I've heard a lot of people try to justify this:

"You can't criticize the decision to throw it there when the play clearly worked.  Saquon catches that 9 out of 10 times."

This is a fallacy because it presumes it was going to play out that way 100% of the time (you hear the same rational about the Lions decision to go for it in the NFCCG).  There are a lot of ways things can go wrong in that situation, and that was one of them.  Statistically, you're converting that around 50% of the time as opposed to the 90% people have retroactively rationalized it to be.  Throwing is an enormous risk there no matter how you slice it.

"The defense should have been able to stop them anyway.  1:39 with no timeouts still isn't a lot of time."

Yes, the defense still should have been able to stop them.  But there is a world of difference between a minute and 1:40 in that situation.  Don't believe me?  Take it from the oddsmakers.  The Eagles were -18000 (180 to 1) to win the game prior to the 3rd down play.  After the FG, they were down to -1100 (11 to 1).  So even if we're being conservative and assuming they would have been priced around -10000 following a run play that did not get the first down, we're essentially talking about the difference between 99% and 90%.  That game was basically over and the incomplete pass opened the door.

"The defense sucks and would have given up a TD regardless of the situation.  It only took them a little over a minute (1:05) to drive the field as it was."

Maybe the defense sucks and maybe they would have given it up anyway.  If you're judging by the first two games, it's easy to see why the coaches would want the offense on the field deciding the game rather than the defense.  Sirianni put the game in the hands of the defense in a similar situation last year against Seattle and it backfired.

And to that, I'd say this:  If you can't trust your defense to execute on a situational level in the most friendly of circumstances, you should not be the head coach to begin with.  You should WANT your defense on the field there, even if they aren't good, as a way to learn more about your football team.  If you're more confident staking the game on ONE coin-flip offensive play than an ENTIRE DRIVE of defensive plays, in which they are at an enormous advantage, then I don't want you coaching my football team.

(By the way, Sirianni made a VERY similar mistake against the Zach Wilson and the Jets last year on a day where the defense had carried us; so it's not as if you can pin this on the defense simply being bad.  It's a mentality thing with him, where he always wants to prove he's the boldest, smartest guy in the room.)

Culture matters in the NFL.  In order to win, you need to be smart, disciplined, and tough.  If those traits have been instilled in your team, your defense should have no problem closing out a game in the final minute when the other team has to go the length of the field with no timeouts EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT THAT TALENTED.  You just have to be well-coached.  Well-coached teams live for those situations.  They embrace them, not cower from them.

I've said since the Seattle game last year that Sirianni needs to go.  Nobody should be talking about anything else after last night's game - not the Saquon drop, not the lack of a pass rush, not the inability to stop the run.  He tells on himself in the biggest moments.

I have no problem with them being aggressive there and trying to end the game....it's unfortunate that Barkley dropped the ball.  

Games are won by multiple units making clutch plays at crucial times.  A team can play bad offensively or defensively most of the game, but can make the difference late in the game.  That's why a team has to show up for 60 minutes. 

The eagles had multiple chances to win the game.  Barkley's drop, the falcons needing to go 70 yards with less than 1:40 to go with no timeouts and when the eagles got the ball back with :34 seconds left.  Hurts INT was such a boneheaded play when they needed about 18 yards to get Elliot in position for a GW FG.  

I've lost faith in Sirianni too......but execution at critical time is not only the coaches responsibility but the players in those positions. Barkley, the defense and Hurts blew it.  And going forward this year that sh-- needs to change.

Hated the call. Should have ran it

27 minutes ago, jmac+djaxallday said:

I've heard a lot of people try to justify this:

"You can't criticize the decision to throw it there when the play clearly worked.  Saquon catches that 9 out of 10 times."

This is a fallacy because it presumes it was going to play out that way 100% of the time (you hear the same rational about the Lions decision to go for it in the NFCCG).  There are a lot of ways things can go wrong in that situation, and that was one of them.  Statistically, you're converting that around 50% of the time as opposed to the 90% people have retroactively rationalized it to be.  Throwing is an enormous risk there no matter how you slice it.

"The defense should have been able to stop them anyway.  1:39 with no timeouts still isn't a lot of time."

Yes, the defense still should have been able to stop them.  But there is a world of difference between a minute and 1:40 in that situation.  Don't believe me?  Take it from the oddsmakers.  The Eagles were -18000 (180 to 1) to win the game prior to the 3rd down play.  After the FG, they were down to -1100 (11 to 1).  So even if we're being conservative and assuming they would have been priced around -10000 following a run play that did not get the first down, we're essentially talking about the difference between 99% and 90%.  That game was basically over and the incomplete pass opened the door.

