4 minutes ago, Eriv20 said:

Everyone keeps saying it’ll be their downfall. But ppl continue to watch and the nfl continues to make boatloads of money. It won’t stop anytime soon. Doesn’t matter what they do. 
I for one, dislike the new playoff structure. Half the league makes the playoffs. That’s too many

Going to hate it when they eventually go to 8 teams make it. That’s happening cause they’ll want the additional money from an extra 2 playoff games.

If they’re going to change and not keep things of the past, it’s why I am  OK with them seeding it differently. Because if you’re gonna change everything else and not keep tradition, then you better off correcting an issue like the fact that the commanders at 7-9 had a home playoff game over a 11-5 Bucs team  

 

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

Going to hate it when they eventually go to 8 teams make it. That’s happening cause they’ll want the additional money from an extra 2 playoff games.

 

Edit: Nvm, basic mathing is hard. 

 

2 minutes ago, Eagles_ftw said:

At least with 8 teams then the 2 seed gets it's bye back.

 

I don’t think that happens. You’d have 1vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, 3 vs. 6 and 4 vs. 5 in the wild card round. I think the 1 seed will just lose the bye and there won’t be a bye 

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

If you wanna be a traditionalist and not change it then that is your prerogative. But the data has shown you that there is a sizable change from in the last decade to five years to last 3. If all 6 wild card teams have better record than a divisional winner (possible as it’s a lock for 3 in the nfc and potential 3 in afc then it makes it 15 over a 3 year period of time) this year that means the average 5 of 6 wild card teams are having better records than a divisional record. The data has shown it’s been big time changing over the past 6 and really the last 3 years it’s peaking . 

And?  Why does that matter?  Those teams make the playoffs, but don't get a home game.  If they don't like it... then they should have won their division.  They had the opportunity to play at home, but didn't do what it took.  And if they are so much better than the team that they are matched up against that unfairly was awarded a home game, then they should be able to win that game...  but if not, then they must not have been objectively superior.  

 

Once more, I ask, why the need to upset the entire dynamic?  Yes, there's more teams that are the 2nd best team in their division with better records than the best team in a different division.   It's been like that forever.  In 1960, the Cleveland Browns had a 8-3-1 record, and the Green Bay Packers were 8-4.  But, because the Browns were second in the Eastern division, and the Eagles had a 10-2 record, the Eagles and Packers (the Western division winner) matched up in the NFL Championship game.  The Browns had a better record, but didn't even get to be in the game, because they didn't win their division.   Again, why is there a NEED to make a change?  Every team gets the same opportunity to win their division... and they play their division TWICE, whereas they meet other teams only once, indicating the importance of division matchups over others... and giving significance to division order.

1 minute ago, Eagles_ftw said:

At least with 8 teams then the 2 seed gets it's bye back.

 

5 teams after WC weekend?

2 minutes ago, Eagles_ftw said:

At least with 8 teams then the 2 seed gets it's bye back.

 

No they won’t. There won’t be byes. 

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

Honestly from the inception of the 4 divisions this has been happening more and more. The first 11 years it was 20 times. The next 11 it’s been 26. You’d say that’s not that big of a difference. But then when you go look at the last five to then three years there’s been a significant jump. In the last five years, there’s been 13 wildcard teams with better records than the division winner. That does not include this year. This year there’s automatically going to be at least 3 in the NFC. With another potential 3 in the afc. If all 6 happen to have a better record it means 15 over a 3 year period. So on average in the last 3 postseasons it would mean 5 of the 6 total wild card teams would have a better record than a division champ. 

Before we start making changes, let's take a deeper look at the data.  It isn't necessarily "unfair" to have a division winner hosting a wildcard team where the wildcard team has won a game or two more.  You'd have to make an analysis of their schedules to make a reasonable determination.  I think the entire topic is a bit of a red herring to be honest. No doubt there are some examples of teams that really shouldn't have to go on the road but I think that's a relatively rare occurrence.  More often than not it isn't going to be black and white.

The Athletic has a list of franchises front offices.  They have Howie and team at #11 but the one that made me damn near spit out my orange juice this morning was the cowpads and 76ers tied for #48.  

23 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Mailata's comments were on the opposite side from Lane in the post-game.   Mailata said that going for the record is "an opportunity to make history".  So, I think that there will be some long conversations in the next day or so.

