8 minutes ago, downundermike said:

 

So his only reason is the $33M cap hit? Or was there more?

13 minutes ago, John_C said:

Incorrect.  
National Voter ID laws would have changed all of that. 

The links you posted all have fairly simple rebuttals explaining how those outcomes could happen. The good news is that the long-term fixes are simple (count mail-in ballots ahead of time + require ID to vote). In Canada, we send voter ID cards to compensate for those who are unfairly discriminated against because they can't afford for example, a passport or driver's license.

Bringing it back to football, even with simple solutions (fire Howie), it takes people with the stomach to do it.

Just now, RLC said:

The links you posted all have fairly simple rebuttals explaining how those outcomes could happen. The good news is that the long-term fixes are simple (count mail-in ballots ahead of time + require ID to vote). In Canada, we send voter ID cards to compensate for those who are unfairly discriminated against because they can't afford for example, a passport or driver's license.

Bringing it back to football, even with simple solutions (fire Howie), it takes people with the stomach to do it.

Pretty simple for that too. If Lurie is unwilling to do it pay me a quick million in cash I'll drive down tonight!

Just now, NCiggles said:

I think you have been manipulated and that is easier because  you just don't like the outcome of the race.  I think there were people on the left that believed the same thing about software and problems in 2016.  They were wrong then just as you are wrong now.  Please remember that most people in America, even if they disagree with you want similar things, a safe and economically secure life.  Democrats are not conspiring to take away your freedom.  We had a free and fair election.  Trump lost the popular vote by millions which was consistent with his popularity as president. 

I just thought I would point out the only fact you cited which is just not correct.  There are undervotes in every election.  This election was no different. Certainly no evidence exists that any ballot was suspect.   Here is an article that goes into some detail about under voting in elections and how Powell's claim is incorrect: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/20/sidney-powell/sidney-powell-claim-450000-votes-were-only-biden-k/   Like many of her other claims about irregularities, they are baseless.  Counting ballots and certifying elections always takes time.  In NC, for example, elections are not certified until 6 days after election day.  This is so election boards can check and double check tabulations.  There are always ballots with questions.  Sometimes there are markings in multiple places or incomplete markings for candidates.  Sometimes people just don't fill out the second page of ballots.  

You should also look at what legal experts have to say about these claims. There are a number of appellate lawyers on Twitter who have explained the problems in the lawsuits and the problematic legal positions Sidney Powell and Lin Wood have taken.  These claims are 1-62 in Court because they have no merit.  It isn't a conspiracy.  People are following well established laws and procedures.  

And I totally and completely disagree with you.  On many different levels.  I believe you may have been manipulated and possibly indoctrinated by believing there is such thing as "news," and potentially trusting what you have seen or read from "traditional" sources.

If you are sure that I am wrong, and you are correct, perhaps you can show me justifications for the myriad of examples I cited of obvious fraud.  For example, how do you explain why the republican candidate performed at historic highs among minorities in every metropolitan area, but got killed in 5 metro areas of major "swing states?"  Not suspicious at all, I know.  "Just takes time to count those votes."  

There are multiple issues with trying to "prove" election fraud to a standard acceptable by a court.  One, the access to evidence is tightly controlled and limited by definition.  Two, there are arbitrary timelines imposed that make the task practically impossible (in a "normal" timeframe without limitations, it would be quite easy in many cases, but these types of cases takes months and years).  Three, there is limited case law available and few judges want to set the precedent of being the arbiters of election results, undoubtedly some fear becoming the story, getting it wrong or putting themselves in harms way.  Four, some (many?) judges at the highest levels are part of the system and often have a vested interest in the preservation of the desired outcome.

I make no judgement and have no opinion on Sidney Powell or anything she or others are doing.  I haven't looked at these or any such lawsuits.  I know that these suits have virtually no chance of success.  The absence of a judicial determination on fraud doesn't mean it didn't occur.  It absolutely did, and for many like myself it even went beyond what I expected most people would find reasonably acceptable.  Citing "fact check" sites is a complete joke.  These sites are owned and operated by the same narrative managers that control most content you consume.  The true cost of obtaining and validating information has become far too high.  No one has the time.  For most things, why bother...

