2016 Eagles: Nothing But the Second Best

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
6,755
0-3 to 4-3
Today the Eagles signed Bradford to a two year, $36m deal with $26m guaranteed and another $4m in incentives. It'll be somewhat interesting to see the details but bottom line is Bradford is back for 2016, which is good IMO. It'll be interesting to see if the Bradford continues to improve, although he has the added complexity of a new coaching staff to deal with. This doesn't preclude the Eagles from taking one of the top three QBs in the draft at pick #13 or even a second tier QB later on, and in fact I'll be shocked if one of those doesn't happen.

QB aside the Eagles threw a lot of money at their own players so far this off season, locking up Lane Johnson, Zack Ertz, Brent Celek, Vinny Curry, and next up (and most important) is Fletcher Cox.

There's still a lot to do. OL needs attention badly, although I think the current OL will perform better with Chip Kelly gone. I think they're going to target a safety in FA, and they need some depth at LB with Ryans released and Barwin likely playing DE in Jim Schwartz's 4-3. But all the Eagle fan in me is pretty pleased with what I've seen so far this off season. Although it would have been nice to see them execute on their announced "search for a non-GM GM" instead of interviewing a bunch of candidates then saying "maybe after the draft". And their dismissing of their head of collegiate scouting two months before the draft.
 

GeorgeCostanza

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2009
6,133
Found in central mass
After reading that, I had to go look up who the Eagles coach is (Doug Pederson). I don't know if that indicative of it being an underwhelming hire, or my memory getting worse as I age like a cooked piece of chicken.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,930
Mansfield MA
There's still a lot to do. OL needs attention badly, although I think the current OL will perform better with Chip Kelly gone. I think they're going to target a safety in FA, and they need some depth at LB with Ryans released and Barwin likely playing DE in Jim Schwartz's 4-3. But all the Eagle fan in me is pretty pleased with what I've seen so far this off season. Although it would have been nice to see them execute on their announced "search for a non-GM GM" instead of interviewing a bunch of candidates then saying "maybe after the draft". And their dismissing of their head of collegiate scouting two months before the draft.
Nitpick, but it wasn't the Eagles' head of collegiate scouting that they dismissed recently - it was their college scouting coordinator, which is basically just an area scout with some administrative duties.

They fired their head of collegiate scouting back in December when they canned Ed Marynowitz. From what I can tell, Tom Donahoe, Senior Director of Player Personnel, has been calling the shots.

I can't tell whether the Eagles can't get anyone qualified for the GM because prospective candidates don't like the current ownership / leadership, or whether Roseman is conducting a half-hearted search because he doesn't want his power threatened like it was with Kelly.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
Roseman is GM. They're not hiring a real GM.

I don't get the Bradford deal as it seems more than the franchise tag, which they didn't use, and seems designed to be easy to walk away from after a year, or if he does ok an nice affordable year two.

MY best guess is they were willing to pay for the option of the second year and the power it gives them to negotiate a real long term deal if he is actually the guy.

I also think they take a QB to develop in the draft with Bradford as a stopgap, and if he works out nice problem to have.

They are already going back to 4-3 from 3-4 after drafting and developing for 3-4
The o line is the big other need. Probably a WR and oh yeah a safety

I thought the resigning deals were generally good except for Celek who is old and replaceable imminently.

This is going to be a mess.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
So much for a quieter off-season HOLY SHIT!

So the Maxwell and Alonso trade to the Dolphins, was off then back on again (after Maxwell claimed his shoulder was hurt, having told the EAgles it was fine).
The Eagles move from 13 to 8 in return for the two players. Most people seem delighted, I don't know Alonso at 1mm on a short term deal is anything but an asset, and I'm not sure that you can get as good a CB as Maxwell for the 4.5mm cap space they save (similar in dead money). Yes going forward maybe good.
I don't think Maxwell was ever as good as the contract, but contracts are going nuts and you don't have a replacement. People seem happy I'm not so sure.

Murray to the Titans for a 4th round pick swap, so Eagles move to top of the 4th round. I'm all about this move. Hated the Murray contract, wasn't a Murray fan period. You don't need to pay a RB this much. He was awful last. Getting ANYTHING back for him is a big win. Great move.

