Ok...how about this, the Eagles had their bye week in Week 5.....the two teams they may have to play, either Green Bay or Washington had their bye weeks in weeks 10 and 14 respectively.  The Eagles have been playing football without rest/break for 13 weeks.......while their opponents have had a chance to rest.  Does this move the needle for any of the "Play Everyone" crowd?

Great perspective on the Saquon topic from Chris Long, who explains how much a Super Bowl Championship changed the lives of everyone forever compared to the risk of chasing the rushing title. 

 

1 hour ago, NYEagle said:

So you're comparing a meaningless week 18 game that has NO impact on seeding vs. an NFCCG......that's an interesting analogy.  Thank god some of you morons have nothing to do with the decisions the Eagles make.

We have to make it to the NFCCG first, that is not a guarantee we even get to that point.  

8 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

We’ll get the passing record next year 

So the rumors are true, we are trading Hurts for Burrow. 

Idk... Tomorrow is not guaranteed.  Any player can get hurt at any time.  On or off the field.  Eagles could be 1 and done.  Play for the now.  I don't agree with the decision.  Go for immortality.  

I can see it right now, If we lose in any game in the playoffs. This is the chats comments after the loss:

Barkley didnt play in wk 18- "We should have went for the record, why didn't Nick let him reach greatness"

Barkley did play wk 18- "See I told you, its all Nick's fault for playing Barkley"

Seen it so many times here, people always changing their comments after the fact. This is a NO WIN for Nick at this point. However honestly, I don't think Nick has this decision to make.

13 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

We have to make it to the NFCCG first, that is not a guarantee we even get to that point.  

Oh my f'ing god...no crap.  Nothing is guaranteed...it's about giving yourself the best chance.  So....is the best chance playing the starters who haven't had a week off since week 5, and potentially having people get injured?  Please remember that AJ and Sydney Brown BOTH got injured last year in the last game.  Or is the best chance allowing everyone to rest, HAVE ZERO CHANCE AT INJURY and roll the dice?  This is not rocket science....

4 minutes ago, NYEagle said:

Oh my f'ing god...no crap.  Nothing is guaranteed...it's about giving yourself the best chance.  So....is the best chance playing the starters who haven't had a week off since week 5, and potentially having people get injured?  Please remember that AJ and Sydney Brown BOTH got injured last year in the last game.  Or is the best chance allowing everyone to rest, HAVE ZERO CHANCE AT INJURY and roll the dice?  This is not rocket science....

Read your post that I tagged. You like many others keeps saying its the record vs making it to the SB. 

I'm glad you are correcting your mistake by now saying "best chance". 

Now that is not rocket science. 

The team started the season with the goal being the super bowl. They didn't start it thinking they were going for the rushing record.

Playing for the record negatively impacts the teams chances for winning the super bowl. Plain and simple.

Just now, DeathByEagle said:

Read your post that I tagged. You like many others keeps saying its the record vs making it to the SB. 

I glad you are correcting your mistake by now saying "best chance". 

Now that is not rocket science. 

Huh?  Are you serious?  Are you senile?  Where did I say that?  Where in god's name did I say if the Eagles play Barkley, go for the record, then they are not going to make the Super Bowl?  Where did I say, if they don't play Barkley and rest everyone, they are going to win the Super Bowl?  

3 minutes ago, NYEagle said:

Huh?  Are you serious?  Are you senile?  Where did I say that?  Where in god's name did I say if the Eagles play Barkley, go for the record, then they are not going to make the Super Bowl?  Where did I say, if they don't play Barkley and rest everyone, they are going to win the Super Bowl?  

