5 minutes ago, EaglesAddict said:

More nonsense.  "Nobody has gotten hurt, but somebody might get hurt, eventually....ban it!"  
 

"Yeah, really wasn't a huge part of drafting the proposal like that, but very much in support of it," Packers general manager Brian Gutekunst told reporters, via USA Today. "I think the medical professionals of the league had high concerns about putting players in a position to (suffer) catastrophic injuries. I think this is something that needs to be discussed and we need to be proactive about it rather than reactive." 

 

They are "reactive" in the fact that they just don't like the play and want it banned without a good reason. Pretending there might be a reason is, as you say, nonsense. Honestly, as many times as the play has been run over the last 3 years by teams in the NFL, it may very well be the safest play in football statistically. 

This is not about player safety at all. It's about a play that is designed so well that when executed properly is guaranteed to pick up 1 yard and that is changing how critical decision making is done in games --- and conservative minded coaches don't like that. 

When you get down to the wording of the proposal, the only element they are trying to ban is pushing the player that directly receives the snap immediately at the snap. So they are insinuating through their wording that the only player they are trying to keep safe is the "QB" on the play. I'd like to see them explain where this "catastrophic injury" risk is introduced because of this element. 

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Can I be changed to 2kewl4aid@philadelphiaeagles.com?

7 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

I believe everyone can change it in their profile settings as well. 

You are right.  I think that's a "new" feature.  Back on the old board that was locked down.

3 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

"Yeah, really wasn't a huge part of drafting the proposal like that, but very much in support of it," Packers general manager Brian Gutekunst told reporters, via USA Today. "I think the medical professionals of the league had high concerns about putting players in a position to (suffer) catastrophic injuries. I think this is something that needs to be discussed and we need to be proactive about it rather than reactive." 

 

They are "reactive" in the fact that they just don't like the play and want it banned without a good reason. Pretending there might be a reason is, as you say, nonsense. Honestly, as many times as the play has been run over the last 3 years by teams in the NFL, it may very well be the safest play in football statistically. 

This is not about player safety at all. It's about a play that is designed so well that when executed properly is guaranteed to pick up 1 yard and that is changing how critical decision making is done in games --- and conservative minded coaches don't like that. 

When you get down to the wording of the proposal, the only element they are trying to ban is pushing the player that directly receives the snap immediately at the snap. So they are insinuating through their wording that the only player they are trying to keep safe is the "QB" on the play. I'd like to see them explain where this "catastrophic injury" risk is introduced because of this element. 

💯

This whole thing about banning the play is so annoying.  I honestly think it has more to do with the aesthetics/optics of the play...casual football fans that complain because it doesn't look pretty.  It's not an "exciting play" to watch, etc.  

8 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

"Yeah, really wasn't a huge part of drafting the proposal like that, but very much in support of it," Packers general manager Brian Gutekunst told reporters, via USA Today. "I think the medical professionals of the league had high concerns about putting players in a position to (suffer) catastrophic injuries. I think this is something that needs to be discussed and we need to be proactive about it rather than reactive." 

 

They are "reactive" in the fact that they just don't like the play and want it banned without a good reason. Pretending there might be a reason is, as you say, nonsense. Honestly, as many times as the play has been run over the last 3 years by teams in the NFL, it may very well be the safest play in football statistically. 

This is not about player safety at all. It's about a play that is designed so well that when executed properly is guaranteed to pick up 1 yard and that is changing how critical decision making is done in games --- and conservative minded coaches don't like that. 

When you get down to the wording of the proposal, the only element they are trying to ban is pushing the player that directly receives the snap immediately at the snap. So they are insinuating through their wording that the only player they are trying to keep safe is the "QB" on the play. I'd like to see them explain where this "catastrophic injury" risk is introduced because of this element. 

I think it's possible Jurgens hurt his back as a result of the play.  I think back/neck injuries are the primary concern.

