1 minute ago, Alphagrand said:

I must have too many people on ignore; I'm not following.  What's their beef with roster size?  They needed another cardboard cutout to watch pass rushers maim another QB?

Shanahan and Lynch are whining about their not being a 3rd QB rule anymore. I was kinda using IP's post as a jumping off point because I'd bet there will be some proposal soon either to bring back the  3rd QB or to expand active rosters. 

 

23 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

KC will be well prepared.  I think we underestimate Spags and his ability to use blitzes and disguise coverages.  I think the best approach will likely to be to focus on running the ball.  Mahomes is just the best QB in the League by a pretty big margin.  He will be healthier than he has been the last 2 games.  He will also be hungry for another Championship since he lost the last Super Bowl he appeared in and lost in the AFC Championship game last year.  

We don't want a shoot out with the Chiefs.  We want 6 possessions each way.  And we want to grind it out and steal the life from their defense... and bore their offense and make them do some stupid things like feel they need to air it out the whole time because they won't get many possessions.  Andy wants to forget about the run... give him every reason to.  Then unleash the pass rush and get to Mahomes.  The Bucs did it when their starting OTs went out, but a healthy Mahomes found ways to at least avoid and get the ball out, to very little success.  We have a better pass rush, and Mahomes' ability to extend plays will be much more limited.  

 

 

I've been saying that we need to run the ball since the match-up was determined.  Run the ball down their throats... it might take a little time to figure it out, but I trust Stoutland to deal with any wrinkle they have and just smash them.  Our OL can mash their front 7... even front 8.  In this game... run Hurts 25 times if you feel it is necessary... whatever it takes.

Hurts' shoulder seems to be a bigger concern passing than it does rushing.  We can still throw a bit, but against the 49ers, the Eagles decided to end the game and ground out 2 8 minute drives running the ball right at them.  I can see that being the plan from the beginning against the Chiefs.  They aren't nearly as stout as the 49ers.  And even minute you possess the ball, is another minute you have to rest the D and keep them fresh for dealing with Mahomes... and its another minute that Mahomes' ankle can stiffen up.  

30 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

It's such a good matchup that regardless of whether you're confident or nervous, you can make the argument that you're right either way. Top pass defense vs top passing offense. Elite secondary vs elite quarterback. Elite rushing attack vs strong run defense. Strong DL vs strong OL. etc. 

I find myself pinballing between calm confidence and the anxiousness of having to watch what I know will inevitably a very hard fought and very close game. Sure wish the game was this weekend instead of next, it'll be tough to keep my mind occupied for the next 10 days.

I don't see the Chiefs as that strong as a run defense.  They give up a full yard more per carry than the 49ers.  They can be run on.  Teams DON'T run on them all that much, because they get caught up in track meets against the Chiefs.  We need to avoid that and we CAN run on them.  

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Shanahan and Lynch are whining about their not being a 3rd QB rule anymore. I was kinda using IP's post as a jumping off point because I'd bet there will be some proposal soon either to bring back the  3rd QB or to expand active rosters. 

..... but, the Bengals activated a 3rd QB for their AFC Championship Game -- Jake Browning.  From their practice roster.

If the Niners didn't have a third QB they could activate (I don't see one on their practice roster), that's a 'John Lynch being stupid' thing, not an NFL thing.

1 minute ago, Alphagrand said:

..... but, the Bengals activated a 3rd QB for their AFC Championship Game -- Jake Browning.  From their practice roster.

If the Niners didn't have a third QB they could activate (I don't see one on their practice roster), that's a 'John Lynch being stupid' thing, not an NFL thing.

Stop making sense

21 minutes ago, SkippyX said:

We heard Spags Spags Spags leading up to Tampa - KC and Tampa put up 31 in 3 quarters and then coasted.

The 2011 and 2007 Giants did the same thing. Once with Spags and once with the great Perry Fewell. It was not Spags. It was pash rush talent.

