Defunding or abolishing police departments is a dangerous concept that will affect minorities most, and for the sake of society, I hope is merely a foolish fad

Imagine being in bed at night when you hear a noise downstairs. You open your bedroom door to take a peak and hear someone rumbling through drawers in the other room. Your first instinct, so innately it's practically biological, is to grab your phone and call 911 so they can send the police.

Now imagine if instead of the police(who would arrive well-equipped to deal with any potential threat, even if the intruder was heavily armed) a neighborhood watchmen was alerted and had to bicycle over on his Diamondback with a taser and can of pepper spray to handle the situation. You wouldn't feel safe would you? Yes, it's a tad hyperbolic, but that's one potential reality in a life without cops. Something that has foolishly and laughably been discussed not just among casual conversation, but among people in power. City councilmen(and women) and political leaders. Granted, a small minority at this point, but we actually have real-life people in political power pushing for abolishing police departments. People whose job it is to put people first, are discussing defunding or removing the very entity that is charged to keep its citizens safe domestically in the United States.

Frankly, as someone who has cops in my family and someone who a few of my closest friends grew up to join law enforcement, I was saddened and disappointed. Though I wasn't stunned. I know how the world works, especially with social media. People will latch on to the latest narrative trend, sometimes for that dopamine rush of likes, retweets, and upvotes; sometimes for political purposes, and sometimes out of raw passion. Regardless of the reason, for the first time in my life there seems to be actual momentum on this absurd and dangerous notion, propagated by those with political agendas with their eyes toward November, pandering to their base.

In the age of social media, nuance has been lost. People have been conditioned to neglect thinking through a wide array of ideas, circumstances, outcomes, and possibilities. The luxury of having everything the world can offer right in the palm of your hand has cursed your everyday John and Jane with ADD. Clickbait headlines have worsened it. There's too much information to absorb at once. No one has the time or patience anymore to read, to reason, to understand. The easiest path is always the path of least resistance. Take someone's word as truth and move on to the next subject. But what if that person's word wasn't truthful? What if you were being inundated on social media with posts, sorted by algorithms that contribute to confirmation bias? Social media companies structure their platforms so we see what their algorithms think we want to see. Which, in some cases, is not always the truth, and in instances where it is the truth, may only be anecdotal, and not representative of the larger picture. People seeing videos showing police brutality and social media has conditioned us to extrapolate that in their minds to being the norm, which I can't blame the people for. However, much of it are merely small samples in a country that has millions upon millions of police interactions with civilians yearly, with almost a million police officers. If every time there was a shark attack or a bear attack, it hit social media, over time we'd become conditioned falsely believe that these rare occurrences are proof of some new out of control behavioral change in the animal kingdom that threatens our lives.

Those with socioeconomic or political agendas will try and sell you that law enforcement is bad. That it has never been worse. That innocent people are being killed left and right. The facts don't support that and the data doesn't support that. The truth is actually the opposite. Less unarmed civilians are being killed than ever, more corrupt and bad cops are being prosecuted than ever, officers are being fired more than ever for wrongdoing, and more steps have been taken to best hold officers accountable than ever. 2019 marked the lowest number of police involved shootings in 30 years. 2019 also marked a 73% drop in police shootings of unarmed African American civilians. And of those 10(down from 38 in 2015), about half of those 10 were either combative to the officers or made acts of aggression toward them and put their lives in danger. This marks the best progress the police force has made in years. Statistically, it's actually more likely that an African American or Hispanic officer shoot an African American civilian than it is a white officer. The chances of anyone, regardless of race, being killed by an officer is still extremely small, per the data. One in the tens of thousands, and even smaller a percentage depending on how you narrow down the criteria. Is it perfect? Of course not. Ideally those numbers would all be zero. We still have a long way to go. We always will. Perfection is not achieved overnight, if it's even achievable at all. To reach the desired destination, sometimes the journey has to be passed on through generations. But incremental progress is still progress. Almost all progress is incremental, no matter where you find it. Even circumstances outside the sociopolitical and economic spectrum. If you blow out your knee and get surgery, that knee isn't going to feel right until you finally get that cast off many weeks later. You test it out and for the first time in a while, you finally feel like you can walk and jog without pain. Did the knee just magically heal the second you took off the cast? No, it's been healing very slowly, day by day, until you finally got the cast removed. Progress can be slow, but it does add up over time.

Go ahead and ask your grandparents how things were like back in their day when they were growing up. Or stories that were passed down to them from their grandparents. Go back far enough and you can find police officers who could shoot an unarmed black man or woman whenever they wanted with impunity, then go to the local bar and high-five their cop buddies about it as they celebrated it over some beers. Detectives would routinely frame and set up black men for crimes committed by white men because they knew that's what the public wanted. Their pound of flesh, inspired by racism, hatred, and wanting to go back to the old ways, when they didn't have to deal with the likes of anyone "different" around their neighborhoods. These things happened. Far more frequently than today, it was practically a different world. We just didn't have social media or digital data back then to record these incidents, like we do today. Over time, when all we have is history stored through memory, when we lose the individuals, we lose a lot of the history that isn't preserved.

Each decade our departments make progress. The previous decade had the least amount of crime of violence in America in decades. A significant drop-off from our most violent period in our nation's history, which peaked in the early to mid 90's. I could never claim to act like I know what it is like to be anyone other than myself, nor know or understand what their experiences are. All I can do is what I've always done. Talk to friends, strangers, people in the community, get their opinions and ideas, take all the information in, study the data and come up with what makes most logical sense to me. There are over 800,000 police officers in the United States. Most of them are good people. You don't get paid a lot of money to be a cop, the job is extremely dangerous, it doesn't get you chicks or fame. By and large, people enter the police academy because they want to do good. Because they want to stand up and protect the city they love while everyone else is sitting down. It's not a line of work you typically just fall into. You don't wake up one day and decide to put your life on the line and know every time you leave that front door you may never come home. It's one of the most dangerous jobs in America. And there are going to be bad ones. Of the 800,000, maybe even hundreds across the US. Maybe even in the thousands. In a vacuum, that's a lot, but overall it's still a small percentage. In a country of over 320 million people, we are always going to have a small demographic that appears large standing alone. In a country this heavily populated, you will always find large swaths of people who believe in a certain oddity, who are into strange things, and who are just plain evil.

