44 replies to this topic

[MightyJNC]

*List won't become "official" until March 12th due to potential resignings/player tags*

http://www.nfl.com/f...gn=Twitter_news

While I don't want to see the Birds go   in FA again, they will have considerable CAP $ available and would like to see them target a couple of younger, up-and-coming players at positions of need.

Offense:

RT Ryan Harris (Hou) 6'5", 300, 27
TE Delanie Walker (SF) 6'0", 242, 28
(TE Jared Cook would be my first choice to pair with Celek in 2 TE sets but don't think Tenn lets him hit the open market)

Defense:

ILB Brad Jones (GB) 6'3" 242, 26, or
ILB Rey Mauluga (Cinn) 6'2", 265, 26
(Either could be paired with Ryans in the 3-4 allowing Kendricks to stay outside)

SS William Moore (Atl) 6'0", 221, 27
(Don't think either Byrd or Goldston hit the market)

[jrsu37]

Wait...Didn't we sign Ryan Harris last year, and then cut him? I think we did.

[MightyJNC]

jrsu37, on 14 February 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

Wait...Didn't we sign Ryan Harris last year, and then cut him? I think we did.

Yeah, kid came in off an injury, couldn't get healthy (needed back surgery) and never had a chance to show what he could really do, but seemed to put that all behind him last season with the texans and has a lot of talent.

[Passepartout]

Texans do have a lot of talent as that kid hopefully will improve and maybe the back injury had a lot to do with it!

[MightyJNC]

Passepartout, on 14 February 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

Texans do have a lot of talent as that kid hopefully will improve and maybe the back injury had a lot to do with it!

After we released him on an injury settlement he basically spent the entire 2011 season rehabing from the back surgery, but started and played well for the Texans last year and in his first 2 seasons with denver was charged with only allowing 1.5 sacks so the kid definitely has the talent that caught our eye the first time around.

[Eaglesdude55]

MightyJNC, on 14 February 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

*List won't become "official" until March 12th due to potential resignings/player tags*

Defense:

ILB Brad Jones (GB) 6'3" 242, 26, or
ILB Rey Mauluga (Cinn) 6'2", 265, 26
(Either could be paired with Ryans in the 3-4 allowing Kendricks to stay on the outside

Kendrick's isn't going to be put on the outside. He is an ILB in the 3-4.

[MightyJNC]

Eaglesdude55, on 14 February 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

Kendrick's isn't going to be put on the outside. He is an ILB in the 3-4.

If we play a hybrid 4-3/3-4 as expected he can continue to play WILL in the 4-3 looks and as a rush OLB (something he did very effectively at Cal) in certain 3 - 4 packages. The guy's got to much speed/athleticism not to ever let him play in space.

[Eaglesdude55]

MightyJNC, on 14 February 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

If we play a hybrid 4-3/3-4 as expected he can continue to play WILL in the 4-3 looks and as a rush OLB (something he did very effectively at Cal) in certain 3 - 4 packages. The guy's got to much speed/athleticism not to ever let him play in space.

I'm just telling you, Kendrick's will be a ILB this year.

[rich36]

Eaglesdude55, on 14 February 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

I'm just telling you, Kendrick's will be a ILB this year.

Stop. JNC is NEVER wrong..he'll go out of his way destroying threads just to tell you...

[MightyJNC]

Eaglesdude55, on 14 February 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

I'm just telling you, Kendrick's will be a ILB this year.

And by "telling me" that, then you're also telling me that you know for a fact that they'll never line up in a 4 - 3 look (with him at WILL/OLB) or have him line up at O (Rush) LB in any 3-4 or hybrid looks.

My bad, I didn't realize I was discussing the point with someone who obviously already has detailed inside information on exactly what Chip/Davis plan to do on D this year.

[MightyJNC]

rich36, on 14 February 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

Stop. JNC is NEVER wrong..he'll go out of his way destroying threads just to tell you...

Then again I suppose I could just go the little ricky route and "NEVER be right, thereby saving everyone the trouble of reading my posts except for comedic/ridiculing purposes.

[Eaglesdude55]

MightyJNC, on 14 February 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

And by "telling me" that, then you're also telling me that you know for a fact that they'll never line up in a 4 - 3 look (with him at WILL/OLB) or have him line up at O (Rush) LB in any 3-4 or hybrid looks.

My bad, I didn't realize I was discussing the point with someone who obviously already has detailed inside information on exactly what Chip/Davis plan to do on D this year.

