text:
Brett Hundley – Yes or No?
Posted: February 11th, 2015 | Author: Tommy Lawlor | Filed under: Philadelphia Eagles | 321 Comments »
Tyler Aston has been writing some good scouting reports for us over at ScoutsNotebook. Tonight he wanted to share his thoughts on QB Brett Hundley, the star from UCLA.
Take a look at Hundley's highlights, in case you aren't familiar with him.
Tyler didn't want to cover this with a simple scouting report. He decided to try something original.
Disclaimer/Context:
I like Nick Foles. I think he has a chance at becoming a Rivers, Flacco, and Roethlisberger level QB. The kind of QB who gives you a punchers chance against even the best, but won't take you to the mountain singlehandedly. However, if he stays closer to his floor, of a good backup, in the vein of a Kyle Orton type, the franchise is in trouble. Brett Hundley is an extremely gifted young QB, with some flaws. He has a ceiling to be a superior passer with very good mobility. He has mobility to put zone reads into play and has experience with packaged plays, both of which will allow the coaching staff to ease him into a full blown NFL offense. I've done all the film work on Hundley, and Kyle Crab's write-up matches my thoughts on Hundley extremely closely, so instead of a write up on Hundley, I thought a flow chart, inspired by my days as an Econ major (roughly based on a prisoners dilemma) would be a better way to discuss the possibilities of drafting Hundley, and why I support it.
Foles Good: Foles becomes a top 8-12 QB in the conversation with Flacco, Rivers, Roethlisberger, and Matt Ryan year to year.
Foles Bad: Nick plays closer to his 2014 form. He becomes more of a Kyle Orton or Ryan Fitzpatrick, someone who you bring in to be a Band-Aid at the QB position, while waiting to find your guy.
Hundley Good: Hundley becomes an electric young QB, his plus arm and mobility making him one of the best in the game. His inconsistencies in college turn out to be more of a gunslinger mentality and a poor supporting cast.
Hundley Bad: He doesn't become a professional level QB. His reads are slow, and his confidence in his arm and legs get him into more trouble than they help.
Player X good: This non QB draft pick at 20th, becomes an above average starter. Not a world beater, but makes a few pro-bowls and starts in the league for a long time. Player X is not related to Dawkins.
Player X Bad: The player taken at 20 only becomes a pretty average or sub-par player.
I am aware these distinctions are black and white, but in order to put it into a flow chart, such distinctions must be made. Theoretically one could do this as an equation, but we would never reach a consensus on probabilities anyways.
Draft Hundley Draft Player X at 20
Good Hundley
Bad Hundley
Good Player X
Bad Player X
Good Foles Outcome A: Excess Value at QB – trade one of the QB's for good ROI Outcome B: You have your franchise QB in Foles. Hundley still has some value as backup. Opportunity cost of no player X Outcome C: Foles is Franchise QB. You also have a talented player at another position Outcome D: Foles good. Blown draft pick. Hurts quality of the supporting cast (which is important to Foles)
Bad Foles Outcome E: Cheap young QB with a better skill set and ceiling. Future is bright. Outcome F: Bad things this way lie. Outcome G: You have a good positional player but are now desperate for a QB. Outcome H: City Burns. Chip moves on. Vets move on as new regime starts over.
Good Outcomes: A, C, E
Decent Outcomes: B, D
Bad Outcomes: F, G, H.
Drafting Player X: 1 good outcome, 1 decent outcome, 2 bad outcomes
Drafting Hundley: 2 good outcomes, 1 decent outcome, 1 bad outcome
In Outcome G or H: If Hundley becomes good, he becomes Earl Thomas times infinity. Every call from an Anthony from Manayunk, or Mike from Chestnut Hill, starts as a grown man screaming and raging against everything, and ends with a grown man weeping on the airwaves. Every WIP host, beat writer, guy at the end of the bar has an easy "The Eagles messed up; rue the day the Eagles passed on Brett Hundley" story. The rest of us collectively lobotomize ourselves. PBR, Chocolate pudding, and Funyuns are banned. Megan Fox becomes Charles Manson's wife. Tommy cries. Karlie Kloss spontaneously combusts from being so darn amazing. I cry. ALOT. Chris Christie and Rodger Goodell become the leaders of the free world and start to openly fix games so only the Cowboys, Giants, Redskins, and Patriots win Super Bowls…
Sorry, that was a weird nightmare.
Once again, I'm not in either Nick Foles camp. I think he could very well be good enough, but there's also a strong chance he may not be. Under this framework, drafting Hundley is the right decision. Obviously it's not perfect. If it was, I would be making a ton of money as a GM and winning all the Super Bowls. There are too many exogenous and endogenous variables to attempt to account for. . Given the crossroads the Eagles are at I thought applying a theoretical framework to the conversation would be a unique approach.
Be sure to follow Tyler on Twitter
What do you think of Hundley?
What do you think of Tyler's approach to the question of whether to draft him?
I'll reserve my thoughts for a separate post. I never took anything beyond intro to econ in college so I find this to be an interesting intellectual exercise at the very least.
321 Comments on "Brett Hundley – Yes or No?"
1 GENETiC-FREAK said at 10:10 PM on February 11th, 2015:
Like the change up on how it was written.. Simple to read easy to understand.. Matt Ryan 8-12 QB confused me though.. That fool is oveeerrrraaated!!! lol
2 ICDogg said at 10:11 PM on February 11th, 2015:
I like the way he lays it out, but it still comes down to how likely you think these outcomes are. They're not all equal in probability.
3 Jamie Parker said at 10:17 PM on February 11th, 2015:
I, for one, really like Hundley. Of course back in '99, I liked Culpepper the best and wanted the Eagles to draft him and not McNabb. But at least I knew Cade McNown blew.
As far as this approach, maybe if the Seahawks OC had this approach, they'd have another trophy in the case. Then again, I'm sure if I went back in time and told him what was going to happen and he called for Beast Mode instead, he'd probably fumble it. Such is my luck.
4 Cafone said at 11:41 PM on February 11th, 2015:
Who knows if, in McNabb's place, Culpepper wouldn't have been better. Or Couch… but not Akili Smith – he sucked.
5 KillaKadafi said at 9:13 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Works the other way around as well; McNabb with Randy Moss……!
6 JJ_Cake said at 10:58 AM on February 12th, 2015:
McNabb had T.O. There was an opportunity. Even though T.O. was an ass, he was right about McNabb. Why would things be any different with another prima dona WR in Moss?
7 Donald Kalinowski said at 3:09 PM on February 12th, 2015:
What was he right about with McNabb? And for some reason people think that TO left because he had a feud with McNabb. Not true. He left because of contract issues.
8 JJ_Cake said at 12:54 PM on February 15th, 2015:
Sorry, late getting back to you. TO left because of money, but don't you remember how TO and McNabb were friendly until after the SB. Then there was a feud because TO called McNabb out on the SB. (Remember Mcnabb puking on the sideline?). Haven't they avoided each other ever since? TOs antics wrt McNabb made it easy for Reid & co. not to bring him back.
9 austinfan said at 10:21 PM on February 11th, 2015:
There are three kinds of QB prospects, "can't miss," High upside, and long shot. The fourth, marginal/3rd QB you don't bother drafting, just sign UDFAs.
Can't miss are rare, Peyton, Luck, not many others. Rodgers and Brees weren't sure things, and Brady, Romo and Warner were shots in the dark.
High upside break coaches' hearts (and drives them insane, mumbling to themselves on the unemployment line), Giants lived through 4 terrible seasons with Eli before he resembles a starting QB, Jay Cutler showed flashes of greatness interspersed with stretches of stupidy, compounded by infantile gestures. Rivers started strong, faded, bounced back.
The mistake teams make with high upside QBs is drafting them too high, if you took Locker 40th, missing wouldn't hurt the way it does when he goes at the top of the draft (see Gabbert, Ponder, Sanchez, VY, Russell, et al). Yes, you need a QB, but when you're rolling the dice, don't throw the mortgage money into the pot.
I don't like Hundley in the 1st round, I don't like Mariota before #20, though I have felt over the years that few QBs make sense early in the 1st rd – because you're usually passing over a starting LT, top CB or premier pass rusher, all of whom have a much higher chance of success.
On the other hand, someone like Dalton is basically an Orton/Fitzpatrick, at best a Schaub, serviceable but won't get you over the hump. This is where you have to either pick a guy with real upside (i.e. enough skills to become a top 10 QB, no noodle arms) or just take a 3rd to 5h round development guy.
Foles has high upside, far more than when he was drafted, even in 2014, while he was erratic, he also had a higher QBR than almost any other young QB (less than 5 years starting experience). If the worst you get is a top 15 QB, well, Hasselback had a nice career, Delhomme almost got a ring, Dilfer and Brad Johnson did get rings. He's certainly worth giving another season to find out whether he can develop.
Which doesn't mean you don't draft a QB, it means you don't REACH for a QB. If Mariota falls, and Chip thinks he's the guy, the worst is Foles walks next year and they get a 3rd rd comp pick, or they franchise and trade him. If Hundley falls to their 2nd or 3rd rd pick (depending where they value him) then by all means, snatch him up where he's reasonable value.
But right now they're best bet to go deep into the playoffs is to deepen their talent pool, especially depth at OL, CB and S, OLB and ILB. A stable OL and a solid defense could carry Foles, playing a notch better than this season, to the NFCCG. He doesn't have to be lights out if they can run the ball, pass block and play better defense.
10 mksp said at 10:27 PM on February 11th, 2015:
Trying to "time" QBs is how you miss on Russell Wilson because you drafted Vinny Curry instead.
If you like a QB, you take him. Rely on your scouting. The position is too important.
11 ICDogg said at 10:41 PM on February 11th, 2015:
Depends on how much you like him. But yeah, it's not a straight "best value" equation, and it's not a straight "supply and demand" equation.
12 shah8 said at 3:56 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Seattle got a star linebacker for gambling on waiting to draft Wilson, and all we got was a situational rusher.
13 Brian Clemons said at 7:54 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Russell Wilson isn't any different than Foles besides having more consistent starting experience. Not consistent performance. Russell has an amazing supporting cast around him. If you put Foles in that kind of cast You would see a more 2013 Foles than 2014 IMO.
14 mksp said at 9:06 AM on February 12th, 2015:
This is such a flawed narrative.
There's not a GM in the league that would take Foles over RW.
15 bill said at 9:11 AM on February 12th, 2015:
I'd agree with you, but I also agree with BC's last sentence. Russel Wilson has two *awful* playoff losses in the last two years before getting to the SB (2013 NO, 2014 GB) without his dominant defense and some extreme luck with special teams. In both of those games, he was flat out bad, and would have borne a fair share of the blame for the loss due to his play. People who conveniently forget these things when it comes to Wilson are the first to say that Foles gets no credit for leaving the field with a lead against NO and putting the ball in Cooper's hands for a game winning TD in SF. There's a fair bit of hypocrisy there, IMO.
I said nothing about a GM doing anything or taking one over the other. What I stated was truth from observation. As recent as the last few games Russell played in the Playoffs and Superbowl, he has shown that he isn't a Brady, Peyton or Rogers type of QB. And that is ok, because he has an amazing cast around him that keeps at his best at the right time. Russell is in the same league as Flaco and Big Ben. I compared Russell and Nick if they were both in the same supporting cast. And if you look at it that way they aren't very different.
Everyone wants to say if the Eagles would have drafted Russell things would be different. They wouldn't because the supporting cast would still be the same. Not good enough to get the team over the hump. This team has dealt with more than 5 years of bad drafting and only hitting on a very small amount of draft picks. This team is going to take time to get where it needs to be.
17 The Fanatic said at 10:20 AM on February 12th, 2015:
People forget that Brady wasn't a dynamic QB in his early years. People considered him a "game manager" who had a knack for clutch play. In fact, he didn't throw 30 TDs or have a QB rating over 100 until his 8TH SEASON!! Only time will tell whether Wilson will be compared with the all-time greats. But the start of his career is arguably better or equal to ANY of the QBs mentioned.
18 Brian Clemons said at 11:17 AM on February 12th, 2015:
I agree and the same can be said for Foles. I'm not saying Foles is the QB of the future is isn't but each QB is hardly ever put into the same situation as another QB. Russell Lucked up and so did the Seahawks by the number of draft hits they made. If the eagles hit on more draft hits then they did you would see a totally different team.
Everyone just needs to remember that fixing this team and its past issues isn't a quick fix and that time and patience(whether you like it or not) is needed. Reid and Co did a number on this team and its future.
What most people fail to realize that a QB is just an element (although an important one) of the whole. Even great QBs fail to get to the SB or even the playoffs when other elements of the team (Oline, backfield, Dline, run game) are lacking. I believe Foles has the skillset to be a playoff winning QB. With a solid defense and a good Oline, he's smart enough to understand not to make mistake and force throws. In the playoffs, that is critical. Last year he regressed, but I believe those who have buried him are going to be surprised at how well he plays this year. I don't think he'll ever reach the stats he displayed in '13, but I believe he'll be top 10 statistically in the league.
That being said, I would love for the Eagles to draft Hundley or some developmental QB. Competition is always best and having a talented backup will push Foles to new heights…or into a backup role.
