Where is being 1st place in the division is on the line with 5 games to play. Throw out the records, that’s what I’m focusing on because it’s been a long 9 years of pointless football and caring more about how my fantasy team is doing than the Giants or our division rivals.
But (unless the distractions have really gotten to the Eagles) I'm expecting a close game. It takes a lot of stink to have the 32nd ranked defense in the NFL and it's more than Russell Wilson and DK Metcalf can easily wash away.
But obviously what choice do we have? If North Korea fielded a team & they played the Eagles, I'd buy a T-shirt with Kim Jong-un's smiling mug.
I simply can never feel dirty rooting for any team when they’re playing any one of the Eagles or Cowboys or Washington. The only time I feel dirty is when we have to root for the Cowboys to beat Washington or something like that.
Solid point. I just hate the 'Hawks so much. Outside of our divisional rivals and SF, they're #5 on my hate list. I can't stand their fans or Carroll. I respect Wilson, just wish he played somewhere else so I could cheer for him.
IF Jones was healthy the Giants can beat the Hawks. They havent been playing well in a month and some of their playcalling is atrocious . Praying for a Jones miracle
He has like 20 yards of open space just start moving forward and get what you can. Instead he just stands there hoping to find an open lane to the endzone or something, but that just gives the coverage time to get down there and stop him for essentially no gain lol
Totally not into this game.
Jet-lag?
CO-lag?
We’re-too-good-for-these-bums lag?
I hope to Jesus it’s the “we’re too good for these bums” lag. The lag just about every halfway decent team had against the Pat Shurmur Giants. At least that would mean the Seahawks will wake up midway through the 3rd quarter and win by 3 TDs. (Not sure it’s that type of lag though)
listening to people calling him a genius, daring coach. Hurts and awentz on the field at the same time, with Wentz out wide means you are running. Now it could be the RB or Hurts but either way you are running..
It's almost like he's trying to get himself fired at this point. Hurts goes in and actually completes a pass, then Wentz goes right back in? Run the Hurts option play that hasn't worked in about a month? Yikes.
I’m tellin ya. We have a chance next week. I feel like if we could pick one game for Colt McCoy to be the starter (if we had to pick one), why not pick the game where we’re playing the worst defense in the NFL?
Meanwhile— how the hell are the Eagles doing this bad on offense? They literally can’t move the ball at all. The Seahawks are literally the worst defense in the league in terms of yards. 434 total yards allowed per game.
I’m tellin ya. We have a chance next week. I feel like if we could pick one game for Colt McCoy to be the starter (if we had to pick one), why not pick the game where we’re playing the worst defense in the NFL?
Meanwhile— how the hell are the Eagles doing this bad on offense? They literally can’t move the ball at all. The Seahawks are literally the worst defense in the league in terms of yards. 434 total yards allowed per game.
I admire your optimism but no Giants are not winning against Seattle with Mccoy starting . Did you see how he played when he came into the game yesterday ? They needed 3 Turnovers in the 2nd half to eek out some FG to scrap out a late win against the Bengals and Mccoy was a big reason for that. He made poor throws and bad decisions
Their team is DEAD. Maybe he would give them a boost but to not even try is coaching malpractice . Unless he was specifically told he was not allowed to which if that was the case then why the hell did you draft Hurts in the 2nd round ?
When there is a massive TOP advantage, how come the defense is always gassed but not the offense that is out there forever? Is it the ability of the offense to sub in and out more liberally?
Just have always accepted that without understanding it completely.
wasn't even close to the LOS. Since intentional grounding is a spot foul, the Eagles looked like they would have lost at least 25 yards if it had been called.
Not the point. Unless the rule was changed recently, 8 remember the rule was near the LoS. Yes, it is ridiculous to say NEAR in a rule but I haven't heard it changed to past the LoS.
That wasnt NEAR the line of scrimmage. But maybe we need another lecture as to how us dumb yokels just dont understand the intricacies of reffing an NFL game. Fucking dumbshits.
The stupidest thing about the missed Intentional Grounding
Not the point. Unless the rule was changed recently, 8 remember the rule was near the LoS. Yes, it is ridiculous to say NEAR in a rule but I haven't heard it changed to past the LoS.
no the rule is it has to get to the line of scrimmage, it is not near..
if you remember in 2011 eli was called for grounding that missed the line of scrkmmage by 2 yards and it was a safety
Item 1. Passer or Ball Outside Tackle Position. Intentional grounding will not be called when a passer, who is outside, or has been outside, the tackle position,throws a forward pass that lands at or beyond the line of scrimmage, even if no offensive player(s) have a realistic chance to catch the ball (including when the ball lands out of bounds over the sideline or endline). If the ball crosses the line of scrimmage (extended) beyond the sideline, there is no intentional grounding. If a loose ball leaves the area bordered by the tackles, this area no longer exists; if the ball is recovered, all intentional grounding rules apply as if the passer is outside this area.
RE: Question: cause I’ve never quite understood it
When there is a massive TOP advantage, how come the defense is always gassed but not the offense that is out there forever? Is it the ability of the offense to sub in and out more liberally?
Just have always accepted that without understanding it completely.
jpkmets,
My theory on that has always been this: Defense is more read and react, so you have a lot more stopping and starting, a lot more cutting, which I’ve always found more tiresome than a lot of straight line running without so much stopping and starting. (This makes sense too when you think of a car and how much more gas it uses per mile when it has to stop and start a lot.)
On Offense you know where you’re running on every play. A WR makes one cut and goes. The only exception is if you get the ball, THEN you may need to stop and start and make more cuts of course, but all offensive players don’t get the ball every play. Defenders need to stop and start a lot more: read where their man is going, stop, follow him, if he makes a cut, stop, follow him, then see who has the ball, stop, sprint toward that guy to tackle him, etc. (that’s the other thing— oftentimes most of the 11 defenders sprint toward the ball carrier in case they need to be the one to make the tackle, whereas offensive players, unless they’re in a position to make a block, are often able to just stop and watch the play when it’s far enough away from them)
Does that make any sense? It’s always made sense in my head but I’ve never actually written it out like that. I don’t mean for these statements about offense and defense to sound like absolutes— it’s all relative: It does seem like it takes a bit more energy to play D than to play O so there has to be something there? Idk
That wasnt NEAR the line of scrimmage. But maybe we need another lecture as to how us dumb yokels just dont understand the intricacies of reffing an NFL game. Fucking dumbshits.
