HawkShack.com

What do you make of this? I do not find Pederson's explanation to be believable. And apparently, some of the Eagles players had to be held back from getting into a heated confrontation with Pederson: https://www.foxnews.com/sports/eagles-p ... alen-hurts

trents wrote:What do you make of this? I do not find Pederson's explanation to be believable. And apparently, some of the Eagles players had to be held back from getting into a heated confrontation with Pederson: https://www.foxnews.com/sports/eagles-p ... alen-hurts

Apparently it was Pederson's plan all along to get Sudfeld some snaps, but I would have expected it to have occurred in the first half rather than the 4th quarter in a close game. Although I understand and agree that the game was meaningless and that it would make sense to use it as a way to evaluate players similar to how one approaches a preseason game, it doesn't do your team any good in the long run to see their head coach not really care if they win or not. It would have been better if he would have let Sudfeld have a couple of series in the first half then bring Hurts back.

The Eagles now have a real mess on their hands. Carson Wentz is all but officially done in Philly. They owe him a ton of money so it's going to be difficult to trade a quarterback that's as much of a mess as he is. In addition, I'm not at all impressed with Hurts. I suspect they'll be a player in the QB derby in the offseason, but I don't expect any blockbuster signings. It might be a good home for Cam Newton.

I get the "always play to win" mantra, but I don't get the outrage here. If Pederson had said "in a worthless game I don't want to risk our future QB's health" and pulled Hurts, would we still be upset? If Pete pulled Russ when it was clear the Saints and GB were going to win, I wouldn't have been bothered at all. And if Pederson had already committed to changing QBs, then I don't get the anger when he does so. If evaluating that QB was important enough that he committed to playing him ahead of time (as stupid as I think that goal was), then who cares if they were competitive in a meaningless game?

And the Giants and their fans can F off...if you wanted to win the division, try winning more than 6 games.

Am I missing something?

RiverDog wrote:Apparently it was Pederson's plan all along to get Sudfeld some snaps, but I would have expected it to have occurred in the first half rather than the 4th quarter in a close game. Although I understand and agree that the game was meaningless and that it would make sense to use it as a way to evaluate players similar to how one approaches a preseason game, it doesn't do your team any good in the long run to see their head coach not really care if they win or not. It would have been better if he would have let Sudfeld have a couple of series in the first half then bring Hurts back.

The Eagles now have a real mess on their hands. Carson Wentz is all but officially done in Philly. They owe him a ton of money so it's going to be difficult to trade a quarterback that's as much of a mess as he is. In addition, I'm not at all impressed with Hurts. I suspect they'll be a player in the QB derby in the offseason, but I don't expect any blockbuster signings. It might be a good home for Cam Newton.

What you say about playing Sudfeld in the first half makes sense. Yes, that would have been a better strategy.

Wentz was such a bright young star when he first debuted with Philly. I don't think he has ever been able psychologically put the injuries behind him. And his lack of a supporting cast reinforced this.

I really can't see Cam Newton with any of the teams as a starter. His stock was not good going into the season and has suffered badly during the season. His ability as a passer was never something to write home about but he does not even come close to NFL standards anymore. He'll either be out of the league soon or some team's backup. He does have starter experience but that's about all he's got going for himself anymore. He's a shadow of what he was early on in his career.

Zack Ertz is reportedly out of Philly also. He would be an intriguing option for the Hawks. Back a few years ago when Philly was a Superbowl caliber team, he was one of the top tight ends. Right up there with Kelce and Kittle. He's 30 now but that's not ancient and I think his health is good. He could be a replacement for Greg Olson if nothing else.

As far as Hurts goes, I think the jury is still out. Lack of a supporting cast in Philly of late would make any QB struggle.

Oly wrote:I get the "always play to win" mantra, but I don't get the outrage here. If Pederson had said "in a worthless game I don't want to risk our future QB's health" and pulled Hurts, would we still be upset? If Pete pulled Russ when it was clear the Saints and GB were going to win, I wouldn't have been bothered at all. And if Pederson had already committed to changing QBs, then I don't get the anger when he does so. If evaluating that QB was important enough that he committed to playing him ahead of time (as stupid as I think that goal was), then who cares if they were competitive in a meaningless game?

And the Giants and their fans can F off...if you wanted to win the division, try winning more than 6 games.

Am I missing something?

This is my take as well. Pederson needs to worry about his team and his evaluation of his players and not what the 6 win Giants need to get into the playoffs.

Yeah, but why would he put the very, very inexperienced Sudfeld in when the game was still very, very much a winnable affair? Philly was only 3 points behind with much time left. That's what everyone is in an uproar about. If the Eagles were way ahead or way behind and the game was out of reach no one would have batted an eye over over the substitution. And speaking of player evaluation and development, you don't throw an very inexperienced player into the game when it is still very much in the balance and the other team has more motivation to win and will probably pound him. That's not going to be good for his psyche. Even if Pederson was not very concerned about winning the game, he should have known that was not a good time to insert Sudfeld. The only thing I can figure is he was trying to remove Hurts from harms way to prevent possible injury that might delay his development as far as looking to next year. Everything points in the direction that Pederson was in fact, throwing in the towel despite what he said.

