6 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

Gushiken Pulley and Jones could push for a DB/Safety spot.

Elijah Moore trying to force them to keep 6 WRs

James-Newby, Weru and Bernard seeing if they can crack the DL.

And I imagine Lemon will get some snaps.

Yeah I’m hoping it’s McKee and Lemon on the first drive, McKee spams Lemon with targets, they score a TD, and both get the hell out of there.

Will be nice to watch the IPP guys one last time as well - we almost certainly won’t see either until next year.

1 hour ago, ToastJenkins said:

I would think this scheme should play to his strengths, but his mechanics are off right now

McKee reminds me of Foles, the good and the bad. But if something happened to Hurts and we needed someone for a run, I don’t know how anyone could believe in Dalton. We’d likely be screwed either way, but at least McKee has a shot.

23 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Well, this is going to make some people mad

Honestly it just still makes me mad at Jonathan Gannon and how badly he had the defense prepared for the Super Bowl.

1 minute ago, NCiggles said:

Honestly it just still makes me mad at Jonathan Gannon and how badly he had the defense prepared for the Super Bowl.

Yep we should have 4 SBs by now - one was stolen from us by cheaters and another by an incompetent Pee Wee Herman lookalike

1 minute ago, mikemack8 said:

Yep we should have 4 SBs by now - one was stolen from us by cheaters and another by an incompetent Pee Wee Herman lookalike

Eh. I know you can make an argument for an asterisk on both of those but I never felt like we 100% deserved to win either of those games.

2004 - McNabb made too mistakes and if I remember correctly our OL struggled a bit.

2022 - Hurts big time error on the fumble and the defense literally couldn’t make one stop in the second half.

1 hour ago, Sack that QB said:

I do think Hurts wants a raise. Whether or not it's cap friendly to the Eagles is another question entirely.

Does he want a raise or an extension. Wouldn't a cap-friendly raise, simply be an extension?

7 minutes ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

Eh. I know you can make an argument for an asterisk on both of those but I never felt like we 100% deserved to win either of those games.

2004 - McNabb made too mistakes and if I remember correctly our OL struggled a bit.

2022 - Hurts big time error on the fumble and the defense literally couldn’t make one stop in the second half.

Speak to me like that again and the Bacarty family and I will find you

1 hour ago, Joe Ball said:

Well to be fair, if it was a one night stand, chances are it was a 2 @ 10:00 that became the 10 @ 2:00

2 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

No, he never had the mental traits needed. Kid was raw and pretty dumb

QB is the least dependent on physical traits and the most on mental traits.

But that would require you admitting you were wrong and i think we all know the circular argument that becomes

You said it yourself — he was raw. He needed several years of development, and instead they made him a rookie starter and got him injured.

2 hours ago, vikas83 said:

Well, there's a decent chance they cut him this Sunday, so we might get to sign him...

I don’t see it.

Payton is a high upside prospect without the injury and psychological damage the Colts inflicted on him.

22 minutes ago, Saltpeter said:

McKee reminds me of Foles, the good and the bad. But if something happened to Hurts and we needed someone for a run, I don’t know how anyone could believe in Dalton. We’d likely be screwed either way, but at least McKee has a shot.

100% agreed.

Tanner has a chance to get hot and win 3 or 4 straight games. Dalton has no chance to do anything in the playoffs.

17 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Hey Gemini - explain this joke:

This statement relies on a well-known, humorous play on words and numbers about how alcohol alters perception during a night out.

It means that a person who looked like a "2" out of 10 at 10:00 PM ended up looking like a "10" out of 10 by 2:00 AM due to the effects of alcohol.

Here is the breakdown of the joke:

• The Ratings (Scale of 1–10): In attraction slang, a "2" is someone considered highly unattractive, while a "10" is someone considered physically flawless.

• The Timeline (10:00 PM vs. 2:00 AM): At 10:00 PM, people are usually sober at the start of the night and judging things clearly. By 2:00 AM (bar closing time), they have likely had a lot to drink.

• The Phenomenon: This refers to the concept of "beer goggles," where heavy drinking impairs judgment and makes people appear significantly more attractive than they would to someone who is sober.

Essentially, it's a witty way of saying a casual hookup was the result of low standards driven by a long night of drinking.

2 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

There's a glitch in the matrix

19 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

Hey Gemini - explain this joke:

This statement relies on a well-known, humorous play on words and numbers about how alcohol alters perception during a night out.

It means that a person who looked like a "2" out of 10 at 10:00 PM ended up looking like a "10" out of 10 by 2:00 AM due to the effects of alcohol.

Here is the breakdown of the joke:

• The Ratings (Scale of 1–10): In attraction slang, a "2" is someone considered highly unattractive, while a "10" is someone considered physically flawless.

• The Timeline (10:00 PM vs. 2:00 AM): At 10:00 PM, people are usually sober at the start of the night and judging things clearly. By 2:00 AM (bar closing time), they have likely had a lot to drink.

• The Phenomenon: This refers to the concept of "beer goggles," where heavy drinking impairs judgment and makes people appear significantly more attractive than they would to someone who is sober.

Essentially, it's a witty way of saying a casual hookup was the result of low standards driven by a long night of drinking.

Have pity on an old man. Can you repeat that please … very slowly this time. It’s been so long since I went out on a date or stayed up past 10:00 that it’s all very fuzzy memories. In the meantime I’ll dig back into the archives of the compendium of useless knowledge that is my brain to see if I can remember the last date I went on.

