Overall, the only way I see value in JJAW is if he learns to function in the slot and we drop one of our TE's heading into 2021.  

Other than that, he adds nothing to this offense.

2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Yeah, he may be and I don't care about that and people can get over it as well. He could help that defense be unreal and cover some of the weaknesses. Dak can have whatever weapons he wants but if he is running for his life every down it won't matter. The middle of the pocket will be collapsing. Him and BG coming off the edge would be a major issue for offenses and wear out lines. Long term? No way. One year? Roll the dice.

I'm all for a 1 year deal so that he can produce for us and then produce a comp pick when he walks.

However, I think our DL is much, much further from being scary than anyone realizes.  BG has never been to a pro-bowl, has never been a terror as a pass rusher, and is 1 year closer to retirement.  Yes, he's well rounded, high motor, and has a knack for timely plays.  But BG coming off the edge isn't going to be a major issue for anyone in 2020.

And Clowney, despite all his athletic marvels, draft status, and being a very well-rounded, sound DE himself...is also not a terror coming off the edge.  

So I'd be very happy with Graham/Clowney for a year, but they are not going to be an unstoppable force together.  And we'd also very likely have to replace both of them come year-end.

4 minutes ago, Giddyunc said:

Our country was founded with the belief that government is evil. When we give people power over other individuals (which is essentially what government is), the people in power will often times abuse their position. However, we recognized that government is also necessary. We need government to do things for the collective good. So how do we reconcile the fact that government (people with power over other individuals) is a necessary evil? We do that by restricting, or limiting, the power of government. States Rights epitomizes that idea.Our Founders recognized this and created a system (from which we greatly strayed) that LIMITS how much power one individual can have over another. 

There's obviously a lot more to States Rights than just this, but this is just the basic concept of the theory that unfortunately has been lost on our society. Civics is dead.  

That is a gross oversimplification. As far as "states' rights," this has traditionally been the dog whistle for segregation and opposition to the Civil Rights movement.

The Founding Fathers, for one thing, had diverse opinions on political philosophy, Hamilton certainly didn't agree with Jefferson and Madison, yet Hamilton and Madison co-wrote the Federalist along with John Jay.

They certainty didn't think that government was "evil." They may have considered it a "necessary evil," which is not the same thing.

And much of the Constitution is a compromise between sovereign states who discovered they couldn't work together under the Articles of Confederation, and needed a strong central government to prevent the states from beggaring their neighbors and to provide for the common defense and welfare. It was also a compromise between states dependent on slavery (which was universal at the time the 3/5 compromise was incorporated, it would be another 50 years before slavery began to be abolished on a widespread basis), states who were primarily agricultural and the major coastal trading centers of Boston, NYC and Philadelphia, and between those afraid of government and those afraid of the passions of the mob.

If you want to understand the origins and compromises, here's a small sample of the copious literature:

Bouton - Taming Democracy: "The People," the Founders, and the Troubled Ending of the American Revolution - Oxford 2007

Ferling -  A Leap In the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic - Oxford 2008

Wood - The Creating of the American Republic, 1776-1787 - Norton 1992

Onuf - The Origins of the Federal Republic: Jurisdictional Controversies in the United States, 1775-1787 - U Pennsylvania 1983

Rakove, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution, Vintage 2010

Edling - A Revolution in Favor of Government: Origins of the US Constitution, Oxford 2013

Slonim - Forging the American Nation, 1787-1791: James Madison and the Federalist Revolution - Palgrave 2017

Johnson - Righteous Anger at the Wicked States; The Meaning of the Founders' Constitution - Cambridge 2005

Holton - Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution - Hill and Wang 2007

Maier - Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 - Simon and Schuster 2011

Levy - Origin of the Bill of Rights - Yale 1999

2 hours ago, ManuManu said:

Coaches say lots of stuff. I simply don’t believe him. But if you want to take the comment at face value, that’s fine too. 

