What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

2023 Philadelphia Eagles - Complete waste of a season finally comes to an end. (1 Viewer)

Are we gonna get a new punter? Hated the guy we had last year
Siposs was pretty good. It was kern who was siposs’s injury replacement who was terrible.

Thats right. So Sipnoss is still on the team i guess
They both stunk, Kern just stunk more. They signed a UDFA to compete, Ty Zentner.
Siposs was actually in top half i think based on the "Puntalitic" guys
Don't care. That punt in the Super Bowl was horrific. Zentner time baby!

I don't even fault Siposs that's on Clay. I heard Johnson went to Clay and told him you don't punt to that guy. Toney was at UF when Johnson was the OC there before the Eagles took him.
 
Are we gonna get a new punter? Hated the guy we had last year
Siposs was pretty good. It was kern who was siposs’s injury replacement who was terrible.

Thats right. So Sipnoss is still on the team i guess
They both stunk, Kern just stunk more. They signed a UDFA to compete, Ty Zentner.
Siposs was actually in top half i think based on the "Puntalitic" guys
He was good at pinning, but stunk at booming. Considering the team goes for it on 4th down so often, the pinning opportunities aren't as common. Plus as mentioned the choke job in the SB. he did the same thing the previous season against TB in the playoffs. Personally, I've seen enough.
I'm with you 100%. We are going for it on 4th down unless we are inside the 35 yard line, so the guys that can really boom the kick is who we want now. They have him sharing his jersey number (siposs) so the writing appears to be on the wall. Maybe we take a look at Punt God? I would love to.

Punt God has a rape case against him. He was cleared but talking to some people there's fear this wasn't a one time incident and if signed other victims might come out
 
W1: @ NE L
W2: MIN (TNF) UGLY Win thats not convincing
W3: @ TB (MNF) L TB has a good defense still
W4: WSH W
W5: @ LAR I think this game is closer then people think. Rams had a ton of injuries but not much sustainable D. I think this is a W but closer then people think
W6: @ NYJ This one could go either way. Win
W7: MIA (SNF) MIA has a stout defense. Either way on this one L
W8: @ WSH W
W9: DAL W
W10: BYE
W11: @ KC (MNF) In KC coming off a bye Andy off a Bye too. L
W12: BUF This could be a loss too
W13: SF W
W14: @ DAL (SNF?) L
W15: @ SEA L
W16: NYG (Xmas Monday) W
W17: ARI (NYE) W
W18: @ NYG W

1O-7 but with a few wins or Ls either way. We could be 9-8 or 11-6. Just matter if we stay healthy and how long the SB Loss hangover stays. Also some guys will progress back to their norm it's up to others to step up and or reach their potential
So taking the under on 10.5 wins that Vegas has. Not completely out of the realm of possibilities. I will wait until after TC to make a records prediction as I feel we got more roster moves to be made.

Considering how bad we do in Florida if that MIAMI game was in FL I would put that as a definite L. I just put that as an L for now considering MIA got better then last year defensively. The Eagles will be coming off an emotional win vs the Jets in prime town 4:25 slot. Then come back and play MIA on SNF the next week. I think a lot of people underestimate MIA especially if Healthy and they added Jalen Ramsey this past offseason.
 
Are we gonna get a new punter? Hated the guy we had last year
Siposs was pretty good. It was kern who was siposs’s injury replacement who was terrible.

Thats right. So Sipnoss is still on the team i guess
They both stunk, Kern just stunk more. They signed a UDFA to compete, Ty Zentner.
Siposs was actually in top half i think based on the "Puntalitic" guys
He was good at pinning, but stunk at booming. Considering the team goes for it on 4th down so often, the pinning opportunities aren't as common. Plus as mentioned the choke job in the SB. he did the same thing the previous season against TB in the playoffs. Personally, I've seen enough.
I'm with you 100%. We are going for it on 4th down unless we are inside the 35 yard line, so the guys that can really boom the kick is who we want now. They have him sharing his jersey number (siposs) so the writing appears to be on the wall. Maybe we take a look at Punt God? I would love to.

Punt God has a rape case against him. He was cleared but talking to some people there's fear this wasn't a one time incident and if signed other victims might come out
He doesn't have a rape case against him. They found out she was making the story up and he wasn't even THERE at the time it happened. My god.
 

Punt God has a rape case against him. He was cleared but talking to some people there's fear this wasn't a one time incident and if signed other victims might come out
He doesn't have a rape case against him. They found out she was making the story up and he wasn't even THERE at the time it happened. My god.