"The defense sucks and would have given up a TD regardless of the situation.  It only took them a little over a minute (1:05) to drive the field as it was."

Maybe the defense sucks and maybe they would have given it up anyway.  If you're judging by the first two games, it's easy to see why the coaches would want the offense on the field deciding the game rather than the defense.  Sirianni put the game in the hands of the defense in a similar situation last year against Seattle and it backfired.

And to that, I'd say this:  If you can't trust your defense to execute on a situational level in the most friendly of circumstances, you should not be the head coach to begin with.  You should WANT your defense on the field there, even if they aren't good, as a way to learn more about your football team.  If you're more confident staking the game on ONE coin-flip offensive play than an ENTIRE DRIVE of defensive plays, in which they are at an enormous advantage, then I don't want you coaching my football team.

(By the way, Sirianni made a VERY similar mistake against the Zach Wilson and the Jets last year on a day where the defense had carried us; so it's not as if you can pin this on the defense simply being bad.  It's a mentality thing with him, where he always wants to prove he's the boldest, smartest guy in the room.)

Culture matters in the NFL.  In order to win, you need to be smart, disciplined, and tough.  If those traits have been instilled in your team, your defense should have no problem closing out a game in the final minute when the other team has to go the length of the field with no timeouts EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT THAT TALENTED.  You just have to be well-coached.  Well-coached teams live for those situations.  They embrace them, not cower from them.

I've said since the Seattle game last year that Sirianni needs to go.  Nobody should be talking about anything else after last night's game - not the Saquon drop, not the lack of a pass rush, not the inability to stop the run.  He tells on himself in the biggest moments.

Can we stop snorting the cocaine please? The entire board made fun of Sirianni for being a cheerleader all offseason. Why is he NOT considered a cheerleader in this regard right now? Why is he the one who 'made these mistakes' now, but he was apparently a cheerleader before when it was convenient and people thought he'd have success?

The ENTIRE offseason people were calling him a cheerleader and saying "we just hope he stays out of the decision making process". But now that he wasn't making said decisions, it's still his fault?

Can we be even slightly rational for even a nanosecond? I swear man. Even Chip got more love here in Philly, and he not only never won a playoff game, but he missed the playoffs twice.

1 hour ago, birdman#12 said:

I have no problem with them being aggressive there and trying to end the game....it's unfortunate that Barkley dropped the ball.  

Games are won by multiple units making clutch plays at crucial times.  A team can play bad offensively or defensively most of the game, but can make the difference late in the game.  That's why a team has to show up for 60 minutes. 

The eagles had multiple chances to win the game.  Barkley's drop, the falcons needing to go 70 yards with less than 1:40 to go with no timeouts and when the eagles got the ball back with :34 seconds left.  Hurts INT was such a boneheaded play when they needed about 18 yards to get Elliot in position for a GW FG.  

I've lost faith in Sirianni too......but execution at critical time is not only the coaches responsibility but the players in those positions. Barkley, the defense and Hurts blew it.  And going forward this year that sh-- needs to change.

I've also lost faith in Sirianni. That extends to Hurts for me as well. Hurts has not been making good decisions since the 2022 season. Losing OC Steichen is one thing, but ultimately it comes down to Hurts making decisions regardless of the OC. And Hurts is simply making bad decisions. Again he made a bunch of mistakes on the RPO's, like he did on those plays against GB.

I was neutral to the play-call to throw it there. It was a perfect play-call and throw (Hurts made a much better throw on that one than the previous TD). Barkley dropped it which sucks. I would have preferred they run it or at least run a safe play to ensure the clock runs, but if Barkley catches that the game is sealed. Barkley could have scored and made it 2 possessions or sat down at the 1 and run the clock out.

I have no issue with the call, it should have worked.  I have more issues with the penalties, and the D at the end of the game

Barkley had gotten 3-4 yards on each of the two previous plays running the ball. He was getting good yardage and good holes to run through. It's often times said, 3 things can happen on a pass play, and 2 aren't good. I'm all for aggressive, but I don't like wreckless. In that situation, we needed to leave Atlanta with as little time to respond as possible, and even with a run, still a good possibility he gets a 1st down and ends the game.

It was a high-percentage throw that Hurts dropped into his hands. It clearly caught the Falcons off guard. I have no problem with the call, but like everything else, it's the execution.

