Eagles Make a Minor Trade

Posted: August 23rd, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Philadelphia Eagles | 59 Comments »

The Eagles dealt RB Felix Jones to the Steelers for OLB Adrian Robinson.

Obviously this deal is contingent upon both players passing physicals. I don’t see Robinson being a problem, but you never know with Jones. He is a veteran RB with some wear and tear. If the Steelers see anything they don’t like, they could fail him.

Good deal, if it goes through. Jones had no shot to make the Eagles. Robinson isn’t DeMarcus Ware, but he is a player with 3-4 experience at a spot where the Eagles could use some depth. Robinson was a rookie for the Steelers in 2012 and spent the year on their roster. He didn’t play much, but at least knows his way around an NFL team.

Robinson is 6-1, 250. He might remind you of Brandon Graham, with that short, thick build. He played DE at Temple and had a good career. He finished with 22.5 sacks, 8 FFs and a pair of INTs. Here are some game notes I wrote on Robinson from back then:

Temple DE Adrian Robinson had a solid showing in the New Mexico Bowl. He was credited with 2.5 TFLs. He was disruptive on other plays. Robinson lists at 6’2, 250. There will be a question of him as LB or DE. I like him better at DE, but I’m not sure I see him starting there in the NFL. He does have thick legs and good lower body strength. I’m just not sure he can bulk up to 270 and play. He’s not athletic enough to be a pure speed rusher like Robert Mathis.

Robinson has good feet. He had a couple of impressive tackles in space when skill players tried to put moves on him. Robinson was able to shadow them and make the stop. He looks to have stiff hips. Heck, I’m not sure if he has hips. His body moves as one. That’s one of the things I would worry about with him trying to play LB and being in space a lot.

Here is a video of Robinson in action from his Senior year at Temple.

Phillip Hunt is on IR. Everette Brown has shown nothing. Travis Long is behind schedule because he is coming off ACL surgery and got off to a late start. Robinson instantly becomes the Eagles #5 OLB. He is here to compete for a roster spot and possibly a backup role.

College stats

_


  • CrackSammich

    I’m starting to like the bubble player swaps that have been going on with the team.

    Pros:
    -We get dibs on a player that was likely to be on the waiver wire market.
    -We get time to evaluate him before the first cuts are made and see if we need to go back to the waivers and find someone else.
    -We get some value out of guy that wouldn’t have made the team anyway.

    Cons:
    -Robinson probably won’t make the team anyway
    -…

  • Andy124

    No hips at all… I wonder with JimmyK can do with that.

  • eagleyankfan

    I was surprised when people were saying we’re carrying 4 rb’s along with the reports that FJ wasn’t doing anything special…..

    • TommyLawlor

      We still might keep 4. Matt Tucker has a chance to make it. Next 2 weeks are huge for him.

      • A Roy

        Man, there’s no way. They may have to go w/24 on offense and 26 on de, given the lack of quality on d. Even w/25… 3 QB, 3 RB, 6 WR, 4 TE, and 9 OL. That means Tucker would have to beat out Harbor, Shepard or Watkins. Real Difficult.

    • Anders

      Right now I dont think we carry more than 3 and then at least 5 WR and 4 TE with Carrier and Shepard battling for a spot (as either 6th WR or 5th TE)

  • laeagle

    Can you put up some infographics comparing Travis Long to all-time greats Ray Lewis and Brian Urlacher, like the ones on Kuechly? I think that would be really informative and helpful to the Travis Long fanbase.

    • ACViking

      That kind of data doesn’t exist because of Long’s utterly unparalleled career.

      • laeagle

        I think Felix Jones might have better stats as a linebacker than Long.

        • ACViking

          Certainly would have been faster to the ball.

    • laeagle

      Oh hell, here I thought I was being funny, and I meant Robinson instead of Long. Not sure where I got Travis Long from.

      • ACViking

        Robby and Longfellow are both OLBs. So there’s no comparison!

    • TommyLawlor

      Adrian Robinson >>> Lawrence Taylor

      That’s based on some numbers I put into a formula. Can’t share the details. Just trust me.

      • GEagle

        Attaboy…now I don’t have to get on you for the negadelphian “minor” trade headline lol…Don’t you know? we are riding Robinson to the SB baby! Jk

  • Vick or Nick

    Steelers Tomlin called Robinson a “one trick pony”. If he can get to the QB consistently I’ll gladly welcome him. At the least upgrades depth.