For every cop who went into the academy to get back at his bullies from high school who wronged them, there are countless officers out there who dedicate their job everyday to helping total strangers. Cops who will stand in front of bullets to protect people. Cops who will run into burning buildings to save children. Cops who will go room by room in your home to make sure that intruder has left the premises. Detectives who will work cases for literally decades just to find justice for that one family who had a loved one horribly murdered. For every officer whose psyche is broken and altered by PTSD making them bitter, jaded, angry, and unfit to serve; there are officers out there battling through it every single day just to protect their cities. Suicide rates for cops are extremely high. They are subjected to the worst the world has to offer every single day of their lives. Inhumane atrocities and the depravities of man you could not even imagine. This is what the core essence of being a police officer is. It's what I've come to know in my years on this earth. Some family of mine and friends. Among the finest people I've ever known. Heroes to me and to the community. It breaks my heart that there are not more out there who've had the same experiences I've had with officers. Through no fault of their own. Sometimes because of mere bad luck and sometimes through injustices based on who they are and the color of their skin. Just like some people have shitty luck in relationships where you always seem to find shitty friends, romantic relationships, it can be the same way with cops. The great ones are out there, you just haven't found them yet. In fact, some probably wish they never do, because under most circumstances any encounter with an officer is likely accompanied by bad news one way or the other. It's the nature of the beast.

When people refer to individual officers as "the police" and say "the police" do this and "the police" that, I can't stress how shortsighted and ignorant that is. No matter how jaded and angry you may be, it should never take precedent over reason and understanding. We, as a society, can never reach common ground without understanding. They are individuals, just like all of us are. There are no "the whites," "the blacks," "the Hispanics," "the doctors," "the CEOs," etc. These are individual people doing a job. To demonize an entire entity for the actions of a small percentage is foolhardy and prejudiced. Of all the 800,000+ cops in America, each of them has a name. Officer Derek Chauvin was a bad cop. He's an individual. Being an officer doesn't and shouldn't define him, his character should, just as it should for all people. Every good, upstanding cop out there has a name too. People don't seem to care about the individual, only the entity they represent. Like professional athletes, humanity is lost and they are judged not on who they are, but what they're dressed as. They are fathers, brothers, sons, daughters, and mothers. Never lose sight of the humanity of others. Not just in this instance, but in all instances.

For those who want to improve those community-police relationships, the goal should under no circumstance be to defund the departments. Why police brutality exists is an extremely complex topic, that, no matter how many people will try to tell you, can not be summed up in any one sentence, regardless of what that sentence is.

Some issues include:

• Bad people becoming cops, therefore making bad cops.
• Inadequate training. Both in tactics and community relations.
• Racism.  
• Outdated policies(ie no-knock warrants, maneuvers and tactics used on detained persons, etc).
• Departments understaffed.
• Inadequate mental health care for officers with PTSD and mental illness.
• Not enough good, compassionate, caring, and motivated people applying to become officers and step up to make the changes needed they so desperately seek.
• Lack of accountability up top, not setting an example for cops who act inappropriately.
• Civilians not following orders.
• And yes, departments being underfunded.

What you won't hear from politicians pushing an agenda is police departments are generally underfunded. Departments are often stretched thin, the training suffers, they have to hire men and women potentially unfit to serve so they can fill a quota just to give them enough officers on the streets. Some departments don't even have the funds to form cold case units to solve old crimes, so families go their entire lives without ever finding justice. The more poorly departments are funded, the minority communities are adversely affected more than anyone. There will be less cops on the streets, and more unfit ones with improper training. Improved technology to hold officers accountable for wrongdoing will be impeded like upgraded body and dashboard cameras. Mental health care, which is already inadequate, will be no more so, putting more officers who have become unfit through PTSD or other mental health disorders unable to get well enough to continue to serve the community the way it needs to be served. Data and history has shown that more officers and better paid officers leads to less crime and safer communities. See Camden and New Orleans as two examples of this, and two departments who went about reform the proper way to reduce crime.

In 2013, Camden wanted to reform the department and hire more and better officers, but didn't have the money to do so. The department was then essentially dissolved and absorbed by the county and rebuilt back up with better funding, more officers, new and improved training and community relations. Crime has dropped in Camden significantly since. Research and studies have shown that more cops equates to less crime and actually less arrests, as more cops around are a deterrent to people committing less crime, thus less arrests will be the end result. In addition, better funding can help improve quality and frequency of training, like de-escalation and community relations training so police can better learn how to deal with a wide variety of individuals levels on an intimate level. Believe it or not, it helps. Community and police mutual trust is built through bonding, and bonding can only be built when each party understands how to talk to and relate to the other.

As for abolishing departments entirely? And yes, there are people calling for this, including writers for some of the country's top publications like the NY Times, so to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. I can't even imagine the ramifications of such a radical extremist idea. First of all, anyone on board with this idea needs to take a long look in the mirror and realize that the world doesn't revolve around you. There are people out there who need cops. The battered woman who suffered domestic abuse. The family of the murdered love one who need answers. The person who was attacked on the street because someone thought it would be fun to sucker punch him for a laugh. One study done by a Harvard researcher named Roland Fryer indicated that merely the effect of less police intervention known as "The Ferguson Effect" in areas where police, to avoid ridicule, are afraid to do their job properly after national police incident; can lead to over 1,000 additional homicides and 40,000 additional felonies over the next 2 years. Refuting the idea that less police presence will make communities safer. The inner cities, both where crime is more prevalent, and also where our nation's minority demographics are largest will be hit the hardest. There will be no one to keep the gangs, drugs, criminals in check, as the neighborhoods in these cities become the wild west, and innocent hardworking minority families have no one to keep them safe. The far far majority of violence in this country comes from person on person crime. Much of it motivated by gang violence and/or drugs. Personal relationships and emotions that drive people to kill. Police on civilian crime is far less frequent, though, always unacceptable regardless. It will be our underprivileged and less fortunate citizens who will suffer most in the end, which is the opposite of the equality and justice that people who want change are fighting for. Destroying the very change and progress so badly sought. It would, without question, be one of the worst things that has happened to this country in modern society, and anyone against this can't seem to provide sound plans or rationale on how this would be beneficial aside from strawman arguments and platitudes.