Again, not the point. The point is what is the rule? The announcers are awful so I don't trust them with anything. The last I remember the rule it was near the LoS. Yes, that is open for interpretation which is dumb but just because people don't like it doesn't mean they get to change the language of the rule. If IG is not reviewable then that tends to lean toward near as opposed to past the LoS. No?
Not the point. Unless the rule was changed recently, 8 remember the rule was near the LoS. Yes, it is ridiculous to say NEAR in a rule but I haven't heard it changed to past the LoS.
No it’s “lands at or beyond the LOS.” I don’t think it’s ever been “near”
Only exception would be if contact interfered with his motion. I do not believe that was 5he case c Grounding rule - ( New Window )
Item 1. Passer or Ball Outside Tackle Position. Intentional grounding will not be called when a passer, who is outside, or has been outside, the tackle position,throws a forward pass that lands at or beyond the line of scrimmage, even if no offensive player(s) have a realistic chance to catch the ball (including when the ball lands out of bounds over the sideline or endline). If the ball crosses the line of scrimmage (extended) beyond the sideline, there is no intentional grounding. If a loose ball leaves the area bordered by the tackles, this area no longer exists; if the ball is recovered, all intentional grounding rules apply as if the passer is outside this area.
Thank you. It should be reviewable then.
RE: Why isnt the play reviewable in the 1st place ?
That wasnt NEAR the line of scrimmage. But maybe we need another lecture as to how us dumb yokels just dont understand the intricacies of reffing an NFL game. Fucking dumbshits.
Again, not the point. The point is what is the rule? The announcers are awful so I don't trust them with anything. The last I remember the rule it was near the LoS. Yes, that is open for interpretation which is dumb but just because people don't like it doesn't mean they get to change the language of the rule. If IG is not reviewable then that tends to lean toward near as opposed to past the LoS. No?
Nope, rulebook states "at or beyond the line of scrimmage". That was 3 yards shy. Not even close. Link - ( New Window )
That wasnt NEAR the line of scrimmage. But maybe we need another lecture as to how us dumb yokels just dont understand the intricacies of reffing an NFL game. Fucking dumbshits.
Again, not the point. The point is what is the rule? The announcers are awful so I don't trust them with anything. The last I remember the rule it was near the LoS. Yes, that is open for interpretation which is dumb but just because people don't like it doesn't mean they get to change the language of the rule. If IG is not reviewable then that tends to lean toward near as opposed to past the LoS. No?
The rule says at or beyond the LOS. They aren't going to put in some subjective word like "near"
When there is a massive TOP advantage, how come the defense is always gassed but not the offense that is out there forever? Is it the ability of the offense to sub in and out more liberally?
Just have always accepted that without understanding it completely.
jpkmets,
My theory on that has always been this: Defense is more read and react, so you have a lot more stopping and starting, a lot more cutting, which I’ve always found more tiresome than a lot of straight line running without so much stopping and starting. (This makes sense too when you think of a car and how much more gas it uses per mile when it has to stop and start a lot.)
On Offense you know where you’re running on every play. A WR makes one cut and goes. The only exception is if you get the ball, THEN you may need to stop and start and make more cuts of course, but all offensive players don’t get the ball every play. Defenders need to stop and start a lot more: read where their man is going, stop, follow him, if he makes a cut, stop, follow him, then see who has the ball, stop, sprint toward that guy to tackle him, etc. (that’s the other thing— oftentimes most of the 11 defenders sprint toward the ball carrier in case they need to be the one to make the tackle, whereas offensive players, unless they’re in a position to make a block, are often able to just stop and watch the play when it’s far enough away from them)
Does that make any sense? It’s always made sense in my head but I’ve never actually written it out like that. I don’t mean for these statements about offense and defense to sound like absolutes— it’s all relative: It does seem like it takes a bit more energy to play D than to play O so there has to be something there? Idk
Why should an offense be allowed off the hook just because a QB threw the ball out of bounds when pressured. The defense should be rewarded. Get rid of the outside the pocket and at or beyond the LoS rule. It has to be in the vicinity of a receiver. Easy. Same goes for the end zone. Why do QBs get to throw it in the stands of nothing is there?
7 refs on field and not one saw the coach catch the ball 3 yards behind the line of scrimmage. Not a Chance! Refs purposely didn't throw flag. NFL is garbage this year! There was No conversation between the refs to discuss it. Oh yeah, and the broadcast sucks balls as well.
Why should an offense be allowed off the hook just because a QB threw the ball out of bounds when pressured. The defense should be rewarded. Get rid of the outside the pocket and at or beyond the LoS rule. It has to be in the vicinity of a receiver. Easy. Same goes for the end zone. Why do QBs get to throw it in the stands of nothing is there?
The QB throwing it away is part of the game, and they aren't completely off the hook because the defense caused the offense to waste a down. That is something
You really think it would improve the game forcing every qb to force a throw into coverage or purposely take a sack in order to avoid grounding? Injuries and turn overs would skyrocket.
Why should an offense be allowed off the hook just because a QB threw the ball out of bounds when pressured. The defense should be rewarded. Get rid of the outside the pocket and at or beyond the LoS rule. It has to be in the vicinity of a receiver. Easy. Same goes for the end zone. Why do QBs get to throw it in the stands of nothing is there?
The QB throwing it away is part of the game, and they aren't completely off the hook because the defense caused the offense to waste a down. That is something
You really think it would improve the game forcing every qb to force a throw into coverage or purposely take a sack in order to avoid grounding? Injuries and turn overs would skyrocket.
I think defenses get screwed over so much in the NFL. I love defensive battles. It would absolutely change the game. Not sure why injuries would skyrocket. Please don't go into why you think they would. I know what you are trying to say.
I love defensive battles as well. My thoughts is too many rule changes is what took this game away from that. If I had they authority I would roll back some of those instead of continuing to alter the game in hopes of getting it right. QB's have been throwing the ball out of bounds forever, that's not the problem.
I love defensive battles as well. My thoughts is too many rule changes is what took this game away from that. If I had they authority I would roll back some of those instead of continuing to alter the game in hopes of getting it right. QB's have been throwing the ball out of bounds forever, that's not the problem.
