Shame on Doug Pederson

[Lucky Colts Fan 5,609]

21 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Those tanks were almost successful. I believe our tank succeeded even though we won two games because we ultimately got the no1 pick. Not every tank is obvious, and not every tank works. I do believe some do happen in the NFL though, and most ultimately fail by the end of the year.

 

The idea that a team can fail to fail is absolutely hilarious to me.

 

Oh no!  We suck at sucking!

 

[dw49 725]

1 hour ago, FortheWin said:

I think Williams was told to call that play just like Pederson was told to play Sudfeld. The decisions come from the top.

 

So is Williams OK with having his future earnings as an NFL coach affected by this "cover up?" Or does the Eagle organization secretly inform the other 32 teams that Williams did not call the play ? The man was fired at dawn the next morning and if he was instructed as you say , tell me how it plays out from there ? He's not angry and wanting to expose ownership for making him look bad ? Does he get a gigantic pile of 100 $ bills to compensate for "taking the fall ? " 

[crazycolt1 7,556]

Just out of curiosity why should I give a rat's behind what Pederson did or didn't do? 

[dw49 725]

5 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Just out of curiosity why should I give a rat's behind what Pederson did or didn't do? 

 

No one said you had to . Just take your mouse , point it to something else and click it ? 

 

 In any event , it's interesting to see how people view this so differently 

[chad72 7,391]

22 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Just out of curiosity why should I give a rat's behind what Pederson did or didn't do? 

 

Like someone else said, NY is a big media market and too much has been made of this because of that. If it amplifies the existing bad vibes Pederson had already or not, only time will tell. Hey, if the Rams or someone else in the NFC outside their division had done it, it would probably have stung less, I guess. 

 

Just like the Colts, Giants were not in control of their destiny. The Colts got the help, and the Giants did not. Hopefully the Colts can make something out of it.

[Superman 9,399]

So do people really think Pederson pulled Hurts in an effort to throw the game? 

 

Or is it more that people think Pederson wasn't fully invested in the outcome of the game, and made a head scratching decision to put in a different QB when the outcome was still undecided? He treated it like a preseason game, rather than pursuing the win...

 

I mean, I get people calling out a team for not going all out for the win. But I think that's a hypocritical approach. Teams shut down starters (the Eagles didn't play Sanders, Jackson or Cox, and didn't dress Wentz), evaluate young players, etc., in Week 17 all the time. The only difference is that the Eagles pulled Hurts in the 4th quarter.

 

And again I ask, why does anyone believe that keeping Hurts in the game would have changed the outcome? He was having a bad game.

[Two_pound 263]

Look back at all the times the Colts sat numerous starters at the end of the season when playoff positioning was set during the Manning years. Twice in 2009 alone. Different reasons different situations but, pulling starters or sitting starters is the same, it does not give your team as good a chance to win.

[crazycolt1 7,556]

45 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

No one said you had to . Just take your mouse , point it to something else and click it ? 

 

 In any event , it's interesting to see how people view this so differently 

I guess my point is with everything else going on in the playoffs I just don't get why there is this much attention given to a team that is irrelevant? 

[braveheartcolt 1,394]

On 1/4/2021 at 6:33 PM, Gramz said:

A blatant disregard for the integrity of the game.

Totally agree. Why should teams get an 'easier' game because of the scheduling? Rest your starters in week one or week 10 etc if you want to see the development of your younger players....

 

Disgusting, just like the Pollian shambles of 2009.

[Superman 9,399]

Just look at this list of Philly inactives:

DeSean Jackson WR

Carson Wentz QB

Alshon Jeffery WR

Miles Sanders RB

Michael Jacquet CB

Jordan Mailata OL

Richard Rodgers TE

Dallas Goedert TE

Fletcher Cox DT

Derek Barnett DE

 

Bolded are starters or regular rotation players. Mailata (concussion) is probably the only one who legitimately wouldn't have played if the Eagles were still in the hunt for the playoffs.

