Boykin traded!

[old duke]

Almost as much as Le'veon Bell?

 

[eaglesnut]

Don't you think that Chip and Billy discussed this? C'mon Man!

Do I think they discussed that Sheppard would tear his ACL? No, I don't think either of them predicted that.

If you are trying to insinuate that Davis traded Boykin and not Chip then you would be flat out wrong. Chip is the GM. Did they have discussions about the effect that would have on the defense? Of course they did. But them talking doesn't change the subtractions from the roster. Really an odd response from you.

 

[CSB]

Ouch... Letting Boykin go is really going to sting the Eagles now!!!

Yep, no way they can recover from the loss of a 6th round draft pick...

 

[old duke]

Do I think they discussed that Sheppard would tear his ACL? No, I don't think either of them predicted that.

If you are trying to insinuate that Davis traded Boykin and not Chip then you would be flat out wrong. Chip is the GM. Did they have discussions about the effect that would have on the defense? Of course they did. But them talking doesn't change the subtractions from the roster. Really an odd response from you.

Yes, E-Nut, I am odd.. I mean that Chip would cross-check his decisions with the position or coordinator coaches before making moves, but for sure the decisions are definitely his, that's all. I never would imply that someone else makes the decisions. Chip is in control - just the way he wants it.

 

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

Almost as much as Le'veon Bell?

Not having a player for 1 game vs. the whole season is completely different.

 

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

Yep, no way they can recover from the loss of a 6th round draft pick...

Didn't know he was only a 6th Rd pick... Guess its not that bad.

Saw you guys signed a CB today. Marc Anthony.

 

[I miss Dawkins]

I don't think chip sees nearly as big of a difference in players that we do... because at the college level he is use to people "stepping up" and he believes strongly (too much for me) in scheme over skillset. It's going to be his biggest learning curve at the PRO level, and something he might never get right. But I don't think he is worried at all, and it's why he didn't mind getting rid of boykins. Lets see what happens when the secondary is bottom 5 yet again, whether he learns anything or not.

 

[DutchBird]

I don't think chip sees nearly as big of a difference in players that we do... because at the college level he is use to people "stepping up" and he believes strongly (too much for me) in scheme over skillset. It's going to be his biggest learning curve at the PRO level, and something he might never get right. But I don't think he is worried at all, and it's why he didn't mind getting rid of boykins. Lets see what happens when the secondary is bottom 5 yet again, whether he learns anything or not.

You do realize that with the salary cap and current pay-scales for various players it is impossible to not rely heavily on scheme sets, I hope. I would argue it would be impossible to field a competitive team otherwise.

In fact I would argue that it is the exact opposite of what you state - it is in college where skill set is able to dominate schemes, mostly due to the massive differences in talent. In fact, the reason for Kelly's emphasis on scheme is that because of lack of talent (the recruiting power of the big schools/divisions) he had to rely on scheme in order to catch up.

You have seen it in other sports as well - there are very few sports where the teams relying mostly on talent are able to dominate the sport, or even win in the first place (assuming there is not a MASSIVE difference pay-scales/salaries spent by the various teams). About the only one I can think of where that is the case would be baseball.

 

[eaglesnut]

Yes, E-Nut, I am odd.. I mean that Chip would cross-check his decisions with the position or coordinator coaches before making moves, but for sure the decisions are definitely his, that's all. I never would imply that someone else makes the decisions. Chip is in control - just the way he wants it.

The point that you are missing (purposefully ignoring?) is that Chip wanted that 5th rounder more than he wanted Boykin. If one of his reasons was that Billy said that Sheppard could do the job, it's still a shortsighted move by Chip and careless in regard to his teams overall depth.

Chip tried to strengthen the bottom of the roster (extra 5th round pick, and extra DB that would have been cut) instead of strengthening the top of the roster (Boykin). That's a mindset that is at odds with winning a championship. The bottom of the roster will keep you competitive. The top of the roster will win it all for you.

 

[PhillyGreen]

The point that you are missing (purposefully ignoring?) is that Chip wanted that 5th rounder more than he wanted Boykin. If one of his reasons was that Billy said that Sheppard could do the job, it's still a shortsighted move by Chip and careless in regard to his teams overall depth.

Getting a draft pick for a player that was not going to resign is not shortsighted. That is thinking about the future. There are many things that are happening behind closed doors we do not know about. Boykin may have been increasingly vocal about his desire to play on the outside and did not like that he was not getting reps. Yes Chip did say to him that he would get a shot but that was before they signed Maxwell and the draft. So we have additional players that are now on the team that appear to be the obvious choices for the outside based on coaches perceptions.

