Geno to the Eagles?

Posted: April 11th, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Philadelphia Eagles | 133 Comments »

Daniel Jeremiah (@movethesticks) posted his latest mock draft the other day.  He had Luke Joeckel, Dion Jordan, and Shariff Floyd as the top 3 picks.  He then had the Eagles take QB Geno Smith at #4.

“With this move, Chip Kelly would be getting a young quarterback who has experience playing in an up-tempo offense. Michael Vick’s veteran presence will give Smith some time to sit and learn before he takes the reins in Philly.”

Jeremiah offered these follow-up comments on Twitter:

“I don’t have Geno graded as a top 20 player but the fit in Philly is interesting. His experience in a fast-paced offense is a huge plus.”

“(in a response to question about Geno and the Eagles) … I know people and I hear things.”

Let’s start with the last part first.  Jeremiah is a former Eagles scout.  Has he heard from a friend still on the staff that the Eagles want Smith?  Very possible.  It is also possible that Jeremiah is getting played.  This is the season of mis-information.  A buddy could have dropped that nugget to Jeremiah hoping he’d spread the rumor.  This is all part of the pre-draft game to make some team that covets Geno trade up to get him.

Jeremiah himself has said on Twitter that this is the time of the year NOT to believe what you’re hearing.  Teams want everyone confused.  Maybe the Eagles want people to believe they like Smith simply to divert them from the fact the Eagles truly want Eric Fisher or Dee Milliner. If teams behind the Eagles think we’re going for Smith, they wouldn’t move up ahead of us for some other player.

Because Jeremiah is so well connected it is possible that the Eagles do legitimately like him.  Now let’s get into that side of things.

A reader asked me about whether Chip Kelly might want Geno because of his ability to run West Virginia’s system so well.  Coach Dana Holgorsen is one of the top offensive minds in college football.  The NFL checks out his stuff and studies his concepts.  Geno is his prize pupil. Maybe Kelly would love to draft Geno so that he could have a leg up at installing some of these new concepts.  Jeremiah mentioned above that Geno’s experience in the up-tempo offense would be a good selling point for the Eagles.  This thinking is logical and makes a ton of sense.

Except that we’re talking about the #4 pick in the draft.

You take a QB at that spot because he deserves it.  If a coach and GM hitch their wagon to a QB in the Top 10, that guy needs to be someone they think can help lead the team to win a Super Bowl.  Can you picture this guy leading your team on a game-winning drive with a playoff berth on the line?  Can you see this QB running out the final 3:30 in a playoff game where you have a 1-point lead?  Is this QB a franchise player, someone that you build around?

I don’t see that with Geno Smith.

As I’ve said all along, if Chip Kelly and the Eagles love Geno Smith and think he can be a star QB, take him.  Make it that simple.  The worst thing you can do is talk yourself into a QB.  That’s a good way to sink a franchise.  Understand that you can love a prospect and he still might fail.  This is the NFL Draft we’re talking about.  There are no guarantees.  You want to do things the right way so that if a player does fail, you can live with it.

If you love Geno, draft him.

Do not try to rationalize the fit because of his college offense and background.  You can do that in Rounds 2-7.  1st Round QBs need to be players that are special and all 32 teams should want.  Brandon Weeden played at Oklahoma State, in an offense that Holgorsen helped to design.  He left OSU to go to West Va in 2011.  Holgorsen coached Weeden for a couple of years.  Under Holgorsen’s tutelage, Brandon started in 2010 and posted big numbers (4277 yds, 34 TDs).  Did Weeden bring anything special to Cleveland?  The Browns are now looking to replace him after just a year.

I wish the Eagles had a shot at Andrew Luck or RG3, but we picked the wrong year to suck.  Heck, I’d use the #4 pick on Ryan Tannehill if he were in this class.  I think Geno Smith compares to Weeden from last year’s class.  Geno is more athletic.  Weeden has the better arm and is bigger.  Geno does give you the ability to mix in some read-option, but he’s not going to be a weapon as a runner.  While Geno has some athletic ability, he’s not a natural runner.  He is a pocket passer.

I will be highly disappointed if the Eagles use the #4 pick on Geno Smith.  If they trade back and take him, I’d be more comfortable, but that wouldn’t change the fact that I’m just not sold on Geno.  Greg Cosell has pointed out the “slow eyes” issue.  Geno is a smart QB, but as Ron Jaworski says so perfectly, a QB must process information quickly.  Geno doesn’t do this.  He’s late on his reads and decisions.  I’m not sure that can be coached out of him.  The situations in the NFL will only be tougher.  Receivers will be less open.  Pass rushers will be bigger, faster, and stronger.

Maybe Kelly thinks he can fix this.  Maybe Kelly loves Geno’s personality.  We’ll find out in 2 weeks.  I’m not a betting man, but if I were, I’d wager that Geno won’t be an Eagle anytime soon.


133 Comments on “Geno to the Eagles?”

  1. 1 Scott J said at 10:50 AM on April 11th, 2013:

    If we draft Geno Smith, we’ll waste another 3 or 4 years on a lousy QB. And, we probably wouldn’t draft a QB in the first round next year because of him. We’re so screwed because of bad QB decisions!

  2. 2 TommyLawlor said at 11:40 AM on April 11th, 2013:

    He’s not a lousy QB. I just don’t think he’ll be a star. Could be an Andy Dalton type of player. That’s not bad, but it isn’t great either.

  3. 3 shah8 said at 11:52 AM on April 11th, 2013:

    You overrate Andy Dalton, who really isn’t a true starting calibre QB, for physical reasons.

  4. 4 shah8 said at 11:57 AM on April 11th, 2013:

    This is not to say that I’d be totally enthusiastic about Geno Smith, but as before, I pretty much compare him to Matt Ryan and Byron Leftwich. Good starting calibre QB (when healthy in the case of the latter) who needs a good team around him to make noise. I understand why we’d pick him, because you don’t pass up on real QBs if you’re a franchise who’s actually aiming to win instead of muddling through and increasing value for a high sale price when the owner has had his fun.

    It would be *very* interesting to me if Jax passes up on Smith, though. They really can’t afford to do so, all risks calculated, and if they do pass up, that means Gabbert really has to step up…

  5. 5 shah8 said at 11:59 AM on April 11th, 2013:

    Actually, given the draft order by Jeremiah, I fail to see why the Eagles wouldn’t pick Star…We need a lineman more than we need a QB.