One question I have, did losing that game put Philly in a better draft slot?

I think it's a blatantly obvious tank no matter what anyone says. I also think it worked, the Iggles improved their draft stock 3 positions and most importantly I think the Giants got absolutely nothing to whine about, they didn't deserve the playoffs either.

c_hawkbob wrote:I think it's a blatantly obvious tank no matter what anyone says. I also think it worked, the Iggles improved their draft stock 3 positions and most importantly I think the Giants got absolutely nothing to whine about, they didn't deserve the playoffs either.

You nailed it!

think it's a blatantly obvious tank no matter what anyone says. I also think it worked, the Iggles improved their draft stock 3 positions and most importantly I think the Giants got absolutely nothing to whine about, they didn't deserve the playoffs either.

Makes no sense on any level. IF you wanted to get him some snaps, then you had a whole season; IF you wanted to tank then tell the players who are hurting, to protect their bodies first, and win second. Most of all, do all that at the beginning of the game! IF you are trying to win, you leave JH in. They got caught in a giant lie, period. Fans are pissed, Giants are pissed, and most of all the Eagle players are pissed. He should be fired. IF he actually thought that a 3rd string backup with 0 game experience, 0 arm, and 0 mobility, was going to win, Pederson should be fired.

The bigger issue is they need to eliminate the right for a team to win a division, or get a Playoff spot with a losing record, unless no other team is available, that is the dumbest part.

The bigger issue is they need to eliminate the right for a team to win a division, or get a Playoff spot with a losing record, unless no other team is available, that is the dumbest part.

Completely disagree. Both of the division winner playoff teams that have gone to the playoffs with losing records have won their Wild Card round game. Besides, if that were the case there would have been no Beastquake run. That's not a Seahawks moment I'm willing to forego.

obiken wrote:The bigger issue is they need to eliminate the right for a team to win a division, or get a Playoff spot with a losing record, unless no other team is available, that is the dumbest part.

I disagree as well. The first goal has always been to win your division, and that creates fan interest in the league. You could do away with the divisions, but if you do that then just do away with the conferences, do away with historical rivalries and have the top 4 playoff. A bunch of fans in a weak conference won't be watching. If your the best conference it's going to be really competitive and you will have more losses. Doing weakens interest and weakens the league, at least that's my opinion.

Add my voice to the chorus that is against eliminating sub .500 teams from playoff consideration, which would essentially eliminate divisional play. The idea behind divisions is that it creates regional rivalries, like Bears-Packers, Steelers-Ravens, Chiefs-Broncos, Hawks-Niners, and so on. Winning the division with a sub .500 record is an anomaly, having happened just a couple times since they went to 4 team divisions, the last time being 10 years ago when we did it. Don't fix what's not broken.

RiverDog wrote:Add my voice to the chorus that is against eliminating sub .500 teams from playoff consideration, which would essentially eliminate divisional play. The idea behind divisions is that it creates regional rivalries, like Bears-Packers, Steelers-Ravens, Chiefs-Broncos, Hawks-Niners, and so on. Winning the division with a sub .500 record is an anomaly, having happened just a couple times since they went to 4 team divisions, the last time being 10 years ago when we did it. Don't fix what's not broken.

NO, it would not! You could still have Divisions, for Geographical and Rivalry reasons, but IF a Division winner is Sub 500, why should they get in over a team that is in a Brutal Division and manages to go 10-6, and then get left out of the playoffs. You are rewarding incompetence.

What they could do, but won't is when there is a Division winner with a losing record, they still get into the playoffs, but the better record would get the home game.
This would only happen in the event the Division winner had a losing record, so a 9-7 team would get a home game over a 10-6 Wildcard entry, but a 7-9 record would not.

RiverDog wrote:Add my voice to the chorus that is against eliminating sub .500 teams from playoff consideration, which would essentially eliminate divisional play. The idea behind divisions is that it creates regional rivalries, like Bears-Packers, Steelers-Ravens, Chiefs-Broncos, Hawks-Niners, and so on. Winning the division with a sub .500 record is an anomaly, having happened just a couple times since they went to 4 team divisions, the last time being 10 years ago when we did it. Don't fix what's not broken.

obiken wrote:NO, it would not! You could still have Divisions, for Geographical and Rivalry reasons, but IF a Division winner is Sub 500, why should they get in over a team that is in a Brutal Division and manages to go 10-6, and then get left out of the playoffs. You are rewarding incompetence.

Especially now that they've expanded the playoffs, there's a very real possibility, actually an eventuality, that a sub .500 team will get a wild card. The Bears got a wild card this season with an 8-8 record, just one game better than the team you're complaining about. What would you do then?

If you don't like teams with sub .500 records winning their divisions and advancing to the playoffs, then we need to consolidate the divisions, go to 3 divisions in each conference with an uneven number of teams. But it would complicate scheduling and people would be rightfully complaining about the inequity of the alignment.