To Plax, Or Not To Plax

Posted: April 3rd, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Philadelphia Eagles | 95 Comments »

WR Plaxico Burress has stated openly that he’d like to be an Eagle.  He’s flirted with other teams, but that was just casual “Hi sailor, what’s your name?” talk.  We’re serious marriage material.

And I think the Eagles have interest in Plax.  I think Andy Reid knows we need to add another big receiver to the mix.  Riley Cooper still hasn’t come close to his potential, but we don’t know if that will ever happen so counting on him isn’t the best solution.

The problem here is simple.  On the Andy Reid burger scale, Plax thinks he’s closer to a Kobe burger when the Eagles see him more as a Whopper.  Plax doesn’t expect to start in 2012, but he expects to be well compensated.  The Eagles aren’t looking to pay him big bucks for a specialty role.

Yesterday the Eagles worked out WR Michael Floyd.  What do we make of this?  Is it legit interest?  Is this the Eagles way of sending a message to Plax and his agent…there are other fish in the sea, big fella.  And they’re younger and cheaper.

I’ve written plenty of times that taking a WR at 15 would not be an option for me.  The Eagles may feel differently.  I sure hope not, but it is possible.

We’re now getting to an interesting point.  FA and the draft really work hand in hand from here on in.  Do we sign Plax or some other vet WR with size?  Or do we target someone in the draft?  The important Pro Days are basically over.  The Eagles draft board should be set and they should have an idea of who will go where.  This allows them to formulate different draft plans.

I’m sure they’ll do one plan with a WR taken early (possibly even the 1st round).  Another scenario will leave out an early WR.  The team has to figure out which scenario they like better.  If they would rather pass on the WR, then you start negotiating with Plax.

Based on Reid’s comments at the Owners Meetings, it does not sound like the Eagles are going to be caving in to Plax’s demands any time soon.  That means WR is at play early in the draft.  My preference is 2nd or 3rd round.  We’ll have to see how that goes.

One sidebar to this is to figure out what type of receiver the team is looking for.  I assume they want a tall guy, but that is strictly a guess.  Marvin Jones is just under 6-2, but he is 199 pounds and he can be physical.  Could he be a target?  Think about Kendall Wright.  He’s only 5-11, but is 198 and had 14 TDs this year.  Some were big plays, but more than a couple came in the Red Zone.  I would prefer a 6-2 or 6-3 WR, but really the key is strength and physicality.  Riley Cooper and Hank Baskett didn’t lack size, but neither guy was/is special in the Red Zone. They don’t consistently play to their size.

I think I mentioned this the other day, but the Eagles could look at this another way.  They could go for a TE.  We don’t need one right now, but this isn’t about need.  The point here is adding another big/physical receiver to the mix to help in the Red Zone.

The Eagles worked out Georgia’s Orson Charles recently.  Personally, I’d not be a fan of taking him.  He’s short at about 6-2 and isn’t what I think the team needs.  He had 45 catches and 5 TDs in 2011.  Dwayne Allen from Clemson would be better.  He is taller, has longer arms, and had a better VJ.  Allen is very good at going up for the ball and has terrific hands.  He caught 50 passes in 2011, 8 for TDs.

The optimal choice here would be Coby Fleener from Stanford.  He is 6-6.  He caught 34 passes in 2011, 10 of them were TDs.  I think you need to watch him in action to appreciate some of the stuff he does.

Video 1 – Fleener vs VT, ND

Video 2 – career highlights

Maybe Plax lowers his price and we sign him.  Maybe we draft a big WR.  Maybe we draft a physical WR.  Maybe we go for a TE.  Just please don’t take one at 15.

* * * * *

LT Demetrius Bell is scheduled to visit the Packers this week.  He is looking for someone desperate enough to give in to his demands.  Buffalo needs LT help and isn’t caving in.  We need LT help and aren’t caving in.  Bell must be one heck of a poker player.  He is essentially calling everyone’s bluff.  Only problem…I’m not sure teams are bluffing.  Teams aren’t trying to get him cheap to save money.  They just don’t think he’s that good.

Bell can win this if he holds off til August and some team is really desperate, but he could also lose if the OTs around the league stay healthy.  At some point, he needs to figure out the best option and take it.

I’m biased, but I think playing for the Eagles would be the wise move.  He’d be starting at LT on a high-powered offense.  He’d play in plenty of prime time games.  That means coaches and GMs would have a chance to watch him a lot and figure out if they liked him as a target for 2013.  Bell only started 6 games last year.  The tape isn’t great.  Teams don’t know what to think.  Bell also should factor in that Howard Mudd can have a huge impact on your career.  Did we have Evan Mathis talk to Bell on his visit here?  If not…why?  He should be the best “Come to Philly” ad we have for FAs.

* * * * *

NFL Gimpy wrote some interesting stuff for MAQB.  He talked about the legal side of Bountygate and if the Rooney Rule is still a valid concept.

95 Comments on “To Plax, Or Not To Plax”

  1. 1 shahrod hemassi said at 11:51 AM on April 3rd, 2012:

    hey tommy….would there be any chance that the vikings would trade down from #3 for our #15 plus jason peters? they would take the risk on peters but it’s a decent move on their part. we could also add a conditional 2013 pick that would vary between the 2nd & 4th round depending on if/when Peters returns and how he performs. the eagles could then take Matt Kalil as their LT with the third pick. if the vikings would do that, should the eagles do it?

    personally, i think this would be my #1 preference to explore. my #2 preference would be to take fletcher cox at #15 if he’s available and hope that mudd can do a patch job at LT until peters can return off the PUP. my #3 preference would be to trade down a few picks and take DeCastro or Glenn and plug him at LG and try Mathis at LT.

  2. 2 Eric Weaver said at 11:58 AM on April 3rd, 2012:

    What?! Why would anyone want Peters at this stage?

  3. 3 TommyLawlor said at 12:14 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Interesting idea, but highly unlikely. The Vikings are a young team trying to build. As good as Jason is, he’s not young. Vikings need to think long term. Kalil is the way to go for them.

  4. 4 Ben Aven said at 12:03 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    I’m curious. Since strength and physicality is the real key to being a strong target in the red zone, why isn’t Avant more productive inside the 20?

  5. 5 TommyLawlor said at 12:17 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    I think part of it is our QB play, but I’m not sure what the whole story is. Jason should be a better RZ target than he is. Would be interesting to see him play with a Brady type and find out if he could be a 5 to 6 TDs a year guy. Some QBs excel with slot guys. Brady is deadly with Welker, Branch.

  6. 6 Steve H said at 12:19 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    It’s hard not to like the idea of having Plax after all those years of him killing us.

  7. 7 Mac said at 2:39 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    I agree 100% and did you see his production as a Jet? The dude can still play flat out, great backup for injuries and RZ threat in my opinion. I hope the Birds get this deal done.

  8. 8 D3Keith said at 6:33 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    I would really like Plax too, because he wants to be here, because he fills a need and a role and would seem to understand that role, and because he would be humbled (after jail time) and motivated (by playing with Vick, against the Giants, to prove he still has it at 35).

    However, the Eagles are pretty clear that if they don’t get Plax, it’s not the end of the world. And for the type of player you can afford to lose (I think they’re playing this game with Landri too), you don’t break the bank before the draft. If you draft a high-round stud that does some of those same things, then you don’t need to add the vet. If your draft goes another way, you call the vet.

    If Plax is desperate enough to be an Eagle, he’ll sign a low, team-friendly, perhaps incentive-heavy deal before draft day. If not, the only chance he’ll be an Eagle is if we pass on Sanu and all those guys we have a shot on later.

    I can see why we as a team would want him, but also wouldn’t want to guarantee him a roster spot if it comes at the expense of a younger player. Sometimes you *can* have too many toys.

