12 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

I believe it. Flecther has been a shell of himself for 2 years now and the steelers make there bones in the middle rounds. Judging how they trade, they'd rather have the 2nd through 4ths, then the 1sts. 

I’ve heard Malcolm Gladwell say (something to the effect of) in the era of the salary cap 2nd round picks are more valuable than 1st rounders because (outside of the super blue chippers) there isn’t much of a talent difference, but the contracts are massively different.

This was at the time RG3 was drafted. I’m not sure if the new collective bargaining agreement changed anything.

He actually advised Dan Snyder to trade the 6th pick DOWN a few times and acquire many more assets (much like what EMB mock drafters do in the trade simulators). Snyder being Snyder, he instead traded 3 1st rounders (and a 2nd) to move up 4 spots for RG3. 

I believe this story is in one of his podcasts.

29 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

I don’t think fans love Hurts. 

From a person standpoint, he seems to be a very good guy, he seems to be a competitor, a strong leader, you love those traits.

For me, he just hasn't shown enough ability in running a pro style pocket passing offense, that you will need to be able to do, in order to win championships. He has the rest of the season to improve, as this is a throw away season anyway. For all involved it would be best if he did show he can and be able to do so. I have not seen it yet, but again we have 8 more games. 

There will be an argument made that you can win with his skill set the way it is, yes you can win games and maybe even get to and win a play off game or two. But the majority of SB's have been won by Pocket Passing elite QB's! So, until the run oriented QB's start winning SB's on a regular basis, I am going to stay looking for that Elite Pocket Passing QB, (who may be able to run when needed). The reason for this is, really good teams with good defenses, will limit the plays a running qb can make and make them beat you from the pocket, this usually shows up in the playoffs as the level of opponents gets tougher.

IMHO

18 minutes ago, greend said:

I would say some do. (Not as many as before the season though)

Hurts comes off as accountable - if/when he gets benched I think he’ll correlate it with his performance. I’d be shocked if he points a finger in any other direction.

1 hour ago, bpac55 said:

Rape is about as serious as an accusation as you can make against a man and I'm not defending Anderson at all here.  I'm thinking there are so many questions that need to be asked and answered before saying Anderson is guilty.  All we know from the charges is that the woman went to Anderson's house after going out for drinks and was there from after midnight until 7am.  She woke up with Anderson having sex with her.  I know nothing about Anderson as a human.  No idea if he's and upstanding citizen with a clean history or if he's ever been questioned before in anything.

Questions that come up right away:

-Was this her first time going his house?

-What was the conversation before she went to his house?  What is their texting/picture history (silly we have to ask but it's society now)  

-Did the woman go to the house and pass out on a bed by herself or did she fall asleep in Andersons bed?

-Do they woman and Anderson have sexual history together?  Have they hooked up before? 

-Did they mess around and do stuff before going to bed which made Anderson think morning sex was acceptable/on the table?       How many men here have "woken up" their GF/wife?

-Did she wake up and ask him to stop only to be followed by Anderson continuing?

 

Again, not defending Anderson if actions are true but a lot of questions certainly need to be answered.  Men need to think 10 steps down the road before having sex with a woman these days, NO MATTER how mixed or confusing the signals could be.  Anderson may well have thought it was OK based on their history.  

 

This is why there are trials.

You know nothing about Anderson as a human, yet all of your questions are asking what the Woman was up to, which I'm sure you know even less about.

Consent is an ongoing permission, it can be revoked at any time. With your line of questioning, you are suggesting a husband couldn't rape his wife since they have a past sexual history.

You should probably just shut the F up until more facts come out.

Putting aside the legality of what that kid did, we all agree it was beyond moronic for him to go there with his gun like he was some sort hero, right?

3 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

nope. Cops werent doing ish, government werent doing ish. They still arent doing ish. 

People have done this(showed up to riots/looting) with thier own guns to protect themselves, friends, stores, etc etc. (rooftop Koreans) Locally we actually had African Americans protecting themselves in Camden against other African Americans. (which is why nothing got crazy here)

The problem is a couple people F****'ed around and found out.

i'll go one step further.. IF* there were MORE Rittenhouses there'd be a lot less looting/rioting/crime. 

 

I'd also like to see some charges towards the media. They encouraged this. they egged the people on and then they lied about it. 

Yikes. 

2 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

I gotta be honest..

I dont give a flying F if he's accountable. If he's a nice guy, if he's a local community hero. 

Accountability is a attribute I look for in my employees, my kids, my lawyer, not my professional QB. 