A minuscule vocal minority is trying to make the argument that if you defund or abolish police departments, that putting the money toward social or community programs will make cities safer. I can't stress enough how incredibly misguided, uneducated, and laughably naive this is. It goes to figure that from what I've seen, the majority of people who hold this opinion are a younger generations, who lack knowledge in what drives crime/criminals and how law-abiding citizens become criminals. The argument has been made that if you take away a person's "need" to become a criminal, you will stop crime. The truth is that being a criminal is, was, and will always be a choice. Now, that doesn't mean an individual doesn't deserve a second chance when if caught and have served their time, they are once again a free man or woman. Of course they do. But committing crimes will always be a choice. Crime isn't driven by need, it's driven by want. It's driven by entitlement, greed, selfishness, ego, narcissism, and sometimes pure evil. There are sadly and horribly countless homeless people in America, who could very well choose to go and steal for money, and don't. They make a choice to ask strangers for money on the street to survive. They make a choice to not break the law and take from others. Most people who commit crimes aren't even in that dire of circumstances. Most people who rob stores aren't Robin Hood, who go around to poor communities and help starving children. They use that money to buy sneakers, iPads, laptops, etc. Listen to interviews with serial bank robbers who tell you it's a compulsion, an addiction. They do it for the thrill, and what do people with money always want? More Money. Why do people commit murder? The 3 main motives are sex, greed, and revenge. Not necessity. Maybe for self-preservation on their part, but not for good moral rationale.

Human beings are flawed and as long as human beings are flawed, criminals will exist. There are plenty of criminals who grow up in amazing households, have amazing childhoods and either go down a wrong path or are inherently predisposed to selfish impulses. 80+% of murders in the United States are committed by someone the victim knows. In comparison, stranger murder is far less common. It's because to kill someone, you have to be driven by passion and emotion. It's far more likely emotion will be stoked when it's someone you know personally. Community and social programs will do nothing to prevent this.

Can these programs help to lower crime? Sure. It will take its time to have an impact and have a ripple effect that rejuvenates communities, but it can make a different. However, it needs to go hand-in-hand with law enforcement. When the criminals strike, and believe me they will strike, someone needs to be there to do the job so many are unwilling or unable to do, and that will always be the police. Not just to catch criminals, but to deter them. No human being is morally pure, we will always have momentary lapses of character and judgement that test us. The end result of those moments is far more dire if there is no threat of the police around the corner. We saw this very fact in recent weeks with citizens emboldened with looting, inspiring others to do so. How many more crimes do you think would be committed if cities relied more on civil justice instead? The numbers would skyrocket uncontrollably. Crime prevention is always going to be most successful when it is performed by those passionate about it. Those who do it for a living. Those who go out of their way to make a career out of it. Civil or neighborhood watch programs will always inherently lack that element, as, naturally, these individuals will have other personal and psychological distractions that will hinder full dedication or commitment to the work. I'm deeply troubled by the utter naivety of certain people in our political landscape who legitimately thinks this idea is reasonable or plausible. Maybe another institution that needs reform is our educational system, I wonder.

Another drawback of this, for those who think the United States has a gun problem, is disbanding and/or defunding police departments will increase gun ownership exponentially. Civilians will feel it necessary to arm and police themselves since there either will be less of or no officers around to do it, which will spark a dramatic increase in firearm deaths and overall crime rates... the majority of which, again, occur in the inner cities, which means more deaths in minority communities. Not to mention all the accidental firearm fatalities that will occur from people who have no experience using firearms not owning them This is the opposite of progress.

Ultimately, the best and most effective way to lower police brutality is a combination of changes. Spearheaded by holding officers responsible for wrongdoing. Severe repercussions for actions is always a significant deterrent no matter who you are. If your actions are going to get you in trouble or put you in prison, you are going to think twice before doing it. The influence has to not be defunding, but making sure every single officer who commits a vile act of injustice is held responsible. And that starts at the top. Voting in individuals who will fight to stop bias and corruption, and hiring responsible and respectable people on the police force who will stand for what's right. If you talk to any police officer, they'll tell you every department knows who the "unsavory" officers are. Guys no one wants to work with. Their records and amount of complaints speak for themselves as well. The sooner we start getting these guys out of law enforcement and holding ones who commit crimes and atrocities responsible, police brutality rates will continue to decline even more than they have been. That would be a good first step, accompanied by better training, reforming tactics and procedures that can lead to harm or death, and yes, civilians following orders. I know that no one on this planet likes being told what to do. However, if you feel like an officer has wronged you, the time to fight it is in court with a lawyer. Not when being pulled over and not resisting arrest. People have to realize that being placed under arrest isn't a debate, it's an order. Law enforcement is the authority, not you. Fighting back and getting confrontational will only increase your chances of being harmed. Be polite, be calm, and the far far majority of the time you will be okay.

All this combined with policy reforms and re-training will go a long way to help officers not instinctively resort to excessive maneuvers to detain people. I'm not in support of total ban of choke holds, however. They should still be allowed when an officer's life is in potential danger. Sometimes perpetrators are much bigger and stronger than an officer, and an officer has to use certain tactics of maneuvers to detain an individual or they can find themselves overpowered and possibly having their firearm taken from them, which not only will put their life in danger, but the lives of nearby civilians. Remember, officers are responsible for the safety of all people in proximity to whatever incident is taking place.

2020 has been an arduous year on so many levels. I've never seen this country as hurt, sad, restless, angry, and hopeless. So, I do understand the desperation that is formed out of these emotions, and the presence of desperation throughout history has been known to spawn radical ideas. I've heard a lot of dumb and asinine ideas in my life, but possibly none more foolish and horribly misguided that has actual backing than the defunding or disbanding of our nation's police departments. Thankfully, in a country this densely populated, it seems to be only a select number of people thus far. Mainly propagated by those who have insulted themselves to listening to social media cliches and talking points, and haven't taken the time to understand or put in the research to study the dynamics of law enforcement, the data, and its relation to crime and their communities. This is a snippet from a Cato.Org national survey on the feelings of all racial demographics on American police:

You can find the full article here: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/poll-finds-americans-are-not-divided-policing-headlines-suggest



As anger and passion subsides, I expect that number to be less as people come to their senses. A significant majority support the funding and presence of law enforcement, they just want reform to eliminate injustices. Most of that reform is centered around cracking down on rogue/bad cops and prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law. Which is already happening, and hopefully will continue to at an even greater frequency with more and improved reforms. I sincerely hope the good people of this country don't have to learn the hard way. That real and rational solutions are created through logic and reason, not through raw emotion. The very same emotion I almost caught myself succumbing to in recent days. For a short while I was ashamed to be an American with all this talk about killing and ridding this country of cops. Then, I gathered myself and remembered to think clearly and understand that as is almost always the case, this is a vocal minority, not the norm. And my faith in humanity was promptly restored. Most sane and level-headed people, despite acknowledging that police departments have flaws that need changing, believe this country is still far better off with them than without them. If you listen to those who worked in law enforcement, currently work in law enforcement, study crime, and are well educated on these matters; the far majority of them are against defunding the police and are unanimously against abolishing police. It's mainly a younger generation of uneducated idealists who don't know much about the subject and are being fed misinformation by those with agendas or nefarious intentions. In the end, one thing I'll always believe in is mankind. We've gotten this far, and I look forward to seeing how much further we can take ourselves as a people.

