Shame on the Eagles [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

IggyWH

12-28-2004, 02:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What about the fans of teams like New Orleans and Carolina who are fighting for thier playoff lives?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any team that has to have some help and only squeak into the playoffs at the end of the year doesn't deserve to be there in the first place. New Orleans and Carolina has no one to blame but themselves. If they would have put the W's on the board, they wouldn't be in this situation.

Obviously you support one of these teams. It's just foolish for the Eagles to play to win that game with starters when they have nothing to gain, but everything to lose.

Usul

12-28-2004, 02:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously you support one of these teams

[/ QUOTE ]

This couldn't be further from the truth. For the record, I live and die by the fortunes of the Ravens. I not only don't cheer for either of these teams, I strongly dislike them.

[ QUOTE ]
Any team that has to have some help and only squeak into the playoffs at the end of the year doesn't deserve to be there in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda like the uh... RAMS?

ThaSaltCracka

12-28-2004, 03:00 AM

it is sort of messed up because the NFC wild card is still wide open, as is the NFC west. Philly just screwed over a bunch of teams, but oh well, Philly is looking out for themselves, which is fine.

razor

12-28-2004, 03:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Any team that has to have some help and only squeak into the playoffs at the end of the year doesn't deserve to be there in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

This kinda of thinking always annoys me...

If a team wins in week 1 and loses in week 17 and barely makes the playoffs they "backed in"

If they lose in week 1 and win in week 17 and barely makes the playoffs they "earned" a spot.

Teams make the playoffs based on their record for the ENTIRE SEASON in relation to the other teams and those team's records for the ENTIRE SEASON.... not what happens in the final week or two...

AngryCola

12-28-2004, 04:05 AM

This is ridiculous. All NFL teams do this. It happens every year after a team has clinched all they can get. You will see a few teams doing the same thing next week. It is NORMAL and has gone on for years. Where have you been? There is nothing wrong with preparing for the playoffs.

If I was an Eagles fan, I would be more upset if they played the starters when they didn't have to and got somebody injured.

That sure would be smart. Lets blow out our QBs knee in a meaningless game so we will be crippled come playoff time. I'm sure that's what Philidelphia fans want. No, if you have the opportunity, you rest your players and do not chance any injuries. Anything else is just plain stupid.

The league should not be "embarassed", because this is a normal practice that makes sense to everyone. Well... it makes sense to most rational people. You are putting the importance of players bodies and playoff chances BELOW the importance of a spectators enjoyment. That is incredibly juvenile and selfish.
I have nothing else to say on this matter.

private joker

12-28-2004, 04:21 AM

Amen, Cola. The Eagles already lost their best wide receiver to an injury. Why should they risk another superstar player by forcing them into a meaningless game just because "the fans deserve it?" Screw the fans. Philadelphia has one goal on their mind: the Super Bowl. Resting their starters is a fundamental necessity in order to attain that goal. And trust me; if and when they do win the Super Bowl because McNabb got extra rest, I'm sure "the fans" will forgive the loss to the Rams back at the end of the regular season.

SlyAK

12-28-2004, 04:25 AM

I am an Eagles fan, and of course I was hoping that we would win the game and ruin the Rams playoff chances. But, I was hoping that we would do that without our starters, and I would much rather aceept the loss than an injury to Donovan, Westbrook, etc. It makes no difference whether the Eagles go into the playoffs at 15-1 or 13-3 as long as they are as healthy as possible. Andy Reid made the right decision by holding the better players out.

Sly

balkii

12-28-2004, 04:56 AM

no shame on you. here I was, getting all excited about an eagles-bashing post, and I find not ONE mention of "life in the fast lane, dernununu nu nunu ner nu, bumpbump bump dernernunu nu nue nu nu, bumpbump bump-bump"

Michael Davis

12-28-2004, 07:15 AM

Why should the Eagles care about the Panthers or the Saints? Yeah, it sucks that stuff like this happens because it makes things unfair, but there's nothing that can be done about it, and to blame the Eagles for doing everything they can to increase their chances of winning the Super Bowl (as they see it) is ridiculous.