 

I agree with you that coaches say lots of stuff for various reasons.  They want to avoid controversy, keep a player's morale up, etc. No argument there.

That said, money speaks volumes.  They just gave Hill $21M, $16M gtd over 2 years.  I don't think they would give him that kind of money if they didn't think he had starting QB potential.

2 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

I'm all for a 1 year deal so that he can produce for us and then produce a comp pick when he walks.

However, I think our DL is much, much further from being scary than anyone realizes.  BG has never been to a pro-bowl, has never been a terror as a pass rusher, and is 1 year closer to retirement.  Yes, he's well rounded, high motor, and has a knack for timely plays.  But BG coming off the edge isn't going to be a major issue for anyone in 2020.

And Clowney, despite all his athletic marvels, draft status, and being a very well-rounded, sound DE himself...is also not a terror coming off the edge.  

So I'd be very happy with Graham/Clowney for a year, but they are not going to be an unstoppable force together.  And we'd also very likely have to replace both of them come year-end.

We may have the best DTs as a group in the NHL if Jackson can bounce back:  Cox, Hargrave, Jackson, Rush, Ridgeway. I really like what I saw of Rush last year.

At DE, we have two solid but not flashy starters, and a lot of speed balls off the bench, and we just added another one.

Schwartz, I think, values pressure over sacks, he wants to move QBs off their spot and make them uncomfortable, and of course, with our putrid CBs, sacks are hard to find.

"Over the last three seasons, the only team to generate pressure on over 40% of its pass-rushing snaps has been the Eagles, and they’ve been able to do that while blitzing on just 22% of those snaps (fifth-lowest rate in the league)."

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-a-stacked-philadelphia-eagles-defensive-line-got-even-better-with-the-javon-hargrave-signing

1 hour ago, Br3 said:

Yikes. We knew the eagles were absolutely mindblowingly horrible at evaluating WR talent but 30 years? God help this team. 

Past being prologue, we couldn’t be expected to win SBLII either. History was agin it. There have been plenty of late round picks who have excelled as WRs. UDFAs too, 

5 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

I'm all for a 1 year deal so that he can produce for us and then produce a comp pick when he walks.

However, I think our DL is much, much further from being scary than anyone realizes.  BG has never been to a pro-bowl, has never been a terror as a pass rusher, and is 1 year closer to retirement.  Yes, he's well rounded, high motor, and has a knack for timely plays.  But BG coming off the edge isn't going to be a major issue for anyone in 2020.

And Clowney, despite all his athletic marvels, draft status, and being a very well-rounded, sound DE himself...is also not a terror coming off the edge.  

So I'd be very happy with Graham/Clowney for a year, but they are not going to be an unstoppable force together.  And we'd also very likely have to replace both of them come year-end.

Agree, which is why if Jax would lower their price that would be my first choice. They may not be terrors but they have to be dealt with and with the middle collapsing the way it should with the three good DT they have they could be really good.

7 minutes ago, austinfan said:

That is a gross oversimplification. As far as "states' rights," this has traditionally been the dog whistle for segregation and opposition to the Civil Rights movement.

The Founding Fathers, for one thing, had diverse opinions on political philosophy, Hamilton certainly didn't agree with Jefferson and Madison, yet Hamilton and Madison co-wrote the Federalist along with John Jay.

They certainty didn't think that government was "evil." They may have considered it a "necessary evil," which is not the same thing.

And much of the Constitution is a compromise between sovereign states who discovered they couldn't work together under the Articles of Confederation, and needed a strong central government to prevent the states from beggaring their neighbors and to provide for the common defense and welfare. It was also a compromise between states dependent on slavery (which was universal at the time the 3/5 compromise was incorporated, it would be another 50 years before slavery began to be abolished on a widespread basis), states who were primarily agricultural and the major coastal trading centers of Boston, NYC and Philadelphia, and between those afraid of government and those afraid of the passions of the mob.