My crime and legal analysis of George Floyd's death and the events taking place in Minneapolis

Yesterday, a friend called me and asked me for my opinion on everything going on in Minneapolis, and the very tragic death of Mr. George Floyd. He often likes to pick my brain for opinions on all things true crime, knowing that it’s a major passion of mine, just as I often pick the brains of those in my family who are retired officers, and friends of mine currently serving on the force. When speaking to him, I often take for granted the access to information and insight I’ve been given over the years, and remember that knowledge I think is so often common, in fact often is not. In this post I’m going to give my personal analysis on some of the questions he asked me and some of the questions and statements I’ve seen on social media regarding this ongoing case.

**Edit added at the end with new autopsy information being reported**

Will the officer or officers in question be charged?

I think so. At the very least, the acting officer who used excessive force(officer Chauvin) will most likely be. That is obviously only my opinion, I can't say for sure. I don't think it is much of a question that he used unnecessarily aggressive and excessive force on an individual who was already restrained and posed no type of threat. Officers do have the legal right to take a life if they deem their lives or the lives of others are under significant or immediate threat. This was not the case here. Right now the public outcry is too great and the heat being put on the District Attorney’s office is significant.

When will he/they be charged and why haven’t they yet?

In short: I don’t know. Apparently, the death of Mr. Floyd occurred on Monday, per reports. Filing charges can take time. The DA doesn’t file charges unless they believe they have enough to get a conviction. I’ve followed cases that have taken decades to file charges against brutal sadistic murderers where law enforcement was 100% sure they had the killer, but simply didn’t have the evidence to convince a jury. With the Double Jeopardy law, a person can’t be tried for the same crime twice as long as they’re acquitted or convicted(they can be in mistrials), so the DA always wants to have its ducks in a row before filing charges and ultimately going to trial. If arrested, law enforcement can only hold you for 72 hours and if charges are not filed they have to let you go. In this case, they may either not feel like they currently have enough to convict, have been dragging their feet systematically, or don't feel the officer or officers are flight risks.

There could also be politics playing a part. The officer in question could have connections in the police force or in the DA’s office causing them to drag their feet on any investigation. It’s impossible to say without knowing more details. Every time a life is taken by an officer, it is required by law to be investigated. How the investigation was conducted and how thorough, whether or not internal affairs took a look at it and deemed it necessary use of force, if the officer lied and mischaracterized events, or if it wasn’t investigated at all,  I don’t know. All we know right now is per Donald Trump’s tweet, the FBI and DOJ are being brought in to assist the investigation.
 

If the department(and/or FBI) is currently investigating, my guess is they are going back to the scene of the crime, canvassing nearby businesses and gathering CCTV footage from a variety of angles to ensure that the original leaked videos on social media are as accurate as originally portrayed. You can never have too much evidence in any case. Also, eye witnesses are likely being tracked down and question to provide even more context to the incident. They may or may not be asked to testify in court.

Why bring the FBI in? What are they going to do?
 

Usually, when the FBI gets involved in a murder, it was a crime that crossed state lines, making it FBI jurisdiction. Meaning, for example, if someone was kidnapped in Pennsylvania, and driven to Ohio and murdered there, the FBI would now have jurisdiction over that case. That doesn't mean the FBI can't get involved in other cases. Sometimes when all efforts are exhausted and a case can't be solved because they're unable to find the killer, and/or a case is being investigated by a small town department, the FBI will be brought in to provide their resources in trying to bring a resolution to a case and jump start it when it has stalled. In this particular case, I can only speculate.

Who killed Mr. Floyd is not in question here. They could have been brought in as a PR stunt by the White House. They could have been brought in legitimately, because there is believe to be a systematic or political roadblock within the department or DA's office delaying a thorough investigation. The FBI and DOJ could be looking into officer Chauvin's past and determine how many incidents have previously occurred and the extent of those incidents if the department is not trusted to investigate one of their own. It could be a number of reasons, but the FBI using their resources in a case can only help.

What type of charges are to be expected, assuming that ends up being the case?
 

This incident involved several officers. Officer Chauvin, the officer in this case who used the excessive force resulting in the death of Mr. Floyd is likely to face different charges than the other officers. The state of Minnesota has First Degree, Second Degree, and Third Degree Murder, like the state of Pennsylvania. The punishments vary by the state. Third Degree Murder is essentially Voluntary Manslaughter. In Minnesota, First Degree Murder carries either a life sentence, or life with the possibility of parole after 30 years. Second Degree carries up to 40 years in prison and Third Degree carries a maximum of 25 years. In this case, my guess is the officer if charged, will be charged with Second or Third Degree Murder, most likely the latter. Second Degree Murder is basically someone intently killing the individual without premeditation. Like in a fight or spur of the moment outburst. Third Degree Murder basically means that an individual willfully committed an act of some sort on another person, but didn't expect it would lead to a fatality.

If the state wants to charge for Second Degree Murder, it would need to try and prove deliberate intent to kill. This may depend on the officer's track record. If the officer has an exemplary record, this will be a more difficult case to make. If the officer has a spotty history of police misconduct or an abuse of power, the state might be able to argue that the officer has a history of trying to inflict violence on others, depending on what the officer's prior incidents were.

Personally, I find First Degree Murder extremely unlikely. First Degree Murder requires premeditation and malice aforethought. In this instance that would almost be impossible to prove to a jury.

 

What also may happen is the state may file Second Degree Murder charges and the officer could plead to a lesser charge of Third Degree Murder to avoid a trial, though I consider that unlikely. Especially if the officer's defense team feels like they will have a strong defense, and character witnesses that can back him up on his track record as an officer.

I've seen some mention the possibility of the death penalty. That I know for certain will not happen. The state of Minnesota doesn't have the death penalty. In fact, they're one of the most adamantly opposed death penalty states. They haven't executed anyone in over 100 years.
 

The Floyd family could also file a Civil suit or Wrongful Death suit on the department. I've read unconfirmed reports that officer Chauvin had a history of complaints of police misconduct. If it can be proven that he was unfit to be an officer and his badge should have been taken long before Mr. Floyd's death, there might be a case that the department was responsible and the Floyd family could be awarded damages.

As for the other officers in this case, it's hard to say. A lot of it depends on their track record as well. I think at most they would be charged with Negligent Homicide, as they did not directly cause the death of Mr. Floyd, but were neglected in stopping a fellow officer from acting unnecessarily aggressive, ultimately leading to his death.
 

