2020 NFL: Wk.17 Game Thread

[cornwalls@6]

Just to maybe clarify a little further why I think what Pederson did last night was egregious. Obviously, for a variety of reasons, teams don’t always put their best players on the field in late season games. I don’t love that either, but most of the reasons are usually at least defensible. But once the game starts, everyone, players and coaches, in terms of effort, strategy, and tactics, has a responsibility to compete as hard as they can, and try to win the game. That’s where I think he crossed the line last night. His players competed. He did not.

 

[cshea]

You don't really worry about prolonging a game in the 3rd quarter and with so many key players out, who really cares if it is prolonged? Just was a really weird decision in the moment that looked even worse with the subsequent Hurts decision. You'd think Philly would want to give him as many reps as possible. He is a promising player but he's still pretty raw as a passer and he'll be facing this nasty DL for a long time.

Aren't we always shouting for bad teams playing out the string to go for it when facing a 4th and manageable? I think by win probability, going for it was actually the analytical play. Plus, the Eagles defense was playing well so they could reasonable expect a stop and good field position if they failed to convert, which is what happened.

I'm not saying I would've made the same decision, but I think in a vacuum, going for it on 4th down in that spot was defensible. The way the rest of the game was managed was entirely ridiculous.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

The bolded is such a poor job by Pederson. And it really leaves him with no defense.

Kind of stunning to me how quickly this team fell apart. It's very 2020. (Even if it's not 2020.)

What's more stunning is that they won that SB in the first place. They're a shit team and Pederson is a shit coach and they fell apart so quickly because they are shit.

 

[BigSoxFan]

Aren't we always shouting for bad teams playing out the string to go for it when facing a 4th and manageable? I think by win probability, going for it was actually the analytical play. Plus, the Eagles defense was playing well so they could reasonable expect a stop and good field position if they failed to convert, which is what happened.

I'm not saying I would've made the same decision, but I think in a vacuum, going for it on 4th down in that spot was defensible. The way the rest of the game was managed was entirely ridiculous.

I don't think anyone would be clamoring for them to not tie the game with a quarter to go. This is different than whether or not to punt at the 40 yard line on 4th and 4. You take the points in that situation 99 times out of 100. They had just run 3 very unsuccessful plays before it. Either way, the Hurts decision that followed was obviously much worse.

 

[Mystic Merlin]

I don't think anyone would be clamoring for them to not tie the game with a quarter to go. This is different than whether or not to punt at the 40 yard line on 4th and 4. You take the points in that situation 99 times out of 100. They had just run 3 very unsuccessful plays before it. Either way, the Hurts decision that followed was obviously much worse.

They also don’t have a good precision passing offense, which is a huge disadvantage when you are operating inside the ten yard line with little space to operate.

I’m going for fourth and goal from the 1 yard line any time a FG doesn’t lock the game down. From the four in that spot? No. Running the ball there isn’t a realistic option absent a jet sweep or QB rollout, and I wouldn’t trust that precision passing game.

If I had the Chiefs? I’m going for that.

 

[cshea]

Fair enough. I just think at 4-10-1 with nothing to lose it's a defensible call.

 

[loshjott]

Wash Post sports headline: "Tanks for everything"

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Honestly if we had a commissioner with an actual spine the Eagles would be docked a pick for that blatant nonsense. They did it to fuck with the Giants and they did it deliberately. I have zero love for the Giants but that was egregious.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

View: https://twitter.com/SKaneNBCS/status/1345951877318533121?s=20

 

[Captaincoop]

Honestly if we had a commissioner with an actual spine the Eagles would be docked a pick for that blatant nonsense. They did it to fuck with the Giants and they did it deliberately. I have zero love for the Giants but that was egregious.

How about that display was fine, but playing with a football that is inflated slightly below league standards is a disgrace worthy of harming the reputation of the league's greatest player ever and docking a team multiple draft picks.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

You're just getting me angrier.

 

[Captaincoop]

They should at least discuss a rule that would pass the playoff spot to an additional wild card team if a division fails to produce a .500 team and there is a winning team outside the playoff bubble.

Trying to think of what the downside would be. A division title doesn't mean much when there are only 3 other teams in the division and you collectively won like 25% of your games against the rest of the league.

 

[mauf]

I’m surprised people are so upset. It’s not like Cincinnati really tried yesterday, and that game had playoff implications for other teams (though nothing as direct as the impact of Philly’s effort on New York). Sometimes, teams play for pride in Week 17; other times, they don’t. Neither outcome should surprise us. I don’t know if playing for pride is associated with better outcomes going forward, but I doubt the Eagles’ QB change is going to be a locker-room controversy; in fact, I’m sure it was clear to the players long before it became clear to the rest of us that the coaching staff wasn’t single-mindedly focused on winning this game.

