Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
*Official 2016 Philadelphia Eagles* - The year of Change (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Deamon
- Start date
Kwai Chang Caine
Footballguy
I get that my post comes off as "hate" for Kelly--and make no mistake, the bum is scorched earth to me. But I feel even with Mariotta, this team would have failed. His system (unless he changes) will always be a detriment to the entire D and seems to have really taken a toll on grown men especially at the heavier weights of O-line. Add in the fact he's clearly out of his depth with drafting and negotiating, the character and interpersonal relationship flaws he's displayed--this team was going to fail with or without a start QB.
Maybe Chip will learn from this in a new setting but clearly it couldn't happen if he retained his position here. Time will tell. Personally, I just don't think his methods work with grown up, professional men and he belongs either in college or a reform school coaching.
Polish Hammer
made of glass
That is a pretty weak answer. They have built their teams over time by typically not trading away the future and identifying talent. FA acquisitions by them are very strategic. Heck, I will throw PIT into the mix as well. They build primarily through the draft and don't mortgage away the future.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
I don't know that it is. It is a lot easier for those teams and Pittsburgh to work when they have great qbs as a bedrock. If Wilson did not work out, where would Seattle be? Probably Minnesota.
Ash
Footballguy
That's not that much really to move up as far as we would have. Titans would have been moving from their spot into the 20s for a 2nd, another first, Bradford and Cox. I wouldn't have taken it.
If that's all Kelly offered I'm surprised, really.
Ash
Footballguy
Decisions are easy to make after the fact. Evaluating them that way ignores the risk element that has to form part of the equation.
Donny Loved Bowling
Footballguy
LBL gets my point. Quarterback is a different position than any other on the team both in terms of impact and scarcity. I wouldn't mortgage the future to get a shutdown corner or playmaking WR. But QB is worth it, and if you have a great one it makes every other personnel decision easier. IMO, the sustained success of the teams mentioned above is more attributable to their acquisition and development of a top quarterback, and not necessarily their shrewd draft management. Teams that have been fortunate enough to land franchise passers without paying a king's ransom have a distinct advantage over other teams. Teams without such an advantage will usually pay the price one way or another.Long Ball Larry said:
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm a little confused by this. You say mortgaging the future to get a franchise QB is worth it. Then you go on to insinuate that teams that have been fortunate enough to land franchise QB's without paying a ton have the advantage and we should shoot to be one of those.
Of course teams that luck out and get a franchise QB without giving up picks are successful. How to become one of those teams is what we're all discussing here. If we give up the future (A top OL/Defensive player + 3rd... maybe more) in order to get a QB that doesn't turn out to be good, then we have totally mortgaged our future
Donny Loved Bowling
Footballguy
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not talking about the Eagles becoming one of those teams. It's nearly impossible to manufacture that kind of luck. Of course that is the preferred method to land a franchise QB. But in the absence of such an unexpected windfall, I do support using future draft assets to acquire such a player.
(Incidentally, I think the best way to get lucky on a QB is to draft one every year, in the middle to late rounds, assuming that there are decent prospects available. Need aside, it seems like the best draft commodity to invest in, considering the potential reward.)
Ya if it's nearly impossible to have that kind of luck, I don't think we should be giving up valuable picks to take a shot one one of the QBs. It's also hard to actually see how good a player can be and develop him, when he's not getting gametime... heck, even practice time. Any QB the Eagles draft this year will be 3rd on the depth chart and be slower to develop then most of these other QBs who turn into franchise ones. Not remotely worth losing out on a guy like Stanley and a 3rd round CB and maybe even another pick in order to try to get lucky this year.
Polish Hammer
made of glass
Can anyone provide some examples of teams giving up a treasure trove of picks and players to move up high in the draft, use that pick to get a QB, and then have sustained success?
I know Eli was acquired but that was after the fact of him being picked and then holding SD hostage. RGIII was traded for and he had one good year. (To be fair, injury robbed him of some of his elite athleticism, but I feel like the league was catching up with his run option success.) What else am I missing?
I know Eli was acquired but that was after the fact of him being picked and then holding SD hostage. RGIII was traded for and he had one good year. (To be fair, injury robbed him of some of his elite athleticism, but I feel like the league was catching up with his run option success.) What else am I missing?
Now, if a QB falls into our laps then it could work out because:
1: We don't have to give up good picks to move up
2: Likely the top 8 other guys are all gone and it's not as big of a player we are missing out on. If Hargraeves and Wentz are both on the board at 8, I'm cool with Wentz.
1: We don't have to give up good picks to move up
2: Likely the top 8 other guys are all gone and it's not as big of a player we are missing out on. If Hargraeves and Wentz are both on the board at 8, I'm cool with Wentz.
Ash
Footballguy
I agree with your basic point about the scarcity and value of QBs, but player success is so hard to predict that a big investment of draft picks in a single player is a a big dice roll. And I say that deliberately, unless the personnel dept has a strong history of selecting and developing QBs the investment is as likely to bust as pay off. If it fails, it takes the team years to recover.
