According to Caplan, the Eagles gave Austin Watkins $150K guaranteed and Shaq Davis $225K guaranteed on their futures deal. Darrian Kinnard got $300K guaranteed. LeRaven Clark got $175K. 

37 minutes ago, RLC said:

Jason Kelce wore down and wasn't nearly as good in the 2nd half of last year. You could see the decline. Love him. HOFamer. It's time.

He said the predominant factor in why this retirement quandary is different than previous years is because after each game, the week leading up to the next one he wasn’t getting over the physical abuse from the previous Sunday. He was carrying that stuff all the way through where he healed faster in previous years. His body couldn’t handle it anymore

22 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Shes a woman who is actually good at womens basketball, which means there is no competition for her.

He was man playing against other men who were good. He did it against competition. I scored more points than her in my driveway. 

Hmmm seems you just don’t respect women’s basketball and I’m guessing you don’t watch it much since you only tuned in to see her break the record… why’d you tune in if you believe her record doesn’t matter since she’s a woman? 
 

Based on what were men good in college basketball in 1967? And how do you prove their relative skill compared to other men, versus the competition of women playing today? 
 

Pete: .438% shooting on 38 shots per game to score 44ppg 5 rebounds and 6 assists per game  77% career free throw shooter  

Clark: .465% shooting with 19.9 shots per game to score 28ppg and 7 assists and 8 rebounds per game. 85% career free throw shooter.   

Imagine her shooting 38 times per game lmao.  Even when they’re both standing still with zero defense, she’s a better shooter than him lol. Pete averaged over 2x more free throw attempts per game as well with 14 lmao. 

 

 

 

32 minutes ago, GoEagles614 said:

Who cares? It’s a record that’s broken and recognized in collegiate sports. It has zero impact on the people uninvolved lol. It’s factual that she has the most points. He was also a man playing men’s basketball and she is a woman playing women’s basketball, I’d say their conditions make it valid. 
 

I’m sure no one was missing layups and airballing in college basketball in 1967-1970 lmao. I’d argue women’ basketball today on average are more skilled than the average men’s college player in 1967. 

I agree with your first point but the bolded is totally insane.

Forget college, a current WNBA all star team would get absolutely bludgeoned by a men's college team from 1967.  Lew Alcindor's UCLA team won the championship that year.  You think any woman today is more skilled than Kareem?  

4 minutes ago, GoEagles614 said:

Hmmm seems you just don’t respect women’s basketball and I’m guessing you don’t watch it much since you only tuned in to see her break the record… why’d you tune in if you believe her record doesn’t matter since she’s a woman? 
 

Based on what were men good in college basketball in 1967? And how do you prove their relative skill compared to other men, versus the competition of women playing today? 
 

Pete: .438% shooting on 38 shots per game to score 44ppg 5 rebounds and 6 assists per game  77% career free throw shooter  

Clark: .465% shooting with 19.9 shots per game to score 28ppg and 7 assists and 8 rebounds per game. 85% career free throw shooter.   

Imagine her shooting 38 times per game lmao.  Even when they’re both standing still with zero defense, she’s a better shooter than him lol. Pete averaged over 2x more free throw attempts per game as well with 14 lmao. 

 

 

 

You guys need to slow your roll on this 

Go watch a freaking basketball game from 1967.  There were far more skilled than what you are making it out to be.

What has dramatically changed in modern basketball is athleticism and size, not skill.

 

4 minutes ago, GoEagles614 said:

Hmmm seems you just don’t respect women’s basketball and I’m guessing you don’t watch it much since you only tuned in to see her break the record… why’d you tune in if you believe her record doesn’t matter since she’s a woman? 
 

Based on what were men good in college basketball in 1967? And how do you prove their relative skill compared to other men, versus the competition of women playing today? 
 

Pete: .438% shooting on 38 shots per game to score 44ppg 5 rebounds and 6 assists per game  77% career free throw shooter  

Clark: .465% shooting with 19.9 shots per game to score 28ppg and 7 assists and 8 rebounds per game. 85% career free throw shooter.   

Imagine her shooting 38 times per game lmao.  Even when they’re both standing still with zero defense, she’s a better shooter than him lol. Pete averaged over 2x more free throw attempts per game as well with 14 lmao. 