I do agree with you that "most people in America" - regardless of party - want similar things.  Absolutely agree.  The problem we have is that so many have been indoctrinated, they don't have any clue what is being done to them and how it is evolving.  A common misconception is that politicians care about them.  Absolutely false!  Politicians care about themselves, and preserving their position.  They work to perpetuate their power and enrich themselves and their circle of influence.  Another is that most republicans and democrats are totally different, have deep philosophical convictions.  While they are different, when it gets to the higher levels the shared goals (PERSONAL goals) are more important.  They are two wings of the same bird.  And they use you as a resource, do not mistake that.  They don't work on your or my behalf.

You may be happy with the outcome, but remember what I said here, sometime down the line.  Your choice is gone.  You gave it up.  Don't expect to have a choice in future elections.  I guess you (and I) will just have to sit back and accept whatever happens.

21 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

This is the problem... so reactive.

(Re: Tyree Jackson at TE).  A former QB at TE? Let me think, Philly Philly.  A TE with potentially multiple roles, Thomason comes to mind.  If we have Ward as a WR and Jackson as the third TE, do we really need to carry a third QB? I wouldn’t want them starting at QB but are they any worse than Sudfeld? Not that much different as college QBs than Nate.  I liked Jackson as a developmental QB so I like this pickup.    

Ran a 4.59 forty with a 7.09 three cone and 4.28 short shuttle at the combine.   If he has decent hands and he ran a fair amount of shotgun so he may, I think he projects better than Butler.  Now blocking and YAC, body control and route running are yet to be determined. This is the sort of January signing I like. 

2 minutes ago, RLC said:

The links you posted all have fairly simple rebuttals explaining how those outcomes could happen. The good news is that the long-term fixes are simple (count mail-in ballots ahead of time + require ID to vote). In Canada, we send voter ID cards to compensate for those who are unfairly discriminated against because they can't afford for example, a passport or driver's license.

Bringing it back to football, even with simple solutions (fire Howie), it takes people with the stomach to do it.

Makes sense.  If all states handled elections like Florida does now, they could not fix elections anymore.  So it will never happen.  But voter ID, a lock down process of request and verification for absentee voting, and allowing for early in person voting would do it.  The only reason to oppose this would be because you want the ability to commit fraud.

There are very few people that can't get a drivers license.  I would challenge anyone to find 18 year olds that don't have a cell phone.  The discrimination angle is a myth.  It's racist to suggest a minority can't figure it out and get an ID in my opinion.

I don't want to talk politics, I'll stop.  Whomever wants the last word can have it.  

3 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

So his only reason is the $33M cap hit? Or was there more?

Unless Wentz forces a trade he’ll be the Eagles starting QB in 2021.

IMO the cap hit is part of it, but it’s also pretty clear to me he’s a better player than Hurts.  Both QBs were a victim of the lousy offensive scheme, but Hurts had a 4-game audition to show he’s capable of being a mid-tier starting QB or better.  From what I saw he was not able to do it — he certainly didn’t provide any compelling reason to eat $34M and change course from the direction they are on at QB.

Again, if Wentz forces his way out (which I doubt) then everything is on the table 

The Eagles need to hire a new OC and new DC — when are we going to start hearing about interviews for coordinators?

Curious as to why OT Prince wasn’t signed to a futures contract when everyone else on practice squad was. 

11 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

So his only reason is the $33M cap hit? Or was there more?

Howie is his neighbor. 

So uhhhh.....is it too early to start looking at who we'll take 1st overall in 2022? 

15 minutes ago, 315Eagles said:

While QB play was an issue all year, the offense in general is the biggest problem.  It just doesnt seem like a WR friendly offense.

You could put Hopkins, DK, Diggs or any top WR in this offense and they wouldn't put up their normal stats.

I'd agree they probably don't put up what they have been this season. On the same hand, its hard to know exactly what this offense is with WR's since we have trotted out busts, jags and washed up players the last 3 years. 

1 minute ago, TorontoEagle said:

So uhhhh.....is it too early to start looking at who we'll take 1st overall in 2022? 

We'll take a player to replace whatever inevitable bust we take at #6 this year.

5 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Curious as to why OT Prince wasn’t signed to a futures contract when everyone else on practice squad was. 

He might want to sign with someone else. Mosher also brought up on his pod today maybe it's something to do with his visa. 

Just now, Sack that QB said:

We'll take a player to replace whatever inevitable bust we take at #6 this year.

Ja'Marr at #6

2 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

So uhhhh.....is it too early to start looking at who we'll take 1st overall in 2022? 

Sam Howell at #1.

2 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

So uhhhh.....is it too early to start looking at who we'll take 1st overall in 2022? 

We did last night. Either Carolinian Mayfield or Sufferin Slovis. Maybe Desmond Ridder can play his way to the top.

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

He might want to sign with someone else. Mosher also brought up on his pod today maybe it's something to do with his visa. 

Interesting. I just looked at who they signed and i was like that’s weird. I figured since he was on PS all year and had upside they would. 

1 minute ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Interesting. I just looked at who they signed and i was like that’s weird. I figured since he was on PS all year and had upside they would. 

He was just hypothesizing because he's the big name omitted. They also didn't sign Tucker, Killins and Howard.

19 hours ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Bigger sticking point I would’ve brought in guys from other practice squads in general. Seen what they looked like for a week instead of heading into a game with not even enough guys active. Berman talked about this on their podcast. There was no reason not to try poaching some guys on other practice squads you liked and going into a game knowing you weren’t fielding a full roster and could maneuver the IR to your advantage.

Who?  I looked at other teams’ PS and didn’t really see much at positions of need that were worth poaching. 

Just now, LeanMeanGM said:

He was just hypothesizing because he's the big name omitted. They also didn't sign Tucker, Killins and Howard.

Howard i understood. Killins also was cut a couple times so i could get it. Tucker i figured would as well but he also wasn’t their own draft pick from 2020. Wasn’t he brought back from the lions in like April? 

4 minutes ago, RLC said:

Ja'Marr at #6

Sam Howell at #1.

Nobody can say you aren't prepared. When I'm firing Howie I'll mention your name to Lurie. I'll make sure Lurie doesn't want me to can Doug for a mere 500,000 extra while I'm there. Anybody on here interested in his job?

2 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Who?  I looked at other teams’ PS and didn’t really see much at positions of need that were worth poaching. 

I’d have to go through and look. Also could’ve called up and signed Holyfield since you weren’t trying to win anyway and evaluate him. What’s the point of signing him all year to PS and then in a meaningless game where you finally can play him just to evaluate you don’t do it. Why do i need to see what clement can do who is gone next year or scott that i know what he is already. 

18 hours ago, eagle45 said:

I find it amusing that Afan dismisses speed and size for our non athletic stiffs but mentions it first, above all else, for the guys we bring in that have those specs.

For the record, it’s a worthwhile lottery ticket.

I feel silly that I didn’t realize he’s been trolling all of us for years.

What non athletic stiffs?  Are you talking about JJAW, Hightower and Reagor and their three cones and short shuttles?  We mentioned that earlier this year.  But they had the straight line speed you covet.  

Just now, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Howard i understood. Killins also was cut a couple times so i could get it. Tucker i figured would as well but he also wasn’t their own draft pick from 2020. Wasn’t he brought back from the lions in like April? 

Tucker has bounced around so much I can't keep up lol. He was our UDFA in 2019 and cut once or twice, then bounced around, then we claimed him this year off waivers from Lions and then cut him again. Since they brought him back again last month I figured they would sign him to a futures deal, otherwise it seems like a pointless move to bring him back on the PS for the last 2 games.

7 hours ago, HazletonEagle said:

Weird. So what you're saying is, 26-21 is not the same as 26-21. I'd call that biased math.

Because you didn't understand the reference was to the previous sentence 'last season' you can strawman a ridiculous statement?  If your a wentzersnacker it doesn't really matter I guess.