 

So this is okay, but pulling a poorly performing QB in the 4th quarter is disrespectful to the game and the players, and tanking for draft position...

[DougDew 2,597]

So this whole Philly/NY injustice complaint is that Pederson pulled his starting QB in the 4th quarter of a game where he was not playing great anyway?  That's an injustice to whom exactly?

 

People have gone nuts.

[FortheWin 244]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

So do people really think Pederson pulled Hurts in an effort to throw the game? 

 

Or is it more that people think Pederson wasn't fully invested in the outcome of the game, and made a head scratching decision to put in a different QB when the outcome was still undecided? He treated it like a preseason game, rather than pursuing the win...

 

I mean, I get people calling out a team for not going all out for the win. But I think that's a hypocritical approach. Teams shut down starters (the Eagles didn't play Sanders, Jackson or Cox, and didn't dress Wentz), evaluate young players, etc., in Week 17 all the time. The only difference is that the Eagles pulled Hurts in the 4th quarter.

 

And again I ask, why does anyone believe that keeping Hurts in the game would have changed the outcome? He was having a bad game.

It would not even be a story if it wasn't the Giants that got the short end of the stick. NY believes everything revolves around them especially the media.

[dw49 725]

54 minutes ago, Superman said:

Just look at this list of Philly inactives:

DeSean Jackson WR

Carson Wentz QB

Alshon Jeffery WR

Miles Sanders RB

Michael Jacquet CB

Jordan Mailata OL

Richard Rodgers TE

Dallas Goedert TE

Fletcher Cox DT

Derek Barnett DE

 

Bolded are starters or regular rotation players. Mailata (concussion) is probably the only one who legitimately wouldn't have played if the Eagles were still in the hunt for the playoffs.

 

So this is okay, but pulling a poorly performing QB in the 4th quarter is disrespectful to the game and the players, and tanking for draft position...

 

 

I think the line of thought is Philly really had no need to "look " at a 5 year vet that has zero chance of ever being a starting QB in the NFL. To do it in the 4th quarter of a game that his players really played hard in just had an incredibly "bad smell" to it.

It's very obvious that his players and coaches were not good with this. Players from other teams tweeted multiple times that they were not good with this and dumbfounded. That IMO really kills your argument. I haven't heard one Philly or NFL player say Sudifield should have been in that game under those circumstances. 

Then the jerk comes out and says he was coaching to win that game ????  Granted Hurst was having a bad game but c'mon that guy should have never been put in a position like that . Probably ruined whatever little chance Sudifield had of being a 53 man roster next year. Ironic ?  Plus Philly didn't get to see if their "probable " QB in 2021 in a 4th quarter situation of being down by 3 points.

 

Also , it's my opinion that Pederson probably should not have promised Sudifield snaps in the game. He should have said he'd try ? I

[Superman 9,399]

2 minutes ago, dw49 said:

I think the line of thought is Philly really had no need to "look " at a 5 year vet that has zero chance of ever being a starting QB in the NFL. To do it in the 4th quarter of a game that his players really played hard in just had an incredibly "bad smell" to it.

It's very obvious that his players and coaches were not good with this. Players from other teams tweeted multiple times that they were not good with this and dumbfounded. That IMO really kills your argument. I haven't heard one Philly or NFL player say Sudifield should have been in that game under those circumstances. 

Then the jerk comes out and says he was coaching to win that game ????  Granted Hurst was having a bad game but c'mon that guy should have never been put in a position like that . Probably ruined whatever little chance Sudifield had of being a 53 man roster next year. Ironic ?  Plus Philly didn't get to see if their "probable " QB in 2021 in a 4th quarter situation of being down by 3 points.

 

Also , it's my opinion that Pederson probably should not have promised Sudifield snaps in the game. He should have said he'd try ? I

 

I think it's all about optics, in the end. It didn't look right, it wasn't explained very well, etc. 