If the Eagles increase their chances of winning the Super Bowl 0.1% by not playing certain players, it doesn't matter what teams they screw over.

-Michael

craig r

12-28-2004, 07:26 AM

I am still wondering how come the game wasn't more of a blowout then it was. I wanted the eagles to win and would love to see them in a superbowl, but they played horrible tonight (i know it was 2nd and 3rd string) and really hung in there for a while. But, I don't think it really matters if STL gets in. Because I don't see how they can go on the road and win in either PHI or ATL.

craig

CCx

12-28-2004, 08:04 AM

We're just resting up for the playoffs....after what happened to T.O., we're taking no chances...black mark on the NFL my ass...the only thing last night's game proved was that the NFL is correct in giving themselves the power to change the Monday night games late in the season starting next year so the fans can avoid having to watch 3rd stringers play on national TV. I'm glad you hate the Eagles too, when we win the Super Bowl I'll be sure to send you a fruit basket...HATER!! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

P.S. They won't be losing in the first round, they'll be resting up watching a couple 7-9 teams play teams with defenses so bad that a team of 2+2'ers could easily put up a 30-spot on. HATER!! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

CCx

12-28-2004, 08:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, I live and die by the fortunes of the Ravens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awww now it makes sense - still steaming over not getting T.O. huh.... /images/graemlins/grin.gif Because T.O. said "I don't want to go Baltimore, I refuse to show up there, I want to go to Philly" - Awwwwwwwwwwww I bet you cried that day, HATER! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Homer

12-28-2004, 10:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The Eagles should be embarassed. That was not a football game, it was a black mark on the NFL. I hated the Eagles before, but I hope they lose in the first round now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, never before has a team who clinched HFA throughout rested its best players. Yawn.

fnord_too

12-28-2004, 10:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What about the fans of teams like New Orleans and Carolina who are fighting for thier playoff lives? They play hard every game only to see the Eagles hand the Rams a win on a silver platter. Its just plain embarassing for the Eagles and for the league.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Eagles objective is to win the super bowl. They are not, nor should they be, concerned with other teams goals. I didn't see the game, nor am I an Eagles fan (or detractor). I don't even care much about pro football any more (college is another story, GO HOKIES!)

As a pretty disinterested party, your post really seems like whining from either an Eagle Hater or a fan of a team their loss hurts. I mean really, why would any team risk there stars in a game of no consequence to them? Moreover, why not give the backups some more playing time in the same situation when they may be needed in the playoffs due to injury?

12-28-2004, 10:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
We're just resting up for the playoffs....

[/ QUOTE ]

You're on the Eagles? Uh oh. Better not let them find out that you bet on sports.

Toro

12-28-2004, 10:59 AM

Don't blame the Eagles. Blame the NFL. MLB would never allow this.

Usul

12-28-2004, 11:06 AM

Oh boy... You make a statement about your beliefs on this forum nowadays and all of a sudden you are attacked personally. I present my feelings in this matter without telling anyone else who they cheer for or why they are mad. I understand not everyone agrees with me, but please don't tell me what I do and do not know.

That said, I am still bitter about TO. I try not to let that influence my feelings. I was upset to see him go down because I know what injuries are like and he's a great player who has matured a lot this year.

Also understand that I know WHY the Eagles are resting thier players. I've played on three national championship football teams, so I know how these decisions are made. The difference is that the NFL is a business and should be run as such.

Every season the NFL sends out a memo to teams that they are required to try and win all thier games. This memo is ignored and not inforced. The point is that fans pay a lot of money to go see game. This is a league that profits from selling its superstars and when they are sat because games are "meaningless", every fan gets sold out. I know philly fans just want to see them in the Super Bowl and this might improve thier chances, but there are fans in St. Louis who wanted to see Donavan McNabb try and throw some bombs. Instead they got a pathetic effort from the Eagles.

The other side of this argument, and one that many analysts and coaches will agree with me on is the fact that playoff wins are a lot about momentum. Resting your players for a few games might save you some injuries, but the momentum you lose will often be a greater detriment to your team's success the loss of one or two players.