The 2019 49ers lost the SB because Jimmy G missed a wide open Sanders who Spags could not scheme to cover.

Skippy in classic "downplay the opponent” mode right now. After the Super Bowl, get ready for him to wax poetic about how great the chiefs were. 

11 hours ago, ManuManu said:

 

Dell is an amazing route runner and awful tough for his size (Covey light).

1 minute ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I don't see the Chiefs as that strong as a run defense.  They give up a full yard more per carry than the 49ers.  They can be run on.  Teams DON'T run on them all that much, because they get caught up in track meets against the Chiefs.  We need to avoid that and we CAN run on them.  

Fair, but much like we've said regarding our own defense, that can be easier said than done. The tendency to abandon the run when you're done by a TD or more can be so tough to avoid. Hopefully we don't fall into that trap should we find ourselves trailing like so many other teams do.

8 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

We don't want a shoot out with the Chiefs.  We want 6 possessions each way.

You are not going to find a game with less than 10 possessions very often.

We ground it out against the 9ers, and that was 10 possessions each.

18 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

49ers are whining enough that there will be some type of rule change coming. It's a long, not really proud tradition of Conference Championship Game losers whining they lost and changing the rules. 

You might be right... but the loss has nothing to do with only 46 dressed on gameday.  They didn't have a 3rd QB healthy to go.  They didn't even have one on the practice squad, jic. 

 

 

BUT... I propose the following rule change:  (Stealing a page from the NHL...)

3rd goalie rule... if a team loses both their starting goalie and their backup goalie, a 3rd goalie can be pulled from the stands to play to finish the game.

 

So, we can institute a 3rd QB rule... if a team loses both their starting QB and their backup QB, a 3rd Qb can be pulled from the stands (cannot be on the sidelines) to play to finish the game.  The 3rd QB CANNOT be a rostered player, however, nor a practice squad member.  

2 hours ago, wholesale_Melvin said:

i haven't done drugs since the mid 90s. i am holding though.

$23.01 for a good dime bag. You up ?

You got the vintage aged stuff ehh?

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

You might be right... but the loss has nothing to do with only 46 dressed on gameday.  They didn't have a 3rd QB healthy to go.  They didn't even have one on the practice squad, jic. 

 

 

BUT... I propose the following rule change:  (Stealing a page from the NHL...)

3rd goalie rule... if a team loses both their starting goalie and their backup goalie, a 3rd goalie can be pulled from the stands to play to finish the game.

 

So, we can institute a 3rd QB rule... if a team loses both their starting QB and their backup QB, a 3rd Qb can be pulled from the stands (cannot be on the sidelines) to play to finish the game.  The 3rd QB CANNOT be a rostered player, however, nor a practice squad member.  

 

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Fair, but much like we've said regarding our own defense, that can be easier said than done. The tendency to abandon the run when you're done by a TD or more can be so tough to avoid. Hopefully we don't fall into that trap should we find ourselves trailing like so many other teams do.

I agree. But, unlike Andy, this team has shown a commitment to the running game much more consistently, and dare I say are more dangerous (or at least harder to defend) as a running team than a passing team.  

I'd love to see the Eagles get the ball first, run off 8 minutes and end the drive with a TD.  Put some pressure on KC from the start and show that they won't be getting many possessions... then a stiffened ankle Mahomes limps onto the field, and the Eagles pass rush demolishes them with a quick 3 and out, and the Eagles' O goes back to work and takes at least another 6 minutes off the clock and scores at least 3 more.  From that point on, Andy would completely forget that they even have a running back on the roster, or any running plays in the playbook.  (That's my dream scenario for a start... but we'll see if they can manage that.)

@Mike31mt This was the stat you were asking about a week or two ago. 

9 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

..... but, the Bengals activated a 3rd QB for their AFC Championship Game -- Jake Browning.  From their practice roster.

If the Niners didn't have a third QB they could activate (I don't see one on their practice roster), that's a 'John Lynch being stupid' thing, not an NFL thing.

