1 hour ago, Cliftoma said:

As someone mentioned the other day, CJGJ maturing might be weirdest thing to happen this season.  He has really showed up this season.  With him and Blankenship at S the Eagles have some ball hawking/play making safeties in the back end.  

And most importantly, they are playing disciplined football within Fangio's scheme.  Consistency baby ... consistency.

I think they’ll give him a half to break it and then sit all the starters. 

Just now, NOTW said:

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!

We'll know this week if the offensive starters are taking a bunch of reps or not.

Just now, Freshmilk said:

We'll know this week if the offensive starters are taking a bunch of reps or not.

We didn't know until after the game that McKee took most of the practice reps. We'll see what happens.

8 hours ago, mattwill said:

The Giants can always pull a Favre-Strahan move and let him go 70 yards on the first play of the game. That would give Saquon two all time NFL records.

 

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I got an idea. How about the NY Giants return the favor of the sack record and let Barkley run 70 yards on his first carry as they carelessly dive at his ankles or fall over. Then on his next carry they all run into each other and Barkley casually jogs for 35 yards. Then you sit him and everyone is happy!

Good minds think alike.

McKee's nickname is the Mormon Missile 

1 minute ago, NOTW said:

We didn't know until after the game that McKee took most of the practice reps. We'll see what happens.

Friday reps if I recall, not Wed-Thurs.

9 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.

You have it backwards. If anything, if they were gonna play he'd say it. He's not gonna publicly declare guys out on Monday, it's bad for the NFL and bad for marketing. And he in general never gives the public any info anyway. I'd be stunned if they play starters Sunday. The Eagles always rest starters in these games.

Typing this makes me ill, but...Nick Wright just made a good point. Going for the record, playing the starters, could backfire in 2 ways. First, someone gets hurt. That we all know, and you'd need the full complement of starters out there, so you're not just risking Barkley. But another potential outcome is -- they go for it and don't get it. And lose to the Giants with the starters. How much does that dent the team's confidence and aura going into the playoffs?

I was already 100% on board with resting everyone, but this conversation has been people assuming he'll get the 101 yards. The Giants might put 10 in the box; hell, given the potential embarrassment to that organization, Joe Schoen will demand it. Going for it, not getting it and losing to a terrible Giants team could derail the whole locker room.

Just sit everyone down.

1 hour 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.

True, but they are a lighter than average 345 carries in term of their wear and tear.  That is because of the O-Line minimizing the proportion of the carries that are massive hits on Barkley by the Defenders.  He definitely gets hit in the carries where he has a big hole, but most of the time the hits come with less power.

5 minutes ago, mattwill said:

 

Good minds think alike.

Or...small minds rarely differ.

J/k. That's just a line someone dropped on me early in my career when I said "great minds think alike," and it really was hysterical (and truthful). 

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Typing this makes me ill, but...Nick Wright just made a good point. Going for the record, playing the starters, could backfire in 2 ways. First, someone gets hurt. That we all know, and you'd need the full complement of starters out there, so you're not just risking Barkley. But another potential outcome is -- they go for it and don't get it. And lose to the Giants with the starters. How much does that dent the team's confidence and aura going into the playoffs?

I was already 100% on board with resting everyone, but this conversation has been people assuming he'll get the 101 yards. The Giants might put 10 in the box; hell, given the potential embarrassment to that organization, Joe Schoen will demand it. Going for it, not getting it and losing to a terrible Giants team could derail the whole locker room.

Just sit everyone down.

The Giants beating us?  

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

You guys are really going heavy on that there’s gonna be less significance.

I think it is pretty obvious.  In any case, you aren't going to be able to put a model in place that is going to give you what you want and not just push the problem somewhere else.

Also, there are some real reasons why both the MLB and the NFL retain the high importance on winning the division.  Namely, for practical reasons they can't really afford to go to a setup whereby 50% (or more) of the teams make the playoffs like the NBA.  They also can't create a schedule that is balanced across all teams within a conference.  Instead, they use the concept of divisions as the first strong filter and within those divisions the teams have nearly identical schedules as a way to ensure a high level of fairness.

I just heard Rich Eisen address this issue and his response was that the NFL is a league/sport where the object is to obtain and then defend territory.  The division is one of the key territories that a team must strive to obtain and defend.  Every team understands that the first step is to win the division and every team plans accordingly.  The concept of gaining a significant advantage by "winning the division" is completely in sync with the very fiber of the game itself.

5 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

You have it backwards. If anything, if they were gonna play he'd say it. He's not gonna publicly declare guys out on Monday, it's bad for the NFL and bad for marketing. And he in general never gives the public any info anyway. I'd be stunned if they play starters Sunday. The Eagles always rest starters in these games.

