RealGM

Skates wrote:Campbell is still playing like a gimmick coach when he has a legit team. Should have taken two very makeable field goals and kept the momentum in his team’s favor.

Ravens blew their game by blowing their cool repeatedly and not playing their usual mistake free game.

To beat the Ravens you simply need to build a lead and force Lamar to beat you through the air. Same exact fashion he always blows playoff games. He's a freak athlete but thrives on being ahead and throwing from running downs to wide open receivers. Force him into making split second decisions and he implodes.

Embiid P wrote:

bball4life wrote:Kellen Moore???? I guess they're punting the season

Overreaction, much? Dallas ranked near the top of the league in offense under him. At least he won't be any worse than Brian Johnson.

Ditto with Fangio and Desai/Patricia.

OK, maybe a slight overreaction but consider that the Dallas team with less WR and RB talent this year was a better offense than any year Kellen was there. And the Chargers offense this year was anything but impressive.

But my real problem is not the retreads Fangio and Moore. Its the fact that the entire team was completely dysfunctional and played like it was a pro bowl flag football game for the last 6 weeks. That has to be on Siriani and he's still here. I just don't see how things change with him here

bball4life wrote:

Embiid P wrote:

bball4life wrote:Kellen Moore???? I guess they're punting the season

Overreaction, much? Dallas ranked near the top of the league in offense under him. At least he won't be any worse than Brian Johnson.

Ditto with Fangio and Desai/Patricia.

OK, maybe a slight overreaction but consider that the Dallas team with less WR and RB talent this year was a better offense than any year Kellen was there. And the Chargers offense this year was anything but impressive.

But my real problem is not the retreads Fangio and Moore. Its the fact that the entire team was completely dysfunctional and played like it was a pro bowl flag football game for the last 6 weeks. That has to be on Siriani and he's still here. I just don't see how things change with him here

The Chargers had a bunch of injuries on offense this season not to mention that their O line is nothing to write home about. Their struggles were due more to personnel than scheme/play-calling IMO.

Given that he regularly calls crossing routes and for the QB to line up under center, it should be a system that our WRs and TEs thrive in.

You could be correct about Sirianni, but per his presser last week, he is allowing the Moore to run his own scheme.

Embiid P wrote:You could be correct about Sirianni, but per his presser last week, he is allowing Moore to run his own scheme.

Does he really have a choice at this point?

Why is Haason Reddick asking for a trade? WTF is going on in Eagle land? They should have fired Sirianni.

Yeah feel the pain lol

Great SB. I can't stand the Chiefs but I hate the Whiners more. So nice to see them go down crying.

the_process wrote:Why is Haason Reddick asking for a trade? WTF is going on in Eagle land? They should have fired Sirianni.

Did he explicitly state that he wants to be traded? I've seen that they are open to trading him but only if they're getting fair draft compensation back. It might be because they're switching to a 3-4 defense under Fangio while Reddick is a 4-3 guy.

Embiid P wrote:

the_process wrote:Why is Haason Reddick asking for a trade? WTF is going on in Eagle land? They should have fired Sirianni.

Did he explicitly state that he wants to be traded? I've seen that they are open to trading him but only if they're getting fair draft compensation back. It might be because they're switching to a 3-4 defense under Fangio while Reddick is a 4-3 guy.

Yes, and after reading about it, he wants more money.

Busy day for the Eagles extending Dickerson, signing Bryce Huff (either Reddick or Sweat is gone) and the biggest shocker of all IMO, signing Saquon Barkley. I just hope he stays healthy and productive.

Apparently we're also the favorites to sign Giants safety Xavier McKinney though nothing official yet as of me typing this.

Update: McKinney is apparently signing with the Packers per sources so so much for that.

We are so back.

The Barkley signing makes no sense.

Yes, he's very good. He's also hurt a lot.

Between Hurts and Barkley they are now spending about 63M annually on their backfield and their defense still sucks.

Also there's a finite amount of touches and TD's to go around, and I suspect that was at least part of the reason last year fell off the tracks. Adding Saquon does not alleviate that pressure.

Would have been far smarter to use that money on a safety and LB, and then just take a back on the 2nd day of the draft.

the_process wrote:The Barkley signing makes no sense.

Yes, he's very good. He's also hurt a lot.

Between Hurts and Barkley they are now spending about 63M annually on their backfield and their defense still sucks.