So playing OLB in 4-3 looks next year means he won't be able to take 3 steps inside to be an ILB in the 3-4 You honestly just made Rich look like a genius because he hit the nail right on the head. Yeah he might line up as a rusher sometimes, but that's not his position.

I'm telling he will be an ILB in a 3-4 because he IS an ILB in a 3-4. I can honestly guarantee you that will be his position next year. Don't talk big when you have no clue what you are talking about dude. Like do you honestly have nothing better to do than start stupid fights on an online message board?

[TheSilence]

William Moore may hit the market, but I think he'll resign at a favorable deal. He's said he just loves football and he and Thomas DeCoud are great friends, I think they stick together.

[rich36]

MightyJNC, on 14 February 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

Then again I suppose I could just go the little ricky route and "NEVER be right, thereby saving everyone the trouble of reading my posts except for comedic/ridiculing purposes.

Never?
I seem to remember saying the E's were going to suck this year back in August..I seem to remember saying the Giants were winning the SB last year after they beat GB..I also remember you saying in 2009 that the Minnesota Twins would be better then the Yanks in 2009, who later embarrassed your Phils en rounte to #27...

But you keep thinking you're the better/more respected poster around these parts...all you are is the most loathed dooosh around...congrats!

[MightyJNC]

Eaglesdude55, on 14 February 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

So playing OLB in 4-3 looks next year means he won't be able to take 3 steps inside to be an ILB in the 3-4 You honestly just made Rich look like a genius because he hit the nail right on the head. Yeah he might line up as a rusher sometimes, but that's not his position.

I'm telling he will be an ILB in a 3-4 because he IS an ILB in a 3-4. I can honestly guarantee you that will be his position next year. Don't talk big when you have no clue what you are talking about dude. Like do you honestly have nothing better to do than start stupid fights on an online message board?

  

OK, now I see what the problem is, regardless of how many different "positions" with completely different responsibilities a player may line up at, for some reason you have an unyielding need to pigeonhole them into 1 and only 1 "position" classification and if anyone dares to disagree with you they are doing "nothing but starting a stupid fight and have no clue what they're talking about" because it upsets your orderly little way of thinking.

No problem, so in Kendrick's case no matter how may times he plays OLB in certain 4-3 packages or ILB is certain 3-4 packages or at OLB in other 3-4 packages going forward, I promise to only and forever refer to him as an inside linebacker here.  

Fell better now?  

[MightyJNC]

TheSilence, on 15 February 2013 - 01:26 AM, said:

William Moore may hit the market, but I think he'll resign at a favorable deal. He's said he just loves football and he and Thomas DeCoud are great friends, I think they stick together.

Without knowing who will or won't eventually hit the open market all any of us can do is speculate right now, but I would just be really shocked if either of the 2 "consensus" best UFA safeties (Goldston or Byrd) were allowed to get there, so I was looking at Moore (who IMO is a young, somewhat underrated player with a lot of upside) as a possibly more realistic plan B although it would be completely understandable if the Falcons made a strong push to keep him.

[Eaglesdude55]

MightyJNC, on 15 February 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

  

OK, now I see what the problem is, regardless of how many different "positions" with completely different responsibilities a player may line up at, for some reason you have an unyielding need to pigeonhole them into 1 and only 1 "position" classification and if anyone dares to disagree with you they are doing "nothing but starting a stupid fight and have no clue what they're talking about" because it upsets your orderly little way of thinking.

No problem, so in Kendrick's case no matter how may times he plays OLB in certain 4-3 packages or ILB is certain 3-4 packages or at OLB in other 3-4 packages going forward, I promise to only and forever refer to him as an inside linebacker here.  

Fell better now?  

You stated in your first post  that you wanted the eagles to get a new ILB so Kendrick's could move outside. Now, you are basically retracting your statement to say you want Kendrick's to to move around in certain packages. I don't know if your just trying to save your butt or what, but my posts are regarding your false assement that Kendrick's will be an OLB in an eagles 3-4 system, that's all. I agree that Kendrick's can move around/rush and whatnot, but your first posts assement is wrong.

[MightyJNC]

Eaglesdude55, on 15 February 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

You stated in your first post  that you wanted the eagles to get a new ILB so Kendrick's could move outside. Now, you are basically retracting your statement to say you want Kendrick's to to move around in certain packages. I don't know if your just trying to save your butt or what, but my posts are regarding your false assement that Kendrick's will be an OLB in an eagles 3-4 system, that's all. I agree that Kendrick's can move around/rush and whatnot, but your first posts assement is wrong.