 

I still think it's interesting how upset people seem to be about this particular decision, when it happens all the time. The Browns needed a win to get in the playoffs, and the Dolphins (and Colts) were hanging in the balance. The Steelers sat their best players, and started a QB who they already know well, and who is clearly not the future of their franchise. Why isn't that disrespectful to the game?

 

To me, the only material difference between what the Steelers did and what the Eagles did is that the Eagles started their guy, then pulled him. The Steelers didn't start their guy at all. Other than that, the scenarios aren't all that different. Meaningless game for both teams, they had different motivations but in the end they made a decision that was best for their team, without regard for the playoff implications for other teams.

 

I also think it's ironic that Miles Sanders of the Eagles is being vocal about not knowing that Sudfeld was going to play -- Sanders was a healthy scratch himself!

 

So it's okay to sit players for the game, but it's not okay to pull players during the game. I don't get that.

[dw49 725]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I think it's all about optics, in the end. It didn't look right, it wasn't explained very well, etc. 

 

I still think it's interesting how upset people seem to be about this particular decision, when it happens all the time. The Browns needed a win to get in the playoffs, and the Dolphins (and Colts) were hanging in the balance. The Steelers sat their best players, and started a QB who they already know well, and who is clearly not the future of their franchise. Why isn't that disrespectful to the game?

 

To me, the only material difference between what the Steelers did and what the Eagles did is that the Eagles started their guy, then pulled him. The Steelers didn't start their guy at all. Other than that, the scenarios aren't all that different. Meaningless game for both teams, they had different motivations but in the end they made a decision that was best for their team, without regard for the playoff implications for other teams.

 

I also think it's ironic that Miles Sanders of the Eagles is being vocal about not knowing that Sudfeld was going to play -- Sanders was a healthy scratch himself!

 

So it's okay to sit players for the game, but it's not okay to pull players during the game. I don't get that.

 

 

I hear you and good points , although I think you are leaving out the benefits of resting players before their play off games.

 I think the difference is that this was really a crazy * move. His team played their butts the off the whole game and were within 3 points of beating a division rival in a meaningful game. I'm sure his players and probably the coaching staff really wanted that win when the 4th quarter rolled along. It was a prime time game and had interest to much of the NFL fan base. So what does Pederson do in the 4th quarter ? Puts a journey man guy that should be a stock broker in because he thought it would be a nice gesture to give him snaps ? Just was a "WHAT WAS THAT ???" move in my opinion. Did you watch the steeler - brown game ? I did . The Steelers played their guts out and almost pulled it out . What would you have thought if they pulled their QB in the 4th quarter to give a guy like Sudifield some snaps ? You realize Sudifield was active for 1 game in 2020 ? Man , you are really stretching it when you say it's the same as sitting a banged up Rothlesburger for his playoff game. I usually have no trouble following your logic but I think your off on this one. It's not the same thing.  

[Superman 9,399]

15 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

 

I hear you and good points , although I think you are leaving out the benefits of resting players before their play off games.

 I think the difference is that this was really a crazy * move. His team played their butts the off the whole game and were within 3 points of beating a division rival in a meaningful game. I'm sure his players and probably the coaching staff really wanted that win when the 4th quarter rolled along. It was a prime time game and had interest to much of the NFL fan base. So what does Pederson do in the 4th quarter ? Puts a journey man guy that should be a stock broker in because he thought it would be a nice gesture to give him snaps ? Just was a "WHAT WAS THAT ???" move in my opinion. Did you watch the steeler - brown game ? I did . The Steelers played their guts out and almost pulled it out . What would you have thought if they pulled their QB in the 4th quarter to give a guy like Sudifield some snaps ? You realize Sudifield was active for 1 game in 2020 ? Man , you are really stretching it when you say it's the same as sitting a banged up Rothlesburger for his playoff game. I usually have no trouble following your logic but I think your off on this one. It's not the same thing.  

 

What material fact is different? The Steelers played hard??