Eh, you're both being misleading. (although Djax quite a bit more so). He currently has the same rape case against he did previously, the civil suit. That is still pending. There are no criminal charges pending, and the university cleared him. But yes, witnesses said Ariaza had left before the encounter occurred. Stating they "found out she was making it up" might be overstating it a little? But not much tbh, there were quite a few videos and prosecutors have said the videos make it look consensual. Most likely scenario is less of a "making it up" scenario, and probably more of "she was too drunk to remember", but regardless the encounters look way more like sex with a drunk willing woman and very little like rape.

I have no idea why fear about "other victims" would be a factor. They should absolutely look at signing him, from all accounts he did nothing wrong unless you're in a purity cult.
 
Eagles Starters PFF Grades (https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-projecting-all-32-nfl-starting-lineups-ahead-of-the-2023-season)

PHILADELPHIA EAGLES

OFFENSEDEFENSE
QB Jalen Hurts (88.2)DI Fletcher Cox (60.2)
RB D’Andre Swift (78.1)DI Jalen Carter (92.3*)
RB Kenneth Gainwell (63.5)Edge Haason Reddick (84.6)
WR A.J. Brown (87.7)Edge Brandon Graham (89.8)
WR DeVonta Smith (80.4)Edge Josh Sweat (83.8)
WR Olamide Zaccheaus (64.6)LB Nakobe Dean (78.6)
TE Dallas Goedert (78.2)LB Nicholas Morrow (54.0)
LT Jordan Mailata (81.7)CB James Bradberry (71.7)
LG Landon Dickerson (72.1)CB Darius Slay (73.1)
C Jason Kelce (89.4)CB Avonte Maddox (72.2)
RG Cam Jurgens (72.7)S Reed Blankenship (79.4)
RT Lane Johnson (84.8)S Terrell Edmunds (69.1)
 

Punt God has a rape case against him. He was cleared but talking to some people there's fear this wasn't a one time incident and if signed other victims might come out
He doesn't have a rape case against him. They found out she was making the story up and he wasn't even THERE at the time it happened. My god.

Eh, you're both being misleading. (although Djax quite a bit more so). He currently has the same rape case against he did previously, the civil suit. That is still pending. There are no criminal charges pending, and the university cleared him. But yes, witnesses said Ariaza had left before the encounter occurred. Stating they "found out she was making it up" might be overstating it a little? But not much tbh, there were quite a few videos and prosecutors have said the videos make it look consensual. Most likely scenario is less of a "making it up" scenario, and probably more of "she was too drunk to remember", but regardless the encounters look way more like sex with a drunk willing woman and very little like rape.

I have no idea why fear about "other victims" would be a factor. They should absolutely look at signing him, from all accounts he did nothing wrong unless you're in a purity cult.
From what I read her friends stated she wasn't drunk. Also the civil suit is a last gasp effort to recoup some money from lying. She'll face no repurcussions and Araiza will be lucky to have a career let alone ever clear his name.
 
Looks like the "Haason Reddick Wrecked Us" rule got passed. Teams can now waste an extra spot on emergency QB on gameday if they want. In summary, 1 out of 2 "Eagles too good" rules were passed this year.

Haason Reddick Wrecked Us: Pass
Jalen Hurts is unstoppable with push the tush: failed
 
Looks like the "Haason Reddick Wrecked Us" rule got passed. Teams can now waste an extra spot on emergency QB on gameday if they want. In summary, 1 out of 2 "Eagles too good" rules were passed this year.

Haason Reddick Wrecked Us: Pass
Jalen Hurts is unstoppable with push the tush: failed

the wrecked us rule could end up helping us. not really that upset about that
 
Looks like the "Haason Reddick Wrecked Us" rule got passed. Teams can now waste an extra spot on emergency QB on gameday if they want. In summary, 1 out of 2 "Eagles too good" rules were passed this year.

Haason Reddick Wrecked Us: Pass
Jalen Hurts is unstoppable with push the tush: failed

the wrecked us rule could end up helping us. not really that upset about that
Oh yeah not upset at all. If you wanna carry 3 QB's, go for it! Just makes the roster overall weaker if teams are actively keeping a backup to the backup around.
 
Stolen form the 49ers thread.

The Brock Purdy rule has passed.

Per Rapsheet:

The NFL bylaw on allowing a third QB to be active without burning a roster spot was approved, per source.

i guess the 9er fans will be pissed if we call it the Reddick Rule.
 
