28 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

• 
  3.
  Kyle Hamilton

  S Notre Dame
   
• 
  9.
  DeMarvin Leal

  DT Texas A&M
   
• 
  29.
  Carson Strong

  QB Nevada
  
• 
  43.
  Kingsley Enagbare

  EDGE South Carolina
   
• 
  49.
  Lecitus Smith

  OG Virginia Tech
  
• 
  54.
  Christian Harris

  LB Alabama
  
• 
  61.
  Brenton Cox

  EDGE Florida
  
• 
  72.
  Owen Pappoe

  LB Auburn
   
• 
  78.
  Isaiah Likely

  TE Coastal Carolina
  
• 
  148.
  Tyler Goodson

  RB Iowa
   
• 
  174.
  Zakoby McClain

  LB Auburn
   
• 
  187.
  Wanya Morris

  OT Oklahoma

If that panned out, a lot of QB's would be having 2 Cox in their face..  

22 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

You're trying to claim that Hurts and the Eagles offense only put up garbage time production in the Chiefs and 49ers game when that isn't the case. 

The only games this season where that occurred was the Cowboys and Raiders game and to an extent the final TD drive for the Eagles in the Chiefs game. 

You’re forgetting the TB game.

I agree with your assessment of the Chiefs game. It was just a battle of two teams not playing defense.

1 hour ago, Utebird said:

David Carr I think had it worse, guy was hit and sacked relentlessly, I think he had some talent but after the beating he took in Houston his first couple years he never stopped hearing foot steps.

That is why they call it Carr syndrome.  David was a fantastic QB, but was just in a terrible situation.

Just now, greend said:

I use my ar responsibly. Why would you single that out? In one breath you say that having one wouldn't help against an army and in the other breath you try to say that they are "military grade" and designed to "kill people". 

 

I'll tell you the same thing I told afan who leveled this same argument yesterday. If we ever had to go up against some army to defend ourselves I would sure rather have my a/r than nothing.

 

Oh and for your info there are plenty of "military vets" that think we should own them and my son is one, as well as about everyone that lives around me, and one of them in here has been liking my posts

 

 

As it stands I'm tired of this conversation. Moving on 

Yes kill people not tanks.

Like I said too many gun owners have this skewed view of defending their rights against a tyrannical government by hiding in the woods  and calling them selves wolverines.

The only reason to own an AR 15 is to shoot other people and in the case one is doing that against the US armed forces like I said your AR 15 isn't much help against a tank or a missle equipped drone.

If you want to own an AR 15 fine I challenge you to come up with an actual reason to own one, stop using the excuse that you need it to defend yourself from a tyrannical government it's an illogical argument.

 

 

Just now, Wentz_Era said:

That is why they call it Carr syndrome.  David was a fantastic QB, but was just in a terrible situation.

Yup wasnt he sacked a record amount of times in more than 1 season?

Why are we talking about tanks? The military could just take you out with a drone without any risk. 

22 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

WRONG. From the beginning, I've said there WAS garbage time in the Chiefs game. Being down 19 with 2:30 to go IS GARBAGE TIME. I never said they only put up points in garbage time. 

I then said its arguable the 49ers had garbage time because they did nothing all game besides 3 points. The score was 17-3 with less than 5 mins to go. Arguable meaning you could make the case it was or wasn't based on how you viewed the game. 

The whole point is Hurts being rated the third highest 4th quarter QB, and how it's mostly because of garbage time. 

I think you need to dial it back a little, I’m gonna take a dump on you, meatstick

QBs are always the hardest to predict in mock drafts in November.

Mac Jones, Daniel Jones, Joe Burrow (was not a consensus 1st rounder until the playoff). Baker was never supposed to go #1 (it was a lot of Rosen vs. Darnold). Justin Fields was going #2 in most mock drafts last year behind Lawrence.

It's just easier to project other positions.

1 minute ago, WentzFan11 said:

Why are we talking about tanks? The military could just take you out with a drone without any risk. 

Too scared to fight its own citizens AR-15 to AR-15? Cowards. 