If you want to understand the origins and compromises, here's a small sample of the copious literature:

Bouton - Taming Democracy: "The People," the Founders, and the Troubled Ending of the American Revolution - Oxford 2007

Ferling -  A Leap In the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic - Oxford 2008

Wood - The Creating of the American Republic, 1776-1787 - Norton 1992

Onuf - The Origins of the Federal Republic: Jurisdictional Controversies in the United States, 1775-1787 - U Pennsylvania 1983

Rakove, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution, Vintage 2010

Edling - A Revolution in Favor of Government: Origins of the US Constitution, Oxford 2013

Slonim - Forging the American Nation, 1787-1791: James Madison and the Federalist Revolution - Palgrave 2017

Johnson - Righteous Anger at the Wicked States; The Meaning of the Founders' Constitution - Cambridge 2005

Holton - Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution - Hill and Wang 2007

Maier - Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 - Simon and Schuster 2011

Levy - Origin of the Bill of Rights - Yale 1999

I can't speak to the work you listed, but I do find it interesting that everything you cited came late in the nation's history. That's not to say any of it lacks merit, but I do tend to find that stuff written after the second half of the 20th century tends to take a vantage point that was non-existent at the time of the founding. Which, again, isn't to say it lacks truth, but in my experience it can tint the glasses of the research.

Sigh. It is State Rights. IOW, the rights of the individual state. BTW, the Rakove book on Original Meanings is a masterpiece, imho.

44 minutes ago, Giddyunc said:

You're going to think that this is a shot at you, but it's really not. For all I know, you might have a PhD in Political Philosophy. 

A lot of people in this country are lacking a basic understanding of civics. This topic is too complicated and requires too much explanation to adequately address on a football message board, but I'm going to lay out some basics.

People don't support States Rights because they support racism or slavery. They support States Rights because it encompasses the founding philosophy of this country; the founding philosophy that separates the United States from the rest of the world. Our country was founded with the belief that government is evil. When we give people power over other individuals (which is essentially what government is), the people in power will often times abuse their position. However, we recognized that government is also necessary. We need government to do things for the collective good. So how do we reconcile the fact that government (people with power over other individuals) is a necessary evil? We do that by restricting, or limiting, the power of government. States Rights epitomizes that idea.

The best way to explain it is with a hypothetical thought experiment. Come up with any issue or problem that can exist in life. Now ask yourself this: can this problem/issue be addressed without the help from government? If the answer is yes, then government is restricted from having a role in said issue. Let's say the answer is no. An individual alone can't address said issue. The next question is, can your local government address the issue? If yes, the State and Federal government should have no jurisdiction over that issue. If the local government can't, then it falls under the jurisdiction of the State government. Only problems/issues that the individual, the local government, and the State government can't handle should fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government. On every level, we LIMIT the government's power. We restrict the power, because we recognize that despite being an entity that can do good, government has shown over the history of man that it can, and WILL, be abused. 

People like to point to slavery as a way to dismiss States Rights. Ironically, it illustrates why we need it. Slavery showed how people with power over other individuals (government) can abuse their position for horrible purposes. Humans are capable of atrocities. Our Founders recognized this and created a system (from which we greatly strayed) that LIMITS how much power one individual can have over another. 

There's obviously a lot more to States Rights than just this, but this is just the basic concept of the theory that unfortunately has been lost on our society. Civics is dead.  

Ok so 3 percenters are constitutionalists that want the government to be of and for the people.

Does that mean up holding the 3/5ths compromise? If so theyre racist.

How do 3 percenters feel about medicate for all? Around 70% of americans are in favor of medicare 4 all. If 3percenters are against that they are against the voice of the people and for corporations.

How much energy do the 3 percenters put towards preserving the environment compared to the energy they put towards gun rights?

Im all for states rights yet even when one lets states govern themselves they are still ruled by someone in a true republic everyone in that republic would have an equal voice and equal power setting up a more communal state.

