Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Same. If we can’t get Watson for three firsts and a couple players, then I’d love to try to use two firsts (and a couple players if necessary) to move up for Wilson

I would rather just keep our picks and stay at 8 and see what happens.  We have too many holes on this roster to give away picks IMO

  • Pie 5
  • Beer 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Wilson's skill set is fantastic, but the knocks on him (i.e. questioning whether he can physically hold up in the NFL) sound way too much like the ones I read about Teddy Bridgewater when he was coming out.

That's what scares me about him.

In my mind you take that risk on a QB. 

Also no one can really say how well anyone can hold up over the course of a career. Look at Andrew Luck and Jake Locker for example. Those dudes were huge but had to retire due to injuries. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ricky Spanish said:

In my mind you take that risk on a QB. 

Also no one can really say how well anyone can hold up over the course of a career. Look at Andrew Luck and Jake Locker for example. Those dudes were huge but had to retire due to injuries. 

To be fair, Ryan Grigson did a sh-tty job of protecting Luck.

(yet people kept saying we should be more like the Colts)

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

I would rather just keep our picks and stay at 8 and see what happens.  We have too many holes on this roster to give away picks IMO

same.  if we can't land Watson.  I'd don't want to move up in this draft.  Sit tight and see if Fields/Wilson fall to us.  If not? Draft BPA or trade down. 

  • Pie 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CRA said:

same.  if we can't land Watson.  I'd don't want to move up in this draft.  Sit tight and see if Fields/Wilson fall to us.  If not? Drafted BPA or trade down. 

Ah, so you want Mac Jones I see. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ricky Spanish said:

Ah, so you want Mac Jones I see. 

I know your just messing around.  But for others, my BPA if Lawrence and Field are off the table is not a QB at #8. 

I don't want to trade up.  Heck, trade I'd be happier drafting Parsons and if the Jets draft a QB going out and getting Sam Darnold.  I'd prefer that over trading a bunch of picks to go up and get Wilson. 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

I would rather just keep our picks and stay at 8 and see what happens.  We have too many holes on this roster to give away picks IMO

Meh, we don’t have that many holes and a lot of cap space. It’s entirely believable the only four QBs worth considering in the first (imo) are gone by 8 and not getting a new starting QB either by draft or by trade (Watson) would be a tragedy and I don’t believe Tepper is willing to risk that happening. There’s a big gap between Wilson and Fields/Lance imo, so if we’re trading up I want to go big and get the best possibly attainable guy in the draft (though the realistic chance we can draft up for him is debatable, depending on what the Jets do for a QB and that #2 pick)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CRA said:

I know your just messing around.  But for others, my BPA if Lawrence and Field are off the table is not a QB at #8. 

I don't want to trade up.  Heck, trade I'd be happier drafting Parsons and if the Jets draft a QB going out and getting Sam Darnold.  I'd prefer that over trading a bunch of picks to go up and get Wilson. 

I would vomit all over my living room if we draft a gdmf LB at #8 with such an epic need for QB. Would have been like trading our #1 in ‘11 to trade down and take Marcell Darius and continuing to trot Jimmy Clausen out at QB

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Wilson's skill set is fantastic, but the knocks on him (i.e. questioning whether he can physically hold up in the NFL) sound way too much like the ones I read about Teddy Bridgewater when he was coming out.

That's what scares me about him.

But Bridgewater actually has been able to physically hold up to playing in the nfl outside of a freak catastrophic injury that wasn’t really due to his size or durability. His problem has been that he’s just not good. 

Edited by JawnyBlaze
  • Pie 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CRA said:

I know your just messing around.  But for others, my BPA if Lawrence and Field are off the table is not a QB at #8. 

I don't want to trade up.  Heck, trade I'd be happier drafting Parsons and if the Jets draft a QB going out and getting Sam Darnold.  I'd prefer that over trading a bunch of picks to go up and get Wilson. 

I understand what you're saying but we need a QB over all other positions right now. A good QB mitigates weaknesses throughout the roster. The trade up would be worth it to me. There are other rounds than just the first and good GM's can find good players in those rounds too. 

  • Pie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Meh, we don’t have that many holes and a lot of cap space. It’s entirely believable the only four QBs worth considering in the first (imo) are gone by 8 and not getting a new starting QB either by draft or by trade (Watson) would be a tragedy and I don’t believe Tepper is willing to risk that happening. There’s a big gap between Wilson and Fields/Lance imo, so if we’re trading up I want to go big and get the best possibly attainable guy in the draft (though the realistic chance we can draft up for him is debatable, depending on what the Jets do for a QB and that #2 pick)

I'm personally not buying into this recent creation of Wilson.  That it is Trevor.  Gap.  Wilson.  Gap.  Fields/Lance.   

