33 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Yes. In certain situations in order to potentially maximize the probability of the Week 17 (and February) lineup being the best it can possibly be, i absolutely do believe a professional team will put out something other than their best lineup. The Week 18 games clearly illustrate that.

However, that example is tangential to the point you are making. So, here's a question for you. Which is the Eagles' best lineup? (1) Mailata-Jurgens-Kendall-Steen-Johnson or (2) Mailata-Kendall-Jurgens-Steen-Johnson?

Matt,

Thanks for letting me know the Eagles are guaranteed to make the playoffs.... I can just do yard work on Sundays and wait for the playoffs now. I forgot how easy the NFL is, thanks for that.

34 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Yes. In certain situations in order to potentially maximize the probability of the Week 17 (and February) lineup being the best it can possibly be, i absolutely do believe a professional team will put out something other than their best lineup. The Week 18 games clearly illustrate that.

However, that example is tangential to the point you are making. So, here's a question for you. Which is the Eagles' best lineup? (1) Mailata-Jurgens-Kendall-Steen-Johnson or (2) Mailata-Kendall-Jurgens-Steen-Johnson?

My answer... Sirianni and the coaches chose the top lineup because they believe that when Kendall and Jurgens are in the lineup... that the combo works better with Jurgens at G.

But ... the next few weeks should make that obvious right? If it was an experiment then they will keep on experimenting right? So lets see.

4 minutes ago, joemas72 said:

My answer... Sirianni and the coaches chose the top lineup because they believe that when Kendall and Jurgens are in the lineup... that the combo works better with Jurgens at G.

But ... the next few weeks should make that obvious right? If it was an experiment then they will keep on experimenting right? So lets see.

The thing about experimental inquisition is that after each experimental result is recorded, the status of the issue changes. Kendall's performance may have (likely did) exceeded expectations that the coaches' expectations of the Mailata-Kendall-Jurgens-Steen-Johnson configuration.

From your younger years did you ever find yourself dating two (or more) different women, with questions about the long-term viability of any of them as life partners? I certainly did ... twice, 15 years apart ... and in the second of those two instances I actually cancelled a date I had scheduled a date with one of the girls because the results of the just-completed date with the other girl in the 'competition" had been a total home run, and there was no point in going ahead with the planned/scheduled date with the first girl. Kendall's performance against the Titans may have done something similar. One added Plus of the Mailata-Jurgens-Kendall-Steen-Johnson configuration is that is could easily morph into a Mailata-Dickerson-Kendall-Steen-Johnson configuration if Dickerson's rehab goes well.

Bottom line experimental design is both complex and fluid.

27 minutes ago, mattwill said:

I don't know the answer to those questions ... and there is a good chance that the answer to the first one is different from the second one.

For the first one the possibilities most likely are:

Mailata-Jurgens-Kendall-Steen-Johnson

Mailata-Kendall-Jurgens-Steen-Johnson

Mailata-Kendall-Lampkin-Steen-Johnson

For the second one, the possibility of Dickerson being healthy adds additional options.

With that said, I agree with their choice of the first one for the Titans game. The most important question they needed an answer to was whether Kendall could handle the "line calls" responsibilities of the Center position. The answer they got to that most important question was a resounding "Yes, he can!"

OK... so here is a reason why I asked you this question. Do you believe GOING INTO THE SEASON that Sirianni and the Eagles believe that Dickerson is one of their best 5? I believe they do... so looking to play " in the moment" for today and not with the idea that they are automatically in the Superbowl. ... I believe in week 1 they thought Dickerson was the best option. He had to show that he wasn't. Otherwise if they were looking ahead 5 months... they could have given the young guys a chance ... you know " experiment"

But I believe week 1 they played a not 100% Dickerson ... and really played him all last year... because they play to win. You follow. Last year was perfect to " experiment" when the whole world knew Dickerson was injured... why not try stuff then to prepare for February? You know " optimize week 17" and all the other corporate jargon. 2025 SEASON WAS IDEAL TO SHOW YOUR THEORY OF EXPERIMENTS. BUT THEY CHOSE TO WIN IN THE MOMENT WITH AN INJURED DICKERSON!