  9. 9 Skeptic_Eagle said at 12:33 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Marvin Jones is a fantastic route-runner that catches anything close to him. I think he has to go in the 2nd round. Not sure I want to invest a pick there, given all the other needs, but he’s a legit 2nd round talent. I think he’s a prototype #2 receiver that is going to make some fans early.

    Alshon Jeffery will probably be hanging around to be had. He looks more like 2010 than 2011, but can a team count on him to maintain that level of fitness and dedication, or has it been a marketing push for his draft stock?

    Do you have any thoughts on J. Criner (Arizona), M. McNutt (Iowa), L. Lewis (ECU), or D. Jones (UNC) as later redzone specialists/developmental WRs?

    The other piece of this puzzle is the QB and playcalling. For redzone playcalling, the shovel screen to the RB was replaced by the shovel screen to the TE as the most effective play. It would be nice to see some more traditional designed plays executed really well, like Aaron Rodgers throwing that back-shoulder fade that GB is so fond of, and less smoke and mirrors misdirection, ultimately anticipated and countered. Not much you can do to “figure out” what DET does in the redzone, they have their QB throw it up to their best player.

    Sometimes it seemed Jeremy Maclin finding a soft spot in a zone while Vick ran around during a broken play was our best redzone strategy. I don’t think you’re going to have long term success like that, and certainly not against a team with the passrush of the the 49ers or Giants. Mike Vick 2.0 can’t beat those odds.

  10. 10 TommyLawlor said at 1:12 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    I don’t trust Jeffrey. Not sure what Eagles think.

    Criner is 4th/5th Rd type. Can make spectacular catches, but lacks speed.
    McNutt is big, talented, but struggled vs good CBs. Not a good sign.
    Lewis – still working on him.
    Jones – talented player in the 4th round area. Character issues.

    Another late round, big slot guy would be Gerrel Robinson.

  11. 11 D3FB said at 12:34 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    I love Floyd, but my big hangup with him in Midnight Green is longterm fit. With him Djax and Maclin who plays the slot? Sure you could use him as a redzone sub for a year or two but with all three of them being outside receivers you kind of handcuff yourself. Do you move Maclin to the slot? The problem there is he has a tendency to get dinged up already, so do you really want to send him across the middle all the time? Personally I would prefer Sanu who has alot of experience working the slot but also has the size to kick out to the outside if need be.

  12. 12 TommyLawlor said at 1:09 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Words of wisdom, Lloyd.

  13. 13 Skeptic_Eagle said at 1:32 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    If they selected Michael Floyd, I’d pretty much assume it meant that Jeremy Maclin was not in the long term plans, and might even be moved before the season started, for the reasons you mentioned.

    Maclin has been a funny player. He’s Desean Jackson on lithium: lower highs, higher lows. Looked to be on the verge of the breakout #1 WR year many imagined when he was drafted in both the 2010 and 2011 seasons, then fizzled down the stretch. Last year, he had some very memorable goofs at the end of games. Maybe it was a result of his health, but his ability to stay on the field is probably a valid metric by which to judge his efficacy as a player.

    I like Maclin. I think he brings a fiery, hardnosed element to the WR Corps, and is probably the best WR we’ve got in the opponent’s scoring territory. However, I can’t say he’s fully lived up to his draft position. I’m not actually much of a Floyd fan, either, but they’ve got to do a better job of turning redzone trips into TD’s, and we know “more Desean” is not going to be the solution; if drafting a WR with the first pick is, then it’s probably a pick well spent.

  14. 14 Anders Jensen said at 2:09 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    We would they move Maclin? you need 3 good WRs in todays NFL unless your RB or TE can line up wide

  15. 15 Skeptic_Eagle said at 5:14 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Probably for the reasons D3FB stated in his original post. I don’t think Jackson, Floyd or Maclin are suited for the slot. It would be the offensive parallel to having Nnamdi, DRC, and Asante at CB. You have to put the right kind of athletes/players in the right roles, rather than trying to shoehorn talent into open spots on the depth chart. I don’t think Andy’s cliche of “putting guys in the right position” is a sentiment that is untrue – it’s just the delivery that’s worn-out and and drab. The NFL is full of so many amazing athletes, and so much parity, that it’s not just about the talent on your roster, but about how you deploy that talent on the field.

    If they aren’t planning on having Maclin around for the long haul, then why not trade him to get something of value rather than just letting him walk in the offseason? He’s certainly done nothing to warrant the franchise tag at this point.

    All of this is, by the way, is based on the hypothetical of the Eagles taking a WR with 15, which I don’t think they’ll do. I don’t think they’ll take a WR with any of the first 3 picks. Selecting a developmental/package guy in the 3rd or later would make me think Maclin *is* in the long term plans.

  16. 16 D3Keith said at 7:13 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    “You have to put the right kind of athletes/players in the right roles, rather than trying to shoehorn talent into open spots on the depth chart.”

    Re: Maclin’s memorable goofs
    He fumbled against San Francisco and didn’t haul in a catch against Atlanta. Memorable, yes. Anything other than fairly ordinary plays that we’d have forgotten if they’d happened mid-game, or in a victory? No.

    I don’t think those plays reflect terribly on Maclin’s ability. And the fact he’s more steady than DeSean is a good thing, in my book. They complement each other that way.

  17. 17 Mac said at 2:42 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    I am hopefully that a full (and healthy) offseason will do wonders for Maclin. Plus I’m not a Floyd fan, I think he’s over hyped compared to the talent that can be had in the 2nd or 3rd round.

  18. 18 Arby1 said at 4:53 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    “but also has the size to kick out to the outside if need be.”

    I read on twitter that Greg Cosell thinks Sanu doesn’t have the speed to play outside, i.e., to beat his defender.

  19. 19 D3FB said at 4:59 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Ran a 4.41 at his pro day. Granted is he going to take the top off of a defense? No. But he’s plenty fast enough if he develops as a route runner in combination with his size.

  20. 20 James Casagrande said at 12:37 PM on April 3rd, 2012:


    Unless Cox or Kuechly are at 15, it sure seems to me like we should be trading down this year. I don’t see value this year at drafting TE or OL at 15 for us (obviously S as well), and I think you agree.

    Let’s say this plays out and we trade down – who are you targeting in the 20s or early 2nd round? QB? TE?

  21. 21 TommyLawlor said at 1:09 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    If we move down to pick 25…Fleener could be of interest. If the team really likes Vinny Curry, he could be a potential target. Maybe there is a CB we like there. We’d have to see how the board looked. The options would be better value.

  22. 22 Matthew Butch said at 12:58 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    There is no rush to sign Plax right? The longer they wait as they approach the draft (and even after), the better the Eagles negotiating position gets.

  23. 23 TommyLawlor said at 1:07 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Yes and no. We aren’t in a rush to sign him, but if we don’t do it before the draft, then we need to land a big/physical WR or TE in the draft. If we sign Plax, we have the freedom to take a WR/TE or not.

    You need options to be able to bargain…or to be willing to not give in and stick with what you’ve got.

  24. 24 Mac said at 2:52 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    I think I’ve mentioned it a few times, but after seeing the production last year I’m on board with bringing in Plax rather than rolling the dice on a WR in the draft. He’s obviously not a long term solution, but I think he is the cure for our RZ cancer.

  25. 25 D3Keith said at 7:15 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Wrote something similar above.

    I’m like a 5-hours late, less-respected, less-concise, not-trained-in-the-art-of-scouting-by-a-real-scout Tommy!

  26. 26 GeorgeFleep said at 1:12 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    this is where spud’s sleeper for fun player for training camp comes in: Brett Bracket. Mr. Lawlor said “They could go for a TE. We don’t need one right now, but this isn’t about need. The point here is adding another big/physical receiver to the mix to help in the Red Zone.” Yeah they do no need one because they have one. Being 6-5 250. 4.6 40 time. apparently he was one of the better blocking TEs in the country coming into the draft last year. and says he has good hands.

  27. 27 Eric Weaver said at 1:18 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Hmmm, I would have never rated Brackett as a great blocker coming out of Penn St. I don’t even remember him being an inline guy very often.

