42 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

It's funny that people keep saying the NFL is getting softer. I actually think the fans are getting softer as well.

Listen to some people here posting like they are scared and worried about which opponent we're going to play first in the playoffs. In the end you're going to have to play good teams to get to the Super Bowl so why does it matter which one we have to start with. At the same time people are worried about a possible injury if Barkley goes for the record.

When did the fans get so soft?

Bro, you ever browse the game day topics? There's a portion of the fans who are anxious, neurotic and scared any time the other team makes any play. The sky is falling, the game is over in the 1st quarter, the season is over, on to the draft, etc. 

Lost in recent success is Goedert should be activated of IR soon. We'll see if it's this week or next week.

Also, if Miami gets knocked out, we'll see if they release Calais Campbell and if so, if Eagles would have interest.

1 minute ago, mattwill said:

Was the pass rush undisciplined, or was it more a function of the pass rush only being four players … from a light box.

Undisciplined.  On many occasions there was one or even two rushers deeper than the QB.  That is a recipe for disaster against a guy willing and able to gash you with his legs.   They need to stay in their rush lanes and they need to constrict the pocket rather than try to beat their man and get to the edge.  Ultimately, this is the type of situation where losing BG looms largest.  His pass rush is much better suited for this than Smith, Huff or Hunt.

The Packers haven't beaten anyone. Them and the Vikings have beat bad or mediocre teams. The Commies barely beat us with a backup QB cold off the bench, they needed a hail mary to beat the Bears and barely beat the Falcons with a rookie QB in overtime last night and the dumb Falcons coaching and game management.

The Eagles are one of the hottest teams right now. A top O line, RB, WR duo and defense, and the passing game no matter who the QB is they're doing better. They're gonna get Hurts and Goedert back healthy. If they don't go for Barkley's record they'll have a bye next week. Even if they go for it, they'll rest the 2nd half, maybe sooner.

The only team that scares me is...the Eagles (and the refs). They can beat anybody if they don't make stupid mistakes and play like they have against strong competition this year. They've beaten the Bengals, Ravens, would have swept the NFCE if Hurts didn't get a concussion against Washington. Other teams should be scared to play Philly.

54 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

It's funny that people keep saying the NFL is getting softer. I actually think the fans are getting softer as well.

Listen to some people here posting like they are scared and worried about which opponent we're going to play first in the playoffs. In the end you're going to have to play good teams to get to the Super Bowl so why does it matter which one we have to start with. At the same time people are worried about a possible injury if Barkley goes for the record.

When did the fans get so soft?

Agreed with the first part. The second part is justified because it's not a non-zero probability that someone important gets hurt in a meaningless game when they should be taking a bye and sabotages what they've worked for the entire season. Yeah, I get it. Anyone can get hurt at any time. But there's a difference between Graham going down against the Rams versus someone like Lane getting hurt against the Giants in a week 18 game that means absolutely nothing. Any significant injury next week leaks into next season as well with recovery time (see Sydney Brown last season).

32 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Let's consider the situation where the Lions win tonight and then lose next week giving the Vikings the division. Would we be ok with the Lions getting the #2 seed and then having home field vs. the #3 Eagles in the divisional round due to the conf records?  I know I sure wouldn't.  It sucks to have a 3 loss team have to go on the road against a mediocre division winner but you can't just reseed imho and this year.  The situation this year is a very exceptional situation, not optimal but not one that occurs that often.

The Lions/Vikings situation specifically is not often. But with how garbage the NFC South has been there’s always a better team playing on the road. Last year it was the Eagles (putting the collapse aspect aside) being 11-6 having to go play a 9-8 team. The year before the Cowboys were 12-5 and had to go on the road to face a 8-9 team. In 2020 an 11-5 Bucs team had to go on the road to face a 7-9 Redskins team. I’d be ok with moving down one seed vs being any of those teams that had to travel even though they were a better team all year. 

21 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

 

 

 

I called it. The Eagles finally broke him. He's gonna want out of Dallas this offseason.

 

I want Barkley to get his record and the Giants still to win next week to tank their draft. Is that possible? Lol

48 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

The thing that worries me about the playoffs this year, above all else, is the officiating.  I honestly think based off what we've seen this year that for whatever reason the officiating crews have it out for us and are going to do whatever they can to keep us from winning it all.  It's obvious that there are no penalties/ramifications for incorrect or downright poor calls.  

The Eagles have 13 wins. 15 if Barkley and Smith catch the ball. The officiating sucks in general but I blame the league for that. 

Either way - the officials don’t have it out for us so calm down baby girl 

2 hours ago, hputenis said:

At what point do they consider seeding teams based only on their records, and not on winning their division?   I’m not complaining, because we get the #2 seed with this flaw, but the fact that a 14 win team is gonna be seeded #5 is pretty stupid in my opinion. 