The only party I’m peeved at is whoever decided this would be the Sunday Night game.

 

[RedOctober3829]

I’m surprised people are so upset. It’s not like Cincinnati really tried yesterday, and that game had playoff implications for other teams (though nothing as direct as the impact of Philly’s effort on New York). Sometimes, teams play for pride in Week 17; other times, they don’t. Neither outcome should surprise us. I don’t know if playing for pride is associated with better outcomes going forward, but I doubt the Eagles’ QB change is going to be a locker-room controversy; in fact, I’m sure it was clear to the players long before it became clear to the rest of us that the coaching staff wasn’t single-mindedly focused on winning this game.

The only party I’m peeved at is whoever decided this would be the Sunday Night game.

This exactly. We should have known going in that the Eagles were not all-in to win this game given who they sat. The fact that they changed quarterbacks when they did looks bad, but if the plan was to get Sudfeld snaps during the game going in then that is what they were going to do. The score did not matter to the Eagles when it came to this as well. The decision to go for it on 4th and goal from the 5 is not unlike what Pederson has been known to do either. I also agree with you that this game should never have been Sunday Night Football. Put a game on there with playoff implications for both teams and don't have the first priority being ratings. Arizona/LAR or GB/Chicago would have been better choices.

 

[E5 Yaz]

... I doubt the Eagles’ QB change is going to be a locker-room controversy...

Hurts was show on the broadcast being upset with the decision. Kelce and others on the O-line were pissed, as Collinsworth pointed out in the broadcast.

Will it rip them apart long-term? Probably not. But the coverage and reaction to Pederson's decision puts the payers in a position they shouldn't have been placed. And they're left to either defend, or decline to answer, when asked whether they agreed with their coach saying that he was trying to win when he put Sudfeld in the game.

If Dallas-NYG were in the early window and this game in the afternoon window yesterday, it gets a mention but isn't a big deal. But Pederson put his own players in an embarrassing position in the only game in town on a national broadcast.

You have to think that more than a few of them aren't happy about that

 

[Ale Xander]

If you're ging to all the division games like that for the last week, then do world cup 3rd group game style, same time.

If you want a night game, have 2. Sorry, NBC, it's more fair that way. Especially since MNF is nixed.

 

[Philip Jeff Frye]

If you're ging to all the division games like that for the last week, then do world cup 3rd group game style, same time.

If you want a night game, have 2. Sorry, NBC, it's more fair that way. Especially since MNF is nixed.

The only problem that would have solved was the egg on NBC's face. Would the Eagles have done something differently last night had the Cowboys won yesterday afternoon?

There are other circumstances where this would be preferable, though.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Coaches can't control the effort players put forth in a meaningless game and I also think it is OK to rest guys or not play them, for whatever reason. But for some reason a coach making in game coaching and personnel decisions in order to try to lose the game just sits poorly with me, and is on the other side of my own personal arbitrary line for this stuff. It wasn't the most egregious sin ever and I don't give a shit about the Giants (actually it happening to the Giants kind of makes me laugh). But I thought it was a bad look for the Eagles, Pederson and the league.

 

[Captaincoop]

If you're ging to all the division games like that for the last week, then do world cup 3rd group game style, same time.

If you want a night game, have 2. Sorry, NBC, it's more fair that way. Especially since MNF is nixed.

Hmm, fairness versus a controversial game that everyone watched and is still talking about...?

 

[Oil Can Dan]

There were reports as early as Saturday that Sudfield was going to play, and perhaps even the entire 2nd half. Should the Eagles have done something differently just because the game was close?

The Eagles did what they thought was best for the Eagles. They did not break some new ground with what they did, nor did they ask to be the SNF game.

I don't get the big controversy here.

 

[Ale Xander]

There were reports as early as Saturday that Sudfield was going to play, and perhaps even the entire 2nd half. Should the Eagles have done something differently just because the game was close?

The Eagles did what they thought was best for the Eagles. They did not break some new ground with what they did, nor did they ask to be the SNF game.

I don't get the big controversy here.

Based on Hurts' reaction, (and probably other parts of the locker room) I am not sure this was the case

 

[Oil Can Dan]

Based on Hurts' reaction, (and probably other parts of the locker room) I am not sure this was the case

Well if *I* knew on Saturday that Sudfield was likely going to see the field (I did), I'd bet $5 that Hurts and other players knew it too.