Then they signed Chase Daniel. For a lot
This makes sense. The Eagles gave Daniel A LOT of money to merely be a backup in Philadelphia. According to NFL insider Adam Caplan, Daniel's deal is worth $21 million over three years with $12 million guaranteed. Caplan also reports the max value of deal (including incentives and such) is worth up to $36 million. For perspective, the Eagles gave Mark Sanchez $9 million over two years with $5.5 million guaranteed last offseason. That deal was thought to be high at the time because it paid Sanchez like a top backup. Daniel is clearly making even more than that.
http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2016/3/8/11177976/philadelphia-eagles-2016-nfl-free-agency-rumors-tracker-news-reports-trades-signings-updates

WHAT???? I am so lost, they are still talking about potentially picking a QB, and they now have Bradford signed at MORE than the franchise tag this year, on a 2 year deal, and Daniel apparently to compete AND sanchez (who I assume is cut)
WTF So weird. Don't have any idea what the thinking is here

In more straightforward signings
OG Brandon Brooks from Texans 5Y 40mm (fine with this though not cheap)
Safety Rodney McLeod (like him but liked Thurman too and he's gone as a result) 5y 37mm (17 gteed)
LB Nigel Bradham- replaces Alonso (just as he did in Buffalo!) 2Y deal reported not seen the money
CB Ron Brooks (depth CB and ST player another ex Buffalo guy)
Also (before free agency as he was released) signed CB Leodis McKelvin 2Y 6mm

Like the youth of most of the bigger deals (off rookie contract). Buffalo bias replaces Oregon.

Team needs probably a WR, likely another Guard or Tackle, still appears to need a starting CB to me and probably a DT for the 4-3 system and and a RB

A bit unclear on the cap space situation as of now

edit typo

So maybe we need to change the title too???
 
Last edited:

ElcaballitoMVP

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2008
3,451
So...reports have it that last year Chip tried to trade up for his pinky Mariota. The proposed offer?

Ohhh, just last years 1st and 2nd round picks.

Plus this year's 1st.

Plus any QB (Bradford) on the roster

Plus ANYONE on defense. Not any one player. Anyone.

If they just took the players the Eagles did, they'd have Nelson Agholor, Eric Rowe, this year's 1st, Bradford, Fletcher Cox and who knows what else. Wow.
 

86spike

Currently enjoying "Arli$$"
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2002
25,082
Procrasti Nation
Wentz and Goff are so far from sure things in the NFL. Both LA and Philly are idiots for making these moves, IMO. Woof.
 

Mooch

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,922
Highway robbery for Cleveland. I'd try to trade down from #8 as well and pick up some more 2nd/3rd rounders in '16 or '17.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,165
Berkeley, CA
Great deal for the Browns IMO
Unless whichever of the top 2 qb's falls to the number 2 pick turns out to be good. That's a haul of picks to be sure, but a franchise qb is practically priceless. If I'm a Cleveland fan and I just sat through that season - and with such a sad history - I would much rather take a shot at a top rated qb.
 

Soxy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
5,820
Unless whichever of the top 2 qb's falls to the number 2 pick turns out to be good. That's a haul of picks to be sure, but a franchise qb is practically priceless. If I'm a Cleveland fan and I just sat through that season - and with such a sad history - I would much rather take a shot at a top rated qb.
The problem with this line of thinking is that the Browns have holes everywhere. You could put Brady on that team and they still wouldn't be successful. They need to build a foundation before they have any aspirations of being competitive.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
19,365
where I was last at
sounds like a very good strategic trade for the Browns to rebuild.

