46 minutes ago, mattwill said:

You are clearly too young to remember ...

1962	3	10	1
1963	2	10	2
1964	6	8
1965	5	9
1966	9	5
1967	6	7
1968	2	1
1969	4	9	1
1970	3	10	1
1971	6	7	1
1972	2	11	1
1973	5	8	1
1974	7	7
1975	4	10
1976	4	10
1977	5	9

Dude, 1977 is nearly half a century ago. Weird flex 

8 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Is this a Forrest Gump reboot or something?

Nope.  Just real.life racists in action

32 minutes ago, mattwill said:

I don't disagree with your take.  I think the likelihood of "bad to average" will factor into the decision about whether to extend Hurts or trade him for a boatload of Draft picks.

We're going to lose a lot of players and there's a good likelihood of both one-score regression and turnover-regression. Also, if we go far this year, that's more games/injuries on the players and other teams taking us seriously early. The NFL is set up for parity.

Basically, enjoy this season because it can unravel long-term quickly unless you have a no-doubt franchise QB in their prime.

1 hour ago, Cliftoma said:

He didn't know what "we" were doing but his football coach told them specifically not go there because he knew was going to happen. Which is it Jerry??

 

 

I was always laughing like that kid on the left when I knew my buddy was about to get his head kicked in (maybe a guy thing).  

I used to know a kid in high school -- big kid, ALWAYS getting in fights -- and losing 90% of them.  When I think back, I wonder what kind of hell his home life must have been.

57 minutes ago, mattwill said:

I don't disagree with your take.  I think the likelihood of "bad to average" will factor into the decision about whether to extend Hurts or trade him for a boatload of Draft picks.

They aren't trading Hurts. If you think they are, you are living in a fantasy world. 

1 hour ago, RLC said:

My semi-hot take is that we're going to be "bad to average" in 2023 as it will be the year we reset the roster. There's no way we have as much depth next year as we do this year. We're going to have to play rookies or vets on prove-it deals. 
There's a real chance Cox, Graham and Kelce are no longer Eagles next year.

When you have Howie as GM, you are not going to be bad, especially with a deep playoff run. Will be getting rid of a lot of over paid old guys, especially on D. Most of the offense will be intact and have a stud to fill in for Kelce. The D will be younger, but I'm sure Howie will pull all the right strings for the D and add some prove it deals like he always does. Think we are a top tier team in NFC for next several years with our draft stash aiding that and Hurts only getting better. 

Eagles are a destination spot team with Jalen.  When the NFL Network does it's player survey Top 100 Players list/show then Jalen will be ranked in the top 10 among of all players his peers.  

57 minutes ago, RLC said:

We're going to lose a lot of players and there's a good likelihood of both one-score regression and turnover-regression. Also, if we go far this year, that's more games/injuries on the players and other teams taking us seriously early. The NFL is set up for parity.

Basically, enjoy this season because it can unravel long-term quickly unless you have a no-doubt franchise QB in their prime.

You and I are on the same page. With that said,  I probably consider the "what if?" possibilities more than most.

Also as long as Brandon Graham remains a productive player and he isn't asking for too much then he will be back.  He said before the season that he wants to play at least 15 years with the Eagles if they will have him.  

30 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

They aren't trading Hurts. If you think they are, you are living in a fantasy world. 

What is"what if?" thinking other than fantasy.  By definition it can't be reality.  There is a reason it is referred to as "outside the box."

3 hours ago, BigEFly said:

It’s a bad rule.  One yard isn’t downfield. Three yards as in college makes much better sense.  

The rule gives them one yard of grace... it is more than 1 yard that is a penalty.    Even then, OL are usually not flagged until they are more than 2 yards downfield.

An ineligible receiver should not be 'down field' on a pass play.  The rule is clear, the rule hasn't changed.  The style of offense teams are running has changed.  And if teams can't run their plays under the current rules, the offensive philosophy needs to change to keep the philosophy within the rules.  The rules should not be changed to accommodate poorly designed offensive plays.

The way I see it, the defense has enough handicaps already placed on it, we don't need to change more rules to make it easier for offenses.  How about offenses learn how to play within the rules that already exist?  It isn't really a big deal for teams to play within the current rules... or at least, it shouldn't be.

