1 hour ago, ManuManu said:

 

IMO, one of the most underrated skill players of the last decade.

5 minutes ago, GoEagles614 said:

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

The fact you're having a conversation about whether or not she would dominate a 60s college basketball player and not one today says about all you need to know. She probably gets cooked by a bench player on one of the men's teams. 

She's dominant at women's basketball like the Williams sisters were dominant in women's tennis. But even they played against the 203rd ranked men's player and both got obliterated.

It's ok to separate them 

15 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

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

They also have smaller hands and further from the basket. Does that make a 50% shooter in men’s into an 80% shooter in women’s? The women and men of today’s game play a hell of a lot more organized basketball than they did back in the 60s. They practice more, they have more history to learn from, more moves and development tactics etc. 

1 hour 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

If I recall correctly the body and brain injury stats really start to increase of as someone hits their mid 30s, and Kelce has a ready made career to step into it so doesn't need to play because he has no money.  The playing Center in the NFL "is all he knows", but his long term health is more important than running it back one more year IMVHO. 

Time to enjoy being a full time Dad and Husband; he's earned that privilege.

7 minutes ago, devpool said:

The fact you're having a conversation about whether or not she would dominate a 60s college basketball player and not one today says about all you need to know. She probably gets cooked by a bench player on one of the men's teams. 

She's dominant at women's basketball like the Williams sisters were dominant in women's tennis. But even they played against the 203rd ranked men's player and both got obliterated.

It's ok to separate them 

The premise was built off of OP saying he watched women today missing layups and airballing. I just posted a video of men’s LSU team in late 1960s airballing and missing layups. The conversation is comparing the talent levels in Pete’s generation to today because those are the two people being compared, playing their respective leagues and times. 
 

He’s playing against men in 1967, she’s playing against women today. You guys are somehow making an argument about men like Kareem playing in the women’s game. It’s irrelevant and completely ignores the conversation. No ones saying the women today are better than Kareem or Wilt lmao. It proves difficult for people to comprehend propositions without taking time to remove their bias and initial reaction. 

10 minutes ago, Outlaw said:

IMO, one of the most underrated skill players of the last decade.

For sure. I don't know what it is, but I never think of him being a 10 year vet. Must be because he came into the league so young. But every year he's good for a consistent 1,000+ yards.

Philly way

We bring you up: 11am Wheeler 3 year contract extension. 🤪

We bring you down: 1pm Kelce retirement.😭

 

Dombrowski just said some guy named "Dick Eaton" discovered Zach Wheeler

Just now, LeanMeanGM said:

For sure. I don't know what it is, but I never think of him being a 10 year vet. Must be because he came into the league so young. But every year he's good for a consistent 1,000+ yards.

Hes like Fitzgerald. Always been great, but consistency and predictability get boring and he gets overlooked compared to some of the elite and explosive guys. Like Tyreek, JJettas compared to T.O, Moss, Calvin Johnson etc. I don’t think anyone undervalues him, I just don’t think he’s as flashy as some others at the position. 

16 minutes ago, Outlaw said:

IMO, one of the most underrated skill players of the last decade.

Plus we always get a fight when he and Lattimore face off. 

1 hour ago, ManuManu said:

Silver lining: The Eagles will save some money going from Kelce to Jurgens. The rusted out aluminum lining: The Eagles obviously didn’t love what they saw out of Steen last year. It would have been nice to play him over Opeta. 

I do think a Runyan. Free agent signing is a good idea.  Competition for Steen. 

10 minutes ago, GoEagles614 said:

They also have smaller hands and further from the basket. Does that make a 50% shooter in men’s into an 80% shooter in women’s? The women and men of today’s game play a hell of a lot more organized basketball than they did back in the 60s. They practice more, they have more history to learn from, more moves and development tactics etc. 

What does that matter if we are comparing apples to apples?   It is easier for a smaller ball to go into the rim... there's more margin for error.   So, the size of the ball matters.  And, I'm not going to quantify what the increase in shooting pct would be for a man shooting with a woman's ball, but if they trained with that ball just like the women, there would be an increase in their shooting pct.   

There are people on here arguing that a Women's college team from 2023 would beat a Men's college team from 1967?  You guys should be charging money for this sort of comedy gold, or be institutionalized for such a bad take.

Basketball used to be much more of a contact sport than it is now.  Today, basketball is played by a bunch of 3-point chuckers and softies who need a game or two each week to rest for "load management".  In 1967 these men were, in fact, men -- but let's look at the rosters top 5 scorers:

 

2023 LSU Lady Tigers

Reese -- 6'3, Morris -- 5'6, Johnson -- 5'10, Williams -- 6'4, Carson -- 5'10

 

1967 Bruins

Kareem -- 7'2, Allen -- 6'2, Warren -- 5'11, Lacey -- 6'5, Shackelford -- 6'6

 

Physically, it's a complete mismatch, aside from being guys vs girls.

I'm almost positive I could go back to the worst team in the 1967 college tournament bracket, and that team would dominate the 2023 LSU Women's team.  

 

8 minutes ago, UK Eagle said:

If I recall correctly the body and brain injury stats really start to increase of as someone hits their mid 30s, and Kelce has a ready made career to step into it so doesn't need to play because he has no money.  The playing Center in the NFL "is all he knows", but his long term health is more important than running it back one more year IMVHO. 

