Resting starters Week 18 against the Giants and the following week off for the bye is the correct way to go.  Anything more comes with a huge, real risk of coming out flat in the Divisional Round against a team on a high from a wildcard win.  

The only other rest should be limited to guys nursing injuries.

4 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I knew that would draw this kind of response.  But context is everything.   If it means sitting the starters for a month... then yes, I don't want a win this Saturday.  And I fear this organization will sit their starters for a month if they clinch.    I think that leads to a flat team for the playoffs, against a team that had to play tough down the stretch and this team may not be able to shake the cobwebs fast enough if they did a 14 point hole early like they did with the Jags.

 

Of course... if I were in charge, I'd say we should win Saturday, then I play my starters for at least a full half, probably more than that against the Saints... and then sit my starters against the Giants.  But, I don't see this organization suiting players up for the Saints game if they win Saturday.

My response was purely for fun. Hope you see that.

I feel you and generally agree, however, all that road tested game time will take a toll.

Injuries happen and kill lots of Playoff hopes.

The guys are focused on beating Dallas right now and I'm behind that mentality 300%.

Regular Season will out, Playoffs and #1 Seed, now have the discussion about resting guys..

Beat Dallas first. That's what we're geared towards.

Saints can wait, they are a luxury.

4 hours ago, Mlodj said:

Morning papers reporting Hurst is banged up.  Color me shocked.

 

4 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

I've seen you mention this a couple times now - where did you see it?  I can't find anything on it

Maybe he meant Hayden Hurst tho? 

Just now, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I thought they were ok. I don’t think they were close to the level you saw against the giants the week prior particularly run blocking. Some of that i attribute to lack of runs early by our backs so we never got into a good rhythm. I thought they did get better as the game wore on. 

Kelce is just fn amazing. The block he had where he shoved the dlinemen into the S was fantastic 

Just now, Alphagrand said:

Resting starters Week 18 against the Giants and the following week off for the bye is the correct way to go.  Anything more comes with a huge, real risk of coming out flat in the Divisional Round against a team on a high from a wildcard win.  

The only other rest should be limited to guys nursing injuries.

I’d limit sanders touches if we clinch in Dallas. No need to get him banged up and he’s had injuries in the past . 

1 minute ago, TorontoEagle said:

 

Maybe he meant Hayden Hurst tho? 

My bad - thought it was you both times 

Who's looking forward to the eagles/cowboys finger painting this week? 

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

It was an issue on both yesterday. Hurts shouldn’t have taken the beating he did in that game against a bears defense that’s 29th dvoa against the run and 31st in dvoa against the pass. Also think the bears coming off a a bye week looked fresh and extra week to prepare probably helped their defense. 

that said i don’t think it was a stellar performance by the oline. I tend to think some of the guys might have taken Chicago lightly and looking forward to Dallas week. 

I don't think that's the case.  Hurts wasn't under much pressure.  He just needed to hand the ball off and not keep it.  The coaching deserves the blame for the gameplanning.  They should have committed to running the ball early and often with Sanders.  

Hurts will be running a little bit more yet:

 

Hurts scored three touchdowns on the ground Sunday, bringing his total for the season up to 13. Hurts needs two more to pass Newton for the most by a quarterback in a single season in NFL history (Newton scored 14 during his 2011 rookie season).

1 hour ago, jsb235 said:

Eagles were trying to trade him all offseason but no one wanted to give up what was reported to be a third rounder. But someone is going to pay him more than $2 million in free agency? 

The NFL has told you what it thinks of him. 

That's a 3rd round pick for a guy who is a free agent at the end of the year. It's a risk. I'd be willing to be a lot of money that he gets more than $2M. Heck, Matt Pryor got a 1 year $5M conteract. 

Just now, shlo said:

That's a 3rd round pick for a guy who is a free agent at the end of the year. It's a risk. I'd be willing to be a lot of money that he gets more than $2M. Heck, Matt Pryor got a 1 year $5M conteract. 

He should get us a 4th rd comp pick

9 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

I've seen you mention this a couple times now - where did you see it?  I can't find anything on it

Hurts briefly commented on it during his presser, maybe that's where it's coming from. Someone asked about his shoulder and he said something about "we'll see" on it. 

Just now, LeanMeanGM said:

Hurts briefly commented on it during his presser, maybe that's where it's coming from. Someone asked about his shoulder and he said something about "we'll see" on it. 

That big teeth five headed Pam Oliver asked him about it

6 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

I don't think there's a plan to run him into the ground.  The question is how effective can he be if he gets hurt running the ball because he will get hurt at some point or his athleticism will wear down.  I think there's a fair comparison between Hurts and McNabb and Cam Newton.  Each of those QBs ultimately lost efficacy because of age and injuries.  I don't think either just had about 4 seasons of good play.  

I think you are right that there's no plan to run him into the ground... but then I see a game like yesterday and I see the shots he's taking and they just keep going back to that well.  It just irritates me.  

Am I crazy for thinking it's possible that if it ended up this way, that either Wash or NY Gints could pull off the upset?   San Fran is good, but their schedule was nothing special in fact was easier than the Birds. 

