Draft Stuff

Posted: May 2nd, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Philadelphia Eagles | 57 Comments »

PE.com got Howie Roseman to sit down for about 10 minutes and discuss the Eagles draft. Good interview by Dave. There were no hard-hitting questions about Dion Jordan or players we missed on, but Dave did get Howie to share a couple of good nuggets.

The best story is that Howie said the Eagles tried to move up into the 3rd round on Friday night to get Matt Barkley. The teams at the bottom of the round didn’t want to deal. They had players that they were set on taking. When the round was over, Howie started making calls to deal up to the top of the 4th round. They really wanted to get Barkley.

Howie also said that the Eagles considered taking Earl Wolff in the 4th round (had Barkley been gone). They happily grabbed him in the 5th round. Had Wolff been gone at that point, Joe Kruger and Jordan Poyer were targets. The 6th round was pure torture since the team had no pick, but saw players they wanted still sitting there. Amazingly, both Kruger and Poyer were there for the taking in the 7th round.

Time will tell if the Eagles were smarter than everybody else and got very lucky or if Kruger/Poyer fell to the 7th because they were talented, but too flawed to succeed in the NFL.

I love the fact that Howie is willing to let us have a bit of inside info. I don’t think his comments are going to help the other teams. They do help us on the outside understand what they were thinking in the draft room as things played out over the weekend. Kudos for not being overly secretive, as so many teams are.

* * * * *

Paul Domowitch used his connections with NFL scouts to get some really good nuggets on the Eagles picks.  I thought the Bennie Logan comments were the most interesting.

Bennie Logan, DT, LSU: “I was down there for LSU’s Pro Day. Bennie was by far the leader of that defensive group. He had to push (Sam) Montgomery through the workout. You maybe expect a little more out of his play at times, but they had so many guys there. But he’s got the right attitude.

“He’s not real tall, but he’s a good athlete who can move around. He’s pretty versatile. He can play the 1-technique. I wouldn’t count him out as a 3 either. And he can play the 5-technique (end in a 3-4). He can be a productive rotational player for them right away.’’

Very good piece. I love it when Domo does this type stuff.

* * * * *

Reuben Frank covered the angle that Chip Kelly passed on his former Oregon Ducks. Good piece, but circumstances really were the key here. Kelly didn’t get a chance to take Dion Jordan. Kyle Long and Kiko Alonso went earlier than I expected. Kenjon Barner was drafted in the 6th round, when the Eagles didn’t have a pick.

Kelly didn’t over-value his guys and demand Howie trade up for them. I think Chip is too smart for stuff like that, but it was good to find that out for sure.

* * * * *

In case I hadn’t linked to it already, here is my PE.com draft review.

Jimmy Bama has some info on NFC East draft picks and shares a couple of thoughts on the numbers that the Eagles rookies are going to wear.

_


  • Iskar36

    I’ll be honest, I’m always a bit skeptical of comments like “we would have taken player x that we got a round or two later had player y not been there.” To me, it is just such an easy comment to make. You get to boost the confidence of the player you drafted, basically telling him they had higher value on him, you excite the fan base because you convince them we got the equivalent of a higher round pick, and you don’t give away anything for it in terms of giving away draft secrets. I buy the Barkley story a bit more because they actively traded up to get him, but saying that all of those guys would have been their earlier picks just doesn’t sound realistic to me.

    • Cliff

      I sort of think the same thing. I can buy the Barkley bit about wanting him in the 3rd round, but not so confident on the 7th rounders.

      • laeagle

        it makes sense when they didn’t have any 6th rounders. If they had picked someone else before them in the 6th, I can see the doubt, but when they had to just wait, I can kind of believe it.

      • Anders

        Poyer was a 2nd day pick for most of the draftnicks, so its plausible that the Eagles had a 5th round grade him. Also its also plausible that they had a 4th round grade on Wolff and 5th round grade on Krueger. Its not like they are saying Poyer was a 1st round grade for them.

