4 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Our society is no worse now than it was 50 years ago.  Obviously tons of  changes.... some for better...some for the worse.  We didn't start the fire.  It's been always burning since the worlds been turning.  The good old days weren't always good and tomorrow isn't as bad as it seems.

Don't make me quote William Joel again....or ish is going to get real. 

Life is as good.....

Just go read Hofstadter.

Reactionaries harken to an imaginary past, progressives to an imaginary future, Marxists to an imaginary utopia, Christians and Muslims to an imaginary heaven.

It seems most people don't like living in the real world, so they create their own alternative.

Maybe the Zen Buddhists are the only sane people out there.

3 hours ago, Waiting4Someday said:

Above was my impression of Price (FIU), Pierce (Gators) reminds me of Boston Scott, so maybe OK all-around back but nothing stood out without getting into details like pass blocking, etc. Runs hard, catches the ball with his hands - one cut guy without breakaway speed, who’ll probably need to learn to play a little more N/S (he’s not a bouncer, but he hesitates a little looking for the bigger cut back when behind the LOS). In that scrum with a lot of backs, Day 3 for me - PFF loves him, idk.

I like Tyler Badie as a Scott style back. A couple later guys that aren't mentioned too often I like are Zonovan Knight, D'Vonte Price, Abram Smith. I like James Cook too but he may be a little redundant with Gainwell already here. 

6 minutes ago, Utebird said:

All this capology stuff is so confusing, but I think whichever site or numbers are listed I think general consensus maybe even in those sites is that Howie is a moron.

I guess Howie isn't as big a moron as the saints GM whose cap situation is FUBAR but still cox's contract seems idiotic to me.

Somehow Howie never seems to be in cap hell. There's an advantage to having a lawyer as your cap guy.

2 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Somehow Howie never seems to be in cap hell. There's an advantage to having a lawyer as your cap guy.

Yeah, leading the league in dead cap two consecutive years is good business 🤡🌏

7 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Our society is no worse now than it was 50 years ago.  Obviously tons of  changes.... some for better...some for the worse.  We didn't start the fire.  It's been always burning since the worlds been turning.  The good old days weren't always good and tomorrow isn't as bad as it seems. 

 

Don't make me quote William Joel again....or ish is going to get real.  

 

 

Life is as good.....

you had to be a big shot, didn’t you? you had to prove it to the crowd?

41 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

Generally not true. Theft is considered a comprehensive type of claim, which has no fault assigned and thus no effect on your specific insurance rate. So long as you have comprehensive coverage and file a police report, insurance will cover the loss. 

Now, if there is an ongoing, constant wave of vehicle thefts in a given area, the actuaries may adjust the rates, but it won't be instant. 

Excellent response.  So few people understand insurance.  Plus, comprehensive insurance is pretty cheap.  And it covers everything except collision. Falling objects, windshield (glass for us insurance geeks), animal hits, flooding, theft, windstorm, hail, fire, etc.  A no fault coverage where loss doesn’t impact rates.

In the US, vehicle thefts in the garaged area don’t impact rates because of FAIR (anti redlining) laws.  What does impact rates as far as theft goes is the type of car and anti theft devices on it.  Because The McCarran Ferguson Act exempts insurance companies from anti trust prohibitions of sharing loss information (not pricing), there is a boatload of information on types of losses for vehicles makes and models.  (Insurance also support the organization that tests automotive safety.  Some fascinating information out of that organization.)

 I see that your straight forward easy to understand answer confused one poster, who does seem easily confused.  

17 minutes ago, MillerTime said:

Actually with is restructure they added an option bonus. It’s $3,185,411 from 2022-2026. It’s not guaranteed right now. Neither is $1,120,000 of his salary. It becomes guaranteed in the summer. So basically if he is traded or cut by then the Eagles save $17,047,055. They set it up to be able to trade or cut him this year. If you just look at OTC or Spotrac it doesn’t exactly explain this.He knows it. He’s done in Philly.

