December 8, 2015 - Jerry Colangelo is hired by the 76ers as Chairman of Basketball Operations. This move, as we would all find out later, was spearheaded by NBA commissioner Adam Silver, because he and the rest of the league owners singled out the Sixers and were fed up with their tanking. I'm not sure what Adam Silver said to Joshua Harris to bully him into taking on Jerry Colangelo, but if I was a betting man, I would bet that threats were made. Why else would Harris so willingly take on Colangelo and push Sam Hinkie aside - a man Harris handpicked to run his organization just a couple years prior? Harris had no obligation or motivation to do so, especially when he backed and approved of the tanking process, unless there was a "little extra incentive" from Silver.
Adam Silver, backed by NBA owners, meddled in the affairs of an organization that was breaking no rules, and bullied his way into their basketball operations, and put a stamp on the Sixers that fans and media alike are feeling the ripple effects of ever since. Instead of trying to fix the NBA lottery or putting rules in place that diminish tanking, he decided to take the short, lazy, and easy route and just clean up the Sixers, while ignoring the greater problem.
Now, Adam Silver has sent out a league-wide memo that states he has grown tired of NBA teams resting their star players, as they try to keep them healthy and fresh for deep playoff runs. He doesn't like that it is unfair to the fans, and the TV networks that broadcast these games don't like being left with D-League competition, which in turn hurts their viewership. These are perfectly understandable concerns. However, the solution is not to threaten NBA teams, which he is doing per reports on the memo. NBA teams apparently will incur "significant penalties" if this continues in the future. Interesting. Instead of fixing the overall issue(like he also ignored with the Sixers), and getting rid of back-to-backs, shortening the season, or allowing longer rest in between games, he wants to once again meddle in the affairs of NBA teams to get what he wants. This time, all 30 of the NBA's franchises.
This will potentially set a terrible precedent for the future of the NBA. What is one thing we know about people who crave power? Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. If Adam Silver is allowed to get away with this yet again, without actually addressing the overall problem, then there is no telling what he'll try to get away with next. Tired of an imbalanced league? Tell teams what players they can and cannot trade! Wanna blow up your roster to start over? Can't trade more than two "star-level" players per one NBA league year! Hey, OKC: do you want to trade Russell Westbrook for a king's ransom so you can rebuild? SORRY! Not allowed! That would hurt ticket sales and viewership in the Oklahoma City area market, and we can't allow that. You know things like this are where Silver would take his crusade next.
Adam Silver is trying to stick his nose where it doesn't belong, and bully NBA owners and GMs into telling them how to run their organizations. The ones that, you know, they own. Say what you want about the integrity of the NBA, and putting out a competitive product, but what integrity does a league have where the commissioner is allowed to extend his power beyond his means? Where a commissioner can play dictator and tell owners what to do with the organizations that they purchased? Where he can tell GMs and coaches which players they can and cannot play. It's wrong, and unfortunately, as a Sixers fan, we should have seen this coming with Jerry Colangelo. Sixers fans have been bitter ever since, and now the entire league's owners are going to get a taste of the monster they unleashed on the NBA.
Monday, March 20, 2017
Saturday, March 18, 2017
Social media witch hunts are the 21st century's Salem Witch Trials
325 years ago in Massachusetts, innocent people were rounded up and hanged for no reason whatsoever in what is infamously known as the Salem Witch Trials. Over 3 centuries later, this type of behavior still exists, except it has migrated to social media platforms.
Social media has given people the freedom to express themselves to the entire world within a matter of a few seconds, and with the click of a single button. Social media is an important medium for expression, socializing, learning, and entertainment. However, one positive can also be a negative, and that is its anonymity. Social media gives any average Joe guts and confidence to attack others without repercussions, and the amount of this going on in 2017 is out of control.
Just yesterday I was reading about Newsweek reporter Kurt Eichenwald, an epileptic, who was mercilessly attacked on twitter with "strobe tweets" aimed at triggering seizures, simply because of his political beliefs. The anonymity and dangerous sense of security gave random users, who don't even know the reporter, the courage to attack him and try to jeopardize his health and well-being. This is not an isolated incident, this stuff is happening all around you everywhere you look, and has been going on for several years now.