20 Brian Clemons said at 12:19 PM on February 12th, 2015:
Couldn't have said it better. I'm just hoping this Draft/UDFA turns out to be produce 3 or 4 starters and 1 or 2 role players. I'm hoping high but hell if Seahawks can hit on their high and late rounds picks as they did with a modern former college coach, can't we? lol.
21 anon said at 4:49 PM on February 12th, 2015:
Agree, but if we get CK with RW we probably at least hit the playoffs maybe win a game.
23 unhinged said at 11:54 AM on February 12th, 2015:
The Giants liked Eli, and they went after him, but they didn't set the team back, and it paid off. Washington liked RGIII and they have monumentally paid for it. Say Hundley is there at 20, and so is A.J.Cann and Bud Dupree. You still think Hundley makes sense?
24 D3FB said at 12:57 PM on February 12th, 2015:
Dupree won't be there, Cann is 0.000% a scheme fit.
RGIII doesn't get hurt they probably beat SEA in the playoff game — they were 9-0 to finish the year when he was right, most on RGIII's back. Sad the way his career turned out but he could have been a stud.
26 MagatBrackendale said at 10:40 PM on February 11th, 2015:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000407751/article/2015-nfl-draft-order-top-three-needs-for-all-32-teams
27 Mike Cappelli said at 12:15 AM on February 12th, 2015:
This makes sense to me, especially when it comes to trading first round picks to move up and get a quarterback. I wonder why teams that are QB needy trade mountains of picks to get their "guy" instead of using all those picks to draft multiple QBs. I would love to get Mariota but I would prefer to draft Hundley this year and another QB next year in the first round instead etc.. (Assuming Foles isn't a champ. I think he is.)
28 anon said at 12:30 AM on February 12th, 2015:
So you'd rather waste 2 first on two qbs unknown to your coach than use two firsts (and probably more) to reach on mariota who is known to your coach.
29 Mike Cappelli said at 1:26 AM on February 12th, 2015:
The whole point is that I don't consider drafting high upside players a waste of picks.
I would like to think that Chip is capable of evaluating the talents of non-Oregon QBs (although the Matt Barkley pick might suggest otherwise). Quantifying the value of Chips knowledge of Mariota is borderline impossible. Within the context of my opinion, which does not include an understanding of Chip's familiarity with Mariota, I believe that taking a quantity of flawed, high upside quarterbacks is preferable to committing those picks to a single, less flawed high upside quarterback.
I personally think Hundley and Foles both have enough upside to make the 'Outcome A' scenario a reality.
30 Media Mike said at 5:07 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Or just keep signing guys off of the street in conjunction with drafting guys in lower rounds until you get you guy; i.e. Seattle.
or Browns, Bills, Jets, Texans, Raiders, etc.
32 Media Mike said at 5:50 PM on February 12th, 2015:
Browns, Bills, and Jets all reached in the first round for trash (Manziel, Manuel, Sanchez), the Texans are an apt team to criticize, and the Raiders may have their guy.
I'd also ask you to look at the revolving front office caused by a lack of franchise QB. Whether right or wrong i don't know, but there's a lot of pressure on those guys to find "their guy".
34 JJ_Cake said at 10:51 AM on February 12th, 2015:
it will most likely take more than 2 first round picks to move up and get Mariota. How much are you willing to give up? Luck has turned out to be a great QB, RGIII not so much. It's still a crapshoot, and teams that mortage their future for one guy more often than not hurt their team in the long run. The Rams (while being a QB shy of being ready to compete), have very good players due to the Redskins trade.
I'd rather have a good team than a superstar QB. Aaron Rogers is a terrific QB, but he has a really good team as well (Albiet a boneheaded coach, that's enough to kill a team too. Perhaps the Eagles 10 years ago would've faired better with smarter coaching, and coaches who could make adjustments in game). Luck… not so strong of a supporting cast. His career may mimic Dan Marino's… great QB, no SB ring.
Seattle and New England… very good TEAMS from top to bottom.
Wasn't RGIII ROY? I wouldn't put everything that happened to him on his shoulders, though he definitely deserves some blame for how he handled the time after that.
The difference for me is that CK coached Mariota.
Skins also spent a mid round pick in that draft on a QB, how'd that turn out?
36 Brendan Ekstrom said at 2:03 AM on February 13th, 2015:
I totally agree. I would spend picks on o-line and another receiver or D if that player is much higher rated. But foles performed very well when the Oline was solid. Upgrade the secondary through free agency if possible. Resign Maclin and make sure foles has above average protection and weapons. If mariota falls to you or within a few picks sure take him.
37 Bert's Bells said at 10:22 PM on February 11th, 2015:
Of course all probabilities don't have equal likelihood, but this is a fun way to think about it.
This was great.
For those like myself, who think Brett Hundley will be a great QB if put in the right situation, while not trusting Nick Foles to ever reach his ceiling, the pick is easy.
The one thing you didn't cover, is that I would guess the majority of posters here think we're "close."
And if we're "close," drafting Brett Hundley represents a wasted opportunity cost (to borrow another econ concept). He won't have a chance to prove his worth, we won't be able to monetize him (at least not quickly), and the Eagles would have missed the opportunity to draft a Trae Waynes / Bud Dupree / Shaq Thompson type "difference maker" that could potentially help win a Super Bowl (assuming Nick plays at a level closer to his ceiling).
I disagree with this premise, as noted, but just pointing out the issue that some of the more, um, "emotional" posters will probably have with drafting Hundley.
On the flip side, Nick Foles still has value today.
So if you draft Hundley, you can flip Nick today for real value, and not wait until he has a no value at the end of the year (since he'll be an FA, and presumably signing for $8 MM a year somewhere like Houston as a "solution.").
Anyway, nice job.
39 Cafone said at 11:09 PM on February 11th, 2015:
Or you could sign Nick Foles now and still draft a young QB. Let Foles put up another year or two of gaudy numbers in Kelly's system and if you want to trade him next year or the year after you still have that option.
There's a lot of risk that he doesn't put up gaudy numbers…
and that contract could end up being terrible.
41 Cafone said at 12:40 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Is there really that kind of risk? I thought we all kind of agreed that Nick Foles' floor is "average". And an average QB can put up decent numbers with the amount of plays the Eagles run.
And then they put him on the market as a guy who just doesn't fit into Kelly's system, but would be perfect for a more traditional NFL offense. And his future team is thrilled that they not only found their franchise guy, but that he has a few years left on a very friendly deal (because the Eagles signed him in 2015).
Before you call that far fetched, remember that we traded both AJ Feeley and Kevin Kolb to teams who thought they had found their franchise QB.
42 Andrew Haines Art said at 9:58 AM on February 12th, 2015:
I think that Foles' floor is below average, he's not elite.
Here's the scenario, IF Foles decides to take a small, cheap deal (why would he? He doesn't have to sign with PHI and he could get better money/longer deal with another team if you think hes that good) then the Eagles decide to put him on the trade block a year or two after the extension? I don't think teams would jump to give good value at that. WHY is he being traded? Rumors circle in the league, then all of the sudden its a 5th rounder as the best offer or he gets cut and we get nothing back.
Also, I understand the "system" thing on "thats why we'd trade Foles", I just don't believe that. In 2013 when he played well, no one was saying that, so if he CAN play that good, isn't and we try to get rid of him, that is a HUGE decrease in return value. Not to mention there's too much playing around and gaming in this idea, just get your guy and play him, don't plan to short deal a QB then play trade games and all that, its outthinking yourself.
Theres a lot more to consider other than what would be ideal for the Eagles, the league isn't made of dumb people, they'll see right through that.
43 anon said at 3:38 AM on February 12th, 2015:
44 anon said at 11:56 PM on February 11th, 2015:
What if his numbers aren't gaudy and you draft another matty b, or tyrod taylor? Probably looking at a coaching change.
If the guy they draft doesn't work out then signing Nick Foles is a good thing.
depends on how his numbers look.
47 Neill Stark said at 10:33 PM on February 11th, 2015:
I really enjoyed the different perspective on a draft prospect. This site is a must read as an Eagles fan. I love the hack that is Jimmy Bama, but it is a travesty Tommy Funyuns is not employed by a major media outlet for Philadelphia yet.
They can't afford him.
49 Michael Winter Cho said at 10:03 AM on February 12th, 2015:
They don't believe in upside.
50 Mitchell said at 10:45 PM on February 11th, 2015:
Thank goodness I don't have to make decisions like this! It would be an incredible journey to follow Chip and ask him questions on what he thinks in all aspects of the game for a season. Kinda like an internship or apprenticeship!
Or, another option…
You draft Brandon Bridge in the 3rd, you still get your player X at 20, and you have all the upside of the good Hundley scenario.
Except Brandon Bridge is 2 years away from being Colin Kaepernick when he was drafted.
He's admitted he's never worked a full field progression, his footwork is going to need a massive overhaul, he has a long delivery that's inconsistent and inaccurate.
He's got a big arm, and can run a little bit, but had a 52% completion rating on the year and is from a small school.
If he was 6'1, he would be lucky to get a camp invite, but because he's 6'5 people are really high on him.
That's why you sign Nick Foles now.
That presumes Nick has any interest in signing now.
And if Nick bottoms out next year? You're still probably drafting in the late teens, don't have a starting QB, you're developmental QB is still 2 or 3 years from MAYBE being able to start, let alone being any good, but if a new coaching staff comes in he's almost guaranteed to be cast aside for the new staff's "guy".
Bridge is an incredible athlete with size, speed, arm strength, intelligence and character. And he comes cheap. He's a blank canvas for Chip Kelly to turn into a Hall of Famer.
Sure take Hundley if Chip likes him, but take Bridge too for that incredible upside.
Fair enough, the difference to me is to equate it to baseball:
Hundley is the 5 tool guy putting up stats in AAA.
Bridge is the 5 tool guy who is inconsistent in low A ball.
If it was any other position than QB, I'm ok with taking the latter. But with the importance of the position in the modern game, I'm taking the guy who will be ready sooner and has less variance.
57 xeynon said at 12:09 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Good analogy.
They don't want to hear it.
59 PK_NZ said at 11:07 PM on February 11th, 2015:
I think you should factor in probabilities as well… say if you take Hundley, there's 20% chance he's going to be decent and 10% chance he's going to be a star. What's the likelihood of a pass rusher or a DB being good or a star? Probably much higher with the available players… So do you take a chance on 10%? For a QB that fits Kelly's offence, maybe you do… I wouldn't be upset with Hundley, but it really depends who else is still available.
How do you determine the probabilities in an impartial manner?
Maybe compare to others at the same draft position (plus or minus a few slots to give a wider data pool). Within the past decade you've got -Manziel, EJ Manuel, Brandon Wheeeedon, Teeeebow, Josh Freeman, Flacco, Brady Quinn, Rodgers, Jason Campbell, J. P Losman. That's 10 players. One of them is a Hall of Fame candidate, another is a solid player. The rest -some version of hot trash (and/or drafted by the Browns). So your percentages aren't that far off.
Of course, past percentages do not reflect future probabilities but it's a start.
That's why I said we could try to do it from a mathematical standpoint, but you could get 10 guys together who all see thing similarly from a draft standpoint and only end up with more disagreement.
Right on. That's why they call them "probabilities". There's no 100% certainty, just a bunch of factors that reflect possibilities.
Exactly… of course hitting on a QB is always going to be way better than hitting on a DB, but what's the likelihood of that happening should factor in on the decision.
At the end of the day it's going to be up to the front office and scouts to figure out those probabilities and balance the risk vs reward.
But i definitely agree with what the table is highlighting and again wouldn't mind taking a shot at Hundley if Chip thinks he can make it work.
I think the table is definitely telling us why so many teams keep using high draft picks on questionable yet intriguing QBs… because the reward is so high that failing is more acceptable.
Hah. Should've read your comment before posting my own. You've actually gathered the data I only suggested gathering. 🙂
I think he's per-supposing that there's at least 50% change Hundley is THE man.
As an econ geek I like Tyler's approach – it's both clever and enlightening. He makes a solid case for drafting a QB (Hundley or otherwise).
The thing is, the probabilities matter immensely here. They are difficult to agree on, but I think to eliminate personal biases, we could just look at the historical statistics on QBs drafted in the late first-early second range vs. other players drafted in that range. If, say, the data suggests that there is a 90% chance Hundley is J.P. Losman or Geno Smith (i.e. not a long term solution) and only a 10% chance he is Rodgers or Brees, but a 50% chance that a player at another position is good, then outcomes A and E should be weighted less heavily and outcomes C and G more heavily. Things get way too complicated after this (would have to account for the fact that hitting on a QB is much more helpful for a franchise than hitting on a CB or ILB, etc.) but it's probably possible to do a bit more to show whether all these outcomes are equally likely.
68 D3FB said at 12:41 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Yea, like I said, I thought about digging into it further but the list of things you have to try to quantify are:
-Overall projection of Hundley v. other QBs
-Strength of talent pool in each draft class (ie This class is deep but not many gamechangers)
-Were those other QBs massively overdrafted based on need.