Sounds like the Iggles are indifferent to which crapshoot college QB they draft at #2

sounds like a lot to pay for a crapshoot.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
36,383
One year too late, Philly. I wonder if Cleveland is bullish on RGIII. Good value trade. Philly isn't a playoff team.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
25,645
Hingham, MA
Unless whichever of the top 2 qb's falls to the number 2 pick turns out to be good. That's a haul of picks to be sure, but a franchise qb is practically priceless. If I'm a Cleveland fan and I just sat through that season - and with such a sad history - I would much rather take a shot at a top rated qb.
The problem with this line of thinking is that the Browns have holes everywhere. You could put Brady on that team and they still wouldn't be successful. They need to build a foundation before they have any aspirations of being competitive.
You also have to remember they have RG3. While he is also a total shot in the dark, they already potentially have a better QB on their roster than either Wentz or Goff. They can use all these picks to build their skill position talent, D, etc., and could contend for a playoff spot in 2017 if all goes well.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Adam Schefter
Just now ·
Facebook Mentions
·
Eagles acquire 2 overall and a 4th round pick in 2017 from CLeV. Browns receive 8th overall pick, a 3rd (#77 overall), a 4th (#100 overall), a 1st round pick in 2017 and a 2nd round pick in 2018.
Another fearsome price. And neither guy was regarded as a legit first round talent for so long. Market frenzy.

Cleveland does not have to be sold on RGIII. They are not competing for anything but improvement this year. Cleveland just has to be sold that neither of the two guys is the guy.
 

DanoooME

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
16,794
Richmond, VA
The more I look at it, I love this deal for the Browns more than I love the deal for the Titans.

Titans get: #15, #43, #45, #76, '17 1st, '17 3rd
Rams get: #1, #113, #177

Browns get: #8, #77, #100, '17 1st, '18 2nd
Eagles get: #1, '17 4th

Browns still get an elite talent in this draft, which the Titans won't get, plus my bet is the Eagles 1st rounder next year is better than the Rams'. They don't get the 4 picks in the top 80 and only 2 instead, but give up less to get that and that pick #100 may not be chopped liver either. And that 2nd in 2 years could be top 40 if Wentz flops.
 

koufax32

He'll cry if he wants to...
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2006
7,451
Duval
They'll probably be terrible again next year so this is not their only chance to grab a qb. The big thing is now they won't have to Colts their way into the #1 pick if necessary. They'll have draft capital to do it and still have excess quantity. They have a chance to do a complete rebuild like Jacksonville. The biggest difference is that they'll have 2.5 x's the number of picks to do it.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,165
Berkeley, CA
The problem with this line of thinking is that the Browns have holes everywhere. You could put Brady on that team and they still wouldn't be successful. They need to build a foundation before they have any aspirations of being competitive.
I completely understand this point of view and if the Browns are convinced that neither qb is going to be good, then of course I'd trade down. I think you have to take a good qb if he's available though - you never know if you'll get a chance at such a high pick at the same time a good qb is available. Think of the Pats drafting #1 when the best options (at least according to accepted wisdom) were Ken Simms and Russell Maryland in the 1982 and 91 drafts, respectively. And the titanic difference in the club's fortune when they had the #1 and Bledsoe was available. Again, if you don't believe in either prospect, then I'd take the picks and choose multiple qb's (after all, Favre was chosen in the 2nd round in that 91 draft). It goes without saying that either way, I'd also draft more than 1 qb per draft.

I wouldn't let the qb prospect get David Carr'd either - I'd sit him for a year behind a vet, and turn my attention to building a cohesive offensive line. Thomas as LT is an excellent start. Plus, you're pretty much guaranteed a very high pick the following year.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
25,645
Hingham, MA
It seems to me that the guys who become stars, for the most part, you know who they are during college football season. Peyton Manning. Cam Newton. Andrew Luck. Carson Palmer. Etc. Obviously there are some exceptions to this rule. But this feels much more to me like the Alex Smith type of prospect.

Also, Cleveland is still in position to draft a QB if they like Paxton Lynch. They could draft him at 8, they could try to trade down further, or they could see if he slips to the top of the 2nd round.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,165
Berkeley, CA
Agreed. Bledsoe falls into the Manning, Newton, etc. class as well - he was highly touted as was Mirer. You might be right on the Alex Smith analogy - but that could have easily have been known as the "Aaron Rodgers at #1 pick" draft.