Donny Loved Bowling
Footballguy
Again I feel I need to clarify my position. I do not believe any of the top QBs in this draft are worth trading up to get. I would prefer the Eagles sit at 8 and take the best player available. I would have been in favor of Chip making the much-maligned Titans trade that was supposedly on the table.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
I don't think it's really happened, but I also think that is a function of the teams in the position of holding that pick not being willing to forego a "sure thing" QB. No one was going to give up the chance to draft Luck. I don't know that it's impossible that in a different situation, Griffin couldn't have succeeded and that one might have worked out. I think that we are talking about very rare and unpredictable situations anyway, that each needs to be judged on its own merits.
What are the chances that the QB in question is a "franchise guy"? Based on that, then what is it worth giving up? If you could get an Andrew Luck, it would be worth a king's ransom. But those players are totally unique, so it is difficult to figure out a heuristic to use. If one believes that Mariota and/or Mariota+Kelly could be the "franchise QB", then it probably makes sense to give up a boatload. If one believes that there is no way to come close to the certainty/probability needed to know that he is a franchise guy before the fact, then making that deal will probably never make sense.
Polish Hammer
made of glass
Good and reasonable points. I really wonder how Mariota+Kelly would have worked out. Was Mularkey named the HC in TEN before Kelly was let go? If not, that is a very interesting non-hire. Looking at that trade as proposed would have meant giving this up:
- Sam Bradford (which really means a 2016 2nd and Foles)
- 2015 1st
- 2015 2nd
- 2016 1st
- Any Defensive player - so likely Fletcher Cox.
Would results have been dramatically different from last year with Mariota instead of Bradford? I tend to think maybe by a win or two. But really, the team had dysfunction in many ways...many brought on by Chip. My guess is that he wouldn't have lasted much past this season even if he hadn't been let go after 2015. And then we'd be in a similar boat but with less oars to paddle it, but admittedly with one less question mark at QB. Personally, I'd rather have more chances to swing for a complete team and not give up so much. If you have faith in your ability to draft and develop players (which if you don't have that, you should address that first anyway) that's the way to build it for the long haul.
I'm not saying it would end up like this, but I want to give us every opportunity to succeed on many fronts for a longer period of time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Donny Loved Bowling
Footballguy
Fair assessment, but you should balance the equation by adding the large amount of available cap space that would result from dealing Bradford, and not preparing to commit to Cox.
Polish Hammer
made of glass
That is a fair point. You'd have to hope that the FA talent you'd have to sign to offset the loss of 2 1sts and a 2nd would come in at no more than those savings you generated by moving them away. (And that we identify FA talent better than we did when we spent the money on Murray, Maxwell, Nnamdi, etc.)
Deranged Hermit
Not cool & Pissed
Not knowing who they get this year obviously, but knowing what we know thus far, I take Mariota in a heartbeat.
I love to keep Cox, but defensive players can be had all the time, you just have to pony up the $$$ for them. You VERY rarely see a stud QB hit FA. Almost never happens.
Ash
Footballguy
You can't use the 2nd rounder AND Bradford in the mix when evaluating that trade. Otherwise you're tracing every trade back to what it costed you in the past.
Cox was cheap and good for 2 years. 2 years of them being still a really bad team and then they'd have to battle to pay him a ton. He was likely worth a 2nd rounder at THAT point in his career based on what he had done before last year. So to reiterate:
Bradford (or a 2nd, whatever you prefer)
2nd Rounder (Cox value)
2016 1st (has the same value as a 2015 2nd)
2015 2nd.
Pretty much it would have been giving up the value of FOUR 2015 2nd rounders in order to move up from 20 to 2. That is NOT a lot based on market value. I'm happy we didn't do it, but saying how stupid of an offer it was is silly. That is a LONG ways to move up.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
I was going to mention that, but I wasn't sure if he was insinuating that the move for Bradford was really just the first part of trying to trade for Mariota, which I think some in the media suggested at the time (though who knows if this was ever corroborated by anyone).
Polish Hammer
made of glass
I included it because the transactions would have been so close to one another that you would have almost had to consider them linked if they had come through. I am pretty sure if the Mariota trade occurred it would be presented that way in the media.Long Ball Larry said:
So if they were linked, then it would mean we only took Bradford to trade him and that overall with all that, we lost a 2nd rounder. Again, it works out to approximately 4 2015 2nd rounders to move up from 20 to 2. Pretty much what market value would be for that big of a move. I don't think anyone can be either ecstatic or furious that the trade didn't happen. Seemed like a fair offer that didn't go through, let's focus on what we've got now.
Polish Hammer
made of glass
And we lost Foles, so either way you have to count a starting QB in the trade cost. (Just being a PITA nit-picker here.)
Polish Hammer
made of glass
modogg
Footballguy
i think looking at RB, the Eagles would be better passing on Zeke. I don't know enough about Barner prior to this year, but he seemed to be a good back when given opportunity. I think Mathews is good for 15 carries a game, and i am sure there is a back or two that would be suitable as a change of pace or back-up. I don't know if Foster will be healthy enough to play this year, or how he will be coming back from his injury, but i assume he would be relatively cheap and the Eagles could wait for him to get healthy.