No one is saying QB’s can’t throw the ball away anymore. There simply has to be a receiver in the vicinity of where you’re throwing it. QBs throw the ball away with a receiver in the vicinity all the time. The questions of “make it to the LOS” or “outside of the tackle box” don’t come up as often, but point is you’d simply be eliminating THOSE throw aways.
Most refs get when they go to leave the stadium in Philly HAS to have an impact on them calling the game. Even with so few fans in the stands (are their fans at this game?)
The same shit I said he was doing on the punt returns? Where he clearly doesn’t know the purpose of football is to move the ball forward?? He just stands there like an idiot somehow thinking THAT will open up a running lane?
Most refs get when they go to leave the stadium in Philly HAS to have an impact on them calling the game. Even with so few fans in the stands (are their fans at this game?)
No fans right now. Had 7000 or so earlier in the year. But had to stop.
Tell me that didn’t feel good just now to see the Giants sitting pretty as the 4th seed in the NFC playoff picture 😁...
.....Just our luck that our starting goddamn QB is out at exactly this time. Smh. Really makes ya appreciate the iron man Eli was. I guess we just gotta be grateful Jones didn’t have a Dak-like or Burrow-like injury.
Most refs get when they go to leave the stadium in Philly HAS to have an impact on them calling the game. Even with so few fans in the stands (are their fans at this game?)
No fans right now. Had 7000 or so earlier in the year. But had to stop.
Ah, okay. Yeah I couldn’t tell if those were real people or cardboard up there lol
because we'll get killed by the Seahawks apparently. I'm really not impressed with anyone not named Metcalf on that team today on offense. And even he dropped an easy ball.
because we'll get killed by the Seahawks apparently. I'm really not impressed with anyone not named Metcalf on that team today on offense. And even he dropped an easy ball.
When there is a massive TOP advantage, how come the defense is always gassed but not the offense that is out there forever? Is it the ability of the offense to sub in and out more liberally?
Just have always accepted that without understanding it completely.
jpkmets,
My theory on that has always been this: Defense is more read and react, so you have a lot more stopping and starting, a lot more cutting, which I’ve always found more tiresome than a lot of straight line running without so much stopping and starting. (This makes sense too when you think of a car and how much more gas it uses per mile when it has to stop and start a lot.)
On Offense you know where you’re running on every play. A WR makes one cut and goes. The only exception is if you get the ball, THEN you may need to stop and start and make more cuts of course, but all offensive players don’t get the ball every play. Defenders need to stop and start a lot more: read where their man is going, stop, follow him, if he makes a cut, stop, follow him, then see who has the ball, stop, sprint toward that guy to tackle him, etc. (that’s the other thing— oftentimes most of the 11 defenders sprint toward the ball carrier in case they need to be the one to make the tackle, whereas offensive players, unless they’re in a position to make a block, are often able to just stop and watch the play when it’s far enough away from them)
Does that make any sense? It’s always made sense in my head but I’ve never actually written it out like that. I don’t mean for these statements about offense and defense to sound like absolutes— it’s all relative: It does seem like it takes a bit more energy to play D than to play O so there has to be something there? Idk
That does make sense! Thank you!
It’s amazing I said something that made sense to someone on this board :)
Like...who was that too? If DJ made some of these turnovers he’d be crucified in Central Park.
Not sure who was wrong but looked like Wentz was expecting Goedert to break right and he went left.
The announcers were correct that he had two better routes
Sure, not arguing that at all. But in addition to the decision there was obvious miscommunication. Just a horrible decision and play, from top to bottom.
for Wentz all night long for how poorly he is playing
Griese is right overall. While Wentz isn't playing well, the entire offense is coming apart at the seams.
Some of those All-22 shots are quite revealing in how much the Eagle receivers are struggling to get open....
Have you seen these throws tonight ? He is undethrowing and overthrowing everyone and they are not even close. He might not have all world talent around him but these throws are garbage
RE: When the Giants beat WAS, they are a doormat..
But, now WAS is dangerous. Just cracks me up, the Giants never get credit for those wins.
It’s interesting that aside from those 2 losses to the Giants, Washington is 4-5. They really aren’t a bad team at all. I’m saying that to point out the fact we swept them isn’t saying more than I think most people think IMO
I think it was the same situation as we had against the Falcons in Shurmur's first year. Gives them an opportunity to win in regulation and if they missed it were still in a one possession game.
Down 14, score TD , covert 2pt, next possession you can win with TD and XP. If you don’t covert the first 2pt you can still tie on the next possession.
The more reasonable explanation is that pederson is an arrogant dick and probably wanted to piss off bettors.
When Frank Reich was the OC in Philly. I wonder if he ends up there at some point.
There is a lot of talk about Wentz having bad practice habits in Philly. Supposedly, Reich and DeFillipo (QB coach) were supposedly on him constantly about that. They also had dominate lines at that point. Wentz's struggles without a superior run game have been well documented. They also played a very easy schedule that year as in their opponents had the lowest winning percentage of any team in the NFC.
He looked pretty bad up until the last 4 games of the season last year. Then he played the NFC East which was probably worse last year.
You have to assume that you score two TDs, or the whole debate is moot anyway.
But going for 2 after the first TD would give the team a 62.5% to win, whereas kicking an XP would give the team a 50% to win.
Assume XPs are 100% and 2pt conversions are 50% for sake of ease (in reality, it's closer to 94% and 47%, so still 2:1).
If you kick an XP after the first TD, then after the second TD you have two choices: kick another XP just to get to OT which is a 50-50 crap shoot. OR, go for 2 to try and win the game, which is also 50%. Either way, kicking an XP first gives you about a 50% to win.
Also, if you're going to go for 2 after the second TD anyway, then you are much better off doing it after the first TD so that you have more information earlier and so that you at least have two chances at a conversion.
BUT, if you go for 2 after the first TD, here's what happens. You can set yourself up to win in regulation, AND gives yourself a chance to win in OT if you fail.
You have to assume that you score two TDs, or the whole debate is moot anyway.
But going for 2 after the first TD would give the team a 62.5% to win, whereas kicking an XP would give the team a 50% to win.
Assume XPs are 100% and 2pt conversions are 50% for sake of ease (in reality, it's closer to 94% and 47%, so still 2:1).
If you kick an XP after the first TD, then after the second TD you have two choices: kick another XP just to get to OT which is a 50-50 crap shoot. OR, go for 2 to try and win the game, which is also 50%. Either way, kicking an XP first gives you about a 50% to win.