Stolen form the 49ers thread.

The Brock Purdy rule has passed.

Per Rapsheet:

The NFL bylaw on allowing a third QB to be active without burning a roster spot was approved, per source.

i guess the 9er fans will be pissed if we call it the Reddick Rule.
Um, we dont care what you call it. Myself, I really couldnt care less about the rule, I just posted it because it's news.

If any team is down to QB3 on game day, good luck.
 
Stolen form the 49ers thread.

The Brock Purdy rule has passed.

Per Rapsheet:

The NFL bylaw on allowing a third QB to be active without burning a roster spot was approved, per source.

i guess the 9er fans will be pissed if we call it the Reddick Rule.
Um, we dont care what you call it. Myself, I really couldnt care less about the rule, I just posted it because it's news.

If any team is down to QB3 on game day, good luck.

Yup. The 49ers probably weren't beating us with Brock Purdy. They certainly weren't beating us with Josh Johnson. They absolutely, positively weren't beating us with an emergency QB3.
 
Stolen form the 49ers thread.

The Brock Purdy rule has passed.

Per Rapsheet:

The NFL bylaw on allowing a third QB to be active without burning a roster spot was approved, per source.

i guess the 9er fans will be pissed if we call it the Reddick Rule.
Um, we dont care what you call it. Myself, I really couldnt care less about the rule, I just posted it because it's news.

If any team is down to QB3 on game day, good luck.
This is true. Unless its Brock Purdy and the opponent is the Cowboys. The its an easy W.
 
Not sure I understand the 3rd QB thing...there is no positional limit on game day rosters now, is there? IE: If a team wants to have 4 or 5 Qbs on their game day roster they can.

There has to be more to the rule
 
Not sure I understand the 3rd QB thing...there is no positional limit on game day rosters now, is there? IE: If a team wants to have 4 or 5 Qbs on their game day roster they can.

There has to be more to the rule
I think its "a free roster spot" so you can carry 47 players on gameday if you carry 3 QBs.
 
Stolen form the 49ers thread.

The Brock Purdy rule has passed.

Per Rapsheet:

The NFL bylaw on allowing a third QB to be active without burning a roster spot was approved, per source.

i guess the 9er fans will be pissed if we call it the Reddick Rule.
Um, we dont care what you call it. Myself, I really couldnt care less about the rule, I just posted it because it's news.

If any team is down to QB3 on game day, good luck.

Yup. The 49ers probably weren't beating us with Brock Purdy.
Disagree 100%, but we will never know.

Can't wait for week 13. Redemption is always sweet.
 
Stolen form the 49ers thread.

The Brock Purdy rule has passed.

Per Rapsheet:

The NFL bylaw on allowing a third QB to be active without burning a roster spot was approved, per source.

i guess the 9er fans will be pissed if we call it the Reddick Rule.
Um, we dont care what you call it. Myself, I really couldnt care less about the rule, I just posted it because it's news.

If any team is down to QB3 on game day, good luck.

Yup. The 49ers probably weren't beating us with Brock Purdy.
Disagree 100%, but we will never know.

Can't wait for week 13. Redemption is always sweet.
Not trying to dig up old stuff, but do you honestly '100%" believe that SF would have won that game if Purdy didn't get hurt? It was a pretty dominating win... Purdy wasn't putting up 4 more TD's than they did against that defense.
 
Stolen form the 49ers thread.

The Brock Purdy rule has passed.

Per Rapsheet:

The NFL bylaw on allowing a third QB to be active without burning a roster spot was approved, per source.

i guess the 9er fans will be pissed if we call it the Reddick Rule.
Um, we dont care what you call it. Myself, I really couldnt care less about the rule, I just posted it because it's news.

If any team is down to QB3 on game day, good luck.

Yup. The 49ers probably weren't beating us with Brock Purdy.
Disagree 100%, but we will never know.

Can't wait for week 13. Redemption is always sweet.
Not trying to dig up old stuff, but do you honestly '100%" believe that SF would have won that game if Purdy didn't get hurt? It was a pretty dominating win... Purdy wasn't putting up 4 more TD's than they did against that defense.
Ya know, its hard to tell. The Eagles "were" the favorite in the game. Its similar IMO to when the Cowboys beat us with Minshew. I got all kinds of Cowboys fans *still* celebrating that victory against us with stuff like "We shredded ya'll defense" and my point is "well ya know Hurts wouldn't have turned the ball over 3x like Minshew did either"

I think most 49ers fans would tend to agree with this a little bit. There were just some bad errors once Purdy got knocked out like when Josh Johnson I believe just fumbled a snap. Purdy did have a 100% completion rate before he got knocked out, albeit it was just 23 yards.