So if the Birds were to acquire a prototypical 3-4 ILB to pair with Ryans (typically a player that brings more girth to the position than Kendricks does), that would relagate Kendricks to the bench the majority of the time they're in that alignment (as opposed to actually putting him outside where he could use his speed/athleticism and ensuring that their best players are on the field as often as possible) or should they just not even consider adding such a player because you've difinitively "told" everyone that "he's an ILB in the 3-4,end of story"?

Nope, you're right, and despite Chip's and Davis' public statements about wanting to stock the roster with "versatile players" Kendricks will be an ILB in the 3-4 and that's it, and all suggestions to the contrary are just wrong.  Got it.

[KingxEagles]

Time to get some young players in green like a new safety

[MightyJNC]

KingxEagles, on 17 February 2013 - 03:11 AM, said:

Time to get some young players in green like a new safety

While it would be great if they could somehow land Byrd (will be 27 in Oct), all indications are that Buffalo is going to do whatever it takes to retain him, even if they have to use a tag, and with almost $16M in available CAP they obviously can afford it.

I also doubt that SF lets Goldston test the waters since they were already willing to use the franchise tag on him last year.

That's why I think Moore would be a solid fall-back option, he's still relatively young (28 in May) and with only approximately $3M in available CAP, and other priority UFA (Grimes, Baker) to deal with, the Birds realisticly could structure a deal Atl probably couldn't match.

[Eaglesdude55]

MightyJNC, on 15 February 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

So if the Birds were to acquire a prototypical 3-4 ILB to pair with Ryans (typically a player that brings more girth to the position than Kendricks does), that would relagate Kendricks to the bench the majority of the time they're in that alignment (as opposed to actually putting him outside where he could use his speed/athleticism and ensuring that their best players are on the field as often as possible) or should they just not even consider adding such a player because you've difinitively "told" everyone that "he's an ILB in the 3-4,end of story"?

Nope, you're right, and despite Chip's and Davis' public statements about wanting to stock the roster with "versatile players" Kendricks will be an ILB in the 3-4 and that's it, and all suggestions to the contrary are just wrong.  Got it.

We have multiple needs at CB, S, OL, DL, and OLB and you want to bolster a position that is already set.

Do you see what I'm trying to get at here?

[MightyJNC]

Eaglesdude55, on 17 February 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

We have multiple needs at CB, S, OL, DL, and OLB and you want to bolster a position that is already set.

Do you see what I'm trying to get at here?

Only "set" according to some guy on the EMB who knows absolutely nothing more or less about the new coaching staff's plans for the roster and offensive or defensive alignments/player groupings than anyone else who is not privy to those plans.

So while I completely agree that they have needs at OL (most likely RT), CB, S, and DL (prototypical NT for the 3-4, perhaps another 4 - 3 DT if they want to move on from Jenkins and his $4.5M 2013" salary).

However, as far as the "LB" positions go, the team has needed a legit SLB since Emmons left and they still do for if/when the line up in a 4 - 3.  However if/when the line up in a 3-4 you have no way of knowing if they even plan to keep Ryans to man 1 of the ILB spots, if they view Graham, Cole, Curry or anyone else currently on the roster as the answer at either OLB spot or at what position(s) they intend to play Kendricks  

So yes I totally "see what you're trying to get at here", you have definitively "told" everyone that "Kendricks is only an ILB in the 3- 4", obstinately refused to even consider other options/opinions and apparently are not going to give up your crusade until your "opinion" is blindly and completely accepted by anyone who dared to question it.

So if you don't mind I'm just going to wait to see what the coachings staff's plans are for the LB position(s) because your opinion, regardless of how many times you repeat it or how vehemently you defend it means squat and frankly you really need to get over yourself already.  

[rich36]

MightyJNC, on 17 February 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Only "set" according to some guy on the EMB who knows absolutely nothing more or less about the new coaching staff's plans for the roster and offensive or defensive alignments/player groupings than anyone else who is not privy to those plans.

So while I completely agree that they have needs at OL (most likely RT), CB, S, and DL (prototypical NT for the 3-4, perhaps another 4 - 3 DT if they want to move on from Jenkins and his $4.5M 2013" salary).