It's impossible to say right now, if charged, tried, and convicted(or taking a plea), what type of sentence he will serve. It depends on the charges filed, the evidence against him, and the track record of the officer.

UPDATE: 

There are new reports that the autopsy of Mr. Floyd's body "didn't find anything to support a diagnosis of traumatic strangulation or asphyxiation." This will be big for the defense team of officer Chauvin for a couple of reasons. For one, it will allow them to argue if this case does indeed go to trial, that the officer did not directly cause the death of Mr. Floyd or intend to cause bodily harm, giving more credence to the lesser charge, Involuntary Manslaughter. I assume the state will still argue the extreme nature of his actions are evidence of intent to cause bodily harm, and if officer Chauvin has a history of being physical with civilians, that could help the state's case for Third Degree Murder. If the autopsy found evidence of a broken windpipe or asphyxiation, it would have been huge for the prosecution's case to show that the officer's actions clearly and directly killed Mr. Floyd. I don't think a jury would buy that the actions have nothing to do with it, but a strong defense team will try and sell that underlying health issues contributed.

Secondly, the autopsy was performed by the state, and the findings already aid the defense of a lesser charge. What often happens when a case goes to trial is the defense team will hire someone to perform an independent autopsy to potentially look for more favorable findings. They likely will not feel the need to do this, as the state's autopsy has already found nothing to support the death being caused by asphyxiation.

The defense could also strike a deal for him to avoid trial and not risk a higher sentence that could potentially come with a Third Degree Murder conviction and just plead to Involuntary Manslaughter, if the prosecution doesn't feel confident it can make Third Degree Murder charges stick. 

UPDATE #2:

The latest update is that the Floyd family hired respected coroner Dr. Michael Baden to perform an independent autopsy. Michael Baden has been hired for his expertise on countless cases. His findings were asphyxiation was the cause of death. A couple things here. Asphyxiation is different from strangulation and both are determined differently during an autopsy. Asphyxiation is just a general term for deprivation of oxygen. You can die of asphyxiation a number of ways. Via choking, strangulation, drowning, etc. Strangulation is generally determined by damage of muscles or tissue in the neck, potentially fracture of the hyoid bone, ligature marks on the neck, and sometimes ruptured blood vessels in the eyes.

Asphyxiation is determined by other means and is more subjective. It has to be determined what physically caused asphyxia, typically broken down into categories. Things like analyzing blood, lungs, necrosis in tissue, hemorrhages in the body. A medical examiner has the luxury of being able to extrapolate evidence to determine cause of death if the autopsy leaves room for subjectivity. A finding is an opinion, after all. It's taking in information and translating it, essentially.

I'm sure both findings will be heavily scrutinized by the defense and prosecution at trial, and the examiners will be called to testify on their findings and subject to cross examination. Regardless, I don't think there's any question officer Chauvin significantly contributed to the death of Mr. Floyd, but the capacity could mean the difference between Third Degree Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter.

UPDATE #3:

I think this is going to be my final update, as this case is going to continue to add layers up until the date of trial. The most recent update is that officer Chauvin's charges have been upgraded to Second Degree Murder. Ultimately this doesn't change that much other than the maximum sentence he can receive, which was anywhere from 12 months to 25 years and now is anywhere from 12 months to 40 years. This does not mean if a jury can't find him guilty of Second Degree Murder, which in my opinion is going to be a tall task for the prosecution, he will walk free. The lesser included charges of Third Degree Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter are still expected to be on the table. For Second Degree Murder they are going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to kill Mr. Floyd. The prosecution will likely make the claim that the excessively long duration of officer Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck is proof of that, the defense will likely counter with that maneuver being part of the department's police training. This is where the officer's history will come into question. Has he taken a life before on the job? Has he severely injured someone using the same tactic? Floyd's autopsies will come into question as well, if he in fact was directly killed by the maneuver. It the defense can make the case it was an indirect result rather than a direct result, that would likely exclude Second Degree Murder. If the prosecution can sell the jury based on autopsy testimony that the kneeling maneuver directly caused his death, it will increase their chances for Second Degree Murder. All things included, I still think Third Degree Murder is more likely.

Another piece of news is that the accompanying officers were all charged with aiding and abetting. This is trickier. For one, these charges carry significantly lighter sentences, potentially no jail time at all. The maximum sentences for these crimes usually are focused around the individuals having prior knowledge of said crime. The logic is that prior knowledge of said crime gives you more time to report the crime or prevent it from happening, and the longer it goes on the more responsible you are. This being a spur of the moment action, I think it's a tougher sell for the prosecution. Also, was officer Chauvin the senior officer? Was he their superior? This will all be argued by both sides at trial. If the prosecution can sell a jury on these individuals being guilty of these charges, I wouldn't expect a maximum sentence handed down, though anything is possible, and an example could always be made out of these officers. 

Final Thoughts
 

I come from a cop family. One of my best friends in the world is a cop. They are all very saddened by this. The actions of bad cops makes things difficult for good cops who want to make their cities a better place. A divide grows because of the actions of those unfit to protect and serve. At some point in the future I may write a piece on some ideas I have to improve things. I've blueprinted some of it, it is extremely nuanced and detailed, and frankly, I don't have a lot of time to write. I hope the Floyd family can get justice for their loved one they deserve, and the city of Minneapolis can heal and recover.

We overrate the importance of having a large quantity of draft picks

It is a common notion that the larger number of draft picks a team has, the greater the chance you have of getting good players based on pure odds. This logic is universally accepted as truth by many NFL writers, reporters, and analysts. On the surface it sounds like it makes perfect sense. It's kind of like lottery balls, the more you get, the greater odds you have to win the lottery. Except, it's a lot more complicated and nuanced than that.

The belief that the more draft picks a team has, the greater chance they have of getting good players is based on the assumption that all picks have equal value--a 50% chance a pick hits, and a 50% chance it doesn't. Draft picks don't work like that. The NFL Draft is, obviously, 7 rounds, and each round historically has a decrease in a pick's hit rate with each round. The difference in hit rate from round 1 to round 7 is significant. Draft pick value is not uniform. The idea that you have a greater chance to score on a draft pick is not based on how many picks you have, but rather what round those picks reside in.

Most often, the majority of a team's draft picks fall in rounds 5-7, due to the NFL's compensatory picks system. So when you have a team that, say, has ten draft picks, and six of those draft picks are in rounds 5-7, being that the last three rounds have a much smaller hit rate than the first three, your percentages in hitting on those draft picks is still rather low. So, how important was having ten picks really? I'd rather have, say, six total picks in rounds 1-4 than ten total picks, where six of those are in rounds 5-7. Again, it's about what rounds the picks exist, not how many you own.