        • GEAgle

          yeah..while I do see how it could be just blwoing smoke..I actually believe them in this situation…
          Is it me, or is Chip rubbing off on Howie? He was ultra secrative when tight lipped(except when eating) ANdy was here, Howie gave us nothing..Chip has been engaging, and actually gives us truthful answers without giving away sensative Intel…has it rubbed off on “SPLASH” Roseman?…maybe howie sees how the city has responded to the chipsters approach and is making more of an effort to engage…
          ….
          Even when Chip wants to Lie to us, he tells us a half truth…Sure the Eagles are playing a 3-4..the part he forgot to mention was its a version of the 3-4 thats basically considered the 4-3U…Chipster, you sly dog you!

    • TommyLawlor

      If you read the Domo piece, the scout says his team had Poyer rated in the 5th round.

      Go to the pre-draft sites for rankings. You’ll see Kruger and Poyer ranked higher than 7th round picks.

      Had Howie said this about David King…I’d have been very skeptical.

      • Iskar36

        I’m certainly not saying that they didn’t like these guys. I’m
        arguing that on their entire board, there was no one between Barkley and Wolff, and then no one between Wolff and Kruger/Poyer. Keep in mind, they had a reported board of 170 or so players. We don’t have any idea if there were other players that also fell, let’s say into the 6th round
        range, but we didn’t have the ability to trade up to those spots to get them.

        On top of all of that, the underlying message that Howie
        is saying if you were to believe him is that they have a terrible read on the draft and simply got lucky. If we take his hypothetical draft, here is what the rest of the draft would have looked like.

        4th – Wolff
        5th – Kruger/Poyer
        7th – Poyer/Kruger
        7th – King
        Two other 7th round picks.

        To me, that’s not nearly as impressive of a draft. This draft would end up having a lot less value picks. A lot of us would be scratching our heads wondering why the heck we took Wolff over Duke Williams, Shamarko Thomas, or Phillip Thomas. Especially knowing that we could have gotten
        the exact same players by pushing everything back a round.

        My point is, I’m sure they love the guys they got and are very pleased with their draft. I just don’t think you will ever hear a GM say “we had this guy rated as a 7th round pick and boy are we happy we managed to get him in the 7th round.” I just think the Eagles do in fact have a good read on the draft process and while like any team, they are not perfect, I don’t think they would have drafted 4 players (Barkley, Wolff, Poyer, Kruger) 1 to 2 rounds ahead of where they would have otherwise been drafted.

        • http://www.insidetheiggles.com/ CalSFro

          Well, I think this is really a question as to how the back portion of the draft works…or at least should work. You take whoever you have rated higher and who “falls”. It happens every year based on team needs and personal preference.

          I don’t think Howie is lying when he says they had these specific players, like Poyer and Kruger, rated higher. But he’s fibbing if he says they “targeted” all those guys. In a sense they may have targeted them since they ended up taking them, but clearly based on how the draft went they weren’t targeted as heavily, or valued as greatly, as the players they did pick earlier.

          I guess I kinda think of it like under-drafting. It’s not really a thing, but basically other than the top 5 spots of the draft, successful teams are just looking for players they rated higher and who “fell”, which is where the whole good value vs. bad value thing comes in.

          In an ideal world our 8 picks would have gone to the top 8 players in the draft. But that’s not the reality you deal with. Of course there are players they would rather have had over the one’s they did get. But that doesn’t mean that the one’s they did get were poor picks or one’s they didn’t really want. It’s kinda like making the best of an inherently bad situation. You know what you really want, but you’re forced to take the best of what you can get.

          Either way though, I agree with you, no GM in his right mind is going to come out of the draft and say, “Dang, we didn’t get anybody we wanted at any of the spots we wanted. Maybe next year.”

        • TommyLawlor

          Iskar,

          Once you get out of the 1st round, players are going to be bunched up by grade. At that point, you are picking positions of importance. I’m sure the Eagles had 5 guys they liked in the 5th (similar grades), but Wolff was the guy they wanted because of position and scheme fit.

          I’m sure there were 5 to 10 guys the team had targeted entering the 7th round. Kruger and Poyer were the 2 they wanted because of position and scheme fit.

          Don’t over-read this that the Eagles had Jordan Poyer targeted on last Tuesday as a player we must get in the 5th, 6th, or 7th round. Not the case. It easily could have been some other CB that fell for a reason. If Sanders Commings was on the board, the Eagles would have likely taken him and passed on Poyer. Instead, Commings only slid to the 5th.