So now... they know Dickerson isn't good enough, not in their top 5. Not until he gets healthy. So now they want the 5 they have now. So at the easy decision would be just to replace one spot... the fact that they moved Jurgens to me solidifies 2 things. One... Kendall is their 6th man ... top reserve on the inside OL. Two, with Kendall in ... their initial feeling AFTER OBSEREVING THEM FOR MONTHS OF OFFSEASON AND CAMP ...is that Kendall at C and Jurgens at RG is better than the other way around.

I believe that is their initial gut feeling, and they wanted to go with that lineup first.

This idea that you think they won't play Jurgens now Lampkin????? After paying him the big money... I don't see it at all. To me they clearly chose Kendall... the top back up. Jurgens is a starter. He isn't going anywhere... unless he is injured.

2 minutes ago, mattwill said:

The thing about experimental inquisition is that after each experimental result is recorded, the status of the issue changes. Kendall's performance may have (likely did) exceeded expectations that the coaches' expectations of the Mailata-Kendall-Jurgens-Steen-Johnson configuration.

From your younger years did you ever find yourself dating two (or more) different women, with questions about the long-term viability of any of them as life partners? I certainly did ... twice, 15 years apart ... and in the second of those two instances I actually cancelled a date I had scheduled a date with one of the girls because the results of the just-completed date with the other girl in the 'competition" had been a total home run, and there was no point in going ahead with the planned/scheduled date with the first girl. Kendall's performance against the Titans may have done something similar. One added Plus of the Mailata-Jurgens-Kendall-Steen-Johnson configuration is that is could easily morph into a Mailata-Dickerson-Kendall-Steen-Johnson configuration if Dickerson's rehab goes well.

Bottom line experimental design is both complex and fluid.

The thing about NFL Football... the win now or get fired... is that hypothesis and beakers... etc don't really apply like they do in a chemistry lab. Especially for a team that believes it's a contender. The " experiments" are great for organizations that are rebuilding or know they are a long way from competing.

I know for all you guys that aren't local, you only go by what you read, maybe a podcast or two... but the local sports scene, ABC, CBS, NBC, the local Comcast Sports Network... two local sports talk stations... there is constant news about our Eagles. To us here, we know Jurgens has played all 3 interior spots in camp. We also know they had Fred Johnson playing some G. So this combo from last week did not shock us here.

I believe you guys from 1000 miles away see it as Lampkin at C, Kendall was a G etc. To me, I know they played all these combos in camp and in the offseason. After seeing it all, they like Kendall better than Lampkin to play a real game now. And with Kendall in, they like him at C better than G.

I also believe that with their best 5... they know Dickerson can play C... but they believe Cam at C and Dickerson at LG is a better combo than the other way around. Which is why I am CONSISTENT in saying that they believe Kendall at C and Cam at G is the best usage of their best 5 players.

The beauty of Lebron signing with the 76ers.... is that as a local sports fan, we didn't have to constantly hear about what the players were having for lunch and when they were going to the bathroom!

I'm saying this because I'm trying to convey how much the Eagles are in the news locally. I'm not sure I can explain it to where anyone would understand unless they visited the area for a few months.

I mean, an absolutely obsessed sports town... with two winter teams in the playoffs and the opening of a baseball season...the NFL draft still dominated the talk???

By default there needs to be Eagles conversation. Was so refreshing the Lebron signing and the Eagles obsession taking a back seat for a week.

8 minutes ago, joemas72 said:

OK... so here is a reason why I asked you this question. Do you believe GOING INTO THE SEASON that Sirianni and the Eagles believe that Dickerson is one of their best 5? I believe they do... so looking to play " in the moment" for today and not with the idea that they are automatically in the Superbowl. ... I believe in week 1 they thought Dickerson was the best option. He had to show that he wasn't. Otherwise if they were looking ahead 5 months... they could have given the young guys a chance ... you know " experiment"

You and I are on the same page in your assessment above. I would add that that belief in Dickerso came with an asterisk, specifically his injury status. So the forst step of the experiment was to test that injury status in live snaps against the Commanders. The results of that first experiment step were disappointing to say the least.