-Marginal impact of getting a slightly better player at a non QB position v impact of potential top 5 QB. (ie is Hundley and a Paul Dawson/Tevin Coleman/Josh Harper > Kevin White and Grayson/Petty)
I'm really high on Hundley. I personally feel he has a better chance to be QB1 off the board than he does of falling out of round 1.
I would say personally for Hundley's projection I see it as:
20%- He becomes one of the top 5 QBs
25%- He becomes a top 12 QB
30%- He becomes a "meh" QB
25%- He hangs around as a Tavaris Jackson type or busts.
69 ICDogg said at 1:09 AM on February 12th, 2015:
That's a very favorable opinion. If he's really that good, he'd be worth drafting at 20. (Not saying he is or he's not, just that with those odds it would definitely be worth a shot.)
70 D3FB said at 1:19 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Like I said in the article, Kyle Crab's write up matches my feelings on Hundley as well.
Give it a read, ignoring all preconceived notions about him and tell me that isn't the guy you want to be your franchise QB.
http://draftbreakdown.com/ndt-scouting-report-ucla-quarterback-brett-hundley/
71 xeynon said at 1:14 AM on February 12th, 2015:
I've not watched enough of Hundley to really have an informed opinion but I tend to agree how smart or not smart the Eagles would be to draft him is likely to be a moot point, because he isn't likely to be available at #20. QBs perceived as having star-caliber upside usually move up the draft board rather than down it, especially in years with so many QB-needy teams drafting. See E.J. Manuel, Kyle Boller, Jake Locker, etc.
Out of curiosity, how do Mariota and Winston compare using similar percentage breakdowns?
Mariotta I would say is a little safer, with a similar ceiling. I haven't done and probably won't do Jameis film work, although one guy I really respect put a 3rd round grade on him. Based purely on tape.
74 Insomniac said at 1:55 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Would you say that he's better than Blake Bortles coming out?
Teddy was my top QB last year, and I think Hundley is better than Teddy.
Mariota
Hundley
Bortles
Garoppolo
JFF
I think, on a technical level, it's hard to compare college tape between Mariota and Bridgewater, and think Mariota comes on top. Mariota is taller (but with the same build), and he's a bit faster. Their arms are about the same. However, BW reads field better, snaps throws short intermediate better, and plays out of structure better. He's also waaaaaay better at dealing with clutter, either in the pocket or trying to get more yards rushing. As for Hundley, the college game is the college game. Talent is not evenly spread, and it's still possible for a QB to damn near do it all…
Okay, just went ahead and looked at his game against Arizona. Yeah, Tommy's clip shows true, Hundley is a superior rusher to Mariota. It's the passing I'd be pretty concerned about. Great arm, but he really is sort of erratic. Not nearly as bad as Jake Locker or Logan Thomas, and I don't really get the feeling that he has much of a great flair for the passing game. No anticipation stuff, no real attempts to fit in small windows, not many throws where he seems to have multiple downfield options. Bombs to sidelines, some seam stuff, and a slant or two. I'd be concerned about getting some sort of EJ Manual-ness…
The Tommy clip is highlights from his sophomore year. He made big strides as a passer last year, and if you watch the entire body of work you see the light bulb has come on from a passing standpoint.
I was a big Teddy fan and remain one due to his work from the neck up. I'm looking to see what reports come out about Hundley's level of intellect for the position. His Wonderlic score, especially if it comes in on a Vince Young level, is going to concern me.
79 EAGLES said at 2:54 AM on February 12th, 2015:
I could see Andy Reid taking a shot at Hundley in the first round.
80 eagleyankfan said at 8:13 AM on February 12th, 2015:
So a 55% chance he's not what we're looking for? Foles can't be that far off. Taking Hundley would be taking a step back in terms of 'fixing' this team now. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe that's a bad thing. Who would the Eagles be passing on in order to get a QB that'll be ready 3 years down the road? I doubt Chip takes a QB at his spot(or moves up a few) in order to grab a QB unless he's a "surer" thing.
As T-Law said last winter — a terrible scenario would be Foles going down for the season and not allowing a full evaluation on him. If Foles had a full season, this picture would be clearer and maybe not even a question…
He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think D3FB has previously said that there's a slightly less than even chance that Foles becomes a Big Ben level QB. I think that's fair. In which case, the probabilities do favor Hundley, if only because the possibility of becoming a top 5 guy remains plausible for him.
Very true but that's just going by QB. What percentage is sacrificed by not drafting better team needs/future with the first pick? I know we like to do all these comparisons to see where Foles sits amongst his peers. I'll, 1000 times over, take him if he equals Eli and 2 rings. Nobody on here will call Eli elite. You don't have to be elite.
But any of that 45% chance that he is the guy and he's better than Foles.
The draft lacks premier impact players. You're not going to get a Trae Waynes or Bud Dupree. There are no safeties worth a first round pick. OL is deep but not top heavy.
84 eagleyankfan said at 11:06 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Interesting. Ok, you're sure Foles is not the guy. Also sounds like you're saying this draft is week. Are you saying go all in after Hundley and use draft picks(if needed) to move up and get him?
Did you not read the article?
I think I spell out my views on Foles pretty clearly.
I'm well aware that the draft isn't for 3 months and things will be different then than they are now but I'm telling you there aren't 20 impact players in the draft, so expecting to get anything more than an above average starter at another position is unlikely. Hundley has special potential, frankly I expect him to be a draft "riser" when people catch up.
Oh, that's right, your Tyler. It would be easier if you'd just change your name on here. I don't think I questioned you on your thoughts on Foles..I'm pretty sure that was a statement.
Your article is on the preface that Foles fails. I get that. I wanted to know HOW much you like Hundley. Not a "oh, I like him but I'm not moving up to get him". If he is that special talent, and nobody else is worth grabbing round 1 — I'm asking you if you go after him no matter what the cost because he won't be there when the Eagles pick.
I'd go up to say 12 and get him. I'm not giving up future picks, but I'd trade say a 2 and a 4.
88 eagleyankfan said at 1:36 PM on February 12th, 2015:
Good stuff. Thanks.
If the rest of the league comes around to your opinion, we're not going to sniff him at 20–that's the profile of a No. 1 overall 🙂
Damn close to it
91 Ark87 said at 12:10 PM on February 12th, 2015:
45% chance he's at least a top 12 QB (AKA franchise QB), and a 75% chance that he's at least not a significant step back from 2014 Foles. That is extremely high praise, though some may not realize it.
To give (depressing) Context, there are maybe 15 QB's in place who are franchise QB's drafted (1 not) between 1998 and 2012. Some are older and the team is starting to think about life after , but regardless they've been steadily top 50% QB's or are poised to be.
So lets exclude 2013 and 2014 because while no one has looked super promising, it's to early to label a player as a bust or franchise QB at this point. lets go from 2008 to 2012, 5 drafts, 15 QB's taken in the first round. Of them, only 5, possibly 6 have become franchise QBs:
Matt Ryan (2008 #3)
Joe Flacco (2008 #18)
Matthew Stafford (2009 #1)
Cam Newton (2011 #1)
Andrew Luck (2012 #1)
AND holding the door open still for Tannehill (2012 # 8) he could still go either way in theory.
(Wilson, Kaep, Foles, are in the conversation but not first round picks)
Of those only 1 was in the ball park of #20, and only 1 of those is a top 5 QB. Cam and Stafford might get a whiff of top 5 as some HOF types retire in the next few years but we'll see.
So over that 5 year span :
6.6666…% Became a top 5 QB
33.33…-40% became a franchise QB
And the rest are not QB's you want to be your starter long term for one reason or another.
Most of those prospects were nowhere near #20
92 Joe Minx said at 12:42 PM on February 12th, 2015:
So it would it be oversimplifying it to say that there is a 45% chance he'll become a top 12 QB, but a 55% chance he ends up being nothing special at all?
93 Mitchell said at 2:15 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Garrett Grayson is an interesting prospect but as Tommy had pointed out his delivery is a bit slow. He also has some trouble hanging on to snaps. On the plus his deep ball is impressive and it looks like he can get you yards with his legs (former track athlete). Doesn't take big hits and doesn't look overly frivolous with the football. Some may say his stats are inflated with RAC but isn't this exactly what this offense could benefit from? A dual threat with decent size/speed and a good deep ball? As of now, you wouldn't have to spend a 1st rounder on him either, perhaps a 3rd-4th. Very intriguing.
He looked terrible at senior bowl.
I didn't watch that. Looks decent in the other tapes. Not a bad thing if He wasn't good there, it pushes him down further.
Hundley got some moves
A mild bit of surprise when I looked at the highlight reel… Hundley is clearly faster than Mariota on the field–a lot of successful eat-what-you-kill rushing in that set of clips.
Passing…eh, I see an excellent arm, but I don't see much in the way of sophisticated passes. I haven't looked at any draftbreakdown game clips recently, but I'm still pretty meh about drafting him. In particular, what kind of hero has Hundley ever been? Does he win any games he shouldn't have? Does he lose games he definitely shouldn't have?
98 Anders said at 4:12 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Hundley is not faster than Mariota
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gu8qqsxFbBQ/UiwrSmoj_8I/AAAAAAAAQN8/q7XE-rz9vZQ/s1600/MarcusSpeed.gif
Why does a QB need to throw sophisticated passes? Why not just design an offense where you minimize those throws?
What you see there is that Mariota has a good *burst*. When you see most of Mariota's runs, you're seeing have a big hole up the middle, hit it hard, and then everyone in the secondary has a bad angle to tackle him. You don't have to be that fast, functionally in order to make that sort of play you posted. What I see Hundley doing is beating a lot of guys who have good angles on him. That's different from what Mariota is doing, and that's the sort of subtle (or not so subtle) hint that Hundley has true speed somewhere in the 4.5s or better. Mariota has always looked about a 4.65 sort of speed, which isn't really fast enough for him to be a very viable NFL QB rusher at his size (too skinny).
100 Anders said at 4:44 AM on February 12th, 2015:
No, what you see Hundley have is not true straight line speed, but the agility to put moves in defenders.
Mariota is will most likely clock in about 4.45 at the combine with Hundley at about 4.55. Devon Allen is the fastest players for the Ducks and Mariota is only like half a step slower than him.
101 shah8 said at 4:59 AM on February 12th, 2015:
See, here's the thing. I'm not a expert scout or anything, but 4.4 speed. True 4.4 speed, is just no damned joke on the football field. A college QB with true 4.4 speed will post stats like Denard Robinson at Michigan. And I've seen Robinson play RB with Jax. Marcus Mariota is no Denard Robinson. He's not anything like Joe Webb either. Or Vick. Or Terrelle Pryor. Or RGIII Or *any* of the truly fast QBs. Not to mention that he's nothing like as intimidating as the next band of fast guys like Kap or Russell Wilson. And RGIII is the only guy mentioned who is *stiff*.
There is a reason Matt Waldman is like…Mariota is like Alex Smith or Mark Sanchez.
Again you are mixing up straight line speed and agility.
Mariota has 4.40 track speed, aka straight line speed. He does not have agility like some of those guys mentioned, too cut on a dime and juke a defender.
Same with Deseaon Jackson, he has true straight line speed, but he is very stiff in terms of making sharp breaks compared to a guy like Maclin who has more agility
103 eagleyankfan said at 8:03 AM on February 12th, 2015:
some people never learn….lmao….
104 shah8 said at 1:29 PM on February 12th, 2015:
I suggest you wait for the Combine to get the number, hmm? People generally have slower speeds than the yakk number out on the 'nets.
What does that have to do with you mixing up straight line speed and agility?
Hundley have told he hopes to run a 4.55 at the combine, where we have reports of Mariota running between 4.3 and 4.5
106 teltschikfakeout88 said at 9:53 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Just like Dick Vitale commenting on any non Duke basketball game….some how some way he will make a reference to Coach K….somehow someway shah 8 talks about Joe Webb…..I am probably feeding the beast and this has got to be some ongoing joke…..but man….I am just confused by the constant references to Joe Webb…..
107 Joe Minx said at 12:47 PM on February 12th, 2015:
Seriously. It's kind of creepy almost.
108 Media Mike said at 4:59 AM on February 12th, 2015:
A QB needs to make sophisticated passes to beat sophisticated defenses.
109 botto said at 12:35 PM on February 12th, 2015:
wow that's awesome
110 D3FB said at 12:52 PM on February 12th, 2015:
Correct, I'd expect Marcus to run a low 4.5 and Hundley a low 4.6
This is very well reasoned, but I still see "bad Hundley" as the outcome. A guy with "slow eyes" according to more than one source along with 479 rushing attempts in 3 college seasons strikes me as a guy who is a significant risk to every dial the running down to a low enough level to play the NFL game the right way.
Simply put, anything more than about 3 rushes a game from a QB is a negative for long term success.
A very good chunk of those rush attempts is simply from super bad OL and designed QB draws.
Take Russell Wilson, he had 441 rushing attemps in his college career.
He just had 118 rushing attemps last season, if you compare that with Michael Vick, he only exceed that twice and both was under Jim Mora.
The only thing I see missing from this analysis, although it is an unknown that is hard to quantify at this point, is trading down from #20 and getting more value by having an opportunity to take multiple other players.