  6. 6 D-von said at 12:14 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Who knows. He must have a plug like he said but I still don’t buy it that the Eagles are drafting Smith

  7. 7 TommyLawlor said at 12:07 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    I put Matt Ryan definitively above Geno. Leftwich…I can see that comparison more. Ryan lacked a great arm and athleticism, but rated highly everywhere else. Leftwich had the bizarre delivery and some questions about his college system and competition.

  8. 8 shah8 said at 3:05 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    The arm matters, though. The lack of athleticism matters. Also, Ryan was rather prone to interceptions for a highly rated QB prospect. Ryan is the epitome of the high floor QB who worked out. Geno is a better prospect, physically, wrt to numbers, and only inferior in terms of certain mechanics and refinement. If the draft was this year, I…honestly wonder whether Ryan would have been given the same chances he did in ’08–he really is one of the weakest high draft pick QB I can think of.

  9. 9 Geagle said at 7:30 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    If they do plan on moving ahead with Gabbert, y have to believe they would pass up a defender and take an OT to ATleast give Gabbert a chance? especial since they send they won’t extend Eugene Monroe, going into his contract year…I feel like they are forced to go offense, as much as everyone want sto mock a defender to Gus Bradley. if they think Gabbert sucks, they have to take Geno…if they want Gabbart to have a chance at not sucking, they have to taken Fisher…something has to gve, they can’t ignore both the offensive line and QB in the first round….can they?

  10. 10 xeynon said at 3:27 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Dalton is a starting caliber QB. But he’s not an elite starting caliber QB, because of the limitations you note. You can win with a guy like that, but only if the team around him is dominant, and it’s hard to build and maintain such a team in the FA era (the Brad Johnson Bucs and Dilfer Ravens, both one offs, are the only examples I can think of. It is much easier to build a multiple year contender by starting with an elite QB, and I agree with you 100% that Geno Smith isn’t likely to be one.

  11. 11 shah8 said at 7:15 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    That’s really the issue, though, Dalton has been okay, just like Ponder’s nominal numbers last year was okay, out of the sheer dominance of another player. On a bad team (or a good team on a bad day), or in the playoffs against stingy defenses, Dalton folds. That’s just not starting QB material, in the sense that I expect *some* ability to make plays in adverse circumstances.

    A lot of my thinking is influenced by Tarvaris Jackson during the 2011 Seahawks season. He did a great deal of good for that offense, even though he’s not a good QB–because he’s a *real* QB, and an offense had a chance to firm up and know their roles. I don’t think Seattle’s late offensive explosion in ’12 happens with Russel without Tarvaris breaking in the leather, so to speak. Same, actually, for Alex Smith. It’s just not a good idea for teams to be playing around with such bad QBs, either because they’re pretty or sheer ineptitude or whatnot. Don’t worry about getting stars at QB, in any sort of all or nothing. Simply play the most competent you can get your hands on, particularly physically so (so a full offense can happen), and let luck happen. Either a career year, or just really bad luck going into a draft like 2004.

    Andy Dalton was always just going to be a waste of time and space as a starter, and I doubt there is much margin between him and Josh Johnson backing him up. Same with Schaub, except he *does* have a drastically inferior backup. Wasted too many years of a good WR career with QBs that you have to do excess gameplanning to get the ball deep. Same with Fitzgerald, but he wasn’t even consistently capable of making good decisions, let alone get the ball anywheres.

  12. 12 deg0ey said at 10:58 AM on April 11th, 2013:

    Reposted from previous thread (sorry it’s not related to this one so much):

    I’ve been speculating on a Maclin trade for a while now and there haven’t seemed to be many logical destinations. Rams and Vikings both have extra picks in the first round but there’s a dire cap situation in St Louis and there’s not much of a need in Minnesota.

    After a bit of thinking, I’ve concluded that the Texans are likely to be our best shot of getting a high pick for Maclin. They’ve got a pretty late first round pick, WR is their biggest need and they have a cap situation that should allow them to take on J-Mac’s contract.

    I don’t think it would be too difficult to convince them that Maclin + a conditional mid-late round pick next year would be better than taking a flyer on Keenan ‘questionable knees’ Allen or DeAndre Hopkins at #27.

  13. 13 laeagle said at 11:14 AM on April 11th, 2013:

    Interesting scenario, which could then put us in range where it makes sense to pick up Austin? Not bad.

  14. 14 deg0ey said at 11:29 AM on April 11th, 2013:

    I think Austin is gonna go in the top-10, but I wouldn’t be averse to taking him at #4 if we got another first rounder for Maclin.

    #4 – Austin
    #27 – Hankins
    #35 – Kyle Long

    How much better does this make the team?

  15. 15 laeagle said at 11:35 AM on April 11th, 2013:

    With the expected run on OT/DT, as well as the usual QB over-drafting, I don’t see Austin making it into the top 10. Top 15 definitely (I don’t see him getting past the Rams). So with a trade for a 4th and maybe future 3rd, maybe we can move up to NO’s spot?
    #4 Fisher
    #15 Austin
    #35 Hankins (or some other DT man beast)

    That would make me unreasonably happy. Which means it’s not likely to happen.

  16. 16 deg0ey said at 11:41 AM on April 11th, 2013:

    That would be pretty special. I don’t think Hankins makes it to #35 (I think NO or IND take him) and would kinda see needing moving up from #27 if we want him too. One of the other 5-techs in the early second wouldn’t be too bad, though, especially if the first two picks basically fix the offense.

  17. 17 Geagle said at 7:32 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    #4 Dion
    #27 Hankins
    #35 Long

    makes us soooo damn good

  18. 18 Mark Sitko said at 11:03 AM on April 11th, 2013:

    From your blog to Chip’s ears Tommy – I honestly will not be upset with us picking any of the guys getting projected to us, OTHER THAN GENO. I feel he is by far the biggest risk at #4, and I just don’t want to miss on this pick…I would assume Chip and Howie feel the same way – their jobs depend on it…

  19. 19 Arby1 said at 1:53 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    I also don’t want Milliner at 4. If we traded down a bit I’d be fine with him though.

  20. 20 Alex Karklins said at 11:12 AM on April 11th, 2013:

    I think I flip-flop on the Geno at #4 issue at least 20 times a day. I’m actually hoping Jacksonville takes him at #2 to save me the anguish of the Eagles taking/passing on him.

  21. 21 Geagle said at 6:35 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    At night I pray that Gabbert sucks so bad that they draft, Geno and let Dion fall to us. lucky for us Eagles fan, Jax gets a pre draft mini camp as well, so Gus Bradley gets to see Gabbert In all his glory up close and personal..hahahahaha that should send Gus begging the GM for Geno Smith!