They had a 3rd QB in street clothes on the sidelines.  If he couldn't go, they should have signed someone.  That player could have been active instead of

Tevin Coleman - 1 snap on offense.

Jaylon Moore - 1 snap on offense and 1 snap on ST

Colton McKivitz - 1 ST snap

6 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Stop making sense

I'm not even convinced Jimmy G couldn't have been activated as the 3rd QB.  Shanahan said there was an outside chance he could be ready, then said he would likely be ready for the Super Bowl.  They either had medical clearance or they didn't; I don't think two weeks was going to make all the difference in the world for his broken foot.  He was all smiles on the sidelines; no sign of any physical impairment.

They put that stupid report out there that he could be ready for the Super Bowl.  Reminded me of the 2000 playoffs when the Flyers stupidly said Eric Lindros was close to returning; they were up 3 games to 1 on the Devils, and rolling.  They went out for Game 5 at home and got crushed 5-1, Lindros came back for Game 6 and the rest of the team stood around and expected Lindros to do everything.  He scored their only goal in a 2-1 loss.  Then everyone knows what happened in Game 7.

I think the Niners made the crucial error of looking ahead.  

7 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

You got the vintage aged stuff ehh?

no but my wife does. 

Just now, Alphagrand said:

I'm not even convinced Jimmy G couldn't have been activated as the 3rd QB.  Shanahan said there was an outside chance he could be ready, then said he would likely be ready for the Super Bowl.  They either had medical clearance or they didn't; I don't think two weeks was going to make all the difference in the world for his broken foot.  He was all smiles on the sidelines; no sign of any physical impairment.

They put that stupid report out there that he could be ready for the Super Bowl.  Reminded me of the 2000 playoffs when the Flyers stupidly said Eric Lindros was close to returning; they were up 3 games to 1 on the Devils, and rolling.  They went out for Game 5 at home and got crushed 5-1, Lindros came back for Game 6 and the rest of the team stood around and expected Lindros to do everything.  He scored their only goal in a 2-1 loss.  Then everyone knows what happened in Game 7.

I think the Niners made the crucial error of looking ahead.  

They said before the game he was set to return to practice with no limitations. Pretty sure that means he was cleared, they just didn't bother having him active. 

1 hour ago, NCiggles said:

I think Quez is a good number 3 WR on this team. He has limitations but he also has elite speed that serves a purpose on the team.  Because of the way the offense is structured, I don't think spending money in FA is worthwhile to look for an upgrade.   I don't think any rookie is going to replace him next season but drafting potential options for 2024 in the 2023 draft makes sense.  

I strongly agree with your bolded statement, both for the reason you describe and also because this is very likely to be a year where a number of Eagles FAs sign with other teams and potentially give us Comp Picks in 2024.  Any FA the Eagles sign who makes the team offsets partially or completely one of those Comp picks.  Looking for an upgrade to Quez should be done, if at all, through the college player route.

6 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Do not, under any circumstances, give Miles a real deal this off-season. 

1 minute ago, RLC said:

Do not, under any circumstances, give Miles a real deal this off-season. 

Agreed.  Looks like Gainwell has finally figured it out, so him and a bruiser should be good.  I would also bring back Boston Scott on a team friendly deal, and you still have Tre Sermon and Kennedy Brooks.

12 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I think we ought to give this guy free season tickets if this rule were to happen:

 

4 minutes ago, mattwill said:

I strongly agree with your bolded statement, both for the reason you describe and also because this is very likely to be a year where a number of Eagles FAs sign with other teams and potentially give us Comp Picks in 2024.  Any FA the Eagles sign who makes the team offsets partially or completely one of those Comp picks.  Looking for an upgrade to Quez should be done, if at all, through the college player route.

Did you bold anything in the quoted post? I'm asking because a few of us are using the new Dark Mode theme and we're noticing bugs in it to report to mods. I didn't see anything bolded so was wondering if it's a bug or not