Your comment was "So you're comparing a meaningless week 18 game that has NO impact on seeding vs. an NFCCG"

Your choice of wording indicates we make it to the NFCCG. You made a mistake, I called you out on it, and you corrected with "best chance" Your welcome

1 minute ago, DeathByEagle said:

Your comment was "So you're comparing a meaningless week 18 game that has NO impact on seeding vs. an NFCCG"

Your choice of wording indicates we make it to the NFCCG. You made a mistake, I called you out on it, and you corrected with "best chance" Your welcome

Did you mean "You're"?  I mean seeing as we are correcting things, thought I'd help someone that's trying to correct me on the proper use of the English language and all......additionally you dolt.....I didn't make that comparison...I was quoting someone else that was making that point.  Jesus, go play in traffic.

There's the logic side of the discussion... and then there's the emotional side.  

Logically, there's no argument against resting starters and aligning to the Eagles' plan of sitting Barkley and not chasing history.

But, the emotions side says, we can have both.  Barkley can win the rushing title AND they can hoist the Lombardi, making the rushing title mean so much more.  The flip side of that is that the rushing title offers a consolation prize, because if we don't get the Super Bowl victory, at least we'll have something to hold on to for this season.  

 

Sports are about more than just championships.  They must be.  If they aren't, then every year, the overwhelming majority of athletes are abject failures, and there's really no difference between the likes of Justin Jefferson and Jalen Reagor.  Neither has won a championship, so they both are failures.   BUT, the stats matter.  Jefferson has all the marks of being a truly generational talent, whereas Reagor is a 1st round bust, exacerbated by the presence of Jefferson being there just one pick later.

You play to win the game, and the biggest game is the ultimate prize.  But, you also play the game to leave your mark on it.  To prove yourself, and to have a legacy long after you are gone.  Barkley has such a moment in front of him.  And some of us are mourning the loss of opportunity to witness history being made.   

I would have been fine with the decision either way, but given their attitude with the preseason I had a feeling we wouldn't see most of the starters.

Personally, I would sit anyone with an injury designation, and give the rest of the starters a few drives just to iron out any issues.  If Barkley got like 40 yards in the first few drives, maybe I leave him in.  

But there's no way I'm going to criticize anyone because if we would have lost a big time player in a useless game vs. the freaking Giants, I'd be really pissed.

3 minutes ago, NYEagle said:

Did you mean "You're"?  I mean seeing as we are correcting things, thought I'd help someone that's trying to correct me on the proper use of the English language and all......additionally you dolt.....I didn't make that comparison...I was quoting someone else that was making that point.  Jesus, go play in traffic.

I've read his posts for a while.   I'm like 99.999% certain he's not Jesus.  But if he were, and he were Jesus, playing in traffic wouldn't be dangerous for him, he'd just part the traffic like the Red Sea.

 

 

This is an emotionally charged conversation and folks on both sides are letting their emotions get in the way of discourse.  Time to let different folks have their different view and move on.  I don't think anyone is happy that Barkley won't have the opportunity to get the record, and some are dealing with it with anger and disappointment, and others are soothing these feelings by aggressively defending the Eagles for making their decision to sit him.  But, I think everyone can agree, watching Barkley this season has been the highlight of the season... bar none.  And I think we can also all agree that it would have been an amazing thing to see him break that record... and frankly, it sucks that that chance will never materialize.

Quick, name your top 5 RBs of all time.

 

 

 

 

How many of you had Eric Dickerson?  How many even had OJ?

16 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

I would have been fine with the decision either way, but given their attitude with the preseason I had a feeling we wouldn't see most of the starters.

Personally, I would sit anyone with an injury designation, and give the rest of the starters a few drives just to iron out any issues.  If Barkley got like 40 yards in the first few drives, maybe I leave him in.  

But there's no way I'm going to criticize anyone because if we would have lost a big time player in a useless game vs. the freaking Giants, I'd be really pissed.

See now that is a respectful way to think about it instead of comparing a record to a SB win. 

As I've said many times, this a no win situation either way. The only way this doesn't come back on Nick in some way would be if he did let Barkley get the record and they still win the SB. The chances of winning the SB are still extremely difficult at this stage so doing both is even harder. 

