4 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I’ll be honest, I have no idea what he even does on the sidelines anymore 

He gives injury updates and does post-game interviews. That's about it. 

59 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

We want the Packers to lose even though we beat them once. But theoretically the Vikings would have two wins over the Packers. So we want the Saints in that game. The biggest games are actually Dallas and the Giants. We want both of them to (gasp)...WIN. Bizarre, but yes. Unless we lose to Washington, then f em. 

Do we want a Packers loss? I understand your point about tiebreakers but a Packers loss makes Commanders more possible to jump for the 6th seed. I’d rather play Commanders in the WC round than the Packers. 

Just now, metal said:

He gives injury updates and does post-game interviews. That's about it. 

So does the team and every beat reporter. I see Eskin on the sideline all the time but feel like he does nothing that anyone else does. 

Just now, LeanMeanGM said:

So does the team and every beat reporter. I see Eskin on the sideline all the time but feel like he does nothing that anyone else does. 

Yes he is completely useless. The interviews are almost never insightful and Merrill and/or Mike could just do injury updates. 

Indiana had a nice season but they have been thoroughly outplayed by Notre Dame.

7 minutes ago, metal said:

Indiana had a nice season but they have been thoroughly outplayed by Notre Dame.

Yeah and their coach punting it away with 10 minutes to go and down three scores?  What an idiot 

31 minutes ago, McMVP said:

Except it would cost more than a first rounder in the teens.  Would probably take at least two of them.
 

In Howie I trust.

The Anti-McNabb

51 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Do we want a Packers loss? I understand your point about tiebreakers but a Packers loss makes Commanders more possible to jump for the 6th seed. I’d rather play Commanders in the WC round than the Packers. 

Yes, that is a fair point. But I guess I'm operating under the assumption that we win on Sunday. If we lose to Washington, everything else kinda becomes moot.

It ticks me off how the media continues to cry for Alabama, seemingly forgetting that they had THREE regular season losses. The only reason anyone would consider them is because of their name. 

THEY DID NOT DESERVE TO BE IN THE PLAYOFFS!!!

46 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

The Anti-McNabb

 

Mr. Clutch

I bought a 27" (diagonal) Magnavox tube TV in 2001 that still works. It's in the game room with all my old consoles.

16 hours ago, mattwill said:

These are the regular season records. I post the standings for each divisional rival the weeks in which we play them and include playoff results. 
 

Wash leads 89-86-6 with the extra playoff game being the bitter loss under Buddy to Gibbs who mush rushed Cunningham shutting down the Eagle O. 

15 hours ago, BigEFly said:

Spent some time in MI this past October.  Didn’t realize it had such lovely foliage. No Northern Lights but a nice vacation. Wife can now strike MI off of her fifty states. Good wine and some great apples. Northern peninsula too.  In the last three months we have visited all the states east of the Mississippi except the states north of New York, Kentucky and Florida. Plus several states west of the Mississippi.  Was kind of surprised about the lack of Lions wear away from Detroit area. 

We went there for 10 days last summer up in the north and UP. Very underrated place. 

13 hours ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

I still have major issues with this site, and the only way I can write here is if I jump through some hoops. Which I'm doing now.

I've been looking at all of the 15-2 tiebreak scenarios with the Vikings (we lose tiebreaks with the Lions, so that's a lost cause) regarding "strength of victory". I jotted down 25 games throughout the league the last three weeks which will have some effect on the tiebreak. Not all of these games are "created equal". For example, the Giants/Falcons game this week would actually count "triple" since the Giants would count twice for us and the Falcons would count once for the Vikings. But for the sake of argument, let's just say there are 25 games of equal importance.

I plied them all into the playoff machine calculator in our favor and naturally the Eagles ended up with the first seed. I switched one to see if it changed. No, it did not. I switched another...same thing. Ultimately I made nine such switches and we were still good. When I made the next one, it switched over to the Vikings getting the top seed.

So basically we need to hit on roughly 19 out of 25 random games in order for us to get the top seed if the Vikings win their final three games also. I then looked at a binomial chart to see what the odds of that happening if every outcome were a 50% proposition (which obviously is not the case here since some of the games we're looking for -- like the Giants beating the Falcons -- is not 50/50) and discovered that it's roughly 5%. That ain't good folks.

So it would appear that if the Vikings win out, they have a 95% chance of winning the tiebreak with us. 

Vikes to lose in Seattle. 

59 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Vikes to lose in Seattle. 

Let’s hope so! And then lose at home to Green Bay. And then Detroit drop one of the best two and the #1 seed is ours to lose.

16 minutes ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

Let’s hope so! And then lose at home to Green Bay. And then Detroit drop one of the best two and the #1 seed is ours to lose.

Just need Minn to lose one game and the same for Det

8 hours ago, McMVP said:

I just re-watched the first half of the first Washington game.  I realize it was only 5-6 weeks ago, but I had completely forgotten how ugly the Eagles looked the first half of that game.  The first points they scored were with 19 seconds remaining in the first half on a chip shot field goal….after Jake had already missed 2 previously.  

It looks like they were trying to force-feed Dotson.  Looked like a completely different offense.  

It will be interesting to see how different this game looks

I’m hoping the first quarter offense from last week, (minus the turnover) carries over to the rest of the season. Slow starts have been an issue all season. If that gets fixed, they won’t have any glaring weaknesses left. 

12 hours ago, HazletonEagle said:

I would say LG is king in the OLED space. Sony may be comparable but there is no reason to pay more for their label on the front of your set. You gain nothing in quality.

If youre not going OLED, then I see no reason to buy anything but TCL these days. 

What someone else said about LG is true otherwise. Any other appliance, never buy LG. Samsung appliances suck too. 

That is actually not true. The panels are from LG and the chips from Sony do increase the quality.

For my taste, Sony OLED is the best - for Movies. If you want to play games on it you may be better of with LG.

My little corner of the house is an old car garage that was converted into a mother-in-law suite by the previous owners and which has now become my man cave.  Not super large but might comfy and with its own bathroom.  I have a small refrigerator for the beer and lots of stuff on the walls, etc.  Plenty of Eagles' gear of course.  The distance from the wall to the couch is almost perfect for a 50 inch tv and I have an old school top of the line Panasonic plasma which still kicks serious arse with the darker colors and motion.  I'm not making a change at this point but I suppose a 60/65 inch size OLED is in the cards not too far down the line.

9 hours ago, McMVP said:

Except it would cost more than a first rounder in the teens.  Would probably take at least two of them.
 

That sounds perfect... instead of Two first round picks at say 16 each... just one first round pick at 32 should work nicely.

9 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Word on the street is this one runs a cat fighting ring. 

9 hours ago, D-Shiznit said:

The Anti-McNabb

When he declines I want to see him start overthrowing WR’s. I don’t think I can handle another worm burner.