12 hours ago, BigEFly said:

Pretty interesting.  Wish it showed the topography.  I had a professor my first year of college at Texas A&M.  A&M was able to brag at that time that it graduated more officer candidates than all of the service academies combined.  Dr. Beaumont was a military historian.  He taught us a lot of the nuances and truths that you don’t get in the general histories.  He had these topographical models of each of the major battlefields of the Civil War but he always said, to get the feel for the battle, walk the ground.  I have been in the thickets of The Wilderness, climbed the split rail in the middle of Pickett’s charge (really Longstreet’s).  The stone bridge at Antietam is such a bottleneck, it is a miracle that Burnside had any of his men left.  But the sunken road.  That is hallowed ground.  It was trench warfare.  You can see it as the killing ground it was.   I am glad that to the extent they can, they have restored some of these battlefield’s to conditions mirroring the time.  Let your imagination include the smoke and the constant report of gunfire and artillery.  The horror of it comes alive and you can almost sense the fear of Henry Fleming.  

I had not seen that map or the others, so thank you @Desertbirds.

I agree that you have to walk the grounds. Some are well-preserved, most not, at least of what I've seen. Gettysburg is probably the best but the Plum Run Ravine, where Hancock stopped the 2nd Day advance with the First Minnesota and the NY regiments is nothing like it was then. What is now the battlefield park was used as a tank training ground during WWI (Camp Colt) and they tore it up. They've done wonderful work since, but still. The famous "copse of trees" was just scrub in 1863. No way Longstreet could have used it as a point of attack.

Appomattox is really well-preserved. Of course, it's in the middle of nowhere, with no urban sprawl to infringe upon it. A lot of Petersburg, especially the Crater and Fort Steadman. What surprised me about these last two is how small their areas are, yet how much slaughter took place in those small spaces.

Antietam/Sharpsburg has been restored a great deal. The Dunker Church was rebuilt and the center of the battle has been opened up. The stone bridge of course, and the Sunken Road are still there. For first-timers, the drive through the field at night - the Memorial Illumination - is a powerful experience. First Saturday in December, every year. Every light represents a casualty.

12 hours ago, Desertbirds said:

The Civil War, at least in the early years,  was an unfortunate confluence of outdated tactics and modern weaponry. It is hard to image that a single day of fighting could produce in excess of  30,000 casualties.

It was less than that if memory serves, somewhere under 25,000, but still. a quarter of all the men engaged.

12 hours ago, BigEFly said:

Pretty interesting.  Wish it showed the topography.  I had a professor my first year of college at Texas A&M.  A&M was able to brag at that time that it graduated more officer candidates than all of the service academies combined.  Dr. Beaumont was a military historian.  He taught us a lot of the nuances and truths that you don’t get in the general histories.  He had these topographical models of each of the major battlefields of the Civil War but he always said, to get the feel for the battle, walk the ground.  I have been in the thickets of The Wilderness, climbed the split rail in the middle of Pickett’s charge (really Longstreet’s).  The stone bridge at Antietam is such a bottleneck, it is a miracle that Burnside had any of his men left.  But the sunken road.  That is hallowed ground.  It was trench warfare.  You can see it as the killing ground it was.   I am glad that to the extent they can, they have restored some of these battlefield’s to conditions mirroring the time.  Let your imagination include the smoke and the constant report of gunfire and artillery.  The horror of it comes alive and you can almost sense the fear of Henry Fleming.  

Nah, that was Lee's.  Longstreet argued against it... until his dying day.

 

But, I agree 100%.  You don't get the sense for the land until you are on it.     For example, I've looked over from the Lincoln Memorial to Arlington House a bunch of times.  It doesn't 'look' that high or that holding that ground would be such a big deal.   Then a few summers ago, we went to Arlington Cemetary, toured the house and got the history of the Lee and Washington family... and I went on the 'back porch'... and I saw the land from a different perspective.  You are on a HIGH bluff, overlooking ALL of Washington DC and the Potomac River.  It then crystalized immediately why the first thing the Union Army did was take control of that hill.  Without it, Washington was defenseless. 

12 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

yup.  Napoleonic tactics which were invented because of how inaccurate the weapons were and the only way to be sure to hit your target was to mass fire together.  By the end of the Civil War, it had evolved into Trench Warfare (at least in the VA Campaign between Grant and Lee) that was the primary mode of warfare for World War I.   

