Draft Talk and More

Posted: January 22nd, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Philadelphia Eagles | 85 Comments »

Final day in Mobile. So sad. But there is plenty to talk about.

Jeff McLane wrote a good article on the Eagles hiring Bill Musgrave.

Lazor was credited with helping to develop Foles during his record-setting second season, but the two occasionally butted heads over the coach’s intensity, according to a source familiar with the relationship.

That’s interesting info. Sounds like Lazor must have been a perfectionist and tough taskmaster. I’m glad to hear that. He might have worn on Foles a bit, but I’d rather have a coach be too tough on a young guy than too soft.

* * * * *

Les Bowen wrote a good piece on Howie Roseman and where the Eagles are in Year 2 of scouting for Chip Kelly.

Roseman said that going through the 2013 season helped make him “feel even more confident in what our coaches want, what they’re looking for,” and that Kelly and the coaches have a better feel for how players on the roster do or don’t fit into what they’re trying to do.

Last year was awkward. Kelly was new to the NFL. Several on his staff were new as well. They had to figure out how to tell the personnel staff which players to target and what they were looking for. The process should go smoother this year.

Les has a couple of good nuggets in there.

* * * * *

McLane wrote about the Eagles search for OLBs. Ideally, they’d find 2 OLBs who could rush, cover and play the run. Ideally.

“You’d love to double up on those guys,” Eagles general manager Howie Roseman said Tuesday during Senior Bowl workouts. “That’s the ideal scenario. You’d like to have guys that are really versatile and really good at everything they do. Hard-to-find guys that have all three of those skill sets.”

“It’s hard to find explosive guys who can win with power, with speed, with length, with athleticism,” Roseman said. “And they go very quickly on draft day. They go very quickly in free agency. It’s not an easy thing to find.”

It is going to be really interesting to see what the Eagles do at OLB this year. We’re all still learning what the Eagles want and what kind of compromises they’ll make.

* * * * *

You guys have a ton of questions about the Eagles and the draft. Some I’ll answer in the form of a post in the coming days. A couple of real quick thoughts…

* I’m not writing a ton about offensive prospects since I’m focused on defense. I haven’t watched the RBs very much at all.

* Dee Ford is a major mystery player. I’ll cover him in a post. So good…but is he big enough for Chip?

* Daniel McCullers may be of interest, but better not be early. I don’t mind Chip going for size, but gentle giants scare me.

* Van Noy as OLB? I don’t see him as an explosive rusher. I don’t think he could consistently beat LTs in the NFL. I like the guy for the Jack LB spot, but that’s not a priority the way the rush LB spot is to me.

* I’ll write about the trip and how things happen in Mobile. Couple of good stories to share.

* Is this a deep class? Overall, yes. Tons of underclassmen make the difference. The Senior Bowl roster isn’t great, but the overall class is pretty darn good.


85 Comments on “Draft Talk and More”

  1. 1 mksp said at 10:57 AM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Would really like to trade back in this draft, pick up an extra 2nd or 3rd.

    SEA / SF both have loaded rosters, I’m sure either would be willing to get the high impact guy they want in exchange for a mid-rounder or two, its not like they can bring in a ton of rookies anyway.

  2. 2 Anders said at 11:05 AM on January 22nd, 2014:

    For me it really depends on who is left at 22.

  3. 3 mksp said at 11:57 AM on January 22nd, 2014:

    I guess thats kind of a given. I’m considering who is likely to be there at #22, who is likely to be there at #30, and who is likely to be there in the 2nd / 3rd rounds.

    Who would you definitively take at #22?

  4. 4 Baloophi said at 12:02 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    (My fat thumbs accidentally down-voted you… Sorry!)

    I’m curious who you (and others) would take at 22 as opposed to trading down. Consider that if a great player fell to us in that spot we might gain more in a trade.

    For me, I’d be tempted by:

    Calvin Pryor
    Eric Ebron
    Khalil Mack
    Mike Evans

    The last two would be big slips, but short of those guys, I feel like I could get similar talent at other spots and acquire more picks by trading down.

  5. 5 mksp said at 12:06 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Yeah thats my point as well – just not sure who the big talent is at #22 that I wouldn’t want the extra pick for.

    I’d rather trade down 8 spots, pick up a 3rd, than draft KVN or Attachou. For example.

    I’d take Dee Ford & a Brent Urban / Stanley Jean-Baptiste / Jordan Zumwalt type pick over either of those guys I think.

