Mailbag: Better Eagles defense, 2022 or 2023?

Otherwise, the Eagles have better depth at corner this year, and McPhearson's added responsibilities in the slot should be an upgrade over Scott.

CJGJ led the NFL in interceptions, and his production will be difficult to replace, even if I think Edmunds is a perfectly cromulent starting NFL safety. Otherwise, I like 2023's combo of Blankenship/Brown more than 2022's combo of Epps/Blankenship. The 2023 version has much bigger upside. But we'll get to more on the safeties in a second.

Overall, I'd score it like so:

• MORE ON THE EAGLES
• Eagles' Jalen Hurts, Sixers' Joel Embiid nominated for 2023 ESPY awards
  
• Eytan Shander: The Eagles' offensive line is a model for sports in Philadelphia
  
• Creating the best $15 Eagles lineup
  

• Edge: As good as 2022.
• Interior DL: Worse, but with some upside.
• Linebacker: Worse.
• Cornerback: Same at the starting spots, better depth.
• Safety: Probably a little worse, but still not bad at all.

Personnel-wise, it's hard to make the argument that the Eagles' defense looks better on paper than it did a year ago, though it is still very good. I also believe there was addition by subtraction with the Cardinals taking Jonathan Gannon off of the Eagles' hands.

Question from @StokesTheWriter: What's the most overstated concern about the Eagles' upcoming season?

I kind of like what the Eagles have at safety. 

1. Terrell Edmunds is an experienced vet with good size/athleticism measurables.
2. Reed Blankenship was ready when his number was called last season, and he played well.
3. Sydney Brown might take a bit to get acclimated to the NFL, but his athleticism and passion for the game are both intriguing.

And then you have guys like Justin Evans, who played a role for the Bucs last season, and K'Von Wallace, who I know some folks here have long since soured on, but who really wasn't that bad last season and can be a perfectly fine fourth or fifth safety.

I've seen some call for the Eagles to sign or trade for a veteran safety. If they can add a difference maker and the cost isn't too high, then yeah, sure, I think you do that at any position. But I don't think they need to add a starting safety because there's some perceived hole there. That group is fine.

Question from @astorer5: With the Eagles' defensive line depth and linebacker weakness, does it make sense to use Nolan Smith as more of a SAM, Parsons-like role instead of lining up at Edge?  Can he drop into coverage?

Smith will play the SAM spot, just like Haason Reddick, and yes, part of the responsibility of the SAM linebacker is to occasionally drop into coverage. The Eagles didn't ask Reddick to drop much into coverage because it would have been insane to not have that guy rushing the quarterback on most passing downs.

But, yes, Smith dropped into coverage at Georgia, and showed that he can be effective.

I think the question is probably whether or not Smith can play one of the off-ball linebacker spots, such as at the WILL. My guess is that yes, if the Eagles asked Smith to play off-ball linebacker, he is gifted enough physically and mentally that he could probably figure it out, but it might take some time. I don't think they'll want to go down that path, as he is more valuable to the defense long-term as a guy who can get after the quarterback.

Question from @JonStinnett: I am optimistic about Jordan Davis’ upside but I’m curious how you think we will measure his impact because I doubt that QB hits, pressures or sacks will fill his stat sheet. Is it just an eye test?

There are a lot of people covering the team in this city, and if Davis is playing notably well or notably badly, it doesn't matter if he's playing a position where stats don't tell the whole story. Someone will see it, and show it. For example. 😉

Question from FeisterJoe: Do you believe the combo of the Eagles' talent, the vets who may hang it up after this year, and Jalen Hurts' ridiculous work ethic is enough to overcome the Super Bowl loser jinx?

The last time the Eagles lost in the Super Bowl their season had bad vibes from the start with all the Terrell Owens nonsense, and then it went completely sideways after they suffered a lot of injuries and had to play Mike McMahon at quarterback. I don't believe that this team has a T.O., and I like their chances of staying competitive for another Super Bowl trip even if there are significant injuries because the roster, for the most part, has good depth.

I also kind of feel like the "Super Bowl loser jinx" maybe isn't as jinxy as it was in the past. The last 15 years:

In the last 15 seasons, only four teams that lost the Super Bowl the previous year did not make the playoffs, and only two had losing records. Two of those four teams that did not make the playoffs would have gotten in as the 7 seed under the new playoff format.

Five teams made it back to the conference championship game, and one won a Super Bowl. I think the 2023 Eagles will be fine.

Question from @PhillyPMC: I've heard pros say you can tell pretty quickly whether a rookie has it or not. I know it's early, but any rookies that have stood out for you, either good or bad?

I heard a story one time about Andy Reid quickly identifying that Danny Watkins was going to be a bust. But, yeah, I think that exists in any profession. I can recall in my sales career way back in the day knowing immediately if the bosses had hired some terrible salesman/saleswoman. It's really not that hard. We could watch Clayton Thorson spray the ball all over the practice field and know that he wasn't going to make it, or watch DeVonta Smith get open all day and diagnose that he would be good.

Comment from @turncoat4ever: It would make sense for Jack Driscoll to win the RG job, be a decent starter, and let him go for a comp pick. Driscoll is likely an average NFL OG or RT. Better pro tape than Andre Dillard.

As much as I welcome you fine folks taking an interest in comp picks, I don't think the Eagles are rewarding starting jobs to guys to boost their value in free agency, thus potentially leading to a slightly higher comp pick.

Question from @TheAndrewRush: If you eat a burger and for buns it has two grilled cheese sandwiches, did you just eat three sandwiches, or one awesome one?

So basically this?

What would be the three sandwiches here?

1. Grilled cheese No. 1.
2. Grilled cheese No. 2.
3. Just the burger and other fixin's (lettuce, tomato, onion, etc.), but that part doesn't have it's own bun.

We can't really call the third part a sandwich on its own, right? It's one sandwich. Jimmy hath spoken.

Question from Jimmy, to the readership: I was thinking about visiting different Jersey shore towns throughout the summer, riding my bike on them, and then grading each place, much in the same way that I grade press box food spreads. Would this be of interest to you as a reader?

Jersey shore biking reviews?

I should note that "No" is going to have to win by a wide margin for me not to do this.