1 minute ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Like McLauren-started,started,benched(and of course he went off),started(and of course he sucked again lol)

It’s ok I had Fields on my bench this week 40 points just sitting there lol…. Only saving grace I did get 49 from DJ Moore 

Anyone notice Kelces mom wore GREEN frames this morning on the Today show

2 hours ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Because the team with the most cap doesn’t also need OL, D help, and more offensive weapons to surround a young QB????

I forgot QB is the only position in football you have to pay for 

Plus the 3 safeties 

2 hours ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

It’s a play call shocker here not every QB get control at the line and no clue if Fields has it…

But reality is if a guy is missed and come in free as your back is turned recipe for disaster…. If this was Hurts you would be throwing the OL and play caller under the bus wasn’t hurts fault 

An example of what you are talking about would be the fumble in the SB. 

19 minutes ago, Asg 15 said:

Anyone notice Kelces mom wore GREEN frames this morning on the Today show

My guess is not too many people on here watch the today show

2 hours ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

It’s ok I had Fields on my bench this week 40 points just sitting there lol…. Only saving grace I did get 49 from DJ Moore 

It's crazy,I keep second guessing my self now cause it's a crapshoot

2 hours ago, joemas6 said:

My guess is not too many people on here watch the today show

J was flipping channels and notices the was being interviewed

7 hours ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

It’s a play call shocker here not every QB get control at the line and no clue if Fields has it…

But reality is if a guy is missed and come in free as your back is turned recipe for disaster…. If this was Hurts you would be throwing the OL and play caller under the bus wasn’t hurts fault 

If the Oline messed up and missed blocking a guy… I’d blame them for a poor job. But looked to me like it should have been understood the Oline wasn’t planning on blocking that player all along. So knowing the play being run and not thinking about the unblocked guy you are going to roll right into? That’s a mistake itself. 
  Now every QB gets a certain amount of leeway on his audible authority. Be stupid to have any starter QB without at least some audible power. Should be a situation of the QB just basically being an extension of the OC. Both on the same page of what is expected in most every situation. Mostly the limitations just get strict when a coach is dealing with a power hungry QB wanting to go rogue. Otherwise the audibles being called because of facing a certain D should be an expectation from the OC that the QB will do exactly that. Remember that even audibling isn’t just on the QB. The OC is talking to the QB on the headset up until the last bit of the playclock when he’s cut off. So OCs actually are even calling the audibles in much of this day and age of the sport.

15 hours ago, joemas6 said:

Dude..... it absolutely looks like Dickerson's hand on a couple of these, very easy mistake ...this is the close up so you can kinda tell it's Kelce, but still not obvious. 

Kelce needs to wear a different color  glove... then no issue.  Very simple 

Think you are still missing what’s happening a little bit here. The defender had his hand under the ball that wasn’t called offsides on that exact play even. The league sent notice to us about this Brotherly Shove play. Your first instinct was to just lash out towards me that the answer was just for Dickerson to not be so clearly lining up offsides. That the penalty flag was only tossed because Dickerson was lined up so poorly in the neutral zone. You even posted how you even know that we were sent notice by the league about them pretty much targeting us over this play. You also are now acknowledging that Dickerson wasn’t at fault at all on this play. While the D actually even was guilty instead. The thing is in a perfect vacuum of how everything should be going on? You’d be correct. But you’re missing the exact point of it’s clearly not the case. Perfect vacuum all being just fair play? It was offsides neutral zone infraction on the d. Instead it was called on Dickerson who wasn’t even guilty of the penalty. This being right after the league pretty much exactly told us they had issue with this exact play by us. Trying to point out and get across to you this isn’t just some Disney Fairytale perfect league just operating on the basis of the most equal fair play game. Same thing I was trying to point out basically about Jax moving to London. Your points based on everything revolving around just being a game that’s sole reasoning anything is done by the league offices ….is for concerns of even and fair play….just isn’t based on reality.

33 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

If the Oline messed up and missed blocking a guy… I’d blame them for a poor job. But looked to me like it should have been understood the Oline wasn’t planning on blocking that player all along. So knowing the play being run and not thinking about the unblocked guy you are going to roll right into? That’s a mistake itself. 
  Now every QB gets a certain amount of leeway on his audible authority. Be stupid to have any starter QB without at least some audible power. Should be a situation of the QB just basically being an extension of the OC. Both on the same page of what is expected in most every situation. Mostly the limitations just get strict when a coach is dealing with a power hungry QB wanting to go rogue. Otherwise the audibles being called because of facing a certain D should be an expectation from the OC that the QB will do exactly that. Remember that even audibling isn’t just on the QB. The OC is talking to the QB on the headset up until the last bit of the playclock when he’s cut off. So OCs actually are even calling the audibles in much of this day and age of the sport.