However, every time a player leads with their helmet there is the potential for a catastrophic play.  Any time a player gets taken to the ground and their head violently hits the turf is a potentially catastrophic play.  Offensive and defensive linemen bashing each other in the head 65 times a game can have future catastrophic consequences.   Playing the game is a catastrophic risk.

1 hour ago, NYEagle said:

I honestly hate mock drafts.....no one has any idea of trades nor who a team will draft.  The only thing you can hope and pray for is that the players your team is targeting is going to actually be a good NFL player.  In my view, either trade up for can't miss, stay where you are, or if you are truly confident....trade back, get more capital and build depth.  But this is exactly why mock drafts are an act of futility because in theory....all 32 teams will either try and move up, stay (and pick who they, not us think they should pick) and/or move back.  

The draft cannot get here soon enough, and I hate that the NFL drags it out as long as they do.  In the meantime, I'll come here, watch everyone argue and wait! 🙂  Also, this is a really good article!

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6244372/2025/03/31/eagles-super-bowl-cj-gardner-johnson-trade/

Mock drafts are glorified big boards, where you <might> get a sense of team needs and fits. Anything before free agency… yeah, not very useful.

When sport becomes more about the aesthete than the result, it is is no longer a sport.  Arbitrarily banning a play because it doesn't look nice because a focus group or vocal minority don't like it. is not a good enough reason. 

The issue is, companies love focus groups, etc, hence the NFLs 18 month obsession with showing that woman at Chiefs game.

1 minute ago, Freshmilk said:

I think it's possible Jurgens hurt his back as a result of the play.  I think back/neck injuries are the primary concern.

However, every time a player leads with their helmet there is the potential for a catastrophic play.  Any time a player gets taken to the ground and their head violently hits the turf is a potentially catastrophic play.  Offensive and defensive linemen bashing each other in the head 65 times a game can have future catastrophic consequences.   Playing the game is a catastrophic risk.

You can look at other plays - Kareem Jackson head hunting has injured more players than the tush push, but the NFL is still weak on punishing players for shots to the head. 

1 hour ago, ManuManu said:

On the tush push…

Philadelphia GM Howie Roseman defended the play, asking the room for the injury data showing that the concept was creating player-safety issue, then asked for the statistics that show it to be demonstrably more dangerous than a conventional quarterback sneak. NFL chief medical officer Allen Sills returned volley in saying that while there haven’t been a preponderance of injuries on the play, the league’s feeling was that when an injury does eventually happen on it, based on the players’ posture, it could be catastrophic.

https://www.si.com/nfl/nfl-tush-push-heated-debate-owners-meetings

Allen Shills is on the take.

4 minutes ago, EaglesAddict said:

💯

This whole thing about banning the play is so annoying.  I honestly think it has more to do with the aesthetics/optics of the play...casual football fans that complain because it doesn't look pretty.  It's not an "exciting play" to watch, etc.  

I question fans that don't see an aesthetic appeal to smashmouth football. I also don't really see a visual (aesthetic) difference between that and a traditional QB sneak. 

 

I'd like to see one change made on the tush push going forward. Start enforcing offsides against teams whose players line up with their helmets clearly across the ball. Then we won't even have to expose the QB to pseudo-catastrophic injury. 

8 minutes ago, Freshmilk said:

I think it's possible Jurgens hurt his back as a result of the play.  I think back/neck injuries are the primary concern.

However, every time a player leads with their helmet there is the potential for a catastrophic play.  Any time a player gets taken to the ground and their head violently hits the turf is a potentially catastrophic play.  Offensive and defensive linemen bashing each other in the head 65 times a game can have future catastrophic consequences.   Playing the game is a catastrophic risk.

That isn't what the proposal is trying to protect. Read the wording. Centers will still play center on traditional QB sneaks. They are only trying to prevent the "QB" from being pushed immediately after the snap. 

5 minutes ago, UK Eagle said:

You can look at other plays - Kareem Jackson head hunting has injured more players than the tush push, but the NFL is still weak on punishing players for shots to the head. 