Also, if you're going to go for 2 after the second TD anyway, then you are much better off doing it after the first TD so that you have more information earlier and so that you at least have two chances at a conversion.
BUT, if you go for 2 after the first TD, here's what happens. You can set yourself up to win in regulation, AND gives yourself a chance to win in OT if you fail.
Simply put, its a trade off between making the 2 pointer to win in regulation vs missing twice to lose in regulation.
Green Bay did it this year. They got within 6 and got the ball but they couldn't get the winning touchdown.
Giants and Philadelphia did it last year.
However I do wonder whether the team that has scored two late touchdowns would have an advantage in OT (momentum argument).
Pederson with a really stupid answer about not kicking
You have to assume that you score two TDs, or the whole debate is moot anyway.
But going for 2 after the first TD would give the team a 62.5% to win, whereas kicking an XP would give the team a 50% to win.
Assume XPs are 100% and 2pt conversions are 50% for sake of ease (in reality, it's closer to 94% and 47%, so still 2:1).
If you kick an XP after the first TD, then after the second TD you have two choices: kick another XP just to get to OT which is a 50-50 crap shoot. OR, go for 2 to try and win the game, which is also 50%. Either way, kicking an XP first gives you about a 50% to win.
Also, if you're going to go for 2 after the second TD anyway, then you are much better off doing it after the first TD so that you have more information earlier and so that you at least have two chances at a conversion.
BUT, if you go for 2 after the first TD, here's what happens. You can set yourself up to win in regulation, AND gives yourself a chance to win in OT if you fail.
Great explanation Paul, thanks. I thought there could be something like that, that's why I asked what I was missing. Just looked insane at the time.
You have to assume that you score two TDs, or the whole debate is moot anyway.
But going for 2 after the first TD would give the team a 62.5% to win, whereas kicking an XP would give the team a 50% to win.
Assume XPs are 100% and 2pt conversions are 50% for sake of ease (in reality, it's closer to 94% and 47%, so still 2:1).
If you kick an XP after the first TD, then after the second TD you have two choices: kick another XP just to get to OT which is a 50-50 crap shoot. OR, go for 2 to try and win the game, which is also 50%. Either way, kicking an XP first gives you about a 50% to win.
Also, if you're going to go for 2 after the second TD anyway, then you are much better off doing it after the first TD so that you have more information earlier and so that you at least have two chances at a conversion.
BUT, if you go for 2 after the first TD, here's what happens. You can set yourself up to win in regulation, AND gives yourself a chance to win in OT if you fail.
Simply put, its a trade off between making the 2 pointer to win in regulation vs missing twice to lose in regulation.
Green Bay did it this year. They got within 6 and got the ball but they couldn't get the winning touchdown.
Giants and Philadelphia did it last year.
However I do wonder whether the team that has scored two late touchdowns would have an advantage in OT (momentum argument).
They are using blanket percentages across the league, however I believe the odds of a crappy team like Philly getting two 2-pointers are worse than lets say KC. KC I can see it, they will get one. Philly sucks.
Personally I would kick the XP if I were the crappy Eagles. There is a lot going on and a lot more to day, why add the extra risk. Take it to over time if you have played that well to catch up
that was one of teh points I was making before with Pederson.
On a good team, his gambles work. On a bad team they don't. And it starts to snowball into more poor decisions.
It is like the whole riverboat Ron narrative. When rivers takes chances with good teams - it tends to pay off and when he does it with poor teams, it often backfires.
I think some of these guys don't factor in the quality of the team when doing the math.
some teams are better than others, sure, but blanket percentages are using league averages and you can go back several years and see that even bad teams can be decent at 2 point conversions and vice versa. Even still, teams would have to be VERY, VERY bad at 2 point conversions to make it not worth while.
In fact, even if you used a 40% conversion rate, the team would end up with a 52% chance of winning by going for 2 early, rather than a 50% sending it to overtime. And when you consider that XPs are only ~94% likely, then the true 2-point conversion rate to make it worthwhile to go for 2 is actually down to 37.6% to still be better off.
The other thing you aren't factoring is that a bad team that is less likely to score a 2 point conversion is also a bad team that is less likely to win in Overtime. So even kicking two extra points just to get to OT isn't necessarily a good thing if it's a bad team, because then you have to throw out the blanket 50-50 OT proposition.
And again, it's worth remembering that XPs are not automatic. They are 93.9% this year across the league, meaning that landing both XPs just to get to OT is only 88%.
still makes sense to go for it. At that point, the Eagles were down 11, meaning they needed all of the following things to happen:
FG
TD
2 point conversion
Prevent Seattle from getting a FG or TD
... and that just gets them to Overtime, which is a 50-50 proposition if you give them an equal chance to win.
I think a big mental hurdle involved with these decisions is that there is the belief that just getting to overtime is a "win." That scoring multiple times to tie it up gives the team fresh life in overtime. And while getting to overtime sure beats losing in regulation, it isn't a win. It' still a coin-flip at that point.
In most cases, going for it on 4th and 4 from the opponent's 15 should be a go for it decision. The value of a TD in that case is so much more valuable than a FG.
The Eagles didn't need a TD on that play-- they could have picked up a first down.
By going for it on that play (lower likelihood than a FG, but higher expected value), the Eagles were trying to set themselves up to win the game.
If they get the TD, they are down 5, at which point they could go for 2 to make it a 3 point game, or kick an XP to make it a 4 point game. In either event, the Eagles scoring anotheer TD wins the game. And it also allows the Eagles to give up a FG to Seattle in the remaining 9 minutes, and still win the game in regulation or overtime.
These shows are completely unwatchable.
Bright graphics, loud sound effects and mostly clueless on air personalities.
Does anyone at all see the value in the "sideline reporters" on these NFL games. The bring nothing as far as I am concerned.
I simply can never feel dirty rooting for any team when they’re playing any one of the Eagles or Cowboys or Washington. The only time I feel dirty is when we have to root for the Cowboys to beat Washington or something like that.
Go 'Hawks
Probably not
Iupati needs to get nasty in the scrum with him.
Hopefully Wentz goes pick 6 here.
Right? That was really unnecessary.
Carroll would frustrate me for the same reason Garrett frustrates me now.
I was waiting for the flag as well.