2 hours ago, mattwill said:

You are clearly too young to remember ...

1962	3	10	1
1963	2	10	2
1964	6	8
1965	5	9
1966	9	5
1967	6	7
1968	2	1
1969	4	9	1
1970	3	10	1
1971	6	7	1
1972	2	11	1
1973	5	8	1
1974	7	7
1975	4	10
1976	4	10
1977	5	9

Was speaking specifically under Lurie, as per the tweet I was quoting

14 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

Eagles are a destination spot team with Jalen.  When the NFL Network does it's player survey Top 100 Players list/show then Jalen will be ranked in the top 10 among of all players his piers.  

I partially agree with the sentiment, but he won’t be top 10. I think as long as he continues like this he should be top 30 though

4 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

Was speaking specifically under Lurie, as per the tweet I was quoting

I understood that.  The list was meant to reinforce how good we have it these days ... how far we have come.

 

US and England tie in the World Cup  Good showing by the US ... better than expected.

Go US!

Beat Iran!

2 hours ago, Cliftoma said:

He didn't know what "we" were doing but his football coach told them specifically not go there because he knew was going to happen. Which is it Jerry??

 

 

Yeah, Jerry.  We believe that you just stumbled on the scene to see what was going on.  

35 minutes ago, mattwill said:

What is"what if?" thinking other than fantasy.  By definition it can't be reality.  There is a reason it is referred to as "outside the box."

Fantasy would be Texans offer the 1st overall pick in 2023, a 2024 first and 2025 second for Hurts. We take a QB with first overall pick and enjoy 5 more years of a non outrageous QB contract and keep building the team. That fantasy or wet dream would be worth changing the sheets in the morning. 

In the end, I am not for giving any QB a lucrative contract. I personally believe the best theory is drafting a QB every year somewhere  between the 3rd - 6th round each year. This way if a one works out every 2-4 years you can use as trade bait or replace QBs looking for that massive contract. Top QB contracts are team killers. Yea you might be competitive but reduces chances of a SB with limited talent around the QB. 

So yes if the fantasy option happens and a team is willing to pay multiple firsts etc for Hurt, Id for sure take it. 

Everyone practiced and no one is injured or has a game designation 

42 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

The rule gives them one yard of grace... it is more than 1 yard that is a penalty.    Even then, OL are usually not flagged until they are more than 2 yards downfield.

An ineligible receiver should not be 'down field' on a pass play.  The rule is clear, the rule hasn't changed.  The style of offense teams are running has changed.  And if teams can't run their plays under the current rules, the offensive philosophy needs to change to keep the philosophy within the rules.  The rules should not be changed to accommodate poorly designed offensive plays.

The way I see it, the defense has enough handicaps already placed on it, we don't need to change more rules to make it easier for offenses.  How about offenses learn how to play within the rules that already exist?  It isn't really a big deal for teams to play within the current rules... or at least, it shouldn't be.

I agree that the offense has changed but they are calling the penalty tighter this year, like they focused on as stated by the NFL during the preseason.  All it is demonstrating is that the NFL rule is bad. Three yards make better sense.  But I watch a lot of college ball and like some college rules a lot better. The defensive contact and pass interference rules in college are a lot better, IMHO.

@LeanMeanGM:

Eagles 28, Packers 20

Back 7 come up with 3 picks.

1 hour ago, Iggles25 said:

Go US!

Beat Iran!

It was a good result today. The US still needs a viable striker.

3 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Yay USA.  Way to not score, like your opponent.  
 

 

😆 No wonder that fringe sport doesn’t take off in the states.  

I just learned you get triple the points for winning as you do tying, so a 2-4 team is having a better season than a 0-0-5 team

How they don’t penalize losing and thus the sport hasn’t picked up here may be a metaphor of how different parts of the world view failure

The U.S team was a 6-1 underdog for a win; 3-1 underdog for a tie against England. 
 

They actually dominated the field of play for the most part and had more scoring opportunities than England.  Unfortunately, they couldn’t close the deal but if they make it to the tournament stage (they need to beat Iran) it could become interesting.

 (No ties in the tournament stage - they go to penalty kicks after two 15 minute overtime periods)