Nick's not going to answer it until Sunday. Maybe one of the players will say something, or we'll know based on practice reports. But Nick will stick with "we'll see" up until 90 minutes before kickoff.

Just now, schuy7 said:

The Giants beating us?  

Stranger things have happened, and if we are force feeding Barkley...

5 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Typing this makes me ill, but...Nick Wright just made a good point. Going for the record, playing the starters, could backfire in 2 ways. First, someone gets hurt. That we all know, and you'd need the full complement of starters out there, so you're not just risking Barkley. But another potential outcome is -- they go for it and don't get it. And lose to the Giants with the starters. How much does that dent the team's confidence and aura going into the playoffs?

I was already 100% on board with resting everyone, but this conversation has been people assuming he'll get the 101 yards. The Giants might put 10 in the box; hell, given the potential embarrassment to that organization, Joe Schoen will demand it. Going for it, not getting it and losing to a terrible Giants team could derail the whole locker room.

Just sit everyone down.

Didinger pointed out the very same thing with regard to how the Giants organization would react.  They may even go so far as to go over the line with a cheap shot or two as it would surely feel as if Barkley and the Eagles were rubbing their noses in it.

Rest everyone and go on to win the SB.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Typing this makes me ill, but...Nick Wright just made a good point. Going for the record, playing the starters, could backfire in 2 ways. First, someone gets hurt. That we all know, and you'd need the full complement of starters out there, so you're not just risking Barkley. But another potential outcome is -- they go for it and don't get it. And lose to the Giants with the starters. How much does that dent the team's confidence and aura going into the playoffs?

I was already 100% on board with resting everyone, but this conversation has been people assuming he'll get the 101 yards. The Giants might put 10 in the box; hell, given the potential embarrassment to that organization, Joe Schoen will demand it. Going for it, not getting it and losing to a terrible Giants team could derail the whole locker room.

Just sit everyone down.

Another aspect to consider I thought of then heard Didinger mention. We don’t know when our playoff game will be scheduled. We could get scheduled WC Saturday, and no doubt, many that are adamant about going for the record are going to cry conspiracy the league is giving us a short week. 

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

Stranger things have happened, and if we are force feeding Barkley...

that thing is less strange than the Giants beating us 

RIP President Carter (this isn't political, he's a human being). But this is too funny not to post.

 

Something I haven't seen discussed yet - assuming Hurts is cleared to play, are we going to sit him if/when we sit the rest of the starters?  Then it will have been roughly 3 weeks since he played any meaningful football.  That worries me a bit.  

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

Didinger pointed out the very same thing with regard to how the Giants organization would react.  They may even go so far as to go over the line with a cheap shot or two as it would surely feel as if Barkley and the Eagles were rubbing their noses in it.

Rest everyone and go on to win the SB.

 

1 minute ago, EagleJoe8 said:

Another aspect to consider I thought of then heard Didinger mention. We don’t know when our playoff game will be scheduled. We could get scheduled WC Saturday, and no doubt, many that are adamant about going for the record are going to cry conspiracy the league is giving us a short week. 

I thought about that too, but the players on the Giants do seem to love Saquon. I'd hope they wouldn't cheap shot him. Dallas was clearly taking cheap shots yesterday, but they are a trash organization.

3 minutes ago, mattwill said:

True, but they are a lighter than average 345 carries in term of their wear and tear.  That is because of the O-Line minimizing the proportion of the carries that are massive hits on Barkley by the Defenders.  He definitely gets hit in the carries where he has a big hole, but most of the time the hits come with less power.

Yep.  
 

This offensive line is potentially one of the best offensive lines in team history.  
 

Who will know that 20 years from now?  

Only a few die hards.

But if Barkley breaks the record. this offensive line will be immortalized along with Barkley, the rest of the team and the record.  
 

Breaking the record is the ultimate respect for this offensive line and as important to them as it is for him and this team, city and fans. 

18 minutes ago, NOTW said:

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. 

Well, we can argue all day about whether the rivalries would be less important or not.  In any case, there isn't a solution that doesn't just push the problem somewhere else.  Let's flip this around now.  Please put out a concrete suggestion and we can see how it stacks up.

4 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

 

I thought about that too, but the players on the Giants do seem to love Saquon. I'd hope they wouldn't cheap shot him. Dallas was clearly taking cheap shots yesterday, but they are a trash organization.

For sure, but it only takes one knucklehead player and for sure there are some embarrassed/frustrated non-players inside the building up there as well.

Just now, DrPhilly said:

For sure, but it only takes one knucklehead and for sure there are some embarrassed/frustrated non-players inside the building up there.

I'd be more worried about them taking a cheap shot at an OL, or Jalen (if he played).