Wentz is playing scared, he doesnt want to make a mistake
14 plays, you have the better team and you pass on going up 3.
Another time out due to indecision. Hopeful for Jones to have a miracle recovery. We can beat these overrated bums.
Lmaoooo, Thornton Mellon might as well be calling plays. Serve up a pick, Wentz. Aw shucks Carroll has no idea how to score on offense.
Eagle looking to take DK Metcalf off his game by pounding him.
Playing 4d chess. Don’t want to face us in January.
Serves me right for not previewing. “At least Bo knows”. Not even worth a correction, frankly...f’in autocorrect.
Incredibly unimpressive from the allegedly great NFC West
What a relief neither OL is the Giants.
The west coast of New Zealand.
Jet-lag?
CO-lag?
We’re-too-good-for-these-bums lag?
Seattle just looks flat.
Jet-lag?
CO-lag?
We’re-too-good-for-these-bums lag?
I hope to Jesus it’s the “we’re too good for these bums” lag. The lag just about every halfway decent team had against the Pat Shurmur Giants. At least that would mean the Seahawks will wake up midway through the 3rd quarter and win by 3 TDs. (Not sure it’s that type of lag though)
Maybe hawks can grab some fucking coffee.
Lockett sighting!
Seattle looks too slow to run wide.
Hopefully TOP catches up with eagles’ D
Not sure they can get one yard though. Should take a motion penalty on purpose.
Hahaha. Who would’ve thought we’d EVER be telling Seattle: “no more m goal line runs”? 😂😂😂😂
It's much better, and the gap will be even greater when Peart returns.
I’m tellin ya. We have a chance next week. I feel like if we could pick one game for Colt McCoy to be the starter (if we had to pick one), why not pick the game where we’re playing the worst defense in the NFL?
Meanwhile— how the hell are the Eagles doing this bad on offense? They literally can’t move the ball at all. The Seahawks are literally the worst defense in the league in terms of yards. 434 total yards allowed per game.
Some ground game working now.
Quote:
either of these teams?
It's much better, and the gap will be even greater when Peart returns.
Peart needs to start for Fleming. No rotation with Fleming
Quote:
either of these teams?
I’m tellin ya. We have a chance next week. I feel like if we could pick one game for Colt McCoy to be the starter (if we had to pick one), why not pick the game where we’re playing the worst defense in the NFL?
Meanwhile— how the hell are the Eagles doing this bad on offense? They literally can’t move the ball at all. The Seahawks are literally the worst defense in the league in terms of yards. 434 total yards allowed per game.
I admire your optimism but no Giants are not winning against Seattle with Mccoy starting . Did you see how he played when he came into the game yesterday ? They needed 3 Turnovers in the 2nd half to eek out some FG to scrap out a late win against the Bengals and Mccoy was a big reason for that. He made poor throws and bad decisions
21 on the Eagles late hit and was sneaky dirty to
If the Giants lose, it won’t be from lifeless defense devoid of effort.
Just have always accepted that without understanding it completely.
Did the rest of the half get ignored when firing off this brain synapse??
BA HA HA. Nice
HOLY SHIT
The rule is that the ball needs to get back to the LOS.
Refs are on a roll here. Hope Philly can capitalize.
That was clearly intentional grounding
what's the margin for error? +/- 4 yards?
Bravo. Tip of the hat to you, Sir.
One of the worst calls I’ve ever seen. No judgment, nothing. Just clear as fucking day.
If that changes this game it’s fucking criminal.
Quote:
?
what's the margin for error? +/- 4 yards?
Not the point. Unless the rule was changed recently, 8 remember the rule was near the LoS. Yes, it is ridiculous to say NEAR in a rule but I haven't heard it changed to past the LoS.
That was clearly intentional grounding
Absolutely. That was unbelievable.
Quote:
that is his call, that ball didnt come close, how do you miss that?
One of the worst calls I’ve ever seen. No judgment, nothing. Just clear as fucking day.
If that changes this game it’s fucking criminal.
safe to say he wont be doing a playoff game
That didn't happen here.
Quote:
In comment 15062440 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
?
what's the margin for error? +/- 4 yards?
Not the point. Unless the rule was changed recently, 8 remember the rule was near the LoS. Yes, it is ridiculous to say NEAR in a rule but I haven't heard it changed to past the LoS.
no the rule is it has to get to the line of scrimmage, it is not near..
if you remember in 2011 eli was called for grounding that missed the line of scrkmmage by 2 yards and it was a safety
Just have always accepted that without understanding it completely.
jpkmets,
My theory on that has always been this: Defense is more read and react, so you have a lot more stopping and starting, a lot more cutting, which I’ve always found more tiresome than a lot of straight line running without so much stopping and starting. (This makes sense too when you think of a car and how much more gas it uses per mile when it has to stop and start a lot.)
On Offense you know where you’re running on every play. A WR makes one cut and goes. The only exception is if you get the ball, THEN you may need to stop and start and make more cuts of course, but all offensive players don’t get the ball every play. Defenders need to stop and start a lot more: read where their man is going, stop, follow him, if he makes a cut, stop, follow him, then see who has the ball, stop, sprint toward that guy to tackle him, etc. (that’s the other thing— oftentimes most of the 11 defenders sprint toward the ball carrier in case they need to be the one to make the tackle, whereas offensive players, unless they’re in a position to make a block, are often able to just stop and watch the play when it’s far enough away from them)
Does that make any sense? It’s always made sense in my head but I’ve never actually written it out like that. I don’t mean for these statements about offense and defense to sound like absolutes— it’s all relative: It does seem like it takes a bit more energy to play D than to play O so there has to be something there? Idk
Again, not the point. The point is what is the rule? The announcers are awful so I don't trust them with anything. The last I remember the rule it was near the LoS. Yes, that is open for interpretation which is dumb but just because people don't like it doesn't mean they get to change the language of the rule. If IG is not reviewable then that tends to lean toward near as opposed to past the LoS. No?
Quote:
In comment 15062440 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
?
what's the margin for error? +/- 4 yards?
Not the point. Unless the rule was changed recently, 8 remember the rule was near the LoS. Yes, it is ridiculous to say NEAR in a rule but I haven't heard it changed to past the LoS.
