Cowboys sucked last year even with Dak healthy, or am I misremembering? 

24 minutes ago, WentzFan11 said:

Cowboys sucked last year even with Dak healthy, or am I misremembering? 

No, they sucked.  But they put up more points with him.   Their defense just gave up more as well.   They got lucky to get that first win (only win) with Dak.

Cryptic ..............

 

 

Just now, downundermike said:

Cryptic ..............

 

 

Must be in reference to the "article" from BGN.

4 hours ago, TorontoEagle said:

Well let's deep dive this.

Under BOB, who took over in 2014, he had QBs Fitzpatrick, Hoyer, and Osweiler. They put up 372, 339 and 279 points, respectively. (On a side note, 279 is just...really bad, like 17 ppg bad).

In those three years, the defense allowed 307, 313, and 328, respectively. Point differentials being 65, 26, and -49. 

Watson comes in and plays only 6 games his rookie year, but the team is able to post 338 points for. Now, they then allowed an absurd 436, or 27 ppg. 

So the next three years, Watson posts 402, 378 and 384, higher totals than all the years BOB was there before he arrived. So far so good, though you assert it's due to stat padding.

Well, the defense gives up 316, 385, then a ridiculous 464 points against, respectively. That's a dead even 29 ppg. I don't think you could produce one QB who would be able to overcome that kind of defensive ineptitude. Point differentials there being 86, -7, -80. That's a massive swing over 2 years. 

And the talent on Houston was never average. Yes, Hopkins was a bonafide stud, but he's about it. I would never consider the likes of Lamar MIller or Carlos Hyde or David Johnson last year to be reliable RBs. Outside of Hopkins, you had Will Fuller who is more fragile than any player on the Eagles, and that's saying something. Dude stayed healthy for the first time in his career because he pumped up on PEDs. 

Brandin Cooks had a nice year last year, but he's clearly a #2 WR and should never be counted on as a #1. TE's were trash. O-line was also not very good.

Reich is likely a far better coach than BOB. So if we had put Watson in Indy last year, do you really think he wouldn't have thrived? And as such, if he were to come here under Sirianni, why couldn't he then thrive here? 

You are trying to talk to a person that literally told me the texans offensive line his past year was close to special. Meanwhile the highest ranking PFF gave them over the last year years was 20. They’ve been 23rd, 20 and 23rd. Tunsil is the only OL they had this year in the 70s per grade. The rest of the starters were 56, 57, 62 and 63. Yet he had the audacity to tell me the Texans line was close to special. He makes takes like the Texans had a good oline meanwhile literally the world knows they were atrocious outside of tunsil. Yet they scored 24 ppg and watson had better numbers than Carson wentz during his Mvp-Esque season this past year with Fuller missing a game and then getting suspended. And running back roulette. if their defense wasn’t ranked bottom 3 in ppg, turnovers (last), run defense (last) and then just had on pass defense they might have actually scored more points as they’d get more possessions. 

6 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Must be in reference to the "article" from BGN.

BGN was just quote tweeting, the article was from, you guessed it, Jeff "The Axe Man" McLane

4 hours ago, TorontoEagle said:

Well let's deep dive this.

Under BOB, who took over in 2014, he had QBs Fitzpatrick, Hoyer, and Osweiler. They put up 372, 339 and 279 points, respectively. (On a side note, 279 is just...really bad, like 17 ppg bad).

In those three years, the defense allowed 307, 313, and 328, respectively. Point differentials being 65, 26, and -49. 

Watson comes in and plays only 6 games his rookie year, but the team is able to post 338 points for. Now, they then allowed an absurd 436, or 27 ppg. 

So the next three years, Watson posts 402, 378 and 384, higher totals than all the years BOB was there before he arrived. So far so good, though you assert it's due to stat padding.

Well, the defense gives up 316, 385, then a ridiculous 464 points against, respectively. That's a dead even 29 ppg. I don't think you could produce one QB who would be able to overcome that kind of defensive ineptitude. Point differentials there being 86, -7, -80. That's a massive swing over 2 years. 

And the talent on Houston was never average. Yes, Hopkins was a bonafide stud, but he's about it. I would never consider the likes of Lamar MIller or Carlos Hyde or David Johnson last year to be reliable RBs. Outside of Hopkins, you had Will Fuller who is more fragile than any player on the Eagles, and that's saying something. Dude stayed healthy for the first time in his career because he pumped up on PEDs. 

Brandin Cooks had a nice year last year, but he's clearly a #2 WR and should never be counted on as a #1. TE's were trash. O-line was also not very good.

