21 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

I think they should have.

But in October, we might not be looking any safer still...

I have no medical background, but I can't imagine the chaos in fall/winter when flu season comes around again. COVID and the seasonal flu have similar symptoms, so anyone with a cough, fever, aches is going to assume that they have COVID. I think it's going to be a massive crapstorm. 

24 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Who is Steve Carlton??? Hes the only guy i dont know. I dont really follow baseball or hockey if hes from one of those, maybe hes a tennis player, golfer???

You haven’t seen a devastating slider until you’ve watched Carlton — or a move to first base 

1 minute ago, HazletonEagle said:

I like how there will be televised basketball every single day. 

 

Yea, it could be awesome.

Gotta hope covid cooperates.

29 minutes ago, TEW said:

Question for the blog:

If you were the book, what odds would you give on Sanders having Both 1000+ rushing and 1000+ receiving this year?

How about 1000 and 800?

Not much unless hes going to be the focal point of the offense and everything runs thru him like Carolina does with McCaffrey.  Philly never really seems like it wants a lead back instead using a committee so dont expect him to have 1,000 rec and rushing.

34 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

I think they should have.

But in October, we might not be looking any safer still...

True but October is 4 months away.  That's more time to find out more about the virus and better prepare for a season.  

5-1 maybe?

1 hour ago, Utebird said:

Who is Steve Carlton??? Hes the only guy i dont know. I dont really follow baseball or hockey if hes from one of those, maybe hes a tennis player, golfer???

This is ban worthy stuff

Seriously gtfo...

1 hour ago, TEW said:

Question for the blog:

If you were the book, what odds would you give on Sanders having Both 1000+ rushing and 1000+ receiving this year?

How about 1000 and 800?

I'm not a gambler so not great with predicting odds, but overall...low.  Crazy low.  I'm massively high on Sanders and watching him work on his receiving skills this off season is very very encouraging.  He was already doing fantastically as a runner and as a blocker and pretty well there as a pass catcher so he is well on his way to becoming a 3 down complete back even if that hasn't been the Eagles MO recently.  Being #16 in yards from scrimmage with a slow start to the season is massively impressive.  Still if you look at his last 8 games of the season he still has a long ways to go, averaging out to 1102 yards rushing and 424 receiving over a 16 game season.  Love the kid but he has a long ways to go to get close to 1000 yards receiving.  

Only 3 people ever have hit that 1000/1000 mark.  Hell look at last year.  McCaffery is the only RB to hit 1000 in 2019, ranking #28 in the league in receiving yards and he still only got 1005.  He had 62.81 yards/game. Austin Ekeler is the only one close to that mark then after that it's a massive drop to James White (43 yards/game), Alvin Kamara (38/07 yards/game), Dalvin Cook (37.07 yards/game), and Kareem Hunt (35.63 yards/game). In 2018 outside of McCaffery the closest RB was James White with 751 total receiving yards.  2017 it was Kamara with 826 (next was Gurley with 788). 

RBs who can get 1000 receiving yards are a very very rare breed.  McCaffery is an absolute freak.

4 hours ago, BigEFly said:

Not true. See section 4 of the 25th amendment. 

Somebody already corrected me.

5 hours ago, BigEFly said:

Moderate Dems got smart and selected a viable moderate that independents and Main Street Republicans could vote for.  Trump has alienated Main Streeters with his tariff policies and his human scum comment.  I am real glad my choices aren’t Bombastic Bernie and ***** Donald.   That might have caused me to look Libertarian.  I agree that Biden needs to be smart with his VP choice.  Go too progressive and he loses Main Streeters and independents.  I liked Amy but the BLM  movement and Minneapolis DA issue took her out.   I do hate that he forced his hand by declaring he would select a woman.  Corey Booker would have been an interesting choice because, regardless of his politics, he is just so likable as a person. 

I follow issues/current events, but I wouldn't consider myself very knowledgeable about political strategy.  I saw a Dem VP poll result the other day which had Kamala Harris firmly in the lead, and I'm wondering -- does this really matter? Like, what registered Democrat is going to be swayed by a VP nominee?

