13 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

I didnt ask about injury rates nor scoring, as scoring doesnt mean its a good matchup. 

Ok, Bronco's are a bad team. Theyve looked like crap on Monday Night and Thursday night, and Sunday day, that alone backs up my point that crap teams are going to look like crap no matter the day of the week.

Bears will have a tnf game, then mnf, which is 11 days against the PAtriots, and guess that, that games gonna be dog crap.

Bad teams = bad games. 

 

I didn't say you asked about it, you actually didn't ask about anything, but I'm giving you the facts because your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You're talking about the offensive production on Thurs. vs. Sun. games (i.e., scoring), and I know for a fact that it is significantly lower on average. Relatedly, I believe injury rates are higher as well.

Low offensive output+more injuries=bad games

Way off topic but did anyone happen to catch the Panthers throwback field?  It's amazing how much better their original 1995 identity was.  They haven't changed their uniforms much but as much as I hate how 90s the Eagles look is...the Panthers 90s look is who they are and fits that team so well.   Also think they have misused Carolina Blue in the worst way.  I look at UNC's uniforms as some of the best around but it's mainly because they are CB and white.  The Panthers have incorporated way too much black and silver.  

 

I didn't like the Eagles previous one but I loved the 80s one.  This whole minimalistic trend can go away.  

3 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Not really. It was a bunch of emotional nonsense. He spouting off about how the Broncos should have ran the ball on third down instead of throwing it because they would have gotten the first down and ran the clock out. It was third and four and they just got stuffed for a one-yard gain. It was before the two-minute warning. 

He wasn’t making sense. He was just using the postgame show to grind his axe. 

That's his best thing.

5 minutes ago, RLC said:

The decision point for Brown is 2025. By that point, Devonta gets paid. If Brown is good, restructure. If Brown is bad, release.

IMO, the likely scenario is that Brown is good but not great and that he restructures to get more guaranteed, but less total money. 

Yep, there is no way they are going to be paying him $26.5 and $41.5 million.  He's got to restructure in order for them to give Smith a new contract.  Was diving in to that yesterday when talking about the Eagles WR group.

3 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I didn't say you asked about it, you actually didn't ask about anything, but I'm giving you the facts because your argument stand up to scrutiny. You're talking about the offensive production on Thurs. vs. Sun. games (i.e., scoring), and I know for a fact that it is significantly lower on average. Relatedly, I believe injury rates are higher as well.

Low offensive output+more injuries=bad games

Not just more injuries, but less time for a dinged up player to get back for the next game... so you also have more backups playing, or playing bigger roles if the starter tries to gut it out.

 

6 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Not really. It was a bunch of emotional nonsense. He spouting off about how the Broncos should have ran the ball on third down instead of throwing it because they would have gotten the first down and ran the clock out. It was third and four and they just got stuffed for a one-yard gain. It was before the two-minute warning. 

He wasn’t making sense. He was just using the postgame show to grind his axe. 

But he went to Stanford.

7 hours ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

This my favorite non-eagle in the nfl. Mostly because he was their Devonta Smith consolation prize, but also because his career has been amazingly awful.

 

At least it seemed like Marcus Smith was trying. This is Danny Watkins level

I don’t understand this tweet. Stuff like this literally happens all the time.

2 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

 

Kyle Brandt is awesome.  So refreshing to hear someone on National TV call him out for the cringy poser that he is.

 

All 5 of those teams are pretty good anyway, and we’ve already beaten 2 of them. "you havent played anyone!” Will slowly evolve into "both 11+ Win teams have something in common: they lost to Philly”

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I don’t understand this tweet. Stuff like this literally happens all the time.

The report is his hamstring is now 100%, but he has injured the other hamstring so bad he didn’t even make the flight to London 

13 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

No, scoring has nothing to do with a "good game". literally ZERO. 

Sloppy, dumb penalties, dumb play calls,  makes a bad watching game.

Again, I DIDNT MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT INJURIES.

What i've said, 100000 times, a bad football match up is going to be a bad matchup regardless of the day of the week. 

This Colts/Broncos game would of sucked moose **** if it was on TNF, on SNF, or if both teams came off a bye and had 13 days to prepare. 

 

I like a defensive struggle as much as the next guy, but if you're looking for a stat that can at least give you a general sense for how successful teams were on a given night, scoring is the best stat we have.

I don't care if you mentioned injuries. If they're higher in Thursday night games, then that's a very good indicator that Thursday night games are deleterious to player performance. You just don't want to talk about it because it's damaging to your spurious claims. You can repeat them until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't make them true.

35 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I believe it the answer to the question: What is the worst photoshop job on the internet?