Time to stock up on our own attack drones. 

I am an ar owner

Nothing like a couple libtards argueing over guns, go vote dem if you don’t want freedom, lobbies woooooo

I am an AR owner as well

46 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

It's not a hard concept to grasp. 

1 hour ago, Alphagrand said:

this underestimates Howie's ability to kick cans down the road as he often does, buy doing multiple restructuring. 

Also..... trades where the team with a  player with a high salary cap number also gives up a draft pick to help unload the salary to a team willing to pay for draft picks. 

9 minutes ago, WentzFan11 said:

Why are we talking about tanks? The military could just take you out with a drone without any risk. 

and yet we still didn't win in Afghanistan....  hmmm

5 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

and yet we still didn't win in Afghanistan....  hmmm

The weapons manufactures who made billions of dollars disagree about not winning.

6 minutes ago, Utebird said:

The weapons manufactures who made billions of dollars disagree about not winning.

the millions of dollars of weapons we left to them at the COST OF TAX PAYER MONEY (Of which I am one) and the lives lost for nothing along the way,  says we lost

31 minutes ago, Wentz_Era said:

That is why they call it Carr syndrome.  David was a fantastic QB, but was just in a terrible situation.

Just one hit by Matthews Carred Kolb.  David Carr was massacred early in his career. Wilson has had a similar beating but has withstood it.  

26 minutes ago, WentzFan11 said:

Why are we talking about tanks? The military could just take you out with a drone without any risk. 

I think we’ll see those when China decides to take Taiwan, likely a half a million of them. 

1 hour ago, BigEFly said:

Madison, who proposed the Bill of Rights was not suggesting amending the Constitution but rather a bit of a redraft.  It seems lost on some "strict” constitutionalists that the document is fluid and itself replaced a ten year old document, the Articles of Confederation.  Reading the original draft without reading the Federalist Papers is like understanding half of the intent. But reading the Constitution without reading the state constitutions of the time is also a mistake.

 Until the Marbury decision, I doubt many understood that the federal Constitution could be seen to limit what states could make as laws or in the state constitutions on their own. In fact, a federal government holding sway over states contributed a civil war less than seventy years later.  (With all due respect to AFan, the Civil War was also about states’ rights, primarily a state’s right to allow slavery and to enforce what was perceived as a property right irrespective of a federal mandate otherwise.  He is right when he says it was about slavery but mistaken when he says it was not about states rights, they are interwoven in the southern body politic of the pre civil war.)

I think fundamentally the Civil War was tied to the economic interests of the upper middle class slaveowners and the question of slavery.  I think it is a mischaracterization to say otherwise.  What is so under reported not taught, is how unpopular slavery was in the South. Abolitionists and abolition groups were prevalent in the South. We had our 2nd amendment discussion but the freedom of speech discussion is probably much more dynamic.   Abolitionists were frequently the subject of attacks and laws preventing their organization.  Use of fear in responses to slave uprisings, made suppression of these groups possible.  I think fundamentally white supremacism and the fear of blacks attacking whites became the dog whistle to garner support for secession among southerners who were not slave owners and certainly not economically benefited by the system.  The upper middle class were  most concerned about maintaining slavery as they saw it directly tied to their economic interests.  The appeal to white supremacy and states rights were the messaging but not the reasoning.  This secessionists were not the richest slaveowners who were heavily economically tied to trade with Northern states.  These were plantation owners and slave owners who were not the super wealthy.   Moreover what southerners are not taught is how unpopular secession was amongst white southerners.  It was not like a unanimous vote.  States had referendums to send delegates to a Conventions to decide the question of secession.  Secessionists actively suppressed and attacked southerners who were opposed to secession.  Secessionist delegates ran as unionists and then voted for secession. It was not a popular move but people ended up supporting it due to fear and then once war was started a sense of duty to their state.  What is frustrating to me is southerners claiming states rights and confederacy as a heritage, when many of their ancestors would not.  

Gun conversations among reasonable people most of the time boil down to this:

Gun owners: I like guns, I like the culture of guns, I am a responsible person so leave me alone.