Honestly, I'm not a believer in Hurts and have a feeling it will come down to a game that we need him to win it with his arm his coverage awareness which is not his strong area. But like many others, that is not fact, it's just my thoughts. Some agree, some don't. 

As an ex player in the league, I would say go for it if I was on this team. I can give you a long list of my reasons why as many can give a long list of why they would sit him. Both have a point for the decision. Neither are right nor wrong. We won't know who was right/wrong as we won't know what would have happened because of the greatness of the word "IF" 

39 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

I can see it right now, If we lose in any game in the playoffs. This is the chats comments after the loss:

Barkley didnt play in wk 18- "We should have went for the record, why didn't Nick let him reach greatness"

Barkley did play wk 18- "See I told you, its all Nick's fault for playing Barkley"

Seen it so many times here, people always changing their comments after the fact. This is a NO WIN for Nick at this point. However honestly, I don't think Nick has this decision to make.

As I said earlier, Nick will only get flak if the Eagles lose in the first round, otherwise, everyone will be focused on the divisional round of the playoffs, players and fans included. 

49 minutes ago, Captain F said:

Idk... Tomorrow is not guaranteed.  Any player can get hurt at any time.  On or off the field.  Eagles could be 1 and done.  Play for the now.  I don't agree with the decision.  Go for immortality.  

The only immortality in the NFL is a Super Bowl.

A rushing record can and will be broken.

10 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Quick, name your top 5 RBs of all time.

 

 

 

 

How many of you had Eric Dickerson?  How many even had OJ?

Sanders, Faulk, AP, LT and Bo Jackson

21 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

Your comment was "So you're comparing a meaningless week 18 game that has NO impact on seeding vs. an NFCCG"

Your choice of wording indicates we make it to the NFCCG. You made a mistake, I called you out on it, and you corrected with "best chance" Your welcome

That would be "you’re.”

You might consider re-reading @NYEagle’s post before misinterpreting what he said. He compared a meaningless game to a meaningful one. That is all.

13 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Quick, name your top 5 RBs of all time.

 

 

 

 

How many of you had Eric Dickerson?  How many even had OJ?

Brown, Sanders, Payton, Faulk, Peterson.

Dickerson isn't in the conversation.

9 hours ago, T-1000 said:

The irony of this take coming from one of the biggest morons on this board is off the charts.

Again, let me spell this out for you and anyone else who agree with this decision. Resting guys helps, but it doesn't guarantee crap for the playoffs and the run the Eagles will or will not go on. Saquon is a hundred yards away from breaking the all time rushing record that has stood for 40 years and based on his season average, the Giants run defense, and what Saquon did against them earlier in the year it is almost a lock that he would have broken the record had they played the starters on offense. But hey, let's not go for something historical because Sirianni and fans like you are scared little biatches 🙄

Stfu you cotton headed ninny muggens.  Just because you take this board so seriously and clearly have some of the worst takes aside from RTK, doesn’t give you the right to spout off from your parents’ basement. 

Nowhere in my post did I guarantee crap.  Clearly you don’t gamble, which is fine, but to say a week of rest after 12 straight weeks of grinding football won’t increase the probability of them being fully healthy and ready to go, then you’re simply a nitwit.  That’s also the head coach’s job - to put them in the best position to win the SB.  How is running out all of our worn down starters in a meaningless game and pounding the rock with Saquon helping them get ready to do that? 

Now go back to your tissues and hand lotion while everyone on these boards laughs at you. 

17 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Quick, name your top 5 RBs of all time.

 

 

 

 

How many of you had Eric Dickerson?  How many even had OJ?

Jim Brown. Earl Campbell, Bo Jackson. Tomlinson. OJ.

Most fun to watch: Sanders and Sayers.

You make a good point.

Fun fact, 2025 is the start of "Generation Beta". Meaning we're 2 generations beyond Gen Z now. 

Happy Thursday you old ****.