2 hours ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

Am I the only one who hates that play? It wasn't called a penalty and Carter shouldn't have done that. The mistake (by the refs and Carter) is probably meaningless because of the lopsided score, but if it was closer it would have been very stupid.

5 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Ironically you ask this as you also ask who would win more games between 1980 and 2024 iterations of the Eagles... in that post you mention, bigger, stronger, faster... then you ask what relevance the age difference would be to the entertainment value.

The answer is that when two sides matchup and one is significantly bigger, stronger, faster... it's not very entertaining.

You missed my point(s).

Comparing 2024 to prior years illustrates just how much more athletic and powerful today’s NFL players are. That tells me that the pool of NFL quality players is significantly larger than it was in 1980. That bigger, stronger reality is also manifest in the college ranks where there is a large universe of players who are bigger and stronger than the NFL players of 1980. Many of those bigger and stronger college players never get to the NFL because of the relatively small number of roster spots that can be won. Opening up more roster spots on more teams would provide additional opportunities for those college players.

I draw a parallel to the Coke and Pepsi Wars ad campaigns of many years ago. When those campaigns came to a close the question that many asked was, "Who won? Coke or Pepsi?” The answer was that they both won because the awareness (opportunity) of the overall cola market was expanded, so both brands saw a sharp increase in sales. Bottom-line, the both won.

5 weeks until players report for training camp!

Not sure that expansion has affected competitiveness. There were some pathetic point differentials 50 years ago.

I would argue that there is sufficient talent availability around the league EXCEPT FOR QB. Washington goes from 4-13 to the NFCCG for the most part by adding QB competency to their team. The Patriots from 2020 onward are the other extreme.

2 hours ago, BigEFly said:

Zero, most likely at this point. The NFL has tried several incubators for talent over the years but produced few permanently elevated players from those sources and most of those are fringe roster players. Take two from the Eagles, who have both started in the NFL, Toth and McCollum. You are proposing expansion teams comprised of McCollums and Toths or worse.

Look at how few players migrate from the PS, the UFL or the CFL into starters in the NFL. BGN had an "article” (really a compilation as there is very little real journalism on BGN) listing former Eagles in the NFL, UFL, and CFL. Most are fringe roster players on the 90 man rosters or unlikely to elevate to the NFL again. Take a look at that list, exclude highly paid UFAs and make a team that can win in the NFL. Not sure it can be done. Frankly, only NFL Europe, with lower level of players assigned from teams ever really worked as an incubator.

Colleges as sources of development have dramatically changed over the last decade with the transfer portal, NIL and will change again with the House settlement and the Deloitte clearing house for NIL.

I stand by position that before the NFL considers expansion they first will see expanded rosters for an 18th game. That expansion would increase NFL coffers with less expense than the cost of adding franchises.

All good points. The only one I would quibble with is that the new teams would be comprised of Toths and McCollums or worse. New teams would almost surely be stocked from an expansion draft, and history has shown that decent players move to the new teams in those drafts. Witness the Vegas Golden Knights who made the NHL Playoffs their first season and won three rounds in those playoffs to advance to the Stanley Cup finals against the Washington Capitals.

The business model of the NFL emphasizes parity over and over again. If they added teams that parity model would work in the favor of the new teams being competitive.

With that said, I agree that moving to an 18 game schedule is a much quicker and easier route toward more revenue.

29 minutes ago, beto_eagles said:

Am I the only one who hates that play? It wasn't called a penalty and Carter shouldn't have done that. The mistake (by the refs and Carter) is probably meaningless because of the lopsided score, but if it was closer it would have been very stupid.

Carter was held on that play - blatantly. It would have been off-setting penalties. I think the ref just swallowed his whistle.

49 minutes ago, beto_eagles said:

Am I the only one who hates that play?

Yes - seeing that floppin' ass whiny little beetch nearly get his head taken off after losing the ball then having to walk off the field dejectedly was incredibly satisfying.

28 minutes ago, just relax said:

Carter was held on that play - blatantly. It would have been off-setting penalties. I think the ref just swallowed his whistle.

The problem is that play resulted in a fumble, so if they did offset the penalties they would probably rerun the play and the Eagles would miss out on the turnover.

Although the score was 37-6 with 9 minutes left in the game so it probably wouldn't have changed anything.

It's that time of the offseason where I watch some classic games and the other night I was watching some Dolphins/Chargers 1994 season playoffs divisional round. Man, that game had some of the worst officiating you'll ever see. I know sometimes in games today when there's a lot of reviews and it slows down the games people want to either cut back on replay to make it go faster, but if I had my team get Fed over and they ended up losing a playoff game because of it, I wouldn't be able to ever get over it. That game made major officiating mistakes on two TDs(one a clear non TD and one a TD) that they both got wrong. Also there was a play in the game where Keith Jackson(yes, that Keith Jackson) caught a pass, threw the ball forward as he was getting tackled, Chargers recovered, and the announcers were absolutely incredulous that they didn't call it a fumble. It was a dead ball on an illegal forward pass. I think in modern broadcasts, someone would've been in the announcers ears correcting them on the rules or they would have known it already.