        • Ark87

          He would be saying that his board is divergent from the rest of the rest of the league and nothing more. Concluding his board was different because he’s dumb is our projection to make in hindsight. To be fair lets see how it turns out before we make that conclusion.

          That being said, I think the skepticism is healthy. There are a lot of company lines that are said on PE.com’s coverage.. I feel like in this case, though, his story is pretty plausible.

      • GEAgle

        great point about King. That would have made it absolute BS…Never in my wildest immagination would I have thought Poyer and Krugs would be on the board in the 7th, ripe for the pickens….so how could I not believe him?
        ….
        You guys hear Kruger talking to mike and Ike today? I literally caught the last sentence of the interview but he compared himself to JJ WATT…here’s hoping he is right! lol

    • Mac

      We don’t know how many players had “4th or 5th round grades” on the Eagles board. There are so many circumstances that lead to players falling down through the ranks on draft day. Poyer (for example) may have been effected by the overall strength of this class at CB.

      There were 26 corners taken before Poyer in the draft.
      rd 1: 4
      rd 2: 5
      rd 3: 7
      rd 4: 1
      rd 5: 6
      rd 6: 1
      rd 7: 2

      Interesting take away based on NFL.com’s grade:
      1) Poyer’s grade is identical to the 4th rd corner (Webb) selected by our buddy Jerry Jones.
      2) Poyer’s grade is higher than all of the round 5 corners selected.
      3) Poyer had the 3rd highest grade among 7th round picks behind only Dysert and the bengals OT.
      4) The 7th round corners selected ahead of Poyer were both selected by the Jags (Gus Bradley) and are 6’1″ and 6’2″ (clearly he is looking at measurables at that point)

      Based on all those things, I think it is reasonable to believe the Eagles had a mid round grade on Poyer. My guess is the character issues with Poyer didn’t seem problematic to Chip.

      • laeagle

        Why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good conspiracy theory?

    • A_T_G

      I’m with you. Saying if we didn’t get Wolffe we were going to take Poyer means that they had no interest in the 60 players taken in between. That means (a) they were missing something, or (b) they are exaggerating “we were happy to get this guy, he is better than a 7th rounder” into something that boosts his confidence and cannot be disproven.

      • TommyLawlor

        They didn’t say definitively that we would have taken Poyer, but rather that he was under consideration in the 5th.

        • GEAgle

          yes..thats how I read it….Poyer was under consideration for the 5th round pick….I do not think Howie was implying that Poyer and Krugs were neccessarilyt the next two players ranked on there big board after Wolff, just one of the guys they would be chosing from in round 5

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

      It’s possible, even probable. Each team has about 150 names on their board, even though there are over 250+ picks in the draft. That means by the end of the draft, teams are getting players 2-3 rounds over their board slot. Teams start talking to UDFAs by round 6 because so many draftable players are still on their boards.

      It works that way because prospect ratings fall on a power curve and by the late rounds the draft is a legitimate crapshoot. The later you go into a draft, the more random things become. And more randomness means more divergence between boards. The total amount of 5th+ round grades awarded by all 32 teams vastly exceeds the number of selections alotted in the first 5 rounds.

      So you can take a GM’s word for it when he says a middle or late round pick was much higher on his board. The caveat is that this is more-or-less true for every late round pick on every team. That’s the reason the player got drafted, after all.

      • Iskar36

        “Higher on his board” I fully believe. I’m not arguing that part of it. CalSFro put it well I think. These players were likely valued higher than where we got him. But that’s not the same as where we targeted them. I could buy that they valued everyone from Barkley on at a higher round than where they ended up being drafted. I don’t think I buy that if Barkley wasn’t there, they would have ended up drafting the same people just a pick earlier. I think there were several other players they also valued higher than where they were ultimately drafted in those rounds and some of them would have been the likely pick over the guys we ended up getting had Barkley not been there.

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

          According to Howie, a player was only “targeted” if he had the highest available grade on the Eagles board at the time of the pick. I guess Barkley is kind of an exception because they said they had him graded so much higher than anyone else that they began trying to move up for him at the end of RD3. If that’s your definition of “targeting,” then I guess only Barkley would apply. I presume Howie is using a different definition than you are. I take him to mean that Poyer, for example, would have been an acceptable value to them in RD5. Maybe he was only 11th on their board when their RD5 pick came up, but if those 10 players were gone, they would have felt comfortable taking Poyer rather than having to bail on the pick. Remember, by this point in the draft, the reasonable difference between prospect values is slight. It’s not like 10 slots in RD2.