  6. 6 Baloophi said at 12:17 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    I’m in complete agreement on acquiring more picks. In fact, were I GM for the day, I’d anger Eagles nation by trading back yet again so we wind up with a mid 2 and 3 3’s. Then you get your OLB, CB, S and choice of WR/DT/ILB pending the board.

    If the board falls just right and there’s a late round run on tackles or DB’s, we may even score a second with that first or second trade, so 2 2’s and 2 3’s, which short of Anthony Barr somehow at 22, I’d take all day vs, 1-2-3.

  7. 7 Mitchell said at 12:48 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    I think we are the same person, or a playing too much GM on first pick.

  8. 8 A_T_G said at 1:30 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    I’d sign a free agent or two to get fans excited, then trade our top three picks for two firsts and two seconds next year. People would curse me for about 300 days, then praise me as a genius.

    Come to think of it, by 2020 I could probably have the entire first two rounds.

  9. 9 anon said at 5:18 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    you’ve been spending too much time on the simulator.

  10. 10 Baloophi said at 5:40 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    I agree wholeheartedly with that observation.

    Wow… I’m really taking a beating on this. Perhaps my use of hyperbole (6 picks, trade value, etc.) has somehow lumped me in with the Taters, but my overall point is to walk away with more picks than we currently have in the sweet spot of the draft.

    We can all argue about how many picks that would be and where exactly the sweet spot is, but that would take away from precious simulator time.

  11. 11 Baloophi said at 12:07 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Again, it’s not necessarily the most realistic thing, but the simulator at first-pick.com helps you realize the quantity vs. quality argument and sort of where the “drop off” is at each position. Example: there are far more good receivers than OLB’s. Common sense, but fun to see in action.

  12. 12 Insomniac said at 12:49 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    I’m pretty sure your sense of draft projection is skewed by draft simulators especially one that is extremely unrealistic. At least the fanspeak one uses a respectable big board.

  13. 13 Baloophi said at 5:34 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Insomniac –

    I don’t think my sense of draft projection is any more skewed by draft simulators than by draft history. Unless you now LOSE picks by trading back…

    I’m curious where you derive your respectable big boards. I start with NFL DRAFT SCOUT (Rob Rang, et al.) and make common sense adjustments from there, fine tuning positional rankings as we gain more information (Senior Bowl, Combine, etc), and ultimately paring that down to possible targets for the Eagles from what we guess to be Kelly’s preferences.

    I then try to guess where the talent plateau exists – a subjective dividing line between the top tier of immediate game-changers and the next group of guys who have above-average talent and will likely function as very good starters.

    Last year we picked 4th, placing us clearly in the elite player stratum. This year we pick 22nd, which looks – to me anyway – to be about 7-10 picks beneath that point. To my eye, this year’s draft appears relatively even from picks 15 – 80ish, and possibly slightly bigger on the tail end. We definitely have 3 picks in that zone (22, 54, 86), so “barring” a massive slip by a player we absolutely covet, I’d rather have more than 3 picks in that zone if possible.

    Maybe we disagree on where the dividing line of elite talent is but I don’t think I have a skewed draft projection. As I noted, First-Pick is “not necessarily the most realistic”, but I think Fanspeak or any other simulator is going to have its own sources of error.

    For example, First-Pick allows seemingly infinite trades and likely bases the value of trades on Jimmy Johnson’s hallowed yet-increasingly-outdated rubric. You can wind up with 13 third and fourth round picks, which would not only be cost-prohibitive from a contract standpoint but how are you going to fit all those dudes on the “Rookie Tour of Philadelphia” bus?? The issue with Fanspeak (and any mock draft) is you can’t account for trades, so teams take players they would never take in order to closely hew to whatever big board algorithm it’s following.

    Also, no simulator I know can factor in irrational actors like Jerry Jones, Cleveland, and whoever’s pulling the levers in Washington.

  14. 14 Insomniac said at 6:42 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    You have it reversed. First-pick has the most random algorithm. That simulator is trying too hard to emulate a draft day scenario. You expect to keep trading up or down. Sure there are always phone calls going around on draft day but there’s no way 20+ trades happen during the draft.It simply doesn’t work that way. You need fair or better compensation for trading up/down. In addition to that, you need a willing trade partner that gives up said compensation. First-pick is just for fun and it is. It just doesn’t represent what “elite” talents should be where. Of course, this is all subjective.

