27 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. 

You type this as if Saquon has never been injured...

24 minutes 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

And if he gets hurt trying to chase a record in a meaningless game, people calling for him to play will feel like even bigger morons.  The smart play is to rest the starters and come out fresh with more time to prepare for the first round.  This team hasn't had rest since Week 5 when coincidentally coincided with the bounce back from an uneven start to the season.  

25 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.

People have also made the argument about the pendulum swing back and forth about RBs. The league moved away from drafting them high in the 1st round and not paying them. Barkley and Henry are the top 2 RBs and they signed with new teams this year. We've seen how a good run game can eat clock and prevent the other team from an opportunity. 

There are even teams bringing back the fullback position in packages. It will be interesting to see how things progress.

I’m definitely in the minority based on the last few days of conversation, but I don’t really put much weight on winning the division or seeding. The seeding is what it is and out of control for the Birds. 

Winning the division is nice, but I’m far more interested in how they compete in the playoffs and the ultimate goal of winning the Super Bowl. If you get bounced in the first round of the playoffs, are you going to brag and hang your hat on being division champs?

In regards to Barkley, he should rest next week. I get that the record is rare, but it is only an accolade for the RB and OL. The goal is the Super Bowl, which is for the whole team. 

7 minutes ago, NOTW said:

division games matter

Take it to CVON

33 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.

You’re actually really, really wrong there.

If they rest Barkley - anything less than a Super Bowl Championship - all eyes will be on Sirianni.  
 

Making it to the Super Bowl - he would likely be "ok”.

Anything less than a Super Bowl appearance and fans will be second guessing and criticizing his decision for YEARS.

Barkley has a chance to make history for this team by breaking that record.   That record is immortal until it is beaten.    Do you not understand that?  

Other than a Lombardi Trophy, few achievements at the NFL level are better than the single season ALL TIME rushing record.

  Arguably the hardest single season record to beat. (Because of the skill level needed, the offense needed, the offensive line needed, the punishment RB’s take and likelihood of injury for RB’s,etc) 

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, McMVP said:

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

Let's look at the non-division teams in that list:

Chicago Bears - W
Detroit Lions - could go either way, it's a home game for us though
Denver Broncos - W
Las Vegas Raiders - W
Los Angeles Rams - W
Green Bay Packers - W, they haven't beat anyone this year 
Minnesota Vikings - W, they haven't beat anyone this year 
Kansas City Chiefs - could go either way but tough and on the road
Los Angeles Chargers - W, not scared of them
Buffalo Bills - could go either way, but tough and on the road
Tampa Bay Buccaneers or Atlanta Falcons - Bucs have had our number lately, but if they play like they are currently they will beat either of those teams

 

Things happen, and it's a tougher schedule than this year but the Eagles are a top team in the NFL and will build on this season.

1 minute ago, NOTW said:

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.

It isn't a yes/no topic. It is a matter of degree.  Lessening the importance of winning the division will lower the importance of the intra divisional games over time.

 

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

It isn't a yes/no topic. It is a matter of degree.  Lessening the importance of winning the division will lower the importance of the intra divisional games over time.

 

And for teams that have 14 wins but have to take a lower seed than a 9 win team, it's a degree of advantage for going out and winning more total games, which is typically harder than just winning your division if your division is a bad one. This argument goes both ways. 

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

It isn't a yes/no topic. It is a matter of degree.  Lessening the importance of winning the division will lower the importance of the intra divisional games over time.

 

You guys are really going heavy on that there’s gonna be less significance. There is a scenario if the Eagles are the 6 seed and the Cowboys are the 1 seed going into week 18. If the Eagles win that game as a wildcard team, they move all the way up to the four seed and a home game. Meanwhile, if they win it knocks the Cowboys, from one to the 2 seed. You’re telling me that doesn’t have just as much juice and incentive?
 

I'm on the sit Barkley side the more I think about it.

Hate to say it, but I wouldn't put it past the Giants to intentionally try to hurt him.

8 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Take it to CVON

Hey what are you picking on me for? 😂

46 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Not ignoring it at all.  Point is... division games matter more than other games.  It's as simple as that.  And division games matter more, because of the implications of being the division winner and the home playoff game.  

 

1 hour ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I'm not making the argument that this is the way its been forever, I countered that divisions matter.  Win your division first.  Then worry about conference seeding.  But you are arguing that conference seeding should take precedence over division standings.  Sorry, I can't get behind that, because there ARE divisions.  The divisions give the league a specific character, and it should be preserved.   

 

1 hour ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

The division still matter because the easiest way to make the playoffs is to the division to make the playoffs otherwise you are relying on being a wild card with tiebreaker scenarios. Add if you made the tiebreaker scenarios for better seeding winning the division over the wild card then division championship still matters 

The one thing the NBA got right was changing their seeding. they didn’t want their best team potentially playing their second best team in the second round of the playoffs as opposed to the conference finals.

 

4 hours ago, Sack that QB said:

Division winners matter. They shouldn't get higher seeds than teams with better records though.