But with that said "its not" going to be a total rematch. They have Hargrave now and we don't have the same 2 safeties or same 2 linebackers, but it should be a good game. Its one of the games I want to attend this year, I think I might be able to get to 2 this year.
 
Stolen form the 49ers thread.

The Brock Purdy rule has passed.

Per Rapsheet:

The NFL bylaw on allowing a third QB to be active without burning a roster spot was approved, per source.

i guess the 9er fans will be pissed if we call it the Reddick Rule.
Um, we dont care what you call it. Myself, I really couldnt care less about the rule, I just posted it because it's news.

If any team is down to QB3 on game day, good luck.

Yup. The 49ers probably weren't beating us with Brock Purdy.
Disagree 100%, but we will never know.

Can't wait for week 13. Redemption is always sweet.
Not trying to dig up old stuff, but do you honestly '100%" believe that SF would have won that game if Purdy didn't get hurt? It was a pretty dominating win... Purdy wasn't putting up 4 more TD's than they did against that defense.
All I know is it could have went either way had Purdy not got hurt.

Do I believe the 49ers would have won? Absolutely. Do I think the Eagles could have won? Absolutely.

I don't know where yall are hearing/seeing that 49er fans are saying that it would have been a slam dunk win.

It was dominating Eagles win because the 49ers didn't have a QB and the defense was gassed because the offense couldn't stay on the field or sustain drives. The Eagles ran 74 offensive plays. The 49ers offense ran 46. That's a huge difference.

Had Purdy not got hurt, I think it would have come down to a FG to win (or at least be a 3-4 point game). Nobody will ever convince me otherwise.
 
Last edited:
I don't know where yall are hearing/seeing that 49er fans are saying that it would have been a slam dunk win.
Snot: "The 49ers probably weren't beating us with Brock Purdy."

Your response: "I 100% Disagree"

100% is fairly 'slam dunk' to me.
I disagreed with "probably weren't beating us", and as I just posted, I think the 49ers would have won, but also just said it could have went either way and that the Eagles could have still won.

Your 100% is much different than mine.
 
Stolen form the 49ers thread.

The Brock Purdy rule has passed.

Per Rapsheet:

The NFL bylaw on allowing a third QB to be active without burning a roster spot was approved, per source.

i guess the 9er fans will be pissed if we call it the Reddick Rule.
Um, we dont care what you call it. Myself, I really couldnt care less about the rule, I just posted it because it's news.

If any team is down to QB3 on game day, good luck.

Yup. The 49ers probably weren't beating us with Brock Purdy.
Disagree 100%, but we will never know.

Can't wait for week 13. Redemption is always sweet.
Not trying to dig up old stuff, but do you honestly '100%" believe that SF would have won that game if Purdy didn't get hurt? It was a pretty dominating win... Purdy wasn't putting up 4 more TD's than they did against that defense.
All I know is it could have went either way had Purdy not got hurt.

Do I believe the 49ers would have won? Absolutely. Do I think the Eagles could have won? Absolutely.

I don't know where yall are hearing/seeing that 49er fans are saying that it would have been a slam dunk win.

It was dominating Eagles win because the 49ers didn't have a QB and the defense was gassed because the offense couldn't stay on the field or sustain drives. The Eagles ran 74 offensive plays. The 49ers offense ran 46. That's a huge difference.

Had Purdy not got hurt, I think it would have come down to a FG to win (or at least be a 3-4 point game). Nobody will ever convince me otherwise.

49ers never even saw the offense cause the eagles controlled the game the whole way. When the eagles win by 2 + scores again maybe you will pay the proper respect to your betters!
 
49ers never even saw the offense cause the eagles controlled the game the whole way. When the eagles win by 2 + scores again maybe you will pay the proper respect to your betters!
The game was tied 7-7 with 2 minutes left in the first half before the wheels came off for SF. To say PHI controlled the game the whole way is absurd.
 
I don't know where yall are hearing/seeing that 49er fans are saying that it would have been a slam dunk win.
Snot: "The 49ers probably weren't beating us with Brock Purdy."

Your response: "I 100% Disagree"

100% is fairly 'slam dunk' to me.
I disagreed with "probably weren't beating us", and as I just posted, I think the 49ers would have won, but also just said it could have went either way and that the Eagles could have still won.