          I don’t think these claims are “too good to be true,” because when you look at it closely, the situations are ordinary.

  • D-von

    I keep hearing this rumor that Sal Pal said on 97.5 that Tampa Bay asked the Eagles about a potential trade for Nick Foles. First, I dislike Sal “make believe” Pal so if this was true I’m still not likely to believe it anyway. However, setting my dislike for him aside, can anyone confirm that he said this?

    • Mac

      I can confirm that the esteemed Baloophi has identified that Sal Palantonio is an anagram for Anal Piano Stool.

      • D-von

        He should actually change his name to that

    • Scott Greenberg

      yes he said this at about 525 pm on mike miss’s show on tues.

    • ceedubya9

      Well, we’ve constantly heard how much the Chip likes Foles. All signs point to that being true so far. He seems like a player that can be your QB of the future or at least a valuable backup. I wouldn’t want to trade that type of player either. That’s a valuable piece to have for your team.

      • GEAgle

        If Chip didnt think Foles was more than a career backup…we would have Taken a juicy pick from the Bucs or Chiefs….heck Tampa wanted Foles, once the Eagles saw Matt Barkley fall out of round 2, since they obviously liked Matt enough to try to trade back into round 3..The Eagles would have traded Foles, to get back the pick they were spending on Barkley…Mid round picks were TOO valuable this year. If Chip didnt look at Foles as more than just a backup, he would have been traded!

        • ceedubya9

          Well, yeah. But, there is still no guarantee that he will be anything more than a career backup. Could go either way here. But, if they aren’t willing to trade him, then there is SOMETHING that they like about him. Definitely is a good sign for Foles, whatever their future plans are for him.

          • GEAgle

            certainly not agree…but Foles is def much more in the mix than the majority of the Delaware valley fans realize…heck you cant even listen to talk radio anymore without hearing Fans call Foles a stiff, or radio hosts guarentee that he is being traded…Its absurd that people actually think QBs would get traded away because they dont have the right 40 times…its literally the dumbest thing I have ever heard…the media has turned our knowledge fanbase into a legion of idiots, who think 40time is anything more than a bonus when Judging QBs……
            ……….
            Finding an accurate QB who moves the ball, while not turning it over is the rarest thing to find. There isnt even enough to go around to 32 franchises…yet the mainstream media of this city, has led Eagles Nation to believe that promising young QBs would get traded away, because they dont run fast enough…what a joke.. Now Im not saying That Foles is for sure an accurate, franchise guy who will move the ball and not turn it over….but what I am saying is there is NO WAY chip could say that Foles ISNT at this point after playing against him in college, a 3day mini camp, and 6 games of rookie film behind a practice squad Oline…There was NO SHOT IN HELL that Foles was being traded this offseason…yet it dominated the headlines since the day Chip was hired…what an irresponsible, joke of reporting. The coverage of chip by the mainstream media, has been the most irresponsible reporting imaginable

    • GEAgle

      Not Only can I confirm that Sal Pal said that Foles is UNTOUCHABLE…but I can also confirm that Peter King says that Chip Likes Foles ALOT.. “REALLY LIKES FOLES” were the exact words Peter King used

    • Telmert

      I think it’s clear that Chip is already confident that he can win with Foles or Barkley. Remember, he watched film on both of them, analyzed their deficiencies, and schemed to beat them. Then went back the next year and did it again, probably trying some different things. He got input on both of them from Oregon staff and now he’s got even more info and opinions from Philadelphia staff & scouts. Throw in Tom Gamble weighing in on how SF scouted them. Chip knows exactly what he has with both of those guys. For that matter, he also knows exactly what he has in Dixon and is confident that he could win games with him if he had to.

      Foles best trade value was in March. It would not have made sense to keep him if Chip thought he couldn’t win with him. He’d ride the pine and his value would go down. If Chip thought he couldn’t win with Barkley, he would have been off their board entirely. They’d have picked Dysert or someone else rather than someone he was sure would fail.