And what is, generally speaking, good practice for selecting a VP nominee?

I like Kamala Harris, but can't see a blue collar American liking her. While I appreciate her cut-through-the-BS style, I understand how it can come off as dismissive, as if she does not think it's worth the time to engage in the discussions so many Americans are having. And Susan Rice? As qualified as she is, do we really want to talk about Benghazi for another 4 months? I cringe at the thought. After Rice, Val Demings seems like the choice (African American, woman, Rep. from Florida, even-tempered, like 40 yrs of public service), but then you consider she was a police chief and may be, to many disadvantaged Americans, representative of the corruption that goes on in some of these police departments. 

2 hours ago, Utebird said:

Who is Steve Carlton??? Hes the only guy i dont know. I dont really follow baseball or hockey if hes from one of those, maybe hes a tennis player, golfer???

Holy hell.

3 minutes ago, Saltpeter said:

I follow issues/current events, but I wouldn't consider myself very knowledgeable about political strategy.  I saw a Dem VP poll result the other day which had Kamala Harris firmly in the lead, and I'm wondering -- does this really matter? Like, what registered Democrat is going to be swayed by a VP nominee?

And what is, generally speaking, good practice for selecting a VP nominee?

I like Kamala Harris, but can't see a blue collar American liking her. While I appreciate her cut-through-the-BS style, I understand how it can come off as dismissive, as if she does not think it's worth the time to engage in the discussions so many Americans are having. And Susan Rice? As qualified as she is, do we really want to talk about Benghazi for another 4 months? I cringe at the thought. After Rice, Val Demings seems like the choice (African American, woman, Rep. from Florida, even-tempered, like 40 yrs of public service), but then you consider she was a police chief and may be, to many disadvantaged Americans, representative of the corruption that goes on in some of these police departments. 

You put someone on the ticket who will get the swing states for you.  About 85% of the states are usually a foregone conclusion which party will carry them; do as much polling as you can in the "undecided” or too close to call states and see who is most favorable to voters there.

1 hour ago, 315Eagles said:

Not much unless hes going to be the focal point of the offense and everything runs thru him like Carolina does with McCaffrey.  Philly never really seems like it wants a lead back instead using a committee so dont expect him to have 1,000 rec and rushing.

I think he has an underrated shot to be the focal point of the offense.  I don't WANT to see that.  The best offenses don't have a focal point.  And when good offenses do have a focal point, it usually isn't a RB.  

But we've got old WRs that can't stay healthy.  We've got young WRs without an offseason to integrate.  Ertz's body may not be up for another mega-catch season.  Sanders could find himself in a position where he's the guy in this offense.

I like Sanders and think he's in store for great things as an Eagle, but I also think we are still making a lot of assumptions about his capabilities as a receiver based on a couple nice wheel routes through soft coverage last year.  

14 minutes ago, Saltpeter said:

 

And what is, generally speaking, good practice for selecting a VP nominee?

 

For this election...do you get someone who will motivate the radical left, minorities, and youth to go out and actually vote?  Or do you get someone who will steal moderates and as many Trump-fatigued republicans as possible?

That's the calculated decision to make.

13 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

You put someone on the ticket who will get the swing states for you.  About 85% of the states are usually a foregone conclusion which party will carry them; do as much polling as you can in the "undecided” or too close to call states and see who is most favorable to voters there.

That "balancing" certainly sounds logical. But of the recent nominees -- Biden, Pence, Kaine, and Palin -- only the Biden pick seemed to follow this strategy. Pence and Palin weren't winning over any moderates/independents. Tim Kaine was uninspiring and represented an increasingly blue state. Who was he winning over?

And what swing state would Harris, the highest polling potential nominee, help with? She's a progressive California Senator whose style isn't going to resonate in rural PA, northern FL, etc. 

23 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Holy hell.