Chargers won the game on a variation of that corn dog play that the Chiefs always run in their Super Bowls. Except the Chargers ran it where the receiver ran through the middle of the formation instead and kind of sneaked out into the flat wide open. Natrone Means was Fing enormous, you'll never see a RB built that way again.

52 minutes ago, just relax said:

Carter was held on that play - blatantly. It would have been off-setting penalties. I think the ref just swallowed his whistle.

Plus he had fumbled the ball before Carter hit him. Yeah it was just a fraction of a second earlier, but I think the announcers even said that was probably the reason for no penalty

1 hour ago, beto_eagles said:

Am I the only one who hates that play? It wasn't called a penalty and Carter shouldn't have done that. The mistake (by the refs and Carter) is probably meaningless because of the lopsided score, but if it was closer it would have been very stupid.

after all of the non-calls the eagles got, i have zero issue. it all washes out.

22 hours ago, garingovt2000 said:

What's the move for the Sixers at pick 3? You making a trade and if so for who or who you drafting?

Jerry Stackhouse

1 hour ago, mikemack8 said:

Yes - seeing that floppin' ass whiny little beetch nearly get his head taken off after losing the ball then having to walk off the field dejectedly was incredibly satisfying.

pretty much, seeing half the k.c. team crying on the sideline after spending two weeks talking so much trash and already counting the proceeds from the threepeat apparel, was so awesome.

15 hours ago, HazletonEagle said:

all 2000

Not a single team for Carson Strong?

Good stuff about Fangio's defensive coaching style, how GA players were used to old school coaching so they took to it well, and communication among teammates helping their success.

6 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

Not a single team for Carson Strong?

Id answer the same for him. Good point.

17 hours ago, mattwill said:

The quality of product is subjective. When I was in college there were 22 teams. Now there are 32. Was the product in the 70s better than the current product? Is the current product watered down?

My personal answers to those questions is No and No.

If the 2024 Eagles played the Vermeil Super Bowl Eagles 10 times, how many of the 10 would each team win?

Players today are bigger, more athletic, and better prepared than prior era players were.

The population of the US was only about 110 million people in 1926.

I think it's hilarious how it's almost like Hurts was built in a lab to handle WIP and the media in this town. He's untouchable and couldn't give one iota of a crap what they say. It may have worked with McNabb back in the day and Wentz, but he's untouchable from a someone effing with his mentals standpoint. Him, Sirianni, and Roseman are all made guys with the success they've had and that radio station can't handle that.

7 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

I think it's hilarious how it's almost like Hurts was built in a lab to handle WIP and the media in this town. He's untouchable and couldn't give one iota of a crap what they say. It may have worked with McNabb back in the day and Wentz, but he's untouchable from a someone effing with his mentals standpoint. Him, Sirianni, and Roseman are all made guys with the success they've had and that radio station can't handle that.

True. The anti-Wentz. Howie learned the hard way so now we roll Tide and UGA.

25 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Good stuff about Fangio's defensive coaching style, how GA players were used to old school coaching so they took to it well, and communication among teammates helping their success.

It's funny hearing Baun's perspective of when he asked Vic when he's getting snaps and Vic basically telling him he's got another plan for him

Once again mentioned how the young guys were ok with Vic's coaching style

Pretty funny how they seemed to be introverts and then opened up with each other too lol

2 hours ago, mikemack8 said:

Yes - seeing that floppin' ass whiny little beetch nearly get his head taken off after losing the ball then having to walk off the field dejectedly was incredibly satisfying.

Not gonna argue against this sound logic.

3 hours ago, just relax said:

Carter was held on that play - blatantly. It would have been off-setting penalties. I think the ref just swallowed his whistle.

That's a fair point.

3 hours ago, mattwill said:

Good points; however, the TV broadcast of a two bottom dweller game has a very limited geographical reach, but simultaneously has considerable interest in the respective cities of those two teams. As a result, no harm is done to the "other” cities’ viewers, while providing increased interest in the "new” cities regardless of the record of the team.

In a matchup of a top team vs. a bottom dwelling team, again the geographic reach of the broadcast will be limited, and the fans of each of those teams will watch their home team regardless.

You realize that adding more teams would mean adding more meaningless games and less value overall. I did point out TNF, specifically, which is not a limited geographical reach.

3 hours ago, mattwill said:

You missed my point(s).

Comparing 2024 to prior years illustrates just how much more athletic and powerful today’s NFL players are. That tells me that the pool of NFL quality players is significantly larger than it was in 1980. That bigger, stronger reality is also manifest in the college ranks where there is a large universe of players who are bigger and stronger than the NFL players of 1980. Many of those bigger and stronger college players never get to the NFL because of the relatively small number of roster spots that can be won. Opening up more roster spots on more teams would provide additional opportunities for those college players.

I draw a parallel to the Coke and Pepsi Wars ad campaigns of many years ago. When those campaigns came to a close the question that many asked was, "Who won? Coke or Pepsi?” The answer was that they both won because the awareness (opportunity) of the overall cola market was expanded, so both brands saw a sharp increase in sales. Bottom-line, the both won.

The population is higher, but more so the nutrition and training is greatly improved. That doesn't mean they are necessarily more talented.

3 hours ago, just relax said:

Carter was held on that play - blatantly. It would have been off-setting penalties. I think the ref just swallowed his whistle.

They wanted to get to the after-parties.