The two dudes in the back look like a scene from Fear and Loathing

11 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

 

Wow, I’ve never seen that show say anything critical of anyone. It always presented itself as bubblegum analysis. 
 

I don’t know how I feel about this clip…. He’s not wrong though.

7 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

All 5 of those teams are pretty good anyway, and we’ve already beaten 2 of them. "you havent played anyone!” Will slowly evolve into "both 11+ Win teams have something in common: they lost to Philly”

You really think Jax and Min win 11 games ??

7 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I don’t understand this tweet. Stuff like this literally happens all the time.

Yup, especially with HAMSTRINGS.  🤦‍♂️

6 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I like a defensive struggle as much as the next guy, but if you're looking for a stat that can at least give you a general sense for how successful teams were on a given night, scoring is the best stat we have.

I don't care if you mentioned injuries. If they're higher in Thursday night games, that that's a very good indicator that Thursday night games are deleterious to player performance. You just don't want to talk about it because it's damaging to your spurious claims. You can repeat them until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't make them true.

I award you two bonus points for using an SAT vocabulary word in this post.  

Just now, Iggles_Phan said:

I award you two bonus points for using an SAT vocabulary word in this post.  

 

Well, I did tutor the SAT for many years, so I guess it's finally paying off, lol.

9 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

 

All 5 of those teams are pretty good anyway, and we’ve already beaten 2 of them. "you havent played anyone!” Will slowly evolve into "both 11+ Win teams have something in common: they lost to Philly”

I'm not sure that either can hit the 11 mark, even with 17 games.  Vikings are unfortunately cursed by a very mediocre QB, who for all the stats he puts up, can't seem to get wins to accompany them.  I see 10 as their ceiling... maybe only 9.  9-8 just seems to fit the Kirk Cousins career trajectory better than 11-6.   As for Jax... they are a very young team.  They are going to lose a game or two along the way that they should win because they don't know how to close it out.  Fortunately, they own the Colts... so there's 2 right there.  I still can't see them topping 10 though.

1 minute ago, Bacarty2 said:

Let me ask you this, why were there injuries in the Broncos/Seahawks game that has 15 days rest.

Side note, why was that a awful game to watch since they had 15 days to prepare?

'Round and 'round we go 

14 minutes ago, downundermike said:

You really think Jax and Min win 11 games ??

With the second and third easiest schedules? Yeah. I think Jacksonville is overwhelmingly the best team in their division. Tennessee has some moments of playing horrifying football the first 4 weeks. I think they can go 4-2, 5-1 in their division, then they play the Giants, the Jets, the Raiders, the Lions… not to mention any of the other games they could steal one from like Dallas or Denver. Based on DVOA (ignoring SoS), they’re playing like the 4th best team in the NFL right now. Very good defense, consistent run-based offense that doesn’t turn the ball over if they’re not playing in a hurricane.

 

Minnesota is more of the same, even if we don’t expect them to clock the Packers again. They still have Washington, Giants, Dallas, Cardinals, Jets, Pats, Colts, 2 bears games, Lions again… and they’re likely undefeated right now if they got to play almost anyone on their schedule week 2 instead of us

 

Not just about how good the team is, but the schedule they’re required to play

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

'Round and 'round we go 

Where's that fallacy jpeg?  Bacarty is putting on a clinic of how to throw one fallacy out after another.

 

3 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I'm not sure that either can hit the 11 mark, even with 17 games.  Vikings are unfortunately cursed by a very mediocre QB, who for all the stats he puts up, can't seem to get wins to accompany them.  I see 10 as their ceiling... maybe only 9.  9-8 just seems to fit the Kirk Cousins career trajectory better than 11-6.   As for Jax... they are a very young team.  They are going to lose a game or two along the way that they should win because they don't know how to close it out.  Fortunately, they own the Colts... so there's 2 right there.  I still can't see them topping 10 though.

Their schedules really have huge stretches of cakewalks… They’re listed easier than ours, which is crazy.

Jags have 1 against Colts, 1 against Giants, 2 against Texans, 1 against Jets, 1 against Broncos. that’s 8-2 before we even look at the names of the other games.

6 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

Wow, I’ve never seen that show say anything critical of anyone. It always presented itself as bubblegum analysis. 
 

I don’t know how I feel about this clip…. He’s not wrong though.

Hackett goes long before Russell Wilson does.

When you pay $49M AAV salary for a QB and deal all of that equity to acquire him, you build and cater an offense to what Russell Wilson does well.  The Eagles have comparatively nothing invested in Jalen Hurts, and Sirianni has built an offense around what Hurts can do.

If Hackett can't see his offense isn't working and do what Sirianni did after Week 7 last season -- he deserves to be fired quickly.