Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: A Stanley Question
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
nephillymike
Apparently he isn't seen as a good fit at OG.

Conklin can play guard.

Peters was the best OL we had last year, despite a drop off.

If he doesn't want to play guard, I can't blame him.

Do you draft Stanley anyway?
Joegrane
How many playoff contenders have two OTs drafted in the top half of the first round?

I say no to an OT at #8.

QUOTE (nephillymike @ Mar 30 2016, 08:14 PM) *
Apparently he isn't seen as a good fit at OG.

Conklin can play guard.

Peters was the best OL we had last year, despite a drop off.

If he doesn't want to play guard, I can't blame him.

Do you draft Stanley anyway?

mcnabbulous
I'm still waiting for someone to point me in the direction of a successful team that spent two high (I'll let you make an arbitrary decision on what that means) draft picks on OL.

It doesn't happen. Good teams draft impact players when presented with the opportunity. OL are usually only impact when they suck.
Eyrie
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Mar 31 2016, 02:14 AM) *
Apparently he isn't seen as a good fit at OG.

Conklin can play guard.

Peters was the best OL we had last year, despite a drop off.

If he doesn't want to play guard, I can't blame him.

Do you draft Stanley anyway?

Would you get a second for Peters? If so, then it's a possibility.
Joegrane
An interesting thought, however, Chip is gone.

My impression is that Howie and J Lurie would prefer to keep their home-grown talent. The extension of B Celek at a very generous price is an example. How much more so does that apply to a likely Hall of Famer?

Don't you think a 2nd is high for an aging veteran with recent injuries and big contract? Only a playoff-caliber team that suffered an unexpected devastating injury at L OT would do such a thing and few of them would have the cap space to do it.

QUOTE (Eyrie @ Mar 31 2016, 02:01 PM) *
Would you get a second for Peters? If so, then it's a possibility.
Eyrie
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Mar 31 2016, 10:22 PM) *
An interesting thought, however, Chip is gone.

My impression is that Howie and J Lurie would prefer to keep their home-grown talent. The extension of B Celek at a very generous price is an example. How much more so does that apply to a likely Hall of Famer?

Don't you think a 2nd is high for an aging veteran with recent injuries and big contract? Only a playoff-caliber team that suffered an unexpected devastating injury at L OT would do such a thing and few of them would have the cap space to do it.

We know Peters will need to be replaced in a couple of years, but it's the recent injuries that mean I'd be open to trading him for the right offer. A straight second would do it for me because I think that another team will be willing to take the chance that he's got two or three good years left. I'd keep him if offered anything less.

It's a fair point though that this year has been a deliberate step back from Kelly's cold blooded approach to personnel, so even a trade that would normally make sense is going to be off the agenda.
Zero
Ian Rapoport ✔ ‎@RapSheet
Offensive lineman Stefen Wisniewski, who recently visited the #Steelers, was with the #Eagles today, source said.
4:55 PM - 31 Mar 2016
Linc ...
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 1 2016, 05:08 AM) *
Ian Rapoport ✔ ‎@RapSheet
Offensive lineman Stefen Wisniewski, who recently visited the #Steelers, was with the #Eagles today, source said.
4:55 PM - 31 Mar 2016
Linc ...

Would be a real nice depth signing. Could also start, to be honest.
GroundedBird
I keep going back and forth about who I would pick if they fell to the Eagles.

I figured that Stanley, Elliott and Buckner would be there at #8.

I think it all hinges on the health of Jason Peters.

If he is good then I want Elliott and I'll look to get a guard to fill out the line (Westerman, Garnett may be there in the third).

If he is not then it's Stanley.

I feel Buckner *could* become a real star in this league but I think we have other needs.

Regardless of what happens above, I want Connor McGovern in the third. I think he's a key for us. He could move into a starting OG or RT in the very near future.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (GroundedBird @ Apr 1 2016, 12:00 PM) *
I feel Buckner *could* become a real star in this league but I think we have other needs.

Why do you think needs matter? If we're drafting for needs, we're definitely doing it wrong. Especially at #8.

Give me Hargreaves.
GroundedBird
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 1 2016, 02:00 PM) *
Why do you think needs matter? If we're drafting for needs, we're definitely doing it wrong. Especially at #8.

Give me Hargreaves.


I would love to do BPA.

I think if everything is serviceable then BPA is a good strategy. I think we need to address RG and if they do that outside of the draft then, by all means, do BPA.

If they have a choice between Elliott and Hargreaves, then the BPA (by most sites I've seen) is Elliott
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (GroundedBird @ Apr 2 2016, 08:40 AM) *
I would love to do BPA.

I think if everything is serviceable then BPA is a good strategy. I think we need to address RG and if they do that outside of the draft then, by all means, do BPA.