    The Fanspeak one is based on NFLDraftScout.com’s list.

  15. 15 Baloophi said at 8:00 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Correct. And since you can’t trade on Fanspeak, it represents the opposite fictional world of a trade-less draft where prospects are selected in ranking order, with little-to-no-weight ascribed to team needs, which is also admittedly unrealistic. It might very well be less unrealistic than first-pick, but I don’t think I was arguing the opposite.

    Also, I’m not using first-pick’s random generator to ascertain where elite talent should be. All I said was it helps you see “sort of where the ‘drop-off’ is at each position,” a qualifier I intentionally added as a wink-wink to the fantasy-realm of first-pick GM-ing.

    I think we’re simply talking around each other.

    I found First-Pick to be a fun way to illustrate the merits of moving around in a draft. For example: try it once and don’t trade at all and compare it to making even one trade. Yes, it’s just for fun, but I think it also helps develop a sense for “trading back vs. BPA” and why one might be interested in multiple selections in mid rounds versus using those picks to trade up for Anthony Barr or something.

  16. 16 Mitchell said at 12:48 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Exactly Mr. Baloophi. I believe we can get similar talents lower in the draft in addition to picking up draft picks. this 22 position is tricky because it is in the middle of the transition from a drafting (what would be viewed as) a top pick and guys lower d own.

  17. 17 Anders said at 1:53 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    overall agree, but I was in a hurry when I wrote.

    Unless some crazy talent is for taking, trading down is always a better option as it gives you more picks and consider it has been shown that drafts picks is a lottery for every team anyway, getting more picks just increases the chance for a star pick

  18. 18 gherbox said at 2:11 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    What do you guys think about trading up?

  19. 19 nicolajNN said at 2:36 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    If you click down-vote again it will undo the down-vote

  20. 20 Dominik said at 11:09 AM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Good point. But I’m with Anders, depends on who’s there at 22.

  21. 21 mtn_green said at 4:08 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Last year there were no takers to trade back. Eagles have traded back many, many years to mixed results. It seems that there was less trading since the new cba. Not sure why maybe less worry about ridiculous first rounder contracts or lack of exciting prospects, 3 OL off board in first four picks, does it get more exciting?

  22. 22 Dominik said at 11:08 AM on January 22nd, 2014:

    “That’s interesting info. Sounds like Lazor must have been a
    perfectionist and tough taskmaster. I’m glad to hear that. He might have
    worn on Foles a bit, but I’d rather have a coach be too tough on a
    young guy than too soft.”

    Agree, Tommy. That’s why I don’t like to hear that:

    “Musgrave was picked for the job with Eagles starting quarterback Nick Foles in mind, according to league sources. He has a calm demeanor, according to some of his acquaintances.”

    I like Foles, but I like the QB Coach to be a tough son of a gun, not a “calm demeanor” guy. But that’s one of the first negative feelings I have about his hiring.

  23. 23 anon said at 11:20 AM on January 22nd, 2014:

    In the article feels like he just threw the statement out there. But makes me think Billy is a good fit in MIA seems like they want really intense guys there.

  24. 24 Mac said at 1:05 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    At this point, I’m willing to trust Chip’s ideas in this area. Psychology is a tough thing to figure out, and it may be that Musgrave is similar but just different enough to help calm Foles’ nerves on a rough day or have some other positive effect.

  25. 25 Dominik said at 7:43 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Maybe it’s a personal thing from me, but I want my QB to be hyper (and I mean hyper) competitive. If I look at Tom Brady (I know, many of you don’t like him, I do), I see a freak, but in a good way. It’s a very competitive league, but Brady could be the most competitive guy there is.

    And I think you can only come to that point if your coach always wants to see more, always has something to point out to you, always has something to criticise. I loved it when I read about Lazors working style with Foles. That’s how you build champions at that position.

    Now I’m not opposed to Margrave being a polite guy, but he’ll better be the toughest critic Foles has in the whole world (or the second toughest, but if Foles is truly his toughest critic, he has gone a long way of being an elite QB).

  26. 26 Mac said at 9:37 AM on January 23rd, 2014:

    I definitely want Foles to be sold out, and all in with everything he has. I don’t think Brady or Peyton Manning got to that point by external forces though. I think there is something burning inside each of them driving them (almost to the point of insanity) to be the best. If Foles can muster that kind of will power (I don’t really care how it’s achieved) then he can start climbing the elite pocket QB charts.