8 minutes ago, joemas72 said:

But I believe week 1 they played a not 100% Dickerson ... and really played him all last year... because they play to win. You follow.

Agreed on the actions, but probably not on the reason. They played Dickerson in large part because they didn't have any other option.

8 minutes ago, joemas72 said:

Last year was perfect to " experiment" when the whole world knew Dickerson was injured... why not try stuff then to prepare for February? You know " optimize week 17" and all the other corporate jargon. 2025 SEASON WAS IDEAL TO SHOW YOUR THEORY OF EXPERIMENTS. BUT THEY CHOSE TO WIN IN THE MOMENT WITH AN INJURED DICKERSON!

In concept, I agree 100%, and looking at the whole 2025 season, they actually did a significant amount of experimentation, but each tested alternative produced a worse result. Matt Pryor was worse than Dickerson, as was Kenyon Green, and Drew Kendall was in the midst of a red shirt year. Further, the injury to Lane Johnson eliminated the possibility of testing a Fred Johnson at Guard option..

8 minutes ago, joemas72 said:

So now... they know Dickerson isn't good enough, not in their top 5. Not until he gets healthy. So now they want the 5 they have now. So at the easy decision would be just to replace one spot... the fact that they moved Jurgens to me solidifies 2 things. One... Kendall is their 6th man ... top reserve on the inside OL. Two, with Kendall in ... their initial feeling AFTER OBSEREVING THEM FOR MONTHS OF OFFSEASON AND CAMP ...is that Kendall at C and Jurgens at RG is better than the other way around.

I believe that is their initial gut feeling, and they wanted to go with that lineup first.

Here too we agree on the sequence, but as I mentioned above, testing Kendall at Center in live snaps against opposing Starters had not been done, and was the most important question to answer after answering the question about Dickerson.

8 minutes ago, joemas72 said:

This idea that you think they won't play Jurgens now Lampkin????? After paying him the big money... I don't see it at all. To me they clearly chose Kendall... the top back up. Jurgens is a starter. He isn't going anywhere... unless he is injured.

The money they have paid Jurgens is sunk costs. Any good businessman will tell you that making decisions by chasing sunk costs is foolish. Money is a Front Office issue. On-field, in-game performance is a Coaches issue.

16 minutes ago, joemas72 said:

The thing about NFL Football... the win now or get fired... is that hypothesis and beakers... etc don't really apply like they do in a chemistry lab. Especially for a team that believes it's a contender. The " experiments" are great for organizations that are rebuilding or know they are a long way from competing.

Agree to disagree. The teams rebuilding aren't anywhere near as focused on honing the team so that it gets that little (or big) competitive edge that gets them over the top.

16 minutes ago, joemas72 said:

I know for all you guys that aren't local, you only go by what you read, maybe a podcast or two... but the local sports scene, ABC, CBS, NBC, the local Comcast Sports Network... two local sports talk stations... there is constant news about our Eagles. To us here, we know Jurgens has played all 3 interior spots in camp. We also know they had Fred Johnson playing some G. So this combo from last week did not shock us here.

It didn't shock me at all. It made the most logical sense because it was the combination that gave the coaches the most intellectual capital. Plus it removed the most uncertainty.

16 minutes ago, joemas72 said:

I believe you guys from 1000 miles away see it as Lampkin at C, Kendall was a G etc. To me, I know they played all these combos in camp and in the offseason. After seeing it all, they like Kendall better than Lampkin to play a real game now. And with Kendall in, they like him at C better than G.

"You guys" are not a monolith. Our opinions differ just as much as the individual local callers to WIP. For me, Lampkin's optimal position is probably as the backup Center. However, if the team gets into a blowout game, I would not be at all surprised to see Lampkin take snaps at Guard with the Coaches logic being that they know that he can be solid as a Center, but are not sure whether is is simply too short to be effective as a Guard.