Unless Pederson is going to really change the offense, it just doesn't seem to be something they should waste such a high pick on. I am beginning to think that this pick would be the only pick that i may be disapointed in (of course then i watch film with Zeke and realize that it really wouldn't be that bad)
Unless Pederson is going to really change the offense, it just doesn't seem to be something they should waste such a high pick on. I am beginning to think that this pick would be the only pick that i may be disapointed in (of course then i watch film with Zeke and realize that it really wouldn't be that bad)
Agree on everyone but Hargreaves. He will still be there. Still hoping for the improbable that Stanley, Bosa, or Jack is going to somehow land to us.
Bigboy10182000
Footballguy
With the way the NFL is now we could probably land one of the best ones in the draft if needed
Titans drafted the best one last year, Jalston Fowler, in the 4th round. They can usually be had later.
They also had a top 5 FB in Connor Neighbors. Someone nicknamed him tank and I just had to look for him after that. I loved this guy. He was like built in the 1970s and thrown into today's game. Unusually wide frame, very stocky, probably eats nails as a hobby.
He fractured his arm a couple weeks into camp and wanted to play through it but that's not allowed. Titans wanted to keep him. They did not offer him the usual injury settlement. In December (after barely using Fowler) the statement was they agreed to mutually part ways and he was waived.
IMO he is the top FB for a team to sign. Skip wasting a draft pick.
The NFL messed up the FB position by going to better athletes and all these dump passes to them. The classic way is the best way. Script some run plays where he nails someone with his hard hat and leave it be.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
Chip really does seem to have a strange sense of how to work with other people and handle group dynamics.
Insein
Footballguy
I just read the story. So Chips assertion is that:
A) He actually didn't have final say on roster moves and wasn't GM.
B) Howie gave all the money to those players.
And listening to the radio, the Howie haters are back, lol. Doesn't take much. They actually believe he orchestrated a plan to pay too much for players he didn't bring in and therefore make Kelly look bad and get fired. The off season is better ( or worse) than reality TV.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
There was a crazy caller on Sundaywith Macnow and G Cobb he was way down on Howie. Macnow asked him if he disagreed with any of Howie's moves this offseason. The caller said "No . . . but any caller to WIP could have made those moves". Both hosts were kind of stunned for a moment I think. Unbelievable comment and just someone whose commentary you know you can completely disregard.
So Chips assertion is that:
A) He actually didn't have final say on roster moves and wasn't GM.
B) Howie gave all the money to those players.
And listening to the radio, the Howie haters are back, lol. Doesn't take much. They actually believe he orchestrated a plan to pay too much for players he didn't bring in and therefore make Kelly look bad and get fired. The off season is better ( or worse) than reality TV.
Like the people whose response when challenged about an assertion is "well, you never know."
Ok, then
Last edited by a moderator:
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
doesn't seem like a bad idea.
modogg
Footballguy
from now until the draft is probably one of the worst times to follow sport media. Who the hell knows what are smoke screens and what is what:
from rotoworld:
One NFC executive said "Don't be surprised if a team like the Eagles makes a really strong move up the board" for North Dakota State QB Carson Wentz.
The Eagles made the Titans a huge offer last year in an effort to trade up for Marcus Mariota. That made sense given Chip Kelly's ties to Oregon. This does not. It would be a total head scratcher for Philadelphia to pursue Wentz after investing $57 million in Sam Bradford and Chase Daniel earlier this offseason. To land Wentz, the Eagles would probably have to leapfrog either the Browns or 49ers, who are both looking for new starting quarterbacks. Philadelphia acquired the No. 8 pick in the draft in a trade with Miami earlier this month. GM Howie Roseman has made plenty of bold moves this offseason but trading up for Wentz would top them all.
from rotoworld:
One NFC executive said "Don't be surprised if a team like the Eagles makes a really strong move up the board" for North Dakota State QB Carson Wentz.
The Eagles made the Titans a huge offer last year in an effort to trade up for Marcus Mariota. That made sense given Chip Kelly's ties to Oregon. This does not. It would be a total head scratcher for Philadelphia to pursue Wentz after investing $57 million in Sam Bradford and Chase Daniel earlier this offseason. To land Wentz, the Eagles would probably have to leapfrog either the Browns or 49ers, who are both looking for new starting quarterbacks. Philadelphia acquired the No. 8 pick in the draft in a trade with Miami earlier this month. GM Howie Roseman has made plenty of bold moves this offseason but trading up for Wentz would top them all.
modogg
Footballguy
i like that the report is coming from an "NFC exec". i get that rotoworld has to report news, but would it really make sense for a random NFC executive to report without any hidden agenda or intentions?
Insein
Footballguy
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
that's what I was thinking, but seems worth it to try. Less than we gave Steve smith like 5 years ago, I think.
babydemon90
Footballguy
I like the signing. Randle/Givens may not be the greatest WR signings, but I'm impressed we actually went out and got a couple. Sounds like this may be the end to Huff, yet I hope he sticks around. I actually don't hate our receiving corps now. JMatt, Nelson, Ertz can be a solid base and hopefully one of Randle/Givens/Huff can develop into a good 400 yard 4th receiving option.