At some point, a movement was created where whenever someone is discovered out there in the social media world you disagree with, it isn't enough to just disagree or scold that person. People have decided these people need to be destroyed. Their lives need to be ruined, their names dragged through the mud, and no one is satisfied until their entire livelihood is completely destroyed, and this movement has been steadily gaining momentum ever since. When did people become so hateful and vindictive? It exists in all forms, from sports to politics to entertainment. No one is safe from the jaws of 2017's Court of Oyer and Terminer.
Both extreme sides of the spectrum of all mediums are involved in this kind of behavior. Support Donald Trump? Don't even bother to listen to their argument, they're heartless conservatives! Support Hillary Clinton? Don't try talking to them, they're weak liberals! Disagree with a protest? You're what is wrong with the country! Support a protest? Don't even care what you have to say, you're a disgrace! Civil and meaningful discussions are no more. Open-mindedness is lost.
About a week ago, video game talking head and enthusiast of Kinda Funny Games(now formerly of), Colin Moriarty, put out a tweet on National Womens Day saying "Ah. Peace and Quiet #ADayWithoutAWoman" as a joke. The internet erupted and he was viciously attacked. He lost friends and respect across the industry for a simple tweet. He was labeled a racist by one publication, when the tweet had nothing to do with race whatsoever. Ultimately, Moriarty resigned from the company he co-founded, in part due to public backlash over the comment. Was it insensitive and in poor taste? Possibly, but it was ultimately harmless, attacked no one individually, and the amount of backlash and hate this caused was incredibly disproportionate to the tweet itself. The politically correct witch hunters of social media targeted him, turned him into a villain, and used him as the latest person to sink their blood-thirsty teeth into. These groups masquerade as seekers of justice, but in reality, they are simply bullies. You can disagree with someone and not turn them into a villain and try to ruin their careers and lives. For these people, this is not enough. They want blood and they want lots and lots of it.
Bullying today is typically recognized as beating up on little kids in schools or making fun of people on the internet. This new form of bullying needs to be recognized as exactly that - bullying. It's a "stealth" form of bullying and people use fraudulent noble motivations to cover up what it truly is. No one deserves the kind of backlash Colin received over a simple joke... even if you disagree with it and even if it was in poor taste. This is the equivalent of walking by someone on the street, farting in their general direction, and that person beating them to within an inch of their life as a form of vengeance.
I believe that 75% of the world are followers, and it's easy to just pile on a vulnerable target. That's the essence of group bullying, and these are the things we see everyday on social media. We see it with Kurt Eichenwald, Colin Moriarty, Pewdiepie, or anyone else with controversial opinions or senses of humor. Society today believes that the world around them is obligated to not offend them, but this isn't true. No one is obligated in life to not offend anybody, as people can be offended by anything they want. Me personally? I try to be the best person I can be and treat people well and with respect, and as long as I do or say something that I know in my heart was not meant to hurt people or be mean, I stand by what I say. Regardless of who it offends. The inflated sense of self-importance of society today has created a monster where people cannot tolerate not being catered to, and they lash out with unnecessary brutal force in return. They target the weak and vulnerable to make themselves feel better. It takes no guts to pile on another person when they're down, it's cowardly. Very seldom does someone deserve merciless hate, and it happens far more often than it is deserved in social media today.
Thankfully, Colin Moriarty refused to apologize, and I would have done exactly the same thing. You can't give bad people the power, and allow them to continue to oppress and control free thought and expression - the very thing social media is used for. People should feel free to express themselves in any way they choose, and of course, if they say something out of turn they should expect backlash, but the punishment has to fit the crime. Extreme forms of targeting are forms of suppression and oppression of opinions you don't agree with, and the thought of it is scary. These people cannot be allowed to win. I encourage everyone to stand up for their personal beliefs and to not be intimidated.
Why are people so mean on social media? I think it's complicated and I don't think I have all the anwers, but I think a lot of it has to do with the anonymity and the access of people who are available to you to target in one click. Put someone in a room with 100 loaded guns with a Metal Gear Solid esque cloaking suit with a bunch of people they dislike and they will be more motivated to go on a killing spree against those people. The means and opportunity are there. People on social media have an inflated sense of power... which brings me to where I will end this tangent.
