47 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

I saw a stat this morning that 54% of Americans cannot read above a 6th grade level. I find that to be horribly sad. 

I support school choice

1 minute ago, Ipiggles said:

I support school choice

I'm not sure what this means? 

30 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

There won't be any changes to Sirianni and Gannon, regardless of what happens over the final 2 weeks of the season.  Any playoff berth makes it unlikely there will be a change at QB; a playoff victory would all but assure the status quo at QB for next season.

As a counterpoint -- what about a loss in Washington and another at home to DAL?  Perhaps the Eagles miss the playoffs in this scenario.  If Hurts plays like he did in the first half this past Sunday that possibility is not remote.  Is there a change at the QB position with 2 losses to close the season?

You answered the question from the perspective of the team.  What I was hoping to elicit with the question was the personal feelings of the individual members of the Blog.

Regarding your return question, it really depends on what the alternative to Hurts is.  I don't think you move on from him until you have that replacement identified and acquired.

9 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

I'm not sure what this means? 

It's a debate about Government funding for schools. The Government basically gives money for your kids to a school they say the kids must attend depending on where you live, unless you wish to move or pay to send them some where else. This of course means that a lot of underpriviligded children go to basic inner city school systems (where they dont always have a good opprtunity) As not all schools are created equal, and in fact it's quite glaring. 

The school choice idea - the parents get to decide where their children go, (can pick a better school) and the Government pays that school the money for your child. The parent can choose what is best for their child. 

This brings up the level of competition between schools to actually do a good job teaching, or fail and collapse altogether. To the very least allows you to choose out of a bad school system and into a better one so your child has an actual equal opportunity to learn no matter of your level of income. 

 

Teachers unions are opposed to this. 

36 minutes ago, downundermike said:

Out of curiosity, how old are you and how much football do you watch ??  How many years have you had NFL season ticket ??

Started watching the Eagles in the 60s, had NFL ticket in the 1990s and when I returned to Texas. Now I get Eagles games here.

So I've seen a lot of bad football, once reason I don't get upset is I remember decades of futility, followed by two decades of teases (Vermeil, Ryan, Rhodes, Kotite) before AR.

You want some weak armed QBs? Detmer brothers, McMahon, Jeff Garcia. Garcia showed that arm strength is overrated, he almost got them back to a SB.

It's great to have an elite QB, but there are always only a handful in the league at one time, Montana, Young, Peyton, Brees, Brady, Rodgers. Most of the others had flaws, Favre put up great numbers but was a loose cannon, Warner couldn't stay healthy, McNabb lacked accuracy, and so on. The difference between good and average isn't as great as the difference between talented and mediocre teams, that is, I'd rather have a talented team with an average QB than one with mediocre talent but a good QB. Most starting QBs range between good and average, a QB who remains below average after 2-3 years in the league is called a "backup QB."

I don't know if Hurts can improve to that average to good range (#6-20 or so), if he's in the #10-15 range that's more than good enough, it's hard to do much better unless you get really lucky.  But until a better option comes along that doesn't require decimating the roster, I'd stick with him. Right now I have him around #20 or so, as a passer more like the mid-20s, but his running ability makes him capable of running this offense at a high level. Will he improve next season? Stay tuned.

 

 

1 hour ago, mattwill said:

I'm curious.  Was Linderbaum still on the Board at #19?

He was

1 minute ago, Ipiggles said:

It's a debate about Government funding for schools. The Government basically gives money for your kids to a school they say the kids must attend depending on where you live, unless you wish to move or pay to send them some where else. This of course means that a lot of underpriviligded children go to basic inner city school systems (where they dont always have a good opprtunity) As not all schools are created equal, and in fact it's quite glaring. 

The school choice idea - the parents get to decide where their children go, (can pick a better school) and the Government pays that school the money for your child. The parent can choose what is best for their child. 

This brings up the level of competition between schools to actually do a good job teaching, or fail and collapse altogether. To the very l;east allows you to choose out of a bad school system and into a better one so your child has an actual equal opportunity to learn no matter of your level of income. 

 

Teachers unions are opposed to this. 

Interesting. The teacher union here in Ontario is one of the strongest unions in our country. Our teachers are paid incredibly well, have insanely great benefits, and once you're in, you're set for life generally. It's super competitive, with a long wait list of people looking to get full time status. 

My understanding is that teachers in the States are considered under paid, but I'm not entirely sure to be honest. I guess my preference would be for a stronger teacher's union, so they can collectively advocate for better conditions all around. Sometimes it leads to strikes, but they usually don't last very long. 

4 minutes ago, austinfan said:

You want some weak armed QBs? Detmer brothers, McMahon, Jeff Garcia. Garcia showed that arm strength is overrated, he almost got them back to a SB.

Wow.  That's a leap.  

4 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Started watching the Eagles in the 60s, had NFL ticket in the 1990s and when I returned to Texas. Now I get Eagles games here.

So I've seen a lot of bad football, once reason I don't get upset is I remember decades of futility, followed by two decades of teases (Vermeil, Ryan, Rhodes, Kotite) before AR.

You want some weak armed QBs? Detmer brothers, McMahon, Jeff Garcia. Garcia showed that arm strength is overrated, he almost got them back to a SB.

It's great to have an elite QB, but there are always only a handful in the league at one time, Montana, Young, Peyton, Brees, Brady, Rodgers. Most of the others had flaws, Favre put up great numbers but was a loose cannon, Warner couldn't stay healthy, McNabb lacked accuracy, and so on. The difference between good and average isn't as great as the difference between talented and mediocre teams, that is, I'd rather have a talented team with an average QB than one with mediocre talent but a good QB. Most starting QBs range between good and average, a QB who remains below average after 2-3 years in the league is called a "backup QB."

I don't know if Hurts can improve to that average to good range (#6-20 or so), if he's in the #10-15 range that's more than good enough, it's hard to do much better unless you get really lucky.  But until a better option comes along that doesn't require decimating the roster, I'd stick with him. Right now I have him around #20 or so, as a passer more like the mid-20s, but his running ability makes him capable of running this offense at a high level. Will he improve next season? Stay tuned.

 

 

Ah but you've highlighted my issue with Hurts. Garcia had good football IQ. Which he used to compensate for his weakness. Hurts lacks the IQ needed to play QB, and only can make up for his deficiencies with his legs. When the legs go, what then? We'll have a low IQ (football, no idea how smart he is or isn't in real life) weak armed statue. That's a really bad combo. 

7 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Started watching the Eagles in the 60s, had NFL ticket in the 1990s and when I returned to Texas. Now I get Eagles games here.

So I've seen a lot of bad football, once reason I don't get upset is I remember decades of futility, followed by two decades of teases (Vermeil, Ryan, Rhodes, Kotite) before AR.

You want some weak armed QBs? Detmer brothers, McMahon, Jeff Garcia. Garcia showed that arm strength is overrated, he almost got them back to a SB.

It's great to have an elite QB, but there are always only a handful in the league at one time, Montana, Young, Peyton, Brees, Brady, Rodgers. Most of the others had flaws, Favre put up great numbers but was a loose cannon, Warner couldn't stay healthy, McNabb lacked accuracy, and so on. The difference between good and average isn't as great as the difference between talented and mediocre teams, that is, I'd rather have a talented team with an average QB than one with mediocre talent but a good QB. Most starting QBs range between good and average, a QB who remains below average after 2-3 years in the league is called a "backup QB."

I don't know if Hurts can improve to that average to good range (#6-20 or so), if he's in the #10-15 range that's more than good enough, it's hard to do much better unless you get really lucky.  But until a better option comes along that doesn't require decimating the roster, I'd stick with him. Right now I have him around #20 or so, as a passer more like the mid-20s, but his running ability makes him capable of running this offense at a high level. Will he improve next season? Stay tuned.

 

 

I don’t agree with all of it, but there’s nothing really that unreasonable in this.

8 minutes ago, austinfan said:

You want some weak armed QBs? Detmer brothers, McMahon, Jeff Garcia. Garcia showed that arm strength is overrated, he almost got them back to a SB.

True but most of those guys excelled at reading defenses, had great timing, and were very accurate.

I'm hoping that Davion Taylor returns this week.  He was playing some pretty good ball before getting injured and he looked like he was developing into a nice player.

14 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

It's a debate about Government funding for schools. The Government basically gives money for your kids to a school they say the kids must attend depending on where you live, unless you wish to move or pay to send them some where else. This of course means that a lot of underpriviligded children go to basic inner city school systems (where they dont always have a good opprtunity) As not all schools are created equal, and in fact it's quite glaring. 

The school choice idea - the parents get to decide where their children go, (can pick a better school) and the Government pays that school the money for your child. The parent can choose what is best for their child. 

This brings up the level of competition between schools to actually do a good job teaching, or fail and collapse altogether. To the very least allows you to choose out of a bad school system and into a better one so your child has an actual equal opportunity to learn no matter of your level of income. 

 

Teachers unions are opposed to this. 

Because capitalism shouldn't have a place in basic education.

Why do we want schools to "fail or collapse altogether"?  This isn't cola wars.

We would all be better off if we raised up the schools at the bottom instead of pushing the schools already at the top farther up.

 

10 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

AustinFan is Jalen Hurts, no one can convince me otherwise

You’re a Steeler fan… you can’t convince me otherwise 

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

I'm hoping that Davion Taylor returns this week.  He was playing some pretty good ball before getting injured and he looked like he was developing into a nice player.

I don't see any reason why he would. 

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I don't see any reason why he would. 

Looking at the IR lists it says "expected return week 17" on the CBS site

7 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

True but most of those guys excelled at reading defenses, had great timing, and were very accurate.

They also came out of college systems where they learned to read defenses and go through progressions. That's not true of most college QBs these days, HCs tell them to make their first and maybe 2nd read, then take off. And the spread is built around creating the kind of mismatches you rarely see in the NFL.

Just now, austinfan said:

They also came out of college systems where they learned to read defenses and go through progressions. That's not true of most college QBs these days, HCs tell them to make their first and maybe 2nd read, then take off. And the spread is built around creating the kind of mismatches you rarely see in the NFL.

Two years in and we aren't seeing much progression in these areas with Hurts.  That's the issue.

9 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

Because capitalism shouldn't have a place in basic education.

Why do we want schools to "fail or collapse altogether"?  This isn't cola wars.

We would all be better off if we raised up the schools at the bottom instead of pushing the schools already at the top farther up.

 

So we should keep the system as it is and continue to fund under performing schools and insist that underprivilidged children attend them? Hoping we can make them better? 

If you lose the bad schools at the bottom, it raises the level of education across the board, for all children. How many years have they been trying to raise the level of the bottom? And what do we end up doing? Lowering the standards of education so they appear like they are doing a good job?  Is that really what we want. 

Now imagine you are the single mother of three barely able to support your kids because you also were stuck in a poverty cycle, and attneded a below avg school etc. Wouldn't you want to be able to provide the best for your child? WHy should it come down to whether you have enough money to be able to move into a good school system or pay for a better school? 

 

2 hours ago, eglz1 said:

Hmmm, Bears. Doug and Nick have a history ......

There’s no way the bears go with nick. Frankly i think the broncos are gonna fire fangio too. I could actually see foles going to Denver if they can’t get someone like watson, rodgers or Wilson. 

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

Looking at the IR lists it says "expected return week 17" on the CBS site

Interesting. Don't know why it would say that. Eagles haven't designated him to return from IR at all and anytime his name has been brought up in the last week or two with beat writers it's been mostly they don't expect him back. It's been about a month since surgery so I guess it's possible. 

Oh good, now we are going to cure what ails education in here.   I look forward to it.   👀

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Interesting. Don't know why it would say that. Eagles haven't designated him to return from IR at all and anytime his name has been brought up in the last week or two with beat writers it's been mostly they don't expect him back. It's been about a month since surgery so I guess it's possible. 

I just looked at that one site.  He really started to grow on me.  If we have to wait until next year so be it.

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Oh good, now we are going to cure what ails education in here.   I look forward to it.   👀

Maybe we'll just move all of CVON in here and solve all of the world's problems together in one thread.

24 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Wow.  That's a leap.  

Complete leap. Considering the furthest Garcia ever got in the playoffs was the divisional round. So apparently making it to the divisional round is almost the super bowl. Just saying kirk cousins and baker mayfield got the Vikings and browns to the divisional round so does that mean they almost got them back to the super bowl? Please