No it’s “lands at or beyond the LOS.” I don’t think it’s ever been “near”
Only exception would be if contact interfered with his motion. I do not believe that was 5he case c
Grounding rule - ( New Window )
Never been more pissed at a non Giants call. Seahawks need to stop fucking around when they get 5he ball back.
Thank you. It should be reviewable then.
Belichick has been banging the drum to make everything reviewable
Hahaha. Well done
The guy on the line of scrimmage tells the referee if it got to the line or if their was a rb in the area...
That is why it is a delayed call..
i am an official that is how it is worked
Quote:
That wasnt NEAR the line of scrimmage. But maybe we need another lecture as to how us dumb yokels just dont understand the intricacies of reffing an NFL game. Fucking dumbshits.
Again, not the point. The point is what is the rule? The announcers are awful so I don't trust them with anything. The last I remember the rule it was near the LoS. Yes, that is open for interpretation which is dumb but just because people don't like it doesn't mean they get to change the language of the rule. If IG is not reviewable then that tends to lean toward near as opposed to past the LoS. No?
Nope, rulebook states "at or beyond the line of scrimmage". That was 3 yards shy. Not even close.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
That wasnt NEAR the line of scrimmage. But maybe we need another lecture as to how us dumb yokels just dont understand the intricacies of reffing an NFL game. Fucking dumbshits.
Again, not the point. The point is what is the rule? The announcers are awful so I don't trust them with anything. The last I remember the rule it was near the LoS. Yes, that is open for interpretation which is dumb but just because people don't like it doesn't mean they get to change the language of the rule. If IG is not reviewable then that tends to lean toward near as opposed to past the LoS. No?
The rule says at or beyond the LOS. They aren't going to put in some subjective word like "near"
That drive was made possible by blowing a call. An obvious call
Quote:
When there is a massive TOP advantage, how come the defense is always gassed but not the offense that is out there forever? Is it the ability of the offense to sub in and out more liberally?
Just have always accepted that without understanding it completely.
jpkmets,
My theory on that has always been this: Defense is more read and react, so you have a lot more stopping and starting, a lot more cutting, which I’ve always found more tiresome than a lot of straight line running without so much stopping and starting. (This makes sense too when you think of a car and how much more gas it uses per mile when it has to stop and start a lot.)
On Offense you know where you’re running on every play. A WR makes one cut and goes. The only exception is if you get the ball, THEN you may need to stop and start and make more cuts of course, but all offensive players don’t get the ball every play. Defenders need to stop and start a lot more: read where their man is going, stop, follow him, if he makes a cut, stop, follow him, then see who has the ball, stop, sprint toward that guy to tackle him, etc. (that’s the other thing— oftentimes most of the 11 defenders sprint toward the ball carrier in case they need to be the one to make the tackle, whereas offensive players, unless they’re in a position to make a block, are often able to just stop and watch the play when it’s far enough away from them)
Does that make any sense? It’s always made sense in my head but I’ve never actually written it out like that. I don’t mean for these statements about offense and defense to sound like absolutes— it’s all relative: It does seem like it takes a bit more energy to play D than to play O so there has to be something there? Idk
That does make sense! Thank you!
That drive was made possible by blowing a call. An obvious call
Absolutely. A 25 yard swing that totally changes the entire character of the game and there’s nothing from this shitty booth.
Half the Eagle fans who were about to go to bed are cracking open another beer and staying to watch the 3rd Q
The QB throwing it away is part of the game, and they aren't completely off the hook because the defense caused the offense to waste a down. That is something
You really think it would improve the game forcing every qb to force a throw into coverage or purposely take a sack in order to avoid grounding? Injuries and turn overs would skyrocket.
It is explicitly stated as non-reviewable.
Quote:
Why should an offense be allowed off the hook just because a QB threw the ball out of bounds when pressured. The defense should be rewarded. Get rid of the outside the pocket and at or beyond the LoS rule. It has to be in the vicinity of a receiver. Easy. Same goes for the end zone. Why do QBs get to throw it in the stands of nothing is there?
The QB throwing it away is part of the game, and they aren't completely off the hook because the defense caused the offense to waste a down. That is something
You really think it would improve the game forcing every qb to force a throw into coverage or purposely take a sack in order to avoid grounding? Injuries and turn overs would skyrocket.
I think defenses get screwed over so much in the NFL. I love defensive battles. It would absolutely change the game. Not sure why injuries would skyrocket. Please don't go into why you think they would. I know what you are trying to say.
No one is saying QB’s can’t throw the ball away anymore. There simply has to be a receiver in the vicinity of where you’re throwing it. QBs throw the ball away with a receiver in the vicinity all the time. The questions of “make it to the LOS” or “outside of the tackle box” don’t come up as often, but point is you’d simply be eliminating THOSE throw aways.
How dare you! It's Michael Myers from Halloween!
No fans right now. Had 7000 or so earlier in the year. But had to stop.
.....Just our luck that our starting goddamn QB is out at exactly this time. Smh. Really makes ya appreciate the iron man Eli was. I guess we just gotta be grateful Jones didn’t have a Dak-like or Burrow-like injury.
Quote:
Most refs get when they go to leave the stadium in Philly HAS to have an impact on them calling the game. Even with so few fans in the stands (are their fans at this game?)
No fans right now. Had 7000 or so earlier in the year. But had to stop.
Ah, okay. Yeah I couldn’t tell if those were real people or cardboard up there lol
You beat me to it.
Are they told to just go along with the nonsense?
These announcers are complete dogshit. Rooting like hell,for the eagles or just don’t give a fuck about anything.
11 point 4th quarter lead. Where have we seen this before...
11 point 4th quarter lead. Where have we seen this before...
Wilson is a great closer.
This game is over.
Lockett is a terrific WR.
Quote:
Fail to put the Eagles away.
11 point 4th quarter lead. Where have we seen this before...
Wilson is a great closer.
This game is over.
I know. I’m just being dramatic ;)
It’s an unreal showing by these refs.
Bradberry/Yiadom/Holes vs Lockett/Metcalf.
Then our DT and Martinez vs Carson/Wilson.
Problem is who will set the edge with Frackrell out?
The way these calls are being made it's clear Wentz will be holding something of the refs after the game...
Interception lol
Quote:
In comment 15062414 jpkmets said:
Quote:
When there is a massive TOP advantage, how come the defense is always gassed but not the offense that is out there forever? Is it the ability of the offense to sub in and out more liberally?