Rather than shooting for the moon on a QB in rd 1 or having concerns about upside of any other player at #20; why not seek to get multiple shots and players with similar to player #20's upside in later rounds? Or next year?
114 OldDocMcDuckle said at 6:23 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Nice breakdown and I like the prisoners dilemma set-up, albeit I think the probabilities you mentioned for Hundley's success are much higher than I'd have them. Not keen on him in the first at all but he's probably going to move up over the next few months.
Oh, and congrats to whoever put together that highlight reel for not having it play out to terrible generic rap like 99% of highlight reels out there. Still lousy music, but it's a different sort of lousy.
115 Greg Richards said at 7:18 AM on February 12th, 2015:
This is assuming that getting a good player at 20 and getting Hundley is not a possibility. QBs tend to go higher than their abilities suggest and they often rise in the pre-draft process but I haven't seen anyone who thinks Hundley is good enough to warrant pick 20. Trade down from 20 to the end of the 1st round(where you'd still have the 5th year option in play) and then take Hundley. Or move down and select another player and then move up in the 2nd to take Hundley. Or just wait until your own 2nd round pick where Hundley could very well be on the board.
116 Eagles News: Should Philadelphia draft Brett Hundley? | Sports Feedr said at 7:22 AM on February 12th, 2015:
[…] Brett Hundley – Yes or No? – Iggles BlitzBrett Hundley is an extremely gifted young QB, with some flaws. He has a ceiling to be a superior passer with very good mobility. He has mobility to put zone reads into play and has experience with packaged plays, both of which will allow the coaching staff to ease him into a full blown NFL offense. I've done all the film work on Hundley, and Kyle Crab's write-up matches my thoughts on Hundley extremely closely, so instead of a write up on Hundley, I thought a flow chart, inspired by my days as an Econ major (roughly based on a prisoners dilemma) would be a better way to discuss the possibilities of drafting Hundley, and why I support it. […]
117 Brendan Ekstrom said at 7:34 AM on February 12th, 2015:
This is very interesting. The problem with it is that it's entirely based on hypotheticals. If player "X" is a player at another position, then we could say played "Y" is a qb in this equation. You could replace Hundley with the name of any qb in the draft and the odds of a successful pick would remain the same based on the outcomes he outlined. So what perspective does this give you on actually making a choice between those qbs? This just argues that based on the Eagles current situation it's worth taking a qb in the first round. Doesn't really give us any ammo when it comes to weighing Hundley against other qbs in the draft or deciding if he is the guy.
nice read for winter. All I needed was the highlight film. Foles doesn't need to be superman. Chip is the coach, which is a HUGE bonus for any QB so comparing him to the like of Orton isn't fair. Orton never had a coach like Chip. Unless the types of Luck is available, I'm not moving up. Build around Foles…
119 dislikedisqus said at 8:24 AM on February 12th, 2015:
For all the analysis, A-H boil down to: drafting a QB successfully is worth more than drafting another position player successfully. Which is fine but life isn't binary. You're really using Hundley as one instance of a replacement QB. You could insert anyone -Petty- and write the same post. It's all hypothetical. The real issues are whether you believe Hundley the best QB available at 20; whether you believe Foles will be good or bad; whether you believe Hundley or whoever is best QB will be there at 52 or 84; and how confident you are in player X. Until you answer those questions, A-H aren't meaningful.
120 bill said at 8:24 AM on February 12th, 2015:
After originally being against Hundley in the draft, Mr. D(urden)3FB has sold me on him. That said, here are some considerations:
1. In outcomes A+B, I revise my timeline for this team to be true contenders out at least another year; I look at the roster and see a team that can be a threat to make the NFCCG in 2015 in those outcomes, but not one that is a true threat to move on. The loss of a year (at least – player for player trades really don't happen in the NFL, so trading Foles or Hundley after 2015 will, at best, net you 2016 draft pick(s)) in developing of a first round prospect to fill one of the many holes in the roster and hopefully become an actual playmaker at one of those spots will mean, to me, that 2016 will be pretty much the same as 2015 in those outcomes, if not slightly worse, as Peters, Mathis, and Shady will all be that much further along in their decline. So to me, you have to list Outcome C as the best possible scenario moving forward (yes, better than A, so long as you have at least a little time preference).
2. If D3FB is right about Hundley and his upside, etc., it's highly likely Hundley's stock rises significantly as time goes on. Perhaps he's a surprise 2nd QB (or maybe first, if teams are really worried about Winston's character) off the board. I'm willing to sign off on Hundley at 20 (heck, I'm in the ICWT(FN) camp), but is he worth trading up significantly for? If he and Mariota are both sitting there at 8, and you have an offer for multiple first round picks to move up, which one do you prefer? D3FB's comments have me leaning towards Hundley, for now, but is that how he feels about it?
121 GermanEagle said at 8:25 AM on February 12th, 2015:
If you could sign ANY player in this year of Free Agency, who would it be (note: ignore Franchise and Transition tags)?!
122 A_T_G said at 8:40 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Aaron Rodgers.
(If we aren't also ignoring contracts, I think I'd go with Maxwell.)
ANY player in this year of Free Agency
124 myartz04 said at 8:41 AM on February 12th, 2015:
I'd imagine a lot of people wouldn't like this move. I'm not one of them. I'd love this move. He's an absolute beast. Then you don't have to worry about changing QB's either. Imagine is attitude when he'd play against Dallas? Double win. LOL.
I think he's the best receiver in the league right now. I'd take him over anyone. He's an absolute beast…plays with unmatched competiveness and attitude.
imho – you have to look at who you need to beat to an elite team. Seattle. One way to overcome their excellent secondary is having a mismatch that Dez can probably provide better than Mac/Mathews. Not to mention keep Safeties in check. Shady becomes that much better.
128 Insomniac said at 8:43 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Justin Houston
I would agree if I didnt think having a great safety next to Jenkins would help more than an elite pass rusher consider we still have Barwin
I would agree if Barwin was as half as good as Houston was at generating pressure. He lives in the backfield and he'll do more damage with Barwin on the other side.
131 the DONALD said at 9:10 AM on February 12th, 2015:
that duo would be so nasty… 30 sacks bwtn them?
Probably 40 considering how bad the Giants/Redskins OL is
133 peteike said at 11:08 AM on February 12th, 2015:
ya would be awesome, I think Id prefer McCourty though to strengthen dbs
134 Media Mike said at 5:47 PM on February 12th, 2015:
But ODB, JPP, Eli………………………..
The Giants suck.
135 GEAGLE said at 9:08 AM on February 12th, 2015:
think Houston/Barwin would help the DBs more than Jenkins/McCourty would help the front 7, but we are splitting hairs, both would have huge effect on our D
McCourty
seattle GM on Maxwell(PFT) "Based on what the landscape looks like from our eyes, he would be very highly sought after," Schneider said of Maxwell. "Now, are we going to give it a good ride and try to do what we feel is appropriate for our organization and try to keep him? Absolutely. Is it going to be good enough? I can't answer that."
id sign Justin houston duh!!!… … or Mcourty because he would have the biggest impact on our secondary
138 Mitchell said at 8:58 AM on February 12th, 2015:
URLACHERZZZZ!
Dude, you just missed the gold opportunity to ask for Fitzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Retiredzzzzzzzzz
can i have brandon Browner? he called out that clown Kanye!!!!
Lol, did he really?! Awesome, what did he say?
Re Kanye: what a dick. I must say that I have liked his music in the past but he really turned into a douchebag…
143 GEAGLE said at 10:06 AM on February 12th, 2015:
oh dude, im not even going to tell you lol. he went on a big rant yesterday about what a jackass Kanye is for how disrespectful he was to beck the other night at the grammies… it happened yesterday so you can easily find browners comments… rather you see for yourself, you will enjoy it more if you hjate kanye as much as I do, then you would hearing me give a recap.. check it out when you have 2 minutes and you need a laugh
144 oreofestar said at 11:11 AM on February 12th, 2015:
If Dez hits the market, I'd drive Maclin to the airport immediately.
And I'd put 5 years $70 mil in front of Dez in a second.
146 anon said at 6:00 PM on February 12th, 2015:
Djax on roids.
147 unhinged said at 9:30 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Nice pitch, but I'll hold. Hundley at 20 means he rides the bench (barring a Foles injury) for at least 2 years, and I don't know that it would be a productive 2 years in terms of development. I think the odds are way higher that player X becomes a great player than Hundley makes us all forget about Nick Foles. If Hundley is there in the 3rd, I'll play.
Why two year? Who is the starter in 2016, because it most likely wont be Foles and if we draft Hundley at 20, there is a great chance we just trade Foles to the Rams, Titans or Texans
I don't think Fisher would be interested in Foles. He's far more likely to want Kaep or a Kaep clone.
If we draft Hundley at 20, we HOPE he is an improvement over Foles but that is no sure thing. Hundley is big and strong, but isn't close to NFL-ready IMO. The NFL always seems to have a number of drafted big, strong, QB's who don't quite put it all together, but are still developing. I'd put Foles at the top of that list. Hundley is not ready to start, and it is a big gamble at 20 to project him as a starter for 2016.
I agree, but with Foles injuries he could get thrust into the lineup. HIs athleticism and the CK scheme could def make his transition easier. It will have bumps for sure and its always a gamble but letting him learn a year or two is never a bad thing. In that meantime they will know what they have.
152 unhinged said at 11:40 AM on February 12th, 2015:
I view it as a bad thing if we take him at 20, and he ends up having a lower ceiling than we all hope. I agree that his athleticism is intriguing, but Foles supplanted Mike Vick, and we are talking about someone who may not see the field any better.
153 peteike said at 1:09 PM on February 12th, 2015:
true, and youre giving up a potential solid starter by taking a risk at QB. However, looking for a franchise guy is a must, you have to take risks because it can take forever to find him.
And if we keep Foles we hope he is a big improvement over 2014 Foles.
There would be no chance to trade Foles if Hundley is drafted. That wouldn't make any sense. Throw Hundley to the wolves would be counter productive. You keep your starter and develop your young gun.
156 ceedubya9 said at 11:15 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Yep. If you draft Hundley, no need to not let Foles play out his last years. If he plays great, fine. If not, then you get Hundley in there in year two or earlier if Foles gets hurt.
157 Matt said at 9:38 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Love the idea of the approach Tommy, but as a scientist, I see severe issues with drawn conclusions based on information given. Your conclusions are based on an equal opportunity of each outcome, which we know to not be the case. Although measuring the likelihood of each outcome may prove difficult, it is obvious to reason that the likelihood of "player X" being "good" is higher than the likelihood of hundley being "good." Since player X is likely rated higher on the board then hundley, they would believe that player would have a greater chance at being a success in the NFL.
Since the outcomes of your analysis do not have equal chance of occurrence, they should not result in equal impact on your resulting analysis. Your analysis that drafting "hundley" has 2 good outcomes vs drafting player X has 1 good outcome is what we call an inadequate interpretation of insufficient data.
As an alternative, although it would require much more research, measuring the success rate of CBs taken from say picks 15-25 over recent years vs the success rate of QBs taken from picks 15-25 over recent years.
The problem is that even with that exhaustive research, there will be inadequate data – human beings are not identical, and results in human endeavors are not reproducible. Furthermore, a lot of the numbers involved, for example, evaluations of current picks, are subjective, and not numbers that you can truthfully apply the scientific method to. Putting numbers on these things make them sound more objective than they really are. So at some point, more analysis just becomes an exercise in creative thinking.
Believe me. I've experienced the difference between the hard sciences (analytical chemistry method development) and soft sciences (pedagogy, jurisprudence) first hand. You can't expect the same sort of analysis in the soft sciences that you get in the hard ones. That's why econ uses these sorts of analyses and assumptions to provide guidelines to explore the objective aspects of the reasoning behind each decision, while leaving aside the subjective aspects as much as possible.
You can use certain statistics to categorize performance such as what Pro Football Focus does. There are tons of rating statistics for QBs such as QB rating and total QBR. Either way you could break it down much more detailed than everything having a 50-50 chance, and the only results are "good" and "bad." My post was merely to suggest that a conclusion that the eagles are more likely to have a positive outcome by drafting hundley than another player based on the data in this article is extremely troublesome. The analysis is presented as if based on facts, in determining the number of "outcomes," thus implying one decision more advantageous than another, which is why I noted in my previous post that inadequate conclusions were drawn on the data presented.
PFF and all the other "stats" you listed are highly subjective in nature. Stick around for a while, and you'll see that while most acknowledge that there is some value in PFF's stats, the value is very limited in nature. QB rating and QBR tend to get even less respect in terms of link to reality.
161 Matt said at 10:14 AM on February 12th, 2015:
The main reason for my post was that a conclusion that the eagles are more likely to have a positive outcome by drafting hundley than another player based on the data in this article is extremely flawed. The resulting conclusions drawn far overreached the very limited data presented and the presence of equally likely conclusions for scenarios that are obviously not equally likely.
162 RobNE said at 9:56 AM on February 12th, 2015:
it's not Tommy's conclusions. Tyler's.
realized this after my post. you are correct.
164 RobNE said at 12:46 PM on February 12th, 2015:
no worries, I was just trying to give Tyler his due.