    Back in my college days they called it Locus of Control. Some folks are more driven by external forces and others by internal ones. I am really hopeful that as you said “Foles is his own hardest critic” so that the coaches can tell him to loosen up and “grip it and rip it” and stuff like that.

  27. 27 Dominik said at 9:52 AM on January 23rd, 2014:

    Good take. And to a certain degree, I’m with you when it comes to: “I don’t think Brady or Peyton Manning got to that point by external
    forces though. I think there is something burning inside each of them
    driving them (almost to the point of insanity) to be the best”

    But: I think tough, hard-ass coaching complements that. Yeah, it’s their personality, we can all hope it is Foles personality, too. But to be as driven as those two are, I think you need that personality AND tough coaching.

    I have to say though, the “but the two occasionally butted heads over the coach’s intensity” nugget in the Bowen article is the first negative thing I heard about Foles work ethic, I think ever.

    One last thing: I’m not against the “grip it and rip it” approach from Kelly. I don’t think the HC dictators are contemporary. But I like it from the position coaches in the film room.

  28. 28 Mac said at 12:03 AM on January 24th, 2014:

    The coaches have to find the right buttons to push. Hopefully Musgrave can be that guy for Foles. Even a horse that wants to work hard on his own needs a carrot every once in awhile (and not just the stick).

    I like the idea of a driven coach and a driven player, and can definitely see where you’re coming from in that regard!

  29. 29 shah8 said at 3:05 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Had a longer post, but accidentally deleted it. But a strong ditto with Dominik here. If Musgrave is valuable, it’s because of his play design, and not because of playcalling or player development. Conflict does not generally happen with coaches are pushing players to be better. Conflict usually happen because either the coach/culture or player are knuckleheads. One has to strongly hope that it was Lazor going all Juanita here, rather than the other way around.

  30. 30 Sean said at 11:25 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    I guess we’re just pretending he didn’t develop Matt Ryan, Schaub, and David Garrard

  31. 31 ztom6 said at 4:52 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    it’s not like Lazor was forced out. Don’t see how this is a real issue. Musgrave was hired because he’s the best QB coach they were likely to get. NFL QB coaches with experience and a decorated track record of success don’t interview for QB coach jobs, they interview for OC and HC positions… that’s how Musgrave got the job in Minny in the first place.

  32. 32 Insomniac said at 12:45 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    I’m not sure what to think of Chip and his need of size at LB. Dee Ford has average height for an OLB. Our starting OLBs peak at 6’4 with Barwin. Cole is 6’3. Graham is 6’2. Our ILBs aren’t very tall either. Demeco is 6’1. Kendricks is 5’11. Goode is 6’0. If Chip is just working with what he has then it’s probably safe to assume that at least 6’3 is what he wants.

    McCullers wouldn’t be on my board. I know Chip can motivate people but to light a fire under a guy’s ass every single game would be enough to take him out of consideration. This mammoth seems to be in it for the paycheck (Haynesworth?) and not the game.

    Van Noy’s drop of production this year just screams that he’s not as big of a playmaker without getting help from better teammates. It’s just like Barwin’s sack numbers in Houston. He can’t play the run either, He just doesn’t have the strength to set the edge. Way too overhyped by the media and fans.

  33. 33 GENETiC-FREAK said at 5:13 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Van Noy blitzed 70% last year compared to 70% dropping back into coverage this year. His words

  34. 34 Insomniac said at 6:35 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Van Noy just isn’t a stud pass rusher. I don’t care if he had to drop back in coverage. This team doesn’t need that. Drafting Van Noy would be trying to pound a square block into a round hole.

  35. 35 GENETiC-FREAK said at 7:19 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Im struggling to see why he not a stud pass rusher though.. I mentioned before when hes blitzing he sheds blocks like Judo or parrying punches.. 12 sacks is pretty good for sacks.. On top of that all the other stats he popping out.. I think the key thing is hes an athlete as are all players in the sports profession but he is also versatile.. Isnt it good to have someone who can do all 3 things rush, stop the run n coverage?

  36. 36 Insomniac said at 8:02 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    He doesn’t shed well. He’s practically done once a decent athletic OL gets his hands on him. He’s either stonewalled or gets overpowered + knocked down. Sloppy tackler too. I haven’t seen anyone lunge tackle that much before. He’s a speed rusher that gives up once a play is out of his range, which is about 7 yards.

