7 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Saquan Barkley has 345 carries this year.  

Unless I am missing one, no RB has had that many carries and led their team to a SB win since Terrell Davis and the 1998 Denver Broncos.  

Do we really want to make it 365?  We are already banking on something that hasn't happened in over a quarter century.  At least give him the freshest legs possible.

Saquon, like Derrick Henry, is a freak. He can handle the workload.

I would still rest Saquon, but 345 is not a death sentence. 

Just now, eagle45 said:

And why do teams not use a single RB that much anymore and why is the NFL a passing league?

There is a reason teams don't give a RB 345+ carries in a season anymore.

Because the NFL changed the rules to favor passing.  It's what the NFL thinks the fans want to see more of.

The more I think about it the more I think that Barkley is going to get a chance to get the record against the Giants.  Keep in mind that they're probably going to want to get Hurts into that game to get some reps in before the playoffs so he isn't going in rusty (I really doubt they want to go into the playoffs with Hurts not seeing in-game reps for an entire month).  What that means is that with Hurts in there that means the starting Oline needs to be in there to in order to protect him.  Now I don't think that Hurts plays the whole game, probably just 2 quarters, so that means the rest of the starters on offense are playing at least that much.  That will give Barkley 2  quarters to try and get the record. Defense can get the entire game off, though.  

1 hour ago, twistr said:

It all boils down to what do you want to emphasize, division rivalries or conference records. If you remove the big incentive to winning your division, it lessens those rivalries and would create more conference rivalries which don't happen as often, think the Patriots/Colts in Tom/Peyton days. Without this system, the division games become far less meaningful. If you wanted to do that, I'd take it a step further like someone else said and get rid of divisions but especially multiple games against the division. The whole NFL is focused on division games and that built in rivalry, if you remove that, it takes something away from the overall game and strategy to me.

Playoff seeding by record would not erase rivalries. I think a playoff guarantee despite having a lesser record IS the big incentive. Winning the division would still mean playoffs and be meaningful, still add to the division title and bragging rights, and still be part of playoff tie breakers. You just might be a couple seeds lower than a team that went out and won a bunch more games than you...that seems fair. 

Even when teams have losing records and there's no playoffs at stake, 2 division rivals can play a meaningful game because they are rivals and have history. You'd still play those teams twice every season and have rivalries.

If teams want higher seeding, win more total games instead of scraping by in a bad division. I'm fine if it stays the way it is, but I don't think the rivalries would not be meaningful if the only change is seeding.

13 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I pointed out what the differences in their schedules were in terms of their division... i.e. the NFC North matchups and the NFC South matchups.  Every game will have some variations in terms of who is available, but now you are ignoring the advantages that the Vikings had in their particular matchups.  McCaffrey wasn't playing when the 49ers matched up against the Vikings.

But, clearly you are dug in and aren't willing to look at the significance of the divisions and how comparing teams from the various divisions isn't as simple as their overall record... because each division plays a different division because you can't have all the teams playing the same opponents.  So, having divisions and having the divisions take precedence over the conference ranking makes perfect sense, because the divisional competitors have basically the same schedule as the rest of their division... so its a much more apples to apples comparison.  That's not true from one division to the next, as I demonstrated with the overall winning pct of the divisional matchups and the 'extra' games between the Vikings and Bucs.  A 0.330 vs. 0.622 winning pct is a dramatic difference and its much wider as it pertains to their respective schedules.   In other words, unless you have a way to compare them more appropriately, leave it well enough alone.   The Vikings have it within their power to host a playoff game (every playoff game, this year as it turns out).  If they handle their business against the Lions... they get HFA and its the Lions' problem (the same problem will exist for the Lions extra divisional lineup, given than the comparison was based on the divisions... though the 'extra' games for the Lions would be different).  

 

But, we're done here.  This is going in circles, especially as you ignore what is actually being presented.

Christian McCaffrey played 3.5 games this year. And mason was actually great in replacement of cmc. Bucs missed playing aiyuk. Also, when Vikings play sf and aiyuk, kittle and deebo were healthy.

Also remotely not the same as the Eagles not having AJ Brown and Devonta Smith. That was the only game all year the Eagles didn’t have both of them or one of them playing. Go tell me what the Eagles record is when AJ Brown has been out the last two years and tell me how much of an easier opponent the Eagles are. so Tampa Bay and their strength of schedule gets the benefit of the Eagles being good, but not having to play the Eagles when they had their best two wide receivers out which is a massive advantage. That’s why there’s a flaw in your SOS. The strength is much better. The SOS also looks better because they gave two wins to a bad Atlanta team with cousins and the Cowboys win that boosted them up. Meanwhile, Minnesota was beating the mediocre and bad teams and not boosting their win percentage  which drops theirs  

 

 

38 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Ertz got $750k all because the Falcons kicker sucks and went to OT

 

At eight sacks, Sweat is two more sacks away from earning a $250,000 bonus. That bonus would turn to $1.5 million if Sweat reaches 11 sacks and would go up to $2 million if he records 12 sacks this season.