Your 100% is much different than mine.
I find the idea that the 49ers would have won with Purdy a little ..... problematic. Eagles Defense had been play9ing well, and the offense rolled in that game.
 
The game was tied 7-7 with 2 minutes left in the first half before the wheels came off for SF. To say PHI controlled the game the whole way is absurd.
This is such a horrible take. Your defense collapsed the 2nd half.
Yeah, it did. But it was a game right up til almost halftime, so you saying the Eagles controlled the whole game is, like I said, absurd. But whatever, it's ancient history, I'm on to the upcoming season now.
 
The game was tied 7-7 with 2 minutes left in the first half before the wheels came off for SF. To say PHI controlled the game the whole way is absurd.
This is such a horrible take. Your defense collapsed the 2nd half.
Yeah, it did. But it was a game right up til almost halftime, so you saying the Eagles controlled the whole game is, like I said, absurd. But whatever, it's ancient history, I'm on to the upcoming season now.

Seahawks are winning your division by 2 games
 
49ers never even saw the offense cause the eagles controlled the game the whole way. When the eagles win by 2 + scores again maybe you will pay the proper respect to your betters!
The game was tied 7-7 with 2 minutes left in the first half before the wheels came off for SF. To say PHI controlled the game the whole way is absurd.

That's an unfair assessment of the situation. The 49ers tied the score with 8:29 left in the second. The VERY NEXT SERIES the Eagles went on a 14 play, 75 yard drive that lasted 6;53. They controlled the clock and had possession for almost the entire first half. They had the ball for 9:27 seconds in the first quarter and 9:23 seconds in the second quarter. Once Purdy went out, and after seeing Johnson in the first couple of series, there was no fear that the 49ers would be able score enough points to win the game. The Eagles just decided to run the ball down the 49ers throat and the 49ers couldn't stop it.

But enough of that game, it's over, the Eagles won. My point was that if a team needs to go to their emergency quarterback, then things have gone terribly, terribly wrong in the game and you probably aren't winning. You could roster 10 quarterbacks at that point and it won't matter.
 
Thing is, this rule won't change much for a lot of teams. It expands gameday rosters only, so if a team only carries 2 QBs, like many do (and stash a 3rd on the practice squad) then this won't help. In SF case they had a third, but it was Jimmy G who was still injured I believe. Most teams get more value over a position player than a 3rd QB on the roster, especially since QBs worthy of rostering are so rare. Now if they expanded it to a 54-man roster, but the 54th has to be a QB in addition to what they did, that would make more sense and actually be helpful. This is a half measure to address the whining.
 
Thing is, this rule won't change much for a lot of teams. It expands gameday rosters only, so if a team only carries 2 QBs, like many do (and stash a 3rd on the practice squad) then this won't help. In SF case they had a third, but it was Jimmy G who was still injured I believe. Most teams get more value over a position player than a 3rd QB on the roster, especially since QBs worthy of rostering are so rare. Now if they expanded it to a 54-man roster, but the 54th has to be a QB in addition to what they did, that would make more sense and actually be helpful. This is a half measure to address the whining.
So going in the time machine, who would have been the 3rd QB to make the difference after Josh Johnson went out?
 
Thing is, this rule won't change much for a lot of teams. It expands gameday rosters only, so if a team only carries 2 QBs, like many do (and stash a 3rd on the practice squad) then this won't help. In SF case they had a third, but it was Jimmy G who was still injured I believe. Most teams get more value over a position player than a 3rd QB on the roster, especially since QBs worthy of rostering are so rare. Now if they expanded it to a 54-man roster, but the 54th has to be a QB in addition to what they did, that would make more sense and actually be helpful. This is a half measure to address the whining.
So going in the time machine, who would have been the 3rd QB to make the difference after Josh Johnson went out?
Don't even care about that, but no one. Not sure they even had a QB on the practice squad. But if my idea to force a 3rd one was in play, then even a bum QB is better than nothing and running every play.

And I just read that the original proposal was to allow the 3d QB to also be from the practice squad, which was a good idea, but for some dumb reason the rule that went into place says must be on the 53. The NFL is so dumb. Maybe it's my cranky old man talking, but I seem to hate it more every day. Like Amazon Prime games and flexing Thursday night games. Get off my lawn!
 
