Philadelphia Eagles: Dynasty In The Making?

[Kiltman]

6 hours ago, childofpudding said:

In five years, we might be talking about how the Eagles bankrupted their draft abilities by trading up to get a QB who was never truly the same after his knee injury. You just never know. Then again, we could definitely be talking about an Eagles dynasty at that time. It's just way too early to be talking about it four months after they won their first SB in franchise history.

How did they bankrupt themselves?

They essentially traded two 3rds when you cancel out the 1st and 4th rounders that exchanged hands  and that they were able to rob the Vikes for a 1st for Bradford (who they only could trade because of Wentz) otherwise he'd walk or stay on a new contract.

 

I agree it's too early to declare them anything close to a dynasty though yeah

[Danger]

5 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

He’s been a good one, not a great one. He’s routinely been behind guys like Belichick, Schneider, and Thompson (until recently). Behind Ozzie and Elway too.

LMFAO

There's no one who can manage and manipulate the salary cap like Howie. Howie has had to build this team up TWICE after Chip Kelly sabotaged this roster's future in one single season. 

Does EVERY move Howie does work out? No. But no GM is perfect. I'm not even suggesting he's the definitive #1 out there, but to say Elway is clearly better than him? That's a good one. When has Ted Thompson done anything to suggest he has been "Great", rather than "good"? 

You're basing those GMs solely off the performance of the teams they had on the field, not what they were able to do to assemble those teams with what they had available to them at the time of taking power.

[childofpudding]

11 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

Not really, as to how he phrased it. It could have been that he meant, "We really have no way of knowing at this point. Let's see how things play out." Just didn't come off that way.

And I'd say the Seahawks had some prolonged playoff success, just not SB wins, wouldn't you? 

Fair enough on your first point. On your second, yes, the Seahawks have definitely been successful. Not a dynasty, though.

[lancerman]

Patriots have had Belichick and Brady. So far they won 3 in the 2000’s and 2 in the 2010’s 

[childofpudding]

5 hours ago, Kiltman said:

How did they bankrupt themselves?

They essentially traded two 3rds when you cancel out the 1st and 4th rounders that exchanged hands  and that they were able to rob the Vikes for a 1st for Bradford (who they only could trade because of Wentz) otherwise he'd walk or stay on a new contract.

 

I agree it's too early to declare them anything close to a dynasty though yeah

You shouldn't use draft capital gained from a different trade to skew the amount of draft capital used in the trade for Wentz. The Eagles had a bunch of draft capital before the Wentz trade that they could have used to get other players. The Eagles used #8, #12, #64, #77, and #112 to get Wentz and a #139. Thus far it certainly looks like it will work out, but if Wentz drops off due to injury or other factors, we could be looking at the move in hindsight as one that hurt the Eagles' ability to build its team elsewhere. I hope Wentz recovers fully, he's already shown he can be one of the best QBs in the league and he's a lot of fun to watch.

Again, this is just a hypothetical hindsight discussion. Back in 2010, a lot of people thought the Packers would become a dynasty. Injuries to Rodgers and others, as well as other factors, have prevented that. Talking dynasty with the Eagles four months after their first SB ring, with a QB coming off a late-season ACL tear, is premature.

[Soko]

5 hours ago, Danger said:

LMFAO

There's no one who can manage and manipulate the salary cap like Howie. Howie has had to build this team up TWICE after Chip Kelly sabotaged this roster's future in one single season. 

Does EVERY move Howie does work out? No. But no GM is perfect. I'm not even suggesting he's the definitive #1 out there, but to say Elway is clearly better than him? That's a good one. When has Ted Thompson done anything to suggest he has been "Great", rather than "good"? 

You're basing those GMs solely off the performance of the teams they had on the field, not what they were able to do to assemble those teams with what they had available to them at the time of taking power.

Sigh. 

Before I get into the whole shtick, I’d like to highlight that I’m not anti-Roseman. My initial post had to do with the fact that Schneider/Thompson were thought of as top 3/5 GMs in 2010/2013, as Roseman is thought of as an elite one now. To use Thompson and Schneider’s inability to sustain a roster after a championship as proof that the Eagles have a “much better chance” is just using hindsight.  

Roseman’s pretty firmly behind Elway, thought that was a widely accepted opinion but *shrug* (I’ll even ignore the fact that you’re ignoring the context of the quote, and that I was clearly talking about Roseman’s track record prior to this year). Elway resurrected the McDaniels-Broncos to the point where a Tebow led squad won a freaking playoff game. He built a GOAT offense and a GOAT defense with multiple SB appearances (1-1). He’s not the capologist Roseman is, but his finds in FA and the draft were special. 

Thompson wasn’t ahead of Elway/Schneider/Belichick for me because he refused to utilize FA (mostly). He built perennial playoff teams (something Roseman hasn’t done yet) mostly through the draft, where earlier in his career, there really wasn’t anyone better at identifying talent in college. 

