QB measurements at the combine

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

Another thing to think about, ie the trade back into the first scenario. I'd say teams have a pretty good idea that we have a shithole crater at Qb and are going to be looking for one in the draft.


Passing on one at 1 and hoping to trade back into the first if a run on QB's happen is a recipe for getting ass raped on a trade back up. Teams will know we are desperate to get back up to that spot to get our guy, could end up costing more than we thought.

With this draft having alot of depth at spots we need, could backfire.

No question.

It could go really poorly.

Like I said, I don't think I'd have the juevos to try it, but it's an intriguing thought. What if you could get the Eagles to send Foles and Maclin as the trade down? No picks, just Foles and Maclin. You get your WR for the deep game, you get your 'fallback' QB in Foles and you don't have to worry quite as badly about getting raped in a tradeup for Manuel; either he falls to you or he doesn't. Worst case scenario is you have a different strong-armed passer in Foles to roll with. Best case is you end up with two aggressive downfield passers, a WR that helps you make that offense go and 2 of the most impressive physical specimens in the league on the same D-Line.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

No question.

It could go really poorly.

Like I said, I don't think I'd have the juevos to try it, but it's an intriguing thought. What if you could get the Eagles to send Foles and Maclin as the trade down? No picks, just Foles and Maclin. You get your WR for the deep game, you get your 'fallback' QB in Foles and you don't have to worry quite as badly about getting raped in a tradeup for Manuel; either he falls to you or he doesn't. Worst case scenario is you have a different strong-armed passer in Foles to roll with. Best case is you end up with two aggressive downfield passers, a WR that helps you make that offense go and 2 of the most impressive physical specimens in the league on the same D-Line.

Thats a different situation all together then. I don't think they would ever do that, but yeah, I'd probably take my chances there.

I could potentially come out of the first 2 picks with Floyd, Foles, Maclin and Manuel? Yeah, I'd pull that trigger.


Although, I think if they make the move for Foles, they probably wouldn't look at another QB that early.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

Thats a different situation all together then. I don't think they would ever do that, but yeah, I'd probably take my chances there.

I could potentially come out of the first 2 picks with Floyd, Foles, Maclin and Manuel? Yeah, I'd pull that trigger.


Although, I think if they make the move for Foles, they probably wouldn't look at another QB that early.

If Chip Kelly likes Geno, I think he'd gladly surrender 1 year of Maclin and a 4th round QB with limited mobility for him.

Granted, it depends on the Eagles really liking Geno (and the Raiders not taking Floyd at #3), but it sure seems feasible to me.

Easiest route would be to take Geno at 1.1 and if the Eagles like him enough to come to us, and Floyd is still at 4, you have 15 minutes (IIRC) to get the deal done.

And suddenly we've had the most interesting draft the team has ever had, IMO.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

If Chip Kelly likes Geno, I think he'd gladly surrender 1 year of Maclin and a 4th round QB with limited mobility for him.

Granted, it depends on the Eagles really liking Geno (and the Raiders not taking Floyd at #3), but it sure seems feasible to me.

Easiest route would be to take Geno at 1.1 and if the Eagles like him enough to come to us, and Floyd is still at 4, you have 15 minutes (IIRC) to get the deal done.

And suddenly we've had the most interesting draft the team has ever had, IMO.

Yep.


Although I gotta say, I'd be extremely disappointed if we took a QB at 1, then traded him away. Would be fitting for the Chiefs fans though.

TBH, if I'm the Chiefs knowing how QB needy I am and another team is willing to trade up for a QB, I probably re think my eval on said QB.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

No question.

It could go really poorly.

Like I said, I don't think I'd have the juevos to try it, but it's an intriguing thought. What if you could get the Eagles to send Foles and Maclin as the trade down? No picks, just Foles and Maclin. You get your WR for the deep game, you get your 'fallback' QB in Foles and you don't have to worry quite as badly about getting raped in a tradeup for Manuel; either he falls to you or he doesn't. Worst case scenario is you have a different strong-armed passer in Foles to roll with. Best case is you end up with two aggressive downfield passers, a WR that helps you make that offense go and 2 of the most impressive physical specimens in the league on the same D-Line.

