14 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Every hour, a RB is beaten or abused...

They suffer alone and terrified...

Waiting for someone to help...

Please call the number on the screen. With a gift of just $18 a month, you'll rescue RB's from their abusers. Provide medical care, food, shelter and love. Call in the next 30 mins, and we'll send a picture of a RB in shoulder pads with a beautiful tote bag, for free. 

This is your chance to say, "I won't sit by, as a RB suffers."

While reading this my brain kept shifting between sad Sarah Mclachlan music and My heart will go on

 

 

I need help.

5 minutes ago, paco said:

While reading this my brain kept shifting between sad Sarah Mclachlan music and My heart will go on

 

 

I need help.

Please, make the call now....

Don't let another day go by

 

4 minutes ago, paco said:

While reading this my brain kept shifting between sad Sarah Mclachlan music and My heart will go on

 

 

I need help.

 

 

7 minutes ago, SkippyX said:

The problem with the Rams is that they did not win a SB by 'getting Stafford'. They got into a slightly better position to win by getting him.

The free OBJ out by the curb in Cleveland and the Von Miller trade got them their SB.

So no, the trade was not smart because they won with Stafford. The could have won with Goff if they added OBJ and Von Miller.

Add OBJ and Miller to the 2018 team and they probably win the SB too.

 

Spending rent money on lottery tickets is not a smart move. If enough people do it then one person who wins is still not smart, just lucky.

I disagree.  The Pats ate the Rams' O and the boy genius' lunch that day.  McVay learned a lot that day... one thing he learned was the true limitations of Goff.  The Rams tied for the lowest point total for any team in a Super Bowl, matching only the Dolphins in SB VI.  They were embarrassed that day.  OBJ (who finished 2018 on the IR) doesn't change that.  There's a reason the Rams were his 3rd team.  His talent ceased to outweigh with his personality.

50 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

I had a dream the other night that brought a scenario that could happen with a sports team one day and I wanted to see where people stand on this scenario.

I had a dream that a star player for a team I rooted for(in the dream it wasn't the Eagles or a real player it was just a team without an identity... dreams are weird like that) was accused of doing something really bad. And the team suspended the player immediately pending an investigation causing the player to miss several games. Then eventually the team found out the accuser was a kook who made the whole thing up. But the player was pissed off that the team didn't give the player the benefit of the doubt because they've always been a model citizen and never got into any trouble. And the player said they can never play another game for the organization again because they betrayed the player's trust, and the player demanded to be traded. And in my dream it was a big debate around town on if the player was doing the right thing or not. And some people were like the player needs to suck it up and get back to playing and not let down his teammates and accept the apology that the team made a mistake. And other people were like nah if I was the player I would feel betrayed too, especially since they deprived him of playing during the investigation, they damaged his career and prevented him from playing the game he loved.

If this happened in real life to one of the Philly teams, would you take the side of the player on that or not?

No.  The player paid the accuser to say it was made up

What a punk.

 

 

2 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

Maybe they were in the garden for millions of years before the apple. Both sides can be right and back to football 

Maybe sounds like a guess to me, research the topic and take the guess work out of the equation, nothing points to millions of years.

4 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

It makes me sad that people actually think this

At least others are thinking, you sound like a emotional/feelings type of guy......sad it right.

3 hours ago, brkmsn said:

I think the big, underlying problem is not that RBs are out of their prime after their rookie deals come to an end --- it's that teams have access to a never-ending crop of talented RBs that will be on rookie contracts. It's a simple supply and demand situation. Why use a significant amount of a team salary cap on a position where there is always a cheap alternative? Even if players became UFAs sooner, teams would still use the same approach. In fact, that would probably make RBs slip even further down draft boards.

This is the fault of the Players' Union and their lack of foresight. RBs just need to accept that they are about as "valuable" as kickers. I would love to see a redesign of the cap based on incentives, but the union would never support merit based pay. 

I don't think that is entirely true.  The RBs are not easily replaceable if a team has a below average O-line.  Plenty of athletic RBs that are drafted in the top 100 picks do not pan out on teams.  It's not like teams have RBs that will churn out the same yards vs. a replacement player.  The Eagles, who are as analytic driven as any team, have routinely invested in top 100 picks at the position.  There is a value to a RB who has played at an above average level in the NFL.  I really think the problem is that the value is short lived and has a higher variability because of injury and the duration of above average play.  RBs tend to have a sharp decline in play after age 27.  RB's tend to have down years and to miss games after they have had 300+ carries.  So a FA RB that is 26 and turning 27 coming off of a career high in carries is likely to have a down season.  It is a positional problem that RBs cannot capitalize on their most productive years.  

14 hours ago, paco said:

Man, they are teaching US women’s Olympic soccer level of whining about pay. 

In fairness, the women's team are winners and should get paid.  

 

17 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

What a punk.

 

 

I mean he probably couldn't name another QB after those 4 other ones.  

18 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

What a punk.

 

 

That's a terrible list.  Do you even watch football, bro?

Russ?  Cunningham?  Elway?  

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, EagleVA said:

Maybe sounds like a guess to me, research the topic and take the guess work out of the equation, nothing points to millions of years.

Except all of the science. There is no science that supports a young earth.  If you believe in God, you should also believe in reason and the scientific method.  If God created the human mind, then science and scientific reasoning is the result of God's will.  There can be no conflict between God and reason.  

29 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

What a punk.

 

 

It's a weird list because it seems to be mixing criteria. If it's pure running ability, Young shouldn't be there. If it's duel threat guys, Young at 4 is an abomination and obviously Fields being on the list makes no sense.

9 minutes ago, EricAllenPick6 said:

 

That's a terrible list.  Do you even watch football, bro?

Russ?  Cunningham?  Elway?  

 

 

 

McNabb, McNair, Allen and Hurts

3 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

McNabb, McNair, Allen and Hurts

Sanchez

Just now, LeanMeanGM said:

Sanchez

Foles

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Sanchez

Honestly can’t believe Tom Brady and nick foles didn’t make the list. two gazelles out there… lol 

4 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Honestly can’t believe Tom Brady and nick foles didn’t make the list. two gazelles out there… lol 

Nick Foles Tops the list of "Qb's with Receiving TD's in a Superbowl- on 4th and goal"

What's up with Nike and their issue with color palletes? Those look like the freaking Chargers blue uniforms, not the classic Vikings purple. Why is this always so hard for Nike?

I kinda dread the kelly greens now.

1 minute ago, Ipiggles said:

Nick Foles Tops the list of "Qb's with Receiving TD's in a Superbowl- on 4th and goal"

nick foles is also tied for 1st in receptions by a Qb in the Super Bowl. And second only to elway in receiving yards. 

5 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

What's up with Nike and their issue with color palletes? Those look like the freaking Chargers blue uniforms, not the classic Vikings purple. Why is this always so hard for Nike?

I kinda dread the kelly greens now.

You think that looks blue?

1 minute ago, Mike030270 said:

You think that looks blue?

Looks closer to this

than this IMO

12 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

What's up with Nike and their issue with color palletes? Those look like the freaking Chargers blue uniforms, not the classic Vikings purple. Why is this always so hard for Nike?

I kinda dread the kelly greens now.

Yeah thats def not like the OG....  and you are right. The Kelly Green probably will look like the Jets.