Three free agent signings who make sense for the Eagles prior to training camp 39%

By Jimmy Kempski14%

7/16/2026, 10:12:40 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Negativity Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 15% saturation with 102 hits. Analysis detected 935 faulty-reasoning hits from 680 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.7% and a BS Rank of 39% (13,349 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 61.00% of the article peer group.

Each year before the start of training camp, Howie Roseman tends to sign a veteran player to help bolster the team's depth. 
Obviously, it's July, so it's not exactly as if there are a bunch of world-beaters available. 
Recent examples include EDGE Ogbo Okoronkwo (2025), iOL Nick Gates (2024), OT Dennis Kelly (2023), and CB Steven Nelson (2021). 
So, let's guess on a few guys who makes sense during this absolutely dead period of the offseason, yeah? 
Cool. 
DL Brandon Graham (38) 
Let's start with a layup. 
Graham came out of retirement and played in the Eagles' last 10 games of the season (playoffs included). 
He only played 120 snaps (12 per game), but was a productive enough role player, making 8 tackles (2 for loss), and 3 sacks. 
He also filled in at times on the interior when the Eagles were thin there due to injury, and he played surprisingly well. 
Graham is a great locker room guy, he played hard last season, and the Eagles could use more depth both on the edge and on the interior of their line. 
The hang-up is that teams around the league just aren't going to pay much money to guys who are barely cracking double-digit snaps, and for all Graham has done for the organization he rightfully doesn't want to play for veteran minimum-like pay. 
So, we'll see if the two sides can find some middle ground. 
iOL James Daniels (28) 
Daniels has played eight NFL seasons after he was the 39th overall pick in the 2018 NFL Draft. 
He played four seasons in Chicago, three in Pittsburgh, and then last season in Miami. 
When he was a prospect coming out of college, the Eagles brought him in for a pre-draft visit. 
Daniels has appeared in 91 career games, with 85 starts. 
He has been a Week 1 starter every year he has been in the NFL, with the exception of his rookie season. 
He has also been a pretty good earner over his career. 
After he left Chicago to play for Pittsburgh, he scored a three year deal worth $26.5 million. 
When he left Pittsburgh to play in Miami, he got another three-year deal worth $24 million. 
However, after suffering a season-ending Achilles tear after four games in 2024 and another season-ending pectoral injury after 3 snaps in 2025, Daniels is going to have to rebuild his value if he wants to continue playing in the NFL. 
Though an injury risk at this stage of his career, Daniels is a versatile interior lineman who has played at least 500 snaps at every interior position: 
LG snaps C snaps RG snaps 
1,626 508 3,437 
He also has ideal athleticism, or at least he did when he competed at the 2018 NFL Combine: 
Daniels would provide some insurance on the interior in case Cam Jurgens and Landon Dickerson continue to struggle with their various injuries. 
K Daniel Carlson 
Carlson has been the Raiders' kicker since 2018. 
He was named Second-Team All-Pro in 2021 and First-Team All-Pro in 2022. 
He is 37 of 51 (72.5%) from beyond 50 yards over the course of his career. 
He's 12 of 19 (63.2%) from beyond 50 the last two seasons, with a long of 60. 
By comparison, Jake Elliott is 5 of 15 from beyond 50 the last two years. 
Carlson connected on 85.0% of his field goal attempts in 2024 and 81.5% in 2025. 
Those were down seasons for him. 
Elliott also had down seasons in 2024 and 2025, but was worse, at 77.8% in 2024 and 74.1% in 2025. 
In fairness, Carlson's home stadium in Las Vegas was a dome, and Elliott kicks in a much more difficult environment in Philly. 
But, I mean, it feels a little ridiculous to just hand Elliott the kicking job after two downright bad seasons. 
At least give him some competition. 
Follow Jimmy & PhillyVoice on Twitter: @JimmyKempski | thePhillyVoice 
Like us on Facebook: PhillyVoice Sports 
Add Jimmy's RSS feed to your feed reader 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 3.9%PhillyVoice: 2.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.8%PhillyVoice: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Jimmy Kempski: 2.7%PhillyVoice: 3.0%Availability Heuristic9.4%This article: 4.0%Jimmy Kempski: 1.3%PhillyVoice: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic4.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.7%PhillyVoice: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 1.4%PhillyVoice: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Jimmy Kempski: 1.8%PhillyVoice: 4.3%Framing Effect2.1%This article: 6.2%Jimmy Kempski: 0.4%PhillyVoice: 0.6%Loss Aversion6.2%This article: 0.9%Jimmy Kempski: 0.7%PhillyVoice: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.9%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.4%PhillyVoice: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.8%Jimmy Kempski: 4.9%PhillyVoice: 4.7%Optimism Bias1.8%This article: 8.2%Jimmy Kempski: 1.0%PhillyVoice: 1.4%Pessimism Bias8.2%This article: 9.6%Jimmy Kempski: 3.7%PhillyVoice: 6.6%Negativity Bias9.6%This article: 3.2%Jimmy Kempski: 0.6%PhillyVoice: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias3.2%This article: 6.2%Jimmy Kempski: 0.6%PhillyVoice: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error6.2%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.3%PhillyVoice: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 10.3%Jimmy Kempski: 4.4%PhillyVoice: 3.5%Halo Effect10.3%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.0%Jimmy Kempski: 2.4%PhillyVoice: 1.6%Recency Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.6%PhillyVoice: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 1.8%Jimmy Kempski: 1.2%PhillyVoice: 3.0%Appeal to Authority1.8%This article: 3.8%Jimmy Kempski: 0.5%PhillyVoice: 1.1%False Dilemma3.8%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.5%Jimmy Kempski: 3.6%PhillyVoice: 3.8%Hasty Generalization8.5%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.3%PhillyVoice: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.9%Jimmy Kempski: 0.9%PhillyVoice: 3.5%Appeal to Emotion2.9%This article: 4.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.3%PhillyVoice: 0.4%Begging the Question4.0%This article: 5.9%Jimmy Kempski: 0.6%PhillyVoice: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.9%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.2%PhillyVoice: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.5%PhillyVoice: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.7%PhillyVoice: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.9%Jimmy Kempski: 1.9%PhillyVoice: 1.6%Anecdotal6.9%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.6%Jimmy Kempski: 2.1%PhillyVoice: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.6%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.8%Jimmy Kempski: 0.1%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Middle Ground1.8%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.3%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.2%Jimmy Kempski: 0.6%PhillyVoice: 1.0%Unattributed Quote6.2%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.3%PhillyVoice: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 15.0%Jimmy Kempski: 3.9%PhillyVoice: 4.3%Biased Writer Voice15.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.1%PhillyVoice: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Jimmy Kempski: 1.8%PhillyVoice: 2.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.4%

680 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.