35 minutes ago, mattwill said:

You are referencing quantity.  My comments are more focused on quality.  The aspect of quantity that enters into my comments is the depth of the quality.  Compare the 40 times of prior Combines to the current 40 times.  Where the difference is most noticeable is in the median 40 time at each position.  The very fastest players at a lot of the positions aren't much faster, but look at the O-Linemen times and other talent measures.

The forty is a bit of a misnomer between today, when players go spend three months learning how to get a good start from blocks and how to sprint run from twenty years ago when none did that. I do think sports science is a bit more advanced.  

2 minutes ago, RLC said:

Adam Caplan and Geoff Mosher were wrong again? SHOCKER

And on the next pod Caplan is going to go on a rant about people on the internet twisting his words even though he clearly said what he said and either say it was a fluid situation or he knew all along but couldn't say anything.

The circle of life. 

Fully healthy against Cooper Rush. Eagles *should* be able to easily handle Dallas

4 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I'd be good with less. Dissolve the bottom team from each conference and spread the players to boost up talent.

It's not going to happen, but it would be a better product. 

So I have gone back to your original proposition comment (above) and I understand where the two of us have diverged in how we are looking at this.

I brought in the comparison of talent from era to era as evidence (but didn't fully explain what I was doing) of how increasing the talent level hasn't produced any meaningful change in the team-level product on the field.   I believe, and you may disagree with me, that the realative team-level quality of the NFL product has not risen at anything close to the realative rise in the talent of the individual players. 

I apologize for being unclear in the way I linked my argument to your original post.

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

1. My proposal is the dissolution of two teams, today, and going forward. Not going to the past. 

2. Yes. Absolutely. Even the worst teams has some quality of talent that could either bolster another teams starting lineup or be better depth than what they have to fill in for injuries. 

3. It's not a cure. There would still be bad games. The hope would be less bad games, and just better games in general. 

This is a pointless debate though because it's never going to happen. 

Yeah, I don't get his point.  Two worst teams were on display last night.  If they were disolved and their players put into a redraft, you would have

QB - nobody

RB - David Montgomery, Khail Herbert, Brian Robinson, Antonio Gibson

WR - Darnell Mooney, Terry McLaurin, Curtis Samuel

TE - Cole Kmet, Logan thomas

OL - Cody Whitehair, Charles Leno Jr

DL - Robert Quinn, Justin Jones, Montez Sweat, Jonathan Allen, Daron Payne

LB - Roquan Smith, Jamin Davis

DB - Jaquan Brisker, Kyler Gordon, Kendall Fuller

 

That is just off the top of my head.  All of these players could have an impact for a lot of teams.

13 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Back when the Blog was on PE.com, at times it appeared members of the media were trolling for stories from there.  But this Kracz guy has done it several times this year where what we were discussing wasn’t being covered by the media at the time.  That said, @FranklinFldEBUpper’s original post and reasoning was better articulated than Kracz’s article.

If I recall correctly, Caplan and Les Bowen, and even BLG have scooped stories or thoughts from the blog over the years.  The issue for them is some of the conversation here is very specific, so it's kind of obvious when it's scalped. Very funny

 

1 minute ago, Dwide Schrude said:

Fully healthy against Cooper Rush. Eagles *should* be able to easily handle Dallas

Full practice but I wouldn't call them fully healthy. Regardless, they should be able to easily handle Dallas and Cooper Rush. 

7 minutes ago, RLC said:

Adam Caplan and Geoff Mosher were wrong again? SHOCKER

Interesting ... both Jobe and Robinson could arguably land on the IR.

There’s absolutely  no reason why why can’t stuff those Dallas c-nuts on Sunday 

4 minutes ago, Dwide Schrude said:

Fully healthy against Cooper Rush. Eagles *should* be able to easily handle Dallas

 

The one worry I have is a curveball the Cowboys are lining up where they make it seem like Cooper is starting but then go with Dak.  Although I haven't followed their injury report the past couple days so maybe Dak hasn't been practicing at all. 

Always raise an eyebrow when someone gets added to injury report.

That's what happened to Maddox. So Lamb got hurt in practice...

3 minutes ago, UK Eagle said:

If I recall correctly, Caplan and Les Bowen, and even BLG have scooped stories or thoughts from the blog over the years.  The issue for them is some of the conversation here is very specific, so it's kind of obvious when it's scalped. Very funny

 

I always crack up at the thought of them coming here to get a scoop and everyone's arguing about something random like the legality of insurance claims and what that means for the 2nd amendment during the Civil War. 