I realize that many people agree with the Eagles' stategy. I do not. Whether you agree with the Eagles' stagegy or not, you have to conceed that they turned what should have been an entertaining, competitive game into a mockery of the competetive spirit that the NFL stands for.

fnord_too

12-28-2004, 11:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Don't blame the Eagles. Blame the NFL. MLB would never allow this.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a much much lower chance for injury in MLB. The nature of the game makes this a non issue there for all intents and purposes.

Oski

12-28-2004, 11:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Also understand that I know WHY the Eagles are resting thier players. I've played on three national championship football teams, so I know how these decisions are made. The difference is that the NFL is a business and should be run as such.

[/ QUOTE ]

You understand? In college you have to win every game ... there is no resting up.

Unless ... you didn't pay D1 and you had playoffs.

Anyway, that must be the case, because I don't remember any D1 team winning 3 out of 4 (or 5 or 6 if you red shirted, plus another for medical redshirt).

Usul

12-28-2004, 11:16 AM

I play in Canada. We have playoffs.

CCx

12-28-2004, 11:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
there are fans in St. Louis who wanted to see Donavan McNabb try and throw some bombs.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are undoubtedly a lot more fans in St. Louis who want to see their team make the playoffs. Also, if anyone in the world outside of Philadelphia (where it's been reported for days that no one would be playing in this game) thought they'd see a 'real' football game, they were only kidding themselves. Even without the T.O. injury, McNabb and company would have only played a half, if that.

Oski

12-28-2004, 11:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Every season the NFL sends out a memo to teams that they are required to try and win all thier games. This memo is ignored and not inforced. The point is that fans pay a lot of money to go see game. This is a league that profits from selling its superstars and when they are sat because games are "meaningless", every fan gets sold out. I know philly fans just want to see them in the Super Bowl and this might improve thier chances, but there are fans in St. Louis who wanted to see Donavan McNabb try and throw some bombs. Instead they got a pathetic effort from the Eagles.

[/ QUOTE ]

NFL "sells" its fans out every year. Most, if not all, teams require people to purchase exhibition tickets with a season ticket package.

If that is not total bullsh!t, I don't know what is. So, its not like the Eagles are tarnishing the NFL's sterling policy of ensuring the fans a meaningful game. I look at more like the Browns v. Dolphins game on Sunday night: When the schedule was made, ESPN probably thought they would have a good game. Instead the teams took a dump and the matchup was terrible. I'm sure no memo went out to the Browns and Dolphins telling them they better play their asses off ... or else.

Anyhow, that is the breaks ... happens in every sport, every year. You can't tell me with a straight face that you were surprised the Eagles were resting their starters: The media had been mentioning it all week.

Usul

12-28-2004, 11:32 AM

Every league has stupid policies. The NFL, despite not being perfect, is far and away the best run pro sports league in the world.

And no, I'm not suprised that the Eagles rested thier starters, just disapointed. I just hope Indy doesn't do the same, because I need Denver to lose.

jakethebake

12-28-2004, 11:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
he's a great player who has matured a lot this year.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. I wonder what you consider immature. My 3 year old acts more mature.

[ QUOTE ]
The difference is that the NFL is a business and should be run as such.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd argue this is exactly what they did. Playing the starters would be the opposite. The team will profit more in the long run if they get to the SuperBowl or at least deep in the playoffs. And their fans will get more enjoyment.

[ QUOTE ]
but there are fans in St. Louis who wanted to see Donavan McNabb try and throw some bombs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really?

[ QUOTE ]
Whether you agree with the Eagles' stagegy or not, you have to conceed that they turned what should have been an entertaining, competitive game into a mockery of the competetive spirit that the NFL stands for.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep. I think we can all concede that.

ThaSaltCracka

12-28-2004, 11:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Don't blame the Eagles. Blame the NFL. MLB would never allow this.

[/ QUOTE ]blame the NFL for what? Not forcing a team to play certain players?

