No Tag For You!!!

Posted: February 18th, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Philadelphia Eagles | 63 Comments »

Normally NFL players see getting the franchise tag as a bad, bad thing.  It rates right after getting food poisoning, finding out you’re out of beer, or listening to an episode of the Helmet2Helmet Show.

The last 2 years have been anything but normal for DRC.  2011 was a mess for a variety of reasons.  And while 2012 started great, it ended very badly.  To be blunt, DRC played like crap for much of the final 10 games.  Due to this (and a disappointing 2010 season), I think DRC would have welcomed the tag.  That would have guaranteed him $10.7M for the 2013 season.

Geoff Mosher reported today that DRC won’t be getting the tag.

We’ve speculated about whether the Eagles would make the move or not.  He doesn’t deserve the tag, but it would be a way to keep him here for a year without making a long term commitment.  We all know DRC can be a very good CB.  The hope is that playing under a new staff and in a better defensive scheme would bring out the best in him.

The Eagles decided not to reward mediocrity with money, which is probably the wise move.  Not tagging him doesn’t mean that the team is done with DRC.  The Eagles can still try to work out a one-year deal, just for less money.

DRC isn’t exactly in the catbird’s seat.  The whole NFL watched him get burned and not make an effort to tackle on a regular basis.  No one will commit big money to him long term.  He and his agent have to decide what the best course of action is.  Maybe they try to get him a one-year deal on a really good defense.  Play cheap and hope he rebounds with a strong 2013 and can then hit the market next year.

We don’t know if the Eagles are interested in keeping DRC.  The coaches have been studying the 2012 tape to make player evaluations, but DRC is a really complicated subject.  He’s the ultimate football tease.  You’re scared to commit to him, but scared to let him walk.  Howie, Chip, Bill Davis, and John Lovett need to make a tough decision, even on just a one-year deal.

Are you better off getting a less talented player, but one you can trust?  Chip Kelly hates underachievers.  DRC is an expert in underachieving.  Howie traded Kevin Kolb for DRC and would surely love for him to pan out.  Bill Davis coached him in Arizona for 2 years, including DRC’s best year (2009).

Part of me wants DRC gone.  Watching him watch guys score TDs was sickening.  And I don’t use that word lightly.  That said, he played in 2 of the most dysfunctional seasons of the Andy Reid era and got the worst defensive coaching of the Reid era.  Instead of stability bringing out the best in a player, the state of confusion simply made things worse.

I can live with the Eagles offering DRC a one-year deal.  There is risk in keeping DRC, but I don’t think it would be a dumb or pointless risk.  It all comes down to whether Kelly, Davis, and Lovett think they can coach him up and get a good performance from DRC.  If they are willing to stick with him, I’m okay with that.  I won’t object if they pass.

I think meeting DRC and discussing 2012 would have a huge bearing with what I did.  If he acts as though nothing was wrong, send his ass packing.  I need a player who can watch tape like that and admit his problems.  He would then need to sell me on the idea of keeping him around.  If he doesn’t want to be here, hit the road.  DRC must buy in.  He must be committed to the cause for me to think of keeping him around.  He proved last year that there is no shame in his game.  DRC has no problem with sinking to rock bottom and staying there.

Some worry that not tagging DRC means Nnamdi will stick around.  I still can’t see that happening, but it is interesting that they haven’t cut him yet.  I’d have sent him packing early on to send a message that past Pro Bowls and a lofty reputation don’t entitle you to anything right now. What have you done for me lately?  What will you do for me in 2013?

Change is coming to the Eagles secondary.  We just don’t know how much.

* * * * *

More on the OL situation.

My post yesterday was meant to show that the return of the top 6 OL (Peters, Mathis, Kelce, Herremans, Watkins, Kelly) gives the team some options with the lineup and configuration.  There isn’t necessarily a “need” to add a starter.

I certainly agree that depth is a concern.  I agree that age is a concern.  My feeling is that too many people think back to the disaster in Arizona or the first Dallas game and assume we must take an OT at pick #4.  I’ve kicked the theory around myself.  But that’s just not the case.

There are good OL to be had in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, possibly the 4th.  Just because you don’t spend pick #4 on Joeckel doesn’t mean you can’t improve the OL.