I live in Berkeley and have watched Goff excel since his freshman year and think he'd be worth the #2 pick, but the Browns think otherwise, so we'll see. If I rooted for Cleveland, it'd kill me if they're wrong.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
11,229
South Boston
Agreed. Bledsoe falls into the Manning, Newton, etc. class as well - he was highly touted as was Mirer. You might be right on the Alex Smith analogy - but that could have easily have been known as the "Aaron Rodgers at #1 pick" draft.

I live in Berkeley and have watched Goff excel since his freshman year and think he'd be worth the #2 pick, but the Browns think otherwise, so we'll see. If I rooted for Cleveland, it'd kill me if they're wrong.
But you have to be 100% certain on BOTH QBs, what if The Rams take your guy (the pundits, I believe, think they want Goff). If you wait until the draft, I guarantee you don't get the haul they just got from Phili. But it's the Browns, so they will take a WR or something.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
5,375
The more I look at it, I love this deal for the Browns more than I love the deal for the Titans.

Titans get: #15, #43, #45, #76, '17 1st, '17 3rd
Rams get: #1, #113, #177

Browns get: #8, #77, #100, '17 1st, '18 2nd
Eagles get: #1, '17 4th

Browns still get an elite talent in this draft, which the Titans won't get, plus my bet is the Eagles 1st rounder next year is better than the Rams'. They don't get the 4 picks in the top 80 and only 2 instead, but give up less to get that and that pick #100 may not be chopped liver either. And that 2nd in 2 years could be top 40 if Wentz flops.
I can see the argument but I am not sure that I agree. Both teams have two first round picks next year, so that is pretty much a wash. The 76th and the 77th picks this year are a wash. And the '17 3rd pick basically equals the '18 2nd. So, let's take all of those out of the equation and look at the comparison again.

Titans get: #15, #43, #45
Rams get: #113, #177

Browns get: #8, #100
Eagles get: '17 4th

The Browns get the 8th pick overall but after that, what did they have? The Titans get the 15th pick plus the 43 and 45th picks. Add those to their own 2nd round pick and the Titans now have three 2nd round picks this year. Additionally, because of the Deflategate B.S. their 33rd pick is actually the 32nd pick of the draft. You could argue that they have the equivalent of two 1st round picks and two 2nd round picks. That is impressive and gives them a lot of opportunity to move up if they want to.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,165
Berkeley, CA
But you have to be 100% certain on BOTH QBs, what if The Rams take your guy (the pundits, I believe, think they want Goff). If you wait until the draft, I guarantee you don't get the haul they just got from Phili. But it's the Browns, so they will take a WR or something.
True - although Kelly seems to be content with either qb. This is why I would wait for the draft before letting go of the pick - but of course you have conversations with the interested parties beforehand to set parameters.

I don't know if you can guarantee you're not getting the same haul - do you have some inside knowledge or past history to point to? What if another team feels pressure to draft a qb and is sold on either Wentz or Goff and is waiting to see which qb is available before jumping in? They might be reluctant to do it now given the high price (especially in the wake of the Rams' trade). I think certainty come draft day might even up the ante. It's certainly true that the offer could come down too, but that's the gamble you're taking and hopefully you can read your trade partner's level of interest/desperation correctly. It's where GM's earn their money and reputations.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,165
Berkeley, CA
Oops. I forgot - thanks! My point is that the Pederson believes in both qb's. Since he's a former qb coach - then OC - under Reid, and if this trade is his call, he either thinks he has some insight on both and they're capable or he's about to have his McDaniel/Tebow moment. Good on him that he's not afraid to rely on his instincts/knowledge - obviously, it's a huge decision for the franchise.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
11,229
South Boston
I can see the waiting until draft day perspective, but I think that is a risk. If the Browns don't want to draft one (or their guy is taken), that will be known and they might be left with a lowball offer with 5 minutes on the clock. This haul looks fair to good and might be great if Phili mucks up next year.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
Make it stop. Somebody please.

As fans of a team I support you should prepare for the worst. Like trading all my favorite prospects bad.

I was a huge fan of
Hinkie. Crap
Newcastle. Getting relegated.
The flyers I kind of vaguely like. Nice job there guys.