I brought this up last week. Showed 44 years worth of date prior and after going to 4 divisions (22 years prior and 22 years since). Over the last decade more wild card teams are having better records than division winners than ever before. Really the last 5 years it’s jumped. Heck gonna have 3 in the nfc alone with better records than 2 division winners. And potentially 3 in the afc better than the Texans. So possibility 6 WCs with better records than 3 division champs. Furthermore if just 5 WC teams have a better record this year, it means 15 over the last 3 years have had a better record which is 5 per year. It’s becoming more and more common and they already changed the playoffs from traditional going to a 7th team and eventually an 8th 

before anybody goes well the division needs to count for something, it does you get a playoff berth. That’s the reward. There’s been years a potential WC team missed the playoffs with a better record than a division winner. Add on you want to make the division worth a little bit more then if there’s a tie in the record between a wildcard team and a division winner, give it to the division winner. I find it BS the lions/Vikings are going to be punished at 14-3 because they play in the best division in football and having to potentially play 3 consecutive road games cause bucs won the second worse division in football. 

29 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

With all of these playoff scenarios, are there any that could see the Linc hosting the NFCCG or is it a foregone conclusion that the Eagles will have to win on the road after the first round?

I have no idea what you’re asking. Eagles would be guaranteed at home after the first round because they are the #2 seed. Could they host the NFCCG? Sure, if the #1 seed is eliminated before. Then the Eagles are guaranteed a home NFCCG. 

1 hour ago, hputenis said:

At what point do they consider seeding teams based only on their records, and not on winning their division?   I’m not complaining, because we get the #2 seed with this flaw, but the fact that a 14 win team is gonna be seeded #5 is pretty stupid in my opinion. 

Hey Captain Obvious! Welcome to the Eagles message board! Your welcome packet is in the mail. 

The welcome packet only includes a pair of @mikemack8‘s undies 

32 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

With all of these playoff scenarios, are there any that could see the Linc hosting the NFCCG or is it a foregone conclusion that the Eagles will have to win on the road after the first round?

They'll have, at minimum, two home playoff games assuming they win wildcard weekend. If whoever gets the one seed between MIN and DET loses, the NFCCG would be at the Linc. 

It happens often enough that a division winner with a lesser record gets a higher seed than a team with more wins.

I don't care either way, but if they wanted to change it to where winning the division guarantees playoffs, but seeding is then based on record that could balance both. 

If winning the division gets you into the playoffs, it matters and means something. If you wanted a higher seed than that, you should have won more total games not just your crappy division.

I have a feeling at some point, Shane Steichen is going to find his way back to Philly. He's probably going to be fired because the Colts blow and the GM took a bad QB in Richardson, and I don't think Moore will get a head coaching job in 2025, but possibly in 2026. By then Steichen will probably be fired and will be back in Philly.

And if Daboll is fired, I bet he goes back to Buffalo as well, if Joe Brady gets a head coaching job.

4 minutes ago, Uscg-green said:

I want Barkley to get his record and the Giants still to win next week to tank their draft. Is that possible? Lol

Well the Giants didn't try to tank yesterday. But, the Eagles could get Barkley the record then sit the starters. But it would also be fun if our backups beat their starters and our total record looks better. 

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

The Lions/Vikings situation specifically is not often. But with how garbage the NFC South has been there’s always a better team playing on the road. Last year it was the Eagles (putting the collapse aspect aside) being 11-6 having to go play a 9-8 team. The year before the Cowboys were 12-5 and had to go on the road to face a 8-9 team. In 2020 an 11-5 Bucs team had to go on the road to face a 7-9 Redskins team. I’d be ok with moving down one seed vs being any of those teams that had to travel even though they were a better team all year. 

I don't get why there is this constant need to try to rewrite the objective rules that have been in place since the beginning of the WC round being a part of the playoff process, because it suddenly doesn't fit their subjective notion of what is 'fair' or 'just'.  "Fair" and "just" is when the rules are executed without prejudice, without bringing preconceived notions into the equation.    OR... we could just eliminate the WC slots entirely and just let the division winners in the tournament.  Or go back even further and just make two divisions and let the division winner face off for the championship without a playoff of any kind, as it was in the pre-Super Bowl era.  

 

The tinkering with things that aren't broken needs to stop.  The kickoff rules they have put in place now to be 'safer' haven't proven to be safer, nor is it more dynamic.  Generally the rules as written are better than what they come up with as new wrinkle.   The new rules end up being difficult to enforce or sometimes even understand.

I'm shocked how much people care about things that are completely irrelevant...ie the rushing record.  The mere possibility of both risking and not recharging Barkley and multiple other offensive starters to pursue a rushing record (and one with an asterisk at that over 17 games) is so incomprehensibly preposterous to me.  

 

15 minutes ago, Cheesteakitis said:

So would division winners still get the home game or now that goes to the higher seed? 
 

 

I would take it away but that’s just me. Feels like every year there is one or two barely .500 teams hosting that don’t deserve it. This year it will be another 9 or 10 win team playing a team with 14 wins. 