Also there's a finite amount of touches and TD's to go around, and I suspect that was at least part of the reason last year fell off the tracks. Adding Saquon does not alleviate that pressure.

Would have been far smarter to use that money on a safety and LB, and then just take a back on the 2nd day of the draft.

100% agree. It's been proven time and again (and by the Eagles as well) that big money does not need to be spent on the RB room to have an effective run game. I'm not a fan of keeping RB's after their rookie deal is up, when they are due to get paid. It's too easy to find quality backs in the mid-late rounds and even as UDFA's rather than take up a big chunk of the cap.

But that goes triple when talking about a back like Barkley, who hasn't shown he can consistently stay healthy, and is too inconsistent to rely on game to game. And he will be 28, just too old at that position to be handing out that kind of guaranteed money. This is the classic "signing the aging star" kind of mistake that poorly run franchises make.

mjkvol wrote:

the_process wrote:The Barkley signing makes no sense.

Yes, he's very good. He's also hurt a lot.

Between Hurts and Barkley they are now spending about 63M annually on their backfield and their defense still sucks.

Also there's a finite amount of touches and TD's to go around, and I suspect that was at least part of the reason last year fell off the tracks. Adding Saquon does not alleviate that pressure.

Would have been far smarter to use that money on a safety and LB, and then just take a back on the 2nd day of the draft.

100% agree. It's been proven time and again (and by the Eagles as well) that big money does not need to be spent on the RB room to have an effective run game. I'm not a fan of keeping RB's after their rookie deal is up, when they are due to get paid. It's too easy to find quality backs in the mid-late rounds and even as UDFA's rather than take up a big chunk of the cap.

But that goes triple when talking about a back like Barkley, who hasn't shown he can consistently stay healthy, and is too inconsistent to rely on game to game. And he will be 28, just too old at that position to be handing out that kind of guaranteed money. This is the classic "signing the aging star" kind of mistake that poorly run franchises make.

100% agree with both of you. My son texted me from his study-abroad program-- he found out before I did-- and at first I thought it was a joke. When I realized that it wasn't, I just scratched my head. There are so many other needs higher than RB. And we let D'Andre Swift, who's 2 years younger than Barkley and without a big injury history-- and who rushed for more yards per carry in his first four seasons-- go to the Bears for 3/$24M.

LB, pass coverage, wide receiver, even O-line: all of them are higher priority needs.
How many times, during those awful losses to end the season, did any of us say, "damn, if only we had a better RB?" I'd venture zero.
Yet here we are.

Signing Barkley was stupid and better allocated to a premium player at S or LB. Although the money spent wasn’t too onerous.

Ben wrote:

mjkvol wrote:

the_process wrote:The Barkley signing makes no sense.

Yes, he's very good. He's also hurt a lot.

Between Hurts and Barkley they are now spending about 63M annually on their backfield and their defense still sucks.

Also there's a finite amount of touches and TD's to go around, and I suspect that was at least part of the reason last year fell off the tracks. Adding Saquon does not alleviate that pressure.

Would have been far smarter to use that money on a safety and LB, and then just take a back on the 2nd day of the draft.

100% agree. It's been proven time and again (and by the Eagles as well) that big money does not need to be spent on the RB room to have an effective run game. I'm not a fan of keeping RB's after their rookie deal is up, when they are due to get paid. It's too easy to find quality backs in the mid-late rounds and even as UDFA's rather than take up a big chunk of the cap.

But that goes triple when talking about a back like Barkley, who hasn't shown he can consistently stay healthy, and is too inconsistent to rely on game to game. And he will be 28, just too old at that position to be handing out that kind of guaranteed money. This is the classic "signing the aging star" kind of mistake that poorly run franchises make.

100% agree with both of you. My son texted me from his study-abroad program-- he found out before I did-- and at first I thought it was a joke. When I realized that it wasn't, I just scratched my head. There are so many other needs higher than RB. And we let D'Andre Swift, who's 2 years younger than Barkley and without a big injury history-- and who rushed for more yards per carry in his first four seasons-- go to the Bears for 3/$24M.

LB, pass coverage, wide receiver, even O-line: all of them are higher priority needs.
How many times, during those awful losses to end the season, did any of us say, "damn, if only we had a better RB?" I'd venture zero.
Yet here we are.