15 seconds left the mic gets turned off. 

 I agree with BG....2 similar plays happen...  in Chicago it would be Fields fault....in Philly, you would blame the mayor or the D.A. before Hurts.   4 years, Hurts hasn't done anything wrong yet.... except take a hit.   

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

Think you are still missing what’s happening a little bit here. The defender had his hand under the ball that wasn’t called offsides on that exact play even. The league sent notice to us about this Brotherly Shove play. Your first instinct was to just lash out towards me that the answer was just for Dickerson to not be so clearly lining up offsides. That the penalty flag was only tossed because Dickerson was lined up so poorly in the neutral zone. You even posted how you even know that we were sent notice by the league about them pretty much targeting us over this play. You also are now acknowledging that Dickerson wasn’t at fault at all on this play. While the D actually even was guilty instead. The thing is in a perfect vacuum of how everything should be going on? You’d be correct. But you’re missing the exact point of it’s clearly not the case. Perfect vacuum all being just fair play? It was offsides neutral zone infraction on the d. Instead it was called on Dickerson who wasn’t even guilty of the penalty. This being right after the league pretty much exactly told us they had issue with this exact play by us. Trying to point out and get across to you this isn’t just some Disney Fairytale perfect league just operating on the basis of the most equal fair play game. Same thing I was trying to point out basically about Jax moving to London. Your points based on everything revolving around just being a game that’s sole reasoning anything is done by the league offices ….is for concerns of even and fair play….just isn’t based on reality.

Dude...stop making it complicated.   The league sent this and that...doesn't matter....what matters is the hand placement... in the photos it seriously looks like it's Dickerson..even in videos.

Kelce needs to wear a different color glove....then it's done.    

Why you make it a complicated conspiracy theory??    Nothing is ever simple for you....lol.

 

Btw... Dickerson jumped way before the snap in OT....we got away with that one.  As Kelce says....just line up and snap the ball.  

OMG...the league is watching....no kidding.  Lol

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10092457-fletcher-cox-out-for-eagles-vs-rams-1st-missed-game-because-of-injury-since-2017  Time for the young bucks to get some experience in. Once again we are soft in the middle and I expect Stafford to go there with Atwell/Nacua.on some crosses, IDK if Kupp is back. 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10092391-report-rams-cooper-kupp-expected-to-return-from-hamstring-injury-vs-eagles Yeah he will be back for this game. With the emergence of Nacua,I suspect limited usage from him. So Kupp,Nacua and Atwell should be the main draws

https://theeagleswire.usatoday.com/lists/eagles-news-fletcher-cox-cam-jurgens-ruled-out-rams-game-status-injury/  I personally think we have a tough time winning this one,but we can if we can get Swift going early. Opeta will be another weak spot. I can't count on the secondary this game, We're going to have to outscore them with the offense,which needs to be "unleashed"(although I dislike this word alot LOL). I'm with Joe,Hurts is a better runner when it's UNplanned,so we need to do that this game. Stop the college RPO,get Swift going and use play action and let Hurts take off when he can. I believe this will be another offensive show from both teams. A win being down some good players, would impress me(not that anyone cares). I would like(once again) to see Goedert used more and not 2 yards out in the flat,but over the middle to disrupt their defense. Point being Hurts can run out for more than those 2 yard passes. I've seen Goedert over the middle waving his hands more than once,Hurts needs to see him in the progression.It really would be nice to see a dominating front 4 also. The young guys need to make it happen

https://www.nfl.com/news/broncos-trading-olb-randy-gregory-to-49ers  FWIW

2 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

If the Oline messed up and missed blocking a guy… I’d blame them for a poor job. But looked to me like it should have been understood the Oline wasn’t planning on blocking that player all along. So knowing the play being run and not thinking about the unblocked guy you are going to roll right into? That’s a mistake itself. 

It was a play action lol why would you design a play to leave a man unblocked on a PA with the qB back turned to him… it makes zero sense so it was either a terrible play call and design or a terrible job by the OL but clearly can’t expect Fields to do anything when as soon as he turns from the play action he is getting hit lol 

2 hours ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Now every QB gets a certain amount of leeway on his audible authority. Be stupid to have any starter QB without at least some audible power.

And yet it happens quite a bit where the QBs don’t have that control at the line this isn’t some conspiracy just reality. 

