1 hour ago, RLC said:

Ugh. He should have been a 5x all-pro for us.

More than that. A sad thing. I still remember his first snap as an Eagle, against a veteran and solid DT Norman Hand. He drove him back 30 yards, all the way to the opposite sideline and well downfield. I was saying to myself, "Oh, my god! He’s King Kong.”

Half a dozen plays later he broke his leg and was done for the season. I firmly believe and have often said that, had he been healthy, we would have crushed NE in the Cheater Bowl. Richard Seymour would have been dominated.

I remember being the only guy on the blog who was thrilled when we moved up to draft him, as I and @mattwill were the only guys orgasming when we got Peters.

Two magic moments.

1 hour ago, SB52 said:

Everitt was the last of the "this guy will finally be good” (without being really good) offensive line era. Then the Eagles hit with Tra Thomas and Shawn Andrews, signed Runyan, and the team’s entire o-line fortunes seemed to turn.

John welbournre was good too, as was Mayberry.

 

Interesting. Was about to say there has been nothing at all on the Dolphins job. I forgot for a second they even had an open position. Seems like a weird choice for Daboll. Not that the Giants are a great option but do you really want to go with Tua and face Josh Allen in your division? 

4 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Interesting. Was about to say there has been nothing at all on the Dolphins job. I forgot for a second they even had an open position. Seems like a weird choice for Daboll. Not that the Giants are a great option but do you really want to go with Tua and face Josh Allen in your division? 

I don’t like Daniel jones but i rather have the giants job considering it’s the nfc and nfc east. Plus i think Mara is still a better owner than Ross. But the no income tax and Florida helps lol 

Interesting… Daboll was the Alabama OC and QB coach in 2017.

Plus, I think there are personal factors we don’t take into account. You know Mrs. Daboll probably wants to be on the beach while Brian is in the office for six months straight.

Daboll knows Tua from Alabama, so it makes sense.

6 minutes ago, SB52 said:

Interesting… Daboll was the Alabama OC and QB coach in 2017.

That explains why he said nope to the Eagles 

2 hours ago, bpac55 said:

I think there have been more dominant LT than there have been C in the NFL.

Just look at the Eagles.  Tra Thomas, JP, Mailata well on his way.  The Eagles haven't had a center in the same hemisphere as Kelce.

Chuck Bednarik.

 

2 hours ago, NCiggles said:

Peters never had a below average year except for his last at OT for the Eagles in 2020.   I think he actually played OK in Chicago last season.  Kelce had a pretty mediocre to bad 2016.  He had a ton of penalties and seemed to struggle in protection.  He was rumored to be on the trade block in the offseason.  The knock on him up to 2017 was that he needed to be paired with a bigger guard in order to be effective.  So there's no one that gets out and moves like Kelce does but I think you are downplaying Peters at his peak.  He could move as well any OT in the modern era.  I don't think there's anyone that is close to him when he was at his peak.  I mean watch this video:

So yeah I love Kelce.  He is one of my favorites.  I don't think he's hands down better than Peters by a long long shot.  Peters at his peak was like Reggie White at his.  He just dominated people.  

Mailata is Peters on steroids. Not as good at the second level yet, but same combination of elite athleticism and power - except Mailata is much longer, which gives him the potential to be a better pass blocker (Peters was 6'4 with 34" arms, normally that's a bit small for a LT, but he was so quick it didn't matter).

3 hours ago, justrelax said:

Andrews.

Yeah, before his back went, he was a beast. Another unholy combination of athleticism and power.

Though Bobbie Williams would have been pretty good had we the brains to keep him.

You can also make the case that Lane is the most purely athletic of all our linemen, past and present, he tested like an elite TE at the combine at 300 lbs. QB to TE to OT in college, and has steadily improved as a pro. I've always thought they should have lined him up at TE in a 6 OL formation, that would allow you to overwhelm teams on run plays, provide a stout line for Pass protection, and he's athletic enough with the TE background to create mismatches against most LBs. I'd make that my standard red zone offense and drive DCs crazy!

In terms of free agents, Will Fuller comes to mind.   This past season, signed a 1 year deal with Miami, broke his thumb and was put on IR.  Could be worth taking a shot at on a 1 year "prove it" type deal.  And he's from Philly so coming here shouldn't be an issue.  

1 minute ago, Ace Nova said:

In terms of free agents, Will Fuller comes to mind.   This past season, signed a 1 year deal with Miami, broke his thumb and was put on IR.  Could be worth taking a shot at on a 1 year "prove it" type deal.  And he's from Philly so coming here shouldn't be an issue.  

Will Fuller is an interesting idea.  But if he’s looking for a prove it deal, as a pure deep threat…Philly should be somewhere around 32 of 32 teams on his list.