Admittedly I too was against signing Barkley for all of those reasons mentioned, but now that it's officially done, I feel like I'm trying my hardest to rationalize and even defend it. Yes, he's 27 (won't be 28 until January FWIW) and could start to decline at any moment, but if I'm Barkley, I feel a LOT better running behind the Eagles O line (even w/ Kelce retiring) than I did the Giants steaming pile of garbage O line which did me no favors. Plus, with all of the other weapons we have, he won't be asked to carry the whole offense like he did for years with the Giants. Best case scenario IMO is CMC who was also asked to carry the offense during his years in Carolina whose life was made easier due to the other weapons that SF has. Plus, I feel like he'll make Hurts's life a whole lot easier especially in Kellen Moore's offense and punish teams for blitzing him. He's also a MUCH better pass blocker than Swift which was likely a big reason why they let Swift walk. FWIW Swift also has had a reputation for being injury prone despite him being healthy for us all of last season. Like Barkley with the Giants, I'm sure overuse had a lot to do with his injuries in Detroit.

As far as the defense goes, yes, the holes are still glaring but it's still relatively early in free agency and we still have the draft. They reportedly went hard after McKinney but for whatever reason he chose GB over us. There's still a lot of good names out there. Could a CJGJ reunion possibly be in place?

Obviously Huff was brought in to replace one of Sweat or Reddick. Could one of them potentially be traded for a pick plus LB or safety?

Embiid P wrote:

Ben wrote:

mjkvol wrote:
100% agree. It's been proven time and again (and by the Eagles as well) that big money does not need to be spent on the RB room to have an effective run game. I'm not a fan of keeping RB's after their rookie deal is up, when they are due to get paid. It's too easy to find quality backs in the mid-late rounds and even as UDFA's rather than take up a big chunk of the cap.

But that goes triple when talking about a back like Barkley, who hasn't shown he can consistently stay healthy, and is too inconsistent to rely on game to game. And he will be 28, just too old at that position to be handing out that kind of guaranteed money. This is the classic "signing the aging star" kind of mistake that poorly run franchises make.

100% agree with both of you. My son texted me from his study-abroad program-- he found out before I did-- and at first I thought it was a joke. When I realized that it wasn't, I just scratched my head. There are so many other needs higher than RB. And we let D'Andre Swift, who's 2 years younger than Barkley and without a big injury history-- and who rushed for more yards per carry in his first four seasons-- go to the Bears for 3/$24M.

LB, pass coverage, wide receiver, even O-line: all of them are higher priority needs.
How many times, during those awful losses to end the season, did any of us say, "damn, if only we had a better RB?" I'd venture zero.
Yet here we are.

Admittedly I too was against signing Barkley for all of those reasons mentioned, but now that it's officially done, I feel like I'm trying my hardest to rationalize and even defend it. Yes, he's 27 (won't be 28 until January FWIW) and could start to decline at any moment, but if I'm Barkley, I feel a LOT better running behind the Eagles O line (even w/ Kelce retiring) than I did the Giants steaming pile of garbage O line which did me no favors. Plus, with all of the other weapons we have, he won't be asked to carry the whole offense like he did for years with the Giants. Best case scenario IMO is CMC who was also asked to carry the offense during his years in Carolina whose life was made easier due to the other weapons that SF has. Plus, I feel like he'll make Hurts's life a whole lot easier especially in Kellen Moore's offense and punish teams for blitzing him. He's also a MUCH better pass blocker than Swift which was likely a big reason why they let Swift walk. FWIW Swift also has had a reputation for being injury prone despite him being healthy for us all of last season. Like Barkley with the Giants, I'm sure overuse had a lot to do with his injuries in Detroit.

I would've let Swift walk as well. Just too many talented backs in the draft that will be available in the mid-late rounds, and probably as UDFA's. I watched a kid all season at UT named Jaylin Wright that some smart team is going to scoop up in the draft - fast, physical, and an excellent pass blocker. Roseman could ask all the Georgia and Bama guys about this kid.

I do agree that pass blocking was the reason Swift was let go, and probably had a lot to do with the Barkley signing. I just don't believe in today's NFL it is smart to allocate that much to the RB position.

mjkvol wrote:

Embiid P wrote:

Ben wrote:
100% agree with both of you. My son texted me from his study-abroad program-- he found out before I did-- and at first I thought it was a joke. When I realized that it wasn't, I just scratched my head. There are so many other needs higher than RB. And we let D'Andre Swift, who's 2 years younger than Barkley and without a big injury history-- and who rushed for more yards per carry in his first four seasons-- go to the Bears for 3/$24M.