  22. 22 Sb2bowl said at 11:21 AM on April 11th, 2013:

    From Bleeding Green Nation

  23. 23 PK_NZ said at 7:30 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Makes sense. Lewis was never going to get on the field and Acho might turn out to be a solid backup ILB and special teams player.

  24. 24 Sb2bowl said at 12:19 PM on April 12th, 2013:

    Yup. bye bye Dion

  25. 25 jshort said at 11:23 AM on April 11th, 2013:

    The only thing that I envision when thinking about Gino is that bowl game against Syracuse. Snow, wet ball, bad decisions. If we do use the #4 on him it will be 1999 deja vu from the philly croud. Thought we weren’t going to reach?

  26. 26 ACViking said at 2:41 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Nassib. Nassib. Nassib.

  27. 27 Brett Smith said at 3:57 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    “He’s late on his reads and decisions.” — it would be 1999-2008 all over again.

  28. 28 Daniel Norman Richwine said at 11:35 AM on April 11th, 2013:

    You make a good case. it seems you don’t think Geno is special.enough for a #4 pick. in a “Normal” draft he might be available in round 2, and it doesn’t make sense to spend a #4 pick like that just because this year there is no one better.

  29. 29 ACViking said at 2:40 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    That’s not how Roseman *publicly* frames this draft.

    Roseman reportedly said (I forget where) that he’s not looking at the 2013 draft-eligible players in comparison to 2012 or 2011 or any other year.

    2013, per Roseman, is it’s own year. You stack the players. And you make a pick.

  30. 30 ACViking said at 11:35 AM on April 11th, 2013:

    Re: Rolling the Dice on a QB versus a “Safer Pick” . . . Jeremiah and Tannehill


    I get the criticism of Geno. And you can throw in Mayock’s “lack of pocket presence” concerns, too.

    Here’s my question.

    This year’s draft’s supposed to have 4-5 top players and then the next 20 or so players on the board are about the same. Or so says the media.

    Of those 4-5 top players, are any of them of the *premium* types who project as top-shelf NFL players — not just very good players . . . like an OJ Simpson, John Elway, Lawrence Taylor, Bruce Smith, Troy Aikman, Deion Sanders, Jonathan Ogden, Orlando Pace, Walter Jones, Peyton Manning, Larry Fitzgerald, Calvin Johnson, or Ndamukong Suh.

    Obviously, projections can be wrong. See Tony Mandarich!

    But the 2013 draft seems thin by all accounts relative to some other drafts.

    So why not take Geno Smith?

    He’s not much better or much worse than nearly every player grading out as a 1st round pick this year.

    And none of this year’s projected 1st rounders — like Dion Jordon, for example — projects to be the next Lawrence Taylor. Or — for Star, Shelly Richardson, and Floyd — the next Suh. Not close.

    Nor do Joekel and Fisher look like they’re then the next Ogden.

    What I’m saying is roll the dice.

    Just a scenario I’m throwing out there for you.

    Jeremiah’s been a scout. He knows that Spring time in the NFL means every day’s a smoggy day . . . because so many people are blowing smoke.

    Knowing that, why would Jeremiah let himself get used?

    He’s not some pathetic ESPN reporter looking to fill space.

    Just curious.

    Fletcher Cox looks to have a very good pick last year.

    In the 2012 draft’s lead up, I argued for the Eagles trying to move up for Tannehill.

    So, with 20-20 hindsight, would you rather the Eagles have Cox.

    Or would you rather they have packaged what might have been this year’s 1st rounder plus the 2012 1st for Tannehill.

    Seems for all the talk,

  31. 31 TommyLawlor said at 11:39 AM on April 11th, 2013:

    Jeremiah might believe he has a legit nugget. Or he might know that it is questionable and doesn’t care. After all, he’s not saying anything dumb. He’s not projecting something outlandish.

    I don’t believe you “roll the dice” on QBs at #4. I totally disagree with that mentality. You take someone you believe in. If the Eagles do, take Geno. If not, pass.

    You can roll the dice in other rounds, but #4 needs to be a pick you feel strongly will become an impact player or key starter.

  32. 32 austinfan said at 12:31 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    You don’t have to be a perennial all pro to be valuable.
    Did Runyan ever make the pro bowl?
    Trent Cole spent most of his career as the 3rd or 4th best DE in the NFC.

    What you do need to walk away with is a solid starter (i.e. top 5-6 of 32 at his position) who starts for 6-8 years. Those are the guys who are the foundation of a good team. Fisher, Joeckel, Jordan, Ansah, Floyd, Star are all good bets to be that kind of player.

  33. 33 Justin Sengstock said at 12:56 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    You don’t have to be a perennial all pro to be valuable, but if you’re getting drafted in the top 5, you’re supposed to be someone EXPECTED to be a perennial all-pro.

  34. 34 ACViking said at 1:01 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    That’s just what Dick Vermeil would say!

  35. 35 ACViking said at 1:04 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Runyon actually did make the PB in 2002.

    And the AP voted him 2nd-team All Pro for the ’99 season. (He joined the Eagles in ’00.)

    Your point’s understood.

    But picking at No. 4 (assuming no move can be made), I’m with
    Justin Sengstock on this . . . you’d want to get a dominant player.

    Not a solid player.

    Anyway, I’m just putting the thesis out there. Not ascribing to it.

  36. 36 Arby1 said at 1:50 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    In a normal year with outstanding talent at the top, your premise would make more sense. You seem to keep wanting to force a round peg in a square hole. Anyway, Fisher, Joeckel and Star could very well turn out to be perennial all pros.

  37. 37 ACViking said at 2:36 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    I’m must putting theories out there to see what people are thinking.

    I have no dog in any fight.

  38. 38 Ark87 said at 2:44 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    I was saying something similar a while back. A franchise goes no where with no franchise QB unless you have a historic defense. I like Billy Davis, but history says cracking the top 15 would be quite the trick especially turning over this roster. So we need a franchise QB, and most teams do. QB’s will always be drafted earlier than they should, and it’s almost always a roll of the dice. You know history better than me, I’m sure you can think of quite a few QBs picked in the top 5 and busted or didn’t become legit franchise QBs. I figure, this is priority number 1, not any clear pro-bowlers in this draft, let alone special players. So why not?