Gun control folks: The costs of widespread assault weapon availability outweigh the benefits, fringe people shouldn't have access to guns

There's middle ground to be had here. The radicals control the narrative.

21 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

this underestimates Howie's ability to kick cans down the road as he often does, buy doing multiple restructuring. 

Also..... trades where the team with a  player with a high salary cap number also gives up a draft pick to help unload the salary to a team willing to pay for draft picks. 

I was referring more to the fact Philly is not on Russell Wilson's list of teams he will waive his no-trade clause for, so the salary cap implications are irrelevant.

No-trade clauses are a pain in the arse for teams.  It's common in the NHL -- Jarome Iginla was a long-serving player in Calgary who needed to be traded at the deadline for various reasons and he gave Calgary a list of 4 teams he'd waive his no-trade clause for, then before long he limited the organization to trading with two teams -- PIT and BOS.  Calgary went ahead and worked out a trade with BOS, then Iginla came back and said 'actually no; I'll only waive it for a trade to PIT' -- screwing Calgary's leverage and compromising the trade return assets they got back.

Moral of the long story -- Philly is "not on the list" -- don't waste the energy wishing and hoping for Wilson, Watson, or Rodgers unless something different is reported from a reliable source.

2 hours ago, TorontoEagle said:

Y'know, I don't think I've ever covered anything in my history lessons about this, but when did America shift to having a standing army? Was it post Civil War? WW1? 

The answer is that the nation always had a standing army.  It was exceedingly tiny, but the original Continental Army was reduced in size about 9 months after the official signing of the Treaty of Paris to end the American Revolution.  That army remained in place, to give the 'teeth' needed so that the peace talks could continue without threat of Britain to change their minds and restart the war.  September 1783, the Treaty of Paris was signed.  June 1784, the Continental Army was reduced to 80, and then the First American Regiment was created.  This was a group consisting of about 700 members, from 4 different state militias, to help hold and defend the frontier.   It was soon recognized that this force was not large enough to defend the vast stretch of frontier and quickly was expanded.  By 1793, that number had grown to over 5000 members.   The First American Regiment went through some changes in names, sizes and after the War of 1812 was consolidated with a few other Infantry groups, to form the 3rd Infantry, which officially makes the '3rd Infantry' the oldest unit in the US.

 

So, when did America shift to having a standing army?  The answer is: It always had one from before the time it won independence from Great Britain.  It started very small, and gradually grew larger and larger.  The Marines were reestablished in 1798 and have existed since that time.  

Congress at the time was wary of having a standing army, but the country was never without one.  It just wasn't always a big enough one to get the job done without help from other militias or volunteers added for a time, most notably during the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791, where Washington himself led a federal militia of about 12,000 into western PA to put it down and establish the federal government's ability to tax the citizenry.

2 hours ago, justrelax said:

It's a little furry but the short answer is 1787. All of 700 men! Prior to that, there was a permanent guard of military stores at West Point. It consisted of 80 men. Both of these came into being after the Continental Army, which had fought in the Revolutionary War, was disbanded.

June 3, 1784, to be exact.  

45 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Yes kill people not tanks.

Like I said too many gun owners have this skewed view of defending their rights against a tyrannical government by hiding in the woods  and calling them selves wolverines.

The only reason to own an AR 15 is to shoot other people and in the case one is doing that against the US armed forces like I said your AR 15 isn't much help against a tank or a missle equipped drone.

If you want to own an AR 15 fine I challenge you to come up with an actual reason to own one, stop using the excuse that you need it to defend yourself from a tyrannical government it's an illogical argument.

 

 

Yup wasnt he sacked a record amount of times in more than 1 season?

I think it was a 2-3 year stretch where he broke his own record.

16 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

the millions of dollars of weapons we left to them at the COST OF TAX PAYER MONEY (Of which I am one) and the lives lost for nothing along the way,  says we lost

How's the saying go, nobody wins war everyone loses.

I'd amend that to say everyone but the corporate weapons manufacturers and dealers, they made a lot of money though one could argue lost their souls...