1 minute ago, ManuManu said:

I think Lamb helps make Cooper better because he can play more in the slot too. 

I thought Cobb was primarily in the slot last year already?  Could be wrong there though. 

7 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

I thought Cobb was primarily in the slot last year already?  Could be wrong there though. 

He was. Drafting Lamb will likely lead to more slot snaps for Cooper, where he’s really good.

Florida man. That explains it all

Just now, ManuManu said:

He was. Drafting Lamb will likely lead to more slot snaps for Cooper, where he’s really good.

Ah got it. Thought you were referring to Lamb not Cooper there. That may be true. I think Lamb is gonna be good. I just don't see a rookie #2 receiver beating those numbers by Cobb most of the time. We'll see. 

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Florida man. That explains it all

This sounds like something that was planned for some time. A man from Sarasota in Aberdeen SD?  Is the Sturgis motorcycle rally going on right now?

1 minute ago, Asg 15 said:

This sounds like something that was planned for some time. A man from Sarasota in Aberdeen SD?  Is the Sturgis motorcycle rally going on right now?

Nah. That's August. 

Has anyone else noticed advertisements for hand sanitizer on TV say it kills "germs" but says nothing about killing viruses.

21 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

He was. Drafting Lamb will likely lead to more slot snaps for Cooper, where he’s really good.

I think we are going to see Gallup used as a trade piece to get Jamal Adams so you'll have Cooper, Lamb and their young guys, who they have quite a bit of unproven talented guys on their roster.  

57 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

What happens if Dallas gets Jamal Adams?  Losing Randall Cobb vs gaining CeeDee Lamb.  That's a win.  Losing Frederick hurts but they drafted a really solid center with the pick they got from the Eagles.  I hate to admit but I think they did a good job at drafting players to replace FA that they lost.  LVE is their biggest question.  Not bringing back Garrett could do wonders for them too.  McCarthy isn't a savior but he should wake that offense up.  

Sidenote. I really wish Jimmy would just leave politics out of his writing.  He seems to always find a way now to get some sort of opinion in and the guy loves to think he is always right.  

You honestly want a guy who is halfway into his rookie deal and never stops whining and moaning?  If DAL gets Adams I wouldn’t lose one wink of sleep — especially if they throw $20M per season and multiple draft picks out the window, to go along with the $35M they’re going to give Dak.

Jamal Adams is a very good box safety, but does nothing to defend a downfield passing attack.  He isn’t worth more than about $12M per season and is demanding closer to $20M.  Anyone who gives up big money and a 1st round pick + will have buyer’s remorse — because he will be locker room trouble.

33 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

You honestly want a guy who is halfway into his rookie deal and never stops whining and moaning?  If DAL gets Adams I wouldn’t lose one wink of sleep — especially if they throw $20M per season and multiple draft picks out the window, to go along with the $35M they’re going to give Dak.

Jamal Adams is a very good box safety, but does nothing to defend a downfield passing attack.  He isn’t worth more than about $12M per season and is demanding closer to $20M.  Anyone who gives up big money and a 1st round pick + will have buyer’s remorse — because he will be locker room trouble.

I don't want Adams anywhere near the Cowboys.  He isn't getting $20 million although he will get paid.  This sounds like the same thing people were saying Dallas was silly for trading a 1st for Cooper and they will never be able to afford him.  I don't know the whole story about him in the locker room but from what I've read he just wants out of that organization and I don't blame him.  

2 hours ago, greend said:

No they really aren't especially when the business relies on repeat business from the same customers. 

they are. 

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Florida man. That explains it all

I tried searching for a picture of the guy but couldn’t find one.  The guy probably requested anonymity knowing what Eagles fans are like.  

Just now, bpac55 said:

I don't want Adams anywhere near the Cowboys.  He isn't getting $20 million although he will get paid.  This sounds like the same thing people were saying Dallas was silly for trading a 1st for Cooper and they will never be able to afford him.  I don't know the whole story about him in the locker room but from what I've read he just wants out of that organization and I don't blame him.  