    But lately I’ve been looking at Geno and what keeps coming to me is…..I’m not even sure this kid could beat Mike Vick or Nick Foles in a TC competition. Our QB situation isn’t good…but it’s not KC 2012, or Panthers 2010, or the dolphins post Marino in general. Basically at #4 you want someone who is a clear improvement on day 1. This year, given the top of the draft, I’d settle for eventually our best option, but more and more I’m not sure he could clearly beat out Nick Foles or Mike Vick, or any future investments we make at QB.

    Ultimately I’d like to see Vick, Foles, and a developmental middle rounder behind a functional O-line and a utilized running game to really see what we got. If it really is nothing, hey high draft pick next season.

  39. 39 Jack Bauer said at 12:12 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    2012: Cowboys took Claiborne at 6, trading St. Louis their 14th and 45th picks. Miami took Tannehill at 8, so it probably would have only cost us our 15th, 46th and change. The question then becomes would you rather have Tannehill or Cox and Kendricks (As the trade-back pick w GB netted us a 4th)?

  40. 40 Neil said at 1:48 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Also, you’re forgetting Nick Foles is the future.

  41. 41 jshort said at 9:36 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Or Philadelphia’s Foles gold

    couldn’t help myself.

  42. 42 xeynon said at 3:08 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    I’ll tell you two reasons why not:

    1.)If its true that this is a relatively flat draft without a big dropoff after the top 5 or 10 or whatever, the optimal strategy for a team with multiple needs like the Eagles is to trade down with a team that covets a particular player because they have a single glaring need and stockpile extra picks. A comparably talented player at a position of need can be had later on so maximize your resources.

    2.)As has been pointed out before, the cost of missing on a QB with a high pick is much more severe than the cost of missing on a player at another position. If Joeckel or Milliner or Jordan or is the pick and busts or becomes only an average starter, it’s a disappointment but something the team can recover from. If Geno Smith is picked with a similar result, it is quite likely the head of both Roseman and Kelly.

    One of the worst things a team can do at the top of the draft in my opinion is “take a flyer” on a QB they aren’t convinced is a future star. IMO you only pick a QB that high if you are completely sold on him.

  43. 43 TommyLawlor said at 11:36 AM on April 11th, 2013:

    I just posted my thoughts on Eagles trade of Dion Lewis for ILB Emmanuel Acho.

  44. 44 Ark87 said at 11:50 AM on April 11th, 2013:

    Too bad, I actually really liked Dion Lewis, sadly he’s useless on ST, so oh well. I wonder how good Acho is on ST. I suspect he is valuable in that regard.

    And also: look out people Howie and Banner are trading.

  45. 45 Mac said at 12:16 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Wait I thought league execs weren’t willing to deal with Roseman. I guess LaCanfora isn’t a reputable source of information 🙁

  46. 46 deg0ey said at 12:32 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    This just in: Bears are Catholic.

  47. 47 Ark87 said at 12:40 PM on April 11th, 2013:


  48. 48 eagles2zc said at 1:05 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    The expectations associated with picking an QB at #4 mentioned above is most likely a remnant of the pre-rookie scale era, where a Geno Smith would cost substantially more than a Joeckel or Jordan. Not so anymore.

    Flipping the script, no one really expects the single addition of a Joeckel or Jordan to take a team to the Superbowl, which only serves to highlight the importance of an QB over other positions. So with the lower risk (monetary wise) and high importance of the QB position, it can be argued that taking Geno at #4 would be a smart move.

  49. 49 CalSFro said at 1:33 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    I really struggle with this line of thinking. I understand everything you’re saying. And you’re right to a certain extent.

    But it should all boil down to the player, not the position. And hedging your bets, or thinking about it in terms of money, is a bad way to look at it.

    Yeah, a top shelf QB is the most important player you could bring onto your team. But why the heck would you throw away an early pick on a long shot, even at the sports most important position, when you can shore up another important aspect of your team?

    Again, as Tommy has said, if Chip and Howie are CERTAIN that they can make Geno into a top shelf QB, then by all means take him. But if you’re not certain, or worse, betting 50/50 that he’ll turn out to be better than what we already have (but heck, why not bring him in because it won’t destroy us financially?), then you’re just wasting a pick that could be better used elsewhere.

    If you miss with Geno, not only are you missing with him, you’re wasting the organization’s time, and you’re wasting an opportunity to bring in a possibly elite player at another position. Hopefully we’re not picking in the top 5 very often.

  50. 50 eagles2zc said at 2:15 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Exactly. Money shouldn’t be a concern in the rookie scale era. But the expectations enunciated in the post allude to that concern. If not, the same should be expected out of any other player Eagles pick at #4.

    There is no CERTAINTY involved in a draft pick. Huge assumptions are involved in saying Geno is “a long shot” or Eagles would miss out on some other “elite player.” It all comes down to the valuation. If Eagles like the odds associated with Geno more than Jordan, given the positional value, then why not take Geno?

  51. 51 Neil said at 2:35 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Tommy has discussed other serious concerns that remain, even though the money concern is gone. A failed quarterback generally has no value to his team, many times not even as a backup. A failed quarterback can spend up to three years negatively affecting the development of skillposition players, possibly even offensive linemen and the defense. Missing on a quarterback can have a ripple effect on a whole team, and other positions don’t even come close. That’s why you have to be careful.

  52. 52 Mac said at 2:37 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Which is precisely why we need to DRAFT LANE JOHNSON… hello… failed OT, no problem… back up QB of the future!

  53. 53 Neil said at 2:38 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Somebody hire this man.

  54. 54 Mac said at 2:39 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Haha, end of tax season is making me even crazier than normal.

  55. 55 Ark87 said at 3:26 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    No no, that why Sopoaga is here, his arm is legend.

  56. 56 eagles2zc said at 4:07 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Good points. But the three years development period can be said for other positions also. Look at Nate Allen and Watkins. They certainly have done their share of making others look bad. Certainly, the QB position amplifies some effects, but how certain must the Eagles be then to draft an QB? If the criterion of “failed” QBs is not making it to the superbowl, then there sure are a lot of those.

  57. 57 CalSFro said at 5:31 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Yes, valuation matters right now. But as soon as the draft is over, it stops mattering entirely, no matter what all the pundits and “draft grades” will tell you.

    Once the draft is over, you’re left with the player. And based on attributes I’ve seen, I don’t think Geno is going to live up to the inherent billing of being picked fourth overall.

    My point was just to show that your original thought process, that there’s an argument to be made for taking Geno because of the relative importance of the position and the fact that it won’t saddle us with an unmanageable contract, is in no way shape or form a legitimate argument for taking Geno.

