2 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

If they are revamping the playoff seeding, then just eliminate the divisions.  

18 games … six of which would be against your division rivals, and the other 12 would be against the other 12 teams in your conference. That way everyone within a conference would have essentially the same schedule. There would be no interconference play until the Super Bowl.

53 minutes ago, 315Eagles said:

Division champs still matter but why reward a team that wins a crappy division with a 7-10 record and give them a 4 seed with a home playoff game.  Division winners should still get a playoff spot but seeding should go by record.  JMO.

If any sport should get rid of divisions it's the NBA.  I'm willing to bet most fans don't even know the names of the divisions. 

 

I sure don’t, but then I’ve ceased to be a fan.

57 minutes ago, mattwill said:

18 games … six of which would be against your division rivals, and the other 12 would be against the other 12 teams in your conference. That way everyone within a conference would have essentially the same schedule. There would be no interconference play until the Super Bowl.

So much for the Steelers or Jets ever winning here.

If Goodell had his way theyd play 24 games and 12 of them would be in China or India and you'd have to stream them on all different platforms.

These guys are idiot businessmen and if they weren't selling football to Americans they would probably go bankrupt in a month.  

How is the end of the season not compelling enough??   

If they want to do something differently, don't mess with the playoff format anymore, it's already stupid with only one team getting a bye.   

Realign the divisions for geographic rivalries or something.  Save a ishload of money for teams flying all over creation instead of always chasing every last dollar or euro or yuan.

2 hours ago, HazletonEagle said:

I see lots of running through holes. Little in the way of elusiveness, power, and balance. 

I also noted a 1 speed player. He is fast enough, but I don't see initial burst. Slower players sometimes bust through the hole like they're shot out of a cannon. He's the opposite. He's adequately fast but hes just kinda casual about it. I think that early acceleration is important and I just don't see his.

Without that initial quickness, NFL holes might be closed.

He can catch. He can run. I see another Kenny Gainwell as his ceiling but without Gainwell's occasional power runs.

Someone who should be an RB3 at most and who you'll still be looking to replace.

Good description.  Especially with FCS players, we have limited film/video to watch.  I don’t know how much Trevor and Connor have, but I imagine it is more than we have.  So we all do the best we can with what we have.  With that said, what you are seeing as "casual” I am seeing as patient … not overrunning his blocks but rather making the most of what blockers give him.

RB3 is a good label, as is pass catching RB.  

39 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Realign the divisions for geographic rivalries or something.  Save a ishload of money for teams flying all over creation instead of always chasing every last dollar or euro or yuan.

18 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Those boundaries could be drawn to better maintain rivalries. Minn, GB, Chicago, Detroit makes just as much sense. Browns, Buffalo, Jets, Pats. Giants, Eagles, Ravens, Commies. And so on. If the premise is mileage reduction, this grouping seems arbitrary.

2 hours ago, BigEFly said:

So deprive a division of a home game?  That’s bad territorial marketing. 

Depends what their record is.  If they have a s***ty record then they don't deserve a home game.

2 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Why reward a team that couldn't win its own division with that home playoff game?  

So you'd rather award a team that goes 7-10 or 8-9 that played in and won a terrible division with a home playoff game?

I mean that's just my opinion.  If you guys disagree that's OK.  It doesn't really happen that often where a team has a below. 500 record and wins their division.

10 minutes ago, 315Eagles said:

So you'd rather award a team that goes 7-10 or 8-9 that played in and won a terrible division with a home playoff game?

I mean that's just my opinion.  If you guys disagree that's OK.  It doesn't really happen that often where a team has a below. 500 record and wins their division.

Yes.   I'd rather award division winners than non-winners.  The Vikings were 14-3 last year.  Were they actually better than the division winners?  They were embarrassed on a neutral field by the weakest division winner, the Rams.  The NFC North had some impressive records this season, but all 3 of the playoff teams were 1 and done in the playoffs, including the #1 overall seed coming off a bye.  Paper tigers.   

 

3 hours ago, Alphagrand said:

It'll be a sad day when he goes.  Look no further than the other major pro sports commissioners (Silver, Manfred, Bettman) to see how bad it can get.  

I wouldn’t say that necessarily…he’s done the same things those commissioners did, water down the sport to make it ‘more entertaining and marketable’. The NFL is however the only ones who’ve managed to capture the average joe who gets into fantasy and sports gambling.  It’s still the No Fun League.

3 hours ago, BigEFly said:

So deprive a division of a home game?  That’s bad territorial marketing. 

This…though no amount of marketing is going to help the NFC South

3 hours ago, mattwill said:

18 games … six of which would be against your division rivals, and the other 12 would be against the other 12 teams in your conference. That way everyone within a conference would have essentially the same schedule. There would be no interconference play until the Super Bowl.

Would make it a bit stale though with matchups year to year without any interconfrence play.

They could adopt that propsoal to be 6 vs divisions a year then on a rotational basis you play 2 other divisions within your confrence and one division form the other confrence.

3 hours ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

So if my team wins its division with a 11-6 record by going 6-0 in the division, but we drew the NFC North and AFC West as non-divisional opponents.  Whereas a wild card team in a different division could get to a 12-5 record by sweeping the NFC South and AFC South.  They don't play many games in the NFL.  Strength of schedule matters - its a tie breaker used in playoffs and the draft. 

I'd rather have the occasional bad team host a playoff game than have a good team lose out on a home game because they played a harder schedule.

In the history of the NFL, there has been 5 or 6 teams to make the playoffs with a losing record.  What are they really trying to fix?

1982 Cleveland Browns:

The Browns had a 4-5 record and lost to the Oakland Raiders in the playoffs. 

1982 Detroit Lions:

The Lions also had a 4-5 record and lost to the Washington Redskins in the playoffs. 