165 Andy Six Score and Four said at 9:39 AM on February 12th, 2015:
I like the analysis. Without nit picking or going in to probabilities, but just accepting it as is, there are a couple points that could have been highlighted.
1) Of all of the outcomes, Outcome C is easily the most desirable for the team.
2) Similar to the colorful meltdown in G or H, B and F will play out similarly as there will certainly be somebody drafted after 20 that turns in to a stud, and we shall forever wail, "THAT'S who we should have drafted!"
yes let's just draft that guy
168 Nick S. said at 9:41 AM on February 12th, 2015:
I think this falsely assumes that Hundley can only either be a franchise QB or a bust. More likely is that Hundley falls somewhere in between those extremes, creating a whole new set of possibilities.
True, but the author already provided that disclaimer:
I am aware these distinctions are black and white, but in order to put it into a flow chart, such distinctions must be made.
It's not intended to be a flawless analysis, but rather, an interesting look at things.
170 Gary Barnes said at 9:51 AM on February 12th, 2015:
No quarterback takes a team to the mountain top single-handedly….this is mythology generated by the media and others who glorify the position above its actual worth IMO…football is a TEAM sport. If anything, it has been defense that is most important to winning championships as we saw again with the last second INT by the Pats CB to seal the victory…the fixation on the quarterback is understandable and QB is an important position, but so is OL, so is CB, so is LB, so is DL, so is WR and RB and TE and S and…well you get the point. They are all important to the TEAM winning and any team that neglects some or many of those positions by focusing too much on the QB will never win a ring.
171 Avery Greene said at 12:17 PM on February 12th, 2015:
There are some QBs that elevate the offense and make the players around them better. Of course no one single-handedly takes a team to any championship, but some QBs make those around them better, and this is probably where that idea comes from. Two come to mind off the bat:
Montana's 1st and 2nd SB was with a receiving cast of Freddie Solomon, Dwight Clark, and Charlie Young or Russ Francis.
Considering Brady's cast of WR/TEs, I think he comes close. Notwithstanding Gronkowski, Brady did it with:
David Patton, Troy Brown, Jermaine Wiggins, Deion Branch, Daniel Graham, David Givens. Brandon LaFell, and Julian Edelman. I'd argue that Brady makes Edelman look better because Brady is Brady.
TLDR: There's exceptions to every rule, but I'd say these two guys willed their team over the top. Granted, both are exceptional stories as QBs like this aren't available every year, but I think it is possible.
172 Michael Winter Cho said at 10:00 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Perhaps the most intellectual post ever on Igglesblitz… thanks for the thoughts, Tommy.
According to ESPN's Jeff Legwold, free agent Julius Thomas has made it clear to the Broncos he wants to be among the highest-paid tight ends in the league.
When healthy, Thomas has shown he can be a dominant mismatch creator — especially in the red zone. But he's been injured in three of his four NFL seasons, often hampered by cumbersome ankle issues. And with the Broncos shifting to more of a run-based attack under Gary Kubiak, it would be a surprise if they ponied up the cash to re-sign Thomas. So look for Thomas to hit the open market in March and get overpaid as a player that benefited greatly from Peyton Manning's presence. Julius will be asking for something just below the four-year, $40M deal Jimmy Graham got in July.-via roto
Man, I pray Julius Thomas and Demaryious cost the Broncos a fortune forcing them to let Virgil Greene hit the open market where they wont be able to match the James Casey contract that i assume we would offer him if he reaches the market… must really suck to be denver and have 3 solid TEs contracts expiring at the same time… Im not sure what they thin of Tamme who is also a free agent? do they value him more than Virgil, or do they assume that the Hulk will pass Tamme in the not so distant future…
hopefully we can Land virgil, one of the few offensive weapons on another team that i can see the eagles going after in free agency.. doubt they sign anyones WRs or RB's… not only is Virgil the perfect chip player, but he is a bruising young perfect compliment to Ertz
i cant see Elway being so willing to lose Julius over Kubiak running the ball half the time…. Julius is one of the best mismatch weapons in the game…
You've made this argument previously, and Green is another F TE, isn't he? Kelly takes Ertz off the field for run blocking, and Green is not as good a blocker as Casey as far as I can see. I would expect Chip to take a Y TE, given our recent history on goal line offense, but I won't be surprised if he doesn't shop for TE at all this season.
175 Insomniac said at 10:50 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Trey Burton is still on the team too.
176 unhinged said at 12:07 PM on February 12th, 2015:
I like Burton a lot. He's a last-dtch QB. My point was that Green is not as good a blocker as Celek, and Kelly takes Ertz out for Celek's superior blocking. Green is definitely an upgrade over Casey, I would agree, but if TE is a position Chip is looking to improve, I think he gets a tackle-sized mauler late in the draft.
177 GEAGLE said at 4:01 PM on February 12th, 2015:
im a burton fan, but for now, he is nothing more than a special team player until further notice… the eagles arent going to turn down adding quality at TE because they have Burton on the roster… Burton ca have a future in Philly, i just assume he will have to fight for it and beat out other talent that will be brought in to compete against him…. signing Virgil would be one of our top 2 future TE's… you cant automaticaly pencil in Burton as the #2 TE of the future now..i like the kid, but he aint THAT good,..
AND AS far as next year is concerned, I dont even view Burton as a TE… he is as much of a TE next year as Braman is an OLB next year..basically, two special teams players that wont be counted on to pl;ay offense or defense… they need to do alot of improving to do if they ever want to be more than ST players… think the ship has sailed on Braman, and he is what he is, a ST beast who wont be counted on as an OLB… Burton has a chance to grow into a player we use on offense, but thats far from a given. and we damn sure wont turn down TE talent because we have Burton….
heck if it was up to me, id rip the band aid right off, and reconfigure our entire TE position this year!…
I would waive Brent and James Casey, sign Virgil Greene, spend a draft pick on a TE, anywhere from an early 2nd round pick after trading back twice to draft the Gopher(anders boy) Maxx, or wait a few rounds for someone like Jesse James…
Zack Ertz, Virgil Greene, Maxx Williams and Trey Burton would make me forget about the tough decisions of waiving Celek and Casey….. I like Burton, but he isnt someone you count on as an Offensive player this upcoming year.
if we are stuck with Cooper for another year so we cant sign two WRs, then upgrade the TE position with younger explosive athletes
trey can catch.
trey can do alot… trey closed out a game for us as a runningback, trey was an absolute Beast on ST…
But Tre doesnt even matter in this discussion because the facts are that even if we want to assume that Trey will grow into an offensive weapon that we will consistently use which is so far from a lock at this point, the truth is that two solid TE's will NEVER be enough for this roster. Chip will ALWAYS want atleast 3 TEs he can use on offense, and from a ST stand point, Chip WILL NEVER CARRY less than 3 TEs, and often I assume Chip will want 4 TEs…
Typically, some of the best ST players are FULLBACKS. We dont happen to believe in carrying any on our roster and i doubt that will change any time soon, so if your ST is lacking Fullbacks, TEs and LBs need to pick up the ST slack… if most ST have a fullback or 2 AS A KEY ST
Virgil can replace Casey and i expect his bruising blocking to improve enough to eventually take over for Brent when he moves on…. see no reason why we cant replace Casey wit Virgil, none whatsoever, unless you view Burton as this cant miss TE god who shouldnt have to compete for his roster spot
181 Bert's Bells said at 11:49 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Holy exaggerations! Burton was solid on STs in his rookie campaign. That's all he'll be asked to do as Casey's replacement.
He doesn't need to be "this cant miss TE god".
Sheez.
182 MattE said at 4:16 PM on February 12th, 2015:
I thought he was talking about Ladarius Green for a minute lol
talking about "THE HULK"!!!!
ya you make a good point about keeping JT but a lot of fans/talking heads out here dont think they can pull it off with the cap and DT is the def keeper. I live out here so I listen to their local talk radio a lot (as if that means anything). I personally think Virgil stays and JT walks, they paid out so much on that defense. They love Virgils blocking and JT kind of disappeared 2nd half of season. They have a lot of unrestricted FAs, I think they pay pot roast also. Nate Irving anyone? or any of that depth they have at lb. Some really good young promising guys there also, they are stacked at the position. I kind of agree with unhinged, not sure this team looks at TE much.
thanks for the intel… keep me posted please if you hear anything worth while locally about the hulks situation..
if this kid does hit the market, iw ould be shocked if we didnt make a serious offer…
how he fits with Casey and Celek doesnt even matter. soon we will need to reconfigure our TE, and all that really matters for our future is how the next young TE we sign meshes with Ertz, and stylistically i view them as really nice compatible tandem.
i dont neccessarily think we NEED to get a new TE, but wiht Celeks age, and the beating his body takes, and Caseys contract being close to done, if the eagles have a chance at get a young TE of our future, I assume they will try to pounce on it
for example… Julius nThomas is the much better player, but stylistically Virgil is way more suited to be paired with Ertz than the redundant Pairing of Ertz and Virgil.
burton isnt good enough to use as an excuse to not go sign a quality free agent at his position
oh man, I would not mind either of those guys, but Virgil with Ertz is def a nice fit. JT I think will be coveted by a lot of teams and may get a huge payday. You never know anymore also, teams seem to make the cap work somehow to their advantage and retain guys. Its still possible Virgil is the guy set free. Harder to find a talent like JT imo than a blocking, bruising TE.
well i didnt really ever expect them to b able to extend demaryious and Julius.. figured Demaryious owuld get extended and Julius would be franchised for a year before they would be ok with losing him… dont really see how Peyton can come back for another year and take away Julius for his last run aat a superbowl especially when welker is said to be seriously considering retirement
i assume that if they extend Demaryious and Franchise Julius, they have no choice but to let Virgil walk… of course if they are willing to lose julius now, that becomes a different story
wow, check this out. The Denver Broncos
have 18 players – or 34 percent of the roster – who will either be
unrestricted or restricted free agents as the team enters the 2015
season.
Demaryius Thomas, wide receiver
Wes Welker, wide receiver
Jacob Tamme, tight end
Terrance Knighton, defensive tackle
Rahim Moore, safety
Orlando Franklin, guard/tackle
Nate Irving, linebacker
Quinton Carter, safety
Virgil Green, tight end
Julius Thomas, tight end
Will Montgomery, center
Mitch Unrein, defensive tackle
Tony Carter, cornerback
Brandon Marshall, linebacker
Steven Johnson, linebacker
Aaron Brewer, long snapper
Paul Cornick, tackle
crazy… Packers have like 16 free agents too
if Peyton is coming back for one more year, they better figure out how to keep a good enough team in place around him, easier said than done with that list of contracts that need addressing..
yup, no doubt this is their last go at it so Elway will spend all he can. Osweiler is not exciting anyone.
He's not really young for one. He's as old as Jermaine Gresham who's also 26..who's also a FA.
lol, 24-26 is the age we try to sign in free agency..
193 anon said at 11:09 AM on February 12th, 2015:
rotoworld mentioning that owen daniels has spent his entire career with gary kubiak
I still think the'll let JT walk if they can't get a deal done with DT and have to use the tag that way.
I don't think you're saying anything about Green that Denver doesn't know.
you think peyton Mannings last chance at a superbowl run, and welker is going to retire, and you will take Julius Thomas away from him? rather than bite the bullet for 1 more year, smack him with the franchise tag at a TE price? are you trying to TALK peyton into retiring? I dont understand…
its easy to understand how you cant give 50mil to Demaryious and 50mil to JT….. but why wouldnt you pay to keep DT for the next 4 years across "Man Man" Sanders, with cheap young Lattimore stepping into the #3 and JT franchised for 1 season if you are going to go with another year of Peyton Manning?
Now if you are actually ready for the Manning era to end, and elways wants to talk Peyton into not coming back because he wants to start the Brock Osweiler era, than it absolutely makes sense to start shedding salary and go with the youth movement
but when we talk about the Broncos offseason, are we doing so under the impression that Peyton is coming back? or are we assuming the Osweiler era has just begun? that makes a pretty significant difference when trying to project their offseason…
If Peyton Manning comes back I dont know how you justify not bringing back JT on a 1yr franchise tag at TE money?
now if you are ready to start the Osweiler era, the entire offseason strategy of the vikings has to change. They will have to move away from all the high priced older players and make sure they retain all their young talent like Rahim, Virgil. They have a ton of free agents, they are going to have to lose atleast 1/3 of them, if not half of them… big big difference what happens if peyton stays or goes… if Peyton stays they may have to sacrafice some of the young talent Like Rahim and Virgil to keep some of the big veterans like Potroast and JT for another year… If Peyton doesnt comeback they can start losing guys like Potroast so they can keep young guys like Rahim and Virgil
196 Ray888 said at 10:26 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Sounds like an analysis that Howie would love and Chip would hate, preferring to go with his gut and/or football guys' judgement. it's unfortunate that the Eagles can't have both, with the analysis channeling the thinking and the gut providing the judgements that still have to be employed within that framework. I suspect not having both will produce a poorer result.