Look at Mcvay with Goff he was calling stuff up until the very last sec. Until the mics cut out Goff didn’t have control at the line

7 hours ago, joemas6 said:

My guess is not too many people on here watch the today show

Yeah I’d assume the crowd watching the Today show probably record The View and actually know what channel Lifetime network is on

17 hours ago, joemas6 said:

Because the GM would be fired. No shot you keep Fields and the #1 pick.  If it was late 1st round...different story...not the 1st pick. 

I actually can point out how it would be the way for a GM to not get fired. If you trade your starter and he thrives afterwards? That is reason you look bad and can be fired. If your first round pick doesn’t pan out? That’s reason to be fired. But think through the whole scenario more thoroughly. Who’s firing a GM if either QB turns out to be The Guy? You could knock him a bit for the other guy that doesn’t pan out. But don’t see getting fired as long as you found a franchise QB. But I’m not exclusively locking in the Bears at first pick really either. I’m more looking at the Bears taking a first round QB. They have two picks. Both picks, them and Panthers, are not good teams. So a high pick QB is what I’m referring to. But even number one overall I still don’t have any issue or feel any need to change my point. Why must you trade any QB just because he isn’t considered your starter? Would think us Eags fans would see value in backup QBs more than most. 

Number one pick or sixth pick? Not sure I see much difference of it towards Fields. Draft pick could get injured at any point. Having Fields could keep the team winning enough to overcome that injury to still make the playoffs. Let’s face it…playoff Bears team is as far as any dream scenarios surrounding them can even imagine. Fields isn’t a Franchise QB. The way a GM gets fired is signing him like he is one. That’s about only way Bears GM loses his job for years. Only other way he gets fired is if the high pick draftee AND Fields stink and don’t pan out. 

Bears have plenty of money to spend. Just spent bringing in quality long term pieces this season. Two first round picks already in pocket. Looking like their draft pick position will turn out to be high every round. They don’t really need to trade Fields at all. Maybe hire the right coaches. Bring in a few FA that they can afford. Draft decent. Everything looking like it’s in place for the Bears to put together a quality team. If…IF they chose the right players. Having a backup QB would be only next piece needed. 

Now if anybody offers something considering Fields as being their Franchise Guy? Then definitely trade him. But this thinking and logic stuck on a starter not being the guy…so they draft a top franchise QB…means you gotta trade the previous not worthy starter doesn’t seem like sound logic to me. Trade any player if a team offers blow you away enough. Need several other factors to lead to forced to trade him. Like Wentz situation. Largest contract Primma Donna that lost the whole teams belief in him for the new Franchise QB…type scenario. 

18 hours ago, joemas6 said:

Pretty much your thing.    You would challenge the fact there are 7 days a week if you could.   

I believe you would keep Fields, use the #1 pick on the USC QB....then ask the OC to run the ball 70% of the time to " protect the QBs" ...    but at the same time use a " 4 headed monster" so as to "keep the tread on the tires" of the top 2 RBs.

Then use the next 3 picks for S, because you gotta have 3 good safeties.  

Nobody stretches it to a four headed RB monster need. Two quality starting worthy RBs? Yes. Protecting the QB? Yes. Do I believe in protecting the starting QB…while also valuing having a quality backup QB? Yes. In todays era of football do you need 3 good S? Yes you do. Almost by definition S are some of the more versatile defenders. With league wide utilization of five DBs(minimum) overwhelmingly the norm. Except for the goaline/short yardage personnel package.

 A good backup QB, multiple good RBs, protecting the starting QB for the long haul, valuing three S? Yep! Sounds good to me. Feels like you intended it as tearing me down and making fun of me. Especially after the 7 days in a week start. But the problem in thinking here, as I see it is…why would you think any of this would be bad or wrong? Ask any  DC if having three S would be good for what he’d like to do. I can’t imagine a single one that would view it as overkill. Three S packages could easily be his standard usual personnel D. So there isn’t really even enough to do that correctly. Lose one any snap to injury and the whole package is lost. Even two S plays can utilize a third S at technically other labeled positions. You just can’t seem to wrap your head around a third S on the field. I can foresee it one every play. Put third in Slot. Put a Third in at LB. Blitzing. Or just the plain old boring three S up top plays. Three S can easily be on the field always at one time. But even short sighted views on only two S possible D personnel packages should mean a third backup is needed. Just having a player that backs up two different starters is enough reasoning to value a third. 
  Obviously your intended joke on me I completely embrace. Whether or not you or some others agree with me? Read to me like you attempted to post slamming me…but instead was all on yourself. Most all of my viewpoints you highlighted I stand by. Why anybody would be against having these things? That’s what is puzzling