However, as far as the "LB" positions go, the team has needed a legit SLB since Emmons left and they still do for if/when the line up in a 4 - 3.  However if/when the line up in a 3-4 you have no way of knowing if they even plan to keep Ryans to man 1 of the ILB spots, if they view Graham, Cole, Curry or anyone else currently on the roster as the answer at either OLB spot or at what position(s) they intend to play Kendricks  

So yes I totally "see what you're trying to get at here", you have definitively "told" everyone that "Kendricks is only an ILB in the 3- 4", obstinately refused to even consider other options/opinions and apparently are not going to give up your crusade until your "opinion" is blindly and completely accepted by anyone who dared to question it.

So if you don't mind I'm just going to wait to see what the coachings staff's plans are for the LB position(s) because your opinion, regardless of how many times you repeat it or how vehemently you defend it means squat and frankly you really need to get over yourself already.

Anyone else see the hypocrisy in this statement from this guy?

[Eaglesdude55]

rich36, on 17 February 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

Anyone else see the hypocrisy in this statement from this guy?

This guy is the biggest clown on this message board. I hope I'm not the only one laughing my arse off at what he thinks is an argument. He still doesn't even understand my side!

[Eaglesdude55]

MightyJNC, on 17 February 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Only "set" according to some guy on the EMB who knows absolutely nothing more or less about the new coaching staff's plans for the roster and offensive or defensive alignments/player groupings than anyone else who is not privy to those plans.

So while I completely agree that they have needs at OL (most likely RT), CB, S, and DL (prototypical NT for the 3-4, perhaps another 4 - 3 DT if they want to move on from Jenkins and his $4.5M 2013" salary).

However, as far as the "LB" positions go, the team has needed a legit SLB since Emmons left and they still do for if/when the line up in a 4 - 3.  However if/when the line up in a 3-4 you have no way of knowing if they even plan to keep Ryans to man 1 of the ILB spots, if they view Graham, Cole, Curry or anyone else currently on the roster as the answer at either OLB spot or at what position(s) they intend to play Kendricks  

So yes I totally "see what you're trying to get at here", you have definitively "told" everyone that "Kendricks is only an ILB in the 3- 4", obstinately refused to even consider other options/opinions and apparently are not going to give up your crusade until your "opinion" is blindly and completely accepted by anyone who dared to question it.

So if you don't mind I'm just going to wait to see what the coachings staff's plans are for the LB position(s) because your opinion, regardless of how many times you repeat it or how vehemently you defend it means squat and frankly you really need to get over yourself already.  

So let me get this straight, you have no idea if Ryan's is going to play ILB and you don't want Kendrick's to play their either?

You still have no idea what I'm trying to say either and it's hilarious to watch you defend yourself. Until you man up and admit you said you want the eagles to bolster a position that is set on this defense when we have much bigger areas of need, I am going to keep laughing at you.

[rich36]

Eaglesdude55, on 17 February 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

This guy is the biggest clown on this message board. I hope I'm not the only one laughing my arse off at what he thinks is an argument. He still doesn't even understand my side!

And he thinks I'm full of **** when I tell him that EVERY SINGLE DAY...

[Eaglesdude55]

rich36, on 17 February 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

And he thinks I'm full of **** when I tell him that EVERY SINGLE DAY...

It's really funny to watch you bait him and see him fall for it every time. It's like he doesn't know any better.

[MightyJNC]

Eaglesdude55, on 17 February 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

So let me get this straight, you have no idea if Ryan's is going to play ILB and you don't want Kendrick's to play their either?

That is not even remotely close to what I said.

MightyJNC, on 17 February 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

However, as far as the "LB" positions go, the team has needed a legit SLB since Emmons left and they still do for if/when the line up in a 4 - 3. However if/when the line up in a 3-4 you have no way of knowing if they even plan to keep Ryans to man 1 of the ILB spots, if they view Graham, Cole, Curry or anyone else currently on the roster as the answer at either OLB spot or at what position(s) they intend to play Kendricks

1. "If they even plan to keep Ryans to man 1 of the ILB spots"  = as of right now we have no idea if he'll even be on the roster (KEPT, RETAINED, HELD ONTO, ETC) come opening day. It's quite possible that they don't consider him to be a good 3 - 4 fit just like the Texans did.

2. "at what position(s) they intend to play Kendricks " = as of right now we have no idea exactly what their plans are for Kendricks although it's clearly a safe bet that he'll be on the roster and playing yet to be determined LB position(s) depending on which defensive alignment(s) they plan to run.

So why don't you try making a concerted effort to actually comprehend what you're reading before you start trying to poke holes into what you mistakenly think you've just read and "laughing" at other posters (and it obviously wouldn't hurt if you took the time to learn the difference between, and the proper use of "their" vs. "there" too).

