1. And in case your math isn’t very good (which it isn’t), simply judging the recent draft trade history offers us the undeniable proof that the Eagles DIDN’T give up too much in the trade up, from #8 to #2.

    I’m using the 2012 Washington/St Louis trade model. It resembles the Eagles/Browns trade like no other:

    In 2012, the Washington moved up from #6 overall to #2 overall to draft RGIII. They gave up three 1st rd picks (2012, 2013, 2014), as well as their 2012 2nd rd pick. That’s THREE 1st rd picks and ONE 2nd rd pick to move up FOUR spots in round 1.

    According to the NFL draft trade chart, there’s a 200-point difference between the #6 position in round 1 and the #8 position (equivalent to a mid-3rd rd pick).

    So, for the Eagles to move up from #8 to the #2 position they only gave up TWO 1st rd picks (2016, 2017) and a 2nd rd pick in 2018 (which will likely resemble a distance closer to a 3rd round pick than the early 2nd round pick that the Rams received from Wash in 2012 — for comparison’s sake).

    The 4th round picks exchanged in the Phi/Cleve deal are a wash, and the 3rd rd pick that the Eagles surrendered compensates for the 200-point distance (2012 Wash/Stl trade model). So buddy, it sounds like you and Sashi Brown are the ones left wearing the egg on your face. These are the facts of the trade, so please, be my guest…refute the evidence.


    • Let me seeeeeee… How would I refute that evidence?
      How did giving all that up work out for Washington? Oh that’s right Sashi Brown has RG3 in CLEVELAND now. So in addition to giving up a bunch of picks to get RG3, they lost out on the picks AND RG3, when he didn’t pan out for them.
      So if THAT trade is your only reference point, you only drive home my point in regards to the risk of what we gave up.


  2. Nice try. I’m not trying to attack you more than I am trying to correct you. Not that you need correcting. This is your blog and you should do and say as you please.

    But, you were brash in your declaration and you pretty much invited any challengers…so, I challenged, and you lost — plain and simple.

    NFL decision makers aren’t afforded the luxury of infusing 20/20 vision when making heavy draft trades, such as the trade of discussion. Fans have that luxury. So does the media. The fact of the matter is, few teams trade out of early positions in rd 1, and fewer trade down more that a couple of spots.

    In order to evaluate what “fair compensation” is, they must rely on history. The 2012 trade that I referenced is the trade model that Cleve/Phi used no doubt, the only difference is that Sashi Brown and the Cleveland brain trust had a lower grade on Carson than we did — clearly.

    It’s now a wait-n-see ordeal. But, there’s no denying that the young and inexperienced Sashi Brown took less then fair market value. THAT is what’s irrefutable here.


    • If Wentz becomes a perennial Pro Bowler I’ll admit I was wrong. And be glad to do so!
      However, if he turns out to be anything short of that, then BOTH of these fire sale trades will become the precedent for why you shouldn’t give up so much, to move up anymore.
      Right now history has the model you cited, as 0-1. But we’ll do it your way and give it 5 years. 😉


  3. I understand how you feel about the trade — I really do. But, your feelings about the trade and whether or not you agree with the decision to move up to #2 to draft Wentz is an entirely separate issue from the parameters of the trade itself.

    The headline of “Howie Roseman got hosed” infers a very specific point of view to your readers: Howie Roseman gave up too much in compensation to move up six spots, from #8 to #2, in the draft — nothing more and nothing less.

    You follow that up with, “You want proof that we over paid? How about words directly from Cleveland’s rookie GM Sashi Brown?”….You then proceed to offer Sashi Brown’s OPINION on the trade as your undeniable burden of “proof” — which is laughable to me, for obvious reasons.

    At no point do you ever offer your readers factual evidence of Howie giving up too much in the trade — you merely state the opinions of two people: Yourself and Sashi Brown — which is fine, but it’s a misleading diversion on your part, in my opinion.