      Vick was kept around because Kelly doesn’t have any of that experience with him. He’s not sure what he has and he doesn’t know whether Vick can provide what Kelly wants out of the QB position. Vick will have to be better than what Kelly knows he has in Foles to stay. Kelly will only consider trading Foles if he gets very comfortable that Vick is better. And even if that happens, I don’t think he will (age, cost).

  • austinfan

    Think it just shows that Howie ran the 2013 draft like he ran the 2012 draft, off his board, and it lands credibility that there was more interference in previous years. I was surprised that Poyer made it out of the 5th rd (I knew a few CBs would drop just because there were too many and it came down to taste), same with Kruger (who dropped because he’s a project, you’ll have to redshirt him a year, but that also holds for some guys coming of ACLs).

    One way to look at the draft are the immediate alternatives taken:

    1) Lane – Ansah, Mingo, Cooper, Austin

    2) Ertz – Slay, Bernard, T’eo, Geno, Carradine
    I’d been tempted by Slay

    3) Logan – McFadden, Mathieu, Wreh-Wilson, TJ McDonald, Winters

    4) Barkley – N Johnson, Spence, Sanders, Boyce, Okafor, J Jenkins, D Williams

    5) Wolff – J Williams, T Simon, M Hughes, S Taylor, O Aboushi, L Edwards
    I’d been tempted by Edwards

    7) Kruger – Mauti, Bond, Bohanan, C Johnson, A Bryant

    7) Poyer – DJ Jefferson, R Seymour, B Sorenson, C Gragg, N Williams

    7) King – R Fragel, J Smith, M Bowie, K Ishmael, Z Motta, B Hepburn
    Think J Smith has more upside

    • Mac

      What a difference a year makes… (Barkley and Mathieu)

      I love the upside (ceiling) of our top 3 picks.

      Lane should be solid (bare minimum) and has potential to be one of the elite players out of this class. I would take him all day over those other guys.

      Ertz comes in and is probably an instant weapon for the offense. I can’t say exactly how much I love having Celek, Casey, and Ertz on this team, but it’s a lot. Carradine intrigues me, but I’m tired of the cripple corps.

      Logan I think would have benefited from playing another year of college ball. Then again, coming out now gives him the chance to get to his “real” contract sooner.

    • ACViking

      In 2012, there was more moving around the draft board than this year.

      That could mean either Kelly has a more conservative approach and Kelly’s preferences took precedence.

      Or it could mean Reid’s trade-around philosophy forced Roseman’s hand.

      Or it could mean Roseman shared Reid’s trade-around philosophy in 2012, but — as I said — he was trumped this year.

      Or, generally, no one would trade with Roseman in 2013 (‘cept for that little move on Barkley).

  • GvilleEagleFan

    Hey Tommy, as you’re doing columns on the impact of the draft could we see a piece about the OLB rotation specifically? I know you mentioned it in a previous post in the context of the whole defense, but I’d like to hear more about Vinny Curry’s new fit following the draft. I know part of drafting Jordan was that he gave the OLB group the same versatility the OL now has with Johnson, and I have no issues with the Johnson pick. Without Jordan now though, who becomes the rotational backup at SAM when Barwin needs to come off the field for 20-25 out of the 80-85 snaps our D is going to see?

    • TommyLawlor

      Can’t write about Curry until we get more info. He was at DE, but you wonder now if he will slide to OLB or stay at DE. Hope we get a hint this weekend.

      • GEAgle

        whats this weekend? rookie camp?

  • Jason Gross

    T-Law,
    You were still very positive on Matthieu as a possibility for this year — even after he was dismissed from LSU. You were thinking outside of the box with him to install him as a safety — which Arizona is reportedly considering. But as this draft approached, you stopped referring to him very much. Is this because you ruled him out because of Kelly’s physical requirements, or because his off the field stuff disqualified him in your eyes? Would you have given him any thought with the third round pick?

    • Neil

      Third round is way too high for a guy you have to write into his contract you’re going to drug test every single week.

    • TommyLawlor

      I didn’t think he fit what Kelly wanted. Small for Safety. And we had Boykin at nickel back.

      I love Mathieu as a player. Tremendously gifted. That said, I think he needs to be used right for maximum effect. Bill Davis and his staff have better results with big DBs.