I still got Fields over Wilson.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

But Bridgewater actually has been able to physically hold up to playing in the nfl outside of a freak catastrophic injury that wasn’t really due to his size or durability. His problem has been that he’s just not good. 

Fair take.

Still worries me though...

  • Beer 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CRA said:

I'm personally not buying into this recent creation of Wilson.  That it is Trevor.  Gap.  Wilson.  Gap.  Fields/Lance.   

I still got Fields over Wilson.  

That’s fine, but based on my own watching of all the videos youtube has to offer, Wilson has skills that Fields just hasn’t shown yet. And a better arm and better throws.  There isn’t really anything you can say Fields had an advantage in except size and the team he played for.  In my opinion. 

Edited by JawnyBlaze
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Meh, we don’t have that many holes and a lot of cap space. It’s entirely believable the only four QBs worth considering in the first (imo) are gone by 8 and not getting a new starting QB either by draft or by trade (Watson) would be a tragedy and I don’t believe Tepper is willing to risk that happening. There’s a big gap between Wilson and Fields/Lance imo, so if we’re trading up I want to go big and get the best possibly attainable guy in the draft (though the realistic chance we can draft up for him is debatable, depending on what the Jets do for a QB and that #2 pick)

Dude we have a ton of holes.  We need a safety, corners, olineman, te, and dline depth and of course a qb.   We have a poo ton of holes.  

  • Pie 3
  • Beer 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • BELIEVE!!!

    jimmy-clausen.jpg

     

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Here's Florio's summary of the full article... The Eagles reportedly treated former coach Doug Pederson like “a baby,” according to unnamed sources who claim that Pederson was beaten down by relentless second guessing. In 2019, for example, after a Thursday night win at Green Bay, Pederson was grilled by owner Jeffrey Lurie (an analytics aficionado) over the fact that Pederson hadn’t called more passes. “[Pederson] was ridiculed and criticized for every decision,” an unnamed source told TheAthletic.com. “If you won by three, it wasn’t enough. If you lost on a last-second field goal, you’re the worst coach in history.” Said another unnamed source, “The fact that Doug had the success he did with all the poo going on in the building, sometimes I look at our Super Bowl rings, and I’m like, ‘Holy cow, I don’t know how we did it.'” Per the report, the undermining of Pederson began in only his second season, which ended with a Super Bowl victory. Prior to the start of the 2017 campaign, word spread through the organization of a three-hour meeting between Lurie and defensive coordinator Jim Schwartz. Multiple unnamed sources told TheAthletic.com that “there was a feeling around the team that Lurie was vetting an in-house replacement for Pederson in the event the Eagles got off to a slow start.” The article points to tensions between football and analytics, a dynamic hardly unique to the Eagles. One unnamed source described the team’s analytics department to TheAthletic.com as a “clandestine, Black Ops department that doesn’t answer to anybody except the owner.” That’s how it currently works in plenty of NFL front offices. And it’s why so many coaches have embraced analytics. If they don’t, the analytics employees tell ownership that, if the coach had done what the analytics called for, the team would have won. Complicating matters in Philly is that owner Jeffrey Lurie is very involved in the draft preparations, and he always has been. But that’s his right, as the owner of the team, to be as involved or uninvolved as he wants. With most if not all owners finding a way to state preferences when it comes to huge decisions, it’s better if those owners actually have put in the work. In Philadephia, enough work was put in to win a Super Bowl. That’s the good news. The bad news is that things have collapsed quickly. Chances are that the failures in Philadelphia bear plenty of fingerprints.
    • According to Florio, the part about tension between football people and analytics people is a common thing (link) The article points to tensions between football and analytics, a dynamic hardly unique to the Eagles. One unnamed source described the team’s analytics department to TheAthletic.com as a “clandestine, Black Ops department that doesn’t answer to anybody except the owner.” That’s how it currently works in plenty of NFL front offices. And it’s why so many coaches have embraced analytics. If they don’t, the analytics employees tell ownership that, if the coach had done what the analytics called for, the team would have won.
    • Could this be an agent play? The tag for lb is basically unusable for off the ball players. So this removed the option for the team to use the lower safety tag as leverage.
×
×
  • Create New...