Let's dive further. How many 6th and 7th round picks even make their respective teams out of training camp? With undrafted free agency being bigger now than ever, quite often those undrafted players beat out 6th and 7th rounders in training camp. You'll often see teams take "project" players in the 6th or 7th rounds and stash them on IR with injuries, and take more "ready-now" players in undrafted free agency. 6th and 7th rounders are usually shots in the dark. A portion of them don't even make the team out of camp. The Eagles cut 5th rounder Clayton Thorson out of training camp in 2019. So immediately, out of whatever draft haul each team has, you are going to skim at least one or two players off the top of that haul by the time training camp is over. So that ten player draft class may immediately be cut down to eight in just a few months. And of those remaining eight players, how many of them on average will become surefire NFL starters for the next 5-7 years for your team? Well, the average NFL career length is estimated to be about 3.3 years. Chances are one, maybe two players at most out of any draft class become anything worth a damn at the NFL level.

So, at the end of the day, if a ten player draft class is going to be cut down to eight or nine just in a few months and leave you with one or two players being long-term high quality NFL starters for your team, how important was drafting that many players in the first place? The real value in the NFL draft isn't in overall numbers, but making each pick count and maximizing the chances on hitting each pick. Even though no pick is a guarantee, it's still undeniably true that the higher you pick in any draft, the greater chance you have to land a quality player with that pick. Where the variables come into play is how good each team is at evaluating talent. Whether a team has a seven player draft class or a ten player draft class, they likely will have the same number of long-term high caliber starters out of those classes. Probably two at most.

People blame the Eagles' recent draft failures on the lack of overall selections in recent years stemming from the Carson Wentz trade. This is faulty logic. The Eagles didn't struggle in the draft because they lacked the overall number of draft picks, they struggled because the picks they did make were poor. The opportunities were there, they just missed, and not in late rounds, but in earlier rounds. In 2017, the Eagles had the opportunity to trade up for Dalvin Cook and land a franchise RB. Instead, they chose to sit tight and draft Sidney Jones coming off a serious injury. In that loaded RB class, the Eagles ended up waiting until the 4th round to take the slight Donnel Pumphrey to address the RB position. In 2019, the Eagles had the opportunity to take the highly-touted DK Metcalf in round 2, and instead opted to take JJ Arceda-Whiteside, a player very few had pegged to the Eagles prior to the draft. Or they could have traded up a couple spots to grab AJ Brown, a player who was a beast at Ole Miss. The fact that they missed in 2017 with Cook and Pumphrey, caused a ripple effect, which forced them to have to select a RB in 2019 early, which, in turn prohibited them from doubling up on WR in round 2. None of these gaffes are in hindsight. These were players your average fan and pundit were coveting before the draft, who the Eagles passed on... because of their inability to evaluate talent. Had they just made a few better selections, no one would be talking about their canyon-sized holes at WR right now, and just the same, no one would be talking about how trading up for Wentz in 2016 damaged their ability to construct a roster with a lack of draft picks.

Let's look at Eagles recent history for some context:

The two largest draft classes the Eagles have had in the last ten years were the 2010 and 2011 classes. Those had thirteen and eleven picks respectively.

The 2010 and 2011 class each had one Pro Bowl caliber player in it. The rest were full of a bunch of total crap, and some okay guys in each class like Nate Allen, Riley Cooper, Dion Lewis.

However, the 2009 and the 2013 classes, each had only eight selections. Those classes had two Pro Bowl caliber players from each(Maclin, McCoy, Johnson, Ertz) and 2013 had Bennie Logan as well, who was a decent player for the Eagles.

Now, this is obviously a small sample size, but I implore anyone who has the time to go through the entire NFL history and give me tangible proof that larger draft classes are noticeably more productive than smaller ones. I don't think you can.

At the end of the day, draft success will vary due to countless circumstances. But if I'm the Eagles, and I've struggled to draft certain positions like WR, having only drafted one starting caliber player in over 10 years(the last being Jeremy Maclin in 2009) I'm focusing on having greater chances to hit the picks I do make, even if it means less of them, than having a large quantity overall.

Howie Roseman and the Eagles need bite the bullet and trade up in the draft for a WR.

When I was younger and totally broke, I often found myself struggling to make ends meet. I was earning income through eBay and selling anything I could afford to pawn off. Sometimes the decision was a difficult one: sell something of value for less money now, to secure that sale; or let it sit up on the market for a while hoping some day you might get full value for it. When you're desperate for something, maximizing value is less vital and it's about doing anything you can to survive. By leaving that extra money on the table, you are essentially buying short-term certainty with that money.

Howie Roseman and the Eagles find themselves in a similar position. No, they aren't broke monetarily, and are well-off financially. They do, however, find themselves in dire straits at the wide receiver position. Their franchise QB may have a shorter shelf life than most with his injury history, has played with underwhelming weapons at the position for 3 out of his 4 NFL seasons, and, frankly, after putting his body on the line multiple times already, the front office owes it to him to reward him with some new toys this Spring.

Draft picks are investments. You're investing capital... in this case, draft capital. And with any investment there is always risk assessment. The Eagles have put themselves into a position where they can't miss on a wide receiver selection in the draft. Think of them as one of those bomb squad guys on TV who cracks open the bomb with the countdown timer, and as the clock hits 10 seconds they need to cut the right wire or everyone is dead. If the Eagles pick the wrong receiver in this draft, it will set them back years. Their cap room going forward is going to be limited, so they won't be able to address it in free agency. They will need to start replacing other players soon like Jason Kelce, Brandon Graham, Rodney McLeod, possibly Derek Barnett. They can't afford to keep investing and missing on the wide receiver position every single year. It is vital they make these draft picks count.

This is why it is absolutely imperative the Eagles trade up in the draft for either CeeDee Lamb, Jerry Jeudy, or Henry Ruggs. Just like my situation with eBay that I mentioned earlier, the Eagles by trading up will be sacrificing a little value for short-term certainty. By trading up and using an extra draft pick to do it, they are essentially "buying certainty." It's an investment they need to make. Sure, anyone they select at 21(or later if they trade down) could wind up being better players than those three. But are you prepared to take that risk? And maybe a better question is: are you comfortable with this front office and scouting department, who have struggled mightily to evaluate the position, making that call? Lamb, Jeudy, and Ruggs have significantly low bust potential. They come from big-time programs with tremendous coaching. They play against excellent competition in their conferences. They have all the physical tools you'd want from a WR. They all are great route runners, they have good hands, they are instinctive, they all have speed(to varying degrees between them). Yes, it would be a blow to sacrifice a 2nd round pick to move up and buy that certainty, but when you're in as dire a position the Eagles are in, it's something they have to do.