Toro

12-28-2004, 12:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't blame the Eagles. Blame the NFL. MLB would never allow this.

[/ QUOTE ]blame the NFL for what? Not forcing a team to play certain players?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, if they are healthy they should play in games that have playoff implications.

sublime

12-28-2004, 12:20 PM

Yes, if they are healthy they should play in games that have playoff implications.

why? so they can lose key players when thier ultimate goal is in sight? the eagles earned the right to do what they did last night. plain and simple.

ThaSaltCracka

12-28-2004, 12:24 PM

did the game have playoff implications for the Eagles? I realize it was a huge game for STL, but really, thats just another reason to dislike that douche bag team. Basically Philly said "you guys are so sorry of a team, we'll gift you a win." Its okay though, they'll lose next week to the NYJ.

B00T

12-28-2004, 12:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, if they are healthy they should play in games that have playoff implications.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not Philadelphia's fault the Rams, Saints, or Panthers are scratching for a playoff spot. They have nobody to blame but themselves for not having a better record and not thriving on a win or loss by a specific team that week. Philadelphia played great and earned the right to do what they want which helps them. All the teams in the NFC should be embaressed that Philadelphia even has thsi option with TWO weeks left in the season.

Hell maybe they even want the Rams to make the playoffs and feel they matchup better againist them then lets say Carolina. Maybe they want a worse record than Pittsburgh to get the 29th pick instead of the 30th. Who cares. They can do whatever the hell they they please. They put themselves in this position to do what they want. If that involves softplaying or even throwing games that is their choice.

ThaSaltCracka

12-28-2004, 12:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hell maybe they even want the Rams to make the playoffs and feel they matchup better againist them then lets say Carolina..... If that involves softplaying or even throwing games that is their choice.

[/ QUOTE ] they are huge douches if they did this.

Clarkmeister

12-28-2004, 12:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Don't blame the Eagles. Blame the NFL. MLB would never allow this.

[/ QUOTE ]

This season, the St. Louis Cardinals benched significant parts of their starting lineup for prolonged periods in September. In fact, they basically handed the Astros the last wildcard spot by starting so many minor leaguers/bench players, allowing the Astros to win something like 5 of 6 vs them late in September. The Astros went on to win the wildcard by one game.

ThaSaltCracka

12-28-2004, 12:31 PM

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

But one game in football means a lot more than 5 or 6 in baseball.

Toro

12-28-2004, 12:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't blame the Eagles. Blame the NFL. MLB would never allow this.

[/ QUOTE ]

This season, the St. Louis Cardinals benched significant parts of their starting lineup for prolonged periods in September. In fact, they basically handed the Astros the last wildcard spot by starting so many minor leaguers/bench players, allowing the Astros to win something like 5 of 6 vs them late in September. The Astros went on to win the wildcard by one game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, you've all convinced me of my naivete on this topic. But maybe what StL did backfired and they lost their edge. They sure looked flat in the playoffs.

shummie

12-28-2004, 12:50 PM

Besides resting their good players, the game last night was good preparation for the B-players in case they need to come in during the POs.

I live in Philly (not an Eagle's fan though) and work in STL. Yesterday, when I flew from PHL to STL, I was the only person on the plane not going to the game. The rest of the busines regulars must have had off this week.

Some people on the plane were talking about the game and how the starters would get benched. I said, "I hope the game is still good for ya." These guys spent real money on tickets and a flight to go see the Eagles get spanked. I feel bad for them. Still the Eagles gotta do what the Eagles gotta do.

- Jason

ThaSaltCracka

12-28-2004, 12:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
These guys spent real money on tickets and a flight to go see the Eagles get spanked.

[/ QUOTE ] dude, if it had been a "real game" STL would have gotten spanked. They wasted their money regardless.

