Just now, Iggles_Phan said:

Being called 'good' is a little strong for Otis.  I'd say 'adequate' would be more appropriate.   That said, he'd have likely been CB #1 here over the past 4 years.

Probably but since I was calling "Ben" great I think they were just being polite in their confusion.

56 minutes ago, justrelax said:

Sorry, Gil. The best CB ever to play for the Eagles was Ben Smith, cut down early by a devastating injury but when he was healthy he dominated everyone he faced. Everyone. Fast, quick, tough, and mean. What a loss!

Truth. In Smith's second year, he was already better than Allen, who was in his fourth year. Then the knee injury against the Browns, and it was all over. Yeah, he came back and tried to play but was never more than a JAG. Was traded to the Broncos for a third, I think, which was a robbery.

Incidentally, I would probably pick Vincent over Allen. I'm not 100% married to the choice but that's where I would lean off the top of my head.

12 minutes ago, Nivraga said:

As a rookie in 1990 teams chose to avoid Allen and attack Ben Smith. Sometime during the 91 season they started throwing at Allen. Out of the frying pan and into the fire - what a great combination that would have been. I've occasionally had people tell me Ben was good not great ... turns out they were confusing Ben for Otis.

Ridiculous. He was well on his way to outright stardom. Although I did hear some whispers about him not being exactly a salt of the earth kind of guy off the field. So who really knows?

15 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Ridiculous. He was well on his way to outright stardom. Although I did hear some whispers about him not being exactly a salt of the earth kind of guy off the field. So who really knows?

Did you read the part where they were confusing Ben for Otis?

32 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Truth. In Smith's second year, he was already better than Allen, who was in his fourth year. Then the knee injury against the Browns, and it was all over. Yeah, he came back and tried to play but was never more than a JAG. Was traded to the Broncos for a third, I think, which was a robbery.

Incidentally, I would probably pick Vincent over Allen. I'm not 100% married to the choice but that's where I would lean off the top of my head.

Vincent was my second choice. 

10 hours ago, NCiggles said:

Especially if you include the famine inducing policies of the Soviet Union, China and North Korea.  Even if you don't include them, I think the numbers are pretty even with fascists.  The only difference is that usually Communists are not usually committing ethnocentric genocide whereas that tends to be the sole focus of fascist states.   

I think we need to realize that most liberals are not communists and most conservatives are not fascists.  We need to stop hanging both of them on the crimes of those extremes.  
 

When you tear a sheet of paper apart from each far side, the stress goes in the middle and that’s where it tears apart.  That’s what’s happening right now.  The left, center, and right all need to come together right now and not tear apart as the radical left and radical right are pulling away.  

2 hours ago, justrelax said:

No. Somebody else was mathematically challenged. He said he ended  last season at 320. If he weighs 335 now he has gained 42, 32, um 21,  carry the two, second derivative, well, more anyway.

15 real pounds easily translates to 30-35 offseason hype pounds, maybe more.  

50 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

15 real pounds easily translates to 30-35 offseason hype pounds, maybe more.  

I think the point Brooks was making was that he added muscle and was up to 335.  The focus of Brooks' comments was that Dillard was stronger... he was getting rid of the 'college body' as Brooks called it.

Sean Considine added like 30 pounds of muscle in like two months one offseason.... 

4 hours ago, D-Shiznit said:

The perception of history is a constantly evolving thing, you can't try to stale it, it's a fools errand. Does anyone really think a hundred years from now, when all the current generations are long gone, that the generation of that time will look at people like Washington and Jefferson as heroes? Nope. History is a very unforgiving and cold thing, where your failures dwarf your glory.

Just look at Churchill, he was so confident that history would remember him as a hero because he thought he would be the one to write that history. But now look at him, his statues are getting defaced, more and more he's being called a racist and a colonist, and as we get further removed from his victory in WWII, the more his shortcomings will come to define him.

I mean you no disrespect when I say your view of history is simplistic. To be one thing does not exclude being other things. Current views of Washington and Jefferson and Churchill are and have been pretty consistent, as they are of Grant and Napoleon, among others.

The views of such characters as Lee and Stonewall Jackson have indeed shifted. I would refer you to The Marble Man, which is not a reinterpretation of Lee so much as an examination of how historians have viewed him over a century plus.

Scholarship evolves and the balance between one thing and another shifts. In the case of Churchill, his warts have never been a secret, either from historians or the British electorate. 

Thinking of, for example, Fort Bragg, were I stationed there I would want it to be renamed yesterday. Bragg was an awful man and an awful general. How the hell the place got named that is an utter befuddlement to me. I’ll have to look into that.

2 hours ago, ManuManu said:

Vincent was my second choice. 

Mine too, after Smith.

8 hours ago, NCiggles said:

  I was just pointing out your ignorance.  If you think the events of the past, even from a "long, long time ago" don't impact the present, then I think you will have your ignorance pointed out to you repeatedly in the 

Yeah....I'm not worried.

31 minutes ago, justrelax said:

Mine too, after Smith.

Hows the Corona fight going?

29 minutes ago, justrelax said:

Mine too, after Smith.

Vincent over Allen?

Maybe it’s because I was young and there is a sort of mystique surrounding the early 90’s defense, but I always thought of Allen as perhaps a half step above Vincent.

4 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Being called 'good' is a little strong for Otis.  I'd say 'adequate' would be more appropriate.   That said, he'd have likely been CB #1 here over the past 4 years.

Otis Smith had a heck of a career when all said and done.  Just a serviceable, dependable DB.

21 minutes ago, TEW said:

Vincent over Allen?

Maybe it’s because I was young and there is a sort of mystique surrounding the early 90’s defense, but I always thought of Allen as perhaps a half step above Vincent.