Here is a link to a video breaking it down.

https://overthecap.com/explaining-the-fletcher-cox-restructure/amp/

Cox restructured his contract on September 10, 2021. As part of the restructure Cox converted $14.8 million of salary into a signing bonus creating $10.96 million in 2021 cap space. The team also converted $15.9 million of Cox' 2022 salary into a bonus creating $8.8 million in salary cap space. There are four dummy years at the end of the contract which will allow the Eagles to potentially use a post June-1 designation on Cox in either 2022 or more likely 2023 for salary cap purposes and defer the cap charges until 2024.

 

The salary converted into a signing bonus does not go away cap wise.  That is why he has future dead cap of 34.9 million due.

12 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

If it saves 1 cent to move Cox it needs to be done.  He doesn't even contribute anymore.

They set it up that if he plays in 2022 then cut him with a june 1st before the 5th day in 2023, then they would spread that option bonus into 2024. This would have been used if he wasn’t regressing. They restructured him so they can june 1st designate him , save the option bonus. This means if he is traded it will be before the 5th day in 2022. If not, he’s cut. No way they carry that bonus with how he’s playing. That bonus is added into the dead cap on every website so it looks way bigger than it really is.

4 minutes ago, downundermike said:

Cox restructured his contract on September 10, 2021. As part of the restructure Cox converted $14.8 million of salary into a signing bonus creating $10.96 million in 2021 cap space. The team also converted $15.9 million of Cox' 2022 salary into a bonus creating $8.8 million in salary cap space. There are four dummy years at the end of the contract which will allow the Eagles to potentially use a post June-1 designation on Cox in either 2022 or more likely 2023 for salary cap purposes and defer the cap charges until 2024.

 

The salary converted into a signing bonus does not go away cap wise.  That is why he has future dead cap of 34.9 million due.

That 15.9 million bonus is optional. It’s not due until the 53 man roster is set in August

Just now, MillerTime said:

That 15.9 million bonus is optional. It’s not due until the 53 man roster is set in August

False.  Signing bonus is not optional.  When you change salary to a signing bonus and spread it over the life of the contract, the cap hit does not go away.

4 minutes ago, downundermike said:

False.  Signing bonus is not optional.  When you change salary to a signing bonus and spread it over the life of the contract, the cap hit does not go away.

Watch the video link i posted. It’s an optional bonus.

 

Just now, MillerTime said:

Watch the video link i posted. It’s an optional bonus.

I don't need to watch the video.  If you convert a base salary into a signing bonus it is not optional.  It counts against the cap.  The end.

5 minutes ago, downundermike said:

I don't need to watch the video.  If you convert a base salary into a signing bonus it is not optional.  It counts against the cap.  The end.

Well Jason from OTC breaks down why you’re wrong.  With proof provided. You haven’t watched it so believe what you want.

"An option bonus is similar to a roster bonus. However, rather than receiving money for remaining on a team on a certain date, the team has the "option” to pay the bonus or terminate the player's contract. When an option bonus is exercised, it is subject to probation like a signing bonus.”

47 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

How do you guys condense the font size on the screen shots from that site?  I'm not exactly computer-literate.

I had someone tell me once I share a common trait with a computer.  When I asked how so, he said "You both have to have information punched into you"

Ctrl+ to increase, Ctrl- to decrease.

28 minutes ago, downundermike said:

If you have him on ignore, why do you care ??  You do not see his posts, so why does it matter ??

This is getting a little ridiculous, people have other posters on ignore, but @ them in their posts, talk about them in their posts, and then get upset when they are talked about.

You, @Bacarty2 and @RememberTheKoy need to grow a pair.  This is the blog, anyone is free to respond to anything that is posted.  You don't like it, stop posting nonsense or go to another forum.

And all the political / social stuff

TAKE IT TO CVON

 

I agree it is ridiculous has been for a while. When a poster is on ignore it still shows that they have posted and leaves a little message that says, you've chosen to ignore this post from  blocked poster, then it gives one options, view this post, ignore post, or take so and so off ignore.

It's no coincidence that I get that notification directly after I've posted something and when I select view post sure enough it's a post of 4for4 the only poster I have in ignore talking smack about me to other posters. Not only that but he constantly leaves laughing emojis after all my posts which like I said make putting him in ignore kind of useless. The blog needs a block function, blocking 4for4 from seeing my posts would be effective putting him on ignore does nothing as I still get notifications every time he stalks my posts.