Reich is likely a far better coach than BOB. So if we had put Watson in Indy last year, do you really think he wouldn't have thrived? And as such, if he were to come here under Sirianni, why couldn't he then thrive here? 

 

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

You are trying to talk to a person that literally told me the texans offensive line his past year was close to special. Meanwhile the highest ranking PFF gave them over the last year years was 20. They’ve been 23rd, 20 and 23rd. Tunsil is the only OL they had this year in the 70s per grade. The rest of the starters were 56, 57, 62 and 63. Yet he had the audacity to tell me the Texans line was close to special. He makes takes like the Texans had a good oline meanwhile literally the world knows they were atrocious outside of tunsil. Yet they scored 24 ppg and watson had better numbers than Carson wentz during his Mvp-Esque season this past year with Fuller missing a game and then getting suspended. And running back roulette. if their defense wasn’t ranked bottom 3 in ppg, turnovers (last), run defense (last) and then just had on pass defense they might have actually scored more points as they’d get more possessions. 

This is all a narrative by afan.  If the Eagles traded for Watson, that would mean another massive draft failure by Howie Roseman ( Hurts )

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

BGN was just quote tweeting, the article was from, you guessed it, Jeff "The Axe Man" McLane

sigh... I didn't bother clicking it.

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

 

This is all a narrative by afan.  If the Eagles traded for Watson, that would mean another massive draft failure by Howie Roseman ( Hurts )

Wrong. That would mean Hurts was a Doug pick and forced Howies hand.

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

 

This is all a narrative by afan.  If the Eagles traded for Watson, that would mean another massive draft failure by Howie Roseman ( Hurts )

I was just coming on the blog to actually read how afan was going to bash Cox as the reports came out there’s an internal concern with him. 

25 minutes ago, WentzFan11 said:

Cowboys sucked last year even with Dak healthy, or am I misremembering? 

Sucked. Dak would have been 0-4 if not for the worst special teams play I have ever seen in my life.

4 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Sucked. Dak would have been 0-4 if not for the worst special teams play I have ever seen in my life.

I would not say he sucked, he lost games scoring 31 and 38 points, and in the game referenced scored 40.  Over those same 3 weeks, the Cowboys gave up 42 PPG.

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

I would not say he sucked, he lost games scoring 31 and 38 points, and in the game referenced scored 40.  Over those same 3 weeks, the Cowboys gave up 42 PPG.

I meant Cowboys as a team sucked.

12 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Wrong. That would mean Hurts was a Doug pick and forced Howies hand.

Clearly should’ve taken a chance and traded everything to get that unproven mahomes guy in KC. 

I didn't read the Fletcher Cox article, but football and certainly the NFL are a young, hungry man's game. The sport is so physically demanding. Once a player cashes in AND wins a Super Bowl, most are happy with their career. They're set for life financially and won a ring. This is why some teams don't give out very many big contracts to their best players. Think New England. Your team has to be young and hungry. You don't want a bunch of 30+ year old players who are dinged and less desperate. Fletcher isn't the only player to fall in this line.

1 hour ago, Bacarty2 said:

Medicaid pays into it( pay into that0, and grant is just a fancy word for saying Tax payer money. 

I would pay more in taxes if I got to choose where the money went(I believe most people would)

I also believe we spend too much money on wasted projects, wasted situations and things we shouldnt be a part of(post office and abortions come to mind) and yes I know they're both grants 

 

Medicaid does not unless the state pays for it.  Most states do not pay for abortion through Medicaid.  Pennsylvania pays for it in the same circumstances that Federal funds can be use. I mean the exception is for cases of rape, incest or where the mothers' life is in danger.  

If you think the government shouldn't be involved in post offices, I can't help you.  I mean the founding fathers seemed to think the issue of a postal service was important enough to put in the Constitution.  

We have a representative democracy but even when things like bonds for schools and parks are on a ballot, I don't think it increases participation.  Typically ballot initiatives are used to drive voter turnout on issues rather than actually determining any spending.  

1 hour ago, Utebird said:

If one wants to limit abortion get a vasectomy.

The simplest way to decrease abortion and save taxes would be to regulate men's bodies not women's 

 A women during a 10 month period of time can get pregnant exactly 1 time, during that same amount of time 1 man can potentially impregnate 100s of women.

It's simple math, want to decrease abortions shift the responsibility the gender with the potential to lead to more abortions, men, and regulate their bodies.

Of course that would never happen because the majority of law makers are Men.