 

What's the difference between Sudfeld (not really a journeyman, he's been with the Eagles for four years), and Rudolph (who has more NFL tape than Sudfeld)? 

 

It was a meaningless game for the Eagles, which is the team we're discussing. The Steelers didn't care how the Browns, Colts, or Dolphins felt about the outcome of their game, because it was meaningless for them. Why should the Eagles care about how the WFT or Giants felt about their game? The Eagles had nothing riding on the outcome of that game. But it's okay for the Steelers to bench Roethlisberger, but not for the Eagles to pull Hurts. Why?

 

This is very arbitrary. The Steelers can bench their QB and best players in a game that has playoff implications for other teams, but the Eagles -- whose season is completely done -- can bench their good players in this game, but they cannot bench or pull their rookie QB in the 4th quarter... Whose rules are these? It seems like they're not being evenly applied, and the judgment on the Eagles is based on sentiment and optics, not on material facts.

 

Your opinion of Sudfeld doesn't seem relevant, either. They wanted another chance to evaluate him, I don't know why that needs to be weighed out. Teams use meaningless Week 17 games to do that all time.

 

And if we're talking about the eventual outcome of the game and what was riding on it for other teams, I say again, Hurts wasn't playing like a guy who was going to help them get the job done. 

 

The NFL probably should have put GB/CHI or LAR/ARZ on Sunday night.

[SteelCityColt 4,473]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What material fact is different? The Steelers played hard??

 

What's the difference between Sudfeld (not really a journeyman, he's been with the Eagles for four years), and Rudolph (who has more NFL tape than Sudfeld)? 

 

It was a meaningless game for the Eagles, which is the team we're discussing. The Steelers didn't care how the Browns, Colts, or Dolphins felt about the outcome of their game, because it was meaningless for them. Why should the Eagles care about how the WFT or Giants felt about their game? The Eagles had nothing riding on the outcome of that game. But it's okay for the Steelers to bench Roethlisberger, but not for the Eagles to pull Hurts. Why?

 

This is very arbitrary. The Steelers can bench their QB and best players in a game that has playoff implications for other teams, but the Eagles -- whose season is completely done -- can bench their good players in this game, but they cannot bench or pull their rookie QB in the 4th quarter... Whose rules are these? It seems like they're not being evenly applied, and the judgment on the Eagles is based on sentiment and optics, not on material facts.

 

Your opinion of Sudfeld doesn't seem relevant, either. They wanted another chance to evaluate him, I don't know why that needs to be weighed out. Teams use meaningless Week 17 games to do that all time.

 

And if we're talking about the eventual outcome of the game and what was riding on it for other teams, I say again, Hurts wasn't playing like a guy who was going to help them get the job done. 

 

The NFL probably should have put GB/CHI or LAR/ARZ on Sunday night.

 

Reading this and some of your previous posts, I think it's one of the few times that I don't fully agree with you. 

 

It's a fallacy to get too hung up on the Sudfeld decision, although it certainly didn't help the optics of the situation. 'Resting' so many starters when you don't have a playoff game is, for want of better word, breaking the unagreed etiquette. Add in some at times head scratching and it just all looks a bit distasteful. I don't think you can compare to the Steelers as you can understand their motives for resting, and you'd hope some of the backups would be going 110% to win, if only to try and get a late starter gig for a playoff run.

 

I'm sure teams have pulled similar stunts, especially for single games, to help ensure draft position but have at least been a bit more subtle about it. 

 

I agree it's all a bit arbitrary, open to personal interpretation, and probably harkening back to a sense of sportsmanship that's long been killed off by the money in professional sports. It does show up one of the downsides of having a draft system, and of having no threat of relegation to a lesser league.

[Superman 9,399]

11 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

Reading this and some of your previous posts, I think it's one of the few times that I don't fully agree with you. 

