3 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

I'd disagree with working over time, or working saturdays too lol 

It's different and you know it. Hell even high school football I felt for four or five days. 

Then there's this

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

BAD MATCHUP, WITH BAD TEAMS, WITH BE A BAD GAME, regardless the day of the week. 

They don't pick the big games for Thursday night because it's not popular viewing time for football. The viewers don't like it. The players don't like it. Just get rid of it. 

46 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

I know but is there a rule for how long he has to be on the 53?  Isn't there  rule that if you call someone up from the PS he has to be on the roster for no less than 3 weeks or something like that?

I should expand a little on what I posted earlier and more directly in response to your question. As I read it, if a player is signed to the 53 he is entitled to three game checks whether he's on the 53 for those three games or not. IOW, they sign him they can cut him, trade him, put him on IR, etc. at any time but he gets three game checks.

18 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

That sounds like something my grandmother might like.  How is it played? Is it like football scrap booking or something?

Whoops lol. College*

9 minutes ago, justrelax said:

I should expand a little on what I posted earlier and more directly in response to your question. As I read it, if a player is signed to the 53 he is entitled to three game checks whether he's on the 53 for those three games or not. IOW, they sign him they can cut him, trade him, put him on IR, etc. at any time but he gets three game checks.

That's the answer I was looking for thank you.  I know how the PS call up vs signing to active roster stuff works but didn't know the small details once a guy is actually signed to the active roster. 

4 minutes ago, Uscg-green said:

They don't pick the big games for Thursday night because it's not popular viewing time for football. The viewers don't like it. The players don't like it. Just get rid of it. 

Viewership is not the issue.

Prime just got the contract, they have to fight with the other major networks for which games theyll air.

Even still, I guarantee they would have crushed Yanks/Guardians if the game wasnt postponed.  

If anything the NFL will add more weekday games, not less.  Too much money to be made

11 minutes ago, Uscg-green said:

They don't pick the big games for Thursday night because it's not popular viewing time for football. The viewers don't like it. The players don't like it. Just get rid of it. 

Through four weeks, "Thursday Night Football" is averaging 11.26 million viewers overall, up 11% compared to the comparable period last year when the games aired across Fox, the NFL Network and Prime Video.

The increases are much higher in the younger demographic groups coveted by advertisers who buy commercial time on "Thursday Night Football." In the 18-to-34 age group, the games are averaging 2.6 million viewers, up 67% compared to last year.

Viewers aged 18 to 34 account for 24% of the "Thursday Night Football" audience, compared to 14% of the NFL's TV audience.

2 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Through four weeks, "Thursday Night Football" is averaging 11.26 million viewers overall, up 11% compared to the comparable period last year when the games aired across Fox, the NFL Network and Prime Video.

The increases are much higher in the younger demographic groups coveted by advertisers who buy commercial time on "Thursday Night Football." In the 18-to-34 age group, the games are averaging 2.6 million viewers, up 67% compared to last year.

Viewers aged 18 to 34 account for 24% of the "Thursday Night Football" audience, compared to 14% of the NFL's TV audience.

 

But, but, but, they will lose viewers if people have to pay for a streaming service showing a bad product 

10 minutes ago, justrelax said:

I should expand a little on what I posted earlier and more directly in response to your question. As I read it, if a player is signed to the 53 he is entitled to three game checks whether he's on the 53 for those three games or not. IOW, they sign him they can cut him, trade him, put him on IR, etc. at any time but he gets three game checks.

That's for a team that poaches a player off a different practice squad. I'm not sure the guarantee is there for a player being signed to the 53 from the same team's practice squad. 

3 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

 People want more football. 

Especially if Fantasy and Gambling are involved. 

I remember this being a debate in here

 

18 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

Wrong again

Just your opinion. I disagree 

Again, if the Eagles activate Dillard, they’ll have to release someone. He’s not a free activation. After some reconsideration, I suspect it will be Robinson. He cleared waivers in August. No reason to think he wouldn’t again. Then it would be a matter of getting him to sign with our PS rather than Minnesota’s. Presumably they’d still want him.

We’d be kinda thin at DE if that were the case, but I think that’s gonna be the position that Howie fills at the trading deadline. 

By the way, it pained me last night watching Casey Toohill running around there for the ex-Redskins getting involved in plays. He should have been ours. These bottom of the roster moves may be irrelevant to some people but they are important. You can lose a guy if you misjudge the risk involved in waiving them. Howie gambled and lost on him.

14 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Through four weeks, "Thursday Night Football" is averaging 11.26 million viewers overall, up 11% compared to the comparable period last year when the games aired across Fox, the NFL Network and Prime Video.

The increases are much higher in the younger demographic groups coveted by advertisers who buy commercial time on "Thursday Night Football." In the 18-to-34 age group, the games are averaging 2.6 million viewers, up 67% compared to last year.

Viewers aged 18 to 34 account for 24% of the "Thursday Night Football" audience, compared to 14% of the NFL's TV audience.

Now compare Thursday night viewers to Sunday games. 

7 minutes ago, Uscg-green said:

Just your opinion. I disagree 

Once again, I hate to agree with bacarty, but the ratings prove he is correct.

15 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

That's for a team that poaches a player off a different practice squad. I'm not sure the guarantee is there for a player being signed to the 53 from the same team's practice squad. 

I've been trying to parse that language too and I can't find anything indicating a guarantee either.

1 hour ago, Bacarty2 said:

3 and out - Minus 12 yards

5 plays - 20 yards punt

2nd half - 1st drive 50 yards, stalled, field goal

7 plays - punt

70 yards where he didnt do anything for a field goal

Ya man, He Tore it up!! That crap right there is 2021 Hurts and you're afraid to admit

 

 

Oh you got him!  He didn't score touchdowns on every drive in the game.  Clearly he is bad and and problem.  Everyone knows the good QBs score TDs on every drive. 

 

Also lol at saying Hurts didnt do anything on the 70 yard drive.  He was responsible for 3 of their 5 first downs on that drive. 

 

22 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

 People want more football. 

And not just on their main TV.

 

I'm a boomer and I now find myself watching many games through my streaming services on my laptop.  It's convenient.  It can be in the background.  It's portable.

9 minutes ago, Uscg-green said:

Now compare Thursday night viewers to Sunday games. 

For what purpose?  The Thursday night games are an additional revenue stream for the NFL, like Monday Night Football was and Sunday Night Football afterward.  

WASH at Chicago, for instance, would have been in the 1PM Sunday window, along with 7-8 other scheduled games -- meaning it would have only gotten a regional viewing audience.  I suspect last night's audience was larger.

4 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

For what purpose?  The Thursday night games are an additional revenue stream for the NFL, like Monday Night Football was and Sunday Night Football afterward.  

WASH at Chicago, for instance, would have been in the 1PM Sunday window, along with 7-8 other scheduled games -- meaning it would have only gotten a regional viewing audience.  I suspect last night's audience was larger.

@Uscg-green the Thursday night game has been in the top 5 for viewership every week.

 

 

29 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

 People want more football. 

I'd be good with less. Dissolve the bottom team from each conference and spread the players to boost up talent.

It's not going to happen, but it would be a better product. 

2 hours ago, justrelax said:

It boggles my mind that we have a reasonable chance to draft ahead of those two dumpster fires. Then again, maybe it doesn’t matter if they both draft QBs.

Especially given their track record in their past QB picks.