If they have a choice between Elliott and Hargreaves, then the BPA (by most sites I've seen) is Elliott

Wait, you think we should address OG at #8 if we don't do so before then?

BPA is kind of skewed. It should be a balance between the best players at the most important positions. RB simply isn't one of those.
GroundedBird
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 2 2016, 10:20 AM) *
Wait, you think we should address OG at #8 if we don't do so before then?

BPA is kind of skewed. It should be a balance between the best players at the most important positions. RB simply isn't one of those.


Not quite. I'm asserting that I think that we need to address LG before the season. It doesn't have to be done at the draft, I think that it should be done before training camp. The draft is just one of the tools to address that.

I'm hoping that there's a plan to address and upgrade the LG. (I hope that there's some discussion going on to address that.)

I think that LG is the biggest issue going into the season. In fact, I think the season might hedge on how we handle that.
Zero
QUOTE (GroundedBird @ Apr 2 2016, 10:51 AM) *
I think that LG is the biggest issue going into the season. In fact, I think the season might hedge on how we handle that.

My biggest concern is RB. Sproles is getting on and Mathews is injury prone.
Phits
My biggest concern is RB QB. Sproles is getting on Daniels is an unknown and Bradford is injury prone.
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 2 2016, 12:24 PM) *
My biggest concern is RB. Sproles is getting on and Mathews is injury prone.

To Sproles credit, every time a team has written him off, he's bounced back and proved them wrong. At 32+ he's got a longer road behind him, than in front of him. However, he's not an every down back. The bulk of the load will go to (a healthy) Mathews and Barner can back him up, with Sproles being a situational rusher/receiver.
Zero
QUOTE (Phits @ Apr 2 2016, 12:52 PM) *
My biggest concern is RB QB. Sproles is getting on Daniels is an unknown and Bradford is injury prone.
To Sproles credit, every time a team has written him off, he's bounced back and proved them wrong. At 32+ he's got a longer road behind him, than in front of him. However, he's not an every down back. The bulk of the load will go to (a healthy) Mathews and Barner can back him up, with Sproles being a situational rusher/receiver.
I'm not real sold on Barner and the odds for Sproles' getting dinged increase every year. Not writing him off, it's more about insurance. We need to draft a capable back, just not in round 1.
Eyrie
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 2 2016, 05:56 PM) *
I'm not real sold on Barner and the odds for Sproles' getting dinged increase every year. Not writing him off, it's more about insurance. We need to draft a capable back, just not in round 1.

My lack of confidence in Barner is why I'd consider a RB as early as round three, although we have other needs to address.
HobbEs
I just saw that Wisnewski will be signed. That doesn't bode well for anyone hoping to draft OL at 8 (although stranger things have happened). I think it's looking more like one of Goff/Wentz, Hargreaves or Elliott.
Zero
Here's the story.

I like this signing. He competes for LG and is a backup to Kelce. Developmental OL later in the draft? Hargreaves or Zeke at 8 ... I'm beginning to doubt that a QB will fall. Unless they decide to change gears and move down to take Lynch and grab a #2 and another #3 ... 18 or somewhere?
GroundedBird
I like the signing... question... did anyone watch him? Saw this quote "He didnít give up a sack in the first nine games but has seemingly hit a wall down the stretch and has had several bad shotgun snaps". Any idea what that meant by "hit a wall"?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (GroundedBird @ Apr 4 2016, 08:58 AM) *
I like the signing... question... did anyone watch him? Saw this quote "He didnít give up a sack in the first nine games but has seemingly hit a wall down the stretch and has had several bad shotgun snaps". Any idea what that meant by "hit a wall"?

Haven't watched him since his time at PSU, but he was rock solid and fundamentally sound.

My guess is that playing C in Jax, which has all sorts of responsibilities, took its toll. I would bet he plays better at guard, which is an easier position.
Eyrie
QUOTE (HobbEs @ Apr 4 2016, 02:17 PM) *
I just saw that Wisnewski will be signed. That doesn't bode well for anyone hoping to draft OL at 8 (although stranger things have happened). I think it's looking more like one of Goff/Wentz, Hargreaves or Elliott.

Wisniewski is only a one year rent for now and can be 2016 depth at C so we could still take a T at #8.
mcnabbulous
I just don't understand how anyone would be happy about taking a RT with the #8 pick in the draft.

I'll be shocked if we draft Stanley. Absolutely shocked.
Eyrie
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 4 2016, 07:40 PM) *
I just don't understand how anyone would be happy about taking a RT with the #8 pick in the draft.

I'll be shocked if we draft Stanley. Absolutely shocked.

Peters isn't going to last forever, so taking a T at #8 would set the OL for years. The only question would be whether Johnson moves to LT or stays put.