Clarkmeister

12-28-2004, 12:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Ok, you've all convinced me of my naivete on this topic. But maybe what StL did backfired and they lost their edge. They sure looked flat in the playoffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, they looked terrible crushing the Dodgers and beating a white hot Astros team and Roger Clemens in game 7. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif Lots of teams would like to play so flat that they win their first two postseason series and make it to the Championship. Just because none of those games were shown on the east coast doesn't mean they didn't happen. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

ThaSaltCracka

12-28-2004, 12:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Ok, you've all convinced me of my naivete on this topic. But maybe what StL did backfired and they lost their edge. They sure looked flat in the playoffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, they looked terrible crushing the Dodgers and beating a white hot Astros team and Roger Clemens in game 7. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif Lots of teams would like to play so flat that they win their first two postseason series and make it to the Championship. Just because none of those games were shown on the east coast doesn't mean they didn't happen. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about Clark?

IggyWH

12-28-2004, 01:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any team that has to have some help and only squeak into the playoffs at the end of the year doesn't deserve to be there in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

This kinda of thinking always annoys me...

If a team wins in week 1 and loses in week 17 and barely makes the playoffs they "backed in"

If they lose in week 1 and win in week 17 and barely makes the playoffs they "earned" a spot.

Teams make the playoffs based on their record for the ENTIRE SEASON in relation to the other teams and those team's records for the ENTIRE SEASON.... not what happens in the final week or two...

[/ QUOTE ]

If you need for this team to lose and that team to lose for you to make it into the playoffs, you don't deserve it and have nothing to complain about if you don't make it.

If you would have won your games earlier in the year, you would not have put yourself in that situation. The team controlled it's own destiny from the beginning of the year. They lost games and put themselves into the situation of needing other teams to lose to make the playoffs.

It does come down to the last week though because these teams put themselves in this situation. I'm not saying someone like Denver deserves the last ACF spot over Buffalo. I'm saying that Denver nor Buffalo can bitch about teams not playing hard in a meaningless game.

EX :

For Carolina to make the playoffs :

1) Panthers win and Vikings loss
OR
2) Panthers win and Seahawks win or tie
OR
3) Panthers win or tie and Rams loss or tie.

To me, something like that is a joke. That is what I mean by if they don't make the playoffs, they have no one to blame but themselves. They are the ones that lost 7 of their first 8 games. If they would have won just 1 of those games, they would only have to win to make the playoffs.

ThaSaltCracka

12-28-2004, 01:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They are the ones that lost 7 of their first 8 games. If they would have won just 1 of those games, they would only have to win to make the playoffs.

[/ QUOTE ] They also had an absurd amount of injuries as well. I really hope Carolina makes it, because they deserve it a helluva lot more than Seattle, Minnesota, and STL.

Toro

12-28-2004, 01:08 PM

I didn't watch any of the games against the Dodgers and can't comment on that but they didn't look very good ekeing by the Astros and against the Sox they looked totally deflated. This all compared to a team that looked like the 1927 Yankees during the regular season.

Clarkmeister

12-28-2004, 01:12 PM

ThaSaltCracka

12-28-2004, 01:14 PM

lets be honest, STL was over achieving all year, thats why they got rocked by the Sox(a team which was really underachieving all year until late august).

ThaSaltCracka

12-28-2004, 01:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They are the ones that lost 7 of their first 8 games. If they would have won just 1 of those games, they would only have to win to make the playoffs.

[/ QUOTE ] They also had an absurd amount of injuries as well. I really hope Carolina makes it, because they deserve it a helluva lot more than Seattle, Minnesota, and STL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Deserve's got nothin' to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]
true true true, well if Carolina makes it, they will definitely have earned it.

IggyWH

12-28-2004, 01:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They are the ones that lost 7 of their first 8 games. If they would have won just 1 of those games, they would only have to win to make the playoffs.

[/ QUOTE ] They also had an absurd amount of injuries as well. I really hope Carolina makes it, because they deserve it a helluva lot more than Seattle, Minnesota, and STL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Injuries mean nothing. Carolina, a Super Bowl team should be able to get past those injuries. The Steelers were 6-10 last year, had a ton of injuries and they're 14-1 now. You can't blame injuries on your failure to win games.

ThaSaltCracka

12-28-2004, 01:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Injuries mean nothing. Carolina, a Super Bowl team should be able to get past those injuries. The Steelers were 6-10 last year, had a ton of injuries and they're 14-1 now. You can't blame injuries on your failure to win games.