Otherwise, you'll have a 27 year old QB with a significant injury history, scratching and clawing for every point yet again, wasting vital years of his prime, in an offensive league where they struggled on offense for the last two seasons, trying to compete with better and more explosive teams without the weapons to do it. Kansas City showed us in the Super Bowl it's an offensive league now. They beat one of the NFL's top defenses with great QB and receiver play. The NFL is a copycat league, and Howie Roseman needs to secure Wentz the weapons he needs now and worry about the long-term costs of that later. Their survival depends on it.

Howie Roseman and the Eagles front office can't repeat 2019's mistake in 2020

Since this blog is quite highbrow, I'm going to start this off by using a philosophical quote: "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." In 2019, coming off a disappointing 2018 season, the Eagles mired in mediocrity for 3/4ths of the season. Their offense was bland, ineffective, and predictable. Carson Wentz, still nursing himself back to 100% from injury, regressed. Several other skill position players who were vital to winning a Super Bowl the season prior also regressed. There was very little, if any, developmental progression of anyone on the roster. Even on the defensive side of the ball, we saw a widespread lack of fundamentals, execution, and production. Routinely giving up 3rd and longs, and even 4th and longs all season. However, and to their credit, the team rebounded with Nick Foles at the helm in December, finishing the season strong, making the playoffs, and coming one fluky dropped pass away from potentially having another NFC Championship Game appearance.

In the Spring of 2019, Howie Roseman and the front office approached the offseason like the prior 3 months of football before December never happened. They allowed recency bias to cloud their view of the shortcomings of the roster, and they spent almost the entire offseason making minimal upgrades, and amassing compensatory picks. Several quality players were available in free agency and on the trade market(even into the regular season) that Howie Roseman flat-out passed on. Guys like Jadeveon Clowney, who played a significant role(dirty or not) in ending the Eagles' season on Sunday, and Devante Parker, who was available at the trade deadline and went on to have an incredibly strong finish to the season. They are just two names of many. They allowed one hot December month in 2018 and built-in injury excuses to influence them into ignoring the many deficiencies that were so clearly apparent. Not just personnel deficiencies, but on the coaching staff as well.

Now, enter 2019 and once again, for 3/4ths of the season, the same problems we all saw in 2018 were once again front and center. A poor, unimaginative, bland offense. Poor execution and preparation on both sides of the ball. Widespread player regression and lack of development across most of the roster. And just like in 2018, the team finished with a strong month of December to once again get the team into the playoffs. The narratives had already started.

"This proves Wentz doesn't need great players around him to succeed."

"See? Groh proved he can really coach, people gave up on him too quickly."

"The Eagles have a lot more talent on this team than we thought, we just didn't give it a chance."

Keep in mind, this winning streak was against the basement dwellers of the NFL. And the Eagles didn't exactly dominate these opponents either. In two of the games, the Eagles needed to fight tooth and nail to storm comebacks against the lowly Redskins and Giants. Credit them for making the playoffs, but doing so in a horrendous division is not exactly a premium accomplishment. Even with the injuries.

So, sitting here in 2020, we find ourselves in a very similar position as we were in 2019. A flawed team that was mediocre for 75% of the season, finished with a hot month and made the playoffs under dire circumstances. In 2019, Howie and co. decided that all was right in the world, and minor tweaks would suffice in getting the Eagles back to the promised land. And as we saw for the majority of this season, that assessment was very wrong. Let's all hope that Howie doesn't make the same mistake this year that he did last year. He needs to evaluate the season as a whole and not fixate on one hot December month, which is an incredibly small sample. He needs to look at two full seasons of regression, poor execution, lack of player development, and stagnant offenses. He needs to look at a medical and training staff that has a laundry list of severe injuries every season. He needs to evaluate it all, because it's obvious that the mystique of the Super Bowl team has worn off and this organization needs a serious overhaul in personnel and coaching. And if he doesn't, it's time for him to be re-evaluated by Jeffrey Lurie. This is the most important offseason in recent memory, and it's not one the Eagles can afford to mess up.

If The Process fails to deliver a championship to Philadelphia, the summer of 2019 may be the main culprit

Game 7. Sixers vs Raptors. Two titans trading blows and playing their best basketball of the season going toe to toe in what could be argued as the most compelling playoff series of those playoffs. The Sixers took the NBA champs to literally after the final buzzer, as Kawhi Leonard's shot took what felt like about 20 minutes to complete its 4 bounces around the rim before dropping and sending the Sixers home in excruciating fashion. No one played the future NBA champions tougher that season. Not even the 3 time champion Warriors. Sure, the Warriors suffered injuries, but even still, they have a proven championship pedigree and elite level coaching.

One could argue that had Embiid not gotten sick before game 4, the Sixers would have bested Toronto, being that Embiid played his worst game of the playoffs that night, and the Sixers still hung in there and almost beat the Raptors to take a commanding 3-1 series lead. Instead, it went down to the final buzzer of game 7. This is the closest the Sixers had been to a parade down Broad St. in over 35 years. Yes, even closer than 2001, being that as amazing of a story as those Iverson's Sixers were, everyone knew there was no way they were taking down the dynastic powerhouse Lakers in those Finals. But in the 2018-19 Playoffs? The Sixers truly had a legitimate shot to go all the way for the first time in over 3 decades.

Kawhi was probably going to leave Toronto to bolt to the Western Conference and all the Sixers needed to do was run it back and use their resources to bolster their bench and they could have taken another stab at it in the '19-20 season with the Warriors decimated with injuries and Durant leaving for Brooklyn. They showed last season the formula worked. They could score with anyone given their shot creation and go-to scorer with Butler, they had floor spacing with Redick, they had their two young stars in Embiid and Simmons, and had a very good 3rd or 4th piece in Harris to carry the load on nights when the other guys don't have it. It worked so well in the playoffs that they played the NBA champions tougher than anybody.

Yet, the Sixers' front office inexplicably decided to course correct and head in a different direction. They decided to sacrifice shot creation and elite perimeter shooting in the modern NBA in favor of an aging and declining big man in Al Horford. The sell? "Al Horford will give the Sixers the best backup center in the league on nights where Joel can't play! And when Embiid has to come out of the game, you simply slide Horford to the 5 and you don't miss a beat!" In other words, the Sixers' front office decided that a glorified backup center was a more promising path to a parade than shot creation and shooting in a modern NBA.