That would definitely be interesting.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

No question.

It could go really poorly.

Like I said, I don't think I'd have the juevos to try it, but it's an intriguing thought. What if you could get the Eagles to send Foles and Maclin as the trade down? No picks, just Foles and Maclin. You get your WR for the deep game, you get your 'fallback' QB in Foles and you don't have to worry quite as badly about getting raped in a tradeup for Manuel; either he falls to you or he doesn't. Worst case scenario is you have a different strong-armed passer in Foles to roll with. Best case is you end up with two aggressive downfield passers, a WR that helps you make that offense go and 2 of the most impressive physical specimens in the league on the same D-Line.

Yeah, and the problem is that you end up with Manuel in that situation.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Yeah, and the problem is that you end up with Manuel in that situation.

If you have Manuel, you also have Foles.

Manuel gives you the Culpepper/Big Ben massive upside option, Foles gives you a tolerable fallback position if Manuel doesn't slide or doesn't develop.

Though I understand this scenario is completely unpalatable for folks that don't like Manuel. I'm just not in that group - I kinda like EJ.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

If you have Manuel, you also have Foles.

Manuel gives you the Culpepper/Big Ben massive upside option, Foles gives you a tolerable fallback position if Manuel doesn't slide or doesn't develop.

Though I understand this scenario is completely unpalatable for folks that don't like Manuel. I'm just not in that group - I kinda like EJ.

I'd like to see us make a play for Foles, assuming the cost is realistic. We have to throw numbers at it, and I'd rather have Foles than Smith or Flynn.

But I want Smith or Barkley at the top of the draft.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

If you have Manuel, you also have Foles.

Manuel gives you the Culpepper/Big Ben massive upside option, Foles gives you a tolerable fallback position if Manuel doesn't slide or doesn't develop.

Though I understand this scenario is completely unpalatable for folks that don't like Manuel. I'm just not in that group - I kinda like EJ.

I can see the Manuel Big Ben comp, and being a pretty big fan of his I woudln't mind that.

But again, I'm not sure that they would fit into the offense Reid wants to run.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

I can see the Manuel Big Ben comp, and being a pretty big fan of his I woudln't mind that.

But again, I'm not sure that they would fit into the offense Reid wants to run.

It all depends on what we think he "wants to run".

Did he want to run the short/quick passing offense he ran during his early years in Philly or did he have to run it because he didn't have the downfield WRs?

Did he want to run the downfield, balls/bust offense he ran in Philly during his later years there or did he have to run it because Vick doesn't have the consistency to operate a short passing game.

He has two clearly different offenses that he's run with some success in the past. About the only constant has been his utilization of the runningback and it doesn't matter who's under center for that - Jamaal Charles is the evolutionary Brian Westbrook.

I'm just reluctant to cite 'his' offense at this point because frankly, he's done a lot of different stuff as a HC.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

It all depends on what we think he "wants to run".

Did he want to run the short/quick passing offense he ran during his early years in Philly or did he have to run it because he didn't have the downfield WRs?

Did he want to run the downfield, balls/bust offense he ran in Philly during his later years there or did he have to run it because Vick doesn't have the consistency to operate a short passing game.

He has two clearly different offenses that he's run with some success in the past. About the only constant has been his utilization of the runningback and it doesn't matter who's under center for that - Jamaal Charles is the evolutionary Brian Westbrook.

I'm just reluctant to cite 'his' offense at this point because frankly, he's done a lot of different stuff as a HC.

Sure. He seems to do a great job putting his philosophy around the players he has. I'm just basing that on that he had the most success early.

I fully expect him to go with what we have and what he thinks they fit best with.