And of course I had high hopes for Kelly.

I need time to process and come down but...

How do you give up so much for an unknown. Not as in talent. Though this is of course true. But you can't know which player! You love both Goff and Wentz this much? Or you trust the rams that much? What of one has a Lynch moment or hurts himself.

All that aside. You give up all this players and picks to move up and then pay Bradford MORE that the fucking franchise tag (which he they didn't use) and all this to Daniel to be a back up or even push to start. Then before even camp you commit to a rookie.

Now look I love red shirting a rookie qb in almost all circumstances. And I think a good situation for Wentz. I hope he's the pick. Goff the red shirt is likely but wasn't meant to be needed. But wtf are you doing this after the Daniel deal? You should least need the highest paid back up qb in the league of anyone.

This is just a massively poor use of the cap and the roster. I don't belive you needed to hurt yourself on the draft for three years for this. One or other of those were totally plausible to drop slightly. Not long ago both were being mocked down at 8!

This smells desperate. Desperate to anti chip. Dump his players. Do the draft qb move he couldn't. Fuck yourself roseman.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
London,

I feel badly for you guys.

The most interesting Roseman comment to me was to the effect -- we are confident we will get our guy.

That's interesting because you pick second. So you are saying you know Cleveland will take one -- and the other is your guy. Or you are saying they are interchangeable and both are your guys. The former would be untrue; the latter would be odd. Or maybe the comment itself is false.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Make it stop. Somebody please.

How do you give up so much for an unknown. Not as in talent. Though this is of course true. But you can't know which player! You love both Goff and Wentz this much? Or you trust the rams that much? What of one has a Lynch moment or hurts himself.

All that aside. You give up all this players and picks to move up and then pay Bradford MORE that the fucking franchise tag (which he they didn't use) and all this to Daniel to be a back up or even push to start. Then before even camp you commit to a rookie.

Now look I love red shirting a rookie qb in almost all circumstances. And I think a good situation for Wentz. I hope he's the pick. Goff the red shirt is likely but wasn't meant to be needed. But wtf are you doing this after the Daniel deal? You should least need the highest paid back up qb in the league of anyone.

This is just a massively poor use of the cap and the roster. I don't belive you needed to hurt yourself on the draft for three years for this. One or other of those were totally plausible to drop slightly. Not long ago both were being mocked down at 8!

This smells desperate. Desperate to anti chip. Dump his players. Do the draft qb move he couldn't. Fuck yourself roseman.
Here's the glass-half-full perspective:

-- The Eagles know things that we don't. They probably feel pretty certain whether the Rams will pick Wentz or Goff. (Assuming that trading up was a possibility they've been contemplating for a while, they probably paid close attention to who was watching whom during the combine, etc.)

-- The Eagles didn't want to negotiate with the Titans and the Browns from a position of desperation. Bradford's contract gave them the ability to walk away if the price was too steep. And his contract isn't crippling -- if he's halfway decent in 2016, they'll find a taker for the 2017 obligation; even if he sucks and they have to cut him, their total cap hit for the QB position in 2017 will be more than manageable, because Goff (or Wentz) will be cheap. And there's a non-zero chance that Bradford will be better than last year and Goff (or Wentz) will develop nicely, leaving them with an asset to trade.

-- You can't win in the NFL with a bottom-10 QB situation, which is where the Eagles were before this trade. The Eagles weren't going to get out of that trap without either (1) stumbling on the next Russell Wilson, (2) spending a fortune in free agency, or (3) trading up in the draft. #1 obviously isn't a plan, and it's not clear that #2 is less risky than #3 -- look at what the Texans are paying Brock Osweiler, and there's a non-zero chance that he'll end up being a bottom-10 guy.

-- If they were going to trade up in the draft, they were never going to get a better deal than they got from the Browns. I don't agree with every detail of pappymojo's analysis, but I agree with his conclusion that the Rams gave up considerably more to the Titans, and of course the Rams got more still from Washington for the #2 pick four years ago. Hell, the Bills gave up a future 1st rounder to trade up from #9 to #4 two years ago -- the extra picks the Eagles gave up in addition to that might yield one decent NFL player 3-4 years from now. Can't see how you would let that be a deal-breaker if you think Goff (or Wentz) will develop into a league-average or better QB.