The Civil War also marked the massive change in naval warfare from wooden ships to iron ships.  As soon as the Merrimack (CSS Virginia) and the USS Monitor squared up, all other navies in the world were rendered obsolete.

"Just" 4 years of constant war and during those 4 years the face of war changed dramatically from start to finish... lots of technological advances changed everything, and generals like Grant could conduct complete campaigns via the Telegraph... and be hounded by their president 'instantly'.

Grant and Lincoln had an excellent relationship. I wouldn't say Lincoln hounded him. This was written after Vicksburg but before Grant was made General of the Army.

My dear General

I do not remember that you and I ever met personally. I write this now as a grateful acknowledgment for the almost inestimable service you have done the country. I wish to say a word further. When you first reached the vicinity of Vicksburg, I thought you should do, what you finally did — march the troops across the neck, run the batteries with the transports, and thus go below; and I never had any faith, except a general hope that you knew better than I, that the Yazoo Pass expedition, and the like, could succeed. When you got below, and took Port-Gibson, Grand Gulf, and vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and join Gen. Banks; and when you turned Northward East of the Big Black, I feared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong.

Yours very truly

A. Lincoln

1 minute ago, justrelax said:

Grant and Lincoln had an excellent relationship. I wouldn't say Lincoln hounded him. This was written after Vicksburg but before Grant was made General of the Army.

My dear General

I do not remember that you and I ever met personally. I write this now as a grateful acknowledgment for the almost inestimable service you have done the country. I wish to say a word further. When you first reached the vicinity of Vicksburg, I thought you should do, what you finally did — march the troops across the neck, run the batteries with the transports, and thus go below; and I never had any faith, except a general hope that you knew better than I, that the Yazoo Pass expedition, and the like, could succeed. When you got below, and took Port-Gibson, Grand Gulf, and vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and join Gen. Banks; and when you turned Northward East of the Big Black, I feared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong.

Yours very truly

A. Lincoln

In that case, I was referring to the other generals... Burnside, Halleck, Hooker, and especially McClellan.   Likely I could have worded that better.

1 minute ago, Iggles_Phan said:

In that case, I was referring to the other generals... Burnside, Halleck, Hooker, and especially McClellan.   Likely I could have worded that better.

Couldn't we all? To my mind, the war turned when Grant and Sherman linked up and both were given free rein.  

24 minutes ago, justrelax said:

Couldn't we all? To my mind, the war turned when Grant and Sherman linked up and both were given free rein.  

It definitely turned that way in the East (aka, Virginia), but the trend of the war in the 'West' was always tipped in favor of the Union, likely due (in no small part) to the presence and relentless nature of Grant and Sherman.  But, the war had to be won in the East.   And on the East, Lee had his way with commander after commander of the Union, in no small part due to the presence of himself and his 'right arm' Stonewall Jackson.  I think the war really turned on Jackson's wounding and later death.  The ill-fated invasion of Pennsylvania came quickly on the heels of the victory at Chancellorsville, and seeking to take advantage of it, Lee moved north in an attempt to cause the North to sue for peace... meanwhile in the West, Grant had a stranglehold on Vicksburg and it was just a question of 'when', not 'if', they would capitulate.  But that invasion to the north was doomed from the start as Marylanders didn't rise up to join their cause as they'd hoped (most of those sympathetic to the South's cause had already left Maryland), and the organization of the army took a major hit.  Stuart's galavanting left Lee mostly blind, whereas as in Northern VA, both he and Jackson were very very well acquainted with the terrain and roads.  And... likely the single biggest blunder of the Battle of Gettysburg took place on Day 1, when Richard Ewell, in command of the corps formerly led by Jackson, failed to secure Culp's Hill.  Had the Confederates secured Culp's Hill by the end of Day 1, which was wide open for them to take and hold, a great deal of the battle could have changed.  Without the anchor at the top of the fish hook of Culp's Hill, the Union position on Cemetery Hill and Ridge would have been much more vulnerable, and the Union would have likely been pushed off the field, or would have been forced to withdraw to a better location... AND... had the Confederates then captured that territory, more than likely the entire table of that battle flips on its head and it may have been the Union taking all those losses rather than the Confederates.  War might have ended right there, honestly, for all intents and purposes.  