    Those are factors, yes. But I’d say in the scale of things, they’re a much smaller part of the picture than his personality and/or overall ability.

  58. 58 Noah Drauschak said at 1:53 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Hey Tommy,
    Here are my positional rankings. What do you think? Any thoughts, qualms, arguments?

  59. 59 A_T_G said at 6:38 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Well, it is kinda hard to read on my phone, but I think the tiny black smudge should be above the little black blur.

  60. 60 A_T_G said at 6:39 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    More serious, you have Tavon as the second WR?

  61. 61 TommyLawlor said at 8:19 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Pretty good overall. I wish I had the time to give extensive thoughts. You’re not high on Dallas Thomas and DJ Swearinger. I go back and forth with both myself, but think I like ’em more than you.

  62. 62 Iskar36 said at 1:56 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    To add to the potential of the Dolphin’s trading up with us:

    If true, it seems we would definitely be a good trade partner for them (unless of course we want Fisher and/or Joeckel). The concern would also be that even the perception that we want either player could force the Dolphins to jump ahead of us in a trade if they like either player enough to move up.

  63. 63 deg0ey said at 4:28 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Depends how early the trade is decided though, right? I read somewhere that Roseman said he had the deal in place to trade up for Cox the day before the draft but it was only activated when the player was actually available. If we’re that serious about moving down, we could be in talks with Miami about it ahead of time, which should quell the notion that they need to trade ahead of us.

  64. 64 D3FB said at 5:06 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Most of the time the GM’s have a couple of deals worked out in case they feel the need to move, however if the draft breaks the wrong way they just keep them in their pocket.

  65. 65 ACViking said at 2:18 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Re: Geno vs. The World

    CalSFro made the following point, the significance of which I’d missed until now:

    “[A]s Tommy has said, if Chip and Howie are CERTAIN that they can make Geno into a top shelf QB, then by all means take him . . . .”

    Danny Watkins . . . Broderick Bunkley . . . Jerome McDougle . . . Freddie Mitchell . . . Jon Harris . . . Mike Mamula . . . etcs.

    None of those 1st-round picks came close to being a perennial valuable contributor let alone perrenial Pro Bowler.

    When we talk about passing on Geno, it’s because he doesn’t come with a tag saying “All Pro Performance Guaranteed.”

    But that’s true of every player in this draft.

    OTs Joekel and Fisher could turn out to be a Jason Smith (No. 2 overall – ’99)

    OG Warmak could turn out to be a Danny Watkins.
    (Interestingly, over the past 10 years, it seems like the handful of 1st-Rd guards taken — except Watkins — turned out to be a pretty damned good players . . . yielding a better percentage of success than at OT: 2012 – Kevin Zeitler, Bengals; 2010 – Mike Iupati, 49ers; 2007 – Ben Grubbs, Ravens; 2006 – Davin Joseph, Bucs; 2005 – Logan Mankins, Pats; 2004 – Shawn Andrews, Eagles [but for injuries he may not have had a mental breakdown, otherwise he was among the NFL’s top 3 guards]; 2002 – Kendall Simmons, Steelers [achilles injury effectively ended his career; 2001 – Steve Hutchinson, Seahawks [HOF-bound])

    DTs Star, Floyd, or Shelly Richardson could be a Dontari Poe, or Glenn Dorsey, or Amobi Okoye, Dwayne RObertson (No. 4 overall), or Jonathan Sullivan (No. 6 overall).

    OLB Dion Jordan could be an Aaron Curry (No. 4 overall), or Keith Rivers (No. 9), or Chris Claiborne (No. 9), or Jerry Hughes, or Larry English (No. 16).

    There’s just no way to know if any of the available position position players will be any better — relatively speaking — than Geno Smith.

    So why is “certainty” so essential for a QB, as opposed to, say, an OT (who’s waiting to turn into Gabe Carimi).

    If it’s likelihood of success we want, then lets take OG Chance Warmack. The OL coach knows him. He was a road grader in college. He’s the consensus best guard — and maybe best OL — in the 2013 draft. And history is on his side, as Warmack’s no Danny Watkins.

  66. 66 Neil said at 2:28 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    What you say has the appearance of good sense, but it’s not an excuse to just throw up your hands in the air and say…well, we need a quarterback so let’s just take Geno. You don’t take a player at any position unless you’re “certain”. You don’t treat players as “statistics”, you treat them as people. Every player is a different person, and you’re just giving up if you decide that there aren’t specific reasons why some players succeed and others fail and you don’t try to understand who each player you might draft is, what he might do. That’s why Tommy keeps saying if during Howie and Chip’s much more extensive research of Geno Smith, based on their knowledge of what makes a successful football player and quarterback, if they come to the conclusion that Geno has what it takes to be worth that #4 pick they should do it. But what if they see a couple red flags on Geno and none on Sharrif Floyd or Dion Jordan? You absolutely do not take the QB in that case because “well, we might just be wrong on the other players anyway”. Once you stop trusting yourself to be right, you have no business working in this league.

  67. 67 ACViking said at 2:50 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    You’ve missed my point. Completely.

  68. 68 Neil said at 2:58 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Yeah, I think I see what you mean. So here’s a rebuttal to your actual point I posted elsewhere in this thread. (lol).

    “Tommy has discussed other serious concerns that remain, even though the money concern is gone. A failed quarterback generally has no value to his team, many times not even as a backup. A failed quarterback can spend up to three years negatively affecting the development of skillposition players, possibly even offensive linemen and the defense. Missing on a quarterback can have a ripple effect on a whole team, and other positions don’t even come close. That’s why you have to be careful.”

    The other thing is that a quarterback takes longer to develop in general. So 3-5 sunk years of mediocre to terrible play at the most important position, versus 2-3 sunk years at a position that’s not important relatively.

  69. 69 A_T_G said at 6:36 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Yep, exactly. You only have one QB on the field, they don’t do special teams or sub packages, and if you bring in competition after he is entrenched it is the kiss of death.

    There is no room for “maybe this guy will work out” when drafting a QB in the first round.

  70. 70 Geagle said at 6:40 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    We are fortunate that we have coaches who know many of the top prospects up close and personal..let’s eliminate the guess work, and use this to our advantage: Dion, Kiko, long, and two Bamma Boys…3yrs from how our coaches won’t know any of the kids in college and we will no longer have this advantage. So let’s make the most of it and get it right these next two years

    I’m a firm believer that when you have first or second round talent, the only reason you can become a bust is because of Charecter or injury. Agents are coaching kids up, eliminate the guess work and invest in talent who’s Charecter we don’t need to gamble on

  71. 71 xlGmanlx said at 9:05 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    So they stop talking to their friends in college? How about instead of having people feed him players to target in College, it will be the pro’s? Kelly has “it” and that means people want to talk to you and share things with you, it won’t be any different unless he changes who he is.