    I’ve never doubted the guys potential, however, since in the Penn St. offense, TEs are always a forgotten position.

  28. 28 dislikedisqus said at 1:41 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    It’s an interesting question. Let’s say (1) Cox and Kuechly are gone, (2) your “QB of the future” is too, and (3) you don’t have a first round grade on any DBs. Maybe you view JP’s achilles injury as a sign and go LT, even though you don’t grade any of the ones available that high. Or you trade down. But it seems like a decent option to upgrade Cooper or Hall into Michael Floyd or Clay Harbor into Flexner. They could be the BPAs at 15, you never know.

  29. 29 jet4 said at 1:43 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Hey Tommy, just finished Dave’s article as you suggested. Interesting thing is on Espn rumors they are reporting the Brown’s have been offered a 1,2,3, and a 2 (next year) for their number 1 this year. Also stated if the Brown’s do this deal they would be drafting in the teens. Could Eagles be trying ti steal Tannehill away?

  30. 30 D3FB said at 2:20 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    I’d guess it’s the Chiefs or possibly the Seachickens

  31. 31 TommyLawlor said at 2:37 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    That would be overpaying since we have Vick. Wouldn’t be good.

    I wonder if that could be Dallas trying to move up for CB Morris Claiborne.

  32. 32 D3FB said at 5:02 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    With the depth of this corner class? I’m not sure that even Jerry is that dumb.

  33. 33 M0rton said at 2:24 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Tommy, I disagree with the sentiment echoed in your previous posting regarding trading for Tannehill.

    Most of the top QBs in the league right now were *not* developed on the bench after being selected high in the first round by a team without an explicit need for a QB. In fact, they were selected high in the draft (or signed in free agency), with few exceptions, by a team with a clear need for a QB that had the good fortune of having a high draft pick during a year with premium QB talent available in the draft.

    Peyton Manning – Selected by Indy after their previous season was a disaster; clearly needed QB that year. Started rookie year.

    Ben Roethlisberger – Selected by Pittsburgh after previous season highlighted need for QB. Started rookie year.

    Tom Brady – Once in a lifetime type of lucky break in draft by lucking into HOF player with 6th round pick.

    Drew Brees – Free agent signing by Saints; clearly needed QB prior to signing. Started first year for Saints.

    Cam Newton – Selected by Carolina after previous season was a QB disaster; Panthers clearly needed QB in 2011. Started rookie year.

    Eli Manning – Selected by the Giants with the #1 overall pick in a year in which they clearly needed a QB. Started portion of rookie year.

    Aaron Rodgers – Selected by Packers with the #24 overall pick in a year in which they *did not* need a QB, but felt compelled to pick Rodgers due to their Best Player Available approach to the draft.

    The two notable exceptions in the above list are Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers:

    – Tom Brady is, as we all know, simply a once-in-a-lifetime fluke pick. You can’t count on competent QB, much less a Hall of Fame player, to be available in the 6th round of the draft. He’s the exception to the rule.

    – The Packers selecting Aaron Rodgers may appear to mirror the situation that would arise if the Eagles were to pick Ryan Tannehill, but remember that Rodgers was the #24 overall pick. The Packers didn’t have to trade up for him. They merely sat and waited with their low first round pick so that they could target the best available player on their draft board. They didn’t reach for him with a massive trade-up. In fact, if some team in the top-10 had selected Rodgers, the Packers wouldn’t have him today. The key to their situation is that they didn’t have to expend alot of resources to draft him and sit him for a year. If the Eagles actively target Tannehill, they will be forced to trade up and waste draft picks just to obtain him in the top-10, and maybe even the top-5. This is much worse than what the Packers did. The Packers spent a non-premium (low first round) first round pick on a developmental prospect. They did not need to expend multiple draft picks nor a premium (high first round) draft pick on him. This way, if Rodgers did *not* pan out as he has, they would not have wasted as many resources. Obviously, he did pan out, but you can never predict this. Tannehill is a very raw prospect and may never pan out; would you rather the Eagles spend a low first round or high second round pick on him if they feel he is the BPA at that pick and sit him for a year or two, OR expend multiple premium picks in a massive trade-up for him just to sit him for a year or two, with NO guarantees about his future potential as an elite starter?

    Clearly, any trade-up for Tannehill, regardless of whether Andy & co. “covet” him, is a dramatic waste of resources. If he’s the BPA at #15, perhaps, but even then, he is a.) clearly a far more raw prospect than Aaron Rodgers was out of Cal and b.) #15 is a borderline premium first round pick that should be devoted to improving more important areas immediately: DT, DE, CB, etc.

  34. 34 ACViking said at 2:31 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Actually, Johnny Unitas and Bart Starr were far more “once in a lifetime” flukes.

    Unitas was playing semi-pro football when he joined the Colts in 1957, after the Steelers cut him loose in training camp in 1955. Unitas was a 9th-round pick from Louisville.

    Starr was a 17th-round choice of the Packers in 1957 from Alabama.

    Scouting’s improved since Unitas/Starr era, to be sure.

    Still, Brady’s about as close as we’ll ever get again to those two HOFers.

  35. 35 Eric Weaver said at 2:52 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Which makes the point more valid that Brady would slip that far in the modern age of scouting.

  36. 36 TommyLawlor said at 2:46 PM on April 3rd, 2012:


    You are judging the situation based on your beliefs. That’s fine. And you’re being reasonable with your standards and examples. The key is that just because you believe moving up for Tannehill would be a waste of resources doesn’t make it so.

    How long have the Dolphins been trying to replace Marino? The Bills & Jim Kelly? The Bears had hole at QB for almost 20 years. When is the last time anyone was jealous of the SF QB situation? Who was the last really good QB the Skins had?

    If you have a chance to get someone that you think is a franchise QB…go get him. The x-factor to this is your current roster and the cost of the move. If the Eagles use pick 15, that’s fine. If they trade up with a 2nd, that’s not ideal, but I can live with it. Vick isn’t here for the next decade.

    If the Eagles make some mega-deal, I’ll agree with you and say that is a waste of resources. We still have a need to upgrade the overall team. It would be great to add a talented QB, but there’s no need to overpay. If the price is right, then it is a move that I can live with. And we can accurately judge it down the road.

  37. 37 M0rton said at 4:59 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    #1. Andy Reid is on thin ice as it is. Why does he feel the need to trade up for an investment that won’t begin to make a return until 2+ years from now? Say Reid is fired after next season. Do you think that the new coach will be beholden to a Reid regime developmental QB? Hell no. It would be awful for the franchise in general to waste these picks if Reid isn’t even guaranteed to be around to develop him.

    #2. You are assuming an awful lot about Tannehill. Most draft analysts such as Kiper, Mayock, McShay, and Broaddus have consistently questioned Tannehill’s true ability as a QB prospect, and even comparing him to Ponder/Gabbert from last year: raw, developmental prospects who are being pushed into the top half of the first round due to a QB shortage and not due to actual talent.

    #3. Your maxim about “get a QB if you can” only applies to LEGIT elite talents. There are only *2* such players in this draft: RGIII and Luck. If the Eagles wanted to target one of those players, I would understand. But Tannehill is hardly an elite prospect worthy of such covetous behavior.

    The corollary to your “get the QB if you can” idea is: don’t reach for a QB just because they are so important and your franchise doesn’t have one. The Redskins could just as easily have reached for Blaine Gabbert or Christian Ponder LAST year, but wisely chose not to. Instead, they waited for the far more elite prospect: RGIII. QBs are an all-or-nothing position. The worst thing is to be stuck with a middling QB such as Matt Ryan, or Colt McCoy, or Joe Flacco. The key to winning in the NFL is an *elite* QB, and most of those have a top-5 pedigree, and rightfully so. Tannehill is not an *elite* prospect.