Chip tried to strengthen the bottom of the roster (extra 5th round pick, and extra DB that would have been cut) instead of strengthening the top of the roster (Boykin). That's a mindset that is at odds with winning a championship. The bottom of the roster will keep you competitive. The top of the roster will win it all for you.

I think Boykin was a good corner but he was not a stud either. The trade did not really suprise me because and I think it is a good trade. Depending on his playtime this could be a 4th round pick.

 

[eaglesnut]

Getting a draft pick for a player that was not going to resign is not shortsighted. That is thinking about the future.

Ok, perhaps narrow-sighted is a more accurate way to put it. As in he was focused more on what he could get, than what he was giving away. He gave away more than just Boykin, he gave away depth, he created more risk in 2015.

I think Boykin was a good corner but he was not a stud either. The trade did not really suprise me because and I think it is a good trade. Depending on his playtime this could be a 4th round pick.

If we lose the Super Bowl to the Steelers in 2015 it will have been an absolutely horrible, shortsighted, narrowminded, complete botchery of a trade.

 

[djm]

If we lose the Super Bowl to the Steelers in 2015 it will have been an absolutely horrible, shortsighted, narrowminded, complete botchery of a trade.

Since we got to the Superbowl without him why would this trade be a complete butchery?

He is a good player but he wasn't going to be here next year. If you told them they were going to lose a DB to an ACL a week later they may not have done it. They possibly still could have. The only way to tell if it was a mistake will be during the season. I just have to assume they know more than I do. hehe

 

[old duke]

I'm psyched, E-Nut! Eagles/Steelers in the SB! My son-in-law and I can feud over this (a life long Steeler fan).
If trading Boykin to the Steelers for onl;y 1 4th round pick, enables them to go to and win the SB, then I'm happy for them. One thing is for sure, the Steelers have a weaker secondary than the birds, Boykin will be their best CB. Whoo Hoo!

 

[I miss Dawkins]

The bottom of the roster will keep you competitive. The top of the roster will win it all for you.

BINGO

 

[I miss Dawkins]

You do realize that with the salary cap and current pay-scales for various players it is impossible to not rely heavily on scheme sets, I hope. I would argue it would be impossible to field a competitive team otherwise.

In fact I would argue that it is the exact opposite of what you state - it is in college where skill set is able to dominate schemes, mostly due to the massive differences in talent. In fact, the reason for Kelly's emphasis on scheme is that because of lack of talent (the recruiting power of the big schools/divisions) he had to rely on scheme in order to catch up.

You have seen it in other sports as well - there are very few sports where the teams relying mostly on talent are able to dominate the sport, or even win in the first place (assuming there is not a MASSIVE difference pay-scales/salaries spent by the various teams). About the only one I can think of where that is the case would be baseball.

no one said schemes are not important. no reason to go to the other extreme. My concern is Chip is depending "too much" on it and not giving skillset adequate due.

It's not all about pay. But given that the "ENTIRE" cap era we have not once been remotely close to cap hell, lone less had to do ANY creative fanagalings the way many teams do, that subject just holds no water with me.

The concern is that CK is use to turnover, as most college players get 2 years of actual playing time. You can't create a winning team if you have that type of turnover at the PRO level.

Combine with that the huge culture difference between kids in college and men making millions.

If you honestly don't see that difference, there is nothing I can say to show you. This may very well be CK simply cleaning house. He has not yet brought someone in, started them, and gotten rid of them with any major impact to the team. Most seem to be Reid's players. So a case can be made for cleaning house. But lets see how long this lasts. He might get the players he is after, and all begins to build fine. But if he maintains this type of loss of top players, that begin to become his own players, it is going to just be a loss of chemistry and continuity. And that will become a huge problem, and will create a ceiling on Ck. We are not there. It's simply something I'm concerned about, and would fit, if this continues for much longer.

 

[eaglesnut]

Since we got to the Superbowl without him why would this trade be a complete butchery?

There was no reason to help the Steelers yet we did. If we got there without him we could have got there with him. And if we got there with him, the Steelers may not have got there without him.

 

[djm]

There was no reason to help the Steelers yet we did. If we got there without him we could have got there with him. And if we got there with him, the Steelers may not have got there without him.

I get what you are saying but there are too many if's and but's. Maybe we don't get there if he stays. It only takes one play sometimes just ask Malcom Butler.

I like him and and was not happy when he was traded. I understand the reasoning and it is a hole during the season I will be pissed. I am just giving Chip the benefit of the doubt. I can't imagine we were depending on a 6th round pick to replace him. At best, a 6th round pick could make the team and contribute in some way.