How do 3 percenters feel about socialism compared to capitalism?

Capitalism creates tiers of power through accumulation of profit/goods by those who exploit others to accumulate said goods creating an imbalance in individual power and rights.

Socialism like capitalism is vulnerable to greedy men controlling populations so whats the solution?

Anarchy- every man for himself which in my opinion is closer to what 3 percenters are attempting to accomplish.

Interestingly enough in a state of anarchy people tend to form small communal groups/communities(safety in numbers)

The further one gets away from government the more people rely on each other yet whenever someone suggests a social program like medicare 4 all, right wing groups like the 3 percenters get all uppity and start complaining about over reaching government and the need for more guns to protect themselves from a government that wants to rule them with socialism😒

Its bass ackwards thinking maybe thats why he wants to get rid of his 3% tattoo because it represents backwards thinking 😉

I dont have a phd in anything just a concerned citizen trying to do this thing called life.😊

 

7 minutes ago, austinfan said:

We may have the best DTs as a group in the NHL if Jackson can bounce back:  Cox, Hargrave, Jackson, Rush, Ridgeway. I really like what I saw of Rush last year.

At DE, we have two solid but not flashy starters, and a lot of speed balls off the bench, and we just added another one.

Schwartz, I think, values pressure over sacks, he wants to move QBs off their spot and make them uncomfortable, and of course, with our putrid CBs, sacks are hard to find.

"Over the last three seasons, the only team to generate pressure on over 40% of its pass-rushing snaps has been the Eagles, and they’ve been able to do that while blitzing on just 22% of those snaps (fifth-lowest rate in the league)."

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-a-stacked-philadelphia-eagles-defensive-line-got-even-better-with-the-javon-hargrave-signing

I think the addition of Hargrave and Jackson (anticipating they remain healthy) will only improve our DE play as well.  I'm still crossing fingers for Barnett to have a breakout year, and if he has dominant DT play inside, I can see him and Graham getting home much more rather than just "generating pressures."

42 minutes ago, austinfan said:

That is a gross oversimplification. As far as "states' rights," this has traditionally been the dog whistle for segregation and opposition to the Civil Rights movement.

The Founding Fathers, for one thing, had diverse opinions on political philosophy, Hamilton certainly didn't agree with Jefferson and Madison, yet Hamilton and Madison co-wrote the Federalist along with John Jay.

They certainty didn't think that government was "evil." They may have considered it a "necessary evil," which is not the same thing.

And much of the Constitution is a compromise between sovereign states who discovered they couldn't work together under the Articles of Confederation, and needed a strong central government to prevent the states from beggaring their neighbors and to provide for the common defense and welfare. It was also a compromise between states dependent on slavery (which was universal at the time the 3/5 compromise was incorporated, it would be another 50 years before slavery began to be abolished on a widespread basis), states who were primarily agricultural and the major coastal trading centers of Boston, NYC and Philadelphia, and between those afraid of government and those afraid of the passions of the mob.

If you want to understand the origins and compromises, here's a small sample of the copious literature:

Bouton - Taming Democracy: "The People," the Founders, and the Troubled Ending of the American Revolution - Oxford 2007

Ferling -  A Leap In the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic - Oxford 2008

Wood - The Creating of the American Republic, 1776-1787 - Norton 1992

Onuf - The Origins of the Federal Republic: Jurisdictional Controversies in the United States, 1775-1787 - U Pennsylvania 1983

Rakove, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution, Vintage 2010

Edling - A Revolution in Favor of Government: Origins of the US Constitution, Oxford 2013

Slonim - Forging the American Nation, 1787-1791: James Madison and the Federalist Revolution - Palgrave 2017

Johnson - Righteous Anger at the Wicked States; The Meaning of the Founders' Constitution - Cambridge 2005

Holton - Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution - Hill and Wang 2007

Maier - Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 - Simon and Schuster 2011