Nick is really the only one with skin in the game as far as the decision so it deserves to be his call. No one is calling for Mailata’s job if Barkley goes down next week with an injury that costs them the playoffs and half of next season as well. That burden falls on Nick and people will want him fired for it. No one will care or give him credit for going for the record if they’re sitting at 2-5 next season because Barkley missed half of the year. 
 

This is a no-brainer. 

 

3 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

And?  Why does that matter?  Those teams make the playoffs, but don't get a home game.  If they don't like it... then they should have won their division.  They had the opportunity to play at home, but didn't do what it took.  And if they are so much better than the team that they are matched up against that unfairly was awarded a home game, then they should be able to win that game...  but if not, then they must not have been objectively superior.  

 

Once more, I ask, why the need to upset the entire dynamic?  Yes, there's more teams that are the 2nd best team in their division with better records than the best team in a different division.   It's been like that forever.  In 1960, the Cleveland Browns had a 8-3-1 record, and the Green Bay Packers were 8-4.  But, because the Browns were second in the Eastern division, and the Eagles had a 10-2 record, the Eagles and Packers (the Western division winner) matched up in the NFL Championship game.  The Browns had a better record, but didn't even get to be in the game, because they didn't win their division.   Again, why is there a NEED to make a change?  Every team gets the same opportunity to win their division... and they play their division TWICE, whereas they meet other teams only once, indicating the importance of division matchups over others... and giving significance to division order.

So because the best division in football is nfc north and two teams might go 15-2 and 14-3 (two best records in the NFL) l, they deserve to be penalized for not winning the division? Meanwhile if either played in the bad nfc south they’d win that division by 4-5 games. Furthermore, the third place team in the NFC north is about to have a better record than the winner of the NFC south. Lol

You can say whatever you want, but if the Eagles went 15-2 and the commanders were 15-2 (best records in nfl) and eagles were forced into the 5 seed and play 3 road playoff games this place would be up in arms. I find the WiN yOuR dIvIsIoN as BS cause not every division is equal. 

Just now, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

So because the best division in football is nfc north and two teams might go 15-2 and 14-3 (two best records in the NFL) l, they deserve to be penalized for not winning the division? Meanwhile if either played in the bad nfc south they’d win that division by 4-5 games. Furthermore, the third place team in the NFC north is about to have a better record than the winner of the NFC south. Lol

You can say whatever you want, but if the Eagles went 15-2 and the commanders were 15-2 (best records in nfl) and eagles were forced into the 5 seed and play 3 road playoff games this place would be up in arms. I find the WiN yOuR dIvIsIoN as BS cause not every division is equal. 

Yeah, we would, but the NFL either has divisions or it doesn't. There is no point to division games and rivalries if the seeding in the playoffs is on record. You might as well eliminate them all and make it the NBA with Eastern and Western.

So yeah, we'd be pissed, but that is how things work, and that's how things should stay.

 

 

26 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Before we start making changes, let's take a deeper look at the data.  It isn't necessarily "unfair" to have a division winner hosting a wildcard team where the wildcard team has won a game or two more.  You'd have to make an analysis of their schedules to make a reasonable determination.  I think the entire topic is a bit of a red herring to be honest. No doubt there are some examples of teams that really shouldn't have to go on the road but I think that's a relatively rare occurrence.  More often than not it isn't going to be black and white.

It’s why I used 44 years worth of data. 22 years prior to the 4 division change and after. There was already a jump going 3 to 4 division. The data has shown you over the last decade there’s a sizable shift. The last 5 years another jump and last 3 an even bigger jump.

The schedules are what they are. One year you’re gonna have a better schedule than another year. It happens. but the thing that keeps happening is some of these division winners are winning a bad divisions and being rewarded for being mediocre in a bad division with a home playoff game. It’s happened 2-6 times ever since year outside of the outlier year of 2021 where it happened 0 times. 

i’m just gonna point this out if the Eagles were in the situation that the Lions and Vikings were in, and the Eagles were forced to be the 5 seed at 14-3 and play 3 road games to get to the SB while two division winners had 4 and 5 less wins people would be blowing a gasket in here.

i’d also point out the NBA still has three divisions in each conference. The NBA was smart to do that because they figured out why are we penalizing a team if the Celtics have the best record and then the next best team in the east is the second place team. Why are they going to make those two teams face each other an entire rounder earlier then they have too and have the ratings tail off after that matchup in the semifinal 

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Yeah, we would, but the NFL either has divisions or it doesn't. There is no point to division games and rivalries if the seeding in the playoffs is on record. You might as well eliminate them all and make it the NBA with Eastern and Western.