    OLB is a weak position overall. Im not convinced T. Cole can cover…teams will attack him during regular season. Barwin seems just satisfactory. Neither guy has made a highlight play which is worrisome b/c 3-4 OLBs are supposed to be play makers.

    • GEagle

      If you are looking for a solution for Coles coverage woes, I don’t know that Robinson is the solution lol…But if he Hits QBs, I’ll be happy

    • A_T_G

      I just hope his trick isn’t making a really good martini. Tough to do, I know, but not really what we are looking for.

  • ACViking

    T-Law:

    Robinson transitioned from college DE to OLB for the Steelers as a rookie free agent in 2012. He must have shown something to the team that’s been best at converting DEs to LBs in the past 20 years.

    This year, maybe Robinson regressed or just didn’t develop?

    And, besides a couple of new rookie free-agent OLBs to look at, the Steelers must have ex-Eagle Brian Rolle ahead of Robinson on the roster.

    Anyway, I’m glad he’s here. This team needs a Temple guy — though a Penn guy would be better.

    • TommyLawlor

      Rolle is an ILB. Robinson is OLB.

      Agree that it’s good to have a Temple presence. My dream is still a good PSU linebacker.

      • ACViking

        Thank’s, T-Law, for (gently) clearing up my Rolle error.

        • GEagle

          Is Rolle still in the NFL?

          • Anders

            backup ILB for the Steelers

      • Andy124

        A little jealous of the Vikings…
        We’ll just have to wait for Wartman.

  • Sean Scheinfeld

    Off-topic, but I’m wondering if anyone else is getting as tired of Didinger as I am? He’s been so condescending about everything regarding Chip thus far, and his reaction to Chip’s comments about TOP really drove me over the edge. For anyone who hasn’t seen it, he rhetorically asks if UCLA is on this year’s schedule and suggests that Chip needs to learn how to slow down the game in the second half when the Eagles have the lead. UGH!

    • TommyLawlor

      Chip will slow down when working with a lead. He’s said that multiple times.

      No real opinion on Didinger. He was a great writer. Not sure about his football stuff now.

    • ACViking

      Ray Didinger’s been around a long time.

      I don’t think he’ll drink the kool-aid until it has some age and proven character.

    • ICDogg

      I like Didinger, but more as historian than analyst.

      • Sean Scheinfeld

        That’s the problem, though. I also like him as a historian–him talking about the Chuck Bednarik-led Eagles can be almost magical–but he cannot help but approach everything historically. Case in point, he kept focusing on how important TOP has been and refused to even acknowledge the possibility that it might be overrated. The way he sees it, it was important in the past, therefore it is important now and always will be. His historical mindset seemingly (and unnecessarily) precludes him from being a good analyst, because he can’t speak any on any subject without making reference to the past, and, often, the relatively distant past.

        • ACViking

          Sean:

          TOP may be over-rated.

          To date, however, in the NFL’s long history, TOP has represented a meaningful predictor — especially in the post-season.

          35 of the 47 Super Bowl winners won TOP.

          Just as, to date, the winner of the turnover battle is a good predictor of who’ll win a game.

          Thus, in 47 Super Bowls, the winning team won the TO battle 35 times, tied 8 times, and lost it just 4 times.

          That said, you’re right that Ray-Diddy didn’t acknowledge that TOP may, assuming extended success by Kelly’s scheme, become less meaningful.

          _______________

          Side note: In a pretty remarkable coincidence, in each of the only 4 SBs in which the winning team *lost* the turnover battle, the winning team ALSO *lost* the TOP battle:

          1. 1971 SB: Colts over Dallas 16-13
          2. 1989 SB: SF over Cinncy 20-16
          3. 2000 SB: Rams over Titans 23-16
          4. 2006 SB: Pitt over Seattle 21-10

          • Andy124

            You could make a case that until recently most teams ran plays at a similar pace. In this case TOP would be a reasonable indicator of an advantage in plays, which is the stat Chip would have us look at right?

          • ACViking

            Agree with that.

            On the other hand, in the Ravens’ playoff win last year against the Pats running lots of hurry-up, if memory serves, the Ravens — using some hurry-up — called 71 plays to the Pats 82 plays.

            But the Ravens won the TOP. And the game.

            In the SB, the Ravens won TOP and ran 10 more plays than SF.