 

It's a fallacy to get too hung up on the Sudfeld decision, although it certainly didn't help the optics of the situation. 'Resting' so many starters when you don't have a playoff game is, for want of better word, breaking the unagreed etiquette. Add in some at times head scratching and it just all looks a bit distasteful. I don't think you can compare to the Steelers as you can understand their motives for resting, and you'd hope some of the backups would be going 110% to win, if only to try and get a late starter gig for a playoff run.

 

I'm sure teams have pulled similar stunts, especially for single games, to help ensure draft position but have at least been a bit more subtle about it. 

 

I agree it's all a bit arbitrary, open to personal interpretation, and probably harkening back to a sense of sportsmanship that's long been killed off by the money in professional sports. It does show up one of the downsides of having a draft system, and of having no threat of relegation to a lesser league.

 

The Steelers played a game that was meaningless to them, but had significant playoff implications for other teams, including their opponent.

 

The Eagles played a game that was meaningless to them, but had significant playoff implications for other teams, including their opponent. It's being presented as an important game, we're being told it impacted the competitive balance of the league, it's a reflection of the integrity of the game, etc. Are those things not true of the Steelers game?

 

Yes, their motivations were different once we get into the specifics, but end of the day they didn't care about the implications to other teams, same as the Eagles. But the Eagles disrespected the game? 

 

My point is the bolded. It's arbitrary, and I think the Eagles situation is being treated as more egregious than it actually is. It was flagged as blatant tanking, and whether it was or not, I don't see why this tanking is so bad, yet the other obvious tanking is just accepted.

[dw49 725]

46 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What material fact is different? The Steelers played hard??

 

What's the difference between Sudfeld (not really a journeyman, he's been with the Eagles for four years), and Rudolph (who has more NFL tape than Sudfeld)? 

 

It was a meaningless game for the Eagles, which is the team we're discussing. The Steelers didn't care how the Browns, Colts, or Dolphins felt about the outcome of their game, because it was meaningless for them. Why should the Eagles care about how the WFT or Giants felt about their game? The Eagles had nothing riding on the outcome of that game. But it's okay for the Steelers to bench Roethlisberger, but not for the Eagles to pull Hurts. Why?

 

This is very arbitrary. The Steelers can bench their QB and best players in a game that has playoff implications for other teams, but the Eagles -- whose season is completely done -- can bench their good players in this game, but they cannot bench or pull their rookie QB in the 4th quarter... Whose rules are these? It seems like they're not being evenly applied, and the judgment on the Eagles is based on sentiment and optics, not on material facts.

 

Your opinion of Sudfeld doesn't seem relevant, either. They wanted another chance to evaluate him, I don't know why that needs to be weighed out. Teams use meaningless Week 17 games to do that all time.

 

And if we're talking about the eventual outcome of the game and what was riding on it for other teams, I say again, Hurts wasn't playing like a guy who was going to help them get the job done. 

 

The NFL probably should have put GB/CHI or LAR/ARZ on Sunday night.

 

 

We just plain disagree . You are basically just repeating yourself and I am not swayed. I'm also repeating myself and not convincing you. For what it's worth , what  I see in the media , my point seems to be favored by NFL players. It's said the Philly locker room was all over Pederson. I understand your view and am done with the thread. 

[Superman 9,399]

5 minutes ago, dw49 said:

We just plain disagree . You are basically just repeating yourself and I am not swayed. I'm also repeating myself and not convincing you. For what it's worth , what  I see in the media , my point seems to be favored by NFL players. It's said the Philly locker room was all over Pederson. I understand your view and am done with the thread. 

 

Agreed on the bolded.

[ztboiler 306]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The Steelers played a game that was meaningless to them, but had significant playoff implications for other teams, including their opponent.

 

The Eagles played a game that was meaningless to them, but had significant playoff implications for other teams, including their opponent. It's being presented as an important game, we're being told it impacted the competitive balance of the league, it's a reflection of the integrity of the game, etc. Are those things not true of the Steelers game?

 

Yes, their motivations were different once we get into the specifics, but end of the day they didn't care about the implications to other teams, same as the Eagles. But the Eagles disrespected the game? 