5 minutes ago, RLC said:

Saquon, like Derrick Henry, is a freak. He can handle the workload.

I would still rest Saquon, but 345 is not a death sentence. 

If the Eagles go all the way, that's 4 playoff games. At Saquon's current rate, that'd be 86 more carries. 431 on the year.

No chance in hell I'm adding 15-20 more to that total. Just no.

7 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Things change and adapt over time. They always have. Leagues should evaluate if changes they make were good or not, and revert if not. Like the new kickoff, it's stupid. They should change it back. But passing is cool, that can stay. Things change. They just have to make sure the changes are good ones.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the fact that changes will occur.  I think it is more about discussing a particular change, playoff seeding rules, and if that change would be a good one or not.

13 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Saquan Barkley has 345 carries this year.  

Unless I am missing one, no RB has had that many carries and led their team to a SB win since Terrell Davis and the 1998 Denver Broncos.  

Do we really want to make it 365?  We are already banking on something that hasn't happened in over a quarter century.  At least give him the freshest legs possible.

Just because you bench him one game does not mean we make it to the Super bowl. They can lose in the Wild Card and then everyone's going to come up another excuse.

Imagine that we don't even make it to the Super Bowl and never gave Barkley the chance for greatness. Everyone calling to sit him would feel like an absolute moron.

Myself, I believe in Barkley and a team that they will still be strong and be able to push through the playoffs. You never know when injury is going to happen. Resting players for one week is not going to prevent it. It either happens or it doesn't. People are just being scared and soft

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Because the NFL changed the rules to favor passing.  It's what the NFL thinks the fans want to see more of.

That's absolutely part of it.  But that's only one side of the coin, and, IMO, the smaller driver of it.  

Passing is sustainable.  Elite QB's have long careers.  So do elite WRs.  They don't get injured often.  And throwing the ball 30+ times doesn't make a QB that much more likely to get hurt.  WR useage doesn't have too much of a correlation with injuries, longevity, or productivity falloff.  

RBs, historically, are a bad investment.  More injuries, less availability, more deterioration after excessive utilization.  It's not just the rules.  It's that the running game isn't sustainable.  

 

If we only have so many carries in Barkley's legs, don't waste a single one on a play that isn't bringing us closer to a SB.  I'm more worried about rest than injury.  Think starting pitcher in October who has just thrown too many innings.  And...for 2025 regular season...that's already going to be diminishing returns after this kind of utilization.

 

I think everyone is just in la la land enthralled with what Barkley has done this year and thinks the rules don't apply anymore, not to Barkley, not to us.  That does of reality gets closer with every single carry.  It's best to keep as many of those in the tank as possible.

40 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Ertz got $750k all because the Falcons kicker sucks and went to OT

Good for him.   And his performance could likely be the difference maker in my fantasy football championship.  💪

2 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Christian McCaffrey played 3.5 games this year. And mason was actually great in replacement of cmc. Bucs missed playing aiyuk. Also, when Vikings play sf and aiyuk, kittle and deebo were healthy.

Also remotely not the same as the Eagles not having AJ Brown and Devonta Smith. That was the only game all year the Eagles didn’t have both of them or one of them playing. Go tell me what the Eagles record is when AJ Brown has been out the last two years and tell me how much of an easier opponent the Eagles are. so Tampa Bay and their strength of schedule gets the benefit of the Eagles being good, but not having to play the Eagles when they had their best two wide receivers out which is a massive advantage. That’s why there’s a flaw in your SOS. The strength is much better. The SOS also looks better because they gave two wins to a bad Atlanta team with cousins and the Cowboys win that boosted them up. Meanwhile, Minnesota was beating the mediocre and bad teams and not boosting their win percentage  which drops theirs  

.  The difference is 36 under 0.500 for the Vikings' opponents and 27 games over 0.500 for the Bucs'.   I'm sure that the 7 games that they each played makes up that difference... oh wait... they don't.  

 

As for McCaffrey and Aiyuk, Kittle, etc.   What were the 49ers before and after adding McCaffrey?   He was the straw that stirred the drink.  With and without him is night and day.   But whatever.  We're really done here now.  Write your petition to the league.  Maybe they will listen to your argument.

1 minute ago, DeathByEagle said:

Just because you bench him one game does not mean we make it to the Super bowl. They can lose in the Wild Card and then everyone's going to come up another excuse.

Imagine that we don't even make it to the Super Bowl and never gave Barkley the chance for greatness. Everyone calling to sit him would feel like an absolute moron.

Myself, I believe in Barkley and a team that they will still be strong and be able to push through the playoffs. You never know when injury is going to happen. Resting players for one week is not going to prevent it. It either happens or it doesn't. People are just being scared and soft

Why?  If they bench him and don't make it to the SB, no one will care that Barkley didn't break a stupid record.  And if they don't bench him and don't make it to the SB, no one will care that he did.

Again, I'm not in support of rest to avoid injury.  I want to make sure he's recharged and fully explosive for a massive playoff workload.  He's had an enormous number of carries this year and half the OL is getting up gimpy on every other play.  This is for rest.

Page 1000!

