33 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Stafford is a stat compiler that doesn't deliver when the pressure is on.

Rewatch LVI

10 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

What all needs to happen for eagles to get the 1st seed? I've seen it's like 1% or less than 1 but I'm curious bout the scenario. None of the sites I've seen are covering it since it's so low

From The Liberty Line (haven't checked to verify):

Eagles Can Still Get the #1 Seed (Yes, Really)

This is the part that feels fake, but it’s not.

Philly can still finish as the No. 1 seed in the NFC, and the path — while narrow — is very real:

• Eagles win out (12–5)

• Rams loses once

• Seahawks lose twice

• 49ers lose twice

• Bears lose twice

• Packers lose once

Personally, I wouldn't give it much thought unless there is still a path going into Week 18.

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

From what I’ve gathered:

Eagles win out

Rams lose 1 of 2 remaining games

Seahawks lose last 2 games

49ers lose to colts and bears; beat Seahawks

Bears lose 2 of remaining 3

Packers lose 1 of remaining 3

Even then not sure if the niners or eagles would have 1 seed as they’d both be 12-5 and 9-3 in conference

Decided to ask AI

1. Eagles must win out (Finish 12-5)

The Eagles (9-5) play Washington twice and Buffalo once. There is zero room for error. They must finish 12-5.

2. Seattle must lose out (Finish 12-5)

Because Seattle is already 12-3, the Eagles can only catch them if the Seahawks lose their final two games:

Week 17: at Carolina Panthers

Week 18: vs. San Francisco 49ers If Seattle wins even one more game, they hit 13 wins and the Eagles are mathematically eliminated from the 1-seed.

3. The Rams must lose one more (Finish 12-5 or worse)

The Rams are now 11-4. If they win their final two games, they finish 13-4 and stay ahead of Philly. They need to lose at least one of their remaining games (vs. Falcons or vs. Cardinals).

4. The Chicago Bears must stumble

The Bears (10-4) are currently the 2-seed. For the Eagles to pass them, Chicago must lose at least two of their final three games (vs. Packers, at 49ers, vs. Lions).

5. The Tiebreaker Chaos

If the Eagles, Seahawks, and Rams all finish 12-5, the tiebreaker would be wild:

Eagles vs. Rams: Philly holds the head-to-head tiebreaker (they beat LA earlier this year).

Eagles vs. Seahawks: They didn't play head-to-head. It would likely go to Conference Record.

Currently, the Eagles have 3 conference losses.

The Seahawks have 3 conference losses.

If the Eagles win out and Seattle loses out, the Eagles would likely win this tiebreaker because Seattle’s final two losses would both be against NFC teams (Carolina and SF), giving Seattle 5 conference losses to Philly’s 3.

That'd be entertaining to see

1 minute ago, Mike030270 said:

Decided to ask AI

1. Eagles must win out (Finish 12-5)

The Eagles (9-5) play Washington twice and Buffalo once. There is zero room for error. They must finish 12-5.

2. Seattle must lose out (Finish 12-5)

Because Seattle is already 12-3, the Eagles can only catch them if the Seahawks lose their final two games:

Week 17: at Carolina Panthers

Week 18: vs. San Francisco 49ers If Seattle wins even one more game, they hit 13 wins and the Eagles are mathematically eliminated from the 1-seed.

3. The Rams must lose one more (Finish 12-5 or worse)

The Rams are now 11-4. If they win their final two games, they finish 13-4 and stay ahead of Philly. They need to lose at least one of their remaining games (vs. Falcons or vs. Cardinals).

4. The Chicago Bears must stumble

The Bears (10-4) are currently the 2-seed. For the Eagles to pass them, Chicago must lose at least two of their final three games (vs. Packers, at 49ers, vs. Lions).

5. The Tiebreaker Chaos

If the Eagles, Seahawks, and Rams all finish 12-5, the tiebreaker would be wild:

Eagles vs. Rams: Philly holds the head-to-head tiebreaker (they beat LA earlier this year).

Eagles vs. Seahawks: They didn't play head-to-head. It would likely go to Conference Record.

Currently, the Eagles have 3 conference losses.

The Seahawks have 3 conference losses.

If the Eagles win out and Seattle loses out, the Eagles would likely win this tiebreaker because Seattle’s final two losses would both be against NFC teams (Carolina and SF), giving Seattle 5 conference losses to Philly’s 3.

