1 minute ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Did Siposs get injured in a situation that had no statistically meaningful risk?

Yes.  He also could have avoided that risk if he chose to do so.  I would fully expect Elliot to understand the parameters of risk management if he were tobe punting.  again, if Steichen does his job optimally, there would be no punts.

You and I clearly have very different personal risk profiles.

But again, this What If discussion has now become moot.

18 minutes ago, lornemalvo4133 said:

Question on Kern.  Could they release him on Monday and then add him to the practice squad for unlimited call ups during the playoffs?

Seems like this shouldn’t be allowed. 

He would have to clear waivers. And how the rules are any team could claim him without making a corresponding move. So it would be really easy to screw the Eagles if they tried this. 

9 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Richardson is a mid-round prospect, at best.  Woefully inaccurate with the football and he’s not dynamic running with it

I agree wholeheartedly, but I do not expect him to get out of the 2nd Round, and won't be at all surprised if he is a Day One pick.  After all, he is a QB.  IIRC Allen had similar concerns in his draft year, but the Bills took him regardless.  Lamar Jackson too.

12 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Not really.  Actually that is because of the limitations of our visual color perception. (Gotta love science.)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2017/01/11/earths-skies-are-violet-we-just-see-them-as-blue/?sh=795c694735f3

Wise ass.  🥶

8 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Not really.  Actually that is because of the limitations of our visual color perception. (Gotta love science.)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2017/01/11/earths-skies-are-violet-we-just-see-them-as-blue/?sh=795c694735f3

They almost got it right.  The sky itself has no appreciable color, as the vast majority of gasses that constitute it are completely colorless (top 3 - nitrogen, oxygen and argon are all colorless, as are carbon dioxide, neon, helium, and methane).  So, what we see is the light from the sun... bouncing around in the sky.  But the sky itself... not really any color at all, which is why the same patch of sky can be so many different colors during the course of a day.  Because the sky itself... isn't any color at all.

6 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

He would have to clear waivers. And how the rules are any team could claim him without making a corresponding move. So it would be really easy to screw the Eagles if they tried this. 

Well, Kern doesn’t seem to be particularly good anymore, so a team claiming him would probably be doing the Eagles a favor.

5 minutes ago, mattwill said:

I agree wholeheartedly, but I do not expect him to get out of the 2nd Round, and won't be at all surprised if he is a Day One pick.  After all, he is a QB.  IIRC Allen had similar concerns in his draft year, but the Bills took him regardless.  Lamar Jackson too.

Wise ass.  🥶

Neither Allen nor Jackson were ever as inaccurate as Richardson. 

I always enjoy the "sky is blue” response because science shows it isn’t so but also explains why it is perceived as such by us.

5 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Yes.  He also could have avoided that risk if he chose to do so.  I would fully expect Elliot to understand the parameters of risk management if he were tobe punting.  again, if Steichen does his job optimally, there would be no punts.

You and I clearly have very different personal risk profiles.

But again, this What If discussion has now become moot.

How about a crazy idea that the coaches don't put the place kicker in the position of having to make those types of calculations while also playing out of position?  What if we exercise a little discretion and sanity... as opposed to the coaching staff expecting the players to constantly make the 'risk management' decisions?   Our QB has missed games, because the coaching staff just let him make the risk management assessment on how to protect himself, while they continually put him in harms way, when it could have been tempered greatly.   Let's learn from the mistakes of the past so that we aren't destined to repeat them.

This is a BIG game.  We can't afford poor punts, poor snap handling on FGs/PATs, poor timing on the punts, poor work by the holder to not turn the laces away from the kicker, or to risk our placekicker to freak injury in a league where many games come down to the last possession and having a FG kicker that can ice a game away with a late kick, or can win a game with a late kick. 

I take plenty of risk, where the reward might warrant it.  What reward is there in asking Elliott to punt and to have Covey as the holder?  Protecting ONE GUY on the roster?  What's the upside, really?  

The Giants called up Webb and a DT from the practice squad. An indication that Lawrence will join Williams on the bench. 

7 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

They almost got it right.  The sky itself has no appreciable color, as the vast majority of gasses that constitute it are completely colorless (top 3 - nitrogen, oxygen and argon are all colorless, as are carbon dioxide, neon, helium, and methane).  So, what we see is the light from the sun... bouncing around in the sky.  But the sky itself... not really any color at all, which is why the same patch of sky can be so many different colors during the course of a day.  Because the sky itself... isn't any color at all.

Nice.  Was hoping you would respond to the original post. 

20 hours ago, Godfather said:

He doesn't need foreplay. He's got a couple bottles of white wine and roofies rolled up in smoked cheese

Thats a "Bill Cosby" drink

Davis Webb starting at QB tomorrow for Giants.

Can’t think of another time the eagles lost to a backup QB named webb they were expected to dominate 

19 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Richardson is a mid-round prospect, at best.  Woefully inaccurate with the football and he’s not dynamic running with it

He will definitely go in the first 2 rounds, most likely top 20 overall. The raw tools are just too compelling. There are definitely concerns and legitimate criticisms of him as a prospect, which is why he may be available in the first place. Vision, accuracy, etc are all things he needs to develop. If these things were developed, he’d be the #1 overall pick.

Not dynamic running the ball? Huh?

The guy has multiple 40+ yard rushing TDs as a QB. He has fantastic speed, especially considering he is 6’4”. He breaks tackles in the open field and cuts really well at top speed.

Sure, he doesn’t have the jukes of Mike Vick, but again, he has prototypical size.

Can’t lose to Davis Webb. We won’t lose to Davis Webb. Can’t lose to Davis Webb

1 minute ago, GroundAttack said:

Can’t lose to Davis Webb. We won’t lose to Davis Webb. Can’t lose to Davis Webb

We’re not gonna lose to Davis Webb.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right?

6 minutes ago, GroundAttack said:

Can’t lose to Davis Webb. We won’t lose to Davis Webb. Can’t lose to Davis Webb

Is that Joe Webb's brother?   

 

The last time the Eagles played a Webb in Philly it didn’t go so well.

25 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Well, Kern doesn’t seem to be particularly good anymore, so a team claiming him would probably be doing the Eagles a favor.

Maybe, maybe not. I have no idea about the free agent punters but Kern was the overwhelming best of the bunch. Is there anyone out there you know of that would be an improvement, because I agree Kern has not been good. 

I wouldn’t like them having to scramble to get someone new that could also hold and then spend a week getting Lovato, holder, Elliott chemistry together for the first playoff game.

9 minutes ago, GroundAttack said:

Can’t lose to Davis Webb. We won’t lose to Davis Webb. Can’t lose to Davis Webb

I wont remind you how many times a backup QB has rose up and played lights out and beaten the Eagles when they were huge favorites to win. 

I also wont point out Gannons soft zone coverage that gave up a 3rd and 30 this season, and allows QB's to be perfect throwing against it. 

 

I just wont point those out to you, because I am told that would be negadelphian of me....  

Who? 

14 minutes ago, GroundAttack said:

Can’t lose to Davis Webb. We won’t lose to Davis Webb. Can’t lose to Davis Webb

I see a very bad coincidence in last names here...

I’m not afraid of Webb and whatever skeleton crew they put out there.

I am afraid that these Giants players play too sloppy and reckless and put Eagles players in dangerous situations. 

The hypocrisy of this stuff drives me nuts. If it's bigger than football, it's bigger than football. Don't cry football doesn't matter and then later cry the football outcome isn't fair.

22 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

They almost got it right.  The sky itself has no appreciable color, as the vast majority of gasses that constitute it are completely colorless (top 3 - nitrogen, oxygen and argon are all colorless, as are carbon dioxide, neon, helium, and methane).  So, what we see is the light from the sun... bouncing around in the sky.  But the sky itself... not really any color at all, which is why the same patch of sky can be so many different colors during the course of a day.  Because the sky itself... isn't any color at all.

You almost got it right as well. Color is the perception of the frequency of a photon. Those colorless gases can emit photons of different colors due to different physical processes. Neon, colorless as you cite in its ground state, is an example of light production from excited state emission -- an electronic transition that emits a photon, that we then perceive as a color. In the case of the sky, the energy of the radiation, photons, that is interacting with atoms and causing our perception of color is much lower than that for the neon, excited state transition, example. In the case of "the sky is blue" it is called Rayleigh scattering but the term scattering is a bit misleading. It's not like billiard balls hitting something and bouncing around in the sky. Photons "scatter" because of an interaction with the electrons within an atom.  "Rayleigh scattering results from the electric polarizability of the particles. The oscillating electric field of a light wave acts on the charges within a particle, causing them to move at the same frequency. The particle therefore becomes a small radiating dipole whose radiation we see as scattered light.” Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/difference-between-scattering-and-emission-of-photons.899796/

The sky therefore does have a color for the same reason that we perceive all things as having a color. The change of energy state of an electron configuration on an atom (vibrational or transition) causes the emission of photons. 

2 minutes ago, Next_Up said:

You almost got it right as well. Color is the perception of the frequency of a photon. Those colorless gases can emit photons of different colors due to different physical processes. Neon, colorless as you cite in its ground state, is an example of light production from excited state emission -- an electronic transition that emits a photon, that we then perceive as a color. In the case of the sky, the energy of the radiation, photons, that is interacting with atoms and causing our perception of color is much lower than that for the neon, excited state transition, example. In the case of "the sky is blue" it is called Rayleigh scattering but the term scattering is a bit misleading. It's not like billiard balls hitting something and bouncing around in the sky. Photons "scatter" because of an interaction with the electrons within an atom.  "Rayleigh scattering results from the electric polarizability of the particles. The oscillating electric field of a light wave acts on the charges within a particle, causing them to move at the same frequency. The particle therefore becomes a small radiating dipole whose radiation we see as scattered light.” Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/difference-between-scattering-and-emission-of-photons.899796/

The sky therefore does have a color for the same reason that we perceive all things as having a color. The change of energy state of an electron configuration on an atom (vibrational or transition) causes the emission of photons. 

Yes.  The scattering of the photons to me isn't the same at all as transmission by absorption and reemission, nor by absorbing some wavelengths while reflecting others, as a 'blue shirt' does.  

Reference:  I teach this for a living.