Isn't head hunting leading with your helmet?  Lovu did it when Hurts was knocked out of the 2nd Commanders game.  Helmet to helmet driving his head into the turf.  So many said that was a clean play.

3 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

That isn't what the proposal is trying to protect. Read the wording. Centers will still play center on traditional QB sneaks. They are only trying to prevent the "QB" from being pushed immediately after the snap. 

I understand that.  But when they talk about a catastrophic injury, whether a genuine concern or not, a back or neck injury is the most likely to be catastrophic. 

Just now, Freshmilk said:

I understand that.  But when they talk about a catastrophic injury, whether a genuine concern or not, a back or neck injury is the most likely to be catastrophic. 

They have rules in place already to protect players for that. Not allowing a QB to be pushed immediately at the snap will do zero to help in that area. That is why the proposal should be rejected. 

9 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

I question fans that don't see an aesthetic appeal to smashmouth football. I also don't really see a visual (aesthetic) difference between that and a traditional QB sneak. 

 

I'd like to see one change made on the tush push going forward. Start enforcing offsides against teams whose players line up with their helmets clearly across the ball. Then we won't even have to expose the QB to pseudo-catastrophic injury. 

Smashmouth football is for the true football fans.  The NFL seems to cater to whatever will give them more viewers.  Most, if not all, rule changes benefit the offense in some fashion...i.e., more points scored.  They're trying to make the kick return a "more exciting play" again, etc.  The NFL wants points scored.  Points scored, exciting plays = more fans, more viewers, more money.  The tush-push is not an exciting play to the average viewer.

Just now, EaglesAddict said:

Smashmouth football is for the true football fans.  The NFL seems to cater to whatever will give them more viewers.  Most, if not all, rule changes benefit the offense in some fashion...i.e., more points scored.  They're trying to make the kick return a "more exciting play" again, etc.  The NFL wants points scored.  Points scored, exciting plays = more fans, more viewers, more money.  The tush-push is not an exciting play to the average viewer.

But the tush-push leads to more offense and more points because of its success. 

8 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

They have rules in place already to protect players for that. Not allowing a QB to be pushed immediately at the snap will do zero to help in that area. That is why the proposal should be rejected. 

I don't disagree.   Simply trying to guess what their definition of a catastrophic injury is when every play in football can and sometimes does lead to catastrophic injuries.

1 hour ago, ManuManu said:

On the tush push…

Philadelphia GM Howie Roseman defended the play, asking the room for the injury data showing that the concept was creating player-safety issue, then asked for the statistics that show it to be demonstrably more dangerous than a conventional quarterback sneak. NFL chief medical officer Allen Sills returned volley in saying that while there haven’t been a preponderance of injuries on the play, the league’s feeling was that when an injury does eventually happen on it, based on the players’ posture, it could be catastrophic.

https://www.si.com/nfl/nfl-tush-push-heated-debate-owners-meetings

Time to ban tackling.  If we are going to ban things based on the potential catastrophic results of a given play, then NO play is safe.  

Catastrophic injury:  Cued up to the hit in question.  Slant routes must be eliminated due to the potential of catastrophic injury.  (Preseason game, August 12, 1978 - Jack Tatum hit on Darryl Stingley.)

 

Catastrophic injury: Cued up.   Pass rushing should be banned due to the potential for catastrophic injury.  (November 29, 1992 - Dennis Byrd collision with teammate.)

 

 

Castastrophic injury:  Tackling needs to be eliminated from the game.  Because there was nothing about this play that would lead someone to say 'This is dangerous' other than the result.  But, a player going into cardiac arrest on the field would be just about as 'catastrophic' an event as can happen in a game.  (January 2, 2023 - Damar Hamlin goes into cardiac arrest on the field after making a tackle)

Incidentally, this was the only one of the 3 plays that resulted in the game ending on that play, even though the first one was a preseason game, despite the game's outcome having massive playoff implications!