1 hour ago, EagleJoe8 said:

Barkley had gotten 3-4 yards on each of the two previous plays running the ball. He was getting good yardage and good holes to run through. It's often times said, 3 things can happen on a pass play, and 2 aren't good. I'm all for aggressive, but I don't like wreckless. In that situation, we needed to leave Atlanta with as little time to respond as possible, and even with a run, still a good possibility he gets a 1st down and ends the game.

To be fair though when they tried to run in those situations in the game, when Atlanta knew we wanted to run, Atlanta run-blitzed and was able to stop the eagles on a couple occasions. Think back to the 1st drive of the game inside the 5. I think you still run it there. Worse case you get no yardage and burn 45sec. Otherwise maybe they convert or get a couple yards and leave an easy Tush Push play for 1-2 yards which was working all game.

44 minutes ago, Devaster said:

To be fair though when they tried to run in those situations in the game, when Atlanta knew we wanted to run, Atlanta run-blitzed and was able to stop the eagles on a couple occasions. Think back to the 1st drive of the game inside the 5. I think you still run it there. Worse case you get no yardage and [b]burn 45sec[/b]. Otherwise maybe they convert or get a couple yards and leave an easy Tush Push play for 1-2 yards which was working all game.

That to me was the most critical thing in that moment, ensuring as much time as possible ran out if it's not converted. I was fine with him possibly getting stopped for no gain, but I just knew we left the too much time even needing a TD.

4 hours ago, jmac+djaxallday said:

I've heard a lot of people try to justify this:

"You can't criticize the decision to throw it there when the play clearly worked.  Saquon catches that 9 out of 10 times."

This is a fallacy because it presumes it was going to play out that way 100% of the time (you hear the same rational about the Lions decision to go for it in the NFCCG).  There are a lot of ways things can go wrong in that situation, and that was one of them.  Statistically, you're converting that around 50% of the time as opposed to the 90% people have retroactively rationalized it to be.  Throwing is an enormous risk there no matter how you slice it.

"The defense should have been able to stop them anyway.  1:39 with no timeouts still isn't a lot of time."

Yes, the defense still should have been able to stop them.  But there is a world of difference between a minute and 1:40 in that situation.  Don't believe me?  Take it from the oddsmakers.  The Eagles were -18000 (180 to 1) to win the game prior to the 3rd down play.  After the FG, they were down to -1100 (11 to 1).  So even if we're being conservative and assuming they would have been priced around -10000 following a run play that did not get the first down, we're essentially talking about the difference between 99% and 90%.  That game was basically over and the incomplete pass opened the door.

"The defense sucks and would have given up a TD regardless of the situation.  It only took them a little over a minute (1:05) to drive the field as it was."

Maybe the defense sucks and maybe they would have given it up anyway.  If you're judging by the first two games, it's easy to see why the coaches would want the offense on the field deciding the game rather than the defense.  Sirianni put the game in the hands of the defense in a similar situation last year against Seattle and it backfired.

And to that, I'd say this:  If you can't trust your defense to execute on a situational level in the most friendly of circumstances, you should not be the head coach to begin with.  You should WANT your defense on the field there, even if they aren't good, as a way to learn more about your football team.  If you're more confident staking the game on ONE coin-flip offensive play than an ENTIRE DRIVE of defensive plays, in which they are at an enormous advantage, then I don't want you coaching my football team.

(By the way, Sirianni made a VERY similar mistake against the Zach Wilson and the Jets last year on a day where the defense had carried us; so it's not as if you can pin this on the defense simply being bad.  It's a mentality thing with him, where he always wants to prove he's the boldest, smartest guy in the room.)

Culture matters in the NFL.  In order to win, you need to be smart, disciplined, and tough.  If those traits have been instilled in your team, your defense should have no problem closing out a game in the final minute when the other team has to go the length of the field with no timeouts EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT THAT TALENTED.  You just have to be well-coached.  Well-coached teams live for those situations.  They embrace them, not cower from them.

I've said since the Seattle game last year that Sirianni needs to go.  Nobody should be talking about anything else after last night's game - not the Saquon drop, not the lack of a pass rush, not the inability to stop the run.  He tells on himself in the biggest moments.

You seem to assume there's no risk with a run play. We saw the tush push become our most reliable play last season and we've already put the ball on the ground once this season using it. That was the 2nd bad center/QB exchange of the game. Every play has a risk factor. Even the FG isn't a guarantee. Can you provide actual data for the completion percentage of passes that short where the receiver has that much separation? I'd bet the ranch it's higher than 50% and wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it's closer to the "9 times out of ten" claim. 

