YodaMan79

He’s full-blown crazy, not just a diva. I’m all for the front office taking calculated risks to add talent, but this one gives me pause. The Eagles are great at managing big personalities and have strong veteran leadership, and even they passed after winning a Super Bowl. No doubt he makes plays, but in his mind he’s better than Ed Reed and Steve Atwater combined. When he’s locked in and in sync, he’s absolutely a difference-maker… but that’s a big “when.”

He’s not dating our daughters. If our locker room can’t embrace different personalities and make it work, that’s on them. Aren’t we being told by a certain segment of the population that “diversity is our strength.” In all seriousness they need to take some calculated risks. They built the culture to hopefully take younger guys like this and help transform them and extend their careers. The team/fans benefit in the process with hopefully reaching the ultimate goal.

You've very astute. Wouldn't you kill for production like his, here? I think his numbers define his numbers:

Because he's exponentially more talented than the next guy here! If you were willing to trade a 3rd and 7th for a washed Cooper, of course it wouldn't make sense kick the tires on very talented player in their prime, in a "show me" year.

Did you sense any sarcasm in my point after?

I remember hearing something about Jimmy's and Joe's vs X's and O's. Or, was it chicken salad and chicken excrement?

You're right. They've really beaten some quality opponents so far.

You're right. This teams offense is right up there with early 2000s Rams. What was I thinking? They are "historically good" against teams with a combined total of 3 wins so far this season.

Correct: but it’s also a misallocation of resources and a failure in talent evaluation. The Stepfords on the board refuse to believe their lying eyes. I mentioned this last week and it wasn’t well received. They’ve got a lot of work to do. Pickens for a 3rd and 5th would’ve looked pretty good in red, white, and blue. But I guess the culture and locker room are too fragile for that.

Everyone eats...🙄

How about a system where you eat what you kill? Where are all the eye-roll and thumbs-down reactions to my original post now? Tonight just proved the point, we don’t have killers. This team lives and dies by whether Cook can break loose, and when you’re playing from behind, the run game disappears behind a below-average passing attack. Yes, the defense started out atrocious, but the offense lost this game. There were multiple chances to take control, and every one of them slipped away. Josh hasn’t looked right, outside of a few quarters, he just hasn’t been himself.

The whole “everybody eats” approach might sound like balance, but it’s really the football version of saying you’ve got two starting quarterbacks. It's a diplomatic way of admitting you don’t have one true game-changer. I don’t want to hear it anymore. When the commentators talked about it on Sunday night like it was a good thing, I completely lost it. Either the organization is lying to itself, or they think we as a fan base are clueless. Consider this my therapeutic vent, a realization that the front office is failing this roster and its fans. Like the Eagles, this team could easily be 3-2, 2-3. They just don't pass the eye test. On the bright side, no one team looks unbeatable this year. I’d say maybe 4–6 teams have a real shot to win it all. So, why not the Bills!?!?

It’s been time to go for a while. Like the others have stated, it’s not a sports/football song. Enough already.

All I hear about is how Cook is elite, on this board. He can do what Henry does, right? We'll get right back into this game.

DeVonta Smith (aka the Slim Reaper) feels like the only current NFL receiver who’s undersized and legitimately elite. Every run after the catch still looks like he might get snapped in half, but he keeps producing. Worthy isn’t DeVonta Smith.

Good. I don’t want to hear anymore how his advanced stats show he’s still elite. He’s toast. $388 a square foot is a pretty darn good value.

People forget that guys like Demaryius Thomas, Jordy Nelson, Roddy White, Emmanuel Sanders, and even a Hall of Famer like Tim Brown didn’t come into the league and produce right away. Development takes time. Hopefully, we see a monumental jump. As many have pointed out, he seems like a great young man.

Better throw? The only other QB in the league that could have made that throw (possibly) was on the other sideline. DK doesn't deserve your love.

He was overdrafted—plain and simple. As a 23-year-old competing against 18- to 21-year-olds, he had a significant developmental advantage that made him look better than he actually was. Anyone who has competed beyond high school knows how much of a difference that can make. He then entered the league as a 24-year-old rookie, which is highly unusual for a non-QB taken in the first round. It still baffles me.

No. If you watched the game and weren't basing it off of the box score, it's pretty clear. The stats were compiled when the Eagles were already up by 24 points. The defense deserved the credit. It was an all-time game wrecking performance. Jalen is a smart man, he even thanked the defense first.

When did wanting accountability and transparency in how our (well 48% of us) tax dollars are spent become a partisan issue? We have infrastructure, schools and a power grid that are being held together with duct tape, bubble gum and toothpicks. Wouldn't it be nice to get our house in order and cleaned up?

I did. Look a couple posts below the one you referenced. Thanks for your insightful contribution.

At first glance, it seems the U.S. often ends up on the short end of the stick as a trade partner. How this dynamic plays out with countries like Canada or Mexico is less clear, but the idea of China being classified as a "developing nation" is frankly absurd. Personally, I’d be willing to pay more for goods produced here, but there’s a segment of the population that will drive miles just to save a few cents on a gallon of gas. As a nation, we don’t always prioritize second-level thinking when it comes to these decisions.

This is what I got from our good AI friend: In general, yes, U.S. goods often face higher tariffs when exported to other countries compared to the tariffs the U.S. imposes on imports. This disparity is especially noticeable with key trading partners like the European Union, China, and India. Here’s a breakdown of why this happens: 1. Average Tariff Rates: United States: The average applied tariff is around 2.4% for all goods, with many products entering duty-free due to trade agreements. European Union: The average tariff is about 4.8%, but specific goods like U.S. cars face a 10% tariff, while EU cars entering the U.S. are taxed at only 2.5%. China: Even after trade negotiations, China’s average tariff on U.S. goods remains around 7%–15%, significantly higher than what the U.S. imposes on Chinese goods. India: India’s average tariff rate is much higher—often 10%–20% on many goods, with some products like motorcycles facing tariffs over 50%. 2. Industry-Specific Examples: Automobiles: U.S. imports from the EU: 2.5% tariff EU imports from the U.S.: 10% tariff China (before trade war): Up to 25% on U.S. cars (later reduced to 15% temporarily) Agricultural Products: U.S. exports face very high tariffs globally, often exceeding 20%, especially in countries protecting domestic agriculture. 3. Why the Disparity Exists: Trade-Offs in Negotiations: The U.S. has historically prioritized access for services, technology, and financial sectors in trade deals, sometimes accepting higher tariffs on physical goods as part of the bargain. Developing Country Status: Countries like China and India have claimed "developing nation" status under WTO rules, allowing them to maintain higher tariffs while benefiting from lower U.S. tariffs. Non-Tariff Barriers: Even when tariffs are low, foreign regulatory requirements, quotas, and subsidies act as hidden barriers to U.S. exports. Is This Like NATO or the Paris Agreement? There’s a similar theme: the U.S. often bears a larger burden, whether financially or economically, in global agreements. In trade, though, the reasons are more about negotiation strategies and historical deals rather than other nations "free-riding."

I would just like to see from a non-bias source what these other countries are doing to our goods, from a tariff perspective (before this most recent round took effect). Are our goods being held to a different tax standard as to what we're receiving? I know in the auto industry, vehicles made here are taxed at such a high rate it makes zero sense to buy an American made vehicle in some foreign countries. Why do I have the feeling this could be like the Paris Climate Accords or NATO, where the United States is being taken for a free ride from a number of other developed nations that could carry their own weight.