 

[DutchBird]

no one said schemes are not important. no reason to go to the other extreme. My concern is Chip is depending "too much" on it and not giving skillset adequate due.

I find it somewhat of an odd argument, since the knock Chip apparently has against Boykin is that his skill-set is not (or no longer) suited to playing outside (something Boykin desires).

It's not all about pay. But given that the "ENTIRE" cap era we have not once been remotely close to cap hell, lone less had to do ANY creative fanagalings the way many teams do, that subject just holds no water with me.

Huh?

Yes, the Eagles have been able to avoid cap hell (somewhat) by deftly extending the right players, accepting mediocre talents, and on occasion massive luck with draft of alleged mediocre FA signings. O yeah, and completely ignoring positions like RB, WR and TE for the better part of 15 years or so. Kevin Curtis and James Thrash being the 2nd biggest FA signings for offensive skill positions over that period is telling enough.

I also do not remember a slew of talents coming up for extension at the very same time during that period. And that is happening now. Mind you, if Bradford pans out he needs to be paid, Cox, Thornton, Logan and possiby Curry will need to be paid as well. Kendricks' contract is also coming up.

The concern is that CK is use to turnover, as most college players get 2 years of actual playing time. You can't create a winning team if you have that type of turnover at the PRO level.

Combine with that the huge culture difference between kids in college and men making millions.

I definitely see your point here. Thing is, IMHO, that what happened this off-season is what most of the time happens in the first two years of a new regime. Kelly took the approach of first looking at what was already in place, and throwing out the worst apples (DRC, Nnamdi) at in his first year. Then got rid of one bad apple the next (DeSean), and based on results of his first season, it seemed that the core of the team was definitely in place. Last season showed he was mistaken - the consistent failure of the DB's as well as the offense throughout the season made clear that a considerable overhaul was needed on both sides of the ball. Something which he did.


I also think that Chip saw this as the right moment to get rid off, or let go players who would not or were extremely unlikely to fit in his longer term plans (pretty much beyond this season) - even if talent/scheme/attitude wise they might still fit the team (somewhat). Boykin, Cole, Mathis and Herremans all fit that mould - the latter three getting older and unlikely to keep a high level of play for many more years. And if he would be able to get something of return for those players, the better (as with Boykin and McCoy).

Note also - IMHO in support of this assumption - that Chip's first action when taking over was interviewing Reid's coaching staff and give them the opportunity to keep their job (rather than the usual outright dismissal).

If you honestly don't see that difference, there is nothing I can say to show you. This may very well be CK simply cleaning house. He has not yet brought someone in, started them, and gotten rid of them with any major impact to the team. Most seem to be Reid's players. So a case can be made for cleaning house. But lets see how long this lasts. He might get the players he is after, and all begins to build fine. But if he maintains this type of loss of top players, that begin to become his own players, it is going to just be a loss of chemistry and continuity. And that will become a huge problem, and will create a ceiling on Ck. We are not there. It's simply something I'm concerned about, and would fit, if this continues for much longer.

I see the difference and your point, I just think that it is far too early to come to that conclusion. It is not as if Kelly has not tried to replace talent with talent, or go for talent upgrades this off-season. I also think that Kelly is smart enough to be well aware of the potential problems if he keeps turning the roster over in a major fasion every off-season.

 

[I miss Dawkins]

I see the difference and your point, I just think that it is far too early to come to that conclusion. It is not as if Kelly has not tried to replace talent with talent, or go for talent upgrades this off-season. I also think that Kelly is smart enough to be well aware of the potential problems if he keeps turning the roster over in a major fasion every off-season.

This is why I didn't accuse him of this, but said it is a back burner concern of mine. I agree it's too early. But my concern is about equal with your assumption that CK is smart enough to realize he can't win if we do keep turning the roster over. That's the entire point. So it seems you understand this as well. I truly hope CK does, and I completely agree, it's too early to know. Time will tell.

 

[Iron Eagle]

Brandon Boykin - Pittsburgh Steelers - 2015 Player Profile - Rotoworld.com

Brandon Boykin is expected to open the season as the Steelers' No. 4 cornerback.
He's been leapfrogged on the depth chart with William Gay and Antwon Blake expected to be the outside corners and Cortez Allen manning the slot. It's a sorry group and an extreme disappointment for Boykin, who was acquired from the Eagles on August 1 in exchange for a fifth-round pick. Boykin was routinely one of the top slot corners in the league in Philadelphia the past couple seasons. Sep 8 - 8:21 PM