    The real facts (or “proof,” as you called it) of the trade have been stated by me — and it didn’t take heavy investigating or insider information to discover, either. My point in all this is this: In the future, you gotta clean up your headlines if you expect all visitors to connect with you — and more importantly, if you expect everyone to take your article seriously.

    I love your passion, and I’m a Philly native myself, so I mean no disrespect. But, the fact of the matter is that Howie actually hosed Sashi Brown, not the other way around. It’s your right to disagree with Howie’s decision to move up, but just because you and Sashi feel that Howie gave up too much doesn’t make it factual. It’s just your opinion.

    The only way to judge this trade in the “right here and right now” stage of it is by examining the cost of the exchange, in comparison to similar trades in recent history. And by that measure — which is the only measure that bears any “proof” of who got fleeced — Howie Roseman was masterful and victorious. Time will tell us the rest though, so I’ll be back.

    Take care.


    • We got hosed.
      Trading picks is trading potential for potential. A pick’s position does not guarantee that the player selected with that pick will be successful. This is why players like undrafted Jason Peters can long be considered the best in the league at their position, while a guy like Tim Couch can bomb. A pick represents nothing more than a lottery ticket. It’s an opportunity to strike gold.
      It’s just simple math. Aside from the 1st round swap, it was a 4 picks to 1 trade. Or put most simply, 4 lottery draws to 1. The Browns got 4 of our chances to strike gold in exchange for their 1. And if you want to go by the NFL’s ridiculous pick valuation metrics, in the future our chances to strike gold have gone down significantly for each year through 2018.
      The whole thing wasn’t set up to just move up for the sake of moving up. The Eagles didn’t just want to “have” the second pick. The whole point of moving up was to take Wentz with the pick. If he doesn’t pan out, then the move up wasn’t worth it. And by pan out the idea isn’t that he’ll be a career .437 – .468 QB. He has to be a consistent winner at the NFL level.
      Like I said at the conclusion of my article and I’ll say again here: “if Wentz doesn’t become the best Eagles QB of all-time, Howie Roseman got hosed. By a rookie no less.”


  4. I understand wanting to have the last word, so good for you. Fans will be fans though, and thats why they don’t understand much of anything when it comes to grasping front office moves. You are a fan, so I didn’t expect you to see what is so very obvious in your flawed writing process. Head is in the clouds…


    • If you read the ABOUT section, it clearly states that I’m a FAN and I don’t pretend to be otherwise.

      That same section says that this is a FAN-SITE, so if you have an issue with fans giving their two cents, then I’m not sure why you have a blog and who your audience is supposed to be.

      Now you run along and play journalist if you like. Maybe some brilliant non-fan is looking to discuss football with you. 😉


  5. I don’t feel Wentz needs to break passing records in order to justify this trade. I feel he does need to become one of the better players in the league over the next ten years though. When it comes down to it we shall see how much this trade is going to hurt when we see which team gets better due to the players selected. Eagles gave up five picks and got two in return. This year hurt most, because they also gave up their 2nd for Bradford. You mentioned that Wentz needs to be better than McNabb. Well it made me ask myself knowing what I know right now about how McNabb’s career turned out would I have made Wentz deal for McNabb? The answer is absolutely yes! Judging by your comment it implies that you don’t think even McNabb would have been worth that much. All in all what did they give up? Middle of the first round guys for a chance to nab their franchise quarterback. Watching this team muddle through other teams reject former first round quarterbacks and middle to late round starting quarterbacks since McNabb’s departure makes me see why they were desperate to make this move. If it works they have solidified the position for the next decade. If it doesn’t they start over, Pederson, and Roseman get fired. Whatever happens they just better give this kid every opportunity to succeed.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. You are 100% right about my willingness to have made such a trade for McNabb (and thus Wentz). I wouldn’t have. If I wanted to pick a QB high in the Draft here’s what I would have done:

    1) I’d admit (internally not publicly) that we were rebuilding. (After McNabb was drafted the team was in fact rebuilt, and it was the only sound thing to do.)
    2) Every starting veteran that I knew I was cutting at seasons-end, would be benched to get a long look at any young player NOT in a contract year. (This way we would see if we’d been overlooking any gems.)
    3) I would never publicly acknowledge that we were tanking on purpose, but as the Owner I’d make it clear that the head coach’s job was not on the line. (This would make sure the coach still had juice in the locker room.)
    4) I would instruct the HC to immediately fine and suspend unruly veterans. (This way everyone would respect the authority of the coach when the rebuild started.)
    5) At seasons-end we’d have a high pick in the Draft without sacrificing a single one in the future.(Moreover, we would have high pick in EACH ROUND, not just the first)
    6) Prior to cutting them I’d attempt trade away selected veterans to stockpile 3rd and 4th round picks not in the current year, but in the future, since teams are much looser with surrendering picks down the road. (Also if we’re successful, we’d be picking late in rounds with our natural picks.)

    I am never a fan of mortgaging the future for the present. In most teams cases it doesn’t work out and in fact can prove disastrous for a long period of time. Take a year to tank and retool, as opposed setting yourself up as a patsy for years to come. This way you do everything on your own terms.


    • I don’t feel that the Eagles gave up enough to consider this mortgaging the future for the present. Perhaps that’s what the Redskins did for RG3, but in that span they have actually been to pla playoffs more than the Eagles. By they way I would consider giving up two first round draft picks for a player in his prime who is ready to start right away as more of a mortgage the future for the present type of move and that’s precisely what the Eagles did to get Peters. Again this is a move if you asked me would I do over the answer is emphatically yes! Wentz is more of a move to mortgage the future (not really in my opinion when you look at the overal haul for the Browns compared to what other teams got) for the future. Wentz likely won’t play until he’s ready. This move is absolutely a gamble so it makes people uneasy. This guy comes from a small school so people can’t really gauge him. His scouting reports have been all over the place. As a risk this is a high one. I get your concerns. I also see this team isn’t going anywhere with retread quarterbacks. I also know this owner isn’t interested in watching his team tank although there were multiple opportunities to do so in the past in order to solve this QB situation long ago. The Eagles want to have their cake of getting their franchise QB and to pretend to be a contender at the same time. We shall see how it all plays out.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I agree that this team won’t go anywhere with retread QB’s. This website is loaded with evidence of that view. if you recall from Yardbarker days, I also thought Kevin Kolb was was their attempt at trying to get a franchise QB on the cheap. Franchise QB’s don’t generally come cheap. That said there are ways to control the cost. A one year tank would do it, but as you said the ownership wants to have it cake and eat it too.


    • Funny you mentioned the tank, because if you remember from the YB days I thought the Eagles should tank. Especially the Dream Team year when they were horrid the first half of the season only to win their final games to go 8-8. Almost everyone was against my stance then. People even questioned if I were a fan back then. I’ve come to learn this fanbase will it support a tank. That’s why Bradford is back. He leads people to belive (despite evidence to the contrary) the Eagles “have a shot” to win the division. People don’t like the rebuild word. They aren’t patient enough to trust the process. Look no further than the Sixers. Phillies fans bailed as soon as the team started to suck, and who can blame them? We know how much it costs to go to the games. Eagles games can put a serious dent in the pocket. Who wants to pay all that money to watch a 1-15 team? I am a proponent of the tank. Sometimes a purge is needed. Hit the reset button and start over. The thing is whomever you choose he better be the right guy or you could end up as the Bowns. This still could be the Eagles fate. It now all depends on Wentz.

      Liked by 1 person

    • You’re right about this fan base not supporting a tank. That’s why I said that I wouldn’t publicly acknowledge it. If I was the owner I would just orchestrate a really bad season, get what we needed, and go from there.
      Better that you take a one year dip than the 7 year spiral we’ve been on since 2009.




Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s