    Next year’s draft will bring with it at least one elite talent: Matt Barkley. Why not improve the defensive side of the roster this year, and then see what you have with Vick,and if you find him lacking, target Barkley in 2013? Do what the Redskins did. Don’t settle for mediocrity.

  38. 38 TommyLawlor said at 9:16 PM on April 3rd, 2012:


    You’re throwing around some weird phrases. Elite QB? Was Ben Roethlisberger elite? Aaron Rodgers?

    Elite QBs go in the top 5. After that, you go down a notch. I don’t think Tannehill is elite. Never have. I do think he is worth a high pick. There is nothing wrong with taking a QB in the 1st round.

    Taking QBs in the 2nd round is where your theory really holds more water. Those are the players not good enough to go in the 1st. They rarely work out.

    And I can’t stress enough that all of this argument is based on how the Eagles feel about Tannehill. If they love the guy, then get him. You don’t. Kiper/McShay might not. That’s fine. Criticize all you want. Key is what the Eagles think, not outsiders.

  39. 39 M0rton said at 10:59 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    The problem is that unless a QB is an elite prospect in the eyes of the majority of draft analysts and front offices, I seriously doubt that the Eagles have some special abilities to see what everyone else doesn’t. That’s purely hubris on their part. Did Kevin Kolb turn out to be so special that the Eagles knew something that every other draft analyst didn’t? No.

    The Eagles have been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future. The only QB prospects that should be trusted are the ones with elite physical and mental tools. Andrew Luck and RGIII need only apply. Tannehill does not qualify, and thus if the first round pick is not being spent on an elite prospect, it is being *wasted*. Why settle for mediocrity? Did the Redskins settle for a mediocre Blaine Gabbert / Christian Ponder who may or may not eventually be better than the average QB, or did they wait until a truly elite prospect was made available to them and agressively targeted him? You simply don’t win Super Bowls with the Matt Ryans, Joe Flaccos, Blaine Gabberts, Christian Ponders of the world. You win Super Bowls with elite, top-10 QBs. It makes sense to wait for one of those instead of wasting draft picks on the mediocre guys, doesn’t it?

    Rodgers and Roethlisberger both had elite levels of production in college, and Roethlisberger in particular was an elite arm-talent coming out of college and rounded out a very strong 2004 QB class. You should know that, Tommy.

  40. 40 Davesbeard said at 9:08 AM on April 4th, 2012:

    “Stellar projections by many, including ESPN’s self-professed guru Mel Kiper, who likened Gholston to Shawne Merriman”

  41. 41 M0rton said at 10:57 AM on April 5th, 2012:

    So a draft expert makes a few mistakes in his 30+ years of doing this, and immediately we should discount everything he says or thinks about NFL prospects?

    Excellent thinking, there, genius.

  42. 42 Eric Weaver said at 2:57 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    I don’t disagree with you, but we also have to consider that if the Eagles ever want to get the QBOTF, they’ll need to trade up in a draft. Despite having as disastrous of a season that this team could have last year, they still managed an 8-8 season and are basically out of reach of any potential QBOTF.

    And as long as Andy is here, that’ll probably always be the case. I just don’t see this team ever imploding to the point where they would only manage 2 to 3 wins and be in a position to draft someone everyone else covets as well. So he has to either trade up for one or draft one later (Kolb) that he feels is a potential QBOTF.

    I mean, how often do Aaron Rodgers-type players free fall in the draft? It’s probably about as likely as it is to find a Tom Brady in the back end of the draft.

    So you gotta make the move you feel is the move you have to make. I do think a lot of us would be far more comfortable with a trade up for Tannehill if a) Andy had won a Super Bowl and/or b) he had a much better track record with the draft, specifically trading up.

  43. 43 M0rton said at 5:03 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    The best way to get the QOTF is to tank the season. I could see a 2-14 or 3-13 season from this team in the next 3 years at some point. Reid can’t prevent a complete collapse.

  44. 44 laeagle said at 4:06 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Drew Brees is a bad example. The way you phrase it, you try to make his situation sound like the others. “Started his first year with the Saints” is meaningless when comparing to “started rookie year”, because Brees at that point was a veteran. Doesn’t have any relevance to your point of starting rookies. If you’re going to use him as an example, why not use Peyton Manning a second time? I’ll bet he’ll start his first year with the Broncos.

    You do have a point, though, in that the perception regarding how rookie quarterbacks should be handled has changed in the past few years. It’s a relatively recent development, though. When Peyton, Eli, and Ben started as rookies, it was still an anomaly. Peyton especially. And his rookie season was disastrous. It took a special player to survive that. And you had examples of rookies in that period that didn’t handle it well, like Dave Carr, Cam Neely, and Drew Brees when he was in San Diego.

    I think things started to change with Eli and Ben, even though the other star of that draft was Rivers, who sat behind Drew Brees (why does he keep coming up? crazy.). I think the final nail in the coffin of the perception of how rookie quarterbacks should be handled came when Ryan and Flacco had great rookie years and led their teams to the playoffs. Cam Newton broke the head off the nail. I think if you’re to look for a reason why, you’d probably find something in the nature of how the college game has changed recently, how much more passing there is, and how that’s helped quarterback development.

    HOWEVER!!! There is a major logical flaw in your position. All you can really say is that history is showing that quarterbacks can be successful in their rookie year. It’s taken a while for people to buy that, but the proof is there. The converse, however, is not automatically true. It is a logical fallacy to assume so. Just because rookie quarterbacks drafted high can now be assumed to do well their first year does NOT mean that ONLY rookie quarterbacks drafted high can do well. The evidence does not point that way, not in the way you suggest.

  45. 45 M0rton said at 5:10 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    My point wasn’t to illustrate that rookie QBs can survive.

    My point was to show that teams have been smarter regarding the usage of their draft picks. Smart teams will only commit a premium pick to a QB if they fully plan to make that pick their franchise QB from the start.

    Whether you like it or not, devoting a premium pick (top-20 or so) to a QB who will not contribute in any way to your team’s success within the next two years is a waste of resources. That pick could have been spent on defensive or offensive help that can contribute immediately.

    The only way picking a QB with a premium pick makes sense is if you are fully committed to making that QB the centerpiece of your franchise, and you have no incumbent QB to block his way. Sitting him on the bench to watch another QB play does not qualify. Did this work for the Packers? Perhaps, but they could just as easily have drafted defensive or offensive help and maybe even won another Super Bowl with Favre (2007?) if they hadn’t picked Rodgers.

    Additionally, the only QBs that are worth picking with a draft pick are the elite prospects with elite pedigrees. Otherwise, you are just wasting a draft pick. The NFL is about elite QBs and not middle-of-the-road QBs.

  46. 46 laeagle said at 6:20 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    So how does a free agent’s success show that teams have been smarter regarding the usage of draft picks? Just drop Brees from the argument, or maybe add him, because he had limited success as a rookie and was eventually replaced by another rookie. His “elite” status didn’t come until later with the Saints, meaning he would have been a prime candidate for sitting behind a veteran starter.

    But ignoring all that, your logic is confused. Evidence showing that rookie quarterbacks can be successful does not mean that rookie quarterbacks should always be started. Saying that something is no longer true does not mean that its converse is now always true.

    You have several arguments to make here and you somehow think they all support each other. They don’t. Each may or may not be individually valid:
    1. Rookie quarterbacks can be successful in the NFL without sitting behind a veteran.
    2. You should not overpay for non-elite talent.

    You have an opinion and are glomming together points in an attempt to give the grand total more weight than it would otherwise have.

    At the end of the day, a decision on Tannehil. should be based solely on your evaluation of Tannehill. Matt Ryan’s success in his rookie year has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Tannehill will be successful. Tannehill’s skillset has everything to do with it. I’m not a scout, and I’ve never seen him play. Whether Andy and Co agree with your assessment of Tannehill or not, their assessment is based on actual observation and knowledge, and I’d trust it more than yours (which is based on typical pre-draft heresay). Your analysis of draft value and historical success of rookies bears no weight if, at the end of the day, they deem him to be elite talent and worth the cost. Because it is a quarterbacks league.