  72. 72 Geagle said at 1:41 PM on April 12th, 2013:

    Talking to friends, and first hand knowledge of how a kid is wired are two very very different dynamics

  73. 73 xlGmanlx said at 2:00 PM on April 12th, 2013:

    This is true, but so then he is soon going to be like all other NFL coaches that are far removed from their first hand knowledge.

  74. 74 ACViking said at 7:53 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    It’s not personal, pal.

  75. 75 Neil said at 8:47 PM on April 11th, 2013:


  76. 76 Ark87 said at 2:55 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    “What you say has the appearance of good sense, but it’s not an excuse to just throw up your hands in the air and say…well, we need a quarterback so let’s just take Geno.”

    that would be inexcusable for a personnel department to do.

    As a fan, knowing there are better players than Geno in the draft, we need to understand it is possible that Chip and Howie decide they believe in Geno and that he is more valuable than, let me cut to the chase

    If we pick Geno, I’m going to: throw up my hands in the air and say…”well, we need a quarterback so let’s just take Geno.”

  77. 77 Mac said at 3:17 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    At what point do you take into account “whiffability”?

    Ex. it’s easier to miss on an OLB than an OT.

  78. 78 ACViking said at 7:52 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Exactly . . .

    That “whiffability” factor has to be built in to the stack of players. Unless the OLB is a Lawrence Taylor type, maybe you push him down below OTs can always be moved to OGs . . . and then out the door.


    Mac’s asked a great question.

    Is “whiffabilty” — i.e., structural risk — a factor built into player valuation?

  79. 79 xeynon said at 3:20 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    So why is “certainty” so essential for a QB, as opposed to, say, an OT (who’s waiting to turn into Gabe Carimi).

    Because the cost of screwing up when evaluating a QB is so much higher.

    Think about this analogy. Let’s say to be happy in life I need a wife, a house, a car, a job, and friends. Obviously I am going to try to make wise decisions about all of these areas of life. However, I am much less likely to take an obvious risk in regards to whom I marry or the house I buy, because extricating yourself from a bad marriage or bad mortgage is much harder and more costly in terms of time/money/emotional resources than extricating yourself from a bad job or bad friendship. Committing to a QB is like committing to a spouse or a home purchase – not something to be done lightly.

  80. 80 D3FB said at 5:02 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    I like the metaphor, well done.

  81. 81 A_T_G said at 6:31 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Well said, except you forgot the SB victory. You will need one of those at some point too.

  82. 82 ACViking said at 7:39 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    I’m not sure, with money not now so much an issue, that screwing up on a QB is much higher?

    Look at the Eagles’ 2011 draft.

    Missing on Watkins has screwed up the O-line. A lot. (Same for just about everyone else.)

    I like Foles.

    But if I like Geno more — even if I’m wrong — how much more damage do I inflict on the team if, instead, I’d chosen Fisher . . . and Fisher was Watkins II but Geno turned out to be Flacco II?

    I’d argue that being 4-12 and drafting in the 4th slot means you have to hit on whomever you take.

    Whether you miss at CB or OLB or DT or OT . . . or QB . . . you’ve set your team back.

    Heck, Watkins was picked at No. 23 and look at the damage he’s caused.

    Whomever a team takes, there’s the risk of “missed opportunity.” (Look at the Eagles from ’69 to ’73.)

    But consider the upside.

    If the Eagles hit on Fisher or Shelly Richardson, that’s great.

    But the upside impact of those guys isn’t nearly as great as hitting on Geno (Nassib or anyone else who plays QB and rated in the Eagles’ stack).

    if the Eagles miss on Fisher or Shelly or Geno, then they’re in exactly the same spot as they are now.

    I’m just pressing the point to flesh out what everyone’s thinking. This is the best part of the draft, I think.

  83. 83 xeynon said at 8:25 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    It’s not so much the money as the opportunity cost. If you pick a QB, you are committing to him as a starter for at least two seasons, more likely three. That means that even if he stinks, you’re going to keep running him out there with no way to hide him or diminish the negative impact he has on your success, and furthermore you may have to pass on a better quarterback prospect who comes along in subsequent years because you think you already have “your guy” (cf. the Rams with RG3). Misfiring on a linebacker or offensive tackle or cornerback A.)doesn’t hurt you as much (I really think the injuries to Peters/Kelce/Herremans had more to do with the poor performance of the O line last year than Watkins not panning out), and B.)doesn’t absolutely preclude you from acquiring another top player at the same position should the opportunity provide itself.

  84. 84 ACViking said at 9:00 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    But it’s still a blown pick. (Again, I’m talking a Watkins-esque choice.)

    So what’s the difference if you whiff on a QB or OT who can’t play OG or C?

    (I’m starting to like Chance Warmack . . . the last 13 drafts show that 1st Rd guards — except Watkins [naturally] seem to have the highest likelihood of immediate and substantial impact.)

  85. 85 xeynon said at 9:20 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    I will concede there is not as big a difference between whiffing on a QB and whiffing on an OT who can’t play anywhere. But the “being forced to pass on a franchise guy later on” thing is still very real. If we draft Geno Smith, and he’s bad, we’ll likely be drafting high again next year, but will have to pass on Teddy Bridgewater (or whoever) because it will still be too early to give up on Smith. If we pick Fisher and he’s lousy next year there’s nothing stopping us from drafting another OT since you need more than one of them.

  86. 86 A_T_G said at 9:24 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    A difference I see is that even if Watkins turns into a bust, how many other linemen were we developing at the same time? Some panned out, some didn’t, but there were options. You can’t develop a bunch of QBs and then find a way to fit them in. We are putting all our eggs in one basket, and I want a better basket.

  87. 87 CalSFro said at 5:23 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    As it is with most things in life, I think the answer is rooted in balance.

    You have to commit to a prospect, or 9, at some point in the draft. And once you do you’re essentially saying, “We are certain we can mold this piece of athletic clay into a highly effective football player”. Otherwise why waste your time making the pick?

    I think you need to find a prospect, especially at #4 overall, who has a good combination of a high floor and a high ceiling. I look at Geno and see a really low floor and a moderately high ceiling, whereas with guy’s like Warmack, Fisher, Joeckel, Star and Jordan, I see a high floor and a really high ceiling.

