Teams Philadelphia Eagles - The Gold Standard

[Southerntakeover]

minor signing

The resource we give LB continues to be a troll on me, lol

 

[Southerntakeover]

Why the Saints should re-sign Zack Baun

Interesting. Might actually go in the pass rush rotation, in addition to ST.

 

[Jatz]

That's not this year's orthodoxy though, it's shifting. We just saw CMC drive the Niners to win the NFC.

Jacobs got paid, Swift just got 8 mill per year. Pollard got 8 mill a year.

The difficulty with the 'sign and plug in' approach, if you want to be a top offence, is that its hard to get guys like that who can pass block. Saquon can.

So? That's one year and one player. We've seen the last several prove you don't need a big star running back.

I'm willing to bet right now that we don't see the Packers/Eagles make the SB, obviously Chicago and Tennessee won't either.

 

[Southerntakeover]

So? That's one year and one player. We've seen the last several prove you don't need a big star running back.

I'm willing to bet right now that we don't see the Packers/Eagles make the SB, obviously Chicago and Tennessee won't either.

It's not one year, it's two for them- he was a major part of why they made the champs game the year before.

The trick is not to rigidly lock into a fixed view on positional value, it's to assess it against the market and work out whether the market has over or under valued the position. There's an argument to be made that successful teams in the NFC have taken the view that the market has been under valuing.

Not sure why you drew the line at the Eagles or Packers. The Niners paid CMC, and the Lions drafted Gibbs with a first round pick last year. All significant investments in RB. Are you ruling all four out of the NFC? In favour of who?

 

[Southerntakeover]

Missed on McKinney, which is a shame

 

[Jatz]

Brian Burns has landed at our divisional rival

 

[Jatz]

It's not one year, it's two for them- he was a major part of why they made the champs game the year before.

The trick is not to rigidly lock into a fixed view on positional value, it's to assess it against the market and work out whether the market has over or under valued the position. There's an argument to be made that successful teams in the NFC have taken the view that the market has been under valuing.

Not sure why you drew the line at the Eagles or Packers. The Niners paid CMC, and the Lions drafted Gibbs with a first round pick last year. All significant investments in RB. Are you ruling all four out of the NFC? In favour of who?

Sure, they still haven't won yet.

I drew the line at the Eagles/Packers because they're the teams that just invested heavily.

The Lions with Gibbs is different - that's early in the draft but he's not yet eating up a whole lot of salary.

We'll have to wait and see whether CMC ever reaches the pinnacle. I've got my doubts.

As for who goes through, Dallas will be thereabouts again (although expect them to falter as per usual). I'm keen to see how the Falcons go off the back of the Kirk signing and the new HC. I think the Lions though are probably my pick for the NFC overall.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Not sure why draft resources, especially first round picks, are less valuable than salary cap, especially in a year it rose higher than predicted.

CMC took them to overtime in the SB, thats about as sensible as saying we don't know if Hurts can win in the league because he lost to the Chiefs.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Brian Burns has landed at our divisional rival

Shame we couldn't get it done, but the only way to beat that package as us was to give up our first

 

[Jatz]

Not sure why draft resources, especially first round picks, are less valuable than salary cap, especially in a year it rose higher than predicted.

CMC took them to overtime in the SB, thats about as sensible as saying we don't know if Hurts can win in the league because he lost to the Chiefs.

For the same reason we looked better when Hurts was on his rookie deal. You can spend that money on the other aspects of the squad. We then paid him and we've gone backwards (for the record, that's clearly not the only reason but it certainly plays a part).

Sure - my point is that the most recent winners don't have a RB on big money. That can't be refuted. You can claim CMC this and CMC that but ultimately, they didn't win.

I'm actually not even sure who the last RB is that would've won on big coin is. Lynch with the Seahawks perhaps?

 

[nobbyiscool]

I'm stunned that we spent that much money on a RB with a long history for his 2nd contract. You can so easily go to the draft for RBs.

Especially when the defence needs rebuilding. Our secondary last season was garbage and we've let blokes go; our line backers couldn't tackle; Cox has retired and we're kind of gesticulating towards the door with Reddick.

We need to fill 5-6 spots on defence, wtf are we spending money on Barkley, who is probably gravy for a team with few gaps, but doesn't suit where we're at?

 

[manureid]

Wonder if Saquon will be happy giving up all of those goal line carries!?

 

[Constantgin]

Due to injuries Barkley has only played every game once in a season his rookie year. He has only hit 1000 yards rushing 3 times out of 6 years.
Money would have been spent better elsewhere.

