WhitewalkerInPhilly

Well, it lapsed back in November. It either takes true talent of mismanagement to let it slip that long, or about callousness to force it as a political football

I'm happy to see government on its way to open again. It's a pity that each party decided to take their chance to snipe at each other, and not actually fix a bunch of problems when they had the chance to.

Yeah. I remember Philly fans going 12 rounds about Foles: whether he was as good as 27:2, whether they should dump him and chase Mariota, is Bradford better than Foles? But I heard real doom and gloom over the last month. I will concede that he really turned it on last night, but everything I was hearing was about how they would approach Atlanta: don't ignore the run game (like Reid always does), set up play action, take points where you can get them and keep Atlanta off the field and out of the end zone. It was a winning formula.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/politics/dreamers-bill-immigration-graham-durbin-congress/index.html So please. inform me how this rejected prompromise differs from the requests outlined Please read earlier quote. $2.705 billion dollars for border security. The requested amount of border patrols for 2017 was met. What WAS NOT met entirely (though still partially funded) was the Wall. I have also previously outlined why that is a foolish proposal that if you presented blindly even libertards would call it wasteful government spending. If you know what is "actually going on" please provide me your information. You mean like how McConnell is preventing soldier from getting paid so he can cry wolf: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4710181/senator-mcconnell-objects-military-pay-protection

I posted this earlier. http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/politics/dreamers-bill-immigration-graham-durbin-congress/index.html So please. inform me how this rejected prompromise differs from the requests outlined

Fixed it for you. And oh, yeah, there WAS a bi-partisan offer for increased border security, ending chain migration for parents of DACA kids, and reworking the lottery system. Guess who 'effed it up?

It would make sense that they would agree to the Wall to get something they actually care about. As I joked elsewhere, a massive public works and infrastructure project that will require the seizure of land from private citizens, that will be applied broadly to all states on which it rests (and not up to the states themselves) with an uncertain long term funding that looks to cost taxpayers an untold fortune? Oh, and every expert, including the ones working for the White House say it won't do what it's supposed to. Are you sure this wasn't a liberal idea?

Dude, we know it wasn't binding. I am not so ignorant to think that what gets said by the president in a round table meeting is legally biding in regards to what legislation gets passed. Changes would (and often should!) get made. The problem isn't that, it's that when someone actually delivers on their end of the deal and you change your mind, you don't get to blame them for the deal falling through. Which is what has happened. I am also noting the change of tactics, where you have not refuted my details that a bipartisan group offered what the President said he wanted.

You know what I'm seeing here? Not any actual record of why I am incorrect. No sources to contradict me. Zero. Not even Daily Stormer articles. Just insulting me. Show me something that contradicts the numbers I showed. Tell me how it differs from what the president asked for on 11/9 when he said he would sign a bipartisan compromise: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-hosts-bipartisan-meeting-on-immigration-at-white-house-live-stream/ Or, are you just butt hurt that Donnie has so completely screwed up and gone back on his word?

OK. Show me your specifics on the compromise that was rejected. I know you like to call CNN Fake News, but it is at least fact checkable enough http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/politics/dreamers-bill-immigration-graham-durbin-congress/index.html

Really. Here is my source of what was being offered. https://www.vox.com/2018/1/11/16880360/immigration-congress-bill-daca-trump what, specifically, are you disputing?

I would be willing to rake the Dems over the coals for playing hot potato. If they hadn't offered a bi-partison deal that gave Trump and the Republicans: Increased military spending increased border patrol inline with what Trump asked for reworking chain migration so that the parents of DACA kids can't get citizenship a bailout for letting CHIP (a very well liked bipartisan program) A legislative answer to DACA that the president ASKED FOR SOME funding for the Wall. You know, the massive public works and infrastructure project that will require the seizure of land from private citizens, that will be applied broadly to all states on which it rests (and not up to the states themselves) with an uncertain long term funding. Oh, and every expert, including the ones working for the White House say it won't do what it's supposed to. Are you sure this isn't a liberal campaign promise? But no, because poor people from sh*thole countries might be allowed to legally get in, let's shut down the federal government and then block attempts to pay our soldiers. Thanks Republicans!