197 Ark87 said at 10:38 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Great break down, but as you mentioned, it's impossible to qualify the outcomes (as opposed to quantify). IE outcome A, supposing it is true, it has no practical way of manifesting, like Nick Foles Wins the job (if he doesn't beat out the rookie is he really a tradable commodity?), looks like a top 10 QB, we bench him for a rookie and he looks gold, but then Foles leaves in free agency, no player X. Just trading a good Foles for a promising half-season rookie, then we're back here next year hoping he's the real deal. Scenario A basically gets lumped into C and E for practical purposes (in the short term), but bolsters their probability.
I will say you've articulated your thoughts on Hundley previous to this article, and your work here has made me much more open to the idea. It will be interesting as the rest of us get a bit more up to speed on the red-chip players and when we get to our draft pick on draft day, is Hundley there and who player X is to everyone.
198 JJ_Cake said at 11:04 AM on February 12th, 2015:
I read through all the posts and didn't see anyone say that they watched a lot of PAC12 football this year. So I'll chime in on this, my Dad watched a number of UCLA games and his comment was that Huntley is a terrific athlete, but often didn't make quick reads and good decisions. He would make a lot of plays on his athletisicm. That works great at a college level, but is proven to not pan out in the NFL.
Use a lower pick on a prospect. 1st round is supposed to be for someone that has more than a prospect shot at starting in the NFL. Hopefully Chip and his staff get a good player at 20, or where ever we end up picking.
199 D3FB said at 11:07 AM on February 12th, 2015:
" I've done all the film work on Hundley, and Kyle Crab's write-up matches my thoughts on Hundley extremely closely,"
funny, you didnt hear me rave about erik kendricks consistently since september? how about Danny Shelton? never heard me rave about him?
201 Avery Greene said at 11:52 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Nope, I've only read! 🙂
ill have to use more capital letters and exclamation marks lol
203 mksp said at 11:53 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Hundley has four games available on draft breakdown.
He makes a lot of mistakes, but he also has a strong arm, can make all the throws, stands tall / climbs the pocket well, and has good athleticism.
There was not a lot of talent on the offensive side at UCLA, I'd say Hundley handled himself well, considering.
They are reporting that fletch is gone and nate is gone too (unless as ST/backup safety). so whole new secondary.
searcy and Davon HOuse… to pair with Nolan and Jenkins, while quintin rollins is being groomed on our bench
208 Nick C said at 11:41 AM on February 12th, 2015:
I would be very OK with this outcome
209 Greg Richards said at 12:03 PM on February 12th, 2015:
Searcy, House, and one other starting level CB. I don't consider House a sure-fire lock to come in as a starter. Get one other guy you're confident in of starting at one CB position and let House, Carroll, Watkins, Boykins, and potentially a draft pick fight it out for the other starting job.
i dont disagree. House has been on the bench behind sheilds and tramon Williams, but he has made steady improvement and I assume we will view him as one of the corners who will be a late bloomer when given an opportunity and who we think will play his best ball during the duration of his second contract…
Basically house is this years Nolan Carroll in the eagles eyes, i am assuming of course…
Personally, I would be jacked up if we signed Searcy, House and a quality sure fire starting Corner, im just not certain that the eagles will feel the same…. Im not 100% certain that we will sign two free agent corners.. i sure as hell wouldnt mind Maxwell, Searcy AND House signing, but Id be lying if I said i thought there was a good chance of it becoming reality.
damn sure wouldnt mind being wrong lol
We're signing Revis wow!!!!!!!!!
if this gets done before FA starts then I really like the new personnel guy.
213 eagleyankfan said at 11:29 AM on February 12th, 2015:
same as last year this time with Nate…
who is "they"? link?
215 anon said at 12:46 PM on February 12th, 2015:
csn philly via rotoworld
Amid "character concerns" surrounding his evaluation, TCU LB Paul Dawson decided to tell his own story to USA Today.
The story is very much an open book, as Dawson reveals the ups and downs during his time at TCU. One anecdote includes his position coach telling Dawson he is more of a role player than All-American, which the linebacker had circled to define himself. Questions have been brought up about Dawson's commitment to the game, stemming from those same coaches. He says he holed up in a room in the facility until midnight on multiple nights, later than coaches would stay. " I stayed, probably watched two hours a night, so that's about 10 hours extra a week. I put in that work, did what I needed to do, and it all paid off," Dawson writes. He did fail a drug test his sophomore year for Adderall, which was prescribed to him a few months later. Dawson then added "I was tardy a lot. I'd probably be a couple minutes late to that meeting or a weight-room session." He concluded by saying head coach Gary Patterson might call Dawson a "knucklehead," but with the caveat that-roto but the enture story is in USA today
hello Erik Kendrick after trading back to #24 in round 1 lol
217 GermanEagle said at 11:40 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Mike Mayock has my boy Kevin White ranked as his No. 1 WR in this year's draft, ahead of Amari Cooper.
I guess I am not the only one thinking White could turn out to become a poor man's ODB.
However a big head scratcher to me was the ranking of Bryce Petty ahead of Hundley at the No. 3 QB which I don't agree with at all.
lack of top end speed will probably hurt white..
im under the assumption that devante Parker will be the 1st WR drafted
219 philliesfan123 said at 11:51 AM on February 12th, 2015:
Here is a very interesting, and eye opening quote from Andrew Brandt. He is a long time, veteran salary cap manager, who offers great insights, into the scouting and business aspects of the NFL. His article and quotes, offer a insight into how difficult things may be going forward, within the Eagles front office. Given the – ( Roseman , Kelly , Marynowitz ), dynamic. Quote – " The best-managed teams, in my opinion, operate with all three prongs of the football operation—coaching, evaluation and cap/contract management—working in sync. All three must buy in to the team-building vision set by the decision-maker, a common example being to: draft well (scouting); develop young players (coaching); and identify and extend core performers prior to their free agency leverage points (cap/contract management). Like any successful organization, the best-managed NFL teams have skilled people who stay in their lanes, focusing on what they do best and allowing others to do the same. " That quote, just emphasizes, how crucial the Roseman / Kelly relationship is. For the FULL article, read it here : http://mmqb.si.com/2014/02/26/nfl-salary-cap-explained/
So here's a question, which I alluded to in a question on yesterday's comments.
So does this mean we hold Foles until 20th, and draft Hundley as a backup/future starter? It reminds me of the situation in GB, where GB took Rodgers late in the 1st round to sit behind Favre for a couple seasons. Granted Chip doesn't have a couple seasons, but could Hundley be viewed as a backup to cleanup mechanics, footwork, reads, etc., then take over as the starter maybe the following year?
Or asked a different way, if we draft Hundley is it plausible for him to start right away?
Depends on your expectations for the season.
He could start from Day 1 but he's going to be taking his lumps like all rookie QBs, you're probably talking about 6 or 7 wins.
If Foles gets hurt again I think he can come in and give you more than any backup QB.
Ideally you get to sit him for a full year, he's still 21, and really work on some stuff. I think we're in a unique situation where you aren't trying to justify starting Chad Henne or Matt Cassel until he's ready.
222 unhinged said at 5:01 PM on February 12th, 2015:
What is Hundley's "football intelligence quotient?" That is a Kelly favorite subject, but I have not read anything on Hundley's personality. Does he have high expectations for himself? Is he hungry for coaching attention? His team interviews may be large.
223 Mac said at 5:17 PM on February 12th, 2015:
Also big factors were repetitive accuracy and hand size.
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/08/29/brett-hundley-ucla-bruins
225 Bert's Bells said at 12:33 PM on February 12th, 2015:
What makes you say that Chip doesn't have a couple seasons?
Reid lasted 1000 years. As long as he's putting out a competitive team, Lurie will keep a coach for as long as the coach wants.
I think I'm going by expectations and his contract. He has 3 years left, and if we start Hundley in Season 3, he's in the last year of his contract.
Not that I don't want him here, just I'm not sure what Lurie/Roseman will be thinking 2 years from now. Andy went to the NFC Championship game from years 2-6 or 3-7 with a Superbowl appearance. If Chip is changing QBs, then I'm not sure if this is the success he will have.
Sometimes people don't have patience. For example, I'm looking at the Sixers and they are doing a slow rebuild, but I really think when it's all said and done that this is going to be a special team. The Eagles fans/media and possibly Lurie might not want to wait to see success.
What "success" means could be different from Lurie to the media/fans – but we won't know until we cross that bridge.
BTW – this makes sense in my head, so if you're confused or lost in what I'm saying, I'm sorry.
227 Bert's Bells said at 1:46 PM on February 12th, 2015:
I got ya and it make sense.
It seems like Lurie has a good deal of patience. If the Eagles go 6-10 for the next three years, Kelly gets the door. If they're going deep into the playoffs -regardless of QB -I think, Chip can write his own check.
228 botto said at 3:31 PM on February 12th, 2015:
yeah a little unfair since Reid had atop pick right away and scored number 5.
I think BB is right. Not to revisit old antagonisms again, but it was Reid who has somewhat handcuffed Kelly by that abysmal excuse for a defense. Lurie surely knows that Kelly is the better X's and O's guy, the better in-game coach, and the less dogmatic of the two. Lurie's comment about always looking for the right guy at QB may have sounded like a slight of Foles, but I thought it was an indication that Kelly is not expected to win a SB regardless of the talent on the field.
230 Stev Rubio said at 12:05 PM on February 12th, 2015:
Watching the Hundley hit tape in this post I saw some good and bad, often on the same throw; loved his shoulder-hitch pump fake, only to watch him throw into an area that had 2 receivers (and thus 2 defenders) in the same area. That's coachable. I am on the record as saying that I am not a Hundley fan as he is today (Arizona fan, so maybe that's it), but I believe the Chipper can do some great work with him if it shakes out that way.
231 Bradley Abraham said at 12:10 PM on February 12th, 2015:
Really enjoyed the scouting report format. Clearly it has its flaws and is no perfect means with which to make a decision but nothing is. A fun change up.
232 A_T_G said at 1:32 PM on February 12th, 2015:
233 makoto said at 2:50 PM on February 12th, 2015:
As Economics Ph.D> (but not specialized in game theory), I would say this is not at all game theory, or Prisoners' dilemma.
And just comparing the number of "good" outcome is totally wrong because you need to take into account the probability of each outcome. I assume the probability that we'll draft a franchise quarterback is really really low, although the return of this outcome is extreme high. On the other hand, I guess the probability of a random non-QB first round pick becoming a decent starter is not too bad ( at least better than drafting a franchise QB). AT the end, the comparison is risk vs return, or how much do you think is important to have a super-good QB. If Chip cannot win a SB without having a franchise QB, you have to take chances and this does not require weird analysis using boxes above. It's better to have 2 QB to get, rather than just one (which is the case when Foles is the QB and we draft non-QB in the first). If Chip can win with a decent QB, as long as we have good overall roaster, maybe it's better not to take too many chances with QB, and shift the strategy to a more safe (or non-QB) side.
As I've seen in 700 blog recently, the Eagles did well in 2013, and it is probably largely due to a superb play from OL and RBs. And there is a non-zero chance that we can win it all with that kind of roaster. So we could, alternatively, invest into OL (and/or D) and hopefully the team can do like 2013, even without improved play from QB.
234 bill said at 3:02 PM on February 12th, 2015:
Eh. Is it a game theory paper worthy of publication in a peer-reviewed journal? Absolutely not. Could it pass for a proposal for a game-theory paper? Amazingly, I've seen worse papers, let alone proposals.
Remember, this is a blog article, not an academic endeavor.
Tyler made it pretty clear that assigning numeric values would both increase the accuracy of the exercise and detract from the focus. He also stated in his conclusion that the exercise was more to foster discussion than to provide a mathematical proof of his opinion.
Being that my comment looks to be the 205th one, I think his exercise was successful.
236 D3FB said at 3:49 PM on February 12th, 2015:
Fair enough, I'm not a big game theory guy either. Perhaps "inspired by" would be a better choice of wording than "based on". My senior thesis was "Sports Franchise Relocation and Public Financing of Stadiums". I personally like using my background in economics to look at my passions through a different lens.
Could I have dug out my old intermediate micro textbook and found some equations that would better fit? Sure, but once again we come down the the issue of trying to numerically express subjective variables. If I was submitting it to get into sports econ grad school, it would be a totally different matter and a 30 page paper that took me 3 months to research and write, (instead of something I kicked around for a few days and then wrote in a couple of hours) but it was more of a fun way of exploring a common topic of discussion.
I thought it was provocative, and you convinced a few readers, judging by comments. One point that I would make: The implication of Chip taking Hundley in round 1 will be big negative on Foles' future as an Eagle. If Chip does not move up for MM, and takes a QB in round 3, much less pressure all the way around, and that is a pretty big consideration.
That's true but I think Chip has preached competition at every position. I'm sure Nick knows he didn't perform well enough last year to not have a serious competition. Plus I think knows that if he beats out Hundley, which admittedly he would be likely to do in year 1, Chip will play him, I think we saw last year he won't play you just because of draft status.
239 RobNE said at 5:04 PM on February 12th, 2015:
cool thesis. Is the conclusion that no city should publicly finance a stadium?
owning a sports team is such an insanely good deal. Totally not fair.
Basically. The conclusion is that leagues won't continue to expand because right now they always have a couple of open cities to threaten to move to. Oh you guys don't want to pay for our brand new stadium that I alone will profit from? I'll move the team to LA or London.