 

[rumply]

The injury stuff is being overstated a bit as missing 8 games the last 3 seasons isn't an outlier stat when it comes to RB's and at 27yold, the argument can be made that Barkley hasn't been overused.

There is risk with this signing but when is there not.

 

[Jatz]

The injury stuff is being overstated a bit as missing 8 games the last 3 seasons isn't an outlier stat when it comes to RB's and at 27yold, the argument can be made that Barkley hasn't been overused.

There is risk with this signing but when is there not.



View attachment 1925720

Not so fussed on the injury front, I'm a bit worried he goes the way Zeke went though.

Overused through so much of his earlier years, the body catches up eventually.

 

[rumply]

Not so fussed on the injury front, I'm a bit worried he goes the way Zeke went though.

Overused through so much of his earlier years, the body catches up eventually.

Are those the stats of an overused RB tho? Never gone over 300 carries a season & basically had a year off in 2020. There should be plenty in the tank.

 

[George]

Yeah RBs shouldn't be paid QB money. I like Barkley though just not at that price.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Due to injuries Barkley has only played every game once in a season his rookie year. He has only hit 1000 yards rushing 3 times out of 6 years.
Money would have been spent better elsewhere.

He played behind the worst line in football

 

[Southerntakeover]

For the same reason we looked better when Hurts was on his rookie deal. You can spend that money on the other aspects of the squad. We then paid him and we've gone backwards (for the record, that's clearly not the only reason but it certainly plays a part).

Sure - my point is that the most recent winners don't have a RB on big money. That can't be refuted. You can claim CMC this and CMC that but ultimately, they didn't win.

I'm actually not even sure who the last RB is that would've won on big coin is. Lynch with the Seahawks perhaps?

If every roster move that doesn't win the Superbowl is a failure, Howie can't ever succeed absent kidnapping Mahomes.

Who else has won recently? Tampa paid Fournette. Rams were very happy to pay Gurley, and then drafted Akers early.

You can draft people with first round picks rather than pay them in free agency and have them under contract control. Spending a first on a RB is a massive investment, it can't be spun otherwise.

 

[Southerntakeover]

I'm stunned that we spent that much money on a RB with a long history for his 2nd contract. You can so easily go to the draft for RBs.

Especially when the defence needs rebuilding. Our secondary last season was garbage and we've let blokes go; our line backers couldn't tackle; Cox has retired and we're kind of gesticulating towards the door with Reddick.

We need to fill 5-6 spots on defence, wtf are we spending money on Barkley, who is probably gravy for a team with few gaps, but doesn't suit where we're at?

I think there's a very good argument that trying to put the offence over the top is going to be a more viable pathway to winning than equalising spends across positions.

And we have four top 100 picks. We should be able to address positions. We took Cox's replacements the last two years.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Yeah RBs shouldn't be paid QB money. I like Barkley though just not at that price.

In what planet is that QB money though?

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

In what planet is that QB money though?

Certainly not QB money on the planets that Kirk Cousins, Russ Wilson, DeShaun Watson or Aaron Rodgers live on. Saquon's deal might be a smaller moon in the outer ring of planet Sam Bradford, but only just, more likely captured asteroid money.

FWIW, I actually like the idea as long as we keep the O Line solid - and Dickerson's signing was a huge part of that.
Saquon offers better receiving ability out of the RB position than we've had since before Sanders - and he is also a decent upgrade on pass blocking too, which might well go a ways to helping Hurts perform more consistently too.

Yes we need to extend Smitty, and take care of several others, but this isn't a bad move, especially if we invest an early pick in the OLine and can keep our WRs healthy. If we didn't have AJ, Smitty and Go-dirt, it makes no sense paying high end RB $ to a RB. But I reckon Saquon brings pretty decent complementary skills, will really notice the difference of playing behind a solid O Line, and is still only 27. The later years can always be shuffled around to minimise year by year cap hit too (as we have seen multiple teams do already this year). We have to be all in, can't keep skimping and saving everywhere.

 

[George]

In what planet is that QB money though?

General point being that I feel we are overpaying at the position.

 

[Constantgin]

Yep paying Barkley 4.5 mil a year more than swift is getting from bears. Wouldn’t it made more sense to keep swift and use the saved money on position of need.

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

Yep paying Barkley 4.5 mil a year more than swift is getting from bears. Wouldn’t it made more sense to keep swift and use the saved money on position of need.

Nope, while Swift had a good bounce-back year last year, he isn't the receiver that Saquon is, and he can't pass block to save his life.