That'd be entertaining to see

The tiebreaker with sf would be crazy. Essentially if sf, ram and Seahawks all go 12-5. SF wins the division as they’d be 5-1 in division and Seattle and rams would be worse (plus beaten Seattle 2 times and 1-1 rams). need SF to beat Seahawks to begin with. If SF goes 12-5 but their loss is to the colts then they’d finish conference record of 10-2. Eagles would at best be 9-3. If the Niners lose to the bears but beat the colts and Seahawks (12-5) then their conference record is 9-3. So eagles and niners would be 12-5 with 9-3 conference records (assume bears lose to GB and lions, Seahawks lose out, rams lose another game)

2 hours ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Just pointing out if SF wins out then they win the NFC west. Which means you’d get rams and Seattle as 5 and 6 (what seed they are depends on how they’d finish… if sf wins out means Seattle lost at least 1 of their last 2 games).

Yup...I have been paying attention to the Niners all season. I have to listen to all the crap from their fans that have suddenly re-emerged at football experts...it is so annoying. It was stated recently that the Niners have not won a game against a team with a winning record since Week 5. There most recent stretch of 6 games had them playing the Giants, the Cardinals, Panther, Browns and Titans...are you kidding me? Now they get a depleted Colts team who is using a 44 year old QB fresh out of retirement after 5 years. And they are staring having control over their destiny for the #1 seed....what a crazy year.

LOL

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

The tiebreaker with sf would be crazy. Essentially if sf, ram and Seahawks all go 12-5. SF wins the division as they’d be 5-1 in division and Seattle and rams would be worse (plus beaten Seattle 2 times and 1-1 rams). need SF to beat Seahawks to begin with. If SF goes 12-5 but their loss is to the colts then they’d finish conference record of 10-2. Eagles would at best be 9-3. If the Niners lose to the bears but beat the colts and Seahawks (12-5) then their conference record is 9-3. So eagles and niners would be 12-5 with 9-3 conference records (assume bears lose to GB and lions, Seahawks lose out, rams lose another game)

4 minutes ago, aptosbird said:

Yup...I have been paying attention to the Niners all season. I have to listen to all the crap from their fans that have suddenly re-emerged at football experts...it is so annoying. It was stated recently that the Niners have not won a game against a team with a winning record since Week 5. There most recent stretch of 6 games had them playing the Giants, the Cardinals, Panther, Browns and Titans...are you kidding me? Now they get a depleted Colts team who is using a 44 year old QB fresh out of retirement after 5 years. And they are staring having control over their destiny for the #1 seed....what a crazy year.

Yup weird year. The bears have 2 victories over teams over .500 all season. They’ve played to date only 3 teams over .500 in 14 games. Wins over Eagles and Steelers. They’ve been fortunate for having the schedule they’ve had. Just good timing

SF and bears could be the 1 and 2 seeds. Can make the argument I’d have more confidence in rams, Seahawks and eagles then either of those teams. Albeit niners (if win out) wouldn’t leave their home stadium from week 17 thru the playoffs (Super Bowl in their stadium)

30 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Monkeys need to start flying out of your butt

Again??

12 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

OK, hot take incoming...Sean McVay is an excellent play designer, but an objectively awful gameday coach. He and Shannahan both are terrible decision makers on gameday. Moreover, Stafford is a stat compiler that doesn't deliver when the pressure is on. My arguments from last night:

• Somehow the Rams lost a game where they had over 500 yards of total offense and won the turnover battle 3-0. That should be impossible, but they did it. And everyone wants to blame special teams (punt return TD, missed FG) and the defense. But the defense did force 3 turnovers, and set the offense up on the 1 yard line for an easy score, so they basically offset the punt return TD.

• Stafford and the offense get the ball back after Darnold throws a red zone INT. The game is 30-14 with 9:39 left in the 4th quarter, and the Rams go 3 and out, take only 1:36 off the clock and then give up the punt return TD.

• Get the ball back and it's 30-22, and the Rams...go 3 and out again and take less than a minute off the clock. They pass on ALL 3 DOWNS - complete a short pass on 1st down, then throw 2 incompletions. Seattle gets the ball back, scores in 2 plays, and convert the weirdest 2 point conversion ever to tie the game.

• Rams get the ball again, and wait for it, go 3 and out

So at money time, when you need to put away Seattle and win the division, you have 3 straight 3 and outs. If Jalen did that, Get Up would have started the morning calling for him to be benched and Nick/KP to be fired. But Stafford and McVay are the golden boys. Meanwhile, they blew a big lead against us and against Seattle. They lost to SF in overtime by getting stuffed on a 4th and 1 run by Williams (same thing happened in Q4 against us). And Stafford fumbled the game away against Carolina.