16 minutes ago, joemas72 said:

I also believe that with their best 5... they know Dickerson can play C... but they believe Cam at C and Dickerson at LG is a better combo than the other way around. Which is why I am CONSISTENT in saying that they believe Kendall at C and Cam at G is the best usage of their best 5 players.

Reasonable conclusion, especially give the high quality of kendall's performance against the Titans. Would that be your conclusion if Kendall had struggled?

5 minutes ago, mattwill said:

You and I are on the same page in your assessment above. I would add that that belief in Dickerso came with an asterisk, specifically his injury status. So the forst step of the experiment was to test that injury status in live snaps against the Commanders. The results of that first experiment step were disappointing to say the least.

Agreed on the actions, but probably not on the reason. They played Dickerson in large part because they didn't have any other option.

In concept, I agree 100%, and looking at the whole 2025 season, they actually did a significant amount of experimentation, but each tested alternative produced a worse result. Matt Pryor was worse than Dickerson, as was Kenyon Green, and Drew Kendall was in the midst of a red shirt year. Further, the injury to Lane Johnson eliminated the possibility of testing a Fred Johnson at Guard option..

Here too we agree on the sequence, but as I mentioned above, testing Kendall at Center in live snaps against opposing Starters had not been done, and was the most important question to answer after answering the question about Dickerson.

The money they have paid Jurgens is sunk costs. Any good businessman will tell you that making decisions by chasing sunk costs is foolish. Money is a Front Office issue. On-field, in-game performance is a Coaches issue.

1. Yes they didn't have an option in 2025 that they believed was better than playing an injured Dickerson. so they put at risk the future ... to win in the present. Correct.

2. Testing Kendall? Just like testing Lampkin right? Would be jut like testing the rookie G from Georgia? None were proven right? So they went with their observations from a million practices etc. THEY like Kendall. THEY chose Kendall. They believed Kendall gave them the best chance to beat Tennesee.

3. At some point you need to stop thinking football is 100% business.... the sunk cost etc. Until Lampkin gets on the field, it shows they believe Jurgens gives them the best chance to win. Lampkin will not play over Jurgens any time soon.

1 minute ago, mattwill said:

Agree to disagree. The teams rebuilding aren't anywhere near as focused on honing the team so that it gets that little (or big) competitive edge that gets them over the top.

It didn't shock me at all. It made the most logical sense because it was the combination that gave the coaches the most intellectual capital. Plus it removed the most uncertainty.

"You guys" are not a monolith. Our opinions differ just as much as the individual local callers to WIP. For me, Lampkin's optimal position is probably as the backup Center. However, if the team gets into a blowout game, I would not be at all surprised to see Lampkin take snaps at Guard with the Coaches logic being that they know that he can be solid as a Center, but are not sure whether is is simply too short to be effective as a Guard.

Reasonable conclusion, especially give the high quality of kendall's performance against the Titans. Would that be your conclusion if Kendall had struggled?

The WIP quote shows how you aren't getting what I;m saying. That's like saying Gino's or Pats for a cheesesteak. WIP was 90s ... so much other sports news now and beat writers on local shows etc.

I actually miss the old days with the callers ... today you don't hear too many callers on the radio shows. The hosts dominate the airwaves. The highlight is the interviews with the players, coaches and beat writers etc.

How long ago did you move out of the area?

But it's funny... you give all these business reasons why you get the move.... but you just can't bring yourself to say that it was the move they thought gave them the better chance to beat Tennessee. Similar to what Ham used to do when he was obviously wrong... .just die on the hill with the left field theory.

8 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Agree to disagree. The teams rebuilding aren't anywhere near as focused on honing the team so that it gets that little (or big) competitive edge that gets them over the top.

It didn't shock me at all. It made the most logical sense because it was the combination that gave the coaches the most intellectual capital. Plus it removed the most uncertainty.