Memory is a very subjective thing for sure.  I was in my twenties all the way back then and have much stronger recollection of Eric Allen than Ben Smith.

I really liked the Eagles defense during the Vincent/Taylor/Dawkins years as well.  I believe Troy Vincent was the last really good CB the Eagles ever had, but better than Eric Allen?  Flat no.

Man I know it was a sucker punch but Goedert was OUT. Weird seeing such a big guy sleeping like log after one hit. 

10 minutes ago, Basic Thugonomics said:

Man I know it was a sucker punch but Goedert was OUT. Weird seeing such a big guy sleeping like log after one hit. 

Got hit right on the button

18 minutes ago, Basic Thugonomics said:

Man I know it was a sucker punch but Goedert was OUT. Weird seeing such a big guy sleeping like log after one hit. 

Some people have better chins than others I guess.  Wonder how big the guy that hit him was?

22 minutes ago, 315Eagles said:

Some people have better chins than others I guess.  Wonder how big the guy that hit him was?

Size of a rat, I’d guess

9 hours ago, greend said:

Unfortunately, I deal with repeat business from contractors so if I threw out everyone that wasn't wearing a mask I would have very few customers. I've learned to live with them being a-holes about everything my point is if the law makes it mandatory for them to wear a mask (which is fine by me) then the law can deal with the stupid rednecks that don't want to wear one.  

Did you know at one time redneck was an offensive biased term?  My dad was a country boy.  Redneck implied you were a hayseed bent over the plow thus getting a red neck.  Through eighth grade he went to a one room schoolhouse. He always thought that was advantageous because by the time he had finished eighth grade he had heard the lessons eight times.  But when he and his family went to high school they went into town and boarded with relatives or families that took in boarders. The town kids called the farm kids rednecks in a derogatory way. Stupid hayseeds were implied.  My dad resented that term until the day he died. It’s interesting how derogatory generalization terms work in and out of vocabulary.  I can never lose sight of the fact one NFL team continues to use one and the community it represents. 

2 hours ago, justrelax said:

I mean you no disrespect when I say your view of history is simplistic. To be one thing does not exclude being other things. Current views of Washington and Jefferson and Churchill are and have been pretty consistent, as they are of Grant and Napoleon, among others.

The views of such characters as Lee and Stonewall Jackson have indeed shifted. I would refer you to The Marble Man, which is not a reinterpretation of Lee so much as an examination of how historians have viewed him over a century plus.

Scholarship evolves and the balance between one thing and another shifts. In the case of Churchill, his warts have never been a secret, either from historians or the British electorate. 

Thinking of, for example, Fort Bragg, were I stationed there I would want it to be renamed yesterday. Bragg was an awful man and an awful general. How the hell the place got named that is an utter befuddlement to me. I’ll have to look into that.

Churchill’s racism was mainly directed at my people. And I say this with no hesitation:

Winston Churchill is one of the greatest men in history. There aren’t many people who can claim to have saved western civilization, and he is one of them. Rallying the UK to hold out in 1940 and 1941, refusing to make peace with Hitler, recruiting the US into the war and keeping the tenuous alliance with the Soviets. The good outweighs the bad massively.
 

We need to stop judging everyone’s flaws by today’s standards. Newsflash to the SJWs who want to condemn Churchill and Washington - 100 years from now some new woke generations will find actions you are taking today to be abhorrent.
 

Take down statues of traitors? Yes. Objective standard. Churchill, Washington and Jefferson? Give me a break. 

2 hours ago, justrelax said:

I mean you no disrespect when I say your view of history is simplistic. To be one thing does not exclude being other things. Current views of Washington and Jefferson and Churchill are and have been pretty consistent, as they are of Grant and Napoleon, among others.

The views of such characters as Lee and Stonewall Jackson have indeed shifted. I would refer you to The Marble Man, which is not a reinterpretation of Lee so much as an examination of how historians have viewed him over a century plus.

Scholarship evolves and the balance between one thing and another shifts. In the case of Churchill, his warts have never been a secret, either from historians or the British electorate. 

Thinking of, for example, Fort Bragg, were I stationed there I would want it to be renamed yesterday. Bragg was an awful man and an awful general. How the hell the place got named that is an utter befuddlement to me. I’ll have to look into that.

Pretty awesome post, JR.  I have mused whether Fort Bragg celebrates Bragg only successful military exploits at Buena Vista or his complete incompetence in the Civil War thus positive results for the union. 

10 hours ago, D-Shiznit said:

The perception of history is a constantly evolving thing, you can't try to stale it, it's a fools errand. Does anyone really think a hundred years from now, when all the current generations are long gone, that the generation of that time will look at people like Washington and Jefferson as heroes? Nope. History is a very unforgiving and cold thing, where your failures dwarf your glory.

Just look at Churchill, he was so confident that history would remember him as a hero because he thought he would be the one to write that history. But now look at him, his statues are getting defaced, more and more he's being called a racist and a colonist, and as we get further removed from his victory in WWII, the more his shortcomings will come to define him.

 

13 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

CNN in the U.S. is not the same as the international version of CNN.  It’s basically the same as MSNBC in the US now.  It’s become more and more opinionated over the past 3+ years than ever before, imo.
 

 A lot of that has to do with "reactions” from news anchors to stories.  They may not always state their "opinion” but anyone can see where they stand from their reactions alone.  And lately, they just about always state their opinions. 

Yeah, I opt for the US version Jake Tapper, Fareed and Cuomo. If you trust Forbes article as less biased CNN is considered on the trustworthy side whereas FOX not even mentioned. Does it matter if one outlet is more slanted ? Obviously not ... right ?