Apparently philadelphians take their professional bowlers seriously😕

2 hours ago, Alphagrand said:

You haven’t seen a devastating slider until you’ve watched Carlton — or a move to first base 

Honestly never heard of him, i can probably name 9 or 10 baseball players off the top of my head.

Zero current ones.

13 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

For this election...do you get someone who will motivate the radical left, minorities, and youth to go out and actually vote?  Or do you get someone who will steal moderates and as many Trump-fatigued republicans as possible?

That's the calculated decision to make.

Maybe eliciting higher voter turnout combined with the balancing strategy makes sense. On the surface, it would seem like a young (relative to Biden), charismatic, African American woman, non-traditional background would make sense. Sounds like Michelle Obama. Maybe her appeal would balance out red votes in those swing states by getting voters "off the couch."

Since we're on this topic, I have 2 thoughts.

1) You need a VP that is ready to be president, because Biden is a 1 term president at best and to be honest there is a plausible chance that he might even consider stepping down halfway through his term.

2) In the debates, Trump will beat Biden handily, so having a VP that can beat Pence soundly in a debate is an asset. For that, I think Kamala is the one, she will legit put a clown suit on Pence.

 

No one will win or lose the debates. It'll be a show at best.

Just now, schuy7 said:

No one will win or lose the debates. It'll be a show at best.

I think the debates, both primary and general, were huge for Trump in 2016. I think they would be very dangerous for Biden.

28 minutes ago, TEW said:

I think the debates, both primary and general, were huge for Trump in 2016. I think they would be very dangerous for Biden.

I think it'll be tough for either one to look bad in comparison to the other.

9 minutes ago, schuy7 said:

I think it'll be tough for either one to look bad in comparison to the other.

Trump will look good to his base that enjoys him acting like a child. He'll look bad to everyone else, including some of his supporters.

1 hour ago, Saltpeter said:

I follow issues/current events, but I wouldn't consider myself very knowledgeable about political strategy.  I saw a Dem VP poll result the other day which had Kamala Harris firmly in the lead, and I'm wondering -- does this really matter? Like, what registered Democrat is going to be swayed by a VP nominee?

And what is, generally speaking, good practice for selecting a VP nominee?

I like Kamala Harris, but can't see a blue collar American liking her. While I appreciate her cut-through-the-BS style, I understand how it can come off as dismissive, as if she does not think it's worth the time to engage in the discussions so many Americans are having. And Susan Rice? As qualified as she is, do we really want to talk about Benghazi for another 4 months? I cringe at the thought. After Rice, Val Demings seems like the choice (African American, woman, Rep. from Florida, even-tempered, like 40 yrs of public service), but then you consider she was a police chief and may be, to many disadvantaged Americans, representative of the corruption that goes on in some of these police departments. 

 I would be surprised if it's not Kamala at this point.

 

4 hours ago, schuy7 said:

5-1 maybe?

Did some more thinking on it. It's got to be more like 8 or 9-1.

14 hours ago, eagle45 said:

I really only want 2 things out of all these political agendas.  Otherwise, I don’t care if you are right, left, or in between.

I don’t want the income tax to balloon into something offensively ridiculous and I don’t want a modified healthcare system to defund and asphyxiate my industry.

Other than that, I really don’t care who’s in office, who’s right, and who is wrong.  Despite these talks, I get tired of political discussion.  

How about abusing DEFICIT SPENDING for the sole purpose of political benefit ? We need to face reality rather than kick the can down the road. Sure, stuff like 9/11, 2008 debacle and Covid should be the exceptions but the overspending should be recouped in a realistic timely manner and not passed on like a pyramid scheme because in the end they never work out.

I’m all for socialized or highly subsidized healthcare and education, take the profit out of it, a small price to pay in the long run. The AMA shouldn’t control the supply of doctors in any way, inmates running the asylum.
 

Sounded like you thought it was ok for the US to shoulder the cost of the rest of the world when it comes to pharmaceuticals and other medical innovations or did I misunderstand you ?