16 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

Hey Gemini - explain this joke:

This statement relies on a well-known, humorous play on words and numbers about how alcohol alters perception during a night out.

It means that a person who looked like a "2" out of 10 at 10:00 PM ended up looking like a "10" out of 10 by 2:00 AM due to the effects of alcohol.

Here is the breakdown of the joke:

• The Ratings (Scale of 1–10): In attraction slang, a "2" is someone considered highly unattractive, while a "10" is someone considered physically flawless.

• The Timeline (10:00 PM vs. 2:00 AM): At 10:00 PM, people are usually sober at the start of the night and judging things clearly. By 2:00 AM (bar closing time), they have likely had a lot to drink.

• The Phenomenon: This refers to the concept of "beer goggles," where heavy drinking impairs judgment and makes people appear significantly more attractive than they would to someone who is sober.

Essentially, it's a witty way of saying a casual hookup was the result of low standards driven by a long night of drinking.

My experience is one night stands came in two basic varieties

1) chemistry wasn't there and no point trying again - this tends to be independent of looks, just one of those things

2) she was out to get laid, and had no intention of seeing you again so she shed her inhibitions and went "crazy on you." Typical was after a breakup, horny girl who didn't want a relationship right now and gave you a wrong telephone #.

The "10" at 2:00 AM never worked for me, at that point I want a pillow, not to get laid.

If I met someone, the midnight hour (as per Wicked Pickett) was not spent at the bar.

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

Well, this is going to make some people mad

This is a pretty cool stat. I immediately started looking for the fewest games/chances a QB had to lead a comeback or lead the offense to 28+ points, which also indicate how well their defenses support them. Goff, Dak, Geno, and Tua all had more than 20 games in which lead to a win. There may be more than one QB listed for a single team/defense in that span that when combined might put a team above 20 as well, I didn't really look for that. Anyway, cool stat.

11 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

Mahomes should be 2-5

2 minutes ago, austinfan said:

My experience is one night stands came in two basic varieties

1) chemistry wasn't there and no point trying again - this tends to be independent of looks, just one of those things

2) she was out to get laid, and had no intention of seeing you again so she shed her inhibitions and went "crazy on you." Typical was after a breakup, horny girl who didn't want a relationship right now and gave you a wrong telephone #.

The "10" at 2:00 AM never worked for me, at that point I want a pillow, not to get laid.

If I met someone, the midnight hour (as per Wicked Pickett) was not spent at the bar.

My experience with what was essentially a one night stand fell into a third category. The young lady in question was leaving within 72 hours for a year of academics at Oxford or Cambridge (my memory is fuzzy on which one) and despite our mutual assurances to each other that a "complication” given that was unwise, our hormones got the better of us. Many years later we met again, but without any hormonal interference. It was mutually shocking.

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

Well, this is going to make some people mad

Its pretty obvious that the D has carried a poor offense the past 2 years. Whereas prior to that the D stunk and the offense was putting up more points back when Hurts made up for his deficiencies by using his legs.

This is not a surprising stat. Nor does it disprove any assertion that Hurts was carried to a super bowl by the D and an elite run game.

I hope one day we can actually play well on both sides of the ball in the same season. Maybe this is the year.

1 hour ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

Eh. I know you can make an argument for an asterisk on both of those but I never felt like we 100% deserved to win either of those games.

2004 - McNabb made too mistakes and if I remember correctly our OL struggled a bit.

2022 - Hurts big time error on the fumble and the defense literally couldn’t make one stop in the second half.

2004 - Patriots stole it with their SPY CAMERAS, how do you think they knew all our plays in the 2nd half? League covered it up.

2022 - League stole it with a RIGGED, SLIP-N-SLIDE field to negate our historic pass rush, and save the Chiefs and Mahomes.

Please don't WASH the crimes of this corrupt league against us! We should have 4 RANGZZZ!!!

I think the delusional over the top Hurts supporters will be the most mad seeing Josh Allen ahead of Hurts. They've spent years trying to say Hurts is better.

I could see an Ertz reunion but probably after week 1

4 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Its pretty obvious that the D has carried a poor offense the past 2 years. Whereas prior to that the D stunk and the offense was putting up more points back when Hurts made up for his deficiencies by using his legs.

This is not a surprising stat. Nor does it disprove any assertion that Hurts was carried to a super bowl by the D and an elite run game.

I hope one day we can actually play well on both sides of the ball in the same season. Maybe this is the year.

Ron White was right. You can't fix stupid

1 hour ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

Eh. I know you can make an argument for an asterisk on both of those but I never felt like we 100% deserved to win either of those games.

2004 - McNabb made too mistakes and if I remember correctly our OL struggled a bit.

2022 - Hurts big time error on the fumble and the defense literally couldn’t make one stop in the second half.

I probably agree with you on 2004 but they seemed to know our defensive calls. The 2022 Super Bowl wasn't decided by Hurts' fumble. The problem was that Gannon did not scout his own tendencies. They had overreacted to orbit motion in past games. The Chiefs used a fake orbit motion play about 8 times and the defense looked confused on all of them. Even with all of the problems the d-line had getting traction. If they had just been prepared they would have been able to keep the Chiefs from scoring more often than they did.