Second-Round Selection of Ertz Indicates Eagles Are Set at Quarterback
Unpredictability. It's what happens when a brand-new head coach is conducting his first draft.
It looked like the Philadelphia Eagles were thinking about need over the draft board when they took Lane Johnson in Round 1, but then, with the 35th overall pick, Chip Kelly and Co. added a new offensive toy at a position that already seemed set in place.
Zach Ertz is an extremely intriguing prospect. He's been compared to Heath Miller and even Jason Witten. That's probably why the Eagles had him high enough on their draft board to select him here despite the fact they already have three solid players—Brent Celek, James Casey and Clay Harbor—capable of playing tight end.
Do you approve of the Eagles taking Zach Ertz in Round 2?
This is another sign that Kelly is shaping this offense in a very deliberate manner. It could mean Celek's days in Philly are numbered, and it could mean we see a lot of unique packages involving both Ertz and Casey, who was signed as a free agent in March.
Oh, and maybe most importantly, it's a sign that Kelly isn't happy with the quarterbacks in this draft. He's now passed on Geno Smith, Ryan Nassib and Matt Barkley twice, and Philly only has three picks between now and Round 7.
Even if they're happy with the secondary that they revamped in free agency, they'll still need to draft some defensive players eventually. That leaves little to no room for quarterback help, which means Philly is going to be patient and wait for a signal-caller if feels strongly about.
That could be someone already on the roster, but the odds seem to be stacked against Michael Vick, Nick Foles and Dennis Dixon. This will be a prove-it year for those guys, but if none suddenly emerge, the Eagles will undoubtedly be thinking about quarterbacks one year from now in Round 1.
The good news is that if none of the current Eagle quarterbacks deliver in 2013, they'll probably have a high enough pick to address that need in 2014.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?