So yeah, we'd be pissed, but that is how things work, and that's how things should stay.

You can still reward division winners. The reward for winning the division is making the playoffs. Also reward the division winner if there is a tiebreaker scenario, you get the tiebreaker by winning the division. That’s still a reward.

Everybody’s acting like if you take away their home playoff game, they’re not being rewarded. If the Texans lose Sunday they’d be 9-8. If they didn’t win their division they’d have not made the playoffs given tiebreaker scenarios. So reward for Houston is winning a bad division and earning a playoff berth.

The commanders went 7–9 a couple years ago. They had absolutely no chance of making the playoffs without winning the crappy NFC East. Their reward should have been just making the playoffs because they had no other way to make it. Not giving them a home playoff game because they won one of the shittiest divisions in the last 20 years

 

 

 

Well, that was an enjoyable curb stomping of the Cowboys. They came in winners of 4 out of 5, including wins over Washington and Tampa Bay. I know they shut down Ceedee, but he's not worth 34 points, and we had our backup QBs. But I'm sure the media narrative is this meant nothing...

OFFENSE

- Kenny Pickett, I owe you an apology. First off, nice gutty performance going out there with broken ribs when the team needed it. Second, way to deliver a division title. 10/15 for 143 and a beautiful TD to Smitty in 2.5 quarters is more than we could have asked for. He made quick decisions and got the ball out of his hand, and he even made a nice play to Calcaterra on a scramble drill (hell of a catch by Grant). He was light years better after getting a week of reps. If he has to play in the playoffs, it's not a guaranteed loss at least.

- Tanner McKee justified all the preseason love he's gotten. He came in and was willing to sling it, with both the almost TD to AJ and then the actual TD. McKee might be the best thrower of the ball on the team (though AJ's throw into the stands was pretty). And good job by Kellen letting the kid throw it a few times. Guy could be our backup next year if someone wants to trade for Kenny (doubtful, but let a man dream). 

- All that said -- Jalen is still the guy who gives us the best shot to win. Let's not start the stupidity please. 

- Saquon was a man on a mission in the 2nd half, and the OL clearly decided he was getting 2k. Honestly, that might have been the best game the OL played all year. Dallas came in on a sack binge, and they shut 'em out. Lane and Jordan are just out of this world and basically kept Micah in check all game. And they really started pounding the defensive line in the second half and opening up run lanes. When the line plays like that, we can't be stopped. 

- Start the game with 2 3 and outs, and then...score on 6 straight drives (4 TDs and 2 FGs). The line simply took over.

- DeVonta Smith on a backup CB (Booth) is simply unfair. Looking forward to the playoffs, if teams have their top CB (think Jaire Alexander) travel with AJ, Smitty is going to wreck the game. And no targets for other WRs, so...maybe it's not a Jalen thing. We just don't throw to WR3. But he has to score on that bomb before the half...

- Calcaterra has turned into a legit receiving weapon. Will be interesting once Goedert is back to have both of them out there. AJ, Smitty and Goedert all out there and healthy for the playoffs would be ideal.

DEFENSE

- OK, so maybe CJGJ really is the key to the secondary. But he could have let the rookie get the INT...

- The defensive line was good, not great. Carter still blew up a bunch of plays, and Nolan forced a fumble. But it felt like we were getting less pressure this game than we have recently. Only 2 TFLs and 1 sack (at the very end) is surprising. Dowdle going for over 100. I appreciate that they were backing off playing with a big lead, but not the best day from the guys upfront. 

- Burks/Trot did enough to fill in for Dean. Baun made a great play deflecting a pass, but was generally quiet otherwise. 

- Q gave up a TD, but was generally solid. Slay was beat on a deep pass they missed, but played well otherwise. And DeJean was blanketing guys in the slot. 

- All in all, it felt like the defense didn't have a great game and they only gave up 7 points. Just shows how well they have been playing. 

 

My view is simple -- sit everyone week 18. It's been a long time since the week 5 bye, and the guys could use a break. The defensive line has guys playing a ton of snaps with Carter and a 3 man rotation at edge for weeks. I get that Saquon breaking the record against the Giants would be awesome, but it's not worth the risk. Play the backups and get guys ready to try and win 4 straight.