      • GEAgle

        If Tavon Austin was drafted into our division, I would have instantly drafted the honeybadger…but since he wasnt, I completely agree..He was drafted too high, IMO for just a ST ace, and Dime corner…Heck we got a dime corner and good ST player in the 7th(and much more versatile than the badger)

  • ACViking

    Re: The Draftees’ New Jersey Numbers — and past Assignees

    One of the fun things about number assignments is seeing if a player looks like a certain number. Harold Carmichael looked like a No. 17. Gene Upshaw looked like a No. 63. Reggie White looked much more like a No. 92 than his original No. 91.

    [When Mickey Mantle first made the Yankees roster in ’51, he was given No. 6. After returning from a short stint in the minors later in ’51, Mantle was given No. 7. That fit him much better.]

    Okay.

    So Lane Johnson will wear No. 65.

    Who else has worn that number: how ’bout that King Dunlop; and DT Keyonta Marshall, DE Jamaal Green, C Bubba Miller, OG Ron Solt — one of the first NFL players busted for steroid use — and OG Henry Allison.

    Not a single Eagle has ever worn No. 65 and made the Pro Bowl or All Pro. And Lane Johnson does not, in my humble opinion, look like a No. 65.

    Zach Ertz – No. 86. Who else? First to mind is 1973 NFC ROY TE Charles Young from USC. DOMINANT. Traded even up for Jaworski after a contract hold-out after ’76. Young inherited No. 86 from USC alum TE/WR Fred Hill — whose daughter’s cancer was the inspiration for “The Eagles’ Fly for Leukemia” starting back in 1971. There’s also the Vikings great coach and Eagles WR Bud Grant. WRs Fred Barnett and Reggie Brown.

    And don’t forget the great DE Norman Willey — unofficially credited with 17 sacks in a SINGLE GAME against the Cardinals. One game.

    Bennie Logans – No. 96. Who could forget Clyde Simmons. Or more recently Omar Gaither.

    Matt Barkley – No. 2. First non-PK to wear this number. Akers wore it last.

    Currently, Falcons QB Matt Ryan wears No. 2. So I can see Barkley as a No. 2. On the other hand, JaMarcus Russell wore No. 2 for the Raiders. Not so good.

    Earl Wolf – No. 28. One of my favorite all-time Eagles, Safety “Super Bill” Bradley — first player to lead the NFL in INTs two seasons in a row (’71, ’72).

    More recently, it’s been a RB number: Correll Buckholter and Dion Lewis.

    Joe Kruger – No. 73. The best No. 73 was former Eagles DT on the ’60 Championship and later their Head Coach, Eddie Khuyhat. Others include OT/OG Steve Kenney during the Vermeil/Campbell years. OG Lester Holmes in the brief Kotite era.

    Most memorably perhaps . . . OG Shawn Andrews. No greater talent, and no greater disappointment, drafted by the Eagles in the last 10 years.

    Jordon Pryor – No. 33. Back in the darkest era, RB Ron “Po” James from ’72-’75 and in ’70-’71, S Steve Preece wore it.

    In the 1980 SB, Dick Vermeil’s newphew, RB Louie Giammona wore No. 33. He wasn’t much bigger than his uncle. The most recent players were RB Jerome Harrison and CB Jack Iguana [yes, not really his last name].

    David King – No. 78. One of the anchors of the Eagles 1980 SB team, DE Carl “Big Daddy” Hairston wore 78 proudly. Hairston LOOKED like a No. 78.

    Unfortunately, after Hairston, No. 78 was given to OT Antone Davis — who didn’t look like a football player let alone a No. 78.

    DT Brod Bunkley sported No. 78 during his rookie season before moving to No. 97. Then No. 78 was assigned to DE Victor Abiamiri.

    If King avoids any injuries, he’ll have outdone the unfortunate Victor.

    • Sb2bowl

      Ac-
      If I was still living in my dark side of the law, I would have looked you up as my defense attorney. Football wise you instill great research, memory and clarity of speech. I’m only assuming that it would carry over in a courtroom as well.

      Thanks for your contributions to this blog; I enjoy your posts.

      • ACViking

        Sb2bowl:

        Those are very kind words. Thank you.

    • Mac

      Numbers game:

      Word has it that Barkley opted out of 5 (his old high school #) out of respect for McNabb and the Eagles contacted Akers about 2, to which Akers gave and approving nod.

      Golf claps/respect all around.

