19 minutes ago, pisceschica said:

He's been pretty limited throughout his career

1 minute ago, KINGnabb said:

Yeah I didn't remember the Pats winning that many games. 27-1 sounds more correct which would still be an NFL Record but 34-1 sounds impossible. I thought it was based off the Perfect season year at first.

In 2003 they started something like 2-2, and then in 2004 they went 14-2

So if the 2 2004 losses were toward the end of the year then I could totally see it

22 minutes ago, pisceschica said:

More snaps for Bryce huff to get sacks now.

Just now, Mike030270 said:

He's been pretty limited throughout his career

Eagles adversaries dropping like flies today

3 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

In 2003 they started something like 2-2, and then in 2004 they went 14-2

So if the 2 2004 losses were toward the end of the year then I could totally see it

I just looked it up. They went 27-1 between 2003-2004 season. They finished 2003 winning 15 straight including the playoffs. They started the 2004 Season winning 6 straight so that's 21-0, then they had a loss before winning 6 more making it 27-1 before having another loss.

16 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Against Dak, Mahomes, and Stafford.

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

\

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

Still yapping....they're like the Temu 49ers.

17 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

We're not the Rams going to let clock run and then kick with no time left?

I figured he made them run more plays which was more opportunities to force a turnover. Which, nearly happened on one of their passes.

No. The Rams called a timeout also but Nick got in his first so he was charged. Rams would have had the ball with 15/16 seconds and would probably have tried to do a safe throw to the sidelines before settling for a 50 yard FG so they would have just ran another play anyway or just kicked a longer FG and leave some time on the clock.

7 minutes ago, pisceschica said:

pregame wager or street fight. I'd guess wager.

1 hour ago, bpac55 said:

I wonder what happened on the field?

I think that was after the Eagles got their first first down since the opening drive.

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

They're going to go unbeaten the rest of the year now, in the same way the Packers went unbeaten ......

16 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

Was thinking the same

The game was almost 100% coming down to the FG attempt, so give them a chance to screw up setting the FG up. Those TO’s aren’t doing anything if you sit on them

The timeout gave the Rams the ability to take a deep shot AND run to set up a shorter FG. It opened up their playbook a lot more than if they just had 15 seconds and no timeouts left. Not to mention it also gave them 3 more seconds and they were basically settling for a long FG.

1 hour ago, wussbasket said:

That makes me question it even more. What was Stout thinking?!?

Great question.

3 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

They're going to go unbeaten the rest of the year now, in the same way the Packers went unbeaten ......

Posted this yesterday, and I think it's very possible as I watch the post game comments. The Lambs spent all offseason claiming they should have won in January, would have won the Super Bowl, had the game circled, etc. Losing that way -- it was like when your dad would let you get a big lead in something (for Indians, it was ping pong) only to smoke you and remind you who was in charge at the end. Basically, we are the Rams' daddy.

Up through the seventies, the Eagles were all-time 8-14-1 against the Rams franchise - Cleveland and LA. This, however, included the 14-0 victory in the 1949 NFL Championship.

Since then, were are 18-6 against the Rams - LA and St. Louis. 10 out of the past 11 and 6-1 against McVay.

I don't understand why the Eagles always get Bucs in September. Every single time. It's still hot as balls and that stadium sucks.

5 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Posted this yesterday, and I think it's very possible as I watch the post game comments. The Lambs spent all offseason claiming they should have won in January, would have won the Super Bowl, had the game circled, etc. Losing that way -- it was like when your dad would let you get a big lead in something (for Indians, it was ping pong) only to smoke you and remind you who was in charge at the end. Basically, we are the Rams' daddy.

yup...the Rams studied and studied for this game after two tries last year. They have as much game film and binders filled with Eagles as anybody...they took their best shot and blew their wad yesterday and got a loss to show for it. This was their Super Bowl. Meanwhile , the Eagles walk away with a treasure trove of film and knowledge from playing them again. Let them talk...they are not at the same level as the Eagles. They still haven't learned the championship art of winning in the NFL...the Eagles have...so game over.

Just now, LeanMeanGM said:

I don't understand why the Eagles always get Bucs in September. Every single time. It's still hot as balls and that stadium sucks.

yup..count on the Bucs wearing white so they can put the Eagles in green for the heat.

8 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Posted this yesterday, and I think it's very possible as I watch the post game comments. The Lambs spent all offseason claiming they should have won in January, would have won the Super Bowl, had the game circled, etc. Losing that way -- it was like when your dad would let you get a big lead in something (for Indians, it was ping pong) only to smoke you and remind you who was in charge at the end. Basically, we are the Rams' daddy.

The entire NFC West will profit from a very easy schedule this season, much like the NFC North did last year. All 4 teams have winning records, and I could see ARI finishing last in the division but being 8-9 or even 9-8.

Niners are 3-0 by edging past SEA, NO, and ARI. They could be a pretty bad 12-5 or 13-4 team in January, like the Vikings were last year.

12 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

Like clockwork down there when the Birds go.