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

Who was it on the blog During the draft that kept comparing him to smith? That was a good call. I legitimately forget who said it. It’s why i asked. 

Several people. I was one of them but I don't think I was the first. When you look at the speed/strength/jump ability (plus maybe a chip on his shoulder attitude... we'll see there) I think it makes sense. Dude's a freak. 

28 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Dak Prescott is actually a good QB.  Right below Carson at this point and way better than Brady was last year. Close to breaking into the top ten as a QB. I do believe he is better than Love or Hurts and may stay that way. He threw for close to 5k yards last year.  Yes, he has a good OL and strong skill players but he did well. He should try to maximize his deal.  

Exactly. If I’m him and his agent, i look at the fact his numbers statistically over the last two years have been as good and in some cases better than cousins. Cousins went through a similar situation and got 44 million in guaranteed over the two franchise tags. Then got 84 million guaranteed and that was over the period of time of 2-4 years ago. So a total of 128 million guaranteed over all 5 years. I’m guessing with price of QBs going up and reaching the open market he could easily eclipse that as long as he stays healthy. It’s a gamble for sure but if it pays out he’s likely going to make way more than just 106 in guaranteed money. 

39 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

hey, even Dictionary-Dan pointed you to the Merriam-Webster page where it says both are correct usage

They aren't the same meaning at all. They imply totally different things.

If you can't tell what he posted there are completely different from one another, then I don't know what to tell ya.

🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

He’s an, uhh, interesting dude...

43 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

"Couldn't care less" means you care the minimum.

"Could care less" means you care more than the minimum and could reduce your amount of caring.  

 

I couldn't pay more... means you've maxed out your payment ability.

I could pay more... means you've not maxed out your ability to pay, and could increase the payment.

LOL thank you for posting this.  So many misuses of the phrase.  

16 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

hey, even Dictionary-Dan pointed you to the Merriam-Webster page where it says both are correct usage

It is like irregardless.  Double negative and thus incorrect, but use is what matters.  It has now become a defined and accepted word.  So many of our words and terms have evolved from original meaning.  Etymology is a fascinating discipline.   Terms that are grammatically accepted today, would have been in error or nonsensical hundreds of years ago.  

Tone has something to do with the words as well.   The way you might say ‘I could care less’ might imply that such is not worth the effort.  

14 minutes ago, hputenis said:

If Reagor has half the nasty attitude and "dog" mentality that Steve Smith had, I think we will all be very happy with that pick.  Reagor actually has more upside in my opinion. 

I've been saying for months now, even before the draft that Reagor is a Steve Smith clone.  He has an attitude like him when he plays.  

1 hour ago, hputenis said:

Kirk Cousin's agent should be in the hall of fame.  Or prison.  Can't decide which.  

Right there with Bradford's agent

52 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

"Couldn't care less" means you care the minimum.

"Could care less" means you care more than the minimum and could reduce your amount of caring.  

 

I couldn't pay more... means you've maxed out your payment ability.

I could pay more... means you've not maxed out your ability to pay, and could increase the payment.

But why would you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know, I know, screwing around again

Just now, BigEFly said:

It is like irregardless.  Double negative and thus incorrect, but use is what matters.  It has now become a defined and accepted word.  So many of our words and terms have evolved from original meaning.  Etymology is a fascinating discipline.   Terms that are grammatically accepted today, would have been in error or nonsensical hundreds of years ago.  

Tone has something to do with the words as well.   The way you might say ‘I could care less’ might imply that such is not worth the effort.  

Yes, the bottom sentences captures what I was getting at.  Both QBs can be tossed into the same barrel IMO, and I lost interest in the black hole of debating Dak's worth relative to other mid-tier players -- and had even less interest in playing "last word" 

6 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

It is like irregardless.  Double negative and thus incorrect, but use is what matters.  It has now become a defined and accepted word.  So many of our words and terms have evolved from original meaning.  Etymology is a fascinating discipline.   Terms that are grammatically accepted today, would have been in error or nonsensical hundreds of years ago.  

Tone has something to do with the words as well.   The way you might say ‘I could care less’ might imply that such is not worth the effort.  

So you could care less but choose not to so what are people complaining about?

Go ahead, care less. You just stated you have the ability to do so.

Have at it!!!

The original meaning of the F word (love tap essentially) is something that was acceptable and now isn't.

 

49 minutes ago, PrinceKelby said:

Ummmmm, what?

By saying you could care less means you are essentially refusing to care less than you do.

So obviously it's contradictory to one another, therefore not correct usage for what you're implying. 

 

I'm refusing to care less about this convo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only because I know the blog rules

31 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

We are going to blow some minds in the blog today when we get to double negatives and their meaning

We are not neither

9 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

It is like irregardless.  Double negative and thus incorrect, but use is what matters.  It has now become a defined and accepted word.  So many of our words and terms have evolved from original meaning.  Etymology is a fascinating discipline.   Terms that are grammatically accepted today, would have been in error or nonsensical hundreds of years ago.  

Tone has something to do with the words as well.   The way you might say ‘I could care less’ might imply that such is not worth the effort.  

Ignorance is bliss.

11 minutes ago, greend said:

We are not neither

I didn't not say nothing no more. 

I give him a lot of crap, but that was a really nice play by Gerry, and a well disguised call by Schwartz. 

8 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

I give him a lot of crap, but that was a really nice play by Gerry, and a well disguised call by Schwartz. 

I give him crap too, but he earned another shot after gutting it out and playing all last season with core injury.

3 hours ago, bpac55 said:

True statement.  Truth be told the Eagles just aren't a good drafting team.  They draft well when they have a very high #1 pick.  They have hit on some 2nd rounders and get lucky with some 6th and 7th round picks.  

I'm going to get flamed for my thoughts but that's my view.  I don't see a team with a ton of homegrown ready to take the next step talent.  

No flaming, just a different point of view.

As stated earlier, the draft capital involved in getting Wentz impacts to overall haul over the past four years.  (I am throwing out the Chip era, because those folks were picked for schemes that no longer exist here.)

I also believe that the conversation here focuses mostly on the misses, and the misses are legit.  The volume of Pump, Sidney, and JJAW posts far outweigh the post about picks gone right.  I just don't think the good gets enough consideration.

Getting the franchise QB pick right is huge.  Look at the Bears, Jags, Browns, etc., who haven't gotten it right for years.  And the jury is still out on a bunch drafted in the past couple seasons.  That should considerably balance the scales.

All that being said, the Eagles have been IMO net average.  Remember, misses will always be part of the process and that needs to be factored into any conclusion.

Quote

I found this showing the historical rate of finding consistent starters in the draft:

1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)
2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)
3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)
4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)
5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)
6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)
7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)

 

Where are the mods? This thread is unbearable to read. 

1 minute ago, eaglesflyers#1 said:

Where are the mods? This thread is unbearable to read. 

On what basis? This isn't generally a thread for detailed debate. 

This conversation is mute when, for all intensive purposes, people will use that phrase irregardless of whether its grammatically right or wrong

7 minutes ago, eaglesflyers#1 said:

Where are the mods? This thread is unbearable to read. 

Have you checked with your mom?

6 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Have you checked with your mom?

Hilarious! LOL

Everyone is quite tense/snarky -- must be cabin fever

6 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Have you checked with your mom?

They're not here. BTW she's asking about you