  37. 37 GENETiC-FREAK said at 8:09 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    So who or what is an ideal 3-4 OLB in your eyes in this up coming draft? You say he gives up when ive seen him hunt down RBs n QBs from behind when tryna get away.. I can see Van Noy is going to be an interesting prospect as its either fans n scouts like him or dont think hes a ft

  38. 38 Insomniac said at 8:15 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Khalil Mack would be great.

    Of all the 2013 tape I’ve watched on the guy, I have never seen him run down a QB/RB 10 yards down the field. He just stops and lets his teammates do it. He’s explosive for sure but he’ll be in a different league of athleticism when he gets to the NFL.I tried to like the guy but I just couldn’t. A lot of other people feel the same way and the same can be said for guys that like him.

  39. 39 GENETiC-FREAK said at 8:26 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    I know late in the year he was injured n worn down.. We’ll just have to have different views on the guy.. Mack i like too.. Bit spastic in space though but looks like no one is perfect lol

  40. 40 D3FB said at 10:40 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    KVN has elite hand usage. That skill is the equivalent of rebounding in basketball. It translates from college to pros.

  41. 41 Sconces said at 8:20 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    McCullers seems like more of a Clifton Geathers than an Albert Haynesworth

  42. 42 anon said at 2:02 AM on January 23rd, 2014:


  43. 43 Mac said at 1:38 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Keith McGill?

  44. 44 Shawn Williams said at 1:58 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    @tommylawlor: Interested to know if you think that chip would be interested in Jimmy Grappolo or Derek Carr if they could get them at the number 22 pick. From what I have heard both are having an amazing week at the senior bowl practice.

  45. 45 Anders said at 2:40 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Grapopplo is not a 1st round pick. Most likely a mid 2nd

  46. 46 CrackSammich said at 2:19 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Regarding Musgrave’s resume, including failures; You don’t get to be a coordinator, head coach, or otherwise in the NFL for very long if you’re not good at what you do. It may just end up that he is a bad fit for our staff and players, but I wouldn’t worry about his ability to do the job.

  47. 47 shah8 said at 3:06 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Musgrave has been repeatedly fired with prejudice (Panthers, Jaguars, now Vikings). More Marion Campbell than anyone good.

  48. 48 CrackSammich said at 3:21 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Sure, but look at the organizations you just listed.

  49. 49 nevadausa16 said at 5:45 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    “Fired with Prejudice.”

    A play on the phrase “Terminated with Extreme Prejudice,” I guess.

    But if Musgrave really had been “fired with prejudice” by the Panthers, that would mean he never gets another NFL job again.

    Isn’t that’s the whole point of the word “prejudice” in the analogous context of “terminated with extreme prejudice”? The person doesn’t continue whatever they were doing (like living).

    If not, then I don’t understand why you’re using the word “prejudice.” It doesn’t add anything to you sole point that he was fired.

  50. 50 shah8 said at 6:00 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    I used the term to mean that the team was genuinely unsatisfied with his work. Not in the “it didn’t work out sense”.

    Fired with extreme prejudice is probably more Jim Mora Jr or Schiano or Spurrier, where they will never have another chance again…

  51. 51 nevadausa16 said at 6:49 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    okay, I like that. Mora Jr. and Schaino for sure were “fired with prejudice”. Schiano especially. I understand better. thanks for the clarification!

  52. 52 anon said at 2:02 AM on January 23rd, 2014:

    Schiano just interviewed for browns — though not sure if that job would qualify for another chance.

  53. 53 Sifter said at 5:10 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    I’m a bit concerned with the OLB talk. It sounds overly optimistic, like we’re looking for the ‘perfect’ OLB and if that happens suddenly everything will be OK with the world. I mean this mythical OLB only needs to be able to rush the passer better than Brandon Graham, cover better than Connor Barwin and play the run better than Trent Cole. Easy right?? I’m not sure a player like that exists, and even if he did exist, relying on snagging him in the draft would be impossible. Feels like we’ll happily overdraft for an athlete and just pray that he works out. I hate that idea, especially in the 1st round. You can pick a raw athlete a little later in the draft.

    I think the scheme could better use the guys we have rather than gambling that one man will become the league’s best OLB and solve the problems.

  54. 54 bsuperfi said at 6:31 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    I think the fan base mentality always moves to need in the offseason but the drafting strategy is much more bpa in reality. If there’s really better talent at our spot or there’s probably better value at another position, it won’t be an olb reach.