 

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

So because the best division in football is nfc north and two teams might go 15-2 and 14-3 (two best records in the NFL) l, they deserve to be penalized for not winning the division? Meanwhile if either played in the bad nfc south they’d win that division by 4-5 games. Furthermore, the third place team in the NFC north is about to have a better record than the winner of the NFC south. Lol

You can say whatever you want, but if the Eagles went 15-2 and the commanders were 15-2 (best records in nfl) and eagles were forced into the 5 seed and play 3 road playoff games this place would be up in arms. I find the WiN yOuR dIvIsIoN as BS cause not every division is equal. 

Yeah... that's the rule.   Shall we visit history again?

1980 standings. 

Best record in the NFL (not just the NFC) was shared by the Eagles, Cowboys and Falcons.  The Eagles got HFA, because of tiebreakers.  And the Cowboys were a WC team, having to play while the 9-7 Minnesota Vikings got a bye, as the division winner.   In fact, the 11-5 Rams and 12-4 Cowboys played each other in the WC round, while the 9-7 Vikings got a bye as a division winner.  So unfair!  

 

Not every division is equal.  But, every team has the same opportunity as the rest of their division to be the division winner.  The fact that some are tougher than others is just fine and dandy by me.  

 

Objective application of the playoff rules being unbiasedly applied leads to fair and equitable results.  The rules are clear.  Win your division, get a benefit.  Don't win your division and you have to take the harder path.  It's been that way since time immemorial.  Just because it seems unfair according to some innate sense of 'fairness' as you want to define it, the rules apply the same to everyone.  And different divisions at different times have had their time of being the beneficiary and other times of having the harder path.  

 

But, since you've moved to the point of the camel case to try to invalidate the opposite point of view shows that you are getting emotionally charged and are no longer able to hold a rational discussion on the topic.  I won't be changing my mind, but so far, you've not created an argument that says that the current (and historical) objective rules for playoff seeding other than you feel it is an unfair practice.  Each team gets the same opportunity to win their division at the beginning of the year... and it's a race to the top of your DIVISION FIRST... and top of the CONFERENCE SECOND.  

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

So because the best division in football is nfc north and two teams might go 15-2 and 14-3 (two best records in the NFL) l, they deserve to be penalized for not winning the division? Meanwhile if either played in the bad nfc south they’d win that division by 4-5 games. Furthermore, the third place team in the NFC north is about to have a better record than the winner of the NFC south. Lol

You can say whatever you want, but if the Eagles went 15-2 and the commanders were 15-2 (best records in nfl) and eagles were forced into the 5 seed and play 3 road playoff games this place would be up in arms. I find the WiN yOuR dIvIsIoN as BS cause not every division is equal. 

Your data can point anyway it wasn’t the only way the nfl is going to make a changes is if it means more money and I don’t think it does… as has been posted if winning a division doesn’t matter then there should just be conferences. Making rivalry games mean less and changing the whole landscape of the nfl… just let it how it is.

i could see maybe making a change if it was always 1/2 divisions who sucked so bad every year but I don’t think that is the case and most of the time the division winners with trash records aren’t always the same.

1 hour 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.  

 

It's probably the most celebrated record in the NFL. It would be amazing for that record to belong to Barkley, Stoutland,Johnson and all the others. You're acting like we can only have one or the other. We can do both. 

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

You can still reward division winners. The reward for winning the division is making the playoffs. Also reward the division winner if there is a tiebreaker scenario, you get the tiebreaker by winning the division. That’s still a reward.

Everybody’s acting like if you take away their home playoff game, they’re not being rewarded. If the Texans lose Sunday they’d be 9-8. If they didn’t win their division they’d have not made the playoffs given tiebreaker scenarios. So reward for Houston is winning a bad division and earning a playoff berth.

The commanders went 7–9 a couple years ago. They had absolutely no chance of making the playoffs without winning the crappy NFC East. Their reward should have been just making the playoffs because they had no other way to make it. Not giving them a home playoff game because they won one of the shittiest divisions in the last 20 years

This will never happen, but I'd love it...

Let the teams pick who they want to play. So the Eagles, as the 2 seed, get to pick anyone from seed 3-7 to some to the Linc. If they pick the Rams, the Rams are on the road. Then let the next highest seed (3 or 4) pick an opponent, and last two play at the higher seed's stadium. So keep it the same, but see if the 2 seed picks a "bad" division winner instead of the 6 or 7, or if the 3 picks the 4. Then do it again in the division round with the 1 seed getting to pick their opponent. 

Never going to happen, but it would be entertaining as hell.

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