I'm proud and want to commend Kurt Eichenwald for contacting the FBI and having at least one of the people who attacked him on twitter with seizure-inducing images arrested. More are currently under investigation. I support free speech and freedom of expression, however people go too far, and when they do, these people need to be brought to justice. People are starting to fight back, and that makes me feel good for the direction social media is heading. Bullies, in any form, cannot be tolerated, and they need the book thrown at them so an example is set to dissuade further aggression and progression of these attacks. No one should be afraid to say something they think is funny, if it isn't conceived out of hatred. No one should be afraid to speak their political opinions on social media platforms. And no one should be afraid to agree with those opinions out of fear they may be attacked or have their careers or lives ruined. Oppression and bullying are the things that need to be destroyed, not our personal freedoms and livelihoods.
Social media has given people the freedom to express themselves to the entire world within a matter of a few seconds, and with the click of a single button. Social media is an important medium for expression, socializing, learning, and entertainment. However, one positive can also be a negative, and that is its anonymity. Social media gives any average Joe guts and confidence to attack others without repercussions, and the amount of this going on in 2017 is out of control.
Just yesterday I was reading about Newsweek reporter Kurt Eichenwald, an epileptic, who was mercilessly attacked on twitter with "strobe tweets" aimed at triggering seizures, simply because of his political beliefs. The anonymity and dangerous sense of security gave random users, who don't even know the reporter, the courage to attack him and try to jeopardize his health and well-being. This is not an isolated incident, this stuff is happening all around you everywhere you look, and has been going on for several years now.
At some point, a movement was created where whenever someone is discovered out there in the social media world you disagree with, it isn't enough to just disagree or scold that person. People have decided these people need to be destroyed. Their lives need to be ruined, their names dragged through the mud, and no one is satisfied until their entire livelihood is completely destroyed, and this movement has been steadily gaining momentum ever since. When did people become so hateful and vindictive? It exists in all forms, from sports to politics to entertainment. No one is safe from the jaws of 2017's Court of Oyer and Terminer.
Both extreme sides of the spectrum of all mediums are involved in this kind of behavior. Support Donald Trump? Don't even bother to listen to their argument, they're heartless conservatives! Support Hillary Clinton? Don't try talking to them, they're weak liberals! Disagree with a protest? You're what is wrong with the country! Support a protest? Don't even care what you have to say, you're a disgrace! Civil and meaningful discussions are no more. Open-mindedness is lost.
About a week ago, video game talking head and enthusiast of Kinda Funny Games(now formerly of), Colin Moriarty, put out a tweet on National Womens Day saying "Ah. Peace and Quiet #ADayWithoutAWoman" as a joke. The internet erupted and he was viciously attacked. He lost friends and respect across the industry for a simple tweet. He was labeled a racist by one publication, when the tweet had nothing to do with race whatsoever. Ultimately, Moriarty resigned from the company he co-founded, in part due to public backlash over the comment. Was it insensitive and in poor taste? Possibly, but it was ultimately harmless, attacked no one individually, and the amount of backlash and hate this caused was incredibly disproportionate to the tweet itself. The politically correct witch hunters of social media targeted him, turned him into a villain, and used him as the latest person to sink their blood-thirsty teeth into. These groups masquerade as seekers of justice, but in reality, they are simply bullies. You can disagree with someone and not turn them into a villain and try to ruin their careers and lives. For these people, this is not enough. They want blood and they want lots and lots of it.
Bullying today is typically recognized as beating up on little kids in schools or making fun of people on the internet. This new form of bullying needs to be recognized as exactly that - bullying. It's a "stealth" form of bullying and people use fraudulent noble motivations to cover up what it truly is. No one deserves the kind of backlash Colin received over a simple joke... even if you disagree with it and even if it was in poor taste. This is the equivalent of walking by someone on the street, farting in their general direction, and that person beating them to within an inch of their life as a form of vengeance.
I believe that 75% of the world are followers, and it's easy to just pile on a vulnerable target. That's the essence of group bullying, and these are the things we see everyday on social media. We see it with Kurt Eichenwald, Colin Moriarty, Pewdiepie, or anyone else with controversial opinions or senses of humor. Society today believes that the world around them is obligated to not offend them, but this isn't true. No one is obligated in life to not offend anybody, as people can be offended by anything they want. Me personally? I try to be the best person I can be and treat people well and with respect, and as long as I do or say something that I know in my heart was not meant to hurt people or be mean, I stand by what I say. Regardless of who it offends. The inflated sense of self-importance of society today has created a monster where people cannot tolerate not being catered to, and they lash out with unnecessary brutal force in return. They target the weak and vulnerable to make themselves feel better. It takes no guts to pile on another person when they're down, it's cowardly. Very seldom does someone deserve merciless hate, and it happens far more often than it is deserved in social media today.