As for taking an OT at #4…if that is the highest rated player on the board, then do it.  After watching a game where the OTs were Bell and Dunlap, I don’t see how any Eagles fan could ever complain about taking an OT early in the draft.  Don’t force it.  I think Joeckel is worth pick #4.  I’m just not sure he gets past #1.

Eric Fisher is a player that I like, but I’m not so sure he’s worth #4.  We’ll talk more about Chip Kelly and the OL in an upcoming post, as we try to figure out what Chip wants.

* * * * *

I’ve talked about the Eagles trading down in the draft a few times, but people still ask about it. I am all for trading down.

We have holes to fill.  Why not move back and add an extra 2nd or 3rd round pick?  I’d love to add another 1st round pick for 2014 since that draft will be loaded at the top, but I don’t think we’ll have that option.

There is no player I covet at #4.  I get asked a lot…”Who do you like?”.  I honestly can’t answer now because I need to see what we do in FA and it would help to find out more about the schemes.  You can make an argument for 5 or 6 different guys.

The beauty of trading back is that there will still be good players to choose from, and you’ll acquire extra resources.  I know many people think about recent drafts where the Eagles moved back and it didn’t pay off.  I understand the hesitation.  It is all about the choices.  If there is a player you fall in love with at #4, take him.  If not, and you get a decent offer, move back.

As to why other teams would want to move up with such a pedestrian Top 10…all about needs.  The Cardinals are desperate for a LT.  If Joeckel goes #1 and they think Fisher will be taken before pick #8…call us.  We’ll slide back to that spot for a reasonable price.  The Rams could be desperate for a LT.  I’m not going through every team.  Again, FA will have a major impact on who needs what and how bad.

I’m wide open right now as to what I want.  The only pick that would bug me is QB Geno Smith.  Talented prospect, but I don’t think he’s worth a Top 10 pick.

* * * * *

GoDaddy had some server issues that affected the site on Sunday.  I think all of that is cleared up, but let me know if you have any problems.  Sorry for the inconvenience.  I think I should get to spank Danica Patrick to make up for the down time.  Seems fair, right?

_


  • Iskar36

    “There isn’t necessarily a “need” to add a starter.”

    I agree that we have some pieces to work with, but I disagree with starter not being a need. Relying on Watkins to do anything simply because we have new coaching is way to risky of a move to make. Yes, it certainly could turn out that way, but the distinct possibility that he is a bust seems more likely than him turning things around. In addition, while Kelly looked functional at RT last year, I think expecting him to start for a full season and be successful is still an incredibly tall order. Lastly, with 3 guys coming off major injuries, there is no guarantee with any of them that they will be 100% healthy. All the positive news about their recoveries means nothing until they can prove it on the field. We hear every year about a guy coming back from injuries only to find out that he will miss the first several games of the season. We have to simply hope that will not be the case with all three of those guys.

    In my opinion, getting a starter is absolutely a need on this team. I don’t think you need to use the 4th overall pick necessarily by any means. If the coaches believe in Watkins and Kelly, that’s fine, but in that case, go with a veteran that you truly believe to be a capable starter and let Watkins/Kelly compete with that veteran. Either way though, I will be highly disappointed if we don’t come out of FA and/or the draft without a legitimate starting caliber Olineman that is not currently on the team.

    • TommyLawlor

      You are shooting down 2 scenarios that you aren’t comfortable with. That’s fine, but it doesn’t fit the definition of “need”. Need indicates you don’t have anyone on the roster who has any likelihood of being competent. That’s simply not the case. Watkins was an effective starter for 12 games in 2011. Kelly showed the potential to be an effective RT last year.

      • Iskar36

        I guess I define “need” differently. To me, I see a hole at one spot on the Oline that requires addressing with someone outside of the current roster. To me, I define that as a “need”. There are options that MAY develop within the roster, but at least my personal opinion is that those current option are unlikely to be successful and/or the expectations of them succeeding this season is too high for it to be a reliable option. So to me, that doesn’t change it from a need to a luxury.

        • TommyLawlor

          How about we settle it this way…you see the need for an upgrade?