 

 

My guess is that the Eagles gave Goedert an extra week to heal so he's ready for the Dallas game. Any word on Blankenship? 

Regarding beating the same team three times in a season. I remember about thirty years ago seeing a list of instances where a team swept an opponent during the regular season and then had to face them again in the playoffs. At the time it was roughly even. I don’t remember the exact numbers but there might have been about twenty-five instances where such a matchup took place. There were some famous cases where the team which had lost twice actually won the one that mattered most. For example:

I used to like the old Daryle Lamonica Raiders and hated the Hank Stram Kansas City Chiefs. In 1969, the Raiders swept them during the season and lost to them in the final AFL Championship Game. The Chiefs famously won the Super Bowl but they weren’t the best team in the league that year. The Raiders were.

However, over the past few decades, I am certain that it has been very one sided in favor of the team which had won both regular season matchups. I would love to see the actual numbers on this.

Long story short. If we sweep the Cowboys, recent precedent suggests we’re probably gonna win the third time too. 

6 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Resting starters Week 18 against the Giants and the following week off for the bye is the correct way to go.  Anything more comes with a huge, real risk of coming out flat in the Divisional Round against a team on a high from a wildcard win.  

The only other rest should be limited to guys nursing injuries.

I am not sure that resting will have anything to do with coming out flat against another team.  College teams have that kind of rest all of the time.  If there's nothing to be gained by playing the starters the last 2 games, then rest them.  

4 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

I don't think that's the case.  Hurts wasn't under much pressure.  He just needed to hand the ball off and not keep it.  The coaching deserves the blame for the gameplanning.  They should have committed to running the ball early and often with Sanders.  

I thought for lack of talent the bears had they did a good job in the first half. I don’t think the eagles played their best half from hurts, oline and coaching definitely didn’t help. Fact sanders had 1 carry on the first 27 minutes is just dumb against an awful run defense. I thought last drive of the first half the oline began began taking it to the bears. 

Not a good sign when the Packers of all teams are releasing him. 

21 minutes ago, RLC said:

I would be stunned if we did this, but you could argue we should bench our starters Saturday, to give them more rest. 

This thread does a good job explaining the probability behind it.

I think the best from a humor stand point would be to rest Hurts, that way if we win we can say we beat them with our back-up qb, and if we lose, we can say oh you only beat our back-up like they have been doing to us since the last game. It's a win-win.

Just now, DEagle7 said:

Not a good sign when the Packers of all teams are releasing him. 

They should draft Addison this upcoming draft

1 minute ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Regarding beating the same team three times in a season. I remember about thirty years ago seeing a list of instances where a team swept an opponent during the regular season and then had to face them again in the playoffs. At the time it was roughly even. I don’t remember the exact numbers but there might have been about twenty-five instances where such a matchup took place. There were some famous cases where the team which had lost twice actually won the one that mattered most. For example:

I used to like the old Daryle Lamonica Raiders and hated the Hank Stram Kansas City Chiefs. In 1969, the Raiders swept them during the season and lost to them in the final AFL Championship Game. The Chiefs famously won the Super Bowl but they weren’t the best team in the league that year. The Raiders were.

However, over the past few decades, I am certain that it has been very one sided in favor of the team which had won both regular season matchups. I would love to see the actual numbers on this.

Long story short. If we sweep the Cowboys, recent precedent suggests we’re probably gonna win the third time too. 

Unfortunately, we’ve been on the wrong end of a 3 game sweep twice since 2000. Giants got us thrice in 2000, and Dallas did it in 2009. 
 

Couple flip sides I do recall would be the Giants got swept by Dallas in 2007, but won the divisional round game, and Tampa got swept by the Saints two years ago, but then won the divisional round game. 

10 minutes ago, Doc S. said:

My response was purely for fun. Hope you see that.

I feel you and generally agree, however, all that road tested game time will take a toll.

Injuries happen and kill lots of Playoff hopes.

The guys are focused on beating Dallas right now and I'm behind that mentality 300%.

Regular Season will out, Playoffs and #1 Seed, now have the discussion about resting guys..

Beat Dallas first. That's what we're geared towards.

Saints can wait, they are a luxury.

Oh, I know.   But as I was typing, I knew it would trigger that response.  

And I agree on the Beat Dallas bandwagon.  But, I'm not a fan of sitting starters for too long.  So, in a perfect world, where I get to write the script... there wouldn't be a month long siesta for the starters before the playoffs start.  And whatever it takes to avoid that would be 'good' in my eyes.   I wouldn't WANT to lose to Dallas.  But, I also don't WANT to see the starters over rested.  And to me, the lesser of the two evils would be losing to Dallas compared to the month long vacation.  Both are bad, but in the long run, one has more drastic repercussions than the other.

4 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I think you are right that there's no plan to run him into the ground... but then I see a game like yesterday and I see the shots he's taking and they just keep going back to that well.  It just irritates me.  

There's no question that he should not have run the ball as many times as he did.  I am not sure what the game plan was but it wasn't smart.  At the same time, I don't think the runs place him at a greater risk of a more significant injury.  I just think they had wear and tear to his body that he doesn't need.