Claims that teams make about having a financial impact to a city are false. There wasn't a single academic study that found any correlation. They typically have < 100 full time employees, and the surrounding businesses that benefit such as bars and resteraunts 1. only do so for a 8,41, or 81 days a year and 2. The money being spent in those locations is discretionary income. Instead of it being spent at the movies or the bowling alley its just being spent at the game or surrounding venues instead.
Property value decreases because no one wants to live in the shadow of the stadium and deal with the added traffic. The case study was actually FedEx field. No one wanted the Skins to keep playing in RFK, but as soon as the new location was decided property value for like a 5 mile radius fell off a cliff.
Fianlly having a pro sports team has no impact on luring other businesses to a geographic location. Businesses determine where to headquarter based on things like labor pool and tax policy.
About the only arguments team have going for them are "physic value" that having a sports team helps unify a community and build a common bond. But at the end of the day $1 billion is a lot of money to spend just so you have something to talk to your neighbor about.
Game theory is about no win situations, hopefully we are not looking at that lol.
http://mmqb.si.com/2015/02/12/nfl-offseason-russell-wilson-andrew-luck-marshawn-lynch-tom-brady-peyton-manning-dez-bryant/
Brandy thinks DeMarco ends up back on the Cowboys (no!!). And that Peterson leaves the vikings. And Revis goes back to the Pats. All in all, I hope he is often wrong.
thinking the colts try to take a run at demarco… havent heard anything about it, just a personal assumption
would like to see him not on the Cowboys. Of course, no AP there either.
how about we take Shady's money and give it to AP?
lol you damn sure wouldnt hear any complaints out of me
if we redo Shady's deal to lower the cap hit and give more guaranteed money, wouldn't that same deal be in the range of AP's deal?
well AP is going to have to be signed to a new contract if he changes teams, I would assume that Demarco, Shady, AP, Beastmode would all sign similar contracts. I dont see one of those players being so much more valued than the rest that their would be a major discrepancy in the contract… If we cut shady and Sign AP, I would assume the money we give AP is similar to what some other team gives shady…. iF ALL those top RBs get a contract the same offseason probably wont see much of a difference in price, atleast thats my assumption…
would chip actually consider it? I dont know what to think… people make the dumb assumption that we cant pay Maclin and Shady when thats not true at all, and i doubt our decision makers even look at it that way. They look at how much we are spending on a position as a whole… So in Maclins case, its really not going to be a problem extending him, since everyone knows Coop is cut next year, Brad smiths contract expired, so they can pay Maclin whatever it takes since after this year, all the other WRs on our team will be on cheap rookie deals for the next few years. Heck we aint even paying first round money to any WRs.
so instead of our media worrying about looking at how paying Shady and Maclin fits, they should be concerned with if Shadys money is acceptable when combining What we pay sproles and Polks couple of hundred thousand dollars of chump change…
we arent paying sproles and Polk enough to really have to worry about needing to cut Shady IMO… would chip prefer a different high caliber RB like AP? or would he prefer the countinuity ofg year 3 in the offense for shady? Those are the real questions that need answering, not the moronic local media crap[ of can the eagles pay Mac and Shady…no clue what a WR has to do with a RB…. we have a blueprint for how much we are ok with spending on each position. If shady needs to be waived, it wont be because of maclin, it would be because we either think we can do better or his money is putting us way too much over the budget allocated for the stable of running backs, and i doubt thats the case with sproles contract and the vchump change we pay polk
ok so it's settled. Cut Shady and sign AP.
lol be an interesting year thats for sure…
cant decide what I like more:
1) Shady, Sproles-digity" and my main man polk
2) AP, Sprolesy(which would be his nickname if he were a flyer) and the battering Ram "Polk-Boogie"
on one hand stylistically it makes sense for your 1-2 punch to be two very different stylistic RBs which makes AP/sproles tandem interesting, on the other hand, throwing to shady and Sproles in the game at the same time, in theory should be dangerous even tho we didnt see as much of it as we all thought we would last year…
The Key is Chris Polk. Because you have a very capable BIG BOY RB in Polk, it allows us to go with two smaller RBs like shady and sproles. If we didnt have Polk, I would probably be more desperate to exchange shady for a bigger RB to pair with sproles… but Polk is our battering Ram, and allows us stylistic flkexibility with what types of RBs we can carry on the roster…Polk and Sproles allow us to go with whatever style RB we want as our #1…
I hate to admit this, but I often daydream about Shady having to miss 2-3 games just so Polk can really show what a beast he is. its crazy to have a 3rd string RB, who gives you the confidence of not having to worry about your starting RB getting injured for a month
I really really really like Chris Polk, and I dont at all mind seeing a Polk/Sproles tandem… of course Im not ready to trust that over the course of a 16 game season…im not ready to go there yet…. but if Shady has to miss, 2,3,4 games, I wouldnt at all be concerned about going with "Polk Boogie" aka Baby Huey and Sprolesy
Didn't Polk have to sit two weeks after that 102-yd run back? I like what he brings as well. But if AP comes here you don't need him.
you arent going to carry AP, Sproles and Shady.
Chris Polk is an extyremely under rated Running back, in terms of running, picking up the blitz and even a much better pass catcher than we would think from a guy with His size, not to mention he is a beast of a ST player, both as a return man, and tackling fools in kickoff coverage…and he makes chump change. I see no reason why we would want to lose Polk… people also exaggerate his injury problems i feel like. He does get injured often, but it hasnt really caused him to miss that many games really…alot of offseason injuries…
I've wanted to see more of him for 2 years now. I've lost faith it will ever happen.
we cant really ever count on seeing alot of him consistently over the course of a season as long as he is our #3 RB and the top 2 guys are healthy. There will be times when we have a big lead and can spend the entire second half running the ball where our number 3 can get some extended looks, but there has to be games where there arent many snaps available for the #3…. but, we cant just assume shady and sproles will always play 16 games, and if either had to miss a game, you can bet Polk is gonna be hype and go out and make the most of it and GET SOME…. as long as we pay Polk so little,. we have the luxury of having such a good 3rd RB that we dont consistently use….. i wouldnt be totally surprised if there comes a time when Polk is still a runningback for the Eagles and both shady and sproles are no longer here… not sure how many more years shady and sproles have in philly or their careers for that matter… for example, say 2015 will be the last season as an eagle for shady or sproles, I dont automatically assume that we will want to replace one of those backs as a our #2 RB, I could absolutely see us move Polk up the depth chart and view him as an in house replacement for whichever of the top 2 RB we lose first… no if sproles and shady are both going to be here for 3 more seasons, we probably wont b able to pay polk and keep him burried on our bench for 3 more years….
Very little usuage, and I wonder if part of that is b/c of his injury. IF we have him a full game or two games, would he be able to play games 3-4?
Obviously no AP/Shady Will say that AP has always used a lead blocker – not sure if that makes any different as to how we feel about him.
when I look at the top RB situation, seems like all the best RB with the exception of Jamaal Charles need to have their contracts addressed this offseason…
Lynch is in question
AP is in question
Murray is a Free agent
Shady at the very least needs to be restructure
those are 4 of the top 5 RB in the NFL, we can debate how to rank those 4, but one thing I think is pretty clear and its a pretty damn big deal… Shady probably has way more left in the tank than those 3 Beasts..
Dallas has run Demarco Murray into the ground, which may keep him from getting the top dollar he expects. He is going to get a lucrative contract, but he has zero chance of being the highest paid RB mainly because of the mileage on them tires..
AP we all know is this athletic freak who is superhuman. but he is still a 30yr old superhuman, with a reconstructed knee, who plays a physical punishing style of football on a team that made you their work horse because they had so little else around him….
Marshawn Lynch may be even more physical than AP if thats possible, and Marshawn Lynch hasnt missecd many games, his QB hasnt proven to be able to consistently win games without a Herculean performance from Beastmode, and unlike AP and Murray, The Beast has been playing deep into January for what 3 years now? two years in a row being a focal point into febuary, and t year taking them, to the conference title in late January.. n ot only hasnt he missed many games but the past 3 years he played around 10 Games more than most RBs who were able to play 16 games the past 3 seasons….often 3 PHYSICAL WARS per years against the uber Physical 49ers
shady is only 26 years old, he spent 1 season rehabbing an injury not taking hits, he spent a season or two with andy who you know aint running any RB into the ground any time soon with his pass happy crap, and he spent two years in chips spread, the first year he was barely ever hit by defensive lineman and linebackers, he lived in secondaries all day in 2013… This year was probably one of the more taxing seasons he has had on his body but he still didnt take anywhere close to the poundings that AP, Beastmode, Murray take in a regular season… Shady is younger than all of them, and has been hit much less than all of them…..
AP might be an upgrade to shady but for how long? 1 year? 2 years?.. keep shady in this offense, with sproles or polk as the #2 who you can trust to give the ball to and start to lesson shadys load these next few years and I wouldnt be surprised if SHady has 4 more years as one of the best RBs in the nFL if he stays with Chip Kelly…. where as those 3 other RBs, i wouldnt bet on having more than 2 seasons left at this elite level
did you just say the key in choosing between AP and Shady is Chris Polk? c'mon now.
huh? i said you can go with any stylistic RB you want as your #1 because you have sproles a Fast, burner RB and POLK a Big, Power Runner.. where as most teams want to make sure one of their top 21 RBs is a smaller fast guy, and 1 is your power back… we trust our #3 power back and we trust our #2 fast back sproles…so stylistically we can go with any type of RB as we want with our #1
so while normally you want your #1 RB to stylistically differ from your #2 back, we really dont have to worry about what type of RB our #1 is, because we already have a small RB we trust, and we are fortunate enough to have a BIG 3rd B that we can trust…. so your number 1 can be someonem similar to sproles, or it can be another Big back…
Polk is the opposite of sproles, allowing us to have whatever type of #1 RB we want…
258 Cafone said at 3:18 PM on February 12th, 2015:
Happy Black History Month from Riley Cooper and the Eagles
http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2015/02/happy-black-history-month-from-riley-cooper-and-the-eagles.html
259 GermanEagle said at 5:11 PM on February 12th, 2015:
I just laughed out loud when reading this article! If you remember my previous rants about the eagles calendar you will know why.
yeah that was silly, especially in Philly.
Methinks Domo is poking fun at some Eagles fans with his Gurley blurb:
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles/20150210_Will_Eagles_show_brotherly_love_.html
bett hundley? sure.
is he a better back up then sanchez?
What's everyone's feeling on Fole's ceiling? I'm putting my barometer above Dalton (nightmare scenario, team is good enough but QB is serviceable at best, although Dalton would be interesting with Chip)
and right below Flacco
(don't know why he has a good record, just does, but a lesser arm than Flacco).
Body type, movement, my head scratching, toughness, flashes of brilliance all remind me of Flacco his first 3 years.
264 GENETiC-FREAK said at 4:02 PM on February 12th, 2015:
Think Foles can be a Chad Pennington
Foles has much better arm strength than Pennington.
He could have been a Top 5 passer if not for injuries (didn't he get concussed or a busted leg on a cheap shot after the whistle that was never flagged) and he developed some more zip on his sideline passes/downfield throws.
But he didn't.
Pennington getting injured he started throwing ducks.. Think it was his collarbone or rotato cuff.. Something with his throwing arm.. Prior to injury he was a good QB.. I thought of Pennington was pretty accurate when throwing.. Something i see with Foles.. Not the strongest arm but you always get the feeling that his throws will get to the player
Could Foles go on a run like Flacco did?
HELLS YES!
Can we predict it and have the proper team built around him when he decides to have that run, no.
Flacco sucks, like Dalton, but during the playoffs he's played at another level. defense is also way better obviously on both those teams, they are primarily defensive teams. we aren't, so unless we want to be, which we won't under laurie, foles has to be better than both those guys.
269 Mitchell said at 4:16 PM on February 12th, 2015:
D3FB: perhaps you would compromise with Sambrailo in the first and Grayson in the 3-4th. I watched the game of Colorado State against Utah, that line got him killed!
How's Grayson on touch passes and intermediate, tighter window throws? I didn't see Senior Bowl, but he apparently earned some hype. It doesn't sound like he'll be around for the 3rd, but I like your thinking.
He threw a lot of screens at Colorado St. so he is very familiar with them. Intermediate throws could use some work but its not like you look at him and say there is a pass he can't throw. The biggest digs on him are his goofy delivery of the ball and his inability to go throw all of his progressions. He has a strong chemistry with one of his receivers (Higgins #82 Soph). They connect on a lot of deep balls and I couldn't but help but think about Grayson throwing those same bombs to Maclin.
272 ShadyCrockett said at 4:30 PM on February 12th, 2015:
This was fucking hilarious. Thank you for making my day 🙂
273 Greg Richards said at 4:38 PM on February 12th, 2015:
Damn, I've been slotting in Breshad Perriman to the Eagles in the 4th round in all my fantasy land made up mock drafts. That's based on his rankings by various sites including cbssports. Now, within the last day, all of the draftniks are saying he could go in the 1st round.
speaking of 4th rounds and QBs… Id LOVE to go with Foles, trade one of our 4ths for Glennon, and either Barkley or sanchez(depending on what chip thinks about Barkley these days)
Foles
Glennon would be ideal for me
Foles' job is safe if Glennon is behind him. I'd rather stick with Matty B.