          • Iskar36

            That’s fair, lol.

      • http://twitter.com/PhiIs_Goodman Phils Goodman

        >Need indicates you don’t have anyone on the roster who has any likelihood of being competent

        That’s a very high standard for need.

        • TommyLawlor

          I don’t think so.

          • TommyLawlor

            Don’t mis-read this to think I’m setting that as my goal. I’m talking about a floor…a minimum. I need oxygen, food, water to live. I want PBR, Funyuns, and pudding. Things get complicated when we talk specifics. If I live in a mild climate, I need minimal shelter. If I live in northern Minnesota, I need serious shelter.

            Rosters are complicated. They vary based on systems and coaches. Needs get tweaked based on those type factors.

  • ICDogg

    A couple of different interesting names popping up on mock drafts for us… Jordan and Ansah.

    • TommyLawlor

      Jordan makes a ton of sense. Value is the question.

      Ansah is a more complicated discussion. I’ll need to do a full post on him.

      • austinfan

        Jordan is getting highly overrated right how, based on the player he MIGHT become in a couple of years, not the player he was in college (worth no more than a mid-2nd rd pick, nothing special). Let’s see him add weight and strength without slowing down at the Combine before anointing him a 1st rd pick (if he can’t bulk up, then he has no NFL future, 240 lb outside pass rushers have to be ultra-fast, i.e. Mathis, and as a pure SLB he’s gonna struggle breaking down in space and covering quick receivers – he’s then a classic tweener).

        Ansah is intruiging as an early 2nd rd pick, but compared to guys like Floyd or Richardson, why would you consider him? Another “project” who shows flashes, but that’s a far cry from a finished product. People point to JPP, but forget his body was perfect for DE, there was no issue where he’d play, only how he’d play. And he was truly raw, I think only 9 starts at a 1-A level.

        Menelick Watson at OT is this year’s JPP, not Ansah.

  • Kevin_aka_RC

    So what you’re saying is, you want Joeckel to go #1 so the Eagles can trade back from #4 to a team needing a QB (Smith) or a LT (Fisher-Johnson). I like that logic!

    • TommyLawlor

      Big Red can do us a favor by taking Joeckel #1 overall.

      • Iskar36

        I just don’t see why this is doing us a favor. Why would Joeckel not be an excellent pick for us at 4?

        • LostInChiTown

          I think he would be, and I think Tommy would agree with that, but what about the thought of getting a player at #8 this year and the Cardinals 2014 1st next year? To me, that would be even better than Joeckel. We’ll still get one of the first OT, DT, OLB, CB’s off the board this year, and the extra pick next year could help us move way up if we really coveted a QB or other elite talent. The more I read about this draft, the more it sounds like there’s not much to be had in the top 10 that’s not available elsewhere in the top 30.

          • TommyLawlor

            Right. This isn’t about avoiding Joeckel. This is about getting more resources to fix the team.

          • Iskar36

            More resources are great, but if you can get an elite player, go get him. If the Cheifs pass up on Joeckel, I would be incredibly happy picking him up. The extra pick is only valuable if you can do something with that extra pick, which frankly, we don’t know if it will happen or not

          • TommyLawlor

            Is Joeckel an elite player? If the Eagles think so, then I’m all for them taking him. If they think he’s more like Jake Long, who went #1 overall, but hasn’t proven to be anything special…then pass.

          • holeplug

            Long was elite before injuries wrecked him the last 2 years

          • Arby1

            I personally am exhausted with moving back to acquire more resources in lieu of picking at one’s normal slot and grabbing a good player. I would love to get Joeckel. That said, this year’s draft could be about positioning for next year’s draft with the idea of finding that elusive franchise QB, in addition to adding some quality players this year. If we could somehow work out a deal where we acquire an extra 1st for next year while also getting a high quality pick this year, I wouldn’t ignore that. Of course, that extra 1st, if it is out there, is no lock that we get the QB of our dreams next year either. Will the Birds prefer the bird in the hand?