 

 

 

Caitlin Clark is a monster at basketball no matter the gender and to hate on her is silly. Her skill level is going to change how the woman's game is played moving forward. I bet woman's March Madness TV ratings are going to be insane this year with her, USC freshman Juju Watkins, South Carolina freshman and undefeated season and LSU. 

49 minutes ago, RLC said:

Jason Kelce wore down and wasn't nearly as good in the 2nd half of last year. You could see the decline. Love him. HOFamer. It's time.

Can't wait for our second round stud Jurgens to take over 

2 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

Caitlin Clark is a monster at basketball no matter the gender and to hate on her is silly. Her skill level is going to change how the woman's game is played moving forward. I bet woman's March Madness TV ratings are going to be insane this year with her, USC freshman Juju Watkins, South Carolina freshman and undefeated season and LSU. 

I remember when the Minnesota girl was coming out and she was being touted as the chosen one of college Bball. Caitlin came out that same year and got almost no fanfare. Still think the UConn player who’s name escapes me will be an alltime pro, but it’s great to see Caitlin grab her opportunity and run with it

3 minutes ago, greendestiny27 said:

Can't wait for our second round stud Jurgens to take over 

There is also a scenario where we find a nice C in the draft or FA and slowly realize in TC that Jurgens is just better at RG

6 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

You guys need to slow your roll on this 

Go watch a freaking basketball game from 1967.  There were far more skilled than what you are making it out to be.

What has dramatically changed in modern basketball is athleticism and size, not skill.

 

Just stop, the skill level is totally different like multiple levels. Hell, 1997 Bulls has two dudes starting in Rodman and Longley that couldn't even shoot a basketball. 

13 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

I agree with your first point but the bolded is totally insane.

Forget college, a current WNBA all star team would get absolutely bludgeoned by a men's college team from 1967.  Lew Alcindor's UCLA team won the championship that year.  You think any woman today is more skilled than Kareem?  

Nope, I would say Kareem is an exception. My argument is the average woman today is probably more skilled than an equal college counterpart in 1967. Pete didn’t have anyone on his team even shoot higher than 70% from the free throw line lol. Even Kareem in all of his greatness could only hit 61% of his free throws. 

Obviously athletically and in size men would dominate, but talking about just skill, handling, shooting, footwork, on average I’d say the women would be better than those men.

3 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

I remember when the Minnesota girl was coming out and she was being touted as the chosen one of college Bball. Caitlin came out that same year and got almost no fanfare. Still think the UConn player who’s name escapes me will be an alltime pro, but it’s great to see Caitlin grab her opportunity and run with it

Paige Bueckers 

19 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

You guys need to slow your roll on this 

Go watch a freaking basketball game from 1967.  There were far more skilled than what you are making it out to be.

What has dramatically changed in modern basketball is athleticism and size, not skill.

 

Skill has been the biggest force multiplayer difference in today’s game. Most of these guys are playing competitive year round basketball for a decade before they touch an nba court. Theres 4-5 capable shooters on the court at most times, unless the 60s where you had 1 maybe 2. The 7 footers who are dribbling and shooting is a skill increase, not a size increase. Back in the 60s they just didn’t have same ideologies in basketball, and average bigs had to be big, not skilled. 

1 hour ago, RLC said:

If it's the best OL in years, then we have to take an OL with one of our top picks.

Meh- I think if a OL falls to the Eagles where they pick then make the pick.  The odds are better than even that they take a OL with one of their top 3 picks.  

17 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

There is also a scenario where we find a nice C in the draft or FA and slowly realize in TC that Jurgens is just better at RG

But he's not a great guard either 

17 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

Just stop, the skill level is totally different like multiple levels. Hell, 1997 Bulls has two dudes starting in Rodman and Longley that couldn't even shoot a basketball. 

Rodman would have 98 rebounds and Longley would have 75 blocks vs the 2024 WNBA all star team.  You guys are drunk.

1 minute ago, Mike31mt said:

Rodman would have 98 rebounds and Longley would have 75 blocks vs the 2024 WNBA all star team.  You guys are drunk.

