31 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

All the while, I wondered if it was you but since there was no mention of the EMB, I could never be sure. Some things lined up. Others seemingly didn’t. It didn’t seem worth pursuing.

Found it, gave it a heart. Definitely don't remember seeing that specific reply, but I do remember the conversation.

 

31 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

So I guess I legitimately gave you about thirty hours of views last summer. Hope you made something off it. 

It's hard to tell from one video to another. The specific video that you commented on about the Eagles isn't monetized due to copyright claims, so someone made money on it but not me lol. I do wish I hadn't done that show when I did, along with a few others. Back then, my camera was old (lower quality), as was my mic and lighting and my editing software and techniques (to prevent copyright claims and being blocked) weren't great. Since then, all of those things have been upgraded and I rarely get copyright claims/blocks now and when I do, it's easy to resolve. 

Not to mention the fact that in the beginning, I wasn't used to having to interact with the camera. I watched the entire first episode of Game of Thrones in near total silence (I was so into it), not even thinking about the camera and that there was going to be an audience that I needed to 'interact' with. It took some getting used to, being in front of the camera while watching something for a reaction video.

Right now I'm averaging a little more than a thousand or so views per day (I'm around 200,000 views year to date). So not on the level of some who are making A LOT of money at it. Take Cassie (Popcorn In Bed), right now she's making at minimum $9,000 per month on Patreon alone, maybe up to around $30,000 a month. She has 3,000 Patrons who are each paying between $3 and $15 per month for access. On YouTube she has over 300k Subscribers, revenue there is estimated at around $11,000 per month. I could use a month like that to buy a new HVAC! lol

I enjoy the process but editing is really time consuming. A 1 hour episode of something can take 3 hours to edit, then if there's a copyright claim/block, re-edits/re-processing/re-uploads can add another few hours. I'm in the process of watching the second Lord of the Rings, the extended version... which is around 4 hours long. Editing that will likely take 15 or more hours of work. 

23 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Completely different vibe of a show. Very good at times, but in my opinion notably weaker than Breaking Bad. Not sure I'd ever re-watch it. Unlikely I'd watch reactors do it.

Yeah, totally different. I won't say it's weaker because it's a completely different kind of show. I really enjoy Mike's storyline, as well as Gus's. Those storylines could be a series all by itself. But it works well in the BCS format. 

22 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

Always thought Donovan was a borderline HOFer at the end of his run here, but him falling apart after going to Washington ended his chances. If he were able to put together some good years after that, he would have gotten in. 
 

 

His career has to be put into context with the other QBs of the time. He can't be compared to QBs of prior years, nor can he be compared to those from after his day.

So, does his career stack up against his peers as being deserving of being elevated above all of the other QB's of his day?

2 hours ago, bpac55 said:

I want to say he was 80?

I think he went through multiple numbers and was in the teens at some point. My first guess was #18 but that was Gibson.

Greg Ward is another guy like that. I know he was on the PS for 52 but I don't think he was in #84 yet since he was on and off the team a lot before 2019/2020.

I don't believe McNabb is a HOF QB. I go by eye test mainly. Some stat referencing.

I never watched him and thought he was great. I thought he was a top 5 QB for a few years of his prime but in a weaker era of QBs. Him being a top QB I think is shorter than a lot of people remember. IMO, it was really only 2002-2004. After 2004 he had some good years here or there, but no consistency. And even in his best years post 2004, he doesn't compare to what I'd historically consider elite. Either was hurt or one year up, one year down. Even in 2008 his whole year was up and down.

I look at the QBs in today's NFL and I don't think McNabb's career would even register compared to many of them.

The Eagles have a pretty bad QB history. If the Eagles had the QB history of the Niners, Packers, Colts, some other teams, I think McNabb would be remembered much differently.

26 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

His career has to be put into context with the other QBs of the time. He can't be compared to QBs of prior years, nor can he be compared to those from after his day.

So, does his career stack up against his peers as being deserving of being elevated above all of the other QB's of his day?

From that thought process I think McNabb is even less of a HOF candidate.  He's the same age as Peyton Manning and a year older than Tom Brady.  Those guys are definitely the top 2 of his era.  Drew Brees is 3 years younger, but also has far superior stats and accomplishments.  

9 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

From that thought process I think McNabb is even less of a HOF candidate.  He's the same age as Peyton Manning and a year older than Tom Brady.  Those guys are definitely the top 2 of his era.  Drew Brees is 3 years younger, but also has far superior stats and accomplishments.  

You even have to add Eli Manning in there, he has two Super Bowl titles... and I think he was MVP in both? Take those away from him, and I don't think he'd deserve a sniff. But you can't take those away, and even if he doesn't get it, you have to compare McNabb's career to that. 

2 hours ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

I really hate it when people spell Rivers' first name with an extra L. I mean, REALLY hate it.

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

 He can't be compared to QBs of prior years, nor can he be compared to those from after his day.

Why not? Every QB is part of a team. They all play football. Every offense is built around something (a philosophy, a concept, the personnel, etc...) and it's up to the QB to function within that. Some have success. Some do not. McNabb is one that had success and thus should be compared to other successful QBs. Different eras may produce different definitions of success (based on statistics), but each season will still produce standouts at each position. So we may not be able to look at, say ... completion percentage in the 70s and 80s and say "today's QBs are clearly better" when the reality is offensive concepts have changed. Heck, Wentz at the very least puts up Troy Aikman numbers, but outside of one season he wasn't even a top 15 QB for the year. So his career has been average at best and even disappointing at times considering his draft status. Aikman, on the other hand, had a pretty long streak of being one of the season's top QBs and during that stretch, his team also had great success. That is what you compare. 

McNabb had a similar stretch of being one of the NFL's top QBs from season to season and during that time, his team was a top 4 team each season. So when you compare that to a HOFer like Aikman, McNabb measures up. Now if you compare NFL championships, that's where McNabb comes up short. But there are HOF QBs that also came up short like Jim Kelly and Warren Moon. McNabb has accolades and he has highlights. He definitely has a case for HOF consideration and should be compared to all HOF QBs before him (and after, should he get in). 

3 hours ago, Sack that QB said:

I don't believe McNabb is a HOF QB. I go by eye test mainly. Some stat referencing.

I never watched him and thought he was great. I thought he was a top 5 QB for a few years of his prime but in a weaker era of QBs. Him being a top QB I think is shorter than a lot of people remember. IMO, it was really only 2002-2004. After 2004 he had some good years here or there, but no consistency. And even in his best years post 2004, he doesn't compare to what I'd historically consider elite. Either was hurt or one year up, one year down. Even in 2008 his whole year was up and down.

I look at the QBs in today's NFL and I don't think McNabb's career would even register compared to many of them.

The Eagles have a pretty bad QB history. If the Eagles had the QB history of the Niners, Packers, Colts, some other teams, I think McNabb would be remembered much differently.

McNabb, imo, was a poor man’s Mahomes. Maybe slightly more athletic. Mahomes has a much better demeanor though. 

I don’t think he’s a HOFer but in his defense he played in an era where DBs and LBs could cream WRs. Much of the reason there’s better QBs (in today’s NFL) is because it’s much easier to put up gaudy numbers. 
 

It’d be interesting to see his numbers in today’s NFL. Maybe they wouldn’t be that much better 

Chris Berman's schtick gets old quick but man the HR Derby just sounds dead without him announcing it. Didn't even realize it was on.

26 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

Why not? Every QB is part of a team. They all play football.

It wouldn't be apples to apples to compare him to say, Tommy Thompson from 1945 or Norm Van Brocklin from 1960, just to pull a few old names out of the hat. Different eras, different rules, different everything essentially. 

15 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

It wouldn't be apples to apples to compare him to say, Tommy Thompson from 1945 or Norm Van Brocklin from 1960, just to pull a few old names out of the hat. Different eras, different rules, different everything essentially. 

But you're comparing success to success, not completion percentage or basic stats straight up. 

8 hours ago, bpac55 said:

OK here's a kill some time game for us. No cheating via Google or PE.com. Can we name the entire Eagles 2017 SB roster by number? This includes practice squad and IR. 

1.  
2.  
3.  
4. Elliott
5. Retired
6.  
7. Sudfeld
8. Punter... forgot name
9. Foles
10.  
11. Wentz
12. Not handed out
13. Agholor
14. M. Johnson
15. Retired
16.  
17. Jeffery
18.  
19.  
20. Retired
21. Robinson
22. Jones
23. McLeod
24.  
25. Not handed out
26. Ajayi
27. Jenkins
28. Smallwood
29. Blount
30. Clement
31. Mills
32. Douglas
33.  
34.  
35. Barner
36.  
37.  
38.  
39.  
40. Retired
41.  
42.  
43. Sproles
44. Retired
45.  
46.  
47. Gerry
48.  
49.  
50.  
51.  
52.  
53.  
54. Kendricks
55. Graham
56. Long
57.  
58. Hicks
59.  
60. Retired.  
61. Wisniewski
62. Kelce
63.  
64.  
65. L. Johnson
66.  
67. Warmack
68.  
69. Mailata
70. Retired
71. Peters
72. Vaitai
73. Seumalo
74.  
75.  
76.  
77.  
78.  
79. Brooks
80.  
81.  
82. Smith
83.  
84. Ward
85.  
86. Ertz
87. Celek
88.  
89. Burton
90.  
91. Cox
92. Retired 
93.  
94.  
95.  
96. Barnett
97. Jernigan
98.  
99. Retired

 

Not a great job... but its the end of the day... and my memory isn't what it once was.    

7 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Marcus Johnson was on the roster because he was traded right after the SB for Bennett before FA started, but I can't remember what number he was. 

14.

4 hours ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

Always thought Donovan was a borderline HOFer at the end of his run here, but him falling apart after going to Washington ended his chances. If he were able to put together some good years after that, he would have gotten in. 
 

 

When you don't actually WIN an award, I don't think its much good on a resume.  MVP or OPOY don't count for him.

Here’s a fun game. Try to spell Vaitai’s first name without cheating. I made an attempt and was off by 5 or 6 so edited it out to just "Vaitai”. I think I had it as Halapouti.

One of my favorite facts is he has two brothers named Kevin and William 

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Here’s a fun game. Try to spell Vaitai’s first name without cheating. I made an attempt and was off by 5 or 6 so edited it out to just "Vaitai”. I think I had it as Halapouti 

Halipoulivati

??

1 minute ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Halipoulivati

??

Just checked... that's not it.

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Halipoulivati

??

We’re getting warmer 

Fascinating that a team centered around a tough, beat ‘em up defense is so incredibly soft 

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Fascinating that a team centered around a tough, beat ‘em up defense is so incredibly soft 

Can dish it out, but can't take it.

5 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

Right now I'm averaging a little more than a thousand or so views per day (I'm around 200,000 views year to date). So not on the level of some who are making A LOT of money at it. Take Cassie (Popcorn In Bed), right now she's making at minimum $9,000 per month on Patreon alone, maybe up to around $30,000 a month. She has 3,000 Patrons who are each paying between $3 and $15 per month for access. On YouTube she has over 300k Subscribers, revenue there is estimated at around $11,000 per month. I could use a month like that to buy a new HVAC! lol

Very familiar with her. Watched a ton of her earlier videos but she pretty quickly ran out of movies and shows I had any interest in. And she's also not the sharpest knife in the drawer. She's adorable but she's easily confused. I'm happy that she's making that kind of money because she seems nice. But there are other channels that are better than hers.

5 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

Found it, gave it a heart. Definitely don't remember seeing that specific reply, but I do remember the conversation.

 

It's hard to tell from one video to another. The specific video that you commented on about the Eagles isn't monetized due to copyright claims, so someone made money on it but not me lol. I do wish I hadn't done that show when I did, along with a few others. Back then, my camera was old (lower quality), as was my mic and lighting and my editing software and techniques (to prevent copyright claims and being blocked) weren't great. Since then, all of those things have been upgraded and I rarely get copyright claims/blocks now and when I do, it's easy to resolve. 

Not to mention the fact that in the beginning, I wasn't used to having to interact with the camera. I watched the entire first episode of Game of Thrones in near total silence (I was so into it), not even thinking about the camera and that there was going to be an audience that I needed to 'interact' with. It took some getting used to, being in front of the camera while watching something for a reaction video.

Right now I'm averaging a little more than a thousand or so views per day (I'm around 200,000 views year to date). So not on the level of some who are making A LOT of money at it. Take Cassie (Popcorn In Bed), right now she's making at minimum $9,000 per month on Patreon alone, maybe up to around $30,000 a month. She has 3,000 Patrons who are each paying between $3 and $15 per month for access. On YouTube she has over 300k Subscribers, revenue there is estimated at around $11,000 per month. I could use a month like that to buy a new HVAC! lol

I enjoy the process but editing is really time consuming. A 1 hour episode of something can take 3 hours to edit, then if there's a copyright claim/block, re-edits/re-processing/re-uploads can add another few hours. I'm in the process of watching the second Lord of the Rings, the extended version... which is around 4 hours long. Editing that will likely take 15 or more hours of work. 

Yeah, totally different. I won't say it's weaker because it's a completely different kind of show. I really enjoy Mike's storyline, as well as Gus's. Those storylines could be a series all by itself. But it works well in the BCS format. 

I've seen that lady before (popcorn in bed).  Do they really make that much?  I'm all for people getting what they can but that seems like a really good deal for doing movie reactions.

Maybe I should start doing that? 🤔

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Fascinating that a team centered around a tough, beat ‘em up defense is so incredibly soft