          • Iskar36

            I’m not opposed to trading back if there isn’t a guy worth taking at 4. I’m just against the notion that it benefits us if KC takes away a guy that could potentially help us this high in the draft. It’s not very often we are selecting 4th in the draft, and even if the top 10 does not blow you away, there is no guarantees that if we trade back for a 1st round pick next year that either our pick or the traded pick we get next year will be nearly this high. For all we know, we could end up with two picks in the mid to late teens. I’d rather at least have the option of picking up a really talented player who fits a need while he is there than trade back for the sake of trading back.

      • Eagles_Fan_in_San_Fran

        But, of course, AR never does what is expected – he’ll take Manti Te’o instead!

  • mcud

    To me, not applying the tag to DRC is dumb. Even if he doesn’t fit into your long term plans, control over his rights has a value attached to it. The guy isn’t going to be unemployed this year, no matter what. That means he has value to somebody. If we were in cap hell I could see it. We’re not. Our cap is not going to stop us from doing anything we need to do (other factors may stop us, but not the cap itself). DRC is a tradeable commodity, at worst. But the tag has to be in place to do it.

    • austinfan

      He’s not tradeable b/c no team will give anything for him AND give him franchise money.
      And once you franchise him, he just has to sign the tender to make the money guaranteed.

      • D3Keith

        Yeah I think I like the idea that under no circumstances will DRC be making 10.7 million of the Eagles’ money this year. Dude is not worth 1/12th the cap.

        Everyone has a value, and right now DRC’s is low enough that we might be better off with a lesser talent playing more solid across the board, rather than up and down. We can afford to risk losing him.

    • TommyLawlor

      I seriously doubt anyone is trading anything for the current version of DRC.

      • mcud

        The Pats just traded for Talib. We got a pick for Asante. Not to mention the fact that we traded for DRC ourselves, despite the fact that many of the problems he had here are the same ones he had in Arizona. And, we’ve talked about how much better he looked in the first few games, before the wheels came completely off the wagon for the 2012 season. By most accounts, he is a popular guy in the locker room, is still in his prime, and has stellar ability. Not to mention that when he does leave, we have another hole to fill.

        It is not a perfect scenario by any means, but if it were, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I hope he DOES sign the tender, if for nothing else, it makes Nnamdi’s trip out the door that much more likely. If we’re going to keep one of our 2012 CBs, let it be the one who still has some potential.

        • TommyLawlor

          The problem is that DRC is coming off of 3 straight down seasons. No one wants to pay him $10.7M. Lots of teams have cap problems. The market may once again get flooded with vets.

          I agree that there is a case to be made for DRC’s future, but apparently not at the risk of $10.7M.

          • mcud

            Fair enough. Like I wrote, if his potential cap figure actually prevents us from doing something we would rather do, then obviously it doesn’t make sense to apply the tag. An expensive gamble to be sure, but with no long term ramifications if you’re wrong.

  • LostInChiTown

    “I think I should get to spank Danica Patrick to make up for the down time.”

    Two thoughts:
    1) Are you sure you don’t have that backward Tommy?
    2) Won’t Megan Fox be jealous?

    • TommyLawlor

      1, Either scenario is ideal.
      2. I’m strictly doing this to punish GoDaddy. I would gain no personal pleasure. Any drooling that happens is a result of me thinking about draft prospects.

    • A_T_G

      Wait, backwards? That doesn’t make sense. What is down time with Danica … Ah, got it.

  • austinfan

    I think Arizona insisted on including DRC instead of other players in the deal, they were sick of his antics, so don’t blame the dysfunction of the last two years, DRC simply is one of those players who likes the highlight film plays but won’t put the hard work to improve his technique or do the dirty work (tackle). I doubt that will ever change, this is going to be his 6th year in the league, if he can’t get motivated in his free agency season (even Haynesworth got motivated for money), when will his fires get lit?

    Good riddance. As Chip said, he’d rather have a 5.0 player who plays at 5.0, than a 4.5 player who plays at 5.2.

    This team needs to dump the entitlement twins (DRC and Aso) ASAP.
    Drop this fantasy that if we just keep the right players we can contend in 2013.

    When you have to rebuild a team psychologically (and this team desperately needs an attitude adjustment) you clear out players who aren’t with the program irregardless of their talent. If it means a year of losing, so be it. Ironically, it often results in a quick turnaround, as other players step up in response to being held accountable.