 

My point is the bolded. It's arbitrary, and I think the Eagles situation is being treated as more egregious than it actually is. It was flagged as blatant tanking, and whether it was or not, I don't see why this tanking is so bad, yet the other obvious tanking is just accepted.

The missing perspective here is that the Eagles situation has every appearance of a call made to the sideline from the press box...

[Superman 9,399]

2 minutes ago, ztboiler said:

The missing perspective here is that the Eagles situation has every appearance of a call made to the sideline from the press box...

 

I really don't understand why that matters.

 

They said it was disrespectful to the game, and lacked integrity, and was unfair to the other teams affected. Does that change if the directive didn't come from the press box? Or what if they just benched Hurts and started Sudfeld, or pulled Hurts at halftime?

[chad72 7,391]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

The NFL probably should have put GB/CHI or LAR/ARZ on Sunday night.

 

Yep. That is what you get for betting in primetime on the NFC L(EAST).  

[chad72 7,391]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I also think it's ironic that Miles Sanders of the Eagles is being vocal about not knowing that Sudfeld was going to play -- Sanders was a healthy scratch himself!

 

 

Miles Sanders - he added fuel to the fire when he said Jalen Hurts gave them a spark and leadership they didn't have as soon as Hurts had his breakout game vs the Saints. Yep, a guy playing on his rookie contract keeps throwing shade at his HC (who gave the franchise's only SB in 2017, regardless of whether you believe he played a huge part or not) and other QB (who was a part of them getting HFA even though Foles won it) publicly every chance he gets.

 

The Eagles currently remind me of the Jets dumpster fire in the last few years under Rex Ryan with a whole bunch of "me, me, me" players. You are never going to have a solid locker room with such personalities, IMO. I am so glad for the players the Colts have, to be honest, in every way.

 

[coltsva 1,776]

It's NBC's fault for flexing a 6-9 team vs a  4-10-1 team to prime time.

[ztboiler 306]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I really don't understand why that matters.

 

They said it was disrespectful to the game, and lacked integrity, and was unfair to the other teams affected. Does that change if the directive didn't come from the press box? Or what if they just benched Hurts and started Sudfeld, or pulled Hurts at halftime?

There are multiple layers of competitive authenticity in the NFL paradox that the audience for whom it exists understands.  Those layers include what resources you’re willing to commit to win the current game in light of the overall war.  Calling down from the press box to the field of battle violates the trust the audience places in the charade.  You can argue, existentially, that it shouldn’t, and that’s OK...but some might think it does.

[Superman 9,399]

2 hours ago, ztboiler said:

There are multiple layers of competitive authenticity in the NFL paradox that the audience for whom it exists understands.  Those layers include what resources you’re willing to commit to win the current game in light of the overall war.  Calling down from the press box to the field of battle violates the trust the audience places in the charade.  You can argue, existentially, that it shouldn’t, and that’s OK...but some might think it does.

 

I feel like we're kind of blowing past what we know to be true here.

 

We don't know that anyone called down from the press box to direct that Pederson pull Hurts. I know people have been saying that, but I thought it was just a figure of speech, meaning the directive came from the front office. Not that someone literally called the sideline from upstairs during the game to make Pederson take Hurts out of the game.

 

I don't know that that happened (no one does, right?), and I don't see how it matters. That specific process really has no bearing on the competitive nature of the game. 

 

As for a directive from the front office about who would play, and for how long, I still don't get the outrage. If they decided to start Sudfeld, this wouldn't have been such a big issue. If they had pulled Hurts at halftime, it's probably still not a big deal. Those directives happen all the time, and happened in multiple games Sunday. If the Dolphins came back in the Bills game with Allen on the sideline, that would have been due to a staff decision that was made prior to the game. Would it have mattered if Brandon Beane had called Sean McDermott on the sideline?

 

This feels like it's becoming about a lot of peripheral nitpicks, when at first the accusation was that they were throwing the game. That's what the post game questioning seemed to be getting at, that's what the criticism from other teams seemed to be about, etc. (And, again, Hurts was doing a great job of losing that game.)