[/ QUOTE ]what??? Carolina is using a third string running back right now. They started off 1-7 and very easily could have folded, especially with all the injuires, instead they won 6 in a row, and are now in the playoff hunt.

jakethebake

12-28-2004, 01:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Injuries mean nothing...You can't blame injuries on your failure to win games.

[/ QUOTE ]
Possibly the stupidest football statement ever.

ThaSaltCracka

12-28-2004, 01:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Injuries mean nothing...You can't blame injuries on your failure to win games.

[/ QUOTE ]
Possibly the stupidest football statement ever.

[/ QUOTE ]yeah for real. I think Dan Reeves could say something about that in regards to ATL last year.

Clarkmeister

12-28-2004, 01:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Injuries mean nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bookies disagree with you. When Terrell Owens went down, the odds on the eagles to win the NFC went from -400 to -150. That is, their chances of winning the NFC were cut by a third because of one injury.

IggyWH

12-28-2004, 01:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Injuries mean nothing. Carolina, a Super Bowl team should be able to get past those injuries. The Steelers were 6-10 last year, had a ton of injuries and they're 14-1 now. You can't blame injuries on your failure to win games.

[/ QUOTE ]what??? Carolina is using a third string running back right now. They started off 1-7 and very easily could have folded, especially with all the injuires, instead they won 6 in a row, and are now in the playoff hunt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Steelers :

Playing 4th string QB (Maddox, Batch & St Pierre were all ahead of Roethlisberger)

Had to start 2nd string RB for 1/2 the year

Starting WR out 4 weeks, Steelers had to start a WR that is listed as 5-10 192, but I've met him, he's MAYBE 5-6, 150.

Starting OG out for the whole season

Starting NT lost for the season after about 8 games

Starting TE out for the year

Starting CB lost for most of the year

Starting LB out the whole year

Yet the Steelers are still the best team in the NFL. You can't blame injuries on your failure to win games.

Patrick del Poker Grande

12-28-2004, 01:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Injuries mean nothing...You can't blame injuries on your failure to win games.

[/ QUOTE ]
Possibly the stupidest football statement ever.

[/ QUOTE ]
... just above "Randy Moss shouldn't be in the Pro Bowl."

ThaSaltCracka

12-28-2004, 01:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Playing 4th string QB

[/ QUOTE ] You mean their 1st round pick who is totally sick? The pain of that I can only imagine.

[ QUOTE ]
Had to start 2nd string RB for 1/2 the year

[/ QUOTE ] Who just happens to be Jerome Bettis, yes, very tough as well.

jakethebake

12-28-2004, 01:54 PM

Yea, some teams are deeper than others and some teams find a diamond or two in the rough. Giving one team as an example of the idiotic statement that injuries don't matter in football is just ludicrous.

I'd also say a lot of it is luck. Teams aren't generally deep at every position. So it's just luck in terms of which positions happen to see injuries as well.

ThaSaltCracka

12-28-2004, 01:57 PM

coaching is huge factor as well.

razor

12-28-2004, 02:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you need for this team to lose and that team to lose for you to make it into the playoffs, you don't deserve it...

[/ QUOTE ]

whatever... near as far as I can tell, playoff positions are decided by taking the final results of all teams at the end of the regular season. Spending any time analyzing how each got their playoff spot and determining whether a team was 'lucky' to make the playoffs or 'earned' is silly in my opinion...

IggyWH

12-28-2004, 02:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yea, some teams are deeper than others and some teams find a diamond or two in the rough. Giving one team as an example of the idiotic statement that injuries don't matter in football is just ludicrous.

I'd also say a lot of it is luck. Teams aren't generally deep at every position. So it's just luck in terms of which positions happen to see injuries as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about San Francisco here... we're talking about Carolina who made it to the Super Bowl last year. They are obviously a team with depth or else they wouldn't have been there last year.