You are changing subjects when you said this. You and your boy both got a touch of he dementia 

You guys need to slow your roll on this 

Go watch a freaking basketball game from 1967.  There were far more skilled than what you are making it out to be.

What has dramatically changed in modern basketball is athleticism and size, not skill.

18 minutes ago, GoEagles614 said:

Nope, I would say Kareem is an exception. My argument is the average woman today is probably more skilled than an equal college counterpart in 1967. Pete didn’t have anyone on his team even shoot higher than 70% from the free throw line lol. Even Kareem in all of his greatness could only hit 61% of his free throws. 

Obviously athletically and in size men would dominate, but talking about just skill, handling, shooting, footwork, on average I’d say the women would be better than those men.

Looking at shooting percentage to make a claim about basketball skill silly.  Women play with a smaller ball and the same size hoop, for just one example.

Just watch the games.  

Dribbling, shooting, footwork, passing, pretty much everything in the men's game back then was still superior to modern women's basketball.

Maybe if you had said like 1940s.  You guys are way off base with this. 

Just now, DaEagles4Life said:

You are changing subjects when you said this. You and your boy both got a touch of he dementia 

You guys need to slow your roll on this 

Go watch a freaking basketball game from 1967.  There were far more skilled than what you are making it out to be.

What has dramatically changed in modern basketball is athleticism and size, not skill.

So there's no skill related to defense and rebounding?  Is that what you're saying?

I didn't know basketball was just a shooting percentage contest 

17 minutes ago, GoEagles614 said:

Skill has been the biggest force multiplayer difference in today’s game. Most of these guys are playing competitive year round basketball for a decade before they touch an nba court. Theres 4-5 capable shooters on the court at most times, unless the 60s where you had 1 maybe 2. The 7 footers who are dribbling and shooting is a skill increase, not a size increase. Back in the 60s they just didn’t have same ideologies in basketball, and average bigs had to be big, not skilled. 

And they would still utterly dominate even the best women on the planet in 2024.

You're talking about college players like Kareem, Unseld, Elvin Hayes in 1967. 

43 minutes ago, GoEagles614 said:

Hmmm seems you just don’t respect women’s basketball and I’m guessing you don’t watch it much since you only tuned in to see her break the record… why’d you tune in if you believe her record doesn’t matter since she’s a woman? 
 

Based on what were men good in college basketball in 1967? And how do you prove their relative skill compared to other men, versus the competition of women playing today? 
 

Pete: .438% shooting on 38 shots per game to score 44ppg 5 rebounds and 6 assists per game  77% career free throw shooter  

Clark: .465% shooting with 19.9 shots per game to score 28ppg and 7 assists and 8 rebounds per game. 85% career free throw shooter.   

Imagine her shooting 38 times per game lmao.  Even when they’re both standing still with zero defense, she’s a better shooter than him lol. Pete averaged over 2x more free throw attempts per game as well with 14 lmao. 

Worth noting... the women use a smaller ball, so better shooting is easier.   Just sayin'.

45 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

He said the predominant factor in why this retirement quandary is different than previous years is because after each game, the week leading up to the next one he wasn’t getting over the physical abuse from the previous Sunday. He was carrying that stuff all the way through where he healed faster in previous years. His body couldn’t handle it anymore

The documentary mentioned how his body has been getting beat up

13 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Rodman would have 98 rebounds and Longley would have 75 blocks vs the 2024 WNBA all star team.  You guys are drunk.

Thats not the argument. You’re creating your own argument after responding to my post that has a different premise. 

If Kelce retires I don't think Steen will just be handed RG. At least he shouldn't be. I'd hope the Eagles draft someone there because Steen did not impress me at RG. I look at him as more of a tackle.

8 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

And they would still utterly dominate even the best women on the planet in 2024.

You're talking about college players like Kareem, Unseld, Elvin Hayes in 1967. 

The only players you can bring up are legends. Once again, not the premise of the argument. But go off lol. 
 

The OP says her record shouldn’t be compared to his because he played against men, and she played versus no competition. 
 

My premise is how do you decipher the competition level of Pete playing in 1967 against other men versus Caitlyn playing against women today. Only you bozos keep talking about men playing head to head all men versus all women. Lol.