 

Now it's about all this other arbitrary stuff: who made the decision, when it was made, how the decision was delivered, who was aware, how it was communicated, how it was explained and defended, ad infinitum.

 

I'll say this, then I'm done because I'm being pedantic and facetious maybe a little obtuse, and whatever else, and I probably should have stopped five posts ago, but that's not my strong suit and we all know it...

 

People can obviously feel however they feel about this. I just don't agree that it's any more lacking in integrity for the game, for the competitive balance of the league, or for the spirit of the game than the typical decisions that are made in Week 17. When teams are facing games that are not meaningful to them at the end of the season, they tend to make personnel decisions that they wouldn't make if the outcome of the game mattered to them. To me, this decision is materially the same as those. So I don't agree with how this decision is being judged so differently than those.

[Smoke317 1,310]

I think you judge this one by how it’s being viewed internally.  The outside noise ultimately doesn’t matter.   But when you’re hearing team captains going to speak with Pederson and voicing their disapproval with his decision and other reports saying that other players had to be held back from confronting Pederson tells me that this could lead to some serious internal friction in the Eagles’ organization. 
 

Add in all the reports about Wentz’ back door channel to the owner and his unwillingness to take any accountability for his poor play and being a selfish teammate and poor leader and now you open the door for potential mutiny or disillusioned players who no longer believe in Pederson if he were to return to Wentz as the starter.  Everything just seems toxic in Philly. I wouldn’t want to touch Pederson or Wentz right now.  
 

What a cluster you know what...

[ztboiler 306]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I feel like we're kind of blowing past what we know to be true here.

 

We don't know that anyone called down from the press box to direct that Pederson pull Hurts. I know people have been saying that, but I thought it was just a figure of speech, meaning the directive came from the front office. Not that someone literally called the sideline from upstairs during the game to make Pederson take Hurts out of the game.

 

I don't know that that happened (no one does, right?), and I don't see how it matters. That specific process really has no bearing on the competitive nature of the game. 

 

As for a directive from the front office about who would play, and for how long, I still don't get the outrage. If they decided to start Sudfeld, this wouldn't have been such a big issue. If they had pulled Hurts at halftime, it's probably still not a big deal. Those directives happen all the time, and happened in multiple games Sunday. If the Dolphins came back in the Bills game with Allen on the sideline, that would have been due to a staff decision that was made prior to the game. Would it have mattered if Brandon Beane had called Sean McDermott on the sideline?

 

This feels like it's becoming about a lot of peripheral nitpicks, when at first the accusation was that they were throwing the game. That's what the post game questioning seemed to be getting at, that's what the criticism from other teams seemed to be about, etc. (And, again, Hurts was doing a great job of losing that game.)

 

Now it's about all this other arbitrary stuff: who made the decision, when it was made, how the decision was delivered, who was aware, how it was communicated, how it was explained and defended, ad infinitum.

 

I'll say this, then I'm done because I'm being pedantic and facetious maybe a little obtuse, and whatever else, and I probably should have stopped five posts ago, but that's not my strong suit and we all know it...

 

People can obviously feel however they feel about this. I just don't agree that it's any more lacking in integrity for the game, for the competitive balance of the league, or for the spirit of the game than the typical decisions that are made in Week 17. When teams are facing games that are not meaningful to them at the end of the season, they tend to make personnel decisions that they wouldn't make if the outcome of the game mattered to them. To me, this decision is materially the same as those. So I don't agree with how this decision is being judged so differently than those.

Much respect...as always.  I don’t post

much here anymore...but your point of view is always insightful and balanced.

[NewColtsFan 9,246]

1 hour ago, ztboiler said:

Much respect...as always.  I don’t post

much here anymore...but your point of view is always insightful and balanced.

 

Your voice is missed here!

 

Good posters are always missed, and you've always been a good poster!