I also never said that injuries don't matter and if I did, that's not what I meant. EVERY team deals with injuries. That is not a valid reason to give for losing games in the beginning of the year. Steelers have had key injuries, New England has had key injuries, Jets have had key injuries plus many other playoff teams have had key injuries. You cannot blame injuries on the reason you lost games you shouldn't have lost in the beginning of the year.

CCx

12-28-2004, 02:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The Bookies disagree with you. When Terrell Owens went down, the odds on the eagles to win the NFC went from -400 to -150. That is, their chances of winning the NFC were cut by a third because of one injury.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, is that right..? Time to go make some money then /images/graemlins/grin.gif

IggyWH

12-28-2004, 02:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you need for this team to lose and that team to lose for you to make it into the playoffs, you don't deserve it...

[/ QUOTE ]

whatever... near as far as I can tell, playoff positions are decided by taking the final results of all teams at the end of the regular season. Spending any time analyzing how each got their playoff spot and determining whether a team was 'lucky' to make the playoffs or 'earned' is silly in my opinion...

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is, lets look at St Louis :

They lost to Arizona, Miami and other teams that I don't believe they should have lost to. I think everyone can agree though that there is no reason why St Louis should have lost to Arizona and Miami. If they would have done what they were supposed to and won those two games, they'd be in the playoffs.

Since they didn't do what they were supposed to do, now they need this to happen and that too happen to make the playoffs. They have no one to blame but themselves when they don't make the playoffs. This is why I don't think it's a shame if Carolina misses out or any other team.

ThaSaltCracka

12-28-2004, 02:34 PM

I have heard countless NFL analysts say the hardest thing to do in the NFL is win on the road. When you combine the parity you see in the league, really there is no such thing as an upset anymore in the NFL. Which is why when a team goes 15-1 or something, its really special.

jakethebake

12-28-2004, 02:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I also never said that injuries don't matter and if I did, that's not what I meant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then why the hell didn't you just say that before instead of keeping this arguement going? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

kenberman

12-28-2004, 03:33 PM

craig r

12-28-2004, 03:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Injuries mean nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bookies disagree with you. When Terrell Owens went down, the odds on the eagles to win the NFC went from -400 to -150. That is, their chances of winning the NFC were cut by a third because of one injury.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that injuries mean a lot in the NFL. But, a lot of that line adjustment is probably over re-action from bettors.

craig

IggyWH

12-28-2004, 04:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also never said that injuries don't matter and if I did, that's not what I meant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then why the hell didn't you just say that before instead of keeping this arguement going? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, I know that's a foolish statement to say but I didn't know how to word it better. We all know injuries do matter, but since everyone battles injuries, to me it's not a valid excuse. That is what I meant by saying injuries don't matter.

IggyWH

12-28-2004, 04:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have heard countless NFL analysts say the hardest thing to do in the NFL is win on the road. When you combine the parity you see in the league, really there is no such thing as an upset anymore in the NFL. Which is why when a team goes 15-1 or something, its really special.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you're right... New England losing to Miami last week wasn't an upset.

Clarkmeister

12-28-2004, 04:05 PM

Seems like a pretty good line move to me. That's from an 80% chance of going to the Super Bowl to a 60% chance.

ThaSaltCracka

12-28-2004, 04:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have heard countless NFL analysts say the hardest thing to do in the NFL is win on the road. When you combine the parity you see in the league, really there is no such thing as an upset anymore in the NFL. Which is why when a team goes 15-1 or something, its really special.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you're right... New England losing to Miami last week wasn't an upset.

[/ QUOTE ]Miami is not nearly as bad as people make them out to be. If they had Ricky and/or a healthy linebacking core, they would have a better record.

jakethebake

12-28-2004, 04:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If they had Ricky and/or a healthy linebacking core, they would have a better record.

[/ QUOTE ]
And an offensive line. That's their real problem. Oh, and a quarterback.

ThaSaltCracka

12-28-2004, 04:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they had Ricky and/or a healthy linebacking core, they would have a better record.

[/ QUOTE ]
And an offensive line. That's their real problem. Oh, and a quarterback.