LB, pass coverage, wide receiver, even O-line: all of them are higher priority needs.
How many times, during those awful losses to end the season, did any of us say, "damn, if only we had a better RB?" I'd venture zero.
Yet here we are.

Admittedly I too was against signing Barkley for all of those reasons mentioned, but now that it's officially done, I feel like I'm trying my hardest to rationalize and even defend it. Yes, he's 27 (won't be 28 until January FWIW) and could start to decline at any moment, but if I'm Barkley, I feel a LOT better running behind the Eagles O line (even w/ Kelce retiring) than I did the Giants steaming pile of garbage O line which did me no favors. Plus, with all of the other weapons we have, he won't be asked to carry the whole offense like he did for years with the Giants. Best case scenario IMO is CMC who was also asked to carry the offense during his years in Carolina whose life was made easier due to the other weapons that SF has. Plus, I feel like he'll make Hurts's life a whole lot easier especially in Kellen Moore's offense and punish teams for blitzing him. He's also a MUCH better pass blocker than Swift which was likely a big reason why they let Swift walk. FWIW Swift also has had a reputation for being injury prone despite him being healthy for us all of last season. Like Barkley with the Giants, I'm sure overuse had a lot to do with his injuries in Detroit.

I would've let Swift walk as well. Just too many talented backs in the draft that will be available in the mid-late rounds, and probably as UDFA's. I watched a kid all season at UT named Jaylin Wright that some smart team is going to scoop up in the draft - fast, physical, and an excellent pass blocker. Roseman could ask all the Georgia and Bama guys about this kid.

I do agree that pass blocking was the reason Swift was let go, and probably had a lot to do with the Barkley signing. I just don't believe in today's NFL it is smart to allocate that much to the RB position.

TBH I wouldn't be shocked if Howie still took a RB in the draft as insurance policy in case Barkley doesn't pan out. It's not like he's hurting for picks and will likely acquire more when one or both of Sweat and Reddick are traded.

Embiid P wrote:

mjkvol wrote:

Embiid P wrote:
Admittedly I too was against signing Barkley for all of those reasons mentioned, but now that it's officially done, I feel like I'm trying my hardest to rationalize and even defend it. Yes, he's 27 (won't be 28 until January FWIW) and could start to decline at any moment, but if I'm Barkley, I feel a LOT better running behind the Eagles O line (even w/ Kelce retiring) than I did the Giants steaming pile of garbage O line which did me no favors. Plus, with all of the other weapons we have, he won't be asked to carry the whole offense like he did for years with the Giants. Best case scenario IMO is CMC who was also asked to carry the offense during his years in Carolina whose life was made easier due to the other weapons that SF has. Plus, I feel like he'll make Hurts's life a whole lot easier especially in Kellen Moore's offense and punish teams for blitzing him. He's also a MUCH better pass blocker than Swift which was likely a big reason why they let Swift walk. FWIW Swift also has had a reputation for being injury prone despite him being healthy for us all of last season. Like Barkley with the Giants, I'm sure overuse had a lot to do with his injuries in Detroit.

I would've let Swift walk as well. Just too many talented backs in the draft that will be available in the mid-late rounds, and probably as UDFA's. I watched a kid all season at UT named Jaylin Wright that some smart team is going to scoop up in the draft - fast, physical, and an excellent pass blocker. Roseman could ask all the Georgia and Bama guys about this kid.

I do agree that pass blocking was the reason Swift was let go, and probably had a lot to do with the Barkley signing. I just don't believe in today's NFL it is smart to allocate that much to the RB position.

TBH I wouldn't be shocked if Howie still took a RB in the draft as insurance policy in case Barkley doesn't pan out. It's not like he's hurting for picks and will likely acquire more when one or both of Sweat and Reddick are traded.

Need a RB of the future anyway and a complement to Barkley. I expect Lowie to pick one on the 3rd day.

Can't get past feeling like something is rotten in Denmark with this Barkley signing. Went against core philosophy and they just hired a pass happy OC and they already had an issue with touches last year.

But maybe it's simply because Barkley is a very good pass catcher and they also plan on lining him up as the slot receiver?