    I think our front office really has it’s head on its shoulders these days. I’d like to see some more solidity at our positions of need moving into the draft, and I’d like to draft opportunistically, keeping in mind both short and long term needs.

    I mean, isn’t it possible that the front office can be reasonable and consider a lot of factors?

  55. 55 Insomniac said at 6:46 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    I’m not sure where you’re getting this from. I just want our future LEO LB to be 5 times better at getting to the QB than Cole is. That’s not too unrealistic seeing how Cole stunk for 85% of the year.

  56. 56 anon said at 1:17 AM on January 23rd, 2014:

    What about stopping the run (cole was the second best LB in the league), what about being able to drop into coverage? While we all want a dominant pass rusher — at what cost? Everyone is looking at Cole but he’s literally the only other player (who actually sees the field) who generates any pass rush we should be trying to figure out how to get more rush from the line and from our ILBs.

  57. 57 Anders said at 6:55 AM on January 23rd, 2014:

    We got plenty pass rush from others players, problem was Cole.

    He got shut down by fucking King Dunlap and a rookie OT.

  58. 58 anon said at 8:38 AM on January 23rd, 2014:

    T. Cole accounted for a quarter of the sacks this season right? 8/37 (37 puts us at 20th in the league). With 2 with more sacks T. Cole would be ranked with guys like Tuck, Hali, Wilkerson, Watt, etc. who had 10 or 11 sacks this season.

    We gave up 46 sacks (9th most in the league). That’s not great considering our run / pass ratio. CK would put those on the QB, but my guess is the line/wrs are to blame.

  59. 59 Anders said at 8:45 AM on January 23rd, 2014:

    yea but he didnt have 2 extra sacks.

    Again I expect my main pass rusher to have around 12 sacks per year. Also if our ROLB was a better pass rusher, that would put more resources on him and that way giving guys like Cox, Barwin and Kendricks easier pass rush matchups and that way increase our overall sack production.

  60. 60 Mitchell said at 7:13 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    I would be completely happy with not drafting a OLB in the first round. I would like it to be addressed somewhere in the draft, preferably in the first 3 rounds. We at least need someone to develop. Every player has weaknesses and we don’t really need someone to cover as good as Barwin does. We really need someone to get the qb, that’s about it.

  61. 61 Dominik said at 7:46 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Right, Mitchell. But of course, we need a back-up for Barwin, because Matthews is a joke. But that’s an issue we should have no problem with. Solid jack OLB back-ups shouldn’t be nearly as hard to find as great pass rushers. 😉

  62. 62 Mitchell said at 9:23 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Well of course D. I’m sure Matthews will make the leap this year……. But for real, that’s one roster spot that can definitely be improved. I hope we can start to establish some real depth with this draft.

  63. 63 Anders said at 6:53 AM on January 23rd, 2014:

    That is the perfect OLB. We fans know and the coaches know you aint finding that player at 22. That is why some of us are focusing on 1 trait that we need more than the other and right now rushing the passer better than Trent Cole (sorry Graham in his few snaps is not better than Cole no matter what PFF tries to tell you), be good enough to set the edge (do not have to be Cole good) and just be a bit better than Cole and Graham in zone coverage.

    That guy is a lot easier to find.

  64. 64 Brandon Judy said at 5:21 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Anything on Michael Schofield, looks like he is a G but can move out to RT when needed.

  65. 65 Frencheaglesfan said at 5:38 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    I’m really impressed by that guy, the way he escaped from a jail with his brother was really mind-blowing.

  66. 66 bridgecoach said at 5:53 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Plays called in via tattoos. Genius.

  67. 67 planetx1971 said at 10:30 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Good one 🙂 I was TRYIN to remember where else I’d heard that name. lol

  68. 68 ChaosOnion said at 5:52 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    I am hearing lots of “need” and it is making me nervous. When you focus on need too much, you can reach. What happened to BPA?

  69. 69 shah8 said at 6:03 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    The defense has just two difference-makers. One is swallowed up doing his multiple function job and not being disruptive, and the other is off the field if there’s no slot corner involved. The rest are people still needing serious work on their game, lunch pail guys, and vast sucking holes.

  70. 70 bsuperfi said at 6:22 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    If that’s true then Davis and the scheme must be incredible. The defense was really quite good in the back half of the season.