            Now, I’m not sure what any of that proves — except TOP in the playoffs still seems important.
            ______________

            As I said, I just think it’s too soon to draw any conclusion about TOP v. Total Plays. Especially in the playoffs.

          • Andy124

            Good counterexample.
            The thing to do would be to see who ran the greater number of plays in each SB and see if it results in a better than 35/47 corrolation. Better still would be to make the comparison for all postseason games over the last decade. I’m guessing Kelly has already done something like that.

            One of the guys over at BGN created an interactive chart to display win percentage by play differential. We just need the same chart to be filtered to playoff games, then an analogous chart relating to TOP instead of play differential and we’d have our winner.

            http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2013/8/16/4629088/illustrating-the-advantage-of-playing-fast-in-the-nfl
            Obviously, my guess is that play differential is a better predictor than TOP, but I can’t offer any more than a guess when someone could just run the numbers and offer facts.

          • Ark87

            TOP is a byproduct of more accurate predictors that has quite a few prerequisites to be accurate. Most often it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. A team is winning, and begins burning clock while the other team desperately tries to preserve clock. Most of the time people are really looking for the play count when they are trying to use the TOP to rationalize the results of a particular game, they are looking to answer: “whose offense could stay on the field”, which even that predictor began to falter as explosive plays took over the league…..or just look at the scoreboard, best to keep it simple when it comes to these sorts of things.

          • A_T_G

            My thoughts exactly. To add to it, and to comment on the coincidence ACViking noted, losing turnovers will shorten your TOP as well. Again, showing a correlation to winning, but not a prescriptive method to win.

  • phillychuck

    “In one year, Adrian Robinson has gone from promising young prospect to trade bait as the Pittsburgh Steelers sent him to the Philadelphia Eagles for running back Felix Jones, shifting the seedings of Pittsburgh linebackers battling for roster spots.

    Rumors had placed Robinson in the Steelers coaches’ doghouse in the early portion of training camp, citing a lack of energy in practices.”

    From a Steelers’ web site. Chip will not put up with lack of effort in practice, I don’t think.

    • TommyLawlor

      UDFAs can get complacent in Year 2. Happened to Brian Rolle last year. They lose the edge that got them the roster spot.

      • phillychuck

        And getting traded may restore some of the hunger/desire. At least we hope that happens, and it’s probably worth the gamble.

        • Iskar36

          When the gamble is a player that was clearly not going to make your team… definitely.

  • GEagle

    Is he anything special on ST? I know he contributed to the steelers ST unit in 12 games, but I have no idea to what extent

    • Andy124

      “was active for 12 games as a rookie, but played only on special teams. According to Pro Football Focus, he did not register a special-teams tackle.”

      “the Steelers coach described the Temple product as a one-trick pony that gets up the field, can rush the passer, but doesn’t play special teams and doesn’t drop.”

      Don’t shoot the messenger.

      • Flyin

        He played special teams but doesn’t play special teams?

        • Andy124

          lol. My interpretation was that he doesn’t play special teams wellhard… in which case, why was he out there? Who knows? Ask Tomlin.

          • Flyin

            No need. I will just consider him a future HOFer, based on Tommy’s secret formula.

  • GermanEagle

    Tommy, following your recent tweet, what would you consider a ‘crazy offer’ for Byrd?
    Personally I would offer a conditional 2nd rounder, depending on the future contract negotiations next off-season. Is that too crazy?! Given the fact that Jairus would be our first true difference maker on D since Dawkins left… I don’t think so!

    • Iskar36

      Not to mention, that a 2nd rounder for a difference maker would be the first difference maker we have had from a 2nd rounder since 2009 with LeSean McCoy (with all due respect to Mychal Kendricks).

      • Andy124

        Unless Ertz beats mystery future second rounder to the punch.

  • ACViking

    Re: Byrd-man Safety

    General Question for ALL:

    What leverage do the Bills have over Roseman-Kelly, besides other potential suitors? Who are those suitors and who’s best positioned to part with a premium draft pick?

    What leverage do Roseman-Kelly have over the Bills, besides (a) the Bills (presumably) wanting to avoid a Franchise-II Tag on Byrd, and (b) Byrd would like to leave?

    A 2nd-Round picks seems high. But Byrd’s likely better than any 2nd-round rookie safety the Eagles will get next year . . . unless Ha Ha Clinton-Dix falls.