 

I’m a Democrat , let’s say I lean democrat   , but I don’t believe one dime of tax payer money should fund abortions , I am also pro life , except in rape , incest ,  mother’s health cases .

but hell , that is just one of many tax payer subsidies , I don’t believe in .

per Forbes

As best I can determine, taxpayers subsidize roughly 24% of all abortion costs in the U.S. with 6.6% borne by federal taxpayers and the remaining 17.4% picked up by state taxpayers. If we apply the 24% figure to the total number of abortions,  this is equivalent to taxpayers paying the full cost of 250,000 abortions a year, with about 70,000 financed by federal taxpayers  and 180,000 financed by state taxpayers

1 hour ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

We would be wise to entertain offers for Cox. 

Speak for yourself 

1 hour ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

We would be wise to entertain offers for Cox. 

So you would entertain cox

1 hour ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

We would be wise to entertain offers for Cox. 

I tend to agree. What would you take for him right now? Does the value change if he’s traded right at the deadline to a contender? 

3 hours ago, Utebird said:

If one wants to limit abortion get a vasectomy.

The simplest way to decrease abortion and save taxes would be to regulate men's bodies not women's 

 A women during a 10 month period of time can get pregnant exactly 1 time, during that same amount of time 1 man can potentially impregnate 100s of women.

It's simple math, want to decrease abortions shift the responsibility the gender with the potential to lead to more abortions, men, and regulate their bodies.

Of course that would never happen because the majority of law makers are Men.

 

Laughably incorrect

in ten months they have ten chances. Far easier to stop one egg than millions of sperm

 

1 hour ago, Original Sin said:

I’m a Democrat , let’s say I lean democrat   , but I don’t believe one dime of tax payer money should fund abortions , I am also pro life , except in rape , incest ,  mother’s health cases .

but hell , that is just one of many tax payer subsidies , I don’t believe in .

per Forbes

As best I can determine, taxpayers subsidize roughly 24% of all abortion costs in the U.S. with 6.6% borne by federal taxpayers and the remaining 17.4% picked up by state taxpayers. If we apply the 24% figure to the total number of abortions,  this is equivalent to taxpayers paying the full cost of 250,000 abortions a year, with about 70,000 financed by federal taxpayers  and 180,000 financed by state taxpayers

Yup actually read that article previously,

Im pro choice and I don't like my taxes paying for abortions either I'd rather it go towards actual public health,and logically the most effective way to limit or decrease abortions would be to regulate men's Bodies, not women's.

As we know though the abortion debate isn't actually about abortion or preserving life, it's what it's always been about since the beginning of time, controlling women 

If it were about preserving lives and taxes and decreasing or preventing abortion then those that call for such would move to regulate men's bodies.

 

3 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Yup actually read that article previously,

Im pro choice and I don't like my taxes paying for abortions either I'd rather it go towards actual public health,and logically the most effective way to limit or decrease abortions would be to regulate men's Bodies, not women's.

As we know though the abortion debate isn't actually about abortion or preserving life, it's what it's always been about since the beginning of time, controlling women 

If it were about preserving lives and taxes and decreasing or preventing abortion then those that call for such would move to regulate men's bodies.

 

You think like a child

17 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Laughably incorrect

in ten months they have ten chances. Far easier to stop one egg than millions of sperm

 

Somebody dropped out of sex Ed.

This is a fairly simple concept 

A women can give birth once in 10 months, once she's pregnant she can have sex 1million times and not get pregnant while pregnant in those ten months 

She has the ability to create 1 child in one year.

Now if you are saying ten chances in ten months assuming she's getting an abortion every month again id refer you back to sex Ed.

Whose ever heard of a women getting pregnant ten times in 10 months and abortin g each pregnancy after a month assuming she even knows she's pregnant as most women don't even know the first month.

Instead of going through ridiculous scenarios and doing mental gymnastics wouldn't it just be easier to do the logical and regulate the source, men's sperm???

Like I said a man can get hundreds of women pregnant with the ten months it takes for a women to have 1 baby, let's say that she got pregnant multiple times in a year and aborted each time, even the the maximum amount of times she could have an abortion is about 5 times as I said previously most women don't know they're pregnant the first month, not to mention most women aren't having sex immediately after an abortion.

Meanwhile during that same time that a women potentially aborted 5 fetuses a man in that same time can impregnate hundreds of women.

It's really not that difficult of a concept to understand if you have a basic understanding sexual reproduction and basic math.

7 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

You think like a child

A child who can do basic addition and has a basic understanding of the human reproductive system.

Seriously your grumpy old entitled man schtick is old.