Time to enjoy being a full time Dad and Husband; he's earned that privilege.

IMO Howie should get him in as Stout’s protégé ASAP. He has the demeanor, the knowledge, and the relationship with the players to do it. Kelce has said in retirement he still wants to be close to the team in some capacity

Just now, Alphagrand said:

There are people on here arguing that a Women's college team from 2023 would beat a Men's college team from 1967?  You guys should be charging money for this sort of comedy gold, or be institutionalized for such a bad take.

Basketball used to be much more of a contact sport than it is now.  Today, basketball is played by a bunch of 3-point chuckers and softies who need a game or two each week to rest for "load management".  In 1967 these men were, in fact, men -- but let's look at the rosters top 5 scorers:

 

2023 LSU Lady Tigers

Reese -- 6'3, Morris -- 5'6, Johnson -- 5'10, Williams -- 6'4, Carson -- 5'10

 

1967 Bruins

Kareem -- 7'2, Allen -- 6'2, Warren -- 5'11, Williams -- 6'4, Shackelford -- 6'6

 

Physically, it's a complete mismatch, aside from being guys vs girls.

I'm almost positive I could go back to the worst team in the 1967 college tournament bracket, and that team would dominate the 2023 LSU Women's team.  

 

What I find more interesting is the people hating on Kaitlin Clark for a more obvious reason. No one on here, but she's getting a lot of hate and it's easy to see why.

1 minute ago, Iggles_Phan said:

What does that matter if we are comparing apples to apples?   It is easier for a smaller ball to go into the rim... there's more margin for error.   So, the size of the ball matters.  And, I'm not going to quantify what the increase in shooting pct would be for a man shooting with a woman's ball, but if they trained with that ball just like the women, there would be an increase in their shooting pct.   

Because that’s the reason the ball is smaller. I didn’t say it doesn’t matter. They have their own disadvantages compared to men’s game that their league may try to compensate for. 

I mean they used to have women playing 6 on 6 and 3 players on each team could only play a half of the court lol. 

Smaller ball, bigger ball I still believe the women would be better shooters, have better handles, passing, and footwork compared to men’s college in the 60s. 

Might be an overreaction, but yikes nonetheless

TL;DR: It is common for people with Burrow’s injury never to return to 100%, and arthritis may follow

Did this injury change his career forever? "Yes, for sure. For context, he’s the only pro qb I’ve heard of with this, so it’s hard to gauge.”

 

43 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

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. 

Well they don't play with a smaller hoop, both 10 foot. 

1 hour 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. 

 

 

 

It seems you don't understand that better defense results on a lower shooting percentage.

5 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

There are people on here arguing that a Women's college team from 2023 would beat a Men's college team from 1967?  You guys should be charging money for this sort of comedy gold, or be institutionalized for such a bad take.

Basketball used to be much more of a contact sport than it is now.  Today, basketball is played by a bunch of 3-point chuckers and softies who need a game or two each week to rest for "load management".  In 1967 these men were, in fact, men -- but let's look at the rosters top 5 scorers:

 

2023 LSU Lady Tigers

Reese -- 6'3, Morris -- 5'6, Johnson -- 5'10, Williams -- 6'4, Carson -- 5'10

 

1967 Bruins

Kareem -- 7'2, Allen -- 6'2, Warren -- 5'11, Williams -- 6'4, Shackelford -- 6'6

 

Physically, it's a complete mismatch, aside from being guys vs girls.

I'm almost positive I could go back to the worst team in the 1967 college tournament bracket, and that team would dominate the 2023 LSU Women's team.  

 

No one argued this once.
 

Just a handful of guys with poor reading and comprehension skills keep bringing up Kareem’s UCLA team in this argument haha and saying men would beat women in basketball. Thats not and has never been the argument. 

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Kelce's ironman steak of the last 10 years will be missed and probably not repeated. 

Underrated comment.  I've come to take Kelce's durability for granted.  He's probably played through things that we have no idea about.

We get some cap space for next year and we get younger.  Time to see what Jurgens has.  He's been able to sit and watch a legend like Kelce for this whole season, now it's his turn.  

 

8 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

I do think a Runyan. Free agent signing is a good idea.  Competition for Steen. 

If we sign him, I would assume it’s for starter’s money. 

15 minutes ago, GoEagles614 said:

The premise was built off of OP saying he watched women today missing layups and airballing. I just posted a video of men’s LSU team in late 1960s airballing and missing layups. The conversation is comparing the talent levels in Pete’s generation to today because those are the two people being compared, playing their respective leagues and times. 
 

He’s playing against men in 1967, she’s playing against women today. You guys are somehow making an argument about men like Kareem playing in the women’s game. It’s irrelevant and completely ignores the conversation. No ones saying the women today are better than Kareem or Wilt lmao. It proves difficult for people to comprehend propositions without taking time to remove their bias and initial reaction. 

It's just a strange comparison to make on either side because it's impossible to compare across two completely different eras. Missed layups and airballs happen even in today's game at the NBA level, as rare as it is, but we wouldn't say she has a shot against an NBA player

WIP is so bad lol. Todays take "Jason Kelce isn't really a leader anymore"