I'm not going to defend every aspect of the Eagles' decision-making -- the Daniel contract was stupid, and if they were seriously considering trading up a few months ago, they should've just tagged Bradford. And of course, the deal either requires you to be certain who the Rams will pick, or comfortable staking the future of your franchise on either Goff or Wentz. YMMV on whether it is the right move to make, but I don't think the move reeks of a desperate attempt to be the anti-Chip.

Now, if you hate the deal because you don't like Goff (or Wentz), then that's a whole other story. I don't know enough about either player to have an informed opinion. It is definitely concerning that during the college season, neither player was the consensus first QB to be drafted, let alone the first or second player taken overall. Seems like an awfully big bet on workout performance and meta-level scrutiny of tapes.
 
Last edited:

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
I have a question that goes beyond the Eagles.

Roseman said they looked to QB classes this year, next, the year after, which reinforced their confidence about this move.

This can be interpreted as suggesting that future QB classes, for the most part, are going to suck. At least in his view. Relatedly, Sports Illustrated last week had a superb article about how the college and pro games are so different that players are drafted into the NFL are poorly prepared. In many positions, but especially at QB. And, of course, there is little time or patience in the NFL these days.

So the question -- if you are a blue chip HS QB who realistically projects as a pro in terms of measureables, why aren't you focusing exclusively -- and I mean exclusively -- on the relatively few teams that run Pro systems?

Asked differently, why does Saban among others appear to make do? One would think he would have his pick of the very best QBs in the country -- and the guys he's had in recent years would not be the guys.

Or is this phenomenon, if it is real, too new?
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
I have a question that goes beyond the Eagles.

Roseman said they looked to QB classes this year, next, the year after, which reinforced their confidence about this move.

This can be interpreted as suggesting that future QB classes, for the most part, are going to suck. At least in his view. Relatedly, Sports Illustrated last week had a superb article about how the college and pro games are so different that players are drafted into the NFL are poorly prepared. In many positions, but especially at QB. And, of course, there is little time or patience in the NFL these days.

So the question -- if you are a blue chip HS QB who realistically projects as a pro in terms of measureables, why aren't you focusing exclusively -- and I mean exclusively -- on the relatively few teams that run Pro systems?

Asked differently, why does Saban among others appear to make do? One would think he would have his pick of the very best QBs in the country -- and the guys he's had in recent years would not be the guys.

Or is this phenomenon, if it is real, too new?
First of all, I'm sure I could count on one hand the college QBs in the past decade whom I would pick before AJ McCarron to run the offense on a stacked team like Alabama. (Andrew Luck is the only one who springs immediately to mind.)

As for your hypothetical HS kid, I think QB is the hardest position to project -- which is why Saban, who has hands-down the best recruiting operation in college football, has frequently had to "make do" at QB, despite running the sort of pro system that top QBs should, as you say, be seeking. Robert Griffin went to Baylor, Blake Bortles went to Central Florida, Teddy Bridgewater went to Louisville, Ryan Tannehill didn't even start college as a QB, etc. I'm going to go out on a limb and say none of those guys rebuffed a hard push from Nick Saban in favor of joining those programs.

I'm sure it doesn't help that college teams are mostly moving away from pro-style systems, but I think that's a small part of the problem -- to the extent there's a "problem" at all. Frankly, the "problem" is that pro teams are more likely now than 20 or 30 years ago to hand the keys to a rookie QB and expect results; back in the day, on the rare occasion when a team started a rookie QB, it was viewed as an admission that the team had no decent alternatives and was in for a rough season. Those are still the correct expectations -- and once the rookie successes of RG3, Luck and Wilson fade, maybe teams will accept that.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
I accept that scouting QBs in HS may be very, very difficult. Much more plausible than Saban not being able to coach them up.