  • Ark87

    Tommy I have a question about the the situation at safety. We have will have 2 starters who have not yet been determined. We will have a rookie that we almost certainly won’t cut. And we have Colt Anderson, one of the best special teamers in the league. Do you think we keep 5 safeties? Chung and Thomas are injury-prone (presumptive front-runners), It would be scary to have the rookie and colt as the only guys behind that.

    • TommyLawlor

      I project us to keep 5 Safeties due to the uncertainty. However, that’s only if the players play reasonably well and earn a spot. Kurt Coleman is the guy on the thinnest ice.

      • Ark87

        Hmm didn’t think about the second part of the answer. I like it, simple, keep 5 as long as there are 5 worth keeping.

        Thanks for the reply Tommy.

        • Mac

          Jimmy hits on this too in his latest article on the morning call. http://blogs.mcall.com/eagles/2013/05/an-early-look-at-the-eagles-depth.html

          • Ark87

            Hmm, pretty nice article from Jimmy ‘Bama. He is a litte more comfortable with our front 7 depth than I am, but that’s because I don’t know a thing about half of those small name guys that we picked up for a song. Only TC will really help draw a conclusion.

          • GEAgle

            really like our Oline depth for the Future…I just worry about it for next year….but I would not be shocked to see Cox,Logan,Kruger develope into our starting 3man line of 2015

      • Sb2bowl

        How many cb’s? 5?

  • bridgecoach

    This is where the off-season usually gets dark for me. Players I’ve been pulling for have been selected by teams I despise. Cooper Taylor (S) is a Giant. And Dallas drafted… actually, Dallas decided to draft players only their families were pulling for – so this terrific off season continues!

    • GEAgle

      lol Fredicks father, even tweeted that he was a bad pick! silly-boys!
      now the midgets taking Coop and Hankins annoys me!
      Redskins took Amerson, who I think is an idiot…snyder back to being snyder

  • ACViking

    Re: Two Reid Draftees Who May’ve Gone a Round Higher . . . Supposedly

    My recollection is, after the ’03 draft, that Reid was so enamored of 2nd Rd pick, TE JR Smith, Reid said he was considering him for Rd 1. That was the draft in which the Eagles jumped from No. 30 to the Chargers’ No. 15 spot to select DE J-McDougle.

    Also, in 2006, Reid said he’d have taken OT Winston Justice at No. 14 overall if DT Brod Bunkley was gone.

    Who knows what’s true. Except the Eagles may have been better off not drafting any of the four players mentioned above.

    By the way, I never remember there being much talk after the 2004 Super Bowl about the impact of TE Chad Lewis’s Lis Franc injury in the NFC Title Game against the Falcons on his TD catch late in the game.

    Reid was big on the 2-TE package with Lewis and Smith in ’04.

    • Sb2bowl

      Yup- even though Lewis wasnt a “game changer”, he was McNabb’s safety valve on so many plays. That injury really hurt us.

  • ACViking

    Re: One more thing on how the college passing game’s changed.

    T-Law and I exchanged comments about how college passing numbers show how much the game’s changed

    On the one hand, there’s HOF QB Joe Montana. In 3 years at Notre Dame (’75, ’77-’78), he had 25 TD and 25 INTs.

    T-Law explained (rightly) that the WR screen wasn’t part of the college game yet . . . which (i) increases a QBs attempts and yardage, and (ii) decreases INTs in ratio to TDs.

    ANYWAY . . . I looked back at the numbers of former Cardinals’ QB Neil Lomax, who played at Portland State under the great Mouse Davis — the man who developed the “run and shoot” offense, where WRs were spread out and QBs made quick decisions and lots of short passes.

    Lomax was a contemporary of Montana. But what a huge difference in their numbers. Lomax — in the late ’70s — put up the kind of numbers you’d see today:

    1977: 18 TDs – 5 INTs.

    1978: 26 TDs – 22 INTs.

    1979: 26 TDs – 16 INTs.

    1980: 37 TDs – 12 INTs.

    Lomax later was a No. 1 pick. He had a pretty good career going until a degenerative hip injury ended it.

    • TommyLawlor

      Neil was a terrific college QB and good pro. I kept thinking he was going to put the Cards over the top, but it never happened. The NFC East was truly a beast back then.

  • Pingback: 苹果电视棒