It’s part of a "me first” culture that holds DAL back.  They were an 8-8 team last year that had the talent to be an 11-5 team.  Instead, Elliott jumps 2 years early and holds out because of contract demands.  Dak should have signed a long term deal months ago; he’d be overpaid even at the $35M he’s been reported to have been offered.  Signing a Goff/Wentz level extension of $32M was the logical course there — and he’d be overpaid at that.  DAL will be a top-heavy cap team with most of their players on lower-tier deals.  That isn’t a winning formula.

The Eagles have a culture where most guys will restructure their deals to help other guys get signed; you very seldom hear of any Eagles players griping for more money.  Jenkins is one of the very few — more deserving than Adams, and has better develop leadership abilities and more sway in the locker room.  Still, Jenkins was set free.
 

DAL don’t have any players that I’m aware of who have restructured contracts or left money on the table to help with the team cap situation.

1 hour ago, Asg 15 said:

Has anyone else noticed advertisements for hand sanitizer on TV say it kills "germs" but says nothing about killing viruses.

That's because they don't "kill" all viruses.   The CDC basically says that the best way to protect yourself against the Covid-19 is to wash your hands with soap and water.  If that's not available, then to use a hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol and to keep rubbing your hands until they are completely dry. 

26 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

they are. 

Do you have anything to back that up or just observational?

5 hours ago, The guy in France said:

https://govtrackinsider.com/restore-the-fairness-doctrine-act-would-require-broadcasters-give-airtime-to-all-sides-of-an-issue-1f3117e20d03
 

Beginning in the earliest years of television, from 1949 to 1987, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) required American television and radio broadcasters to present both sides — or all sides — of any political or social issue. It came to be nicknamed the Fairness Doctrine.

The Reagan-era FCC eliminated this rule, which was never reinstituted in subsequent decades under either party. Supporters of the rule’s elimination argued it helped the First Amendment and free speech, by eliminating forced speech or advocacy towards all sides — including sides a station’s ownership or management may have disagreed with.

On top of this, a subsequent Trump-era 2017 FCC decision loosened ownership restrictions on stations. In combination, these two decisions not only allowed given stations to present only one view, but for many stations nationwide — now more easily owned by the same conglomerate, such as the conservative Sinclair Broadcast Group — to present the same view.

Opponents say that the Fairness Doctrine resulted in more balanced and impartial media outlets, and that eliminating it led to the rise of polarized media outlets which now have license to only broadcast one side if they choose — which in turn has led to a far more polarized country and electorate.

That's just the world we currently live in.

The current administration has taken this even further after what happened last week.  Michael Pack, a right wing actor/filmmaker and Steve Bannen acolyte Trump confirmed and placed as head of the Agency for Global Media actually fired all the heads of the federally funded radio stations (Middle East Broadcasting, Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, etc.) AND their boards of directors, and replaced them with unqualified personnel and political allies.

 

14 hours ago, WentzFan11 said:

Kind of makes sense to remove that. 

Yeah... That's gotta go. Wow.

1 hour ago, bpac55 said:

What happens if Dallas gets Jamal Adams?  Losing Randall Cobb vs gaining CeeDee Lamb.  That's a win.  Losing Frederick hurts but they drafted a really solid center with the pick they got from the Eagles.  I hate to admit but I think they did a good job at drafting players to replace FA that they lost.  LVE is their biggest question.  Not bringing back Garrett could do wonders for them too.  McCarthy isn't a savior but he should wake that offense up.  

Sidenote. I really wish Jimmy would just leave politics out of his writing.  He seems to always find a way now to get some sort of opinion in and the guy loves to think he is always right.  

The offense wasn't the problem last year. They kept the OC, Kellen Moore.   The problem was the play calling. I think the argument is that McCarthy isn't any better than Garrett at play calling.  Lamb is still a rookie.  He may take time to adjust.  Losing Frederick is still a loss for them.  They were an 8-8 team that looked like an 8-8 team.  

Jamal Adams would certainly help them but they don't have him yet.  The secondary looks worse to me even with Adams given the lack of depth at CB. Then there's the question of coordinator.  One of the biggest losses is Marinelli.  I think he was underrated in the League. They hired Mike Nolan.  Nolan has a ton of experience but he's not been consistently good.  He has has had 5 top ten scoring defenses in 21 seasons.  He has had 13 defenses ranked in the bottom half of the League.  Marinelli had 5 top 10 scoring defenses in 12 years and only 4 in the bottom half of the League. 