I think your explanation -- "teams just need to be more patient, like in the old days" -- may be too rosy and not sufficiently account for the change in the college game. QBs leave school not knowing how to take a snap from center; the college game is dumbed down because practice time in school is at a premium; and now at the pro level, there are significant off-season and in-season restrictions, with a steeper learning curve.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I have a question that goes beyond the Eagles.

Roseman said they looked to QB classes this year, next, the year after, which reinforced their confidence about this move.

This can be interpreted as suggesting that future QB classes, for the most part, are going to suck. At least in his view. Relatedly, Sports Illustrated last week had a superb article about how the college and pro games are so different that players are drafted into the NFL are poorly prepared. In many positions, but especially at QB. And, of course, there is little time or patience in the NFL these days.

So the question -- if you are a blue chip HS QB who realistically projects as a pro in terms of measureables, why aren't you focusing exclusively -- and I mean exclusively -- on the relatively few teams that run Pro systems?

Asked differently, why does Saban among others appear to make do? One would think he would have his pick of the very best QBs in the country -- and the guys he's had in recent years would not be the guys.

Or is this phenomenon, if it is real, too new?
It seems odd that it can be said that the pro and college games are so different. I'm not disputing that they are but when college football started moving away from the run and toward embracing pass heavy offenses didn't it seem like this divergence should have diminished?
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
52,022
It seems odd that it can be said that the pro and college games are so different. I'm not disputing that they are but when college football started moving away from the run and toward embracing pass heavy offenses didn't it seem like this divergence should have diminished?
There are good articles on this precise topic in the current Sports Illustrated, but they don't seem to be online.

"In this week's magazine, Andy Staples and I have dueling articles that discuss what everyone associated with the game agrees on: The chasm between college and NFL football is as wide as it has ever been, and it’s affecting both the league and the players graduating to the next level."

The below piece riffs off of those, though, talking to Tajh Boyd about why he couldn't make a NFL roster:

http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/04/15/nfl-draft-tajh-boyd-clemson-college-football-spread-offense
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
29,718
Southwestern CT
London,

I feel badly for you guys.

The most interesting Roseman comment to me was to the effect -- we are confident we will get our guy.

That's interesting because you pick second. So you are saying you know Cleveland will take one -- and the other is your guy. Or you are saying they are interchangeable and both are your guys. The former would be untrue; the latter would be odd. Or maybe the comment itself is false.
It's a bad time to be a fan of the Eagles or Flyers. But at least I have the Red Sox, right? Right?
 
Last edited:

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
It seems odd that it can be said that the pro and college games are so different. I'm not disputing that they are but when college football started moving away from the run and toward embracing pass heavy offenses didn't it seem like this divergence should have diminished?
A generation ago, you had All-American QBs like Jamelle Holloway and Tommie Frazier who were glorified RBs who threw the ball maybe 10 times a game. You also had QBs like Andre Ware putting up mind-blowing passing stats in gimmicky "run and shoot" schemes. Those systems are dead and buried, but the "spread" system that is popular today is more like the old "run and shoot" than a casual fan like you or me would realize, insofar as it simplifies the game for the QB by only requiring him to make a couple of reads. I'm skeptical that this is producing less pro-ready QBs than we had in the old days (as I said above, QBs weren't all that pro-ready back then), but that is increasingly the conventional wisdom.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
Here's the glass-half-full perspective:


I'm not going to defend every aspect of the Eagles' decision-making -- the Daniel contract was stupid, and if they were seriously considering trading up a few months ago, they should've just tagged Bradford. And of course, the deal either requires you to be certain who the Rams will pick, or comfortable staking the future of your franchise on either Goff or Wentz. YMMV on whether it is the right move to make, but I don't think the move reeks of a desperate attempt to be the anti-Chip.

Now, if you hate the deal because you don't like Goff (or Wentz), then that's a whole other story. I don't know enough about either player to have an informed opinion. It is definitely concerning that during the college season, neither player was the consensus first QB to be drafted, let alone the first or second player taken overall. Seems like an awfully big bet on workout performance and meta-level scrutiny of tapes.
I have major concerns claiming this trade was in part due to the poor crop of QBs coming in the next couple years too. This speaks to this. Neither was regarded as a sure thing, it's not like people were touting watching the big QB prospect Wentz all season (our own ITP gents aside, I guess there may have been others).
To go from a potential target in the late first to the second overall pick, with some workouts and combines as extra info seems to put some fairly ridiculous stress on the concept you know there are no good QBs coming. I mean I know that's not really a big deal, an extra justification. But it's bullshit.