2010 Seattle Seahawks:

The Seahawks had a 7-9 record and won their wild card game against the New Orleans Saints. 

2014 Carolina Panthers:

The Panthers had a 7-8-1 record and won their wild card game against the Arizona Cardinals. 

2020 Washington Commanders:

The Commanders had a 7-9 record and lost to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the wild card round. 

2023 Tampa Bay Buccaneers:

The Buccaneers had a 9-8 record and lost to the Detroit Lions in the wild card round

3 hours ago, Alphagrand said:

We just saw it this past season.  None of DET, MIN, or GB were actually as good as their records; they were all inflated a couple of wins.  

Detroit was pretty f’n good…just half their original 52 man roster was on the IR.

7 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Yes.   I'd rather award division winners than non-winners.  The Vikings were 14-3 last year.  Were they actually better than the division winners?  They were embarrassed on a neutral field by the weakest division winner, the Rams.  The NFC North had some impressive records this season, but all 3 of the playoff teams were 1 and done in the playoffs, including the #1 overall seed coming off a bye.  Paper tigers.   

 

If the Vikings played the Rams in Minnesota there might have been a different outcome. Maybe, maybe not.   We'll never know but teams usually play better at home.

I wouldn't call the Rams the weakest division winner.  They gave the Eagles all they can handle in Philly, in the elements, where most thought it would be a severe disadvantage for them.

As far as Detroit, yes they got beat bad but basically their entire defense was injured.  Many of us knew they were vulnerable because of that despite having the #1 seed.

3 hours ago, mattwill said:

18 games … six of which would be against your division rivals, and the other 12 would be against the other 12 teams in your conference. That way everyone within a conference would have essentially the same schedule. There would be no interconference play until the Super Bowl.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it…

9 minutes ago, 315Eagles said:

If the Vikings played the Rams in Minnesota there might have been a different outcome. Maybe, maybe not.   We'll never know but teams usually play better at home.

I wouldn't call the Rams the weakest division winner.  They gave the Eagles all they can handle in Philly, in the elements, where most thought it would be a severe disadvantage for them.

As far as Detroit, yes they got beat bad but basically their entire defense was injured.  Many of us knew they were vulnerable because of that despite having the #1 seed.

They were the 4 seed, which is why they drew the Vikings.  

That same 'vulnerable' Detroit team... handled their business against the Vikings.  The Vikings had their chance at a home game (and a bye) but they couldn't seal the deal.  Just a case of 'too bad, so sad' for them.  And when they got to the playoffs, they didn't even have to play a team that had the benefit of 'home field' against them.  They played on a neutral field.

Meanwhile, Washington, a different non-division winner, went into Detroit and did what the Vikings couldn't do, even though they got the Lions coming off a bye.  

 

Ultimately, this is up for discussion right now, not because a team under 0.500 made the playoffs and a 'better' team was excluded.  But, instead this is up for discussion because a 14 win team had to 'go on the road' for the first round of the playoffs, even though it didn't even turn into a home field advantage for the Rams given the fires and the game being moved to Arizona.  This is another case of the NFL trying to fix something that isn't broke, same as their push to ban the tush push.

Why 2 bye weeks for each team hasn’t been proposed yet is beyond me…half the league split between week 5/6 and 11/12.  you could make an argument for an 18 game season then,

9 minutes ago, Wentz_Era said:

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it…

Wish you were the commissioner when the 7th seed was proposed…

5 minutes ago, Wentz_Era said:

Why 2 bye weeks for each team hasn’t been proposed yet is beyond me…half the league split between week 5/6 and 11/12.  you could make an argument for an 18 game season then,

Yes, 2 byes… this is wise counsel.

59 minutes ago, 315Eagles said:

Depends what their record is.  If they have a s***ty record then they don't deserve a home game.

That pays way too much homage to the record without regards to numerous things, including strength of schedule.  This sounds like more whiny Vikings crap.  They had every opportunity to win their division and they didn’t.  Just like the commies didn’t beat us.  So they get away games. 

Let’s examine what the NFCN has seemed to propose this offseason:

Detroit - our CBs can’t cover without cheating so let’s change the defensive holding calls.

Green Bay - we can’t beat the tush push and our coach can’t call a successful 4th down play to save his soul.

Vikings - we couldn’t win their division but beat a lot of bad teams so we should have had a home game.

Are the Bears the only team with integrity in that division.  This level whining should get a trophy. 

8 hours ago, mattwill said:

I want it there too for all the reasons you mention.  As it is placed it disrupts bothe the video action and tries to occupy the same part of the screen where the network puts its support graphics.  The top of the screen usually is outside the field of player action and also away from the network’s words and numbers.  As such the EMB address will be easier to read and at the same time be less obtrusive.

JMO

I believe that I still have all of the audio files for Super Bowl LVII (Merrill and Mike, KC, Westwood One and even the Australian broadcast). So I may go and do a video of the Eagles scores with the various audio tracks, and I'll re-position the watermark in that one. Or maybe make it float.

I wish I'd recorded the Australian broadcast for LIX, but I just didn't have the time or energy to get it all set up and then keep an eye on it. 

30 minutes ago, Wentz_Era said:

Why 2 bye weeks for each team hasn’t been proposed yet is beyond me…half the league split between week 5/6 and 11/12.  you could make an argument for an 18 game season then,

And even make Thursday night work if a bye precedes the TNF matchup.  Maybe then TNF would be a decent game.

31 minutes ago, Wentz_Era said:

Why 2 bye weeks for each team hasn’t been proposed yet is beyond me…half the league split between week 5/6 and 11/12.  you could make an argument for an 18 game season then,

I forget the timeframe, maybe in the 90's, but they've done 2 bye weeks before. I hated it, but I'm sure the players liked it.