  71. 71 shah8 said at 6:30 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    The defense played two compos offenses down the stretch after Was. Ari and NO. Arizona, Palmer was being Palmer, and NO’s offense doesn’t travel that well. They played about as well as a defense of that talent could against NO, though. Nobody should really blame them for the final field goal. An almost two TD deficit later in the game is almost impossible to come back from in the playoffs, not least because of the multiple stops needed. Drew Brees just isn’t Alex Smith.

  72. 72 shah8 said at 6:31 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Whups, should mention Chicago, but their defense just wasn’t up to the task, but maybe that is evened out by the loss to Minn where, I repeat–Matt Cassell, NO RBs, and virtually no secondary.

  73. 73 bsuperfi said at 6:58 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    You’re right that we those offenses have weaknesses. Some of them also have strengths too. Eg there was a time when Michael Floyd was killing it for me in fantasy. No matter who you play, it’s hard to consistently keep teams in the low 20s in today’s nfl. Consistency is the key. Even through the NO game.

    I agree we need upgrades. I agree we could’ve played a murderers row of offenses and didn’t. But I also think we need to give more credit to the coaches and/or players given what the defense did accomplish.

  74. 74 anon said at 1:13 AM on January 23rd, 2014:

    Agree but think biggest advantage of this defense is that they played sound football, kept plays in front of them AND generated a lot of turnovers. It’ll be interesting to see if the D takes steps to improve or if we’ll be running in place.

    But Davis is to be applauded for change from last year to this year especially with mediocre talent.

  75. 75 Anders said at 6:56 AM on January 23rd, 2014:

    Aint most people talking BPA?

    Yes we are talking about specific players and who we like best, but I have never seen anybody say we have to draft OLB at 22 no matter who is left

  76. 76 iceberg584 said at 6:54 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    As everyone realizes by now, next week’s Super Bowl will feature the league’s No. 1 offense (Denver) vs. the league No. 1 defense (Seattle). This has supposedly occurred five times before. Does anybody know which Super Bowls these were? The only one I can think of is Super Bowl XXIV when San Francisco’s top offense obliterated Denver’s top defense 55-10.

  77. 77 shah8 said at 7:12 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    AFC was weak in the later ’80s. I remember that game as a kid, and it was like…The AFC keeps losing all these Super Bowls in a row!

  78. 78 Anders said at 6:59 AM on January 23rd, 2014:

    The only problem is that since the Redskins game, outside of a smack down of the Titans, the Denver offense hasnt really been that high powered offense.

    Against a weak Pats defense lacking their best CB they only scored 26 points.

  79. 79 RobNE said at 10:55 AM on January 23rd, 2014:

    yes they left some points on the field and kicked a couple of FG’s instead of TD’s, but they had their two most time consuming drives of the year. I think saying “only 26” is selling them short.

    I also thought Fox should have gone for it on fourth down once or twice instead of kicking the FG. They kicked from like the one yard line one time.

  80. 80 Insomniac said at 6:57 PM on January 22nd, 2014:

    Not sure if you saw this but Dee Ford closed out the Texas A&M game. Basically saved Auburn from losing with 2 crucial sacks.


  81. 81 CrackSammich said at 9:10 AM on January 23rd, 2014:


    GJ Kinne goes to the Pro Bowl!

    …As Foles’ guest.

  82. 82 91mr2t said at 12:39 PM on January 23rd, 2014:

    Dawkins at the 2000 probowl. This made me smile & then made me sad. Will we ever have another one like him…


  83. 83 Ben Hert said at 1:44 PM on January 23rd, 2014:

    Seems like anytime we have an aging CB we still like, everyone wants to move him to safety. I feel like you rarely ever see this done, because its not that simple. However, I saw someone mention today the thought of moving Cary Williams to Safety. I kind of like this idea. Thoughts, anyone?

  84. 84 A_T_G said at 2:50 PM on January 23rd, 2014:

    I asked the same thing near the end of the season, but didn’t get a positive response. Consensus seemed to be that he isn’t big enough to hold up in the box on running plays.

  85. 85 Anders said at 3:57 PM on January 23rd, 2014:

    so what? He would be a FS for us anyway.

    My problem is, that playing safety is very different from an angle point of view.

    Outside he has clear angle to his target because he is right in front, but how is he going to do when chasing the play?

    I think Williams could be a good safety for us in some looks, but we need CB to replace him first.