January 2Jan 2 I just think if the kids got a legitimate shot at beating a record that's stood for 40 years and writing himself into history, you let him take that shot, and truth be told I suspect it's almost certainly a toss up which is better for performance between keeping the offense rolling into the play offs with momentum and letting them take a week off.
January 2Jan 2 Everyone knows that Barkley could get it in this game. And he could do it with Hurts and the top WRs sitting out. But it would put the OL at risk of injury too. And he would need those guys on the field. And we need those guys for the playoffs, just like we need Barkley for the playoffs. I'd love to see him get it. And if he was going to play, I'd be able to support it. But I understand asking him to sit.
January 2Jan 2 If it was under 50 yards I'm sure they would have gone for it. But 101 yards isn't an easy feat, despite Barkley's season. Barkley also had 5 games under 100 yards this season.
January 2Jan 2 Okay Sirianni, you made the call. Now anything less than a Superbowl appearance and your ass is out on the street.
January 2Jan 2 1 hour ago, Devaster said: If it was under 50 yards I'm sure they would have gone for it. But 101 yards isn't an easy feat, despite Barkley's season. Barkley also had 5 games under 100 yards this season. He got 75 yards vs. the Giants in the 1st half of the first game. He got 101 yards in the second half. He could easily do it in a half. But I get why they don't want to risk any injuries in an otherwise meaningless game. I'm disappointed that he's not going to get it, but I think back on games like that first Giants game where he left the game before the 3rd quarter was over. Maybe he breaks a 75 or 80 yard TD in the 4th quarter and now he's only 25 or 30 yards away from it. Keep running him in a couple more if those regular season games and maybe he broke the record a game or two ago. But you know what they say about hindsight.
January 2Jan 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEbWaf3C64A Shady put it perfectly. The team let Saquon down.
January 2Jan 2 4 hours ago, Devaster said: If it was under 50 yards I'm sure they would have gone for it. But 101 yards isn't an easy feat, despite Barkley's season. Barkley also had 5 games under 100 yards this season. 3 hours ago, NOTW said: I support this decision. I see both sides. But 100 yards isn't as easy as it sounds. A lot of Barkley's games he gets held in check and then explodes in the third and fourth. You have to play the starting O-Line and possibly Smith/Brown to stop the Giants from just loading the box all game and keying on him. The starting D isn't playing, so the Giants may be able to put together some long time consuming drives as well. I would have loved to have got him the record, but we've not had a bye since week 5, I don't want anyone getting injured in a game that doesn't affect seedings and ultimately a Super Bowl is more important than anything else in the game.
January 2Jan 2 Author And now we have locker room drama again. Did you see Barkley's interview today? He looks like his puppy just got run over. Looking down, shoulders slumped. This is the wrong decision.
January 3Jan 3 Author 2 hours ago, JeeQ said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEbWaf3C64A Shady put it perfectly. The team let Saquon down. I think morale will suffer from it too.
January 3Jan 3 Author 5 hours ago, Devaster said: If it was under 50 yards I'm sure they would have gone for it. But 101 yards isn't an easy feat, despite Barkley's season. Barkley also had 5 games under 100 yards this season. I think he got 100 yards in 13 carries last time we played the Giants.......
January 3Jan 3 3 hours ago, Uscg-green said: I think he got 100 yards in 13 carries last time we played the Giants....... Last time isn’t this game. Every game is different. And the Giants would be playing 8+ in the box. It also gives the Giants something to play for. I would be fine with them going for it, but they need buy-in from the entire team and it doesn’t sound like they had that.
January 3Jan 3 8 hours ago, Devaster said: If it was under 50 yards I'm sure they would have gone for it. But 101 yards isn't an easy feat, despite Barkley's season. Barkley also had 5 games under 100 yards this season. Giants run defense sucks. Barkley likely gets it in the first half
January 3Jan 3 They should at least make an attempt to break the record. Too bad they went the other way. As someone already said it here, they may be aiming at the rushing record including the playoff games. If the team goes deep into the playoff, that would be a possible goal.
January 4Jan 4 21 hours ago, Mike030270 said: Giants run defense sucks. Barkley likely gets it in the first half There would be zero reason for the giants to not completely sell out vs the run in this game (if Barkley played to get the record). The giants can lose and it just doesn't matter. There's 0% chance they wouldn't gameplan solely to stop Barkley from setting the record against them. The Commanders are almost as bad as the Giants vs the run and they figured it out after Hurts didn't return --- daring us to pass in a game that actually mattered to both teams. Go back to last year's finale vs the giants. We were without Smith and were hoping we could still get the win and change our playoff seeding (with help). The sorry giants played a very good game, motivated by the spoiler role. Even if Brown and Hurts didn't get hurt in that game, we still were struggling offensively on that day. They would have been just as "up" for this game if we had something important we were playing for.
January 4Jan 4 27 minutes ago, brkmsn said: There would be zero reason for the giants to not completely sell out vs the run in this game (if Barkley played to get the record). The giants can lose and it just doesn't matter. There's 0% chance they wouldn't gameplan solely to stop Barkley from setting the record against them. The Commanders are almost as bad as the Giants vs the run and they figured it out after Hurts didn't return --- daring us to pass in a game that actually mattered to both teams. Go back to last year's finale vs the giants. We were without Smith and were hoping we could still get the win and change our playoff seeding (with help). The sorry giants played a very good game, motivated by the spoiler role. Even if Brown and Hurts didn't get hurt in that game, we still were struggling offensively on that day. They would have been just as "up" for this game if we had something important we were playing for. In addition to this, going back to the 22 regular season finale, that team had a chance to set the single season sack record. The Giants seeding was set, and they were playing Davis Webb at QB, and if I recall, they got no sacks on him. The Giants were determined not to let us get it.
January 4Jan 4 23 hours ago, Devaster said: Last time isn’t this game. Every game is different. And the Giants would be playing 8+ in the box. It also gives the Giants something to play for. I would be fine with them going for it, but they need buy-in from the entire team and it doesn’t sound like they had that. Right - a lot of people are acting like the entire team is banging down Siriani’s door to go for the record. Lane Johnson for one has suggested it’s better to rest. Let’s look at the non-kickers who have won a Super Bowl with the Eagles on this team. That’s right it’s only Lane Johnson. He knows what it takes and he knows the benefit of rest.
January 5Jan 5 Author On 1/3/2025 at 7:39 PM, ManchesterEagle said: Right - a lot of people are acting like the entire team is banging down Siriani’s door to go for the record. Lane Johnson for one has suggested it’s better to rest. Let’s look at the non-kickers who have won a Super Bowl with the Eagles on this team. That’s right it’s only Lane Johnson. He knows what it takes and he knows the benefit of rest. BG
Create an account or sign in to comment