Then there's the Jerry dynamic with the coach.  Players openly flaunted Garrett's authority.  Is that going to happen with Mccarthy? I mean is McCarthy going to tolerate that kind of disrespect.  I know you don't like Kempski's political element but he does have a point.  Players are going to wonder where Jerry stands on these things and he cannot walk a tightrope on it.  Given his fanbase, he may have to choose between alienating players of fans. 

 

7 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

The offense wasn't the problem last year. They kept the OC, Kellen Moore.   The problem was the play calling. I think the argument is that McCarthy isn't any better than Garrett at play calling.  Lamb is still a rookie.  He may take time to adjust.  Losing Frederick is still a loss for them.  They were an 8-8 team that looked like an 8-8 team.  

Jamal Adams would certainly help them but they don't have him yet.  The secondary looks worse to me even with Adams given the lack of depth at CB. Then there's the question of coordinator.  One of the biggest losses is Marinelli.  I think he was underrated in the League. They hired Mike Nolan.  Nolan has a ton of experience but he's not been consistently good.  He has has had 5 top ten scoring defenses in 21 seasons.  He has had 13 defenses ranked in the bottom half of the League.  Marinelli had 5 top 10 scoring defenses in 12 years and only 4 in the bottom half of the League. 

Then there's the Jerry dynamic with the coach.  Players openly flaunted Garrett's authority.  Is that going to happen with Mccarthy? I mean is McCarthy going to tolerate that kind of disrespect.  I know you don't like Kempski's political element but he does have a point.  Players are going to wonder where Jerry stands on these things and he cannot walk a tightrope on it.  Given his fanbase, he may have to choose between alienating players of fans. 

 

Moore was the play caller

1 hour ago, Asg 15 said:

Has anyone else noticed advertisements for hand sanitizer on TV say it kills "germs" but says nothing about killing viruses.

I don't think the word germ means bacteria only.  I think it can mean bacteria, microbes and viruses.  

Just now, LeanMeanGM said:

Moore was the play caller

Well having McCarthy isn't going to help with that then. 

13 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

And this is part of the problem. Focus being on statues when this is still happening 

 

It is both. Don’t get me wrong, I have no issue with removing statues of Confederates but some of this is focused on only a part of the person’s life sometimes. At Texas A&M some students are pushing to remove the statue of Sully Ross.  Yes, Ross was a Confederate general. In his early twenties.  Yes, he was a participant in the Comanche wars  but there are negatives on both  sides and that was before the Civil War. Please don’t  hold me responsible for everything I did in my early stages of adulthood. Although the results are questionable, he did resolve the Jaybird-Woodpecker war. He was also of the family that founded Waco, a two term state senator and a two term governor who declined to run for a third term to become the president of Texas A&M. He did a lot of good things as senator and governor. He was pretty great as a president at A&M.  He was so dedicated to education that Sul Ross University was established in his honor. No doubt he was possessed the prejudices of his era. As many of our predecessors did. I know that includes my family’s history. 
 

 

14 hours ago, WentzFan11 said:

Kind of makes sense to remove that. 

 

20 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

Yeah... That's gotta go. Wow.

This is the best video/documentary I've seen yet on this particular statue, showing both sides of the argument from historians, etc....

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, DEagle7 said:

Nah. That's August. 

he sounds like he sterotypes people

4 hours ago, The guy in France said:

Just as long as we recognize some media is stronger in the NEWS aspect and others are stronger in opinion. Since the lines are drawn I watch CNN and for my opinionated media I will watch MSNBC. Lately I haven’t been following either because I’m exhausted with both Covid and Trumpsky, been over 2 months since I tuned into either 

It is interesting because MSNBC is related but I watch CNBC over Fox Business and even Bloomberg.  Of course, Murdoch owns Fox and bought the Wall Street Journal and left it alone. I feel that CNBC gives me business news. Fox Business can’t resist slanting it a bit. I know the traders on the CNBC have their own business biases but they don’t put a lot of politics in it except to the extent politics impacts the markets. Of course, I really like Cramer and Sarah Eisen, smart as a whip and easy on the eyes. Both she and Cramer do a great job on the interviews.  Plus, how can you resist the Eagles gear behind Cramer on his show.