Instead of growing a pair maybe Instead you could stop enabling 4for4 and he could stop being an a hole see how that works.

Accountability goes both ways 

He doesn't @, me he just constantly makes remarks about me to other posters including you and then when I call him out on it he gets all defensive or acts like he doesn't know what he's doing then tries to blame me for him being a D.

you don't like me responding to your blog buddy stop posting nonsense and go to another forum, Interesting that you didn't ask your buddy to stop posting his nonsense yet you felt the need to directly single out me and two other posters you and he have beef with.

Funny that multiple posters on this board post political social stuff all the time, and I wasn't one who started either of the recent conversations but all the sudden when it's something you dont agree with it's, take it to cvon.

If the blog is free for all to respond to anything that is posted than doesn't the same same hold true for Anything that I choose to post too?

1 hour ago, justrelax said:

Not necessarily. Our history is chock full of bad laws, laws that should be disobeyed and often were, hence the term civil disobedience.

Virginia Slave Laws, Alien and Sedition Act, Fugitive Slave Laws, Black Codes, Volstead Act, Indian Removal Act, exclusionary zoning laws - soon to be displaced by US Government sanctioned racially restrictive covenants, and Public Law 503, which resulted in the internment of 125,000 Japanese Americans. I would argue that fixed sentence laws that remove judicial discretion are bad laws but I won't make that argument here. I am trying to cite only universally acknowledged bad laws, hopefully to avoid an explosion of political to-and-fro, insults, etc. and just to acknowledge their existence throughout our history.

I'm pretty sure none of those laws are the reason those "good" people that Ute was talking about are in jail.

1 hour ago, BigEFly said:

His addiction alone causes you to conclude he is a "bad father”.  Note that the father is in the home in the example, so not just a reckless pro creator.  So the solution for this father and to his addiction is to put him in jail?  

I don’t advocate the legal manufacture or sale of crack but rather the decriminalization of possession of an amount for personal use.  Under the Portugal model, he would go in front of a tribunal of a social worker, a medical professional and a legal professional.  The result can be no action,:a fine, medical treatment and/or addressing the social needs.  The latter would fit with our crack addicted father and may not take the first time, just like with any addiction.  It is compassionate and more fiscally responsible.  Legislating morality by making use illegal is treating illness with punishment, which rarely works.  The social needs would also address the needs of the family.  Over 3/4s of Portugal’s addicts receive care. Less than 50% of the US’s do.  Our method isn’t working.

Yes, I mean are you arguing that a father would be a good father that got himself addicted to crack? And since we know that crack is very addictive why the hell would we condone a small amount for "personal use".

I'm not sure how I've been able to live these almost 60 years without somehow trying crack, oh I know why because I'm not stupid. 

Just now, Bacarty2 said:

Claims are claims are claims. 

Doesnt matter if a squirrel eats threw your wiring harness or a car gets stolen. It'll affect your rate.

The way they get around the rules and regulations you mention is they put you in a different risk category. Basically saying it happened once, it'll happen again. It becomes a multiplier within your rate and it'll rise.  Side note, another way around the R&R's you mentioned is to just straight non-renewal you, which will be noted with a comp claim and cause higher rates when you shop.

 

 

You couldn't be more wrong. Wanna triple down on how wrong you are?

2 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

To try and win a Super Bowl 🤣

How about you start with a playoff game first?

2 minutes ago, greend said:

I'm pretty sure none of those laws are the reason those "good" people that Ute was talking about are in jail.

Many of them define "good" people. Slaves, blacks, Indians, Japanese. The American prison population exploded as a consequence of the Volstead Act. I'll wager that well over half the blog would be subject to imprisonment under that law. Don't know about you in particular.

5 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

Admittedly, I don't know much about him but seems like a very underwhelming hire for a once proud franchise

33 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

 

It may be relevant that Sirianni worked with Philip Rivers for a few years and is accustomed to running an offense with a stationary QB.  The Eagles normally do their due diligence around QB prospects so there will be reports tying the Eagles to these guys all through the draft process.   

1 minute ago, Cliftoma said:

To try and win a Super Bowl 🤣

How about you start with a playoff game first?

I think it's a good move for Quinn. Plus McCarthy could get fired next season and Quinn would be in a good position to land the HC job there.