The Rams are overhyped.

McVay often coaches like he is scared to lose rather than coaching to win. Stafford is a great QB but I think his lack of mobility limits his ability to create plays out of structure.

Personally, I want to go on the road in the playoffs. I would like nothing better than to take out the Rams, SF, Detroit, GB, et al in their stadiums. Secure the division tomorrow then start resting key personnel. Definitely rest as many starters as possible last game of the season.

32 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Decided to ask AI

1. Eagles must win out (Finish 12-5)

The Eagles (9-5) play Washington twice and Buffalo once. There is zero room for error. They must finish 12-5.

2. Seattle must lose out (Finish 12-5)

Because Seattle is already 12-3, the Eagles can only catch them if the Seahawks lose their final two games:

Week 17: at Carolina Panthers

Week 18: vs. San Francisco 49ers If Seattle wins even one more game, they hit 13 wins and the Eagles are mathematically eliminated from the 1-seed.

3. The Rams must lose one more (Finish 12-5 or worse)

The Rams are now 11-4. If they win their final two games, they finish 13-4 and stay ahead of Philly. They need to lose at least one of their remaining games (vs. Falcons or vs. Cardinals).

4. The Chicago Bears must stumble

The Bears (10-4) are currently the 2-seed. For the Eagles to pass them, Chicago must lose at least two of their final three games (vs. Packers, at 49ers, vs. Lions).

5. The Tiebreaker Chaos

If the Eagles, Seahawks, and Rams all finish 12-5, the tiebreaker would be wild:

Eagles vs. Rams: Philly holds the head-to-head tiebreaker (they beat LA earlier this year).

Eagles vs. Seahawks: They didn't play head-to-head. It would likely go to Conference Record.

Currently, the Eagles have 3 conference losses.

The Seahawks have 3 conference losses.

If the Eagles win out and Seattle loses out, the Eagles would likely win this tiebreaker because Seattle’s final two losses would both be against NFC teams (Carolina and SF), giving Seattle 5 conference losses to Philly’s 3.

That'd be entertaining to see

"likely". Bad AI... the rules aren't open for debate, the tie breakers are very well established.

24 minutes ago, aptosbird said:

Yup...I have been paying attention to the Niners all season. I have to listen to all the crap from their fans that have suddenly re-emerged at football experts...it is so annoying. It was stated recently that the Niners have not won a game against a team with a winning record since Week 5. There most recent stretch of 6 games had them playing the Giants, the Cardinals, Panther, Browns and Titans...are you kidding me? Now they get a depleted Colts team who is using a 44 year old QB fresh out of retirement after 5 years. And they are staring having control over their destiny for the #1 seed....what a crazy year.

I remember saying at the beginning of the year that their schedule was so easy it should be a disappointment for them to not get at least 11 wins.

They seem like an ok but very middle of the pack team who don't stand out in any meaningful way and already missing some key players. I don't see them making much noise in the playoffs.

3 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I remember saying at the beginning of the year that their schedule was so easy it should be a disappointment for them to not get at least 11 wins.

They seem like an ok but very middle of the pack team who don't stand out in any meaningful way and already missing some key players. I don't see them making much noise in the playoffs.

Frankly if we are the 3 seed I’d prefer to face them. I think our defense matches up well against them with the linebackers we have.

On 12/15/2025 at 11:58 AM, NCiggles said:

Apparently their son had drug addiction issues but killing your parents with a knife is something beyond just a drug problem..

Absolutely

Say the defense takes off again and carries us to another Lombardi. Where would you rank it?

Just some examples of great defenses over the decades not in any order

2000 Ravens

2015 Broncos

2002 Bucs

2013 Hawks

1962 Packers

1985 Bears

2023 49ers

9 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Say the defense takes off again and carries us to another Lombardi. Where would you rank it?

Just some examples of great defenses over the decades not in any order

2000 Ravens

2015 Broncos

2002 Bucs

2013 Hawks

1962 Packers

1985 Bears

2023 49ers

Behind the 2024 Eagles

2 hours ago, DaBirds said:

Yeah guys used to sit for years and learn and it was no big deal. Now you’re a bust if you aren’t playing by week 6.