 

Hope 2021 will see you post more often!      

[King Colt 958]

Trying to think back of a more pathetic division than the NFC East...........................can't come up with any.

[chad72 7,391]

16 minutes ago, King Colt said:

Trying to think back of a more pathetic division than the NFC East...........................can't come up with any.

 

The last 2 years, the NFC East winners have been 1-and-done in the wild card round, I believe. I do not see it changing.

 

[Shive 2,293]

My thought on this isn't necessarily based on the impact to other teams or the comparison being made to the Steelers sitting players prior to the playoffs. The issue I take with this situation is around the relationship between the HC and the players.

 

I don't know for certain if anything was relayed to the team before the game, but based on Eagles players' reactions, they weren't aware of this. I think if Pederson set the expectation that they would be treating week 17 as more of a preseason game where they'll sit most of the vet starters and use the game as an opportunity to evaluate the rest of the roster, I don't think there would be a problem. Without setting that expectation, I think it just harms the trust between HC & players and leaves them with a sense of betrayal.

 

I think the timing and playoff implications of the Eagles losing that game make it a bigger deal than it really is though. The move in itself isn't something egregious, but I think leaving your team out of the loop is the thing that can really do some damage to the team's morale and to your credibility as their HC.

[Dogg63 2,141]

Kelce seems a bit surprised, but fine with it.

 

[LJpalmbeacher2 1,969]

23 hours ago, Superman said:

Just look at this list of Philly inactives:

DeSean Jackson WR

Carson Wentz QB

Alshon Jeffery WR

Miles Sanders RB

Michael Jacquet CB

Jordan Mailata OL

Richard Rodgers TE

Dallas Goedert TE

Fletcher Cox DT

Derek Barnett DE

 

Bolded are starters or regular rotation players. Mailata (concussion) is probably the only one who legitimately wouldn't have played if the Eagles were still in the hunt for the playoffs.

 

So this is okay, but pulling a poorly performing QB in the 4th quarter is disrespectful to the game and the players, and tanking for draft position...

 

Why were so many starters not playing? 

[chad72 7,391]

1 hour ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

Why were so many starters not playing? 

 

Because the Eagles were already eliminated from the playoffs and Doug wanted to see what he had in the others from the get go. That is why one more starter, regardless of the timing, didn't bother me whatsoever, it feels almost like there was some pushback from Vegas to the NFL on some front regarding this game, just don't know on what front, just my guess. 

[Gramz 2,172]

On 1/5/2021 at 2:43 PM, braveheartcolt said:

Totally agree. Why should teams get an 'easier' game because of the scheduling? Rest your starters in week one or week 10 etc if you want to see the development of your younger players....

 

Disgusting, just like the Pollian shambles of 2009.

How are you doing?   I rarely come here anymore, so I have lost touch with so many that I always enjoyed interacting with on here.  You being at the top of the list.      I hope you are well.  

[braveheartcolt 1,394]

38 minutes ago, Gramz said:

How are you doing?   I rarely come here anymore, so I have lost touch with so many that I always enjoyed interacting with on here.  You being at the top of the list.      I hope you are well.  

Hi pal. I am very well, and enjoying retirement in the South of France! Hope all is well with you and yours! Still hoping to catch another game in Indy when the time is right!! Hopefully we can meet up this time!!! All the best to you for 2021, and hopefully we squeak a win on Saturday.

[Gramz 2,172]

11 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

Hi pal. I am very well, and enjoying retirement in the South of France! Hope all is well with you and yours! Still hoping to catch another game in Indy when the time is right!! Hopefully we can meet up this time!!! All the best to you for 2021, and hopefully we squeak a win on Saturday.

I also am enjoying retirement (retired April 1st) and the world literally shut down.  .

 

Would love to meet up at a game when everything gets back to normal. 

[Fluke_33 2,669]

1 hour ago, braveheartcolt said:

enjoying retirement in the South of France! 

Oh man.  That is the dream.  well done!