 

4 hours ago, DaEagles4Life said:

Then division winners matter 

#ADGM #MDGGA
 

2 minutes ago, NOTW said:

And for teams that have 14 wins but have to take a lower seed than a 9 win team, it's a degree of advantage for going out and winning more total games, which is typically harder than just winning your division if your division is a bad one. This argument goes both ways. 

Sure, it isn't perfect but there isn't any perfect solution.  Cheapening the rivalries and risking the intriguing intra divisional stuff isn't worth it in chasing an extra touch of "fairness" that can't really be fully achieved in any case.

2 hours ago, NOTW said:

 

That is good example of why the Eagles opponents are worn down in the 4th Quarter.

19 minutes ago, wussbasket said:

I’m definitely in the minority based on the last few days of conversation, but I don’t really put much weight on winning the division or seeding. The seeding is what it is and out of control for the Birds. 

Winning the division is nice, but I’m far more interested in how they compete in the playoffs and the ultimate goal of winning the Super Bowl. If you get bounced in the first round of the playoffs, are you going to brag and hang your hat on being division champs?

In regards to Barkley, he should rest next week. I get that the record is rare, but it is only an accolade for the RB and OL. The goal is the Super Bowl, which is for the whole team. 

I think the whole team rejoices.  Yesterday is a great example: the D kept getting the ball back to the offense and one motivation was to get him past 2000 yards.  Slay in his post game was beaming as he spoke about witnessing history.

Everyone agrees the SB is the goal, but don't think for a moment that the record is only for Saquon and the OL.   It is a very difficult decision to make whether they go for it or not. 

 

Besides, the Giants owe the NFL a gimme record after GB and Favre gave Strahan and the Giants the single season sack record.  Just play ole' defense for a qtr and let Saquon get the record in 5 carries.

13 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

You’re actually really, really wrong there.

If they rest Barkley - anything less than a Super Bowl Championship - all eyes will be on Sirianni.  
 

Making it to the Super Bowl - he would likely be "ok”.

Anything less than a Super Bowl appearance and fans will be second guessing and criticizing his decision for YEARS.

Barkley has a chance to make history for this team by breaking that record.   That record is immortal until it is beaten.    Do you not understand that?  

Other than a Lombardi Trophy, few achievements at the NFL level are better than the single season ALL TIME rushing record.

  Arguably the hardest single season record to beat. (Because of the skill level needed, the offense needed, the offensive line needed, the punishment RB’s take and likelihood of injury for RB’s,etc) 

 

 

 

Wow.  So the tolerance for not getting to the SB increases if Barkley sets the record?  I literally can't wrap my head around that.

We literally care less about getting to the SB if Saquan gets the record.  I do not understand that.

I, for one, am not going to remember a season fondly in which we didn't win the SB and ran our only chance of doing so into the ground in pursuit of a 17 game record.

2 hours ago, eagle45 said:

I hate 12 personnel, but I do like Calcaterra on the field better than Dotson.

Dotson has been all Decoy all the time.

If the Eagles had 3 more sacks and set the regular season record in 2022, I'd feel a lot better about failing to pressure Mahomes in that SB.  

Siri said today that he hasn't decided yet. If it was a firm no, I don't think it would take this long.

Looking good for the pro-record caucus.

2 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Dotson has been all Decoy all the time.

But he can run mesh very well!

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Sure, it isn't perfect but there isn't any perfect solution.  Cheapening the rivalries and risking the intriguing intra divisional stuff isn't worth it in chasing an extra touch of "fairness" that can't really be fully achieved in any case.

You say that like it's a fact, it's an opinion. As I mentioned, if both teams are out of the playoffs the players and fans still care about the division rival games. The division games would not be "cheapened" (extreme wording) if it guarantees a playoff spot despite having a lesser record than other teams. Fairness is objective when it's simply who has the better overall record.

As I said, you can make both sides of the argument. You could say putting all the effort to winning more total games is "cheapened" if you are lower seeded than an average team who managed to win a bad division. There are different ways to look at it. 

7 minutes ago, mattwill said:

That is good example of why the Eagles opponents are worn down in the 4th Quarter.

Funny, should have been a penalty on Mailata as he was not fully set before the snap.

8 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Wow.  So the tolerance for not getting to the SB increases if Barkley sets the record?  I literally can't wrap my head around that.

We literally care less about getting to the SB if Saquan gets the record.  I do not understand that.

Who said that?  
 

The goal is and always has been the Super Bowl Championship.  
 

Fear of failure because of a "lack of rest or injury” should never be a reason to take your foot off the gas.

If you need to keep your foot on the gas as an honor to the men on your team that have worked day and night to make history - then that’s what you do.  That’s what a true leader does - true leaders aren’t scared of "this or that”.  
 

True leaders break records AND win championships. 
 

 They believe in their team and they move forward - all the way to records AND championships. 

3 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

Siri said today that he hasn't decided yet. If it was a firm no, I don't think it would take this long.

Looking good for the pro-record caucus.

Don't listen to anything he says, he won't even comment on whether players will play in the game or not. "Competitive advantage."

We'll find out on Sunday!