So yeah, I’ll highlight again (since you’ll likely just take a snippet of the post to respond to) that I’m not taking shots at Roseman. The team he built this past season (really 2ish offseasons) puts him in the conversation amongst the top. But prior to this year, he was firmly behind Elway/Schneider IMO and behind Thompson for a time as well. Which isn’t even a shot, since if you read the post before, the conversation was about the fact that both Schneider and Thompson were thought of as top tier when their teams had dynasty windows. That was the only point.

[Kiltman]

Just now, childofpudding said:

You shouldn't use draft capital gained from a different trade to skew the amount of draft capital used in the trade for Wentz. The Eagles had a bunch of draft capital before the Wentz trade that they could have used to get other players. The Eagles used #8, #12, #64, #77, and #112 to get Wentz and a #139. Thus far it certainly looks like it will work out, but if Wentz drops off due to injury or other factors, we could be looking at the move in hindsight as one that hurt the Eagles' ability to build its team elsewhere. I hope Wentz recovers fully, he's already shown he can be one of the best QBs in the league and he's a lot of fun to watch.

Again, this is just a hypothetical hindsight discussion. Back in 2010, a lot of people thought the Packers would become a dynasty. Injuries to Rodgers and others, as well as other factors, have prevented that. Talking dynasty with the Eagles four months after their first SB ring, with a QB coming off a late-season ACL tear, is premature.

but why not? does it not make sense to put aside the similar data that "cancels" eachother out to get to the "true" trade?

Like in the grand scheme of it all it really wasn't that much, certainly not close to bankrupting them.

I think both ways of looking at it are valid for different reasons

[Kiltman]

16 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Patriots have had Belichick and Brady. So far they won 3 in the 2000’s and 2 in the 2010’s 

yea, and the pats never had quite this much intraconference competition either

The Falcons/Saints/Panthers, The Vikings/Pack/Lions, The whole Nfc west, and then while I don't think they'll be playoff teams the rest of the east will provide tough games as they usually do...repeating or getting another in these 4 years is a hard enough prediction let alone dynasty

[Elky]

17 hours ago, Sean Casto said:

 

Omg this takes me back.

[43M]

Eagles are currently set up the best for a dynasty... Especially coming off a Super Bowl... But come on, how many times has this topic come up over the years about a certain team? Teams like the Chargers, Packers and Seahawks were all being heavily touted as future dynasties... And it never happened. That doesn't mean the Eagles won't pull it off, but as someone else stated, let's at least wait till they win a second one before we start thinking about a dynasty. As of right now, the Eagles are just a very good team who won one Super Bowl.

[Danger]

The Eagles did not use #8 AND #12, they used #12 THEN #8. 

[childofpudding]

1 hour ago, Kiltman said:

but why not? does it not make sense to put aside the similar data that "cancels" eachother out to get to the "true" trade?

Like in the grand scheme of it all it really wasn't that much, certainly not close to bankrupting them.

I think both ways of looking at it are valid for different reasons

Yeah, I see your point. But for me, the true trade is what they spent to get Wentz. It was draft capital they could have used elsewhere, but decided not to. I thought it was too much at the time, but have since changed my mind. Or rather, Wentz has changed my mind. But the Bradford trade still doesn't alter what they actually paid for Wentz.

[BlaqOptic]

19 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

The...Giants? 

I think that this kind of makes my point even more valid...

In 2007 the Giants won the Super Bowl as a Wild Card beating the heavily favorited Cowboys, Packers, and Patriots along the way. The following season they improved and went 12-4 in a very tough NFC East. They had all the murmurs of a team based on this stretch of 35 games to seem like a dynasty with a young QB at the helm. And it never materialized. Sure, they won a Super Bowl 3 years later, but ultimately this "dynasty" never materialized.

[BleedTheClock]

16 hours ago, Kiwibrown said:

0%? Derek Carr went under market value imo. He could of asked for much more. Cousins may of been able to get a bigger contract, but his is a very clever deal. 

If Wentz as a top 5 qb goes for 30 million per season or a little higher when his contact comes up that is under market. With rapid inflation at the position I think that in 2021 qbs could be going for a shade under 40 million per year. 

Ok it has a 3% chance of happening.

[J-ALL-DAY]

They will certainly have a good shot at winning another ring in the next few years. The team is deep with a bunch of studs in all phases of the game and still have two more seasons before bringing out the brinks truck for Wentz. The NFC is going to be a bloodbath so it is hard to predict a dynasty for any team in that conference. That division is also going to be competitive with the Redskins having a strong draft plus bringing in Smith and the Cowboys having Zeke for the entire season. The Giants may bounce back as well. So yeah, agree with the others that predicting a dynasty for any team is a tough task, but this team may have the best shot to pull it off.