Thankfully, Colin Moriarty refused to apologize, and I would have done exactly the same thing. You can't give bad people the power, and allow them to continue to oppress and control free thought and expression - the very thing social media is used for. People should feel free to express themselves in any way they choose, and of course, if they say something out of turn they should expect backlash, but the punishment has to fit the crime. Extreme forms of targeting are forms of suppression and oppression of opinions you don't agree with, and the thought of it is scary. These people cannot be allowed to win. I encourage everyone to stand up for their personal beliefs and to not be intimidated.
Why are people so mean on social media? I think it's complicated and I don't think I have all the anwers, but I think a lot of it has to do with the anonymity and the access of people who are available to you to target in one click. Put someone in a room with 100 loaded guns with a Metal Gear Solid esque cloaking suit with a bunch of people they dislike and they will be more motivated to go on a killing spree against those people. The means and opportunity are there. People on social media have an inflated sense of power... which brings me to where I will end this tangent.
I'm proud and want to commend Kurt Eichenwald for contacting the FBI and having at least one of the people who attacked him on twitter with seizure-inducing images arrested. More are currently under investigation. I support free speech and freedom of expression, however people go too far, and when they do, these people need to be brought to justice. People are starting to fight back, and that makes me feel good for the direction social media is heading. Bullies, in any form, cannot be tolerated, and they need the book thrown at them so an example is set to dissuade further aggression and progression of these attacks. No one should be afraid to say something they think is funny, if it isn't conceived out of hatred. No one should be afraid to speak their political opinions on social media platforms. And no one should be afraid to agree with those opinions out of fear they may be attacked or have their careers or lives ruined. Oppression and bullying are the things that need to be destroyed, not our personal freedoms and livelihoods.
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
For the Eagles, a simple draft strategy might be the sound one
After addressing WR in free agency by signing Alshon Jeffery and Torrey Smith, the time has come for fans and media alike to sit back and reconsider their draft strategies of 2 weeks ago. Corey Davis and Mike Williams were the popular names to target at 14, and now, the popular belief is that the Eagles should focus on CB with their first pick in the 2017 NFL Draft.
I think that's the wrong way to approach the draft. People always ask me: "What position do you want the Eagles to draft with their 1st round pick?" I always respond the same way: "You don't draft positions, you draft players." No team should ever focus in on one position when entering a draft. This opens up the possibility of reaching for inferior talents at positions of need, and thus, ending up with draft busts like Marcus Smith. In 2014, the Eagles went into the draft with the feeling that they needed to get out of the weekend with a top level pass rusher in the top of the draft. They panicked when there was a run of pass rushers flying off the board, and they traded down and wound up taking Marcus Smith while passing on superior players in the process. This is a good way to dilute your overall talent pool and wind up having a roster with a limited number of impact players. The goal of an NFL general manager is to build the best overall team, and not patch holes as they pop up like a game of Whac-A-Mole.
With prospect Sidney Jones reportedly rupturing his achilles tendon, the amount of top 15 CB talents available when the Eagles pick will be minus one. The chances that Marshon Lattimore and Marlon Humphrey are available at #14 are slim, and if you are dead-set on drafting a CB, then at 14 you would be reaching for lesser talents like Teez Tabor or Tre’Davious White. At 14, the Eagles should take the best player on their board who is not a QB. If it's another WR, then take another WR. You never know what the future will hold in the NFL with injuries and roster turnover. What isn't a need now, may very well be in a few months, or within a year. In the NFL, you need to draft not just for 2017, but for 2018, 2019, and 2020. Projecting long-term is important, and being shortsighted can come back to haunt you. I personally think Alshon Jeffery will play extremely well, and earn a rich long-term deal with the Eagles, but if things don't turn out well, drafting a stud WR like Western Michigan's Corey Davis would not only give Carson Wentz another young weapon to develop with, but would give perfect insurance in the event that one of your top 3 WRs part ways after the 2017 season. Howie Roseman has shown an extreme willingness to protect his franchise QB investment in March, and I have no doubts he will want all the security around Wentz he can give him, to ensure he's surrounded with adequate weapons for years to come.