    Not to mention the fact that “elite prospects with elite pedigrees”, historically speaking, doesn’t count for much when you look at how many draft picks don’t work out.

  47. 47 M0rton said at 10:49 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    I think you are misunderstanding the basic tenets of my argument.

    I could care less about the effectiveness of rookie QBs apart from the general trends. Most struggle, some do reasonably well, but in the end, what matters is the level of development they will reach after 2-3 years. I don’t know why you continue to fixate on this issue when it is merely tangential to my main points.

    My main points regard the usage of premium draft picks to select QB prospects. I believe that successful teams should only expend draft choices on QBs when a.) the QB prospect they are targeting is a consensus elite prospect, and not merely an elite prospect solely in their eyes or their system and b.) they have a direct need for a QB, which will enable them to realize immediate returns on their expensive investment, but more importantly, will ensure both the short-term and long-term commitment of their team to that particular investment (i.e. that player is installed as “the man” immediately and without question).

    Point A is tied to the notion that the QB is an all-or-nothing position: unlike other positions on the team such as DT, WR, CB, LB, OG, etc, there is effectively only one QB. Any QBs that you have on your roster in addition to your starter are mostly superfluous and should not be acquired with premium resources (money or draft choices). Therefore, it makes sense to go for the elite prospect, or simply to target none at all. Why bother wasting time with mediocrity? The only QB that matters on your roster is your main one, and if he’s not elite, your team is mostly irrelevant. Elite QBs are rarely raw prospects that coaches develop into future franchise passers. They, more often than not, are identified prior to the draft as elite prospects by all the analysts and front offices and coveted for their physical and mental tools from the outset. Look at Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, John Elway, Drew Bledsoe, Donovan McNabb, Phillip Rivers, Cam Newton, Matthew Stafford, and others. All of these were elite, cream-of-the-crop prospects and viewed this way by everyone. There was no talk of “2nd round prospect being pushed up into the top-10 due to shoratage of QBs”, which is what you hear from guys like Mike Mayock about Tannehill. You *might* be able to find a future elite QB in the later rounds, but your chances of doing so are statistically slim. Even QBs such as Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers who slipped out of the top-20 into the late 1st and early 2nd round were elite producers in college who were simply misvalued due to irrational concerns over height or offensive system. Yes, there are some top-5 “elite prospects” that don’t pan out, but that doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority of franchise caliber QBs in the NFL were productive and even elite prospects in college. There will be misses, but your greatest opportunity to obtain that franchise QB is *still* at the very top of the draft among the best prospects.

    Point B is also tied to the notion of the QB as an all-or-nothing position. It stems from this aforementioned truism that premium draft picks (or any draft picks for that matter) and/or free agent money should *only* be used on the QB position if that QB is fully intended to be the de facto #1 starter. If he is intended to “sit” for an indefinite number of years to “learn”, then it is strictly a future investment, but in today’s NFL, teams cannot afford to make future investments that will not bear fruit for such a lengthy period of time. But most importantly, if that QB never develops into a future franchise starter (due to any number of reasons: the head coach that picked him is fired; his talent simply never develops; he plays well enough that he waits until free agency to move to another team a la Matt Flynn) then the pick is completely and utterly wasted for eternity. If a team picks an elite prospect in the top-10 after needing a QB, they will install him as their starter the following season and remain committed to him for at least the next three years. There will be little doubt in anyone’s mind after this period whether the pick was a success or not. If it was a success, they have their franchise QB. If it was not, they will be back into the top-10 to try again. But the key here is that they will know. A team with a QB sitting on the bench – watching someone else play – breeds only doubt and suspicion in people’s minds, and further foments controversy.

  48. 48 D3Keith said at 12:31 AM on April 4th, 2012:

    The problem with Point A is that is goes against the very basic part of Tommy’s argument, which is whatever that movie quote was … Don’t wait til you need a guy to pick a guy then get him ready, pick a guy and have him ready when you need him.

    Both points are valid and I’m not going to make a value judgment as to one being better than the other.

    But me personally, I’m a fan of drafting and stashing QBs. For one, they do have value … the minute your elite QB goes down. Not many backups win Super Bowls, but Hostetler and Brady are two that saved seasons that were otherwise finished. Maybe you could count O.G. Kurt Warner too. It’s true they don’t rotate in and contribute like a DT or learn on the job like an OL, but they can be valuable. There’s also value in having a prospect a year further along in his development than a similiar prospect the next year.

    As it relates to the Eagles and making a QB move this year, it might actually be a more efficient use of resources for a few reasons. In a year when they pick 15, 46 and 51, they can take a QB and still bring on other prospects that might help immediately. Let’s also say they’re a playoff team next year and pick in the mid-20s … it’s going to cost more to get up to that place where you pick a no-brainer elite prospect QB that you plug in right away from, say, 24, than it will from 15. Plus you have him a year further into his development, and if he’s of play-right-away quality, he can rescue the season this year when the Eagles’ very-likely-to-get-hurt QB gets hurt.

    It all depends on how much you/they like Tannehill, and how much you have to spend to go up and get him, but there becomes a point where it’s a good use of resources long term (remember, we’d have to spend monster resources in some future year to go up to get a QBOTF if we fail to go 3-13) and an okay use of them in the short term.

    Not sure they should be married to it, but if the opportunity presents itself, I would endorse the move. (and clearly my endorsement is what it’s all about)

  49. 49 laeagle said at 2:13 AM on April 4th, 2012:

    Well, rather than try to bludgeon you with text, as you seem so fond of doing, I’ll keep this simple.

    Points A and B have been refuted historically, repeatedly, throughout the years. You are the guy who would never pick Joe Montana or Tom Brady or Kurt Warner, and expect only the Peyton Mannings (and Ryan Leafs and heath shulers and Jamarcus Russells) of the world could ever amount to anything.

    Simply put, your arguments are
    1. Never draft a QB unless public opinion says he’s worth it.
    2. Never draft a QB unless you’re desperate for one.

    You’re kind of playing the statistics with those strategies, but I think they’re losing strategies, if those are your sole inputs on decision making. Again, at the end of the day, if your scouting on Tannehill, or any other QB, is that he has the potential to be a star, you draft him high. Regardless of what consensus says on who is “bonafide”.

  50. 50 M0rton said at 10:54 AM on April 5th, 2012:

    So you’re throwing out rare exceptions to the rule (Tom Brady and Joe Montana) to refute my point? Excellent.

    I’m not saying that you *CAN’T* find a great QB outside the top-5, but it’s RARE to find one. You shouldn’t COUNT on it. And you shouldn’t devote resources (draft or financial) on those QBs outside the elite prospects, because your return rate on that investment is LOW.

    The Rams had to expend almost zero resources to acquire Kurt Warner. The Patriots had to expend almost zero resources to take a chance on Brady. These moves are simply low-risk, high-reward moves with a very very low probability of return, like winning millions of dollars on a $1 lotto ticket.

    What you are proposing, in throwing a bunch of resources at mediocre QB prospects who are not elite, is like buying $100 lotto tickets for a lotto with a 1000:1 payout/

    What I am proposing, in only targeting the elite prospects, is buying $100 lotto tickets with a 3:1 payout.

    Easy enough for you to understand?

  51. 51 laeagle said at 11:01 AM on April 5th, 2012:

    No, very simply (I’ll say it slow), I’m saying that your evaluation of a quarterback has to be based on your evaluation of a quarterback. Not on what Mel Kiper tells you. The converse of your examples are the Raiders, Chargers, Redskins, Bengals, and every other team that blew a first round pick on a “bonafide” or “elite” QB.

    If you think the QB is worth it based on your own evaluation, you take him where you can get him. You are only considering “elite” prospects, who have just as high a bust rate as non-elite prospects. If the QBs taken in round 2 have just as high a bust rate as those in round 1, I’d rather take one in round 2, despite the fact that he might not meet your “elite” standard.