Accountability is a strong attribute in any walk of life, as it correlates with self-improvement - that should be obvious. In terms of Hurts, yes, if he doesn’t have the talent - ‘working hard’ won’t keep him on the field. In any case, the idea that he’d cite ‘racism’ as the cause for his benching seems outside of his character.

9 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Putting aside the legality of what that kid did, we all agree it was beyond moronic for him to go there with his gun like he was some sort hero, right?

Being a gun rights guy I'm still going to agree with you on this. No property is worth human life. I've often told my wife that if someone breaks into the house I'm taking a defensive stance between her and them and she needs to be calling the cops, they can steal what they want, I'm not killing people over possessions and I sure as heck don't want to be killed over them.

That said make one move towards me or my wife (or any human I'm trying to protect) then that's a different story 

BTW thanks to all the vets and active members of the armed forces that post here. Without you guys I just might be typing another language. Thanks for putting your all on the line for me!

11 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Putting aside the legality of what that kid did, we all agree it was beyond moronic for him to go there with his gun like he was some sort hero, right?

I wont go that far. 

I will say it this way - He is a better man than me to put himself in harms way, to help protect the community. He may have been a little naive to think just the presence of his gun would keep the lunatics at bay, but someone who was compelled to protect the community when the local officials were unable or unwilling to? I cant condemn that. Naive yes? Moronic?- not from my perspective.  

1 minute ago, greend said:

Being a gun rights guy I'm still going to agree with you on this. No property is worth human life. I've often told my wife that if someone breaks into the house I'm taking a defensive stance between her and them and she needs to be calling the cops, they can steal what they want, I'm not killing people over possessions and I sure as heck don't want to be killed over them.

That said make one move towards me or my wife (or any human I'm trying to protect) then that's a different story 

This makes sense. Me showing up at your house to defend you, and turning it into a shooting gallery would seem beyond the pale.

6 minutes ago, greend said:

Being a gun rights guy I'm still going to agree with you on this. No property is worth human life. I've often told my wife that if someone breaks into the house I'm taking a defensive stance between her and them and she needs to be calling the cops, they can steal what they want, I'm not killing people over possessions and I sure as heck don't want to be killed over them.

That said make one move towards me or my wife (or any human I'm trying to protect) then that's a different story 

You break into my house, you WONT be able to try and explain your intentions. Cause I will shoot and ask questions later. I wont give them a chance. 

Now if you are just out prowling around my house and or breaking into my car? I might just let the dogs loose. But breaking into my home while we are inside? I am going to assume you mean to do us bodily harm, and nip that sheet in the bud. You wont get the chance to even try

2 minutes ago, Waiting4Someday said:

This makes sense. Me showing up at your house to defend you, and turning it into a shooting gallery would seem beyond the pale.

Especially if I had another choice in the matter like not be there when they break in. 

1 hour ago, bpac55 said:

Rape is about as serious as an accusation as you can make against a man and I'm not defending Anderson at all here.  I'm thinking there are so many questions that need to be asked and answered before saying Anderson is guilty.  All we know from the charges is that the woman went to Anderson's house after going out for drinks and was there from after midnight until 7am.  She woke up with Anderson having sex with her.  I know nothing about Anderson as a human.  No idea if he's and upstanding citizen with a clean history or if he's ever been questioned before in anything.

Questions that come up right away:

-Was this her first time going his house?

-What was the conversation before she went to his house?  What is their texting/picture history (silly we have to ask but it's society now)  

-Did the woman go to the house and pass out on a bed by herself or did she fall asleep in Andersons bed?

-Do they woman and Anderson have sexual history together?  Have they hooked up before? 

-Did they mess around and do stuff before going to bed which made Anderson think morning sex was acceptable/on the table?       How many men here have "woken up" their GF/wife?

-Did she wake up and ask him to stop only to be followed by Anderson continuing?

 

Again, not defending Anderson if actions are true but a lot of questions certainly need to be answered.  Men need to think 10 steps down the road before having sex with a woman these days, NO MATTER how mixed or confusing the signals could be.  Anderson may well have thought it was OK based on their history.  

 

How come all of your questions are about her conduct? He put himself in the situation even if he didn't commit the crime.  He's only reaping what he's sowed.  

 

 

17 minutes ago, wussbasket said:

This is why there are trials.

You know nothing about Anderson as a human, yet all of your questions are asking what the Woman was up to, which I'm sure you know even less about.

Consent is an ongoing permission, it can be revoked at any time. With your line of questioning, you are suggesting a husband couldn't rape his wife since they have a past sexual history.

You should probably just shut the F up until more facts come out.