20 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Yeah, before his back went, he was a beast. Another unholy combination of athleticism and power.

 

It wasn’t his back that went, but that’s a different conversation. 

3 hours ago, Utebird said:

That's a big question which I think id suggest a few things.

First bonobo effect.

Bonobos are almost identical  genetically to chimpanzees but unlike chimps which exhibit a war like  culture they are very peaceful and function in society where favor is gained by giving sexual favor to the matriarch.

So why the polor differences? Resources? Bonobos live in an area if the world where food water and territory is in higher supply they don't have to compete with each other for those resources, where as chimps live in an area where less food less water and less land so they become territorial and violent.

It's no wonder that higher density populations with less resources have higher rates of violence and crime 

Make resources more equitable decrease competition for them and in theory violence will decrease. This can be achieve in theory by regulating capitalism and strengthening social safety nets.

Another suggestion would be to actually treat them like human beings worthy of change and forgiveness.

In Finland If I remember correctly they have a really low violent crime rate, part of it is as mentioned above higher social safety nets less competition for limited resources but also when citizens do break the law they send them to an island where they all live together they all have rooms and jobs, some work in the kitchen, violent criminals use knives to cook ect, some work in the garden and so on.

They have workshops and therapy and groups and they help each other out and none of the staff have guns and they treat the " inmates" like people and the inmates treat each other with respect.

All I ever did in jail is get really good at handball spades and chess and when I was t doing that I was reading but those are things I chose to do on my own, rest the time was just sitting around getting yelled at and having the guards mess with us because they're ds.

I don't have all the answers but I think the way out current jail/prison system is a waste.

Finland also has one if of not the lowest recidivism rate where as we have the highest.

More stringent penalties and treating people worse isn't going to lower recidivism rates it's going to just cost more tax payer money and keep people going through the revolving door that is the for profit prison system.

Issues are a bit more complex

1) Bonobos are genetically distinct from Chimpanzees, we don't know enough about how behavior is inherited, but some aspect is probably genetic. Nature doesn't choose genotypes, rather, different genotypes thrive in different environments, change the environment and you end up changing the genes b/c different behaviors will become optimal, and changing the environment can also change the expression of genes.

2) Scandinavian countries are too different to project, homogeneous, Calvinist culture (i.e. welfare state requires a cultural work ethic so generous benefits doesn't sap the will to work). As these countries have become more diverse, they've fallen victim to racism and xenophobia, "we all in this together" breaks down when "we" becomes "us and them."

3) Economic models of crime are far too simplistic, economists assume away issues like information, which is not only what we know but our ability to assess and process information. If you come out of an impoverished environment, you may be impacted in numerous ways, from reduced intelligence from bad nutrition and environment, bad role models, bad schools, access to drugs and other temptations without adult constraints, and so on. And you may rationally conclude that you have no hope if you're in an island with few job opportunities and poor access to mass transit (taking 3 buses to a minimum wage job seems a bit pointless). Pointing to a few exceptional individuals who rise above misses the point, by definition if they're only a few they probably have a genetic composition that allows them to thrive in a high stress environment that breaks down "normal" people. We know that if you take impoverished children and move them to middle class neighborhoods, that alone is sufficient to dramatically improve their prospects. One impact of poverty is lack of impulse control, which is probably both psychological and rational, rational in that if you have a reduced life expectancy and limited prospects you'll have a high discount rate and live for the present, and an impoverished upbringing reduces impulse control which leads to the same result.

4) No easy answers, it take a multi-generational commitment, from breaking up ghettos and spreading the poor around, including wealthy suburbs, providing poor children with extra resources from a young age, to changing the majority culture to a more traditional model that rejects instant gratification - this doesn't mean repressive, 50s style conformism, rather emulating the Swedish model of Calvinist hard work which doesn't preclude a high degree of hedonism, "work hard, play hard." It also requires we shift from the family having responsibility for children (which favors the upper middle class and wealthy) to accepting a social responsibility that refuses to punish the losers of the "sperm lottery."

 

Just now, eagle45 said:

Will Fuller is an interesting idea.  But if he’s looking for a prove it deal, as a pure deep threat…Philly should be somewhere around 32 of 32 teams on his list.

Our injury luck with deep threat WRs combined with Will Fuller’s injury history is a perfect match. 

Daboll picking the Dolphins over us is a hilariously bad decision. Worse QB, worse owner, harder division.

7 hours ago, greend said:

What do you call a home with a Father that is addicted to crack?

A home with a mentally ill parent in need of treatment and probably a family in need of some assistance.  

1 hour ago, greend said:

Yup, prisoners always blame everyone and everything else for their poor choices. However when they start to take responsibility for their own actions.  Low and behold they change. Take responsibility for your own life. If you go to prison it's because YOU broke the law. 

Don't break the law. 

Agree and the discussion was whether or not more stringent legal consequences deter crime, in my opinion they don't.

And whether or not breaking laws =bad people, which I disagree with.

As much as I'm for justice and consequences  I'm more for accountability.

 

 

I'd like to jump in on the bonobo debate, but until 10 minutes ago I thought that was a clothing line and not an ape.  So I've got nothing.  

11 minutes ago, RLC said:

Daboll picking the Dolphins over us is a hilariously bad decision. Worse QB, worse owner, harder division.

Better QB

 

41 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Issues are a bit more complex

1) Bonobos are genetically distinct from Chimpanzees, we don't know enough about how behavior is inherited, but some aspect is probably genetic. Nature doesn't choose genotypes, rather, different genotypes thrive in different environments, change the environment and you end up changing the genes b/c different behaviors will become optimal, and changing the environment can also change the expression of genes.

2) Scandinavian countries are too different to project, homogeneous, Calvinist culture (i.e. welfare state requires a cultural work ethic so generous benefits doesn't sap the will to work). As these countries have become more diverse, they've fallen victim to racism and xenophobia, "we all in this together" breaks down when "we" becomes "us and them."

3) Economic models of crime are far too simplistic, economists assume away issues like information, which is not only what we know but our ability to assess and process information. If you come out of an impoverished environment, you may be impacted in numerous ways, from reduced intelligence from bad nutrition and environment, bad role models, bad schools, access to drugs and other temptations without adult constraints, and so on. And you may rationally conclude that you have no hope if you're in an island with few job opportunities and poor access to mass transit (taking 3 buses to a minimum wage job seems a bit pointless). Pointing to a few exceptional individuals who rise above misses the point, by definition if they're only a few they probably have a genetic composition that allows them to thrive in a high stress environment that breaks down "normal" people. We know that if you take impoverished children and move them to middle class neighborhoods, that alone is sufficient to dramatically improve their prospects. One impact of poverty is lack of impulse control, which is probably both psychological and rational, rational in that if you have a reduced life expectancy and limited prospects you'll have a high discount rate and live for the present, and an impoverished upbringing reduces impulse control which leads to the same result.

4) No easy answers, it take a multi-generational commitment, from breaking up ghettos and spreading the poor around, including wealthy suburbs, providing poor children with extra resources from a young age, to changing the majority culture to a more traditional model that rejects instant gratification - this doesn't mean repressive, 50s style conformism, rather emulating the Swedish model of Calvinist hard work which doesn't preclude a high degree of hedonism, "work hard, play hard." It also requires we shift from the family having responsibility for children (which favors the upper middle class and wealthy) to accepting a social responsibility that refuses to punish the losers of the "sperm lottery."

 

1. Yes and the observable differences In Environment support reasons for  behavioral differences more so than genetic differences as bonobo and chimpanzee share 99.8% DNA and around the same with humans.leading hypothesis is that the reason chimps and bonobos are so different behavioral is different feeding ecologies.https://www.futurity.org/genome-bonobos-chimps-evolution-2491442/

2. Id be interested in seeing data that supports Scandinavian countries being more racist than say capitalist countries like the US.

3. And 4. Totally agree.👍

4 hours ago, greend said:

At some point a man has to take responsibility for his own life. A "good person" doesn't have a rap sheet a mile long and just keep making it longer. 

Should we throw small business men who lie and cheat on their taxes (stealing, since the rest of us pay higher taxes)? Jails would be filled to the brim.

How about securities fraud (country club jails if you're ever convicted), the Sacklers (shouldn't they be hanged en mass as drug dealers who killed thousands?), tobacco executives who lied about the health effects of tobacco (conspiracy to commit murder), and so on.

White collar theft and fraud is greater by at least an order of magnitude than property crimes committed by the poor, but poor people get ill prepared and underpaid public defenders, white collar criminals get corporate lawyers who went to top law schools and are friends with judges. So most white collar crime (harder to prove, harder to gather evidence than the camera at the 7/11) is rarely prosecuted, and even when charges are brought, few ever see jail time.

Legal ethics to me is an oxymoron, steal your client's money and you'll be disbarred, help your client steal everyone else's money and you'll get big hourly fees (the lawyers for Enron walked away unscathed, same with almost every major corporate scandal - now do you believe those hired guns had no inkling malfeasance was taking place - remember, willful blindness is no excuse under the law).

The solution is not to let small time criminals off the hook, but be more vigorous about pursuing tax evasion and fraud, corporate fraud, polluters, etc., so there's a sense that the rules apply equally to all, not just those without money and connections.