Thing is, this rule won't change much for a lot of teams. It expands gameday rosters only, so if a team only carries 2 QBs, like many do (and stash a 3rd on the practice squad) then this won't help. In SF case they had a third, but it was Jimmy G who was still injured I believe. Most teams get more value over a position player than a 3rd QB on the roster, especially since QBs worthy of rostering are so rare. Now if they expanded it to a 54-man roster, but the 54th has to be a QB in addition to what they did, that would make more sense and actually be helpful. This is a half measure to address the whining.
So going in the time machine, who would have been the 3rd QB to make the difference after Josh Johnson went out?
Don't even care about that, but no one. Not sure they even had a QB on the practice squad. But if my idea to force a 3rd one was in play, then even a bum QB is better than nothing and running every play.

And I just read that the original proposal was to allow the 3d QB to also be from the practice squad, which was a good idea, but for some dumb reason the rule that went into place says must be on the 53. The NFL is so dumb. Maybe it's my cranky old man talking, but I seem to hate it more every day. Like Amazon Prime games and flexing Thursday night games. Get off my lawn!

I think the 49ers players and fanbase really, truly believe(d) that if they had a guy, any guy who identified as a quarterback, no matter how bad, they would have still been able to win that NFC Championship game. It was going to be tough for them to win that game with a healthy Brock Purdy.
 
Thing is, this rule won't change much for a lot of teams. It expands gameday rosters only, so if a team only carries 2 QBs, like many do (and stash a 3rd on the practice squad) then this won't help. In SF case they had a third, but it was Jimmy G who was still injured I believe. Most teams get more value over a position player than a 3rd QB on the roster, especially since QBs worthy of rostering are so rare. Now if they expanded it to a 54-man roster, but the 54th has to be a QB in addition to what they did, that would make more sense and actually be helpful. This is a half measure to address the whining.
So going in the time machine, who would have been the 3rd QB to make the difference after Josh Johnson went out?
Don't even care about that, but no one. Not sure they even had a QB on the practice squad. But if my idea to force a 3rd one was in play, then even a bum QB is better than nothing and running every play.

And I just read that the original proposal was to allow the 3d QB to also be from the practice squad, which was a good idea, but for some dumb reason the rule that went into place says must be on the 53. The NFL is so dumb. Maybe it's my cranky old man talking, but I seem to hate it more every day. Like Amazon Prime games and flexing Thursday night games. Get off my lawn!

I think the 49ers players and fanbase really, truly believe(d) that if they had a guy, any guy who identified as a quarterback, no matter how bad, they would have still been able to win that NFC Championship game. It was going to be tough for them to win that game with a healthy Brock Purdy.
Could be, but like I said I don't care. They also seem ready to crown Purdy as a HoFer after a few games, so whatever. That was last year, I'm all about looking forward and what makes sense to make football better. Unfortunately, owners only care about making more money and trying to look good so make token changes that do nothing. I'm bitter.
 
I think the 49ers players and fanbase really, truly believe(d) that if they had a guy, any guy who identified as a quarterback, no matter how bad, they would have still been able to win that NFC Championship game
I dont know a single 49er fan who thinks or thought that. I dont even know why the rule was proposed, it wouldnt have made any difference in that game. We were already on QB3 since week 13.

Once Purdy went down, we had zero chance to win with Josh Johnson. The only other QBs on the roster that could have helped were on IR.
 
I think the 49ers players and fanbase really, truly believe(d) that if they had a guy, any guy who identified as a quarterback, no matter how bad, they would have still been able to win that NFC Championship game
I dont know a single 49er fan who thinks or thought that. I dont even know why the rule was proposed, it wouldnt have made any difference in that game. We were already on QB3 since week 13.

Once Purdy went down, we had zero chance to win with Josh Johnson. The only other QBs on the roster that could have helped were on IR.

I'll say this about Purdy and the SF 49ers, history was not on his/their side that day. Rookie quarterbacks making it to the championship game had NEVER won (0-4). Those QBS had an average margin of defeat of 10 points. Had thrown for an average of less than 200 yards per game. And in total had thrown 4 TDs and 9 INTS in those games.

https://ninerswire.usatoday.com/lists/nfc-afc-championship-rookie-qb-starter-brock-purdy/

You can now add Brock Purdy to the list of rookie QBs who couldn't get the job done.
 
It would have been a closer game if Purdy didn't get hurt because he could throw. No guarantee he doesn't get hurt again later in the game though. Once the Eagles knew they didn't have to defend the pass they just stacked for the run. No pass rush or blitzing. If we were still bringing it, Purdy still could have got hurt later.
 