I've already floated the idea of trading Peters if we do take a T that early.
GroundedBird
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Apr 4 2016, 06:28 PM) *
Peters isn't going to last forever, so taking a T at #8 would set the OL for years. The only question would be whether Johnson moves to LT or stays put.

I've already floated the idea of trading Peters if we do take a T that early.


That would be a good solution. Not a popular one, though.
nephillymike
LOVE this signing.

I went to Don Howie a few weeks ago at his daughter's wedding asking for this favor.

Great job by Howie, Pedey and the boys.

This guy is comparable to Kelce, and besides being able to play OG he has been a C for most of his career. I love the depth at C too, because it's been a while since any Eagle OL was as bad as Kelce last year. This signing also puts him on notice that if his play doesn't improve, his replacement is to his left. I think Kecle had too much on his plate with the shit he played next to, but maybe he isn't all of that. Nothing wrong with insurance.

He's the same age as Kelce and he can play at solid starter level.

Can't ask for anything more.

Cross off OG as an immediate need.

They've done a great job of filling needs through FA so they can draft BPA. My only Fa gripe is lack of a solid #2 WR, but they did sign two guys to compete so maybe that will work out.

Also, if they go Stanley as BPA if they think so, he can sit and learn in year 1.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 4 2016, 08:14 PM) *
LOVE this signing.

Cross off OG as an immediate need.

They've done a great job of filling needs through FA so they can draft BPA. My only Fa gripe is lack of a solid #2 WR, but they did sign two guys to compete so maybe that will work out.

Also, if they go Stanley as BPA if they think so, he can sit and learn in year 1.


2 things....if Randle was a solid if not spectacular #2 in NY why do you think he won't be here?

Doesn't anyone get a little scared that Stanley is not SHawn Andrews part 2? I am a little scared about the whispers of his dedication to playing and his "love" or lack thereof about football..
Zero
I've been hearing that Stanley is dropping due to perceived laziness. Apparently Conklin is rising because of his toughness.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Apr 4 2016, 05:28 PM) *
Peters isn't going to last forever, so taking a T at #8 would set the OL for years. The only question would be whether Johnson moves to LT or stays put.

I've already floated the idea of trading Peters if we do take a T that early.

Setting the OL (specifically OT) has never been that difficult for us. I just don't understand why people are so stressed about it. We will figure out how to fill RT. It's really not nearly as important a position or as difficult to fill as people suggest.

The Panthers were starting a journeyman, former UDFA and the Broncos a third round pick. That's where we should be looking. Not the top-10, again.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 4 2016, 07:27 PM) *
2 things....if Randle was a solid if not spectacular #2 in NY why do you think he won't be here?

Doesn't anyone get a little scared that Stanley is not SHawn Andrews part 2? I am a little scared about the whispers of his dedication to playing and his "love" or lack thereof about football..


Not a big Stanley fan. If I was wanting to go OT, I think I move down and get Conklin, assuming Tunsil is gone.

They did not like Randle in NYC. Said he ran wrong patterns, lazy patterns ans was responsible for more than a few INT's.

Truth be told, if he is an average #3, he improves our WR corps. I preferred better. Maybe he'll work out.

I wanted M. Jones. He was expensive.

Maybe we can trade down to get a 2nd and pick the 2nd best WR (Coleman) in mid to late teens.

We'll see.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 4 2016, 08:34 PM) *
Not a big Stanley fan. If I was wanting to go OT, I think I move down and get Conklin, assuming Tunsil is gone.

They did not like Randle in NYC. Said he ran wrong patterns, lazy patterns ans was responsible for more than a few INT's.

Truth be told, if he is an average #3, he improves our WR corps. I preferred better. Maybe he'll work out.

I wanted M. Jones. He was expensive.

Maybe we can trade down to get a 2nd and pick the 2nd best WR (Coleman) in mid to late teens.

We'll see.


I don't get the Randle beef in NY.....watching his highlight film he made a hell of a lot of catches that Eli under threw or threw poorly...they can't all be Randle's fault...there were rumors that he and Eli did not get along...
Zero
It's going to be interesting to see how the new coaches do with these players. I think the coaching changes haven't been given the attention they deserve. There's continuity on the offense with position coaches Stoutland, Staley and Peelle retained. Bicknell never got the WRs to produce, hopefully GLew will.

They identified QB as the key and hired a QB HC and QB OC in addition to a QB coach and an assistant QB coach. They hired a proven DC and kept a successful ST coach.

The defense should improve to be at least a dependable defense by the end of the season but I think the success of the offense hinges on the WRs (and the acquisition of another RB). GLew needs to get Agholor, Huff and Randle to produce up to their abilities.
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.