"You guys" are not a monolith. Our opinions differ just as much as the individual local callers to WIP. For me, Lampkin's optimal position is probably as the backup Center. However, if the team gets into a blowout game, I would not be at all surprised to see Lampkin take snaps at Guard with the Coaches logic being that they know that he can be solid as a Center, but are not sure whether is is simply too short to be effective as a Guard.

Reasonable conclusion, especially give the high quality of kendall's performance against the Titans. Would that be your conclusion if Kendall had struggled?

My conclusion is that I do not like to live in the hypothetical.

My conclusion ... I know you can make up a bunch of reasons why coaches make decisions. To me, the top of the list is to win... win the next game. WE can agree and I concede as I just stated ...there are more reasons, I'm stating that winning in the moment is the #1 reason.

My conclusion, and maybe based upon my personal experience... being of the same ethnicity as Sirianni, I know the culture is a simple one. WE don;t like to overcomplicate things. I know he will be more emotional than most coaches. But I also know he is focused on winning. while all your outside reasons are great in theory and make for a great conversation... To me #1 reason he does what he does is to win. He lives in the moment, the Bears are the agenda now.

I also believe that Siri has big time faith in his guys. Cam is his guy. He believes he was good enough to play LG last week, and will get better.

I hope we don't get to see any more injuries.

But... to answer your hypothetical.... if Kendall didn't perform well enough to stay in, I believe the next two options were using Lampkin at C .... or using Fred Johnson at G with Cam back at C. That's for them to decide. My role Monday is to have fun with my friends at the bar for our tradition of watching the Monday games together!

3 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Next man up as a G CANNOT play at T(unless we get 5 guys hurt), So "next lineman up" is a fallacy. C and G maybe but those guys have specific position, they cannot replace Lane or Mailata

Come on....are you being intentional here? You have been around long enough to know the difference between the interior OL and the tackles.

Next man up on the inside is different than Next man up at tackle

First Superbowl...Wiznewski on the inside for all 3 of Seamulo, Kelce and Brooks...but Big V as the swing tackle.

2 years ago...Steen on the inside and Fred Johnson at tackle.

Why difficult to get the concept with Kendall as the inside guy now?

2 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Yeah it took a much better team 59:51 seconds to get there. One drop,1 miss and we lose. How you can classify that as adequate for future games is beyond me. We have too much talent to be fighting for wins with 9 seconds left on the game clock. Howie invested alot of capital to "just barely pull out a win"

I gotta be honest....I don't see all this talent to where we are so superior to anyone?

8 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Sure, even worse when you never played the opposing position. It's going to get easier now? I don't think so

Hunh? By your logic are you saying your first game at TE was your best?

I'm not following? Are you saying that with more experience and vs less competition than the DT from Tennessee... that it won't get easier?

9 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Sure, even worse when you never played the opposing position. It's going to get easier now? I don't think so

So if Jurgens plays the rest of his career at LG...you won't expect it get to easier for him?

26 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

In the game against the Titans, Jalen Hurts faced pressure multiple times, being sacked three times and intercepted twice, which contributed to the Titans scoring 10 points off those turnovers.

Jalen Hurts' Performance Under Pressure

Hurts' performance was notably affected by defensive pressure.

• Sacks — Hurts was sacked three times during the game.

• Interceptions — He threw two interceptions, leading to additional points for the Titans.

• Overall Pressure — The Titans' defense consistently pressured Hurts, impacting his performance throughout the game.

What's the number...." consistently" is an opinion....not a number. Like 19 was the official number of pressures we had on Daniels week 1.

1 minute ago, joemas72 said:

1. Yes they didn't have an option in 2025 that they believed was better than playing an injured Dickerson. so they put at risk the future ... to win in the present. Correct.

They didn't just go with their belief. They brought in Pryor and Green and drafted Kendall, and then evaluated them, and none of them provided viable alternatives that were better than an injury-hobbled Dickerson. They ,

1 minute ago, joemas72 said:

1. Testing Kendall? Just like testing Lampkin right? Would be just like testing the rookie G from Georgia? None were proven right? So they went with their observations from a million practices etc. THEY like Kendall. THEY chose Kendall. They believed Kendall gave them the best chance to beat Tennessee.