8 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

I'm shocked how much people care about things that are completely irrelevant...ie the rushing record.  The mere possibility of both risking and not recharging Barkley and multiple other offensive starters to pursue a rushing record (and one with an asterisk at that over 17 games) is so incomprehensibly preposterous to me.  

I would argue that it matters far more than you think and is far more relevant than you may think.  Sports, at its essence, exists for the purposes of entertainment.  If the only thing that is entertaining is the Super Bowl... then what's the point of the entire process leading up to it.   Nah, the thing that separates the NFL from the NBA, MLB and NHL is that each and every game has meaning and offers entertainment.  It's why the NFL Christmas games, even though they weren't great games, held a 5:1 advantage over the highest rated NBA Christmas games.  

Barkley going for a record that has stood for 4 decades is an intriguing story, and for more than just Eagles and Giants fans.  Ultimately, sports exists to be entertaining.  I will be entertained by watching Barkley go for a historic record.  I will not be entertained watching a battle of backups as the Eagles play against the Giants as the Giants try to not scuttle their draft status any more than they did by winning this past week.  

 

No need for an asterisk, as Dickerson's record has no asterisk despite his record being for 16 games versus 14.  And Simpson's record didn't have an asterisk for being 14 games rather than 12.

1 minute ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I don't get why there is this constant need to try to rewrite the objective rules that have been in place since the beginning of the WC round being a part of the playoff process, because it suddenly doesn't fit their subjective notion of what is 'fair' or 'just'.  "Fair" and "just" is when the rules are executed without prejudice, without bringing preconceived notions into the equation.    OR... we could just eliminate the WC slots entirely and just let the division winners in the tournament.  Or go back even further and just make two divisions and let the division winner face off for the championship without a playoff of any kind, as it was in the pre-Super Bowl era.  

 

The tinkering with things that aren't broken needs to stop.  The kickoff rules they have put in place now to be 'safer' haven't proven to be safer, nor is it more dynamic.  Generally the rules as written are better than what they come up with as new wrinkle.   The new rules end up being difficult to enforce or sometimes even understand.

I definitely think 17 games, 1 extra playoff team per conference, 1 fewer bye-award per conference has been flat out bad for the game and competitive balance.  It's probably been a good to great to spectacular financial move for the league, as it has generated 16 more regular season games and 2 more playoff games for the league...and people still watch in droves.  So $$$$$.  

IMO, the regular season has been seriously diluted.  How truly critical have any Eagles games been for a month?  Honestly.  The only teams playing critical games right now are .500 teams that might not belong in the playoffs anyway.  If you look across all 32 teams, I bet the average is 3 near meaningless games at the end of the year.

When there were 2 bye week awards per conference and one fewer playoff berth, there was more to play for in the closing weeks of the season.  Now we've got an entire week that means almost nothing to the vast majority of the NFL.  

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. 

10 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

The Lions/Vikings situation specifically is not often. But with how garbage the NFC South has been there’s always a better team playing on the road. Last year it was the Eagles (putting the collapse aspect aside) being 11-6 having to go play a 9-8 team. The year before the Cowboys were 12-5 and had to go on the road to face a 8-9 team. In 2020 an 11-5 Bucs team had to go on the road to face a 7-9 Redskins team. I’d be ok with moving down one seed vs being any of those teams that had to travel even though they were a better team all year. 

I understand the issue nut no matter how one would try to resolve it there is not going to be a solution that works without lots of holes.

10 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

I have a feeling at some point, Shane Steichen is going to find his way back to Philly. He's probably going to be fired because the Colts blow and the GM took a bad QB in Richardson, and I don't think Moore will get a head coaching job in 2025, but possibly in 2026. By then Steichen will probably be fired and will be back in Philly.

And if Daboll is fired, I bet he goes back to Buffalo as well, if Joe Brady gets a head coaching job.

Colts don't get enough heat for being a dog crap organization. Only reason they've been relevant is they sucked in the 2 best years to suck in the past 26 years

10 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I don't get why there is this constant need to try to rewrite the objective rules that have been in place since the beginning of the WC round being a part of the playoff process, because it suddenly doesn't fit their subjective notion of what is 'fair' or 'just'.  "Fair" and "just" is when the rules are executed without prejudice, without bringing preconceived notions into the equation.    OR... we could just eliminate the WC slots entirely and just let the division winners in the tournament.  Or go back even further and just make two divisions and let the division winner face off for the championship without a playoff of any kind, as it was in the pre-Super Bowl era.  

 

The tinkering with things that aren't broken needs to stop.  The kickoff rules they have put in place now to be 'safer' haven't proven to be safer, nor is it more dynamic.  Generally the rules as written are better than what they come up with as new wrinkle.   The new rules end up being difficult to enforce or sometimes even understand.

The six team setup has been the best setup over the last 50 years in my mind.  Not prefect but no model will be perfect.