It would have been a closer game if Purdy didn't get hurt because he could throw. No guarantee he doesn't get hurt again later in the game though. Once the Eagles knew they didn't have to defend the pass they just stacked for the run. No pass rush or blitzing. If we were still bringing it, Purdy still could have got hurt later.

Eagles stopped throwing on offense too. Then just ran the ball the entire second half. I think they attempted 6 passes in the 3rd and 4th quarter. They were up 21-7 at half and said, they can't score, let's shorten the game. If the Eagles had kept the guns blazing they might have put up 40 on the 49ers.
 
I dont know a single 49er fan who thinks or thought that. I dont even know why the rule was proposed, it wouldnt have made any difference in that game. We were already on QB3 since week 13.
The bolded is where I think most Eagles fans are coming from. The rule doesn't address losing Purdy. It's not like there were 2 more Purdy's on the bench and once the 2nd one went down you the 3rd Purdy was there, but off-limits. Allowing a team to go to QB3 (or in SF's case, QB5) when they otherwise wouldn't have been able to doesn't really change the fact that you're (at least) 3 QBs into your depth chart at that point.

But there's absolutely SF fans (and players and coaches, as well as other fans and pundits) that bemoaned the fact they didn't have a 3rd QB to go to and how it cost them a chance to compete and/or win the game. It's what drove the rule change.
 
I dont know a single 49er fan who thinks or thought that. I dont even know why the rule was proposed, it wouldnt have made any difference in that game. We were already on QB3 since week 13.
The bolded is where I think most Eagles fans are coming from. The rule doesn't address losing Purdy. It's not like there were 2 more Purdy's on the bench and once the 2nd one went down you the 3rd Purdy was there, but off-limits. Allowing a team to go to QB3 (or in SF's case, QB5) when they otherwise wouldn't have been able to doesn't really change the fact that you're (at least) 3 QBs into your depth chart at that point.

But there's absolutely SF fans (and players and coaches, as well as other fans and pundits) that bemoaned the fact they didn't have a 3rd QB to go to and how it cost them a chance to compete and/or win the game. It's what drove the rule change.
And it's on the idiot coach who thought have an extra OL instead of 3rd QB in the NFCC was a good idea.
 
I dont know a single 49er fan who thinks or thought that. I dont even know why the rule was proposed, it wouldnt have made any difference in that game. We were already on QB3 since week 13.
The bolded is where I think most Eagles fans are coming from. The rule doesn't address losing Purdy. It's not like there were 2 more Purdy's on the bench and once the 2nd one went down you the 3rd Purdy was there, but off-limits. Allowing a team to go to QB3 (or in SF's case, QB5) when they otherwise wouldn't have been able to doesn't really change the fact that you're (at least) 3 QBs into your depth chart at that point.

But there's absolutely SF fans (and players and coaches, as well as other fans and pundits) that bemoaned the fact they didn't have a 3rd QB to go to and how it cost them a chance to compete and/or win the game. It's what drove the rule change.
And it's on the idiot coach who thought have an extra OL instead of 3rd QB in the NFCC was a good idea.
They didn't have one. I looked at their roster history, they didn't even have a QB on the PS. They knew this was the end of their rope w Purdy/Johnson, b/c ya know, not a lot of quality QB's available week 14 or so of any given NFL season. I guess the play this year is to have Purdy/Darnold/Lance and some guy named Brandon Allen all get reps to make sure they are ready when/if they need to go to QB4.
 
Thing is, this rule won't change much for a lot of teams. It expands gameday rosters only, so if a team only carries 2 QBs, like many do (and stash a 3rd on the practice squad) then this won't help. In SF case they had a third, but it was Jimmy G who was still injured I believe. Most teams get more value over a position player than a 3rd QB on the roster, especially since QBs worthy of rostering are so rare. Now if they expanded it to a 54-man roster, but the 54th has to be a QB in addition to what they did, that would make more sense and actually be helpful. This is a half measure to address the whining.
So going in the time machine, who would have been the 3rd QB to make the difference after Josh Johnson went out?
Don't even care about that, but no one. Not sure they even had a QB on the practice squad. But if my idea to force a 3rd one was in play, then even a bum QB is better than nothing and running every play.