6 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

 

@FranklinFldEBUpper  Robinson got injured in practice, makes IR an option for him too.

The time on IR is four games not four weeks, so the bye week doesn’t count, which may factor into the Eagles decision.  I still favor Jobe to IR.  Just leave Robinson inactive. 

12 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

1. My proposal is the dissolution of two teams, today, and going forward. Not going to the past. 

2. Yes. Absolutely. Even the worst teams has some quality of talent that could either bolster another teams starting lineup or be better depth than what they have to fill in for injuries. 

3. It's not a cure. There would still be bad games. The hope would be less bad games, and just better games in general. 

This is a pointless debate though because it's never going to happen. 

More likely to see expansion that contraction. 

6 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Full practice but I wouldn't call them fully healthy. Regardless, they should be able to easily handle Dallas and Cooper Rush. 

Fair point. I was worried about their pass rush until I saw the offensive lines they’ve played so far. Parsons might still cause problems, but I’m way more confident in our OL 

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I always crack up at the thought of them coming here to get a scoop and everyone's arguing about something random like the legality of insurance claims and what that means for the 2nd amendment during the Civil War. 

LOL. I think of it like making them work hard for the copy and paste job.  30 pages a day for a scoop seems fair compensation.

5 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I always crack up at the thought of them coming here to get a scoop and everyone's arguing about something random like the legality of insurance claims and what that means for the 2nd amendment during the Civil War. 

Just doing our best to educate the journalists. I can’t wait for the expansion or contraction options article.

2 minutes ago, Dwide Schrude said:

Fair point. I was worried about their pass rush until I saw the offensive lines they’ve played so far. Parsons might still cause problems, but I’m way more confident in our OL 

Same. I still think their pass rush is good, but I think our OL/Hurts can handle them. The only concern for me is the OL lasting the whole game. Dickerson hasn't had a game specification the last few weeks but has had to miss time in every game.

Just now, LeanMeanGM said:

Same. I still think their pass rush is good, but I think our OL/Hurts can handle them. The only concern for me is the OL lasting the whole game. Dickerson hasn't had a game specification the last few weeks but has had to miss time in every game.

That’s where I’m at too. Luckily our defense should be able to easily the cowboys offense. Focus on Pollard and Lamb and we should be good. 

Ceedee being out would be massive 

The schedule is somewhat setting up nice for us since our Oline has a chance to get healthy with a bye week, and then we have a mini bye between the Thursday night game against the Texans and the Monday night game against the WFT 11 days later.

It would also be nice if the Giants start losing, since we could be in a situation where four of our last five games are against teams eliminated from the playoffs (Bears, Giants twice and Saints.)

2 minutes ago, rrfierce said:

Ceedee being out would be massive 

Just saw he didn’t participate today and is questionable. Interesting 

Eagles have 11 takeaways on the season so far, they had 16 total last year. They are significantly better there but the run defense hasn't been great, as they are giving up 5.0 ypc. They do have the 2nd fewest rushing attempts against them, but when teams do run they seem to have success.

I don't think the cowpokes have the firepower to score lots of points, but if the Birds let them hang around it could end up costing them in the 2nd half. The offense has struggled all year in the 2nd half with them averaging 21.2 points in the 1st half and 5.8 in the 2nd. That's fairly concerning, and shows they are having a tough time adjusting the offense.

 

8 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

The one worry I have is a curveball the Cowboys are lining up where they make it seem like Cooper is starting but then go with Dak.  Although I haven't followed their injury report the past couple days so maybe Dak hasn't been practicing at all. 

Dak just resumed throwing a couple of days ago, I don't think he has participated in practice at all.

Dak has questionable pop on his balls 

1 hour ago, mattwill said:

All of the above are true ... and some of what you say are reasons why the talent of today is significantly better than it was in the past.  The issues of the changes in rules doesn't affect the talent level.  It affects how the talent is used by the coaching staffs.

My point is... if each era played the game by the rules they had at the time... who would win?   What if today's teams had to play by the rules of the 1960s?

Being more 'talented' is a subjective thing.  Talented how?  Able to play through contact or able to run free.... apples oranges.  I ewon't deny that this generation of player is more 'athletic'.  Whether that translates to more 'talented', I don't think anyone can definitively define what that really means.