Eaglesdude55, on 17 February 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

You still have no idea what I'm trying to say either and it's hilarious to watch you defend yourself. Until you man up and admit you said you want the eagles to bolster a position that is set on this defense when we have much bigger areas of need, I am going to keep laughing at you.

Sure I don't?

Let me see if I've captured the gist of your ceaseless crusade.

1. You know for a fact that the Eagles are going to run a 3-4 defense, in which Kendricks will be one of the ILBs and Ryans (will not only be on the roster) but will be the other. No other options are viable and no dissenting opinions will be tolerated.

2. Because you know for a fact that the 2 ILBs in the Eagle's 3-4 alignment will be Kendricks and Ryans, only OLB should be consdiered an "area of need" at the LB position and once again no other options are viable and no dissenting opinions will be tolerated.

Pretty much sums it up as far as I'm concerned but if I've misquoted you in any way feel free to let me know.

[Eaglesdude55]

MightyJNC, on 17 February 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

That is not even remotely close to what I said.



1. "If they even plan to keep Ryans to man 1 of the ILB spots"  = as of right now we have no idea if he'll even be on the roster (KEPT, RETAINED, HELD ONTO, ETC) come opening day. It's quite possible that they don't consider him to be a good 3 - 4 fit just like the Texans did.

2. "at what position(s) they intend to play Kendricks " = as of right now we have no idea exactly what their plans are for Kendricks although it's clearly a safe bet that he'll be on the roster and playing yet to be determined LB position(s) depending on which defensive alignment(s) they plan to run.

So why don't you try making a concerted effort to actually comprehend what you're reading before you start trying to poke holes into what you mistakenly think you've just read and "laughing" at other posters (and it obviously wouldn't hurt if you took the time to learn the difference between, and the proper use of "their" vs. "there" too).



Sure I don't?

Let me see if I've captured the gist of your ceaseless crusade.

1. You know for a fact that the Eagles are going to run a 3-4 defense, in which Kendricks will be one of the ILBs and Ryans (will not only be on the roster) but will be the other. No other options are viable and no dissenting opinions will be tolerated.

2. Because you know for a fact that the 2 ILBs in the Eagle's 3-4 alignment will be Kendricks and Ryans, only OLB should be consdiered an "area of need" at the LB position and once again no other options are viable and no dissenting opinions will be tolerated.

Pretty much sums it up as far as I'm concerned but if I've misquoted you in any way feel free to let me know.

You still haven't admitted that you want to bolster a position that doesn't need touching. Until then you just keep digging yourself into a bigger hole and you have the rest of people reading this laughing at you. I didn't even need to read this post because it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Listen, I'm sorry I'm acting this way towards this, but you haven't even once stopped to consider what I'm actually trying to get across. I've read through all of these posts you made and it's crazy how far off we are here. I understand what your saying, yeah Kendrick's can be moved around as much as the eagles want, but on a depth chart for a 3-4, he is an ILB and for some reason you won't accept that.

[MightyJNC]

Eaglesdude55, on 17 February 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:

You still haven't admitted that you want to bolster a position that doesn't need touching. Until then you just keep digging yourself into a bigger hole and you have the rest of people reading this laughing at you. I didn't even need to read this post because it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Listen, I'm sorry I'm acting this way towards this, but you haven't even once stopped to consider what I'm actually trying to get across. I've read through all of these posts you made and it's crazy how far off we are here. I understand what your saying, yeah Kendrick's can be moved around as much as the eagles want, but on a depth chart for a 3-4, he is an ILB and for some reason you won't accept that.

Actually you can reference any Philadelpia Eagle's depth chart available you'd like right now and I'm more than willing to bet dollars to donuts that you can't produce even one that has him listed anywhere but at WILL (an "OLB" position in a 4-3 alignment), as well as every roster having him listed simply as a "LB" the same as every other "LB" (regardless of iif they've played nside or outside) they have listed.  

But WTF ace , why do you feel so strongly that your "opinion" on 2/17/2013 concerning not only what defense(s) the 2013 Birds will line up in, but exactly who will be manning every position (while aso having this what appears like an obsession to pigeonhole ever player on the depth chart into a single, unquestionable "position label") but are getting all bent out of shape because your opinion is not being accepted as gospel?

Bottom line: We only have to wait until the season to see who is actually still on the roster, what position(s) they play and how many snaps they play at said position(s) before you'll realize that what has been discussed, at least by those who didn't try to cram their opinion down everybody's throat as if it were "statement of fact" were just speculating on potential roster configurations.