 

[cshea]

As far as I can tell, the WFT/Philly game was the only game whose playoff implications were independent of any other game. Regardless of what happened in NYG/DAL, it was win and in for WFT. The only thing the NYG/DAL game determined was which team was rooting for Philly.

 

[BigSoxFan]

Well if *I* knew on Saturday that Sudfield was likely going to see the field (I did), I'd bet $5 that Hurts and other players knew it too.

Given they're all competitors, I'd guess that they knew and were annoyed/pissed when it actually happened. Shoot, I'd be concerned if Hurts weren't pissed at Pederson even if he understood why the decision was made.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Just to go back to what happened on Sunday night. Here is Jason Kelce's thoughts regarding it. Not shockingly, they all knew he was going in at some point.

View: https://twitter.com/ByKimberleyA/status/1346823612628611073

 

[Harry Hooper]

Just to go back to what happened on Sunday night. Here is Jason Kelce's thoughts regarding it. Not shockingly, they all knew he was going in at some point.

View: https://twitter.com/ByKimberleyA/status/1346823612628611073

This is supposed to help calm things down? It seems that Pederson wanted things to go as badly as possible with Sudfeld, but Kelce and the OL got proactive about getting ready for him to take over at QB.

 

[BigSoxFan]

This is supposed to help calm things down? It seems that Pederson wanted things to go as badly as possible with Sudfeld, but Kelce and the OL got proactive about getting ready for him to take over at QB.

Yeah. Kelce literally said in that tweet that he was "a little surprised" by the timing of the move. Kelce is just being a good teammate there. This doesn't disprove that this was a blatant tank job at all.

 

[Oil Can Dan]

This is supposed to help calm things down? It seems that Pederson wanted things to go as badly as possible with Sudfeld, but Kelce and the OL got proactive about getting ready for him to take over at QB.

Honestly curious to understand what in there leads you to believe "Pederson wanted things to go as badly as possible with Sudfield"?

 

[RedOctober3829]

Yeah. Kelce literally said in that tweet that he was "a little surprised" by the timing of the move. Kelce is just being a good teammate there. This doesn't disprove that this was a blatant tank job at all.

It refutes the notion that this move was out of the blue.

 

[E5 Yaz]

It refutes the notion that this move was out of the blue.

That's hardly a significant part of the debate over this

 

[BigSoxFan]

It refutes the notion that this move was out of the blue.

Don't think we're really focusing on that, are we? Giving indications that you're going to tank doesn't mean all players are cool with it.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Honestly curious to understand what in there leads you to believe "Pederson wanted things to go as badly as possible with Sudfield"?

He wasn't really informing the offense about the switch on the next series.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Don't think we're really focusing on that, are we? Giving indications that you're going to tank doesn't mean all players are cool with it.

It should be part of the focus, shouldn't it? If it was known going into the game that he may play, why would it be that surprising that he'd be put in the game even at the time he did. Maybe he wanted to see how Sudfeld reacted to a sudden change and see how he performed as he may be in line to back Hurts up next year as the #2 QB if Wentz is traded. Players can be upset with it all they want, but in a Week 17 game with nothing on the line for the Eagles(or any team in that same situation) it is not out of the realm of possibility that they would use the game to evaluate other players in game situations. Similar to if the Pats chose to start Stidham. The Pats didn't obviously feel that way, but the Eagles did.

It's pretty easy to play the results game with this whole situation. If Sudfeld led them down for a tying FG or won the game, nobody would be saying any of this. Heck, if they had recovered the fumble with just under 4 minutes to go and were set up at the WFT 40 yard line they would have been in business to tie it up. No one can also say that if Hurts stayed in the game that the result of the game would have been any different as well. Optically, it may look fishy but I really don't think Pederson was trying to intentionally lose by putting Sudfeld in.

 

[BigSoxFan]

but I really don't think Pederson was trying to intentionally lose by putting Sudfeld in.

I’d say you’re in the minority and perhaps distinct minority with this one.

We can agree to disagree on this because I, like many NFL fans, think he was put in to ensure a loss after things got a little too close for comfort.
There was almost a zero % chance of success playing against WFT’s defense with a ton of backups. Nate Sudfeld is an awful NFL QB. He had no shot.

And it still makes little sense to me to give valuable game reps to Sudfeld over a raw QB like Hurts who you are presumably anointing as the starter in 2021. Only way it makes sense to me is if he had suffered some kind of minor injury that you wanted to protect from getting worse. And there was no indication of that as far as I can tell.