Levy - Origin of the Bill of Rights - Yale 1999

First, of course that was a simplified view of States Rights. Second, I don't care what someone thinks is or is not a dog whistle. The fact that some people get offended by the concept (based off of their misunderstanding) is irrelevant to me. Third, yes, they thought that the existence of government was a necessary evil. I said that. Fourth, of course there was disagreement. Taking any theory and applying it to practice will always lead to technical disagreements, and that's exactly what happened. And lastly, the issues that you mentioned which called for a strong Central government are exactly right. They were issues/problems that could not be handled by the individual, local government, or State government. Therefore, they had to be handled by a strong Federal Government. That's why those powers were enumerated. 

5 minutes ago, justrelax said:

Past being prologue, we couldn’t be expected to win SBLII either. History was agin it. There have been plenty of late round picks who have excelled as WRs. UDFAs too, 

The depth of the draft at WR pushed 4th round talent later into day 3.

Also, just need one of Hightower, Watkins, and Goodwin to stick.

9 minutes ago, austinfan said:

We may have the best DTs as a group in the NHL if Jackson can bounce back:  Cox, Hargrave, Jackson, Rush, Ridgeway. I really like what I saw of Rush last year.

At DE, we have two solid but not flashy starters, and a lot of speed balls off the bench, and we just added another one.

Schwartz, I think, values pressure over sacks, he wants to move QBs off their spot and make them uncomfortable, and of course, with our putrid CBs, sacks are hard to find.

"Over the last three seasons, the only team to generate pressure on over 40% of its pass-rushing snaps has been the Eagles, and they’ve been able to do that while blitzing on just 22% of those snaps (fifth-lowest rate in the league)."

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-a-stacked-philadelphia-eagles-defensive-line-got-even-better-with-the-javon-hargrave-signing

Sure, that's fine.  That PFF stat, like most PFF stats, is silly though.  

Schwartz's philosophy of pressures over sacks, interior talent over edge talent, and contain from the edge has consistently produced good but not great defenses that slam the door shut against the run, are vulnerable against the pass, and certainly don't do much to make opposing QB's uncomfortable.  That's the comment that lost me.  We've had 4 years now demonstrating exactly this result in Philly.

The fluctuation and wild card, over the years, has been the CB play.  He's had quite good, still not elite, defense when the CB play is reliable.  If Slay ups the game for our secondary this year and cuts out some of our bad big plays, the defense will take a nice step forward.

This interior DL is going to be great against the run and will collapse the pocket with a good frequency.  They aren't blowing up a team's passing game plan.  Not happening.  

6 minutes ago, TEW said:

I can't speak to the work you listed, but I do find it interesting that everything you cited came late in the nation's history. That's not to say any of it lacks merit, but I do tend to find that stuff written after the second half of the 20th century tends to take a vantage point that was non-existent at the time of the founding. Which, again, isn't to say it lacks truth, but in my experience it can tint the glasses of the research.

A list on this subject that doesn't include Bernard Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution is woefully incomplete.  The same mentality that led to the revolution didn't magically disappear when it came time to draw up the Constitution.

1 minute ago, eagle45 said:

Sure, that's fine.  That PFF stat, like most PFF stats, is silly though.  

Schwartz's philosophy of pressures over sacks, interior talent over edge talent, and contain from the edge has consistently produced good but not great defenses that slam the door shut against the run, are vulnerable against the pass, and certainly don't do much to make opposing QB's uncomfortable.  That's the comment that lost me.  We've had 4 years now demonstrating exactly this result in Philly.

The fluctuation and wild card, over the years, has been the CB play.  He's had quite good, still not elite, defense when the CB play is reliable.  If Slay ups the game for our secondary this year and cuts out some of our bad big plays, the defense will take a nice step forward.

This interior DL is going to be great against the run and will collapse the pocket with a good frequency.  They aren't blowing up a team's passing game plan.  Not happening.  

Uh, we've done a pretty good job of limiting scoring despite some of the worst CBs in the NFL.

