5 hours ago, Mike030270 said:

 

Not one single RB playing today is that good.  Maybe, maybe Chubb makes the HOF but that’s about it and that’s a big maybe.  Barkley looked like he might make it but he doesn’t hold up.  Same with Elliott. 

3 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

I did a very quick search (so basically hardly a search), and didn't see anything in that regard. What did you read about that?

He’s trolling. That is what he does.

18 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Not one single RB playing today is that good.  Maybe, maybe Chubb makes the HOF but that’s about it and that’s a big maybe.  Barkley looked like he might make it but he doesn’t hold up.  Same with Elliott. 

King Henry makes the Hall with 3 more good years (or 2 very good years) and 2 or 3 more stat compiles in a committee.

He's already at 8335 yards rushing 9375 total yards 78 rushing TDs and 81 total TDs. (just 2 rushing TDs from HoF joke Edge)

He's also got good playoff numbers and 3 playoff wins.

I'm not sure he holds up for that though.

 

Chubb has a chance if he goes for another 8+ years (impossible to tell)

That's it AFAIK

Dennis Kelly is coming back. I actually thought at the time we got a good deal getting Dorial Green Beckham in return. What a lazy Fer that guy was. 
 

Also - @Godfather and @hputenis put paint chips on their pizza 

33 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

He’s trolling. That is what he does.

I find it amusing. Also baffled he hasn’t been banned yet 

1 hour ago, devpool said:

I wish our men's team had more success, if our best athletes played soccer we would be dominant and it wouldn't really be close 

Less fan appeal, less fame, less fortune compared to the other major sports. It's just not something American kids are drawn toward. That could change in time. But in other nations around the world, that is something many kids dream to become. Here, there are bigger dreams. 

1 hour ago, devpool said:

I wish our men's team had more success, if our best athletes played soccer we would be dominant and it wouldn't really be close 

This is an ignorant statement. Lebron James nor Pat Mahomes would be pro soccer players. The US Men’s team isn’t in the top tier because they’re a bunch of **** run by bigger ****

4 minutes ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

This is an ignorant statement. Lebron James nor Pat Mahomes would be pro soccer players. The US Men’s team isn’t in the top tier because they’re a bunch of **** run by bigger ****

Pu$$ies

5 hours ago, NCiggles said:

I am not sure what the big bang has to do with dating radioactive isotopes but sure. 

Right, the big bang and dating has nothing to do with each other......you need to quit.

49 minutes ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

This is an ignorant statement. Lebron James nor Pat Mahomes would be pro soccer players. The US Men’s team isn’t in the top tier because they’re a bunch of **** run by bigger ****

My statement was ignorant? You named literally two people out of a thousand pro athletes. AJ brown would probably be an elite soccer player. Tyreek hill, a ton of receivers would be amazing soccer players. Probably some of the more athletic tight ends as well, and that's just football. 

The us team sucks because they don't have elite talent, because all of our elite talent players football, basketball or baseball

1 hour ago, brkmsn said:

Less fan appeal, less fame, less fortune compared to the other major sports. It's just not something American kids are drawn toward. That could change in time. But in other nations around the world, that is something many kids dream to become. Here, there are bigger dreams. 

It only takes one American to actually be really good and kill it in a euro league making 100mil as a 24 year old and maybe that gets more kids into it. We thought pulisic would be it, and he's a great player for us but in the PL he's just another dude. Euro soccer players make an absolutely stupid amount of money, like incredibly stupid. But none of our guys can hang there

@EaglePhan1986 What flavors of paint chips are available?

6 hours ago, RememberTheKoy said:

Someone posted about the July 1st deadline and it just seems plausible and becomes more so with each passing day.  

I haven't found anything about a July 1st deadline, but I do see that there was a July 31st deadline implemented in 2021. I'm also under the impression that the Eagles had informed the NFL of the Kelly Greens a long time ago, so a July deadline doesn't matter (if that's correct).  

 

Quote

NFL alternate uniform rules, explained

The league in 2013 banned the use of alternate helmets, citing safety concerns among players. The league relaxed the rule in 2021, however, giving teams a July 31 deadline to inform the league whether it would have Color Rush, alternate or retro jerseys, starting with the 2022 season.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/nfl-uniforms-2022-new-color-rush-alternate-helmets/ryv9hwy279qvwyd2uzs64z7n

 

I remember some pining for Mims as a first rounder for the Eagles. 

3 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Oh you mean the president of FIFA is trying to justify past decisions, pass the buck, and deflect any barbs aimed at the most corrupt sports organization in the world? This certainly changes everything.

As had been already pointed out to you, the awarded prize money for women was a tenth of that of the men's which was quite clearly out of line with the viewership numbers. The prize money this year will certainly be more in line with viewership (and likely by proxy, generated revenue). This wasn't just a small increase, it will be a massive bump in the awarded payouts. I'd bet the attention and awareness brought to the issue in recent years was a big factor in effecting that change. I highly doubt FIFA just did it on a lark for funsies.

Uh dude…the rights to the women’s World Cup sell for less than 10% of the World Cup. So making one tenth of the men is them being overpaid. Up until this year they gave away the rights for free. 
 

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1138964/fifa-world-cup-broadcast-fee-shortfall#:~:text=The game's international ruling body,the Wall Street Journal reports.
 

 

1 hour ago, devpool said:

My statement was ignorant? You named literally two people out of a thousand pro athletes. AJ brown would probably be an elite soccer player. Tyreek hill, a ton of receivers would be amazing soccer players. Probably some of the more athletic tight ends as well, and that's just football. 

The us team sucks because they don't have elite talent, because all of our elite talent players football, basketball or baseball

The elite talent isn’t there because they are not appropriately developed. The people running US soccer suck. 