  88. 88 ACViking said at 7:27 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    That’s a Bingo!

    You have my join.

  89. 89 ACViking said at 2:37 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Re: Who to take

    Just so I’m clear, my posts are just about taking positions to see how everyone’s thinking.

    I’ve no favorite. I really just want to play out some theories to see what comes back.

  90. 90 Neil said at 2:42 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    You’re getting what you bargained for, mister.

  91. 91 ACViking said at 2:44 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Roger. Copy that.

  92. 92 GvilleEagleFan said at 2:40 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Hey Tommy, someone on this site posted a link to and consequently my entire afternoon is gone. I’d love to see you do a draft and break down your selections pick by pick. You could even do a pair of drafts; one where you don’t make any trades and one where you do (the suggested trades the software offers you seem somewhat unrealistic, but I think there’s value in showing us what the Eagles would get in an ideal world).

  93. 93 ACViking said at 2:45 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    All in due time. All in due time.

  94. 94 GvilleEagleFan said at 12:34 AM on April 12th, 2013:

    So after way too many hours on that site today, I’ve come to the following conclusion: the AI will give up crazy value to entice you to trade back making the “high-scoring” draft classes completely unrealistic. However, I think this makes it even more worth your time Tommy, as you can do a single run and trade back as much as possible to demonstrate where you think the Eagles can find value for different positions at different points in each round.

    So for example, we probably wouldn’t get both Minnesota’s first rounders to trade back with them but dealing one of the picks for two extra seconds could show what the Eagles can hope to find were they to get a single extra second rounder and where the cutoff is for value in that round (i.e. whether or not we should care which of Miami’s 2’s we get). Anyway, curse whoever linked this so close to finals 🙁

  95. 95 NoDecaf said at 3:22 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Tommy, does any bartering occur, ie. “We will give you a tip if you help with this one deflection,” between front offices and members of the media?

  96. 96 A_T_G said at 6:23 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Good question. It would seem mutually beneficial, but it also seems like it would require a great deal of trust.

  97. 97 teltschikfakeout88 said at 3:38 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Alright Tommy by this time last year you stated “Bring Me the Head of Fletcher Cox”. It was an article detailing why Cox was your first round pick. With the new coaching staff this year it is going to be hard to see what they want to do in the draft. Regardless I want an article as to whom you want….and I want it now. J/K on the last part as I know you have not watched as much film this year, but for real when are we going to get that blog post on your man in the first round.

  98. 98 Mitchell said at 4:00 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Tackles of 2013:

    What is the differences between the three tackles going in the first round this year? Also, are these tackles only labeled good because the draft class is so weak, in regards to top talent,or are they truly “good?” Where would they fall in last years draft compared to other tackles? Eagles, please trade back and take Johnson.

  99. 99 Anders said at 6:11 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Both Joeckel and Fisher are compared to Joe Thomas and Joe Staley and Lane Johnson got the biggest upside of any LT prospect in a LOOOOOONG time

  100. 100 xlGmanlx said at 8:59 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Long isn’t far behind in terms of upside, clearly not as high but still promising.

  101. 101 Bill Muller said at 4:33 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    No way Kelly takes Smith 4th,this team and Kellys offense needs line help,he goes tackle or guard with the 4th pick(im hoping Warmack) and grabs Manuel in the second.Warmack is a roadgrader and Manuel has the size to endure running Kellys offense and the arm

  102. 102 Baloophi said at 4:52 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    I think for the Eagles to take Smith, Chip Kelly would have to really, really want him (which we won’t know until draft day). I think with all the rhetoric over the last year, it’s pretty clear Roseman wants to stick to value and not reach – and as Jeremiah said himself, he doesn’t have Geno Smith as a top 20 pick. As others have pointed out here, missing on a QB is costly because of the on-the-field investment you’ll be forcing yourself to make with him.


    What pick would you be comfortable taking Geno Smith’s teammate Tavon Austin? Obviously you’d want to trade down a little since #4 seems like crazy town, but exactly how crazy town is it? In a relatively flat draft, where would you be comfortable pulling the trigger (provided you’re not dead set on drafting defense with the first pick)?

  103. 103 D3FB said at 5:01 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    I would say 12 to 15, and may god have mercy on your soul if he gets hurt because every single fan will claim they hated the pick, when in reality WIP christened him the lord and savior of all Philly.

  104. 104 xlGmanlx said at 8:58 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    I say pass, I would rather take a chance on the 6’4+ WR or another primarily vertical TE before picking some one like that. I think the trend is getting bigger at WR not smaller, so I don’t see the value long term.

  105. 105 Tom Watkinson said at 4:59 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Love the smokescreen help by Jeremiah. Thanks cuz. Zero chance they take Geno. book it.

  106. 106 Geagle said at 6:29 PM on April 11th, 2013:


  107. 107 Geagle said at 6:30 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Jeremiah is contributing to the cause!!!

  108. 108 RC5000 said at 5:49 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    So far the way Howie operates, I tend to think if they coveted Smith as their future franchise QB at 4 and not someone else, he’d have done things differently.

  109. 109 jshort said at 6:30 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    I take it that you think Geno is just a smoke screen?

  110. 110 Geagle said at 6:47 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    i do…I think Lurie overplayed his hand. if we liked Geno, Lurie wouldn’t have offered up so much public information. the guy is in a fucking bunker 360 days a year, yet I’m supposed to believe he just cared about us so much that he decided to show his face and tell us how Geno is the first draft pick he visited since McNabb? He didn’t mention the dion Jordan, or Erik fisher visit, if it’s only because it’s the 4th pick, which was his explanation(we haventa picked this high since McNabb)..
    Lurie overplayed his smokescreen….If you are really looking at prospects as an owner, because it’s the first time we picked so high, why haven’t we heard about y visiting another prospects to throw off the scent that we really do like Geno? don’t piss in my ear and tell me it’s raining, Mr. Lurie…I know you better than that

  111. 111 xlGmanlx said at 8:56 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    wasn’t he asked at the owners meeting in which he gives his public statements for the year? Someone asked a question and he answered it without answering it and you think it is smoke? I thought he was being straight but not reveling anything and sounds to me like a guy wanting to be eyes on a QB.

  112. 112 ACViking said at 7:24 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Respectfully . . . we don’t know how Roseman operates *as his own man.*

    He’s been Reid’s executor for the past 3 years or so.

    I think it’ll take a couple years to know what Roseman’s modus operadi is.