No, I know nothing about Anderson as a human which I clearly stated in my post.  Maybe you missed that part or maybe you chose to ignore it.  I know nothing about the accuser either.  

The whole reason you ask questions is to gather facts....that's why I'm asking those things.  Did I say he was innocent?  Did I say she was lying?  Did I say anything about either of them?  No I didn't.  I was asking questions that could help bring clarity to the situation. 

I see no reason for you to tell me to STFU when I'm just asking basic questions that would help bring those facts to light.  

 

1 minute ago, Ipiggles said:

You break into my house, you WONT be able to try and explain your intentions. Cause I will shoot and ask questions later. I wont give them a chance. 

Now if you are just out prowling around my house and or breaking into my car? I might just let the dogs loose. But breaking into my home while we are inside? I am going to assume you mean to do us bodily harm, and nip that sheet in the bud. You wont get the chance to even try

So you are going searching through the house like a bad 70's movie cop, or are you going to take a defensive stance between what is truly valuable to you and the threat?

7 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

You break into my house, you WONT be able to try and explain your intentions. Cause I will shoot and ask questions later. I wont give them a chance. 

Now if you are just out prowlingf around my house and or breaking into my car? I might just let the dogs loose. But breaking into my home while we are inside? I am going to assume you mean to do us bodilay harm, and nip that sheet in the bud. 

All it takes in most states to use lethal force is if you believe yourself or others stand a chance of great physical harm or death.  Protecting property doesn't count.

10 hours ago, DawkinsOwnage03 said:

If Reagor was cut tomorrow nobody would care 

A first round pick at WR catching passes from one of the worst passers in the nfl being coached up by one of the least respected coaching staffs in the nfl.

He wouldn’t make it 10 spots through waivers, maybe not 5.  
 

 

5 minutes ago, greend said:

So you are going searching through the house like a bad 70's movie cop, or are you going to take a defensive stance between what is truly valuable to you and the threat?

nah, my dogs will lead me to where you are at and i will sort through the pieces of what ever is left after I fire my shotgun.  

3 minutes ago, E-A-G-L-E-S Eagles said:

All it takes in most states to use lethal force is if you believe yourself or others stand a chance of great physical harm or death.  Protecting property doesn't count.

If you break into my house when I am at home, I make the assumption you are there to do us bodily harm. I wont wait until you declare your intentions. 

2 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

How come all of your questions are about her conduct? He put himself in the situation even if he didn't commit the crime.  He's only reaping what he's sowed.  

 

 

We don't know the whole situation.  I didn't have an angle in why I questioned her conduct rather than his.  

-Did he take her out and load her up with drinks knowing he could convince her to come back to his place?

-Did he offer for her to sleep in his bed with him knowing she was drunk?  

-Did he offer to sleep on the couch so she could have the bed to herself?

-Did he take advantage of a blackout drunk woman?

-Was he sober while she was drunk?

 

Again, we know absolutely nothing besides the fact that she went to his place after midnight, was drinking and woke up to them having sex. 

Her waking up to that clearly makes it non-consensual.

 

40 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Not defending his effort or lack there of.....But it has to be tough for a D lineman to keep his energy up every play, every game, when the ball is long gone by the time anyone can get to the QB.  

JFC....STFU!!!!

You need to get a hobby. , you spend far too much time here whining like a beetch .

9 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

No, I know nothing about Anderson as a human which I clearly stated in my post.  Maybe you missed that part or maybe you chose to ignore it.  I know nothing about the accuser either.  

The whole reason you ask questions is to gather facts....that's why I'm asking those things.  Did I say he was innocent?  Did I say she was lying?  Did I say anything about either of them?  No I didn't.  I was asking questions that could help bring clarity to the situation. 

I see no reason for you to tell me to STFU when I'm just asking basic questions that would help bring those facts to light.  

 

You're not asking questions to gather facts. You are in no position to gather facts. You are insinuating there can be no rape if there is past history of sexual activity. There are no facts in the article you quoted other than Georgia being 9-0.

Please explain how you are not going to bring facts to light on a Fing Eagles message board.

2 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Weren't you the one crying last week when I called you a Troll.....since that's the reason you got banned on the old board. 

 

Yet here you are........still trolling.  

Best you got ? Yelling troll again  ? On the bright side , at least you didn’t do the standard  , JFC  , so there’s that .

17 minutes ago, greend said:

So you are going searching through the house like a bad 70's movie cop, or are you going to take a defensive stance between what is truly valuable to you and the threat?

Most people want the excuse to shoot someone.  Stealing their $100 TV = death.