    And I think “elite” is only a word you can really use after you’ve seen someone play in the NFL.

  52. 52 M0rton said at 2:29 PM on April 5th, 2012:

    You’re wrong about this.

    Elite QB prospects have identifiable talents. Listen to Greg Cosell talk about QBs. I’ll provide you a link:

    Elite QB prospects either have talent or they don’t. And draft analysts will spot these attributes prior to the draft. The exceptions are rare.

    I doubt that the Eagles have some singular ability to see potential in these prospects that other teams and analysts don’t. They thought they did with Kolb, but can we confidently say that they were right?

  53. 53 laeagle said at 2:43 PM on April 5th, 2012:

    So what exactly is your argument, then? If a QB isn’t taken in the first few picks, he’s not worth taking until round 6?

    And while I don’t have an opinion myself on Tannehill, what if whoever drafts him has him graded out as elite? There are people now who would say that.

    You don’t think Tannehill is elite. Fine. Some teams might. Their evaluation may be wrong, but it’s based on their actual evaluation, not on what they read on the internet. If they think he’s worth the risk, he’s worth the risk. The draft is nothing but an exercise in risk assessment. Evaluating their risk assessment against what Mel Kiper says is just foolish.

  54. 54 M0rton said at 4:55 PM on April 5th, 2012:

    That would basically be the optimum strategy. If you have a need for a QB, tank the season so you get a top-3 pick and target that year’s elite talent. If you don’t have a need for a QB, don’t ever waste a draft pick on one. And never, ever pick a QB past the first round and before the sixth round. Take a chance on UDFAs and 6th/7th round picks. Take a chance on a QB that falls into the late first round if and only if he is a great, productive college player with elite physical tools.

    You’re missing the point of my previous post, and the entire reason I posted that Greg Cosell podcast. He is a football genius and you need to listen to that. He outlines how QBs have CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE traits that can be identified prior to any play in the NFL. It’s like pitchers in baseball – rarely do elite pitchers emerge out of nowhere. Almost all of them have elite arm talent that is identifiable by draft analysts. Sure, some of those elite arm talents never pan out, but if you want to draft one of those, they won’t be found in the later rounds because every team and analyst can spot elite arm talent.

    Subjective analysis of QB talent is completely overrated, and borders on being a myth. Individual teams are not smarter than the analysts.

  55. 55 laeagle said at 5:03 PM on April 5th, 2012:

    God, I hate this interface when the comment trail gets deep. Every letter is on its own line.

    I agree that Greg Cosell is a genius but even he will tell you he’s not infallible and that part of the draft has to do with system matching talent matching the ability to improve. He’s been tweeting about that a lot recently, and is the first to admit that the draft isn’t an exact science. If “elite arm talent” were a completely objective metric, perfectly quantifiable, then there would be a lot less misses on high draft picks. It’s not, and if you find someone in the mid rounds who you think would be a good fit, you take that pick.

    As to your “optimum strategy” involving tanking a season, you’ve just indicated how far removed from reality you are. That is never and will never be a strategy endorsed by any coach or organization in the NFL.

  56. 56 M0rton said at 6:33 PM on April 5th, 2012:

    I’m replying to this post because it is become exceedingly difficult to respond to the other nested thread.

    In response to your comment ( “If “elite arm talent” were a completely objective metric, perfectly quantifiable, then there would be a lot less misses on high draft picks. It’s not, and if you find someone in the mid rounds who you think would be a good fit, you take that pick.”), I want to note that there are many things to go into the success of a QB in the NFL. Simply because a QB has elite physical tools, it does not meaen that he will be successful. Work ethic, character, time and place… those are all contributing factors. The key in this discussion, however, is that a certain threshold of elite physical skillset is a *prerequisite* to success. Not everyone with elite physical tools will be successful, but those without those elite physical tools will, to a 95% degree of confidence, NOT be successful at the position. It’s hard enough to draft and develop an elite franchise QB, but it’s even *harder* outside the top-10 of the draft.

    And yes, I realize that NFL teams cannot “tank” a season. But in a way, they can. GMs can refuse to address a QB position with competent backups, thus ensuring a losing season. See: 2011 Indianopolis Colts, who will reap the benefits of their 2-14 season by being able to draft one of two elite QB prospects this year, and then continue to win 10+ games every year for the next decade or more.

    The Colts’ way is the best way to run a franchise. They drafted Peyton #1 when they needed a QB, then didnt’ draft a QB for ages, and now will draft Luck or Griffing #1 and won’t need a QB for ages.

  57. 57 ACViking said at 4:15 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    RE: the MOrton v. T-LAW tete-a-tete


    In response to MOrton’s comment, you noted — in conclusion — that if the Birds pack off lots of draft picks this year, it’s a move you’d question because other positions need upgrading.

    Not sure I agree (for the sake of a conjuring an argument).


    On the assumption that (i) Vick won’t be here more than 4 more years, 2012 included, and (ii) the Eagles — as long as AR is here — will generally be drafting in the 20s or higher . . . . does it really matter if the Eagles keep all their picks to upgrade at other positions IF THEY DON’T HAVE A TOP-5 QB in 2016?

    Sure, it’s possible that an Aaron Rodgers could fall to the Eagles late in Rd 1.

    But the 2011 draft, and this year’s chatter, seems be proving that teams in the Top 15 of the draft will R-E-A-C-H for any QB who’s at least as good as Christian Ponder — who, 5 years ago, would be a 2nd-rounder (IMO).

    The Patriots fell into Brady. But that point aside, having him hides deficiencies at numerous positions, including WR, DL, CB.

    The Colts had vintage Peyton Manning . . . 2 WRs, 2 DEs, an OLT, and a Safety who put them over the top in 2006. But who else?

    The G-men have Eli Manning, a great DL rotation (when healthy), some pretty good WRs and . . . what else? A scrappy O-line?

    So I’m making the point — though, again, it’s just an argument — that if the Eagles’ braintrust see Tannehill as the equal of at least pre-2006 Donovan McNabb [but hopefully more accurate on those patterns where D-Mac mastered the art of worm-burning], then the Eagles need to grab Tannehill, even at a steep price.

    What college player at No. 15 or later will push the Eagles into the SB this year? I don’t think there is one. This roster could get to the SB with or without a single addition in Rds 1 and 2.

    Assuming a blockbuster trade (love that phrase), two years out from now, the Eagles will again have all their picks. They’ll be restocking. And 4 years out from now, a Tannehill — IF HE’S THE “MAN” — will be right where Eli Manning, Aaron Rodgers, and Peyton Manning were: Experienced QBs with some good players around him.

    Moving for Tannehill now makes sense (in my argument) on if:

    First . . . NEXT YEAR’s crop of college QBs has no second or third QB, behind Matt Barkley, as good as Tannehill. I have no idea, besides USC’s Barkley, who’s a top-shelf prospect for next year. (Landry Jones at Okla is a Christian Ponder-type, so no thanks.)

    and Second . . . the Eagles won’t have the bounty of picks to make a move, like they do this year.


    It’s why, in an earlier string, I paraphrased the immortal Frank Pentangeli, with respect to the Birds’ basket of high picks this year: “Let’s do it now, while we still have the muscle.”

  58. 58 TommyLawlor said at 4:25 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    A Frankie Five-Angels reference? Brilliant.

    Good logic as well.

  59. 59 D3FB said at 5:14 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Top Senior QBs next year are: Barkley, and Tyler Wilson of Arkansas.
    Now depending on how the Junior class does and lets face it the best players in a draft tend to be Juniors you could have a very very good class.
    Top Juniors: Logan Thomas, Casey Pachall, Tyler Bray, and Aaron Murray.
    If all six have good years and all declare it could be a historically deep draft.