 

So, I agree that Grant and Sherman being given full reign as they were was a major catalyst to the end of the war... I believe the death of Stonewall Jackson was the pivot point.  Granted, there is not a definitive definition of what it was, and Grant's plan with Sherman leading that dagger into the heart of the South was brilliant.  I just don't think that they get a chance to rise to those positions without the death of Jackson. 

I get some in here wanting to bring in Coutee....but I'd rather not. Dude is always hurt, which is the last thing we need. He's played in 23 games in 3 years. That's pretty awful. 

7 hours ago, BigEFly said:

No RB?  Fourth RB looks like the best option from the waiver wire.  That said, they carried Howard on the PS after Miami dropped him.

Howie said that STs mattered for JJAW and I can see that. Aggressive and active on coverage teams. 

I think they bring Howard back, maybe after Week 1.  I liked Wayne Gallman coming out of Clemson so I wouldn’t mind him either; he’s a ‘do whatever is needed’ type of player.

1 minute ago, TorontoEagle said:

I get some in here wanting to bring in Coutee....but I'd rather not. Dude is always hurt, which is the last thing we need. He's played in 23 games in 3 years. That's pretty awful. 

Sounds like our type of guy.  He can hang out with Dickerson and Barnett in the trainer's room.

1 minute ago, Alphagrand said:

I think they bring Howard back, maybe after Week 1.  I liked Wayne Gallman coming out of Clemson so I wouldn’t mind him either; he’s a ‘do whatever is needed’ type of player.

I would prefer Gallman to Howard I think. 

2 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

I think they bring Howard back, maybe after Week 1.  I liked Wayne Gallman coming out of Clemson so I wouldn’t mind him either; he’s a ‘do whatever is needed’ type of player.

Yeah, I think I would prefer Gallman to Howard, personally.  But, Howard offers the option of being sent to the PS and activated on game days for a while.  Maybe they do that again.  Maybe they don't.   It will be interesting to see what happens to the roster over the next 24 hours.

38 minutes ago, justrelax said:

Antietam/Sharpsburg has been restored a great deal. The Dunker Church was rebuilt and the center of the battle has been opened up. The stone bridge of course, and the Sunken Road are still there. For first-timers, the drive through the field at night - the Memorial Illumination - is a powerful experience. First Saturday in December, every year. Every light represents a casualty.

I had never heard of this... I think I have a plan for the first Saturday in December now.  Is it just the casualties on that area of the battlefield, the entire 2 day battle, or the entire war? 

 

9 hours ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Speaking of kickers, somehow the Patriots kept that rookie who shanked two extra points and missed a chip shot field goal against the Eagles. Bizarre. 

Must have made all his kicks in joint practice

8 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ksdk.com/amp/article/news/health/coronavirus/vaccine/nfl-covid-vaccine-players/507-0afb7f0f-a737-4cbe-8416-941765b7b05d
 

In both articles "the NFL reiterated in May there is a rule that prohibits teams from cutting players due to vaccination status.”

I agree with everything your saying in theory. And NFL wanted to mandate it but NFLPA said no, so both agreed to these rules. Meyer is dumb and doesn’t understand when to keep his mouth shut, even if nothing comes from this. 

I didn't realize they issued a policy but if it says they can't cut a player solely due to vaccination status I don't think that' the same as not taking vaccination status into account.  

13 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

I didn't realize they issued a policy but if it says they can't cut a player solely due to vaccination status I don't think that' the same as not taking vaccination status into account.  

"Solely" would be an extremely difficult thing to prove.

9 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ksdk.com/amp/article/news/health/coronavirus/vaccine/nfl-covid-vaccine-players/507-0afb7f0f-a737-4cbe-8416-941765b7b05d
 

In both articles "the NFL reiterated in May there is a rule that prohibits teams from cutting players due to vaccination status.”

I agree with everything your saying in theory. And NFL wanted to mandate it but NFLPA said no, so both agreed to these rules. Meyer is dumb and doesn’t understand when to keep his mouth shut, even if nothing comes from this. 

Myers has always been a scum. I've always hated that pos

2 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

"Solely" would be an extremely difficult thing to prove.

Well I mean it doesn't prevent it from being a consideration.  It just can't be the only consideration.  

9 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

I didn't realize they issued a policy but if it says they can't cut a player solely due to vaccination status I don't think that' the same as not taking vaccination status into account.  

