We, according to that article, basically gave him the same offer as KC. He chose KC. You guys should be upset with Maclin. Not Chip.

Good for Mac, he got his. But he wasn't worth any more than that. You don't pay good players special amounts of money. You reserve that for guys like Fletcher Cox.


Out of curiosity, did we use that $2 million?
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (xsv @ Oct 30 2015, 05:54 PM) *
Out of curiosity, did we use that $2 million?


Nope. Sitting there, unused.
xsv
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Oct 30 2015, 02:03 PM) *
Nope. Sitting there, unused.


I don't get people defending saving that $2 million if we're not going to use it.
mcnabbulous
You guys do know/acknowledge that they couldn't just slap the franchise tag on Maclin once it was established that he was going to sign elsewhere?

They had decided 1.5 weeks earlier that they weren't going to tag him (and subsequently pay him like a top-5 WR). They offered him a very reasonable long-term contract. KC upped the ante. We matched. He left.

This wasn't about the Eagles being too cheap to pay him an extra $2M. They didn't apply the tag, which is largely considered an abrasive negotiating technique. Maclin didn't deserve the tag, because it's reserved for guys who are top-5 at their position.

As to whether they spent the money, they subsequently signed Murray, Mathews, and others. They extended Mychals. So I don't know.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 30 2015, 07:50 PM) *
You guys do know/acknowledge that they couldn't just slap the franchise tag on Maclin once it was established that he was going to sign elsewhere?


Lack of foresight by Chip is no excuse.


mcnabbulous
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Oct 30 2015, 02:17 PM) *
Lack of foresight by Chip is no excuse.

I still think you're confused. Chip didn't view Maclin as a top-5 WR. Maclin isn't a top-5 WR. Chip wasn't going to franchise him, regardless of foresight.

Maclin wanted a big contract. He bet on himself (after his second career knee injury). Tagging him would have absolutely caused animosity for those very reasons.

I would think people would understand this by now, because it's very clear. Chip wants guys that want to be in Philly. Guys that buy into his system. Having to tag Maclin to convince him to stay conflicts with that (even if that was an option).

Maclin had every opportunity to stay here, for the same amount of money that KC gave him. He chose to go play for Big Red.



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.