276 Guest said at 5:10 PM on February 12th, 2015:
No way I would go with Barkley over Glennon. Glennon has shown a good amount of moxy out there and the kid can definitely play.
no clue why Lovie didnt give him a good look first before having to decide on spending a top 10 pick on a QB this year… feel like Lovie didnt even give the kid a chance and i thought he flashed enough talent to warrant a close look before deciding on spending a top 10 pick on a QB
Only pass i give is that their OC was on leave of absence. Glennon had plenty of starting changes this year and plenty of weapons (Vjax, Evans, ASJ, etc.) Cant blame him for wanting to drop that top pick on Winston. Undoubtedly that decision is also financial as Winsont is a hometown kid, etc. QBs fill stadiums.
i dont at all blame them for drafting a QB this year, they really dont have a choice… the worst team in the NFL, and instead of dedicating this entire season to doing everything possible to give Glennon the best opportunity possible to prove to you that you dont have to spend on a Top 10 pick this year on a QB, but they didnt. and they have no one to blame but themselves. half the time, lovie was dicking around playing Known career backups instead of Glennon…. if you know you arent going anywhere this year, you should have dedicated this entire season to putting Glennon in the best chance possible to prove to you that you dont need to draft a QB… they didnt, they gave the kid little continuity and had very little patience for him, and now they have no choice but to spend their top pick on a QB
chances are Glennon wouldnt have played well enough to keep you from drafting a QB, but now they are going to end up trading the kid away for a 4th round pick without ever really finding out how good he could become
Personally I would much rather spend a 4th on Glennon than Barkley, and stylistically if Glennon works out, he can be a perfect backup to Foles because they are so stylistically similar that if Foles gets hurt and misses time, the offense wont have to change at all for Glennon…
i dont know if Glennon will ever be a quality starting QB, but I do feel like he can absolutely be groomed into one of the better backups, and for a 4th round pick, i wouldnt mind finding out…
McCown had a better 2013 than Foles. Loive probably thought he'd be ready to rock given the latent on the roster — it's clear to me he doesn't want to rebuild. But I understand what you're saying about Glennon.
Same here in terms of looking to add that guy here.
Mike Sando of ESPN.com believes that Nick Foles would benefit from fewer pass calls in 2015:
The glass was half-full for Foles after he finished the 2013 season with 27 touchdowns and two interceptions. Perceptions will change after a tougher 2014 season. Foles saw his dropbacks per game climb from 27.9 in 2013 to 40.8 last season, the largest increase in the league for regular starters. [Colin] Kaepernick and [Jay] Cutler trended similarly, likely at the expense of efficiency. [Tony] Romo and Joe Flacco were among the quarterbacks who trended toward fewer dropbacks. Their efficiency improved.
Read more at http://www.phillymag.com/birds247/2015/02/10/theyre-saying-eagles-104/#00Kcp0Wi8YMXaRhQ.99
so basically we have a young QB who:
hasnt really ever cost us any games
who still hasnt lost two games in a row since joining Chips offense.
His first 24 games compare extremely favorably to the first 24 games of everyones favorite QBs Peyton,Brady, Brees, rothlisberger, rodgers
Has already shown extreme Physical and Mental toughness in his young career
a) Physical toughness: this years win over the skins easily one of my favorite Eagle QB performances of the past decade. The beating he took, yet he kept getting up and willing us to win, working well with Maclin with the game on the line…. of course everyone already forgot how he broke his hand as a rookie, and finished the game throwing bombs his rookie year with a broken throwing hand as if thats normal, no big deal right eagles "fans"? lol
B) Mental Toughness: Having the worst game of your life where this entire city crapped all over him, and he responds from a horrendous loss, a concussion, and an entire city ripping him as bad as any player has endured, and the kid travels westcoast to light the scoreboard up for 7 TDs in almost 3 quarters of play
First playoff game, battled through an ugly game, come crunch time he turned it up, brought us back, gave the team a win, all the defense needed to do was hold on…. that was the kids first playoff game…
Last year our OL was a friggin mess, It was so bad that shady McCoy the best back in the NFL couldnty do ANYTGHING… and Behind THAT line, in his what 15th-24th career games of experience we had to ask the kid to throw an extra 13 passes per game because the OL couldnt open a crack for a RB?………….
Nick had an Awesome 2013 season when he was behind a quality OL, and led us to a quality season while our defense was a few years away…Now This next year we go from top OL to one of the biggest OL messes in the NFL,and while playing behind that mess we ask him throw an average of 13 more passes per game and we were still able to win games with this kid, no matter how bad things got around him, not to mention he played 2-3 of those games after getting banged up badly. chip Kelly and Nick continue to lead the eagles to wins together…. Nick and Chip together are 14-4, and thats with a QB who is still years away from maturing into a veteran who will play his best football. Our QB isnt even close to being done growing as a QB, in this scheme and as an individual in this league.,..yet everyone treats this kid as if he is nothing…. smh its starting to become laughable.
Continue our special team excellence, Take that Next Giant step defensively landing us in the top 10… Make sure we can endure 2-3 OL injuries and still have a top 10 OL…
We can win a SB with Nick Foles. He wont carry us this year, but ben rothlisberger didnt carry the steelers to his first superbowl either, yet the win is still just as impressive……we CAN win a SB with Nick Foles, But we CAN NOT win a Superbowl with our current defense NO MATTER how much we improve offensively… i dont care what QB you get, Andrew Luck isnt ready to win a superbowl with our current defense, HOWEVER our defense probably isnt as far away as people think… 3-4 quality players and i dont see why this defense cant take the next step into the top 10, 2-3 OL additions and you can have a scary starting OL with scary depth….
if we dont waste assets on QBs, and dump our free agent money and draft picks into building the Defense and Special Teams, i have little doubts that chip and Nick can win with a quality OL, top 10 defense and top ranked ST…
if we put enough around Nick we can win with him… nothing we can do on offense tho that would allow us to win a superbowl with this defense… so Its pretty much a no brainer as far as im concerned, and id bet chip sees it closer to my way, then all those who treat NBick like he is stop gap arbage, as if they have seen the best Nick has to offer lol when he is still years away
TLDR.
I will say for hundley that Chip has only ever brought in Pac 12 QBs. He'll be in a unique situation to evaluate Hundley given his ties and understanding of the UCLA program.
Did you hear how the Browns to be QB coach (not hired yet) is the guy working with Mariotta right now? So while NFL teams can't even talk to players, the Browns QB coach to be is having private workouts with Mariotta.
Maybe Roger should focus on that a little instead of worrying about the shield.
286 Javi Echie said at 5:08 PM on February 12th, 2015:
Its a loophole that Goodell really cant put forth discipline. The guy is not yet hired by the browns so he is free to help tutor Mariota as a "QB coach" until he officialy signs a contract with Cleveland.
its really not a big story, Still a huge chance he wont be drafted by Browns anyway so whats to work on, certainly not the browns vaunted O scheme. Anyone see they put Riley Cooper in the pic on their calendar for February, black history month. Oops, nice work. Maybe this is old news, I just saw it.
http://www.csnphilly.com/blog/700-level/whoops-riley-cooper-adorns-eagles-calendar-during-black-history-month
it's about evaluation not that the Browns will definitely draft him. We'd like to work with Hundley for a few weeks one on one, right?
I know it's a tough loophole to close, but if everyone knows this is the QB coach they are hiring, these shenanigans should be stopped.
Right I get that, still dont think its that big of an advantage. Its one guy you might have a chance to draft. Its def shady but seems rare, not sure how they can fix that.
If you're not cheating or at least bending the rules, you're not trying.
The bigger scandal is that the Browns are NFL franchise.
Mike McCarthy stripped of play calling. How the mighty have fallen.
I think McCarthy made that decision himself. No way of knowing for sure.
You're absolutely correct it was a self made decision. Apparently after his horrific play calling in the NFC championship he relinquished his play calling duties and plans to have a bigger say in special teams and defense. Basically he is a smarter Jason Garrett now.
That is part of it but I also think part of it is he wanted to increase his offensive staff's perceived responsibilities so they would have more opportunities for job advancement.
I figured it was his job security (see jason garrett).
Not working well for Seattle OC
I just have fundamental problems when a HC is that bad at making optimal decisions. I'm not saying you have to get every marginal decision correct. But when you don't even seem to understand the basic issues I question how you can game plan, design plays etc. I just lose all faith.
I can't stand how coaches with super elite talent are deemed great coaches, so I guess I kind of like seeing him dropped a peg. I know that's immature of me, but what can I do.
Caveat: some coaches with super elite talent (Belicheck, etc.) are great, don't get me wrong.
i lost respect this year for McCarthy, Aaron Rodgers and Jordy Nelson…. they played so scared it was pathetic…
its one thing to play to your strengths, attack opponent weaknesses, but when you take it to far and play like a coward,
i dont care how good you are, its Tough to beat Seattles defense. Best Defense in the past decade IMO, to think that you could avoid half the field all game and have a shot at beating that defense was a joke. They gameplaned out of fear and didnt even give themselves to win the game… when you concede half the field to the top defense of this decade, you are a coward and you might as well just stay in your locker room and refuse to take the field..
the baddest QB on the Planet, SB winning coach and QB, with a WR they just gave a BIG Contract too, gameplanned to not even give themselves a chance because of a gutless gameplan of avoiding Richard sherman at all costs… I have seen QBs stay away from Deon, I seen QBs stay away from Revis, but that was the first time I ever saw a Team just cut the field in half and concede the right side of the field to your enemy all together….
and jordy Nelson also deserves some blame for being a punk. Brandon Marshall talked about how he didnt talk to jay cutler and Shannahan all week because he was so mad they were trying to gameplan to avoid throwing at Nnamdi and Brandon wanted to so desperately get after him.. Imagine trying to tell Micheal Irvin that he was going to avoid linning up in front of deon sanders at all costs? Heck Imagine trying to tell Dez Bryant that their opponent has a corner back who is so good that Dez has to stay away from linning up against him?
I iwll never forget the day the great Rodgers shut down the entire right side of the field because of a 200lb corner. its just not something I ever expected to see from such an elite, SB champion/competitor
Rodgers is still an all time elite QB, but I will NEVER again make the mistake of putting him ahead of Tom Brady. NEVER AGAIN!! I dont even care that Brady beat the seahawks, Im genuinly more impressed by Brady throwing an INT against Sherm, atleast trying to go after him and keep the defense honest than i respect Aaron Rodgers not throwing an INT against them but avoiding the entire right side of the field… These two games wont define Rodgers and McCarthy, but those two games IMO will define why I rate Brady slightly higher than Rodgers on the all time list from now on..and it has NOTHING to do with the superbowl win
301 Bleedgreen said at 8:46 PM on February 12th, 2015:
I've thought this for a long time – Mccarthy is a reincarnation of Andy Reid except Mccarthy was able to win a super bowl because he has one of the most gifted qbs of the generation. I never liked Mccarthy and I never will.
TLTR
what does TLTR mean?
too long to read
and TLDR stands for Too Long DRunk?!
306 mksp said at 8:20 PM on February 12th, 2015:
Too Long Didn't Read.
Usually written as "tl;dr".
TLTR isn't exactly a "known" acronym.
So can I ask for a refund for my Eagles calendar 2015 now?
Eagles saying that a 3rd party puts the calendars together, and they never see them.
I read that. That article also spoilt my surprise of the month July!! I think I should sue them….
310 Joe Webb said at 8:52 PM on February 12th, 2015:
What your chart is missing is an athletic QB who can make all of throws.
At least Hundley's college still has a football team.
Someone edited Michael Oher's wikipedia page to show him as signing with the Eagles. Any idiot can edit wikipedia so it's probably untrue. Sometimes though they get edited by someone in the know and it has legit info early.
I once edited John Wayne's Wikipedia page to include false, yet amusing, information and took a screen shot of it for the amusement of some students. My changes lasted 15 seconds before they were corrected. Wikipedia is pretty reliable.
People care about John Wayne.
Good point.
Sandra Bullock heard that, and is not amused.
https://38.media.tumblr.com/7201260ec9e7896c4c6c2f5a9788a933/tumblr_mmavrlAbbB1r3d4eto1_500.gif
317 ICDogg said at 12:46 AM on February 13th, 2015:
When that move happens, at least we won't be blindsided.
318 Junkyard Post said at 10:32 PM on February 12th, 2015:
Enjoyed the format, like original thought.
319 Iggles Blitz » Blog Archive » More On Hundley said at 11:57 PM on February 12th, 2015:
[…] hope everyone enjoyed Tyler Aston's take on UCLA QB Brett Hundley. Very good […]
320 Brett77 said at 12:16 AM on February 13th, 2015:
Not a fan. Hundley has terrible pocket awareness and throws terrible on the run.
321 370HSSV 0773H said at 7:49 AM on February 13th, 2015:
Is the kid smart enough to read NFL defenses? I guess we'll find out during the combine where they'll measure and weigh his brain.