    • TommyLawlor

      As an outsider, I can’t disagree with much of this. I hedged on my comments because you never know what’s going on inside the building that could make you change your mind. I’d only keep DRC if I could speak bluntly to him and let him know 2012 was unacceptable and then I’d need to feel that he understood and agreed with me. I’d rather have Dimtri Patterson than 2012 DRC.

    • D3Keith

      See: 2012 Colts.

      Talent not outstanding, but clearly played together and bought in.

      In this case, I’d be okay with having a defense of no-names that played hard, given what we have on offense and are committed to. And as you mentioned, the big difference in bringing Vick back is that he seems completely bought in.

      I’m not ruling out the idea of contending (for a division title, not a Super Bowl), but I would say it’s less important that remaking the team in Kelly’s image this year, and if it means letting go a couple players who are expensive and not bringing it from an effort/leadership standpoint, I can live with the lesser talents who play right.

  • Lukekelly65

    I really like DJ Fluker as a second round target for us i think he would add depth and could be a possible replacement for Peters. I agree that Andy would be doing us a big favor taking Joeckel hes a great player but taking him might put enough pressure on AZ to make them trade up to fill their LT need, now we have to understand it would only be moving up four spots we would have to be realistic in our expectaions i would love more then anyone to get their 2014 first rounder but i think theres a better chance of Tommy getting to give Danica that spanking

    • austinfan

      Fluker doesn’t fit a zone blocking scheme.
      He won’t even be on the Eagles draft board for that reason.

    • holeplug

      Think Fluker is gonna be a guard in the NFL. His pass blocking leaves a lot to be desired. Amazing run blocker tho. He has weight questions. Some think he played around 350lbs this past year at bama. He’ll tire to much in Chip’s up tempo system at that weight.

    • TommyLawlor

      Fluker isn’t a likely target. Limited athlete. Might be RT in the NFL, but may have to shift to OG. No shot at LT.

  • nopain23

    Iggles need to come out of this draft or FA with a playmaker in the secondary i.e a ballhawk. Now I have no idea who that may be but to say our secondary lacks a playmaker would be the understatement of the century.
    Also I don’t see Cole as a valuable asset in the new scheme. I say we trade him to a team that needs to win now like Denver or Atlanta for a 3rd or something. If AR drafts Luke at 1 then we get the best rush OLB ( for me right now it’s Jones) at 4 or trade back and get the best rush OLB left. You need to get an impact player when you’re drafting in the top 10 PERIOD.

    • D3FB

      Denver has Dumervil, Ayers, Wolfe, and Von Miller. Why would they want Trent?

      • nopain23

        Dumervil and Von Miller are standouts sure.The rest of those guys are so so guys IMHO. Dumervil has an injury history and like the Gmen have proven there is no such thing as too many pass rushers. With Manning back there Denver is in a win NOW mode.

  • SteveH

    I’m certain that I’m in the minority (maybe the only one?) who wants to see DRC come back. The first 6 games that guy was going to the pro bowl, and corners will his talent don’t grow on trees. Sure he sucked the last 10 games, but so did practically every other Eagle on the roster, and its obvious he was affected by Juan’s firing. IMO he’s worth rolling the dice on, he’s been a pro bowler before, he has elite talent, and his coach from Arizona is here now.

    • D3Keith

      I’m with Tommy, I could go either way on DRC. There’s an argument for retaining him, and an argument for letting him walk and building slowly.

      I’m glad they didn’t reward him with big money.

      I could be the only one willing to give NA another crack, under the same reasons you proposed above. But I think it would be smart to try to see if he would take a reduced salary, or if you could move him. Because at this point, neither DRC or NA is a guy we can’t live without.

      • SteveH

        You see, I’m completely over NA because his problems aren’t mental so much as they are he’s just old and can’t run anymore (except for the whole blame Kurt Coleman every time anything bad ever happens in NA’s area thing, thats on the mental side of things). DRC is still an elite athletic talent so if he’s in an environment where coaches aren’t cancerous and coordinators aren’t being fired, I have hope he can pull it together (and his elite talents I think are worth giving it a shot).