It was a great call, the defense giving up 70 yards in just over a minute was a compound problem. 

The play should’ve worked, but it didn’t. In hindsight Siri should’ve took the FG early and he should’ve nu the ball there. Even is Barkley doesn’t get it you still can run down more clock, but instead they stopped the clock and took the three. To take a risk and put it on that defense was a mistake. He would have done better with a run and a tush push. Get the first and seal the game. Instead he got cute and it blew up in his face. 

57 minutes ago, MagicMoment said:

It was a great call, the defense giving up 70 yards in just over a minute was a compound problem. 

Just like last season. How many times did our offense score too soon or stall out a drive and we’re left hoping the defense bail them out? Have we already forgotten the mistakes from the past? 

11 minutes ago, EazyEaglez said:

Just like last season. How many times did our offense score too soon or stall out a drive and we’re left hoping the defense bail them out? Have we already forgotten the mistakes from the past? 

Like I said, if he catches it the game is virtually over. The issue was the defense collapsing brings more attention to the drop. 

3 minutes ago, MagicMoment said:

Like I said, if he catches it the game is virtually over. The issue was the defense collapsing brings more attention to the drop. 

But he didn’t catch it and they lost. Putting all of their hopes in a soft defense that has been gashed all game is not smart. 

3 hours ago, EazyEaglez said:

But he didn’t catch it and they lost. Putting all of their hopes in a soft defense that has been gashed all game is not smart. 

And Sirianni has to recognise that! Earlier in the game he was aggressive and went for it instead of taking a chip shot FG. His job now is in game management and he failed.

4 hours ago, EazyEaglez said:

But he didn’t catch it and they lost. Putting all of their hopes in a soft defense that has been gashed all game is not smart. 

But if Sirianni takes the points earlier, we aren’t in that situation. See how the "shoulda woulda” game is played???

The decision to throw is just as bad as the decision to not take points  was. Hopefully its the nail in his coffin and next year we can really see what this team can do

8 hours ago, brkmsn said:

You seem to assume there's no risk with a run play. We saw the tush push become our most reliable play last season and we've already put the ball on the ground once this season using it. That was the 2nd bad center/QB exchange of the game. Every play has a risk factor. Even the FG isn't a guarantee. Can you provide actual data for the completion percentage of passes that short where the receiver has that much separation? I'd bet the ranch it's higher than 50% and wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it's closer to the "9 times out of ten" claim. 

 

7 hours ago, MagicMoment said:

Like I said, if he catches it the game is virtually over. The issue was the defense collapsing brings more attention to the drop. 

This. There is plenty to criticise about the Eagles and the coaching but this was a great call.

1) If it was covered Hurts can pull it down and run. Doesn’t really matter from that range if he loses yards.

2) Barkley has to catch that ball and should do 95% of the time plus. 

3) Things can still go wrong with both a run play and a field goal. If Barkley catches that the game is over.
 

Great play call and an absolute gimme dropped by Barkley. He catches that damn near every time. Would have iced a pretty comfortable win. The play worked up exactly as it should have. Absolutely freakish loss and that´s why I´m nowhere near as worried as some are here

17 minutes ago, kiwinavega said:

Great play call and an absolute gimme dropped by Barkley. He catches that damn near every time. Would have iced a pretty comfortable win. The play worked up exactly as it should have. Absolutely freakish loss and that´s why I´m nowhere near as worried as some are here

Not worried about our complete lack of stopping cousins march down the field in like 30 seconds and score an easy TD?

You can’t justify it no other coach would do it, it lost the game and Siri will be fired when we fail to win a playoff game.

6 minutes ago, rrfierce said:

Not worried about our complete lack of stopping cousins march down the field in like 30 seconds and score an easy TD?

Bothered by it, yes, of course. Worried? More worried about the lack of any holding penalties on that drive, there were at least two on every play. More worried about sequences of downright suspicious officiating around the league, it´s happening all over the place. More worried about the integrity of a game I love being washed away on a rising tide of gambling dollars.

6 minutes ago, kiwinavega said:

Bothered by it, yes, of course. Worried? More worried about the lack of any holding penalties on that drive, there were at least two on every play. More worried about sequences of downright suspicious officiating around the league, it´s happening all over the place. More worried about the integrity of a game I love being washed away on a rising tide of gambling dollars.

Now my most hated penalty " illegal man down field”.