  113. 113 Geagle said at 6:13 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Honestly, I wouldn’t want Geno if he fell to #35. even in round 2 there will be better players that can help us….Brandon Weeden is such a Money comparison. let dumb franchises do dumb ish…every single scout or expert says he isn’t a top 20 player, but because he is the best QB out of a bad class we should take him at 4 and pass on Dion,Sharrif, or Fisher? What a nightmare….I find it very disturbing that Geno was playing some good ball early on, and then as soon as he started being talked about as the best qb in the draft class, he started to crumble. Philly will chew him up and spit him out quickly. heck, I’m not sure he can handle Jaxonville…wish someone would mAke a highlight video of his bad plays, so we can never mention his name in Philly again

  114. 114 Geagle said at 6:19 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Talkin about Geno makes me just want to eliminate the guess work nd draft Dion,Long, and Kiko so I can sleep easy. can Howie gamble on Geno at 4 and be wrong ? Deoes Howie have the clout to survive such a draft blunder? I don’t care what chip wants, Howie has been here a decade and should know better

  115. 115 Geagle said at 6:20 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    I can’t even fathom how chip Kelly could love Geno smith? Rather take a flier on Landry Jones…or draft Drysert. I’m good with not adding a QB at all. If we are hell set on drafting a QB in round two, I would rather trade the pick for a 2014 1st rounder

  116. 116 Geagle said at 6:28 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    jets will take Tavon #9, then draft Geno #13 with the pic they AQUIRE for Revis

  117. 117 Geagle said at 7:34 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    All I know is if I’m a GM and a team in my division drafts Tavon Austin, I’m doing whatever it takes to land the honey badger

  118. 118 ACViking said at 7:42 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    What’s Tavon’s projected impact in the Red Zone . . . particularly in the short term with a QB like VIck or Foles or maybe Geno?

    It’s going to take a few years for a small guy like Tavon to make an impact, I think. And even longer if the Eagles are stuck looking for a QB the next 4-5 years.

  119. 119 Geagle said at 7:49 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    I don’t want tavon…

  120. 120 ACViking said at 7:55 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Geagle . . .

    Seems like lots of comments like him.

    What’s your hesitancy?

  121. 121 Geagle said at 8:10 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    couldn’t care less about skill players while we aren’t set on the front 7 or Oline…Until you can dominate in the trenches, nothing else matters…TE is the only skill position early in the draft that I could stomach…If they want to add Travis Kelce or Gavin Esobar, I’m ok with that, they will both contribute in the trenches….But a RECIEVER in round one sounds pretty dumb to me, when we only have 3 Dlineman that are part of the rotation: 3tec Cox, his back up Thorton, and a stop gap NT Sopo….so unless we are playing some crazy 2-5-4 scheme that I don’t know about, I don’t even want to think about skill players til ATleast the 5th round…but hey to each his own

  122. 122 ACViking said at 8:55 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Excellent points.

    We saw last year that if you can’t stop the pass rush or stop the run on “D,” then having playmakers doesn’t mean very much.


  123. 123 Geagle said at 1:36 PM on April 12th, 2013:

    Thanks man…I mean I want to win like every other Eagles fan. I want a top 5 QB, I want all the electric skill position weapons you can get….but it all means nothing until you can win the battle at the line of scrimmage. get RIGHT in the trenches, and then start adding the shiny new toys

  124. 124 RC5000 said at 9:33 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Depends on what is there. I would love for them to take a lineman at 4 and possibly one in the 2nd or 3rd round but don’t box yourself in. That’s how you end up taking guys like Watkins and Jarrett.
    They could acquire more picks anyway. Take the BPA. Don’t reach for linemen when you can get a comparable player later. Your impact players in a 3-4 can come from linebacker.
    We don’t know if Stoutland/Kelly can coach OL up that are later picks either or with some of the players we have.
    I definitely agree that they will address OL and DL at some point and they could bypass WR and even TE early in draft. But you gotta go by the board and not reach.
    They could also acquire more draft picks.

  125. 125 Geagle said at 1:39 PM on April 12th, 2013:

    hOld on, Chip is INFAMOUS for not getting the best Oline recruits in college and making it work.The was a stigma that Oregon doesn’t produce NFL Lineman because that style didn’t translate, while other Lineman didn’t want to practice that crazy tempo every day…and these perceptions were said to have kept Chip from getting top recruits for his Oline, yet he made the most out of what he was able to get, and created a fierce Ground n pound attack…I’m actually the opposite, I’m confident that he doesn’t need 5 elite Lineman to make it work

  126. 126 Anders said at 8:12 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Jackson made an instant impact.

  127. 127 RC5000 said at 8:48 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Tavon will make an immediate impact. There’s no question about that unless he gets injured. Defensive players have a hard time just getting their hands on him when he has the ball. You don’t think he can get a handoff or catch a screen pass or a bubble screen?

  128. 128 xlGmanlx said at 8:52 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Meh….give me a top five TE or late round Boldin like WR, not sold on players like Austin, Harvin, Welker, Smith.

  129. 129 Bob Brewer said at 8:45 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Instead of being excited for the draft, I’m now worrying about the Eagles drafting Smith. I think I can stomach almost anyone but Smith at 4. Really, really nervous about this.

  130. 130 xlGmanlx said at 8:50 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    Needs to be skill position on O or play maker on D. OL can be had in later rounds, QB doesn’t project Franchise altering.

  131. 131 ACViking said at 8:52 PM on April 11th, 2013:

    The last time the Eagles had a high pick and the fans were beating down a college QB was 1999.

    But the selection of that QB worked out pretty well.

    Don’t know if Geno’s the next John Reeves or D-Mac.

    But I’d bet that if Roseman’s as good as he thinks, in 2-3 years, Geno’ll be supported by a much better defense. (As Foles would, too.)

    Could make all the difference.

    AND THE SAME IS TRUE FOR FOLES — who if he improves his mechanics, could make the whole Geno discussion a waste of time.

    If Foles’ll be the guy (or EJ in Rd 2), get me Shelly Richardson.


    ICDogg . . . your comment over at Sheil’s place regarding Geno and Romo — I’m in the same place. Crazy.

  132. 132 ICDogg said at 2:27 AM on April 12th, 2013:

    Yeah, it was a crazy comparison, though I think it may have been somewhat tongue-in-cheek, to yank the chains of Cowboys fans.

  133. 133 Eagles Wake-Up Call: Kiper Expects Offers For No. 4 Pick - Birds 24/7 said at 6:30 AM on April 12th, 2013:

    […] Lawlor of would not be on board with a Geno Smith […]