Elton Brand, the general manager of the Sixers was hired with no NBA general managing experience. He worked for the Delaware Blue Coats, and was hired as the Sixers' GM following a many weeks-long sham of a search that involved owner Joshua Harris mandating that any candidates retain this incredible personnel department structure that the great Bryan Colangelo constructed. I'll give Brand credit. He traded for Jimmy Butler when he was available and got him at a very good price, sacrificing only Dario Saric and Robert Covington in the deal. But since? He traded a significant haul for Tobias Harris, emptying their "war chest" of assets on a good player, but not a great player. He was unable to land bench pieces in the summer to bolster his playoff roster. He sold 2nd round picks in the draft and telegraphed his love for Matisse Thybulle allowing Danny Ainge to select him and snooker the Sixers into giving them another draft pick. And he decided to reroute a ship headed toward a Larry O'Brien trophy to bring in Al Horford and Josh Richardson.

The Sixers on January 1st, 2020 are currently the 6th seed in the Eastern Conference. Sure, there is a lot of time left in the season, but their offense has mightily struggled and other teams in the conference are better than expected. Who could have seen this coming when you allow such a massive chunk of last season's offense that took Toronto to game 7 go to other teams? How did they expect an offense without shot creation and perimeter shooting to score? If the Sixers brass decided that Jimmy Butler's future in Philly was absolutely untenable, and Redick's defense was too much to try and cover up, that's fine, but you have to replace that offense. They didn't. They added no shot creation and no elite perimeter shooting, and constructed a 90's style roster expected to compete in 2019-20.

Being the 6th seed should be a bit of a surprise. Their record and the way they're playing? That shouldn't be. The Sixers were always destined to be a good team, not a great team with their obvious flaws. The scary part is that they now may have one of the most undesirable contracts in all the NBA and are tied to Al Horford's number to another 3 years after this one. They no longer have a war chest of assets, and they have no young and attractive trade chips to pry disgruntled or available stars away from other rosters. Barring Elton Brand morphing into Elton Blaine overnight and working some black magic, when he's shown none of that savvy or foresightedness to this point, this is the roster the Sixers are going to be stuck with for the foreseeable future, give or take. A roster that has shown likely not good enough to give Philadelphia and Sixers fans their first parade in over 35 years. If "The Process" ends without a title, we'll all look back in the summer of 2019 where the plan sprung a leak and doomed their championship hopes going forward.

Carson Wentz isn't Aaron Rodgers. And that's okay. The Eagles can still win Super Bowls with him.

Almost all QBs in the NFL, even the great ones, need things around them to be operating like a well-oiled machine for them to play at their best. If you take away certain weapons, if you take away an offensive coach they have a rapport with, their performance can regress in a hurry. This is normal. This is the way things work in the NFL. However, every so often a QB will come along who is so special, that he can perform at an elite level despite any condition around him. Take Aaron Rodgers. The guy has been amazing no matter who he has to throw the ball to. Take away Davante Adams, Randall Cobb, Mike McCarthy, Joe Philbin; have him play with hardly any running game to speak of for the majority of his career and he will still look incredible every single time you tune in to watch.

However, 99% of QBs who play in the NFL, even the good ones or elite ones are not Aaron Rodgers. If you take give them inadequate coaching or weapons, they will not always look elite. Take a look at Matt Ryan before and after he played under Kyle Shanahan. The difference is significant. Before Shanahan got there, Matt Ryan was a good QB and sometimes even bordering on elite, but he never took that jump into the top 5 where many expected him to be when he came out of Boston College. Bring in Kyle Shanahan and in 2016 he has an incredible season winning the MVP with a 38-7 TD-INT ratio, throwing for almost 5,000 yards with 117.1 passer rating and coming within a hair's length of winning a Super Bowl. Granted, in 2018 without Shanahan, he had an excellent statistical season as well, but the Falcons were poor that season with a horrendous defense, and Atlanta was having to play from behind for much of the season, inflating Ryan's numbers. Regardless, Matt Ryan was the best he has ever been under his career, playing under one of the league's brightest offensive minds, and playing with a plethora of elite weapons like Julio Jones, one of the greatest WRs the NFL has ever seen. Once Kyle Shanahan left, the Falcons struggled mightily to get Julio the ball in the end zone, a feat considered unfathomable by any football fan with a brain.

Nick Foles, a guy we know very well in this city, posted a 27-2 TD-INT ratio under Chip Kelly, and led the Eagles to the playoffs with elite gamebreaking weapons like DeSean Jackson, LeSean McCoy. Once he got traded to the Rams, he regressed so badly under Jeff Fisher and Mike Groh that he contemplated retirement. He made his way to Kansas City under Andy Reid, and eventually back to the Eagles under the trio of Doug Pederson, Frank Reich, and John DeFilippo, and the rest is history.

Rayne Prescott struggled mightily with the Cowboys last season, until Dallas made a bold trade for WR Amari Cooper, and since then he has rebounded nicely and found himself a nice little niche actually occasionally looking like an NFL QB every once in a while, when league sources told me prior to that, the Cowboys were considering moving him to RB to back up Ezekiel Elliott, and drafting another QB in the 2019 draft.

Most QBs are not Aaron Rodgers. They can't always thrive under not-so-premium conditions. And that's okay. Carson Wentz is one of those QBs. He may not be one of the most talented QBs who has ever lived, but he is still pretty special. And simply because he can't carry a team on his back with arguably the least talented and productive group of WRs in the NFL, and a clueless coaching staff which includes Mike Groh--a man who, in part, almost forced Nick Foles into retirement, doesn't mean he can't be great when the problems are fixed around him, and you can't win Super Bowls with him. As we saw with Nick Foles, he was exactly the same way, and the city of Philadelphia won our first and only Super Bowl with him playing under optimal conditions, with the perfect blend of coaching, weapons, and elite offensive line giving him time to throw.

Does Carson have his flaws? Sure. Does he have the athleticism and physical ability to be elite if you surround him with quality coaching and pass-catching weapons? Absolutely. The Eagles can start next offseason by bringing in some fresh eyes from outside the organization, to help innovate and getting Carson to once again play to his strengths. Much like he did in 2017 with Reich and DeFilippo. And Howie Roseman needs to do his job, much like he did in 2017(coming off an oddly similar season in 2016 with horrible WRs) and get him some receivers who can get open and make plays. Wentz is still a hell of a talent. He's not an Aaron Rodgers type of a talent, but he doesn't need to be. And that's okay.