And I just read that the original proposal was to allow the 3d QB to also be from the practice squad, which was a good idea, but for some dumb reason the rule that went into place says must be on the 53. The NFL is so dumb. Maybe it's my cranky old man talking, but I seem to hate it more every day. Like Amazon Prime games and flexing Thursday night games. Get off my lawn!
Not a fan of flexing to Thursdays at all, let alone switching from regular network to streaming service only. Big thumbs down to the NFL on this one. TERRIBLE for fans who like to actually go to games, and not a fan of forcing Amazon down our throats
 
Thing is, this rule won't change much for a lot of teams. It expands gameday rosters only, so if a team only carries 2 QBs, like many do (and stash a 3rd on the practice squad) then this won't help. In SF case they had a third, but it was Jimmy G who was still injured I believe. Most teams get more value over a position player than a 3rd QB on the roster, especially since QBs worthy of rostering are so rare. Now if they expanded it to a 54-man roster, but the 54th has to be a QB in addition to what they did, that would make more sense and actually be helpful. This is a half measure to address the whining.
So going in the time machine, who would have been the 3rd QB to make the difference after Josh Johnson went out?
Don't even care about that, but no one. Not sure they even had a QB on the practice squad. But if my idea to force a 3rd one was in play, then even a bum QB is better than nothing and running every play.

And I just read that the original proposal was to allow the 3d QB to also be from the practice squad, which was a good idea, but for some dumb reason the rule that went into place says must be on the 53. The NFL is so dumb. Maybe it's my cranky old man talking, but I seem to hate it more every day. Like Amazon Prime games and flexing Thursday night games. Get off my lawn!
Not a fan of flexing to Thursdays at all, let alone switching from regular network to streaming service only. Big thumbs down to the NFL on this one. TERRIBLE for fans who like to actually go to games, and not a fan of forcing Amazon down our throats
Yeah fans that go to the games no longer matter. Its the TV companies, streaming services, the people watching at home to get lulled into advertising and then maybe the people that attend games. Its kind of messed up
 
Thing is, this rule won't change much for a lot of teams. It expands gameday rosters only, so if a team only carries 2 QBs, like many do (and stash a 3rd on the practice squad) then this won't help. In SF case they had a third, but it was Jimmy G who was still injured I believe. Most teams get more value over a position player than a 3rd QB on the roster, especially since QBs worthy of rostering are so rare. Now if they expanded it to a 54-man roster, but the 54th has to be a QB in addition to what they did, that would make more sense and actually be helpful. This is a half measure to address the whining.
So going in the time machine, who would have been the 3rd QB to make the difference after Josh Johnson went out?
Don't even care about that, but no one. Not sure they even had a QB on the practice squad. But if my idea to force a 3rd one was in play, then even a bum QB is better than nothing and running every play.

And I just read that the original proposal was to allow the 3d QB to also be from the practice squad, which was a good idea, but for some dumb reason the rule that went into place says must be on the 53. The NFL is so dumb. Maybe it's my cranky old man talking, but I seem to hate it more every day. Like Amazon Prime games and flexing Thursday night games. Get off my lawn!
Not a fan of flexing to Thursdays at all, let alone switching from regular network to streaming service only. Big thumbs down to the NFL on this one. TERRIBLE for fans who like to actually go to games, and not a fan of forcing Amazon down our throats
Yeah fans that go to the games no longer matter. Its the TV companies, streaming services, the people watching at home to get lulled into advertising and then maybe the people that attend games. Its kind of messed up
Even for folks at home, switching the DAY of a game can be frustrating. My work schedule can reach out 7 weeks from the day I put requests in. And I never work on a prime time game day. Now I won't be able to request those days off reliably, because they can change
 
Looks like the "Haason Reddick Wrecked Us" rule got passed. Teams can now waste an extra spot on emergency QB on gameday if they want. In summary, 1 out of 2 "Eagles too good" rules were passed this year.

Haason Reddick Wrecked Us: Pass
Jalen Hurts is unstoppable with push the tush: failed

Dear god can we please stop with this ******** in the bolded? DEt actually was the team who brought this rule up. No one wants to watch an NFL game where one team has a QB and the other team doesn't. This was more or less has to do with ratings plus lost $$$$ from people tuning the game out.

The push rule was more or less inconsistent. Maybe they tweak it and allow maybe one player behind the QB or 2 not three but I'm of the the team of more, if Defenders can't push off on one anther or hurled over the center why is this rule fair to allow the offense to do this. Just seems like many of the rules today are generated to create more offense to favor the fantasy and overall gamblers and the betting advertisers.

This bitching and moaning sounds like SF fans when buster posey got injured and SF bitched about runners running over the catcher. I follow soccer and a club in the Italian league just got deducted points that might cost them a birