16 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

I would rather draft those positions.   Eagles have no money so at best they are talking one year prove it deals.  No to Kempski ideas.  Howie does that and this time next year, Kempski is criticizing Howie for the move.  Either the oft injured player gets hurt again or performs for one year earning and extension or Howie let’s him walk. Any of those, Kempski criticizes later forgetting he floated the idea, see Robinson and Jenkins for proof.  Robinson was being cut in camp, BTW, per Kempski.  

I'd expect we start hearing some things after today....I believe the virtual owners meeting is today.  Eagles still have a lot of work to do.

Editing this...I'm not seeing today's date anymore, I thought I saw March 3rd somewhere when I searched last week but now I'm not seeing anything.  

And another edit, geez the article was from 2011.  The next result was from 2014.  What's up with Google showing 10-year old results for a simple "When is the NFL Owners Meeting?"

1 hour ago, UK Eagle said:

It looks like the cap is going to be at 180 million this season, which will make it tough on the Eagles, but equally, there could be opportunities out there for a 1 year, on a reasonable contract, deal to be made with some players. The problem though is finding the cap room and not making the roster materially worse to make any FA signings moot

Not having a franchise QB on the roster- will likely make it much harder. 

44 minutes ago, Original Sin said:

I’d argue millennials are the smartest generation , pretty sure statistics back it up .

LOL- no offense,  but ummm no.  Maybe the most educated, but an education is only as good as what you are being taught.

And there is a difference between education and IQ. 

 

18 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

I would rather draft those positions.   Eagles have no money so at best they are talking one year prove it deals.  No to Kempski ideas.  Howie does that and this time next year, Kempski is criticizing Howie for the move.  Either the oft injured player gets hurt again or performs for one year earning and extension or Howie let’s him walk. Any of those, Kempski criticizes later forgetting he floated the idea, see Robinson and Jenkins for proof.  Robinson was being cut in camp, BTW, per Kempski.  

I might want to do both (draft and low-stakes gamble).  We usually carry 9-10 DBs, and with McLeod out we might have 4 currently under contract that are roster worthy.  It's a mess.

BTW I finally figured out what is wrong with me:

 

I played with Mr Potato head and read Dr Suess as a child.

 

I am all better now. 

1 minute ago, Ipiggles said:

LOL- no offense,  but ummm no.  Maybe the most educated, but an education is only as good as what you are being taught.

And there is a difference between education and IQ. 

BTW I finally figured out what is wrong with me:

 

I played with Mr Potato head and read Dr Suess as a child.

 

I am all better now. 

This is a huge part of it.  What we're finding out now is that more and more teachers are teaching their ideals and forcing them on to students.  I have a problem with this style of teaching.  I come from a family of teachers and I really take pride in the way they went about an even/fair unbiased curriculum.  The whole idea of teaching is to help develop individual minds, to find students strengths and help them flourish at what they are good at, not to force ideas on them to think exactly the way you want them to. 

Most people are stupid, something I learned teaching college, then attending law school. By "stupid" I mean simply not trained or capable of doing basic research on any issue, with a fairly limited knowledge base. In every day life, that doesn't really matter, if you can master a few competences, and have the quasi-sociopathic gene (i.e. charm and the ability to hustle people), you can do fine.

Nor is this surprising, IQ is distributed in a normal distribution, 2/3s are below 1 standard deviation to the right, or 115 IQ. That is, fairly bright but no rocket scientist. But if you ask people for a self-evaluation, they're all above average. The Lake Woebegone effect. I went to a top 15 Law School, but I wouldn't hire the bottom half of my class for anything requiring serious legal analysis, I worked with a lot of law partners who were top quarter of their class at Harvard and wasn't impressed with their minds. Brilliant people are far rarer than people called brilliant, I've been taught by or worked with a handful, the rest are just hustlers who knew how to play the game, produce facile product, and climbed the ladder but  there's no there there.

The difference I found teaching (Millenials and just before) is that a lot of kids didn't like to read, they're not used to working through a 300 page book. Otherwise not much different. Technology doesn't make you dumber or smarter, but it also doesn't make you lazy or improve your work ethic. Just makes it easier to be lazy, but also provides more opportunity to learn if you want to put the work in. Ask yourself how often do you really research something in depth on Google, or just look at the first page, don't check the site or references and just take the first link that agrees with you at face value.

You don't learn by osmosis, it requires effort.

I find this very interesting. Simms knows QBs.

In 2020, Simms loved Herbert last year. He had Tua 4th, which looks to be the right call.
In 2019, he ripped the Giants for drafting Daniel Jones and had Lock ahead of of Haskins/Jones. He had Jones behind Haskins and feels like he missed on Jones despite him not being a franchise QB. Everyone had Murray at #1.
In 2018, his rankings were 1) Lamar, 2) Allen, 3) Baker 4) Darnold 5) Rosen. That's pretty much on point although you could easily flip-flop #1/#2.
In 2017, he had Mahomes #1.

1 hour ago, The guy in France said:

I’m good with DG, bigger fish to fry for the Eagles then replacing Dick ... much

Bigger is better. Let's upgrade

Just now, bpac55 said:

This is a huge part of it.  What we're finding out now is that more and more teachers are teaching their ideals and forcing them on to students.  I have a problem with this style of teaching.  I come from a family of teachers and I really take pride in the way they went about an even/fair unbiased curriculum.  The whole idea of teaching is to help develop individual minds, to find students strengths and help them flourish at what they are good at, not to force ideas on them to think exactly the way you want them to. 

"unbiased?" By whose standards?  It used to be taught that the "War Between the States" was about states' rights, ignoring the Fugitive Slave Act (which trampled states' rights to protect slavery). It took generations of scholars to finally change to the reality that the Civil War was about slavery, pure and simple, all you had to do was read the statements by the Southern leaders.

While I have little use for political correctness, and gag over most of what's taught in Sociology, until the last couple decades, HS education was highly biased toward defending the status quo. I've collected practically every article in academic journals on American History, and until 1970 or so, most were crap. The best writing is from 1970-2000, after which you start getting more left wing crap (lot's of 'isms) and really obscure topics (b/c academics need to publish in volume, so they look for new topics that haven't been mined). But there's still plenty of good research being done. It took two generations for this research to work it's way down to first college teaching, then pre-college.

For all the attention given to PC teaching, most college courses are pretty conservative, because most majors are conservative, business, engineering, etc. Only a minority of students are exposed to any extent to PC thinking, basically sociology, anthropology, some history, some literature courses.

3 minutes ago, RLC said:

I find this very interesting. Simms knows QBs.

In 2020, Simms loved Herbert last year. He had Tua 4th, which looks to be the right call.
In 2019, he ripped the Giants for drafting Daniel Jones and had Lock ahead of of Haskins/Jones. He had Jones behind Haskins and feels like he missed on Jones despite him not being a franchise QB. Everyone had Murray at #1.
In 2018, his rankings were 1) Lamar, 2) Allen, 3) Baker 4) Darnold 5) Rosen. That's pretty much on point although you could easily flip-flop #1/#2.
In 2017, he had Mahomes #1.

I've mentioned Kellen Mond a few times.  I think he's a very good prospect that no one (aside from Simms) seems to be talking about.  

12 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Most people are stupid, something I learned teaching college, then attending law school. By "stupid" I mean simply not trained or capable of doing basic research on any issue, with a fairly limited knowledge base. In every day life, that doesn't really matter, if you can master a few competences, and have the quasi-sociopathic gene (i.e. charm and the ability to hustle people), you can do fine.

Nor is this surprising, IQ is distributed in a normal distribution, 2/3s are below 1 standard deviation to the right, or 115 IQ. That is, fairly bright but no rocket scientist. But if you ask people for a self-evaluation, they're all above average. The Lake Woebegone effect. I went to a top 15 Law School, but I wouldn't hire the bottom half of my class for anything requiring serious legal analysis, I worked with a lot of law partners who were top quarter of their class at Harvard and wasn't impressed with their minds. Brilliant people are far rarer than people called brilliant, I've been taught by or worked with a handful, the rest are just hustlers who knew how to play the game, produce facile product, and climbed the ladder but  there's no there there.

The difference I found teaching (Millenials and just before) is that a lot of kids didn't like to read, they're not used to working through a 300 page book. Otherwise not much different. Technology doesn't make you dumber or smarter, but it also doesn't make you lazy or improve your work ethic. Just makes it easier to be lazy, but also provides more opportunity to learn if you want to put the work in. Ask yourself how often do you really research something in depth on Google, or just look at the first page, don't check the site or references and just take the first link that agrees with you at face value.

You don't learn by osmosis, it requires effort.

I definitely need to improve my literacy, comprehension, and research skills.

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

I don’t think he’s a superstar tbh. He’s was a really good player. I’d say a star but he was never Crosby, ovechkin, Kane in his prime type of guy. Flyers fans never want to admit that but he’s was never close to that type of talent. Frankly most aren’t. 

also I like provorov but i don’t think he’s close to being a no. 1 stud defenseman like pronger, Duncan Keith, doughty, pietrangelo, hedberg and guys of those ilk. He still young so maybe he gets there in time but if you want to win a Stanley Cup you need one of those defenseman. Go look at the last decade of champions besides the penguins who had letang but had the best player in the game in Crosby to make up for it had one. 

You do know there was a point where over a 5 year span giroux had more points than all of those players right

4 minutes ago, austinfan said:

"unbiased?" By whose standards?  It used to be taught that the "War Between the States" was about states' rights, ignoring the Fugitive Slave Act (which trampled states' rights to protect slavery). It took generations of scholars to finally change to the reality that the Civil War was about slavery, pure and simple, all you had to do was read the statements by the Southern leaders.

While I have little use for political correctness, and gag over most of what's taught in Sociology, until the last couple decades, HS education was highly biased toward defending the status quo. I've collected practically every article in academic journals on American History, and until 1970 or so, most were crap. The best writing is from 1970-2000, after which you start getting more left wing crap (lot's of 'isms) and really obscure topics (b/c academics need to publish in volume, so they look for new topics that haven't been mined). But there's still plenty of good research being done. It took two generations for this research to work it's way down to first college teaching, then pre-college.

For all the attention given to PC teaching, most college courses are pretty conservative, because most majors are conservative, business, engineering, etc. Only a minority of students are exposed to any extent to PC thinking, basically sociology, anthropology, some history, some literature courses.

Unbiased in the fact that if a student is asked to do a report on someone they admire and it's someone they don't necessarily like or agree with they aren't going to fail/shame/or report the student.  Letting students have minds of their own and not having to conform to the teachers thoughts and beliefs.  

19 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

BTW I finally figured out what is wrong with me:

 

I played with Mr Potato head and read Dr Suess as a child.

 

I am all better now. 

Did you make french fries and drop it like it's hot?

2 hours ago, Freshmilk said:

Flyers are behind the times when it comes to the current NHL.  Not enough speed up the ice and of course it impacts back checking, getting to the puck on dump ins.  That notwithstanding, on the 3rd Penguins goal allowing tow guys to set up on Hart's door step with nobody seemingly noticing is pathetic.   And I have no idea what they are doing with with PP entry into the zone.  Completely unorganized mess.  Oh, and it's become evident Patrick won't shoot the damn puck.   Most of all the team speed shows up in games against the better teams.

I think they need more speed. That’s been a problem for the flyer since they made the transition to the new NHL after the lock out. They’ve improved way better in that area than what they were when it first started. However it’s still not good enough. I would also say they have issues just getting the puck out of their zone. It really was noticeable in the bubble began to be a major issue in their third game of the round robin and it carried out in both the habs and islanders series.  I really just don’t think their defense is good enough. They have three good young players who aren’t there yet and they really need a number one type of defenseman to set up the rest of the defense. Not sure how they acquire that guy would’ve been easier to move cap and go after a pietrangelo who would’ve been their best defenseman since pronger (includes timonen who was great). 

If we are talking Nolan Patrick i thought he was overrated before he has the concussion issue last year. I still think he’s overrated. I don’t think he sucks and maybe as he gets older he lives up to his draft status but IMO he looks like he’s just going to always be a 30-40 point per season guy. 

1 hour ago, justrelax said:

Like with the Boeing 737.

Boeing out of this country sold redundant monitors on which the programming relied as options and other countries’ airliners opted for the cost savings while not adequately training their pilots to deal with it.  The 737 has been like the B52 airframe.  Capable of modification and continued use.  The Max accommodates a much more efficient engine. Actually pretty good engineering but also reliance on computer and manual interface that requires properly training pilots.   None crashed in the US because of the redundant monitors and that pilots are more extensively trained here by our domestic carriers.  

The idea that showing work is somehow degrading any people is nuts.  The reality of mathematics is that most of us go through like using it as a tool.  My sister studied to be a theoretical mathematician but as an educator primarily taught what I call practical mathematics.  She scoffs at the idea of not showing the work. That is calculator learning, not learning the process that is the tools. She also graded on understanding the process as much as getting the answer right. My son, like me, did most of the process in his head but like me tends to show his work so that he can double check for accuracy.  So it is sort of like the combination of redundant monitors and pilot training (BTW, in the US we also have redundant pilots).

But I disagree with Beast that the millennials are the smartest generation.  First, I find that to be a gross generalization.  I would say that each generation has similar levels of intelligence and skill.  Does each generation benefit from the progress of former generations, yes, but not everyone in a generation builds on that knowledge. 
 

 

50 minutes ago, TEW said:

Gen X is statistically the smartest generation by IQ. IQ gains peaked in people born in the mid 1970’s and the Flynn effect has reversed since then.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencealert.com/iq-scores-falling-in-worrying-reversal-20th-century-intelligence-boom-flynn-effect-intelligence/amp

IQ is such a bad measurement of intelligence.  Do they even bother to do IQ tests anymore?

18 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Most people are stupid, something I learned teaching college, then attending law school. By "stupid" I mean simply not trained or capable of doing basic research on any issue, with a fairly limited knowledge base. In every day life, that doesn't really matter, if you can master a few competences, and have the quasi-sociopathic gene (i.e. charm and the ability to hustle people), you can do fine.

Nor is this surprising, IQ is distributed in a normal distribution, 2/3s are below 1 standard deviation to the right, or 115 IQ. That is, fairly bright but no rocket scientist. But if you ask people for a self-evaluation, they're all above average. The Lake Woebegone effect. I went to a top 15 Law School, but I wouldn't hire the bottom half of my class for anything requiring serious legal analysis, I worked with a lot of law partners who were top quarter of their class at Harvard and wasn't impressed with their minds. Brilliant people are far rarer than people called brilliant, I've been taught by or worked with a handful, the rest are just hustlers who knew how to play the game, produce facile product, and climbed the ladder but  there's no there there.

The difference I found teaching (Millenials and just before) is that a lot of kids didn't like to read, they're not used to working through a 300 page book. Otherwise not much different. Technology doesn't make you dumber or smarter, but it also doesn't make you lazy or improve your work ethic. Just makes it easier to be lazy, but also provides more opportunity to learn if you want to put the work in. Ask yourself how often do you really research something in depth on Google, or just look at the first page, don't check the site or references and just take the first link that agrees with you at face value.

You don't learn by osmosis, it requires effort.

The biggest practical issue I see with millennials in the real world is, very few want to put the work in.  So many young people believe they’re entitled to start at or near the top instead of starting at the bottom and working your way up — there’s incredible value and perspective gained in doing that.  
The first job I had paid me $3.95 per hour, I often worked 12-14 hours per day and 6-7 days per week to get noticed by my bosses and work my way up.  I certainly don’t know any young people willing to do that now.  In both Canada and the US the immigrants do all the jobs that white kids think are beneath them.  I used to do those jobs.

Entitlement and laziness are in abundance now — can’t be a good thing for the future 

1 minute ago, BigEFly said:

Boeing out of this country sold redundant monitors on which the programming relied as options and other countries’ airliners opted for the cost savings while not adequately training their pilots to deal with it.  The 737 has been like the B52 airframe.  Capable of modification and continued use.  The Max accommodates a much more efficient engine. Actually pretty good engineering but also reliance on computer and manual interface that requires properly training pilots.   None crashed in the US because of the redundant monitors and that pilots are more extensively trained here by our domestic carriers.  

The idea that showing work is somehow degrading any people is nuts.  The reality of mathematics is that most of us go through like using it as a tool.  My sister studied to be a theoretical mathematician but as an educator primarily taught what I call practical mathematics.  She scoffs at the idea of not showing the work. That is calculator learning, not learning the process that is the tools. She also graded on understanding the process as much as getting the answer right. My son, like me, did most of the process in his head but like me tends to show his work so that he can double check for accuracy.  So it is sort of like the combination of redundant monitors and pilot training (BTW, in the US we also have redundant pilots).

But I disagree with Beast that the millennials are the smartest generation.  First, I find that to be a gross generalization.  I would say that each generation has similar levels of intelligence and skill.  Does each generation benefit from the progress of former generations, yes, but not everyone in a generation builds on that knowledge. 
 

 

This is the important thing to know.  Just like my parents struggle with some technology, my niece and nephew have no idea how to use a compass or protractor.  Probably don't even know what they are.

Show them a map and they're clueless.  Ask them to help with Waze and they can get us to the beach.

1 hour ago, Original Sin said:

I’d argue millennials are the smartest generation , pretty sure statistics back it up .

This is an interesting proposition, but is one, I suspect, that is quite difficult to quantify objectively. It seems that the outcome will depend on the metric examined. Younger generations have the advantage of superior technology and a large cumulative knowledge base when compared to previous generations.

My experience with current university students (the old eyeball test) is that they are not as intellectually curious as were their predecessors and that they want things handed to them. They do not take criticism well. There also is a heightened sense of entitlement.

Having said all that, the differences I described are slight.

29 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

This is a huge part of it.  What we're finding out now is that more and more teachers are teaching their ideals and forcing them on to students.  I have a problem with this style of teaching.  I come from a family of teachers and I really take pride in the way they went about an even/fair unbiased curriculum.  The whole idea of teaching is to help develop individual minds, to find students strengths and help them flourish at what they are good at, not to force ideas on them to think exactly the way you want them to. 

I come from a family of teachers, too.  The problem now is a generational swap.  Teachers with the qualities that you talk about are retiring out and being replaced by a generation with a whole different set of American ideals...and it's going to get worse.   They teach from the environment that they know and what was accepted in the personal/educational/political environments that they were exposed to for so many years.  You can also add the media situation right on top of that. 

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

If we are talking Nolan Patrick

I would give him until midway through next season to make a proper evaluation on him.  He had a lot of time off.  He flashes some stuff and shows he has skill.  It could be a lack of conditioning, game speed, and confidence at the moment.  If he is still underperforming by the end of next year, then it's definitely time to worry.

Today’s young adults are much better educated than their grandparents, as the share of young adults with a bachelor’s degree or higher has steadily climbed since 1968. Among Millennials, around four-in-ten (39%) of those ages 25 to 37 have a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with just 15% of the Silent Generation, roughly a quarter of Baby Boomers and about three-in-ten Gen Xers (29%) when they were the same age.

1 hour ago, TEW said:

Gen X is statistically the smartest generation by IQ. IQ gains peaked in people born in the mid 1970’s and the Flynn effect has reversed since then.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencealert.com/iq-scores-falling-in-worrying-reversal-20th-century-intelligence-boom-flynn-effect-intelligence/amp

Thanks for the reference. I may use it in my biometry class.