It wouldn't be like testing the rookie G from Georgia. Why? Because for both Lampkin and Kendall they have a full year of working with them under their belt than they have with the rookie. Of course they like Kendall. They clearly like Lampkin too. However, with Lampkin there is always the height issue, so putting Kendall into live snaps situations before Lampkin makes both logical and gut instinct sense.

1 minute ago, joemas72 said:

1. At some point you need to stop thinking football is 100% business.... the sunk cost etc. Until Lampkin gets on the field, it shows they believe Jurgens gives them the best chance to win. Lampkin will not play over Jurgens any time soon.

Never. It is always business for them. For us as fans it may NEVER be about business.

48 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Name teams with the WR's we have that also have lights out RB's like Bark and Tank(who obviously did not play) who could get no traction because of the weak O line. Name other team with the defensive talent we have at nearly every position

Hunh? I think you overrate this team a lot.

50 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Wait for the pass rush we will face when we play the Rams

You know Garrett is out right????

26 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Did you watch the last Rams game?

The one where Dart was injured ?

16 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

"Consistently"- as in ongoing, happening all the time, constantly, not ending. They didn't say occaisionally LOL. IDK Joe how many is "occaisionally? Fact remains we had zero BU plan for Dickerson going out. It was enough pressure on Hurts he threw 2 picks, that alone should be 2 too many let alone the amount of times(countless times but I will try to look up the EXACT number if that matters so much) he had to scramble and make plays. Anyway I am done with this topic, we have no BU for Dickerson, and Jurgens was not taught the LG position in camp. It was a BAND AID. So we moved Morris up to the 53, maybe he plays since he is the ONLY experienced LG we have or they do a re-run and maybe after a week Jurgens can play the position. I have no clue what they do. I'm moving on from this now

Hurts officially threw 37 passes... the next Gen stats had 17 official pressures.

Vs Washington Daniels faced 19 pressures...34 attempts.

You throw 37 times..20 without pressure. I doubt 17 pressures came over the left guard spot.

19 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

"Consistently"- as in ongoing, happening all the time, constantly, not ending. They didn't say occaisionally LOL. IDK Joe how many is "occaisionally? Fact remains we had zero BU plan for Dickerson going out. It was enough pressure on Hurts he threw 2 picks, that alone should be 2 too many let alone the amount of times(countless times but I will try to look up the EXACT number if that matters so much) he had to scramble and make plays. Anyway I am done with this topic, we have no BU for Dickerson, and Jurgens was not taught the LG position in camp. It was a BAND AID. So we moved Morris up to the 53, maybe he plays since he is the ONLY experienced LG we have or they do a re-run and maybe after a week Jurgens can play the position. I have no clue what they do. I'm moving on from this now

Have you watched the Eagles organization the last 6 years. .you honestly think they didn't have a plan in the event Dickerson was out? Really?

Now...you may not be happy about it...but please...don't insult us saying this anal rententive , detail obsessed organization didn't have a plan for a guy like Dickerson not being able to play. Come on now.

Move on...you sound like a spoiled 5 year old. I said it two years ago, we were blessed with an all time elite OL...I don't think people realized how good...and how fortunate we were. That's not common. They were healthy and they peaked. Becton left, the injuries hit on 3 of them and Mailata seemed to take a step back.

It happens. You pay the 52 million and all the other money to guys because they are supposed to overcome not having an all time elite OL.

But as an Eagles fan...we are starting to sound like entitled Yankees fans. A little spoiled.

For what it's worth....Josh Allen has faced 29 pressures so far this season... 14 5 average. OMG Hurts faced 17!

But also DJ Moore missed a game... it must be a miracle...other QBs actually face pressure.

IDK...maybe it's called football??? You know where the QB doesn't always have all day to throw and he can make decisions and plays vs the pressure!

Remind me how many points Josh Allen put up... Which pass rushers he faced so far vs Houston and Detroit? That's life.