  60. 60 M0rton said at 5:20 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    – If they don’t select a QB in this year’s draft, it doesn’t necessarily mean they can’t pick an elite QB prospect as early as next year. Maybe they have a terrible season and tank themselves into a top-5 pick? It’s not impossible. And if not this year, then next year. This is *not* their last opportunity to acquire a QB prospect.

    – If a trade-up for Tannehill were to make sense, you’d have to assume that he’s an elite prospect. Eli Manning was an elite prospect coming out of Ole Miss. Peyton Manning was an elite prospect coming out of Tennessee. Donovan McNabb was an elite prospect coming out of Syracuse. Ryan Tannehill, on the other hand, lacks the productivity, arm talent, pedigree, and football intelligence of all of those prospects. He is a fundamentally raw player. This is simply not an elite prospect. He’s more in line with Christian Ponder and Blaine Gabbert than Eli Manning and Donovan McNabb.

    – You don’t know who will emerge as elite QB prospects next year. Did you know about RGIII and Tannehill this time last year? We know Barkley is an elite prospect and will likely be going #1 overall next year. Another 1-2 elite prospects could easily emerge after the college season is over.

    The bottom line regarding this matter is: wasting a top-15 pick is a terrible thing for the franchise. Spending a top-15 pick, especially as part of a trade package, on a QB is *ONLY* justified if that QB becomes an elite franchise caliber player some time within the next 4 years. Unless you can confidently say that about Tannehill, which you really can’t (as opposed to Luck or Griffin), then targeting him in the draft will be a major, major risk that is not worth taking for a team that has a good roster already and an incumbent, above-average QB.

  61. 61 D3FB said at 5:33 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    You forgot to mention the fact that Tannehill just doesn’t have that many starts under his belt which is huge. Even if we get him and sit him for 2 or 3 years then you run into the problem that the kid has only made like 18 starts in the last 7 or 8 years (he redshirted).

  62. 62 Jeppe Elmelund van Ee said at 5:44 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Excelent post Viking.

    I would rather stockpile draftpicks for next year, maybe even trade this years #15 for a 2012 2nd, 4th + 2013 1st (like the Panthers/Otah deal). And THEN make your hunt for a future franchise QB!

    QBs other than Barkley in 2013 include:
    Landry Jones (not his biggest fan)
    Tyler Wilson
    Tyler Bray
    Logan Thomas
    E.J. Manuel (could be next years Newton)
    Aaron Murray

    It’s hard to project which of these will be top picks next year, and who will come out, but at least for now, there seems to be a lot of talent at the QB position next year. I don’t know much about Tannehill, but I doubt that he is better than everyone of the QBs mentioned above.

  63. 63 D3FB said at 6:16 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Don’t forget Casey Pachall! Dude can ball. Plus there is this…

  64. 64 Mac said at 6:05 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Couldn’t they also do something like…

    Flip pick 15 for a mid 20’s pick plus a 2013 1st rounder, to build momentum in that draft? Perhaps even trade AS22 for a 2nd or 3rd in 2013 and/or trade out of our 2nd or 3rd round picks to get more ammo for 2013?

    Hypothetically in this scenario LK40 and Cox are both off the board before pick 14 so we start to “dance the magic dance” of trading down.

    My target at that point is probably Fleener.

    I could easily see some team wanting a mid teens draft pick for one of the WRs that we don’t need or a pass rusher who doesn’t fit our scheme.

    But to be perfectly honest I have no idea what the 2013 Qb class looks like. To my untrained eye I’m not inclined to sell the farm to get Tannehill. Now if we were talking a trade up for RGIII then I would be all for it. But we’re not talking about that…

  65. 65 RC5000 said at 3:16 AM on April 4th, 2012:

    Actually I don’t even like Barkley as much as Tannehill and if Tyler Wilson repeats a similar year , I probably will like Wilson better but Wilson’s in the same experience boat Tannehill is and had less mistakes than Tannehill. Barkley is probably my Tannehill for people that don’t want Tannehill, I don’t want Barkley.

    One thing that’s funny is people think there’s a huge gap between RG3 and Tannehill. I do like RG3 better and had him going top 2-4. RG3 definitely has the cannon arm, definitely runs with more speed but he’s also coming out of a spread and Tannehill is not.

    Tannehill and Texas A&M beat Griffin and Baylor…both had very similar stats – threw for 400 yards +. Same thing happened in 2010….Tannehill beat him, similar stats – threw for 200 yards +. I realize RG3 is a better prospect, a relatively sure franchise QB while Tannehill is a potential franchise QB. It’s just interesting that in their games, Tannehill competed with him and against him and won.

  66. 66 Kammich said at 4:48 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    I solved the decoder ring question from the last thread. Its T-Bob Hebert.

  67. 67 TommyLawlor said at 9:10 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Your prize is in the mail. Who knew that much pudding could fit in one envelope.

  68. 68 Jeppe Elmelund van Ee said at 4:56 PM on April 3rd, 2012:


    Thanks for answering my question regarding trading back vs. BPA! I guess we will have to see if there’s a trading partner. Hopefully this discussing won’t matter, because Cox falls in our laps.

    My intention is just to show, that I think our options with #15 is very limited. Only a few players fits our need and at the same time is good value.

    I can’t wait to see what happens!

  69. 69 RabidEagle said at 5:04 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    The Eagles should being in McNeill and someone like Martin from Stanford in for a visit and then we’ll see how quick Bell folds. Looking forward to it honestly.

    Plaxico I can see being frustrated with the Eagles and moving on, although it would be nice to see him getting near double digit TD’s here. We need someone down there that can snatch a jump ball and take some attention off Shady.

  70. 70 Jeppe Elmelund van Ee said at 5:30 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Fletcher Cox apparently has visited Tennesee Titans. I think they want him badly. Yesterday it was reported that they were trying to trade up into the top10. My bet it’s for Cox.

  71. 71 Mac said at 6:20 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    I’m thinking there’s about a 5% chance Cox falls to 15.

  72. 72 Jeppe Elmelund van Ee said at 6:35 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Sadly I agree with you. I’m really starting to believe that trading back is the way to go. Stockpile for next year, and target our future QB.

  73. 73 Mac said at 6:41 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    The anticipation is really starting to build momentum now. I’m thankful we don’t have to wait till August to see how the team shapes up. I’m also thankful that we did our “rebuild” last year and the defense should be gelling better this year.

  74. 74 JRO91 said at 5:31 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Saints just signed Hawthorne to go with Lofton. Damn. Seattle now becomes a major threat to take Luke if the Eagles were looking at him. On a side note. Where the funk are the saints getting this cap space?

  75. 75 D3FB said at 6:14 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Think of it like when you were a kid and got in trouble for something. At that point you may as well go for broke and admit all the stupid shit you’ve done, how much madder are you parents going to get? The Saints don’t care about cap space. They are now refusing to recognize the cap and don’t care. I forsee a 50 year 20 quadrillion dollar being done for Drew Brees just as a giant middle finger to Goodell.

  76. 76 nopain23 said at 6:42 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Luke is not getting passed seattle and cox will be gone b4 15…I think the draft just got ugly for the iggles……who do you trade to take…or do you move up…and if so….which prospect do you trade up for?…cox or luke would have fit perfectly in our system

  77. 77 JRO91 said at 6:52 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Trade back into the 20s. Take Curry or BPA. Get another 2nd and some late rounders for someone who wants to move up. Use your seconds to get Sanu/Boykin/David. You now have fixed some holes on the team. Use your 3rd on Wolfe.

  78. 78 nopain23 said at 7:57 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    If we get Sanu and David then I’m giving the iggles B+ for their draft.David will shine at SAM…and Sanu has the potential to shine in the Redzone….and I’m hoping for Wolfe in the 3rd…looks like a Washburn guy..that bumps the Eagles to A grade

  79. 79 Andrew Rafferty said at 9:41 AM on April 4th, 2012:

    that is my ideal scenario. I think we’d be extremely lucky to have one of them fall to our second pick in the second round. All of them, besides boykin, have the possibility of even going late first.