Agreed.  The inclusion of the word "solely" pretty much vindicates a team, because they don't share why they cut a particular player.  So, they cut a player, and that player happens to be unvaccinated.  It can't be proven that the 'sole' reason was due to their vaccination status.  

Conversely, if they were cutting players immediately at the start of TC that were unvaccinated... or if they cut a player as soon as they go on the Covid list if they are unvaccinated... etc.  Ultimately, the key is that they don't just make a move that screams "Covid".  But, now that they are at the 53 man roster... processes are very different and changes will be happening constantly.  And they can talk about the all the other reasons for a cut now.  And there is not a press release for a release of a player that talks about the reason for the waiving of the player, except if there are crazy circumstances, and even then, they rarely put the cut and the 'official statement' from the team describing their disappointment in player X in the same press release.

39 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I had never heard of this... I think I have a plan for the first Saturday in December now.  Is it just the casualties on that area of the battlefield, the entire 2 day battle, or the entire war? 

 

The entire battle.

I suspect the current roster is effectively at 50 players, with Tyree Jackson, Genard Avery, and Davion Taylor all being earmarked for injured reserve. So there's probably going to be three openings to fill. I suspect they'll bring back Howard and perhaps Rodgers, although their keeping Stoll might indicate otherwise. And maybe Hightower or one of the defensive backs.

But apparently if they claim someone at noon, the corresponding transaction cannot be an IR move. So the cut would have to come from the current 53. I guess Stoll. Or even Siposs temporarily.

1 hour ago, justrelax said:

I had not seen that map or the others, so thank you @Desertbirds.

I agree that you have to walk the grounds. Some are well-preserved, most not, at least of what I've seen. Gettysburg is probably the best but the Plum Run Ravine, where Hancock stopped the 2nd Day advance with the First Minnesota and the NY regiments is nothing like it was then. What is now the battlefield park was used as a tank training ground during WWI (Camp Colt) and they tore it up. They've done wonderful work since, but still. The famous "copse of trees" was just scrub in 1863. No way Longstreet could have used it as a point of attack.

Appomattox is really well-preserved. Of course, it's in the middle of nowhere, with no urban sprawl to infringe upon it. A lot of Petersburg, especially the Crater and Fort Steadman. What surprised me about these last two is how small their areas are, yet how much slaughter took place in those small spaces.

Antietam/Sharpsburg has been restored a great deal. The Dunker Church was rebuilt and the center of the battle has been opened up. The stone bridge of course, and the Sunken Road are still there. For first-timers, the drive through the field at night - the Memorial Illumination - is a powerful experience. First Saturday in December, every year. Every light represents a casualty.

Someone in my family tree fought at Antietam. Saw someone with the same last name that was in the battle, looked it up, and he was my great-great-grandfather (or something..don't remember how many "greats"). My wife has descendants that stormed Bunker Hill, and her family is still pretty rebellious.

6 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

I suspect the current roster is effectively at 50 players, with Tyree Jackson, Genard Avery, and Davion Taylor all being earmarked for injured reserve. So there's probably going to be three openings to fill. I suspect they'll bring back Howard and perhaps Rodgers, although their keeping Stoll might indicate otherwise. And maybe Hightower or one of the defensive backs.

But apparently if they claim someone at noon, the corresponding transaction cannot be an IR move. So the cut would have to come from the current 53. I guess Stoll. Or even Siposs temporarily.

Sounds like claims happen at 4 pm actually. 

And to not be able to use an IR move to claim a player is ridiculous. All teams are already at 53. Why penalize them twice by carrying injured players?

6 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

I suspect the current roster is effectively at 50 players, with Tyree Jackson, Genard Avery, and Davion Taylor all being earmarked for injured reserve. So there's probably going to be three openings to fill. I suspect they'll bring back Howard and perhaps Rodgers, although their keeping Stoll might indicate otherwise. And maybe Hightower or one of the defensive backs.

But apparently if they claim someone at noon, the corresponding transaction cannot be an IR move. So the cut would have to come from the current 53. I guess Stoll. Or even Siposs temporarily.

I think Avery gets cut and they add a vet wr. Howard should be on his way back

2 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

 

The Jaguars end up with a better record then the Eagles me thinks

 

Kind of easy to win a lot when you play cupcakes, pay recruits, make your own schedule. 

Still, he won. National Championship with Tebow, which is quite an accomplishment, plus, he did it running a single wing.