 

 

Football is a dangerous sport.   Everyone involved in the game knows that.  They went to make kickoffs safer by incentivizing touchbacks, but when the touchbacks increased... they didn't like that, so they then completely revamped the kickoff rules to this new hokey system in order to get more returns, EVEN when they know that that definitively would be more dangerous than a touchback.  (I've never seen a single injury take place on a touchback... ever, at any level.   I guess a guy could pull a hamstring or pop a tendon, but that could happen to a guy running track and field just as frequently... if not more... because the coverage team knows when the plan is to kick it through the end zone and won't have to run full speed.)

 

Banning the Tush Push on the grounds that there's a chance of a catastrophic injury, when there's been close to ZERO injuries of any kind on the play, despite it being run literally several hundred times in recent years is just blatantly putting their finger on the scale to get the outcome they want but lying about the reason. 

Incidentally, I think the likelihood of injury on that play is actually going to remain minimal (except for the leaping over the top potential for injury) because unlike most other plays, the players NEVER get to full speed.  There is a lot of impact and pushing, but none of it happens at full speed, unlike the 3 plays highlighted above, where in each case, at least one of the players was moving at full speed when they collided with another.  The faster the players are moving when making impact, the more energy involved in the collision.  It's quite simple.  And those hits that lead to the catastrophic injury happen in the blink of an eye... a fast impact in the fraction of a second.  The Tush Push is a much more time elongated interaction and generally, people stop pushing when they feel a certain level of pain (which is a safety mechanism built into the human body) and will work to limit the catastrophism of any injury that would be incurred.   

 

(Not for the faint of heart...). Incidentally... none of these plays lead to rule changes.  

Spoiler

 

 

1 hour ago, NYEagle said:

I honestly hate mock drafts.....no one has any idea of trades nor who a team will draft.  The only thing you can hope and pray for is that the players your team is targeting is going to actually be a good NFL player.  In my view, either trade up for can't miss, stay where you are, or if you are truly confident....trade back, get more capital and build depth.  But this is exactly why mock drafts are an act of futility because in theory....all 32 teams will either try and move up, stay (and pick who they, not us think they should pick) and/or move back.  

The draft cannot get here soon enough, and I hate that the NFL drags it out as long as they do.  In the meantime, I'll come here, watch everyone argue and wait! 🙂  Also, this is a really good article!

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6244372/2025/03/31/eagles-super-bowl-cj-gardner-johnson-trade/

 

In your view teams should either stay put, trade back, or move up?

19 minutes ago, Freshmilk said:

Isn't head hunting leading with your helmet?  Lovu did it when Hurts was knocked out of the 2nd Commanders game.  Helmet to helmet driving his head into the turf.  So many said that was a clean play.

Yep.  The NFL finally got frustrated and banned him - and yep, Lovu did the same thing - was very clear on the replay what he was up to.  For whatever reason, those plays get a lot of less pearl clutching from coaches than a play run maybe 10 times a game weekend.

24 minutes ago, Freshmilk said:

Isn't head hunting leading with your helmet?  Lovu did it when Hurts was knocked out of the 2nd Commanders game.  Helmet to helmet driving his head into the turf.  So many said that was a clean play.

They were wrong and covering up the lack of a call.   They said the same thing about Clowney's spearing of Carson Wentz in the playoff game too.   Both were intentional, illegal acts.  

6 minutes ago, garingovt2000 said:

In your view teams should either stay put, trade back, or move up?

Those are the most logical choices... but every now and then you get the very rare 4th alternative... 

"passing" and just letting the clock run out!  

 

Zangaro: Nick Sirianni seems excited about the addition of return man Avery Williams, who could also have a role on offense.

Nick Sirianni on the right guard spot:

"We have some good options in house and we have time to add”

Sounds really high on Steen…

8 minutes ago, garingovt2000 said:

In your view teams should either stay put, trade back, or move up?

We've got 20 picks in the next 2 drafts as of right now. I highly doubt we make 20 selections. So I imagine Howie will do a lot of his usual little moves up and down, but overall I expect them to move up more than down.