Another option would be trading down, which I am vehemently against in most situations. If the Eagles are sitting at pick 14 and have 5-10 players with mid-1st round grades still available, then sure, trade down. They would still be getting a player they have graded in the same tier. However, in most instances, especially when you pick in the top half of the 1st round, trading down usually involves taking a lesser tier later on, but making up for it with an additional draft pick acquired in the trade. To me, this is not a good trade-off. I always prefer quality over quantity. The main motivation to trade down and secure additional draft picks is to patch as many holes as possible as quickly as you can, and as I stated earlier, I think this is the wrong way to build. Mark me down as someone who is against sacrificing the opportunity to add a superior talent to your football team and winding up with a lesser one, merely for the addition of another draft pick. If anything, the Eagles should consider trading up. If they identify a player who they think will make a significant impact on their team, be it now or over the next several years, then go up and get the guy if the price isn't astronomical.
The thought of passing on Corey Davis, OJ Howard, Reuben Foster, or another top talent and trading down several spots to land an inferior Teez Tabor makes me shudder as an Eagles fan. If you want to build a team that can compete with the likes of the Patriots, Steelers, Packers, Cowboys, Giants, Falcons, and Seahawks for the next several years, short-term patchwork moves are not going to get it done. Collect the most talented players you can, and if the grading is very close, then and only then, give the nod to the position of need.
Maybe the best case scenario is for the Eagles to just sit tight at 14 and take the best player. If you are patient, quite often good players can fall to you. It happens every year to somebody. It seems to happen to Ozzie Newsome of the Baltimore Ravens in some round every single year, and he takes advantage. Ozzie Newsome, the same mentor who personnel chief Joe Douglas studied under for years. Learn from your mentor, Joe.
I think that's the wrong way to approach the draft. People always ask me: "What position do you want the Eagles to draft with their 1st round pick?" I always respond the same way: "You don't draft positions, you draft players." No team should ever focus in on one position when entering a draft. This opens up the possibility of reaching for inferior talents at positions of need, and thus, ending up with draft busts like Marcus Smith. In 2014, the Eagles went into the draft with the feeling that they needed to get out of the weekend with a top level pass rusher in the top of the draft. They panicked when there was a run of pass rushers flying off the board, and they traded down and wound up taking Marcus Smith while passing on superior players in the process. This is a good way to dilute your overall talent pool and wind up having a roster with a limited number of impact players. The goal of an NFL general manager is to build the best overall team, and not patch holes as they pop up like a game of Whac-A-Mole.
With prospect Sidney Jones reportedly rupturing his achilles tendon, the amount of top 15 CB talents available when the Eagles pick will be minus one. The chances that Marshon Lattimore and Marlon Humphrey are available at #14 are slim, and if you are dead-set on drafting a CB, then at 14 you would be reaching for lesser talents like Teez Tabor or Tre’Davious White. At 14, the Eagles should take the best player on their board who is not a QB. If it's another WR, then take another WR. You never know what the future will hold in the NFL with injuries and roster turnover. What isn't a need now, may very well be in a few months, or within a year. In the NFL, you need to draft not just for 2017, but for 2018, 2019, and 2020. Projecting long-term is important, and being shortsighted can come back to haunt you. I personally think Alshon Jeffery will play extremely well, and earn a rich long-term deal with the Eagles, but if things don't turn out well, drafting a stud WR like Western Michigan's Corey Davis would not only give Carson Wentz another young weapon to develop with, but would give perfect insurance in the event that one of your top 3 WRs part ways after the 2017 season. Howie Roseman has shown an extreme willingness to protect his franchise QB investment in March, and I have no doubts he will want all the security around Wentz he can give him, to ensure he's surrounded with adequate weapons for years to come.
Another option would be trading down, which I am vehemently against in most situations. If the Eagles are sitting at pick 14 and have 5-10 players with mid-1st round grades still available, then sure, trade down. They would still be getting a player they have graded in the same tier. However, in most instances, especially when you pick in the top half of the 1st round, trading down usually involves taking a lesser tier later on, but making up for it with an additional draft pick acquired in the trade. To me, this is not a good trade-off. I always prefer quality over quantity. The main motivation to trade down and secure additional draft picks is to patch as many holes as possible as quickly as you can, and as I stated earlier, I think this is the wrong way to build. Mark me down as someone who is against sacrificing the opportunity to add a superior talent to your football team and winding up with a lesser one, merely for the addition of another draft pick. If anything, the Eagles should consider trading up. If they identify a player who they think will make a significant impact on their team, be it now or over the next several years, then go up and get the guy if the price isn't astronomical.