    As for Wolfe, I am not a fan. If we miss out on cox, worthy, and reyes I would prefer bringing back Landri. I watched Wolfe vs VANDERBILT and he looked like just another guy.

  80. 80 nopain23 said at 11:46 AM on April 4th, 2012:

    Babin was just another guy ’till wasburn…Mathis was just another guy till Mudd…..right guys for the right system.Wolfe looks like a Washburn guy

  81. 81 Anders Jensen said at 1:50 AM on April 4th, 2012:

    Seatttle got bigger needs then MLB.

  82. 82 Nathan said at 11:28 AM on April 4th, 2012:

    I also wonder if they are adding players because they know there is a good possibility that some of their defensive players may be suspending for several games throughout the season.

  83. 83 Mac said at 6:21 PM on April 3rd, 2012:


    Would you take Zach Brown as an UDFA? Or is he just an Ernie Simms clone and therefore not even worth having in shorts.

  84. 84 ACViking said at 6:46 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    T-LAW has, I think, noted the UNC players — especially from the Butch Davis era — have proven to be duds in the NFL.

  85. 85 Mac said at 7:41 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Makes me scratch my head about why the draftnicks seem to pick one or two UNC guys to have as projected 1st rounders before the combine… Maybe it’s just so they can shuffle them around? Bah… I do have a sick feeling the Coples will be a bust for some reason.

  86. 86 ACViking said at 6:36 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Starting just last year, with the 2011 draft, the NFL seems to have gone crazy about drafting QBs. If 2011, and the rumors about Tannehill this year are any indication, it seems that in the 1st Rd, any QB who shows what used to be late-1st/early 2nd Rd talent is ticketed for the Top 10.

    I’m no expert, but Locker, Ponder, and Gabbert did seem like Top-15 picks. Or even Top-20 picks.

    Compare those guys, skill wise, to Aaron Rodgers coming out of Cal. While Rodgers was weighted with the “he’s only a product of Tedford’s system” — because Kyle Boller had bombed — he’d be the 3rd pick in this year’s draft, I think.

    I know that at the end of the 2009 college season, Locker was considered the best player and best QB, and a sure No. 1 pick in the draft. But he stayed in college and put up really terrible numbers. Still, after a great pre-draft workout, he worked his way back to the Top 10. But in an apples-to-apples comparison, Rodgers seems much better.

    How ’bout Tennehill versus the 2005 Rodgers. Serious debate?

    And we can’t leave the subject without considering the case of one Kevin Kolb.

    Where would he be slotted this year? Seriously, if Christian Ponder was a 1st Rounder, then it’s fair to say Kolb would have been if the current mindset prevailed in ’07.

    As Perry White, editor of the Daily Planet, said in 1953: “Crazy. Just crazy.”

  87. 87 Mac said at 6:46 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    Supply and demand. From my vantage point…

    The NFL is all about passing now. RB by committee has devalued that position greatly. LB is devalued (not by all but by most clubs). S has never been highly valued except for a few truly elite prospects in my mind.

    Fewer positions are worthy of top 10 picks, and QB is overvalued because there are so few potential prospects. Sadly, what this may lead to in the long term is a lack of competitiveness with some ball clubs shooting themselves in the foot trying to get a marginal QB to lead their team.

  88. 88 Jeppe Elmelund van Ee said at 7:06 PM on April 3rd, 2012:


    Since one of my maine priorities in this draft is to upgrade our slot CB position, could you make a comparison post of the top players at this position?

    My list is:
    Brandon Boykin (2nd round)
    DeQuan Menzie (3rd round)
    Ron Brooks (4th round)

    I would love to know your perspective on these players and how they would fit in here. What are their strengths and weaknesses?

  89. 89 Skeptic_Eagle said at 11:02 AM on April 4th, 2012:

    I think Menzie could be a safety conversion project, but I don’t think he goes as high as the 3rd. I’d guess something more like the 4th or 5th. Doesn’t have great man cover skills, IMO, which would limit my desire to see him take over the slot..

    Seems like Saban’s Alabama defenses stresses a lot of zone concepts to their corners, and fundamental tackling – which translates pretty well into the NFL safety position.

  90. 90 GeorgeFleep said at 8:12 PM on April 3rd, 2012:

    If the eagles were to get a cornerback i would prefer him to be able to be a sure fire tackler. That dynamic to the eagles D would be crucial. Hopefully Todd Bowles can help with that. Bare with me as i relate to the Giants. Not last year but the year before they had a cb that led the team in tackles but then last year he got injured for the season. The eagles should look into more competition at cornerback and figure out a slot corner for the future. Curtis Marsh really interests me because he was converted from a RB in college sort of how Sam Shields converted form WR to CB. So is there a player that is a S/CB that can play slot and tackle with the best in the draft? What is the future of Marsh?

  91. 91 metaReign said at 2:09 AM on April 4th, 2012:

    U might want to check out, Justin Bethel CB/S/ST, Presbyterian College. Possible projection into the 5th – 7th round.

    Note: Justin could be projected more as a Safety in the NFL, than a CB. Says his strength is in ST, he has 2 blocked punts for TDs.

  92. 92 metaReign said at 3:45 AM on April 4th, 2012:

    There’s alot of talk about Michael Floyd, here. We all know there’s a rare moment, when a WR can actually block DL and LB. Let’s say that Floyd is an Eagle, he’d be a compliment to Celek, who can also block. Both have their own unique style in receiving, the difference is Celek a TE and Floyd a WR. With Floyd in the lineup, along with Maclin, Celek and DJax, opposing DCs will be wrecking their brains, since Eagles are a very pass-happy team.

    Now with Floyd at wideout, Maclin on the inside and Celek as a rover moving from right-side to the left. Maclin and DJax sprints from the LOS, Floyd comes towards the DL while Celek paves the way from inside, Floyd starts to pave the way from the outside, create a huge side-line route for Shady to gain momentum and yardages. There are many variations to using the blocking duo of Floyd and Celek, which makes them dangerous double as receivers. Maclin could also block further out, when applicable. Sky’s the limit, a dangerous combo of RB and receiving crew.

    Thing is we can’t say where prospects will lineup after the first 5 picks of the 1st round, god forbids listening to all those mock drafts from various scouts and sport editors. IMO, it would nice to take care of our secondary at all cost. Yet, have the flexibility to shore up some upgrades into our receiving unit. And backups from late rounds, both sides of the LOS. The values of our top 3 picks, depends on what AR and Roseman sees as an immediate starter and/or upgrade, worth the pick. While all picks are not created equal, u will have to believe those 3 picks can have some advantage either in the beginning or in the long run. AR has done pretty well with some late round rookies, last season, mixing them up with the veterans. Let’s see how well they’ll do this year, I’d be surprise if 2 of our 1st 3 picks, sees playing time this season.

  93. 93 Zach Reese said at 11:39 AM on April 4th, 2012:

    Eagles add Bell. 5 years is a long contract for someone as inconsistent as him, especially considering the likelihood of a Peters return next season. Does this indicate that we are doubtful Peters will regain his form, or is the deal just front-loaded with little guarantees beyond next season?

  94. 94 GermanEagle said at 11:48 AM on April 4th, 2012:

    I think the latter is true..

  95. 95 Zach Reese said at 12:04 PM on April 4th, 2012:

    I hope so. Interested to see the contract numbers.

    With Bell being a bit of an injury concern himself, it’s a good thing we re-signed King as well. Picking up a mid-round OT prospect should complete the core of our line for the foreseeable future.

    If Bell plays well and stays healthy, but Peters returns next year, we have an excellent swing tackle to replace King next year. If Peters never regains his form, we potentially have his long-term 27 year old replacement on the roster now.

    We are once again seem poised to target BPA throughout the draft. A vet RB and possibly WR/S/QB depth (if there’s anyone out there worth picking up) should wrap up FA