It's a massive gamble, and you're talking about a guy who last drafted Watkins and Marcus Smith, and a team that gutted it's scouts shortly before the draft.
Why am I supposed to expect MR Roseman has the eye for a raw under developed QB to believe he's right on this? He's shown little to no ability to do that.

Furthermore, you CANNOT be certain you get your guy. They seem clearly confident the Rams are taking Goff and they'll get Wentz. But the Rams have the right to change. You're seriously telling me that you like BOTH this much? Because that's nonsense IMO. It says you're desperate to get a QB while you're near the top of the draft. That's not a good ided. You want a player, sure. you want a position and talk yourself into both. desperate.

Meanwhile to get here, you're given up 2 starters, a key backup, picks this year and high level picks for two more years.
The Eagles need a guard and a tackle, probably a CB, a RB, LB depth, maybe WR help.
You basically gave up 3 superb chances to fill one of those holes (1st this year, 1st next, 2nd year after, aside from the later round picks).

This team looks pretty eh offensively right now next year, and has no 1st round pick. The D looks ok, if zero depth.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
I accept that scouting QBs in HS may be very, very difficult. Much more plausible than Saban not being able to coach them up.

I think your explanation -- "teams just need to be more patient, like in the old days" -- may be too rosy and not sufficiently account for the change in the college game. QBs leave school not knowing how to take a snap from center; the college game is dumbed down because practice time in school is at a premium; and now at the pro level, there are significant off-season and in-season restrictions, with a steeper learning curve.
Nick Saban doesn't give a damn about developing QBs (or players) for the next level.

Nick Saban only cares about winning games at Alabama. What happens to the player after he helps Alabama win multiple titles is... not Nick's concern. Urban Meyer has some really good quotes about his lack of interest in "fixing" Tebow's mechanics or making Tebow a "pro style" prospect because that isn't needed to win games, nor does it help Urban Meyer win games, keep his job, and make money from the college machine(s).

The lack of a developmental program for the NFL was not a problem when colleges were acting in ways that prepped prospects for "the league". College coaches and programs have less interest in prepping prospects than they ever have in the past. Their business is winning college football games.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
17,883
Nick Saban doesn't give a damn about developing QBs (or players) for the next level.

Nick Saban only cares about winning games at Alabama. What happens to the player after he helps Alabama win multiple titles is... not Nick's concern. Urban Meyer has some really good quotes about his lack of interest in "fixing" Tebow's mechanics or making Tebow a "pro style" prospect because that isn't needed to win games, nor does it help Urban Meyer win games, keep his job, and make money from the college machine(s).

The lack of a developmental program for the NFL was not a problem when colleges were acting in ways that prepped prospects for "the league". College coaches and programs have less interest in prepping prospects than they ever have in the past. Their business is winning college football games.

Some good reading on this topic:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-nfl-has-a-quarterback-crisis-1441819454

I had only really heard about this because of Petty and his total lack of training in the pro style offense.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
5,375
I dont agree with the concept of a fifth year option for first round draft picks, and while I think the NFLPA should work to renegotiate the CBA to have the fifth year option removed, I would agree to a similar fifth year option for quarterbacks who (1) start less than 4 games their rookie year & (2) are drafted in the top two rounds of their draft - kind of like a developmental red shirt year for QBs.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
20,760
So the question -- if you are a blue chip HS QB who realistically projects as a pro in terms of measureables, why aren't you focusing exclusively -- and I mean exclusively -- on the relatively few teams that run Pro systems?
Because learning a pro-style system is hard and the QB isn't going to have the gaudy numbers he could put up in a spread offense? 18 year old looking for somewhere to play is looking to win and have fun; thinking about preparing for a NFL future is pretty far down the list IMO.