Not necessarily…from a fan perspective it certainly can seem that way but the leashes on most of these QB’s are incredibly long. The problem with most of these young ones is they can’t adjust. CJ Stroud & Daniels are perfect examples. Light the world on fire but can’t adjust. Sunshine, herbert and Murray got second contracts. Tanny hung around the league for how long? Eli was a beacon of mediocrity for years and stuck forever. Hell even Geno Smith is still in the league.

Now on the flip side, someone like a Wilson (Zach), Richardson, fields or Penix listened to what COusins said there and it’s basically a foreign language to them.

College used to be like getting a running start, now it’s just a speed bump or tripping hazard before the fire.

19 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Say the defense takes off again and carries us to another Lombardi. Where would you rank it?

Just some examples of great defenses over the decades not in any order

2000 Ravens

2015 Broncos

2002 Bucs

2013 Hawks

1962 Packers

1985 Bears

2023 49ers

Define takes off again? Haven’t they pretty much all year carried the team? While being on the field for an absurd amount of snaps.

2 minutes ago, Wentz_Era said:

Define takes off again? Haven’t they pretty much all year carried the team? While being on the field for an absurd amount of snaps.

Agreed it was poor word choice. Basically where would you rank it if it wins us another SB

15 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Agreed it was poor word choice. Basically where would you rank it if it wins us another SB

I would rank it that Jalen Hurts probably had another MVP Superbowl performance to pull it all off. And it puts him in the elite conversation if they win.

2 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Question on the winning 2pt play - why wouldnt the fumble be charged to Darnold? The rb never had possession

Based on the NFL's Guide for Statisticians that is incorrect. It should be charged to Darnold. It provides:

Laterals (Backward passes) The same statistical rules apply to all types of backward passes: laterals, handoffs, pitch-outs, reverses, etc. In other words, if a statistical ruling is made on a play that contains a lateral, the exact same statistical ruling would be made if the ball had been handed off instead of lateralled (assuming it was received at the same yard line.) With that in mind, this document will usually refer to the more familiar term, "lateral” instead of "backward pass.” However, the latter is always implied. NOTE: Statistically, an exchange of the ball does not qualify as a backward pass unless the exchange is completed to a teammate without first touching the ground. If the ball touches the ground, or is intercepted by an opponent, the player who attempted the backward pass is credited with a fumble. https://www.nflgsis.com/gsis/documentation/stadiumguides/guide_for_statisticians.pdf

11 minutes ago, jojodancer said:

I would rank it that Jalen Hurts probably had another MVP Superbowl performance to pull it all off. And it puts him in the elite conversation if they win.

Sure would be great if it were to finally happen

15 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

Based on the NFL's Guide for Statisticians that is incorrect. It should be charged to Darnold. It provides:

Laterals (Backward passes) The same statistical rules apply to all types of backward passes: laterals, handoffs, pitch-outs, reverses, etc. In other words, if a statistical ruling is made on a play that contains a lateral, the exact same statistical ruling would be made if the ball had been handed off instead of lateralled (assuming it was received at the same yard line.) With that in mind, this document will usually refer to the more familiar term, "lateral” instead of "backward pass.” However, the latter is always implied. NOTE: Statistically, an exchange of the ball does not qualify as a backward pass unless the exchange is completed to a teammate without first touching the ground. If the ball touches the ground, or is intercepted by an opponent, the player who attempted the backward pass is credited with a fumble. https://www.nflgsis.com/gsis/documentation/stadiumguides/guide_for_statisticians.pdf

Does it say if there is a difference between a normal play and a 2pt try? Because it being a 2pt try changes the rules around it. Wondering if that changes how it should be recorded too.

24 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

Based on the NFL's Guide for Statisticians that is incorrect. It should be charged to Darnold. It provides:

Laterals (Backward passes) The same statistical rules apply to all types of backward passes: laterals, handoffs, pitch-outs, reverses, etc. In other words, if a statistical ruling is made on a play that contains a lateral, the exact same statistical ruling would be made if the ball had been handed off instead of lateralled (assuming it was received at the same yard line.) With that in mind, this document will usually refer to the more familiar term, "lateral” instead of "backward pass.” However, the latter is always implied. NOTE: Statistically, an exchange of the ball does not qualify as a backward pass unless the exchange is completed to a teammate without first touching the ground. If the ball touches the ground, or is intercepted by an opponent, the player who attempted the backward pass is credited with a fumble. https://www.nflgsis.com/gsis/documentation/stadiumguides/guide_for_statisticians.pdf

But then wouldnt Darnold have to be the one to recover it?