Just have always accepted that without understanding it completely.
jpkmets,
My theory on that has always been this: Defense is more read and react, so you have a lot more stopping and starting, a lot more cutting, which I’ve always found more tiresome than a lot of straight line running without so much stopping and starting. (This makes sense too when you think of a car and how much more gas it uses per mile when it has to stop and start a lot.)
On Offense you know where you’re running on every play. A WR makes one cut and goes. The only exception is if you get the ball, THEN you may need to stop and start and make more cuts of course, but all offensive players don’t get the ball every play. Defenders need to stop and start a lot more: read where their man is going, stop, follow him, if he makes a cut, stop, follow him, then see who has the ball, stop, sprint toward that guy to tackle him, etc. (that’s the other thing— oftentimes most of the 11 defenders sprint toward the ball carrier in case they need to be the one to make the tackle, whereas offensive players, unless they’re in a position to make a block, are often able to just stop and watch the play when it’s far enough away from them)
Does that make any sense? It’s always made sense in my head but I’ve never actually written it out like that. I don’t mean for these statements about offense and defense to sound like absolutes— it’s all relative: It does seem like it takes a bit more energy to play D than to play O so there has to be something there? Idk
That does make sense! Thank you!
It’s amazing I said something that made sense to someone on this board :)
Bunch of fucking dummies
Holy crap, he's gonna get run outta town.
Don’t want to superquote any more or it will take over entire pages, but that answer made a lot of sense!
Really dumb decision
Hahaha! I saw the wide open guy in the endzone and was like “oh fuck.” Then I saw what jersey that guy was wearing
Pederson has done this all along. He was bailed out when the team was a lot better.
Holy crap, he's gonna get run outta town.
Yeah I agree he might get fired
I have no idea who he might have been throwing it to
Not sure who was wrong but looked like Wentz was expecting Goedert to break right and he went left.
Former baseball player
Quote:
forget which team he plays for?
Hahaha! I saw the wide open guy in the endzone and was like “oh fuck.” Then I saw what jersey that guy was wearing
Ha. Exact same progression of reactions for me.
Quote:
Like...who was that too? If DJ made some of these turnovers he’d be crucified in Central Park.
Not sure who was wrong but looked like Wentz was expecting Goedert to break right and he went left.
The announcers were correct that he had two better routes
Very frustrating playing them...
Quote:
In comment 15062625 GoDeep13 said:
Quote:
Like...who was that too? If DJ made some of these turnovers he’d be crucified in Central Park.
Not sure who was wrong but looked like Wentz was expecting Goedert to break right and he went left.
The announcers were correct that he had two better routes
Quote:
In comment 15062625 GoDeep13 said:
Quote:
Like...who was that too? If DJ made some of these turnovers he’d be crucified in Central Park.
Not sure who was wrong but looked like Wentz was expecting Goedert to break right and he went left.
The announcers were correct that he had two better routes
Sure, not arguing that at all. But in addition to the decision there was obvious miscommunication. Just a horrible decision and play, from top to bottom.
I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Very frustrating playing them...
Hahahahhaha
These three make me long for Tess and Booger and I have never heard a worse booth than them
Russell Shepard's answer is Steve Levy!
Wentz really sucks too.
These announcers are duds.
Well there is no 5th down but if there was...yes. Yes, he most definitely would.
Nice to know that the QB is blameless up in situations like this wish I’d known earlier the year for Jones threads.
Griese is right overall. While Wentz isn't playing well, the entire offense is coming apart at the seams.
Some of those All-22 shots are quite revealing in how much the Eagle receivers are struggling to get open....
Quote:
for Wentz all night long for how poorly he is playing
Griese is right overall. While Wentz isn't playing well, the entire offense is coming apart at the seams.
Some of those All-22 shots are quite revealing in how much the Eagle receivers are struggling to get open....
Add in 9 or 10 OL combinations and nearly 5 sacks a game on average. He's not playing well by any stretch but yeah, hes not getting *any* help at all.
Quote:
for Wentz all night long for how poorly he is playing
Griese is right overall. While Wentz isn't playing well, the entire offense is coming apart at the seams.
Some of those All-22 shots are quite revealing in how much the Eagle receivers are struggling to get open....
Have you seen these throws tonight ? He is undethrowing and overthrowing everyone and they are not even close. He might not have all world talent around him but these throws are garbage
Never at all! This is surely a great win for Seattle. Not impressive when we did it.
It’s interesting that aside from those 2 losses to the Giants, Washington is 4-5. They really aren’t a bad team at all. I’m saying that to point out the fact we swept them isn’t saying more than I think most people think IMO
Get your shot together!
Right ???? 😂 I was trying to figure out what the hell that was about (going for 2)
It adds to the self-perceived legend of Pederson being a misunderstood genius
Just pederson being pederson.
We get almost six days of this. Ahhhhh.
IF the Giants win on Sunday, it won't stop. MmmmmmMM!
Quote:
Am i missing something?
It adds to the self-perceived legend of Pederson being a misunderstood genius
The misunderstood genius is going to get eviscerated by the local media tomorrow.
I think it was the same situation as we had against the Falcons in Shurmur's first year. Gives them an opportunity to win in regulation and if they missed it were still in a one possession game.
Quote:
In comment 15062725 j_rud said:
Quote:
Am i missing something?
It adds to the self-perceived legend of Pederson being a misunderstood genius
The misunderstood genius is going to get eviscerated by the local media tomorrow.
Actually gonna listen to the WIP postgame on radio.com. Eagles losses are almost as good as Giants wins.
The more reasonable explanation is that pederson is an arrogant dick and probably wanted to piss off bettors.
He looked pretty bad up until the last 4 games of the season last year. Then he played the NFC East which was probably worse last year.
You have to assume that you score two TDs, or the whole debate is moot anyway.
But going for 2 after the first TD would give the team a 62.5% to win, whereas kicking an XP would give the team a 50% to win.
Assume XPs are 100% and 2pt conversions are 50% for sake of ease (in reality, it's closer to 94% and 47%, so still 2:1).
If you kick an XP after the first TD, then after the second TD you have two choices: kick another XP just to get to OT which is a 50-50 crap shoot. OR, go for 2 to try and win the game, which is also 50%. Either way, kicking an XP first gives you about a 50% to win.