Normally yes. But my wife (the Eagles fan) has a superstition about watching the games. We've been streaming the radio broadcast, and the Eagles have been winning when we listen that way. Hey, it's only crazy if it doesn't work.

I'm noticing that 26CB and I are the ones most on the "pump the breaks on Nick Foles" train, and I am pretty sure that we have watched more of him than 90% of the people on here. I live in the Philly market. My wife is a die hard Eagles fan. People are looking at the last two games, and are ignoring the rest of his career. Not that I'm going to slag on him. He is what he is: a high level backup/low level bridge starter. I was there to watch him when he stepped in for the last few weeks of the season, and let me tell you, Eagles fans were terrified. Pederson gave him a very vanilla offense in his first few weeks back, and he looked mediocre to terrible. In the meanwhile, they began to gameplan around his strength and weaknesses and unveiled a new Run Pass Option to play to his strengths and give him a bit more time. He also has the benefit of a solid O-line, a solid run game in Blount and Ajayi, and gets to throw to a receiving group that looked at Jordan Matthews and said "ehh, he's expendable" When he has a system he is clicking in, and high level support around him he looks pretty good. He has a few fantastic games, and rarely looks dreadful. When he has less talent and in a system that is not clicking (as in the 2014 Eagles season) he looks mediocre. When he has Jeff Fisher running the offense, he looks dreadful. Now, for the important part: I could replace 2014 Eagles with 2017 Bills with 2017 and Jeff Fisher with Rick Dennison, and TT would absolutely apply.

It would take a player giving Beane a concussion, that's what it would take. Beat me to it!

I'm not even sold with him when he's healthy. His best years were in 2016 and 2017, and even then he hasn't matched 2016 Ryan Fitzpatrick. Let that sink in a moment. Fitz 2016: 3905 yards, 31 TD 15 INT Bradford 2017: 3877 yards, 20 TD 5 INT

...when I remark about the coverage given in the exact article at the start of the thread? And remark on the overall reporting I've seen from that site? And then add my personal experience as to why I disagree with the premise that the article span (that Philly is full of vile fans, while the ones I've met have been perfectly friendly and welcoming). Yeah, absolutely nothing to do with the thread.

Except for the playing fantastic part.

Wow. Low hanging fruit much PFT. That rag is now more of a joke than Bleacher Report between lazy soundbites and Florio playing Brady's skinflute. Look, I've lived in the Philly area for over 5 years now. In my experience, their fans in no way live down to the negative stereotypes that get blasted around. Yes, there are idiots. But we have plenty of those too.

I'm with the first page posters (before this got ready for PPP land) This thread is comedic gold. Please save it.

Do you have a franchise QB in your back pocket? Because, if not, you immensely benefit a rookie by giving a run game that slows up pass rush and sets up play action.

First of all, thank you SDS for trying to keep this on topic. I honestly don't know what to think about the hire. I didn't register the name at all, and I can't remember the teams he was a part of on the NFL. That said I was not high on Dennison when he was hired and my opinion went down from there. Things I like: -a willingness to experiment and creatively use the talent around him - a run first OC. No matter what, it should be the focal point of our offense whether we keep Tyrod or start a rookie Don't like: -a lack of production at the NFL level previously I am ok with going to college level for coordinators

I think we covered this. I should not apply for an OC. I am not sure about this Mike McCoy thinking. I mean, he would be better at running something like Dennison's system than Dennison, but I really don't like Denny's WCO system for our talent.

I kind of expect it either way. Look, we know what Tyrod is. But even arguably some of the most successful rookie QBs from the past few years (Wentz, Goff, Mariota, Winston, Watson) either didn't start, or struggled in their first year. It's part of the process. Why go for big money with Chase Daniel, or Jay Cutler?