The thought of passing on Corey Davis, OJ Howard, Reuben Foster, or another top talent and trading down several spots to land an inferior Teez Tabor makes me shudder as an Eagles fan. If you want to build a team that can compete with the likes of the Patriots, Steelers, Packers, Cowboys, Giants, Falcons, and Seahawks for the next several years, short-term patchwork moves are not going to get it done. Collect the most talented players you can, and if the grading is very close, then and only then, give the nod to the position of need.
Maybe the best case scenario is for the Eagles to just sit tight at 14 and take the best player. If you are patient, quite often good players can fall to you. It happens every year to somebody. It seems to happen to Ozzie Newsome of the Baltimore Ravens in some round every single year, and he takes advantage. Ozzie Newsome, the same mentor who personnel chief Joe Douglas studied under for years. Learn from your mentor, Joe.
Sunday, March 5, 2017
Why Exploring Trading Jordan Matthews Makes Sense for the Eagles
The Eagles will be very aggressive this offseason exploring ways to upgrade their receiving corps. They will explore trades, signings, and target receivers in April's NFL Draft. The Eagles' current best WR is a slot receiver in Jordan Matthews. Whenever your best receiver plays the slot, that is never ideal. Typically, your best playmakers play on the outside. Matthews has struggled on the outside, and his inability to get separation has become evident. The Eagles are limited in the number of ways he can be used with his lack of speed and explosiveness, and for a possession receiver, he has been moderately disappointing in the red zone.
If the Eagles intend to add two starting-caliber wideouts this offseason, and pay significant money for them(now or down the road), it may not be in their best interest to pay Jordan Matthews the big bucks when he becomes a restricted free agent next March. Slot receivers are a dime a dozen. You can find cheap, affordable, high quality slot receivers in the later rounds in drafts, in the second and third waves of free agency, and sometimes even as undrafted free agents. If the Eagles invest significant resources at wideout in the coming weeks, it makes little sense for them to commit significant money long-term to a slot receiver when they can get a something of value in return for a good, young receiver, and fill the position much more cheaply. Jordan Matthews could be used as a trade chip to address other weaknesses on the roster. If Sam Hinkie taught Philadelphia fans anything, it's better to trade an asset too soon than too late. Projecting rosters and players long-term is an invaluable skill that every front office needs. Procrastination can cost teams valuable leverage and trade value in negotiations. This allows them to keep their plans to balance out the contract dollars positionally on the roster. As a team now battling to create wiggle room under the cap, the Eagles can ill-afford to have all three of their top receivers making significant money.
Jordan Matthews will garner interest around the NFL, as a young, high character, productive receiver, and if the Eagles get a good enough offer, they'd be wise to consider it.
If the Eagles intend to add two starting-caliber wideouts this offseason, and pay significant money for them(now or down the road), it may not be in their best interest to pay Jordan Matthews the big bucks when he becomes a restricted free agent next March. Slot receivers are a dime a dozen. You can find cheap, affordable, high quality slot receivers in the later rounds in drafts, in the second and third waves of free agency, and sometimes even as undrafted free agents. If the Eagles invest significant resources at wideout in the coming weeks, it makes little sense for them to commit significant money long-term to a slot receiver when they can get a something of value in return for a good, young receiver, and fill the position much more cheaply. Jordan Matthews could be used as a trade chip to address other weaknesses on the roster. If Sam Hinkie taught Philadelphia fans anything, it's better to trade an asset too soon than too late. Projecting rosters and players long-term is an invaluable skill that every front office needs. Procrastination can cost teams valuable leverage and trade value in negotiations. This allows them to keep their plans to balance out the contract dollars positionally on the roster. As a team now battling to create wiggle room under the cap, the Eagles can ill-afford to have all three of their top receivers making significant money.
Jordan Matthews will garner interest around the NFL, as a young, high character, productive receiver, and if the Eagles get a good enough offer, they'd be wise to consider it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)