Also, if you're going to go for 2 after the second TD anyway, then you are much better off doing it after the first TD so that you have more information earlier and so that you at least have two chances at a conversion.
BUT, if you go for 2 after the first TD, here's what happens. You can set yourself up to win in regulation, AND gives yourself a chance to win in OT if you fail.
You have to assume that you score two TDs, or the whole debate is moot anyway.
But going for 2 after the first TD would give the team a 62.5% to win, whereas kicking an XP would give the team a 50% to win.
Assume XPs are 100% and 2pt conversions are 50% for sake of ease (in reality, it's closer to 94% and 47%, so still 2:1).
If you kick an XP after the first TD, then after the second TD you have two choices: kick another XP just to get to OT which is a 50-50 crap shoot. OR, go for 2 to try and win the game, which is also 50%. Either way, kicking an XP first gives you about a 50% to win.
Also, if you're going to go for 2 after the second TD anyway, then you are much better off doing it after the first TD so that you have more information earlier and so that you at least have two chances at a conversion.
BUT, if you go for 2 after the first TD, here's what happens. You can set yourself up to win in regulation, AND gives yourself a chance to win in OT if you fail.
Simply put, its a trade off between making the 2 pointer to win in regulation vs missing twice to lose in regulation.
Green Bay did it this year. They got within 6 and got the ball but they couldn't get the winning touchdown.
Giants and Philadelphia did it last year.
However I do wonder whether the team that has scored two late touchdowns would have an advantage in OT (momentum argument).
You have to assume that you score two TDs, or the whole debate is moot anyway.
But going for 2 after the first TD would give the team a 62.5% to win, whereas kicking an XP would give the team a 50% to win.
Assume XPs are 100% and 2pt conversions are 50% for sake of ease (in reality, it's closer to 94% and 47%, so still 2:1).
If you kick an XP after the first TD, then after the second TD you have two choices: kick another XP just to get to OT which is a 50-50 crap shoot. OR, go for 2 to try and win the game, which is also 50%. Either way, kicking an XP first gives you about a 50% to win.
Also, if you're going to go for 2 after the second TD anyway, then you are much better off doing it after the first TD so that you have more information earlier and so that you at least have two chances at a conversion.
BUT, if you go for 2 after the first TD, here's what happens. You can set yourself up to win in regulation, AND gives yourself a chance to win in OT if you fail.
Great explanation Paul, thanks. I thought there could be something like that, that's why I asked what I was missing. Just looked insane at the time.
What on earth makes Jim Schwartz think that is a good idea?
Quote:
Said he wasn't where Megatron is. What a douche that guy is.
What on earth makes Jim Schwartz think that is a good idea?
Just his personality.
Quote:
after the first TD.
You have to assume that you score two TDs, or the whole debate is moot anyway.
But going for 2 after the first TD would give the team a 62.5% to win, whereas kicking an XP would give the team a 50% to win.
Assume XPs are 100% and 2pt conversions are 50% for sake of ease (in reality, it's closer to 94% and 47%, so still 2:1).
If you kick an XP after the first TD, then after the second TD you have two choices: kick another XP just to get to OT which is a 50-50 crap shoot. OR, go for 2 to try and win the game, which is also 50%. Either way, kicking an XP first gives you about a 50% to win.
Also, if you're going to go for 2 after the second TD anyway, then you are much better off doing it after the first TD so that you have more information earlier and so that you at least have two chances at a conversion.
BUT, if you go for 2 after the first TD, here's what happens. You can set yourself up to win in regulation, AND gives yourself a chance to win in OT if you fail.
Simply put, its a trade off between making the 2 pointer to win in regulation vs missing twice to lose in regulation.
Green Bay did it this year. They got within 6 and got the ball but they couldn't get the winning touchdown.
Giants and Philadelphia did it last year.
However I do wonder whether the team that has scored two late touchdowns would have an advantage in OT (momentum argument).
They are using blanket percentages across the league, however I believe the odds of a crappy team like Philly getting two 2-pointers are worse than lets say KC. KC I can see it, they will get one. Philly sucks.
Personally I would kick the XP if I were the crappy Eagles. There is a lot going on and a lot more to day, why add the extra risk. Take it to over time if you have played that well to catch up
On a good team, his gambles work. On a bad team they don't. And it starts to snowball into more poor decisions.
It is like the whole riverboat Ron narrative. When rivers takes chances with good teams - it tends to pay off and when he does it with poor teams, it often backfires.
I think some of these guys don't factor in the quality of the team when doing the math.
In fact, even if you used a 40% conversion rate, the team would end up with a 52% chance of winning by going for 2 early, rather than a 50% sending it to overtime. And when you consider that XPs are only ~94% likely, then the true 2-point conversion rate to make it worthwhile to go for 2 is actually down to 37.6% to still be better off.
The other thing you aren't factoring is that a bad team that is less likely to score a 2 point conversion is also a bad team that is less likely to win in Overtime. So even kicking two extra points just to get to OT isn't necessarily a good thing if it's a bad team, because then you have to throw out the blanket 50-50 OT proposition.
And again, it's worth remembering that XPs are not automatic. They are 93.9% this year across the league, meaning that landing both XPs just to get to OT is only 88%.
Yeah, I don't get this one either. Just kick the stupid FG, then they wouldn't need two TDs at the end
FG
TD
2 point conversion
Prevent Seattle from getting a FG or TD
... and that just gets them to Overtime, which is a 50-50 proposition if you give them an equal chance to win.
I think a big mental hurdle involved with these decisions is that there is the belief that just getting to overtime is a "win." That scoring multiple times to tie it up gives the team fresh life in overtime. And while getting to overtime sure beats losing in regulation, it isn't a win. It' still a coin-flip at that point.
In most cases, going for it on 4th and 4 from the opponent's 15 should be a go for it decision. The value of a TD in that case is so much more valuable than a FG.
The Eagles didn't need a TD on that play-- they could have picked up a first down.
By going for it on that play (lower likelihood than a FG, but higher expected value), the Eagles were trying to set themselves up to win the game.
If they get the TD, they are down 5, at which point they could go for 2 to make it a 3 point game, or kick an XP to make it a 4 point game. In either event, the Eagles scoring anotheer TD wins the game. And it also allows the Eagles to give up a FG to Seattle in the remaining 9 minutes, and still win the game in regulation or overtime.
I didn't get this at all - what a dumb decision.