And we've had some bad luck, Jerrigan's back, Jackson's foot.

As you point out, with any kind of solid CB play we're a top ten, maybe a top five defense, we're certainly among the top in stopping the run, we're the best at generating pressure, the problem is any QB should be able to complete passes with the kind of cushion Eagle CBs allow. We don't need All pro CBs, just ones that don't play marshmallow coverage.

Completely forgot that Khalil Tate existed.

Just now, austinfan said:

Uh, we've done a pretty good job of limiting scoring despite some of the worst CBs in the NFL.

And we've had some bad luck, Jerrigan's back, Jackson's foot.

As you point out, with any kind of solid CB play we're a top ten, maybe a top five defense, we're certainly among the top in stopping the run, we're the best at generating pressure, the problem is any QB should be able to complete passes with the kind of cushion Eagle CBs allow. We don't need All pro CBs, just ones that don't play marshmallow coverage.

I don't believe PFF's pressure stats.  That's a different debate though.

I don't see how this defense hits top 5.  We don't have the uniform coverage ability in the secondary or the pass rush necessary to do that.  Top 10?  Absolutely.  But I don't mind as much about those numbers.  There are 3 kinds of defenses in the NFL:

1.  Defenses that are good enough to be the reason you win a superbowl.  Between 0-2 of these in the league.

2.  Defenses that are good enough to win a superbowl with if your offense carries you.

3.  Defenses that prevent you from winning a superbowl.

We are going to have #2.

16 minutes ago, TEW said:

I can't speak to the work you listed, but I do find it interesting that everything you cited came late in the nation's history. That's not to say any of it lacks merit, but I do tend to find that stuff written after the second half of the 20th century tends to take a vantage point that was non-existent at the time of the founding. Which, again, isn't to say it lacks truth, but in my experience it can tint the glasses of the research.

Uh, these are the top historians working off original documents. Don't know what "vantage point" you mean.

What these works attempt to do is illustrate the thinking of people at that time. Both those in power and those on the street.

Actually, the worst historians were in the 19th century and the 1st half of the 20th century, when most histories were bald polemics with no professional standards.

And we know not to trust a document, like Madison's "Notes on the Convention," because many writers had an axe to grind (and if you think we have "fake news" now, the press of the 18th and 19th centuries was far more partisan, more like our current Cable "news"). You have to look at the broad spectrum of writings and not cherry pick what suits your preconceived opinions.

The fundamental question that the FO will have asked themselves is a simple one. How many Nick Foles are out there ready to take a team over and deep into the play offs?  Not just get through a game, but win many games, including a Super Bowl.

Is that Sudfeld?  Or McCown?  And if it is a Wintson or Newton, how long can you keep them for?  Let alone considering the cap implications on your 55 man roster.  At some point, you either accept a highly paid backup that rotates constantly, or you bite the bullet and take a QB high to provide a long term 2nd QB that you can grow your system around year on year.

Which pill do you want to take?  Red or Blue?

For better or worse, the Eagles chose to draft another QB high that they did their work on, and one they have in-house expertise to improve on as a player.  You can't control a players injuries, accidents happen, but you can mitigate the impact.

I just wish some in the wider Eagles blogosphere (Kempski's, etc) would think at the macro level, rather than the micro level.  They come across as puerile infants having a hissy fit

6 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Ok so 3 percenters are constitutionalists that want the government to be of and for the people.

Does that mean up holding the 3/5ths compromise? If so theyre racist.

How do 3 percenters feel about medicate for all? Around 70% of americans are in favor of medicare 4 all. If 3percenters are against that they are against the voice of the people and for corporations.

How much energy do the 3 percenters put towards preserving the environment compared to the energy they put towards gun rights?

Im all for states rights yet even when one lets states govern themselves they are still ruled by someone in a true republic everyone in that republic would have an equal voice and equal power setting up a more communal state.

How do 3 percenters feel about socialism compared to capitalism?