        • D3Keith

          I think you can make all the same arguments for NA as you can DRC except for DRC is much younger and is an even worse tackler.

          Both those guys shined at times early in the season but were two of the biggest reasons the Eagles were 1-9 after the bye. Which means they still have the talent to be at least effective in this league, when their heads are in the game and the rest of the defense is pulling its weight.

          Both face effort and ‘head in the game’ questions.

          Both are too expensive at the moment, but are probably better to have out there than inexperienced rookies.

          You get the picture. I would not shed one tear if they both walked and we started from scratch back there. But I could see the logic in trying to salvage one or both, for the right price, and for this year only.

          If I had a vote, I’d probably be in the let them both walk camp. A stunning turnaround from when we thought we had three elite outside corners, but the amount of money committed to them and their play in return was way out of whack. I could live with a bad secondary that plays hard if there’s reasonable hope it would be better in 2014 (i.e. rookies or free agents on the rise/learning the system)

  • ACViking

    Re: Best Player Available

    T-Law:

    Sorry for asking a question that’s one post behind (traveled this weekend).

    You discussed trading down in the draft.

    You also mentioned when discussing Eric Fisher (OT), if he was (my term) “off the charts” at No. 4, the Eagles should select him. But the Eagles probably have targeted someone else.

    Here’s the question:

    Let’s assume Roseman and Kelly’s mantra inside Novacare is “Best Player Available” . . . no matter what.

    That said, however, how much subconscious impact on player grading does *need* have so that the Eagles decide (making this up) OLB Dion Jordan is the “Best Player on Our Board at No. 4 . . . by far”? [Jon Harris-esque question.]

    Seems, after the past 10 years (once the Rhodes guys started to age), that anything other than a BPA philosophy leads to misjudgments.

    As I’ve written before . . . I just want the most physical, talented, meanest, most ruthless player on the board. Don’t care who he is or what position he plays. In time, if the guy’s as good as advertised, the staff will get him in the lineup.

    ________________

    One other item . . . if the Eagles were to trade down, what exactly are the parameters you’d expect to guide the decision?

    Do you pass on the BPA at No. 4 because you signed a FA at that position . . . and then drop down to 8 or 10 (for example) and end up with a less-graded player?

    Or do you make the move down because of the inherently subjective nature of grading anyway, so if guys are pretty close, you make the move?

    Obviously, you don’t pass on a once-in-a-generation player . . . like Tony Mandarich, right?

    • holeplug

      “One other item . . . if the Eagles were to trade down, what exactly are the parameters you’d expect to guide the decision?”

      Teams have found that scouts are pretty good at putting players into tiers but not so good at ranking players within those tiers. So a good draft strategy is to trade down to the bottom of whatever tier your scouts have mapped out and try and stockpile as many picks as possible while remaining in the same tier as your original draft position. So like if tier 1 on the eagles draft board contains 11 players they should try and trade down as far as possible while remaining in that top tier so they still draft a player with that high tier 1 rating.

    • A Roy

      I think the problem develops when you use “need” as one of the criterion for grading and then move someone up during the draft based on need. It sure looks like the Eagles did that with Watson and Jarrett.

      • http://www.facebook.com/michael.w.cho Michael Winter Cho

        I don’t disagree, but even if they were drafted a round too early, they still should not be “out of the NFL” type busts.

    • jshort

      Ahhh! “The meanest, most ruthless player on the board.” It used to be nice when they could draft a person like that. Now they have to shy away from it. You can’t even make a good, solid, clean hit in today’s game without a flag being thrown. Didn’t the stock drop on the MLB from Arizona State last year because he was kinda ruthless? How did that kid end up doing this year ?

    • TommyLawlor

      I’ll answer this question in Tuesday’s post. Don’t want it to get lost in the shuffle.

  • Erik Richardson

    Ok so tell me this makes sense… We have decided to bring back Vick becasue the new coach feels that his new offense in combination with the coaching up and tutelage of Vick himself will be successful right? The biggest reason to bring him back restructured was because the college draft prospects, open Free agent and trade market wasn’t to the coaching staffs liking right? Also for the player himself, it would allow him to remain with an organization he was comfortable with and was clearly comfortable with him. It allows him to again start fresh with the opportunity to “compete” [notice the quotes] for the starting QB job right?