    • Patrick

      I think the Eagles are one of the best suiters for the Bills, but in the end it all comes down to value. Still, they would be sending Byrd to a team outside the AFC, which would mean that they probably wont have Byrd come bite them in the ass, and wont strengthen a competitor for play off spots.
      There is also a legitimate chance of the Eagles not being a very good team, even with Byrd, hence a higher draftpick for the Bills. Too bad they switched away from a 4-3, otherwise they would have been a great trade partner for Brandon Graham.

      In my opinion, Jairus Byrd is most definitely a player you make a premium trade for, but I understand if Chip/Howie thinks the timing is wrong for us. I would trade a 3rd or a 4th, maybe include someone from the roster who haven’t earned a spot, but is still a decent, young player(Clay Harbor or Jamar Chaney for instance), but I wouldn’t go any higher in our position. I would understand either pulling the trigger or burying the trade when it comes to a 2nd round pick.
      On one hand, we might have a high pick and we would have to pay Jairus Byrd BIG money, and that could be too pricey.
      On the other, Jairus Byrd would NOT still be a 2nd round pick the way he played in his career + he is still just 27 this october. Why wouldnt you give up a 2nd rounder for a 1st round player? it matches up value wise.
      All that might be irrelevant. I dont see the Bills trading him away for anything than a 2nd, maybe a little lower if they got a premium project back(Graham for instance). I also think that if they go around shopping Byrd, a team like Denver might very well offer their 1st rounder. Hell, i could see Jerry Jones offer his 1st round pick.

  • aub32

    I find it a little odd just how deep we were at RB. Since the offseason began we had three RB/FB worth that others teams were willing to trade for, and it’s still our deepest and most talented position that could likely match up with any team in the league.

    • ACViking

      May be too soon to say “deepest and most talented” — except relative to the D-backfield and OLBs.

      McCoy’s a proven star.

      Brown? Remains an unproven 7th Rd pick with potential.

      Polk? Even more unproven rookie free agent with no carries.

      Tucker? Most unproven and also a rookie free agent.

      Besides McCoy, is there do the Eagles have another bell cow RB at this point? I’m not sure they do.

      • aub32

        I meant deepest and most talented compared to other positions on our team. Sorry meant to include that. Also, I do think it’s not too early to stack the position up against other teams. Very view teams have a RB the caliber of McCoy. Fewr still have as much talent in their #2 guy. You ask if either Brown or Polk could be the bell cow. I don’t know, but I am speaking as presently constructed. I prefer not to speak assuming an injury because then why wouldn’t you assume an injury for eveyone elses starter, backups and so worth.

        • ACViking

          aub32:

          Absolutely would love to see Brown — with a year under the proverbial belt — get 200 carries. In a perfect world, the Eagles would run the ball 60% of the time, get off 80 plays per game, and dominate the clock and the scoreboard week in and week out.

          • aub32

            I’d say closer to 55%. This is still the NFL, and it’s a passing league. Not to mention, we are going to have to compensate for the defense.

          • Iskar36

            I’ll be honest, 60% of the time running the ball scares me. We hated the AR heavy pass offense, but it seems that is the direction the NFL was going, AR just was extreme. 60% running would be so far against the grain that I am not sure it works. I’m hoping for a 50-50 split, or maybe a 55% passing/45% running personally.

          • ACViking

            POUND THE ROCK.

            If the running game — read: Kelly’s scheme — works, then yards will begin to pile up. Defenses will wear down.

            No reason to throw the ball if running works.

            HOWEVER, at some point, defenses would load the box. Then . . .

            Big plays will follow.

            All sounds good on virtual paper.

          • A Roy

            I seem to recall a blog commenter with the moniker RUNTHEROCK. I loved it when the Eagles had the three headed monster a decade ago. I think this group has the potential to be just as good.

          • Neil

            If we run the ball 60% of the time, it will be because we had favourable situations to run the ball that much. IE, teams play their safeties like they did when Reid ran the show. For that reason, I don’t think we’ll run the ball that much, though.

          • P_P_K

            I wonder if the Eagles will actually get off as many plays as we anticipate. I think we’ll have a big play offense — Shady breaking runs, and long passes from Vick to DeSean. This will take away from top and, unfortunately, keep the d on the field.

    • RC5000

      I think OT is – Peters, Johnson, Barbre, Bamiro, Kelly