Capitalism creates tiers of power through accumulation of profit/goods by those who exploit others to accumulate said goods creating an imbalance in individual power and rights.

Socialism like capitalism is vulnerable to greedy men controlling populations so whats the solution?

Anarchy- every man for himself which in my opinion is closer to what 3 percenters are attempting to accomplish.

Interestingly enough in a state of anarchy people tend to form small communal groups/communities(safety in numbers)

The further one gets away from government the more people rely on each other yet whenever someone suggests a social program like medicare 4 all, right wing groups like the 3 percenters get all uppity and start complaining about over reaching government and the need for more guns to protect themselves from a government that wants to rule them with socialism😒

Its bass ackwards thinking maybe thats why he wants to get rid of his 3% tattoo because it represents backwards thinking 😉

I dont have a phd in anything just a concerned citizen trying to do this thing called life.😊

 

There's obviously a lot here to unpack. I'll try to address all of your points.

First, I don't know (or care) about 3 percenters. I started this discussion because someone made a dismissive comment about States Rights. Now to your specific questions.

Does States Rights mean supporting 3/5? No. Sorry, there's not much of a need for a further explanation than that.

Medicare for All? I don't know how other people view it. I can only speak for myself. I think it's a horrible idea. 

Preserving the environment? Personally I love clean air and water. I also loathe draconian measures which ultimately consolidate power to those that already have it.

You're comment about equal voice and equal power...everyone, as individuals, has more power and voice over their lives when we adhere to the concept of States Rights. Example: have an issue with your child's education? Good luck taking that up with the Department of Education. However, your voice and your power would be felt much more if education was a local issue. 

How do I feel about socialism? Yeah, I'm not really a fan of giving people in power even more power, despite the false claims of the power "being in the people's hands."

What's the solution? Limited government

Anarchy? I don't know who's advocating for that

 

43 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

JJAW can line up at the X as your "balanced big guy" 

Let's hope that he can line up there.   Last year he seemed to struggle with alignment and routes...  which is WR 101 to me.  Know where to line up... know which way to run (not talking 'route running', which entails subtlety, nuance, moves, etc... I'm talking about following the map and getting to the right place and not running into a teammate)... if a WR can't line up properly (we saw this with Agholor in 2016, and JJAW in 2019) I have no real hopes for a WR.  If he then can't run the right path... that's an even worse situation and its why I have low expectations for him moving forward.

8 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Uh, these are the top historians working off original documents. Don't know what "vantage point" you mean.

What these works attempt to do is illustrate the thinking of people at that time. Both those in power and those on the street.

Actually, the worst historians were in the 19th century and the 1st half of the 20th century, when most histories were bald polemics with no professional standards.

And we know not to trust a document, like Madison's "Notes on the Convention," because many writers had an axe to grind (and if you think we have "fake news" now, the press of the 18th and 19th centuries was far more partisan, more like our current Cable "news"). You have to look at the broad spectrum of writings and not cherry pick what suits your preconceived opinions.

Selective use of documents to backwards rationalize viewpoints has always, and will always, be an issue in books about history.

I do agree that these problems existed previously, but, modern ideas have a way of warping old material in a way that is more egregious. Again, I'm not saying that's the case in any of the works you've cited, but it is an observation I've had.

Agreed entirely with your last sentence. Really, your last paragraph as a whole.

47 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Yeah, he may be and I don't care about that and people can get over it as well. He could help that defense be unreal and cover some of the weaknesses.

I've heard that a lot about Clowney.   And yet, it's really not true.   He is the poster boy for overrated.  He was a #1 overall pick because he's LOOKS the part, and every now and then, you see it.  Trouble is, he does it when he wants.  He's not the answer to our problems.  If he were the guy you are describing, Seattle wouldn't be slow to resign him.  He's just not the guy you are describing.  I'd love to have the guy you are describing.  Trouble is, that guy ended up being drafted #2 by the Washingteam.