    So why doesn’t the same idea work in regard to DRC? Outside of the 10 million dollar price of the tag, why not bring him back for the same reasons we brought Vick back since it’s only a 1 year deal?

    • ACViking

      Just guessing . . .

      Vick’s a warrior on the field (in the film room, maybe not so much). I don’t think the guy’s ever been accused of taking off a play.

      DRC took off games. Not just this season but in the past as well.

      Again, just guessing.

      • A Roy

        Y’know, the more I look at Vick, the more I see Allen Iverson. He gives everything he has during the game, but it would appear he doesn’t do enough away from the field.

        • Erik Richardson

          I actually don’t think that’s the case at all. I think Vick is putting int he work in the film room and the practice field. It was stated last summer that he was coming in early and staying late at LFF. They may come from the same general area and have gotten into trouble. But, Iverson was insubordinate toward his team, and ownership.

    • holeplug

      You answered your question already. It would cost $10 million to keep him around and they determined he is not worth that much from a value stand point. And unlike QB the draft is incredibly deep with corners this year so they can just draft someone that will cost a lot less.

      • Erik Richardson

        There’s no one in the draft better than him, cheaper yes. But not better. He played like a sissy most of the year and doesn’t deserve it [$10 million]. Nnamdi either. But I think he deserves the opportunity to “compete” and show and prove.

        • D3Keith

          He has the opportunity to compete. He can re-sign, assuming the Eagles are interesting in having him back, for less than $10.7 million.

        • austinfan

          No one as talented, but probably a dozen who will be better players. Don’t confuse talent and potential with production, DRC can look great one play then allow a 20 yard run because he doesn’t even try to make a tackle.

          Compare to say Sheldon Brown, a late 2nd rd pick with decent but not great talent, who played hard and smart, understood his limitations and was quietly efficient. DRC is far more talented than Brown, but Brown has had a far superior career to DRC.

  • http://twitter.com/makarov__ Songbird Rescue Cat

    I’m not surprised or disappointed they didn’t apply the tag to DRC. I would be both if they did. If you can’t find a better way to spend $10M at this point, shame on you. Only horrible scenario regarding CB I can imagine is paying Nnamdi anything over his guaranteed plus vet minimum and seeing DRC sign somewhere else for $25M – $30M over 5 years, and less than $8M guaranteed.

    The more I think about Vick’s restructuring, the more I feel let down by that move. Before someone quotes Chip saying you need 2 QBs in the NFL, tell me who the backups are for Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, and Eli Manning, since I forgot if I ever knew them to begin with.

    The reason I don’t like Vick coming back is it almost guarantees he’s the 2013 starter. I’d rather see what Foles can do. Why I don’t like Vick can be found in the stats Jimmy Kempski posted – the most significant being his incredible 9%+ fumble rate on runs past the line of scrimmage over the last 2 season.

    Why do I assume Vick will be the starter? Barring injury, even with a lights out camp and preseason performance from Foles, there’s not likely to be huge amounts of daylight between the two. In the case of them being “close” at all, Vick wins. Michael Vick is the veteran, a proven leader, and popular among teammates, even if he’s an equally proven turnover machine. I think in this case, Chip Kelly will fall into the same trap Reid did last season – go with the guy you think gives you the best chance to win. That’s the veteran over the guy who went 1-5 in his first 6 games.

    Surely, you say, Kelly will have Vick on a short leash (bad pun unintended). If Vick looks like the ’11-’12 Vick, he’ll get benched by week 3. Don’t bet on it. The ‘veteran’ pit trap is very alluring and deep. Yeah, he’ll get pulled eventually if he continued to perform poorly, but keep in mind with a better defense that the ’12 Eagles would be close to .500 until at least midseason. At that point you’re again facing the “veteran vs unproven” question, and we know how that is answered. Heck, even a ‘bad’ Vick might be able to keep the 2013 team in playoff contention or even be playing for the division in week 16 or 17.

    I hate bringing back Vick. Not for competition to push Foles, but because if Vick is on the 53 man roster it won’t be to make $7M as backup to anybody. He’s your 2013 starter.