Soccer is a skill savvy sport, like baseball or hockey. Not football where many don’t start playing until they’re well into their teens. So just because a guy is elite at one sport, doesn’t mean they’d be elite at another.

Now - a guy who was an average D1 CB may have ended up being a world class soccer player, sure. That’s a better argument to be made. 

59 minutes ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

The elite talent isn’t there because they are not appropriately developed. The people running US soccer suck. 

Soccer is a skill savvy sport, like baseball or hockey. Not football where many don’t start playing until they’re well into their teens. So just because a guy is elite at one sport, doesn’t mean they’d be elite at another.

Now - a guy who was an average D1 CB may have ended up being a world class soccer player, sure. That’s a better argument to be made. 

You are way too hung up on specific players. The entire point is if our best athletes decided to play soccer INSTEAD OF football, basketball, etc they would be world class. I only cited specific players because you for some reason decided to start naming people. I'm not talking about taking players FROM the sports they're currently in. I'm saying if those players decided to play soccer they could be good because of their athletic profile.

Nowhere did I say "mahomes and LeBron would be awesome soccer players". I didn't think I needed to clarify that when I said "our best athletes" I didn't mean ones that have been playing their respective sports for 10+ years but I guess I did.

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

Uh dude…the rights to the women’s World Cup sell for less than 10% of the World Cup. So making one tenth of the men is them being overpaid. Up until this year they gave away the rights for free. 
 

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1138964/fifa-world-cup-broadcast-fee-shortfall#:~:text=The game's international ruling body,the Wall Street Journal reports.
 

 

I think someone else pointed it out earlier but the reason this is even a discussion in this country is because our women's team is far more successful than our men's team in international play and have been for a long time.  However, that's not the case in pretty much every other country and that's why the women's world cup only garners 10% of the men's. I think Americans overvalue it because our team is so great, when the overall product isn't as desirable in other nations with more successful men's teams or no women's teams at all.

I'm all for them getting a fair share of whatever the competitions bring in, but when they start comparing it to the men's competition that's where they lose me. I doubt the women's WC brings in half the worldwide viewership of the men's WC, and I'm too lazy to look it up

9 hours ago, EagleVA said:

Here' the problem with that, your professor, and his professor, and his professor were all big bang millions and billions of years believers, had they not touted that lie they would've been out of a job.

Point being, lies are generational until someone has the guts to expose them regardless of the mockery (Facebook) they'll receive from ignorant clowns. 

Please take your clown show out of town.

3 am drunk business idea:

I'm going to create an eclectic and imaginative bedding store and call it John's Linens.

I feel pretty confident that Jack Driscoll is a better backup lineman — at this point — than Dennis Kelly. However, I still think picking up Kelly is a good move. Because if Driscoll were to get hurt, which he often does, our backup situation could look pretty dire. 

My guess is that Kelly doesn’t make the 53 man roster out of camp unless there are injuries. But he would be a good add to the practice squad as someone who could be called up at a moment’s notice and play a game if needed. 

13 hours ago, EagleVA said:

Here' the problem with that, your professor, and his professor, and his professor were all big bang millions and billions of years believers, had they not touted that lie they would've been out of a job.

Point being, lies are generational until someone has the guts to expose them regardless of the mockery (Facebook) they'll receive from ignorant clowns. 

The irony here is almost too much to unpack given the generational lies are coming from the religious side…

13 hours ago, NCiggles said:

I am not sure what the big bang has to do with dating radioactive isotopes but sure.  Look I don't think I can convince you of anything. I just don't believe in a God that is weaker than Satan or allows for reason to be folly.  

I think it was Carlin that said if there is a God, why would he give us these huge brains and not want us to use them?

6 hours ago, devpool said:

My statement was ignorant? You named literally two people out of a thousand pro athletes. AJ brown would probably be an elite soccer player. Tyreek hill, a ton of receivers would be amazing soccer players. Probably some of the more athletic tight ends as well, and that's just football. 

The us team sucks because they don't have elite talent, because all of our elite talent players football, basketball or baseball

I have literally no idea why you think NFL players would make good soccer players, speed, balance and fitness are the only transferrables, none of them have any experience of any of the key skills for actually playing the game, just like Messi couldn't play Receiver or QB worth a toot on tin whistle.

The reason the US mens team is bad is because we don't take any mens team sport that the rest of the world likes outside track and field seriously, we prefer to call our domestic champions World Champions of games only America plays at any sort of level. With the collegiate system and the size of the available pool America could be more than competitive at Soccer with any sort of coaching talent and scouting, but it needs a culture shift to treat Soccer seriously that just isn't happening fast.

The reason the US women's team has been so good for so long is that we DID take the womens game at National level more seriously than anyone else for years before the current drive to popularise Women's football all over the world, chances are America will lose their advantage over the next decade or so.

7 hours ago, vikas83 said:

Uh dude…the rights to the women’s World Cup sell for less than 10% of the World Cup. So making one tenth of the men is them being overpaid. Up until this year they gave away the rights for free. 
 

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1138964/fifa-world-cup-broadcast-fee-shortfall#:~:text=The game's international ruling body,the Wall Street Journal reports.
 

 

Now square that with the viewership numbers. No need to dig them up, it's right there in your article if we want to take Infatino's word...

"The viewing figures of the FIFA Women’s World Cup are 50-60 per cent of the men's FIFA World Cup, yet the broadcasters’ offers in the 'Big 5' European countries for the FIFA Women’s World Cup are 20 to 100 times lower than for the men’s FIFA World Cup," he added.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that (until this year), an organization known for shady backroom deals was more than content to accept obvious low-ball offers for the previously bundled women's rights that it would never have accepted if separately offered for the men's rights.