 

4 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

Imagine that we don't even make it to the Super Bowl and never gave Barkley the chance for greatness. Everyone calling to sit him would feel like an absolute moron.

Not at all.  The team needs to be ruthless about doing everything possible to win the SB.  That's the bottom line.

9 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

And why do teams not use a single RB that much anymore and why is the NFL a passing league?

There is a reason teams don't give a RB 345+ carries in a season anymore.

1. Consider that with this O line, there are many plays Barkley is not even touched. His carries are not all 2-3 yards and taking bruising hits. He's had a lot of runs where he's not touched, the announcers have commented on in frequently.

2. Last year the highest was Henry with 280 carries. But in 2022 Henry had 349 carries, Josh Jacobs 340 carries, Chubb 302 and Barkley 295.  In 2021 Jonathan Taylor had 332 carries, Najee Harris 307. In 2020 Henry had 378, Cook 312. 

So it does still happen, albeit rare. But with this O line and Barkley not being hit as much it's not like he's taking bruising hits every play.

11 minutes ago, RLC said:

Saquon, like Derrick Henry, is a freak. He can handle the workload.

I would still rest Saquon, but 345 is not a death sentence. 

Disagree. Saqoun is unchartered territory compared to his career. His career high is 295 and he's been hurt a lot throughout his career. Eagles have been fortunate that he hasn't missed any time. There's nothing really to show he can handle it besides he hasn't gotten hurt yet. And a big problem with the workload is how he performs next year. Derrick Henry proved he can have 300+ seasons and still be effective the following year. We'll see if Saqoun can also, but the odds aren't in his favor. 

6 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

That's absolutely part of it.  But that's only one side of the coin, and, IMO, the smaller driver of it.  

Passing is sustainable.  Elite QB's have long careers.  So do elite WRs.  They don't get injured often.  And throwing the ball 30+ times doesn't make a QB that much more likely to get hurt.  WR useage doesn't have too much of a correlation with injuries, longevity, or productivity falloff.  

RBs, historically, are a bad investment.  More injuries, less availability, more deterioration after excessive utilization.  It's not just the rules.  It's that the running game isn't sustainable.  

Sustainable doesn't matter as much for 2024. Right now though? We can absolutely win a championship riding Saquon.

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Disagree. Saqoun is unchartered territory compared to his career. His career high is 295 and he's been hurt a lot throughout his career. Eagles have been fortunate that he hasn't missed any time. There's nothing really to show he can handle it besides he hasn't gotten hurt yet. And a big problem with the workload is how he performs next year. Derrick Henry proved he can have 300+ seasons and still be effective the following year. We'll see if Saqoun can also, but the odds aren't in his favor. 

Fortunately, he only played one game on that awful turf in NJ this year... unlike the rest of his career.

7 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

.  The difference is 36 under 0.500 for the Vikings' opponents and 27 games over 0.500 for the Bucs'.   I'm sure that the 7 games that they each played makes up that difference... oh wait... they don't.  

 

As for McCaffrey and Aiyuk, Kittle, etc.   What were the 49ers before and after adding McCaffrey?   He was the straw that stirred the drink.  With and without him is night and day.   But whatever.  We're really done here now.  Write your petition to the league.  Maybe they will listen to your argument.

Niners were 1-2 with cmc. And gonna lose to bills prior to him getting hurt. So really 1-3. L  Prior to him returning 4-4. he didn’t look like the same player when he came back.

let me also point out the Buccaneers might finish the year with 4 losses to teams below .500. Meanwhile Minnesota has beaten all those teams besides a rams team in la that’s beaten the bills as well. And a lions team when they were at full strength and they lost by 2 points. You know what would’ve helped Tampa Bay have more wins? not losing the teams at 500 or below like Minnesota did. Kudos to them for beating the lions in week 2 and eagles down 2 of their best WRs 

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

 

Bad teams become good, and vice versa, just about every year

1 hour ago, NOTW said:

Like that

1 minute ago, McMVP said:

Bad teams become good, and vice versa, just about every year

That's true, but on paper at the moment, it looks like a tough schedule. Which is why they need to take advantage of the situation they are currently in because the future is a question mark. I'd be surprised if they don't have the toughest SoS heading into next year. 

8 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Why?  If they bench him and don't make it to the SB, no one will care that Barkley didn't break a stupid record.  And if they don't bench him and don't make it to the SB, no one will care that he did.

Again, I'm not in support of rest to avoid injury.  I want to make sure he's recharged and fully explosive for a massive playoff workload.  He's had an enormous number of carries this year and half the OL is getting up gimpy on every other play.  This is for rest.

At trivia last night, there was a question about what % of the populations thoughts are negative - the answer was 80%.  I'm fairly certain if they removed you from the equation it will immediately be cut in half.  

Question: if the Eagles are out of playoff contention in any given year and they play division games at the end of the season, do you care about the rivalry?

 

If the answer is yes, then division games matter, rivalries are still fun and mean something regardless of playoffs and seeding. If playoff seeding were by record but winning the division guaranteed a playoff spot despite your overall record, division games would still matter.