[/ QUOTE ]to be good yeah, but really they aren't horrible.

jakethebake

12-28-2004, 04:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they had Ricky and/or a healthy linebacking core, they would have a better record.

[/ QUOTE ]
And an offensive line. That's their real problem. Oh, and a quarterback.

[/ QUOTE ]to be good yeah, but really they aren't horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. They probably have the worst offensive line in the league. Early in the season this was definitely the case. There were a lot of people calling it the worst offensive line in history. They still have a terrible offensive playbook too. I don't think there's a long pass even in the playbook. It's very weird.

IggyWH

12-28-2004, 04:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. They probably have the worst offensive line in the league. Early in the season this was definitely the case. There were a lot of people calling it the worst offensive line in history. They still have a terrible offensive playbook too. I don't think there's a long pass even in the playbook. It's very weird.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you don't have a QB and the only one on your team that can catch a ball is your tight end, there is no such thing as a deep threat.

ThaSaltCracka

12-28-2004, 04:58 PM

yeah, they have some offensive problems, but their D is the strong side. To bad Zach Taylor and Seau are both out, they probably win 2 more games this year, which wouldn't be that bad.

jakethebake

12-28-2004, 05:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When you don't have a QB and the only one on your team that can catch a ball is your tight end, there is no such thing as a deep threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize what you're saying, but if you know anything about their offense, there really is no such play even in the playbook. I realize I can't know that for sure, but that's the opinion of about every local sports guy here, and we've never seen anything to disprove it. And even if you have no speed guy, you have to air it out occasionally to keep the defense honest. But there's no deep routes. It's just a bunch of short passes. It's just a very strange offense.

jakethebake

12-28-2004, 05:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
yeah, they have some offensive problems, but their D is the strong side. To bad Zach Taylor and Seau are both out, they probably win 2 more games this year, which wouldn't be that bad.

[/ QUOTE ]
They'd still end up 6-10. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

ChoicestHops

12-28-2004, 05:09 PM

This doesn't make sense. Is it worth playing 1st string and getting players injured? Eagles were a 5-1 favorite for the Super Bowl before TO was out, I believe. Do you think the fans want their chances lessened?

This is professional football, it was a standard decision. Im sure the Eagles fans are very glad for it too, there's no reason to risk more injuries when your team is a big playoff contender.

ThaSaltCracka

12-28-2004, 05:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
yeah, they have some offensive problems, but their D is the strong side. To bad Zach Taylor and Seau are both out, they probably win 2 more games this year, which wouldn't be that bad.

[/ QUOTE ]
They'd still end up 6-10. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
well, that wouldn't be horrible for a team with no offense.

ThaSaltCracka

12-28-2004, 05:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't blame the Eagles. Blame the NFL. MLB would never allow this.

[/ QUOTE ]

This season, the St. Louis Cardinals benched significant parts of their starting lineup for prolonged periods in September. In fact, they basically handed the Astros the last wildcard spot by starting so many minor leaguers/bench players, allowing the Astros to win something like 5 of 6 vs them late in September. The Astros went on to win the wildcard by one game.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know Clark, other than this one example, most of the baseball races are close, especially now that there is a wild card. Teams in MLB also play division rivals for the majority of the final month of the season, thus, there is a constant drive to win as many games as possible. STL was fortunate to have a huge lead, but that certainly is not the norm in MLB.

BottlesOf

12-28-2004, 05:29 PM

If you honestly believe this, you're an idiot.

private joker

12-28-2004, 05:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This season, the St. Louis Cardinals benched significant parts of their starting lineup for prolonged periods in September. In fact, they basically handed the Astros the last wildcard spot by starting so many minor leaguers/bench players, allowing the Astros to win something like 5 of 6 vs them late in September. The Astros went on to win the wildcard by one game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, you've all convinced me of my naivete on this topic. But maybe what StL did backfired and they lost their edge. They sure looked flat in the playoffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just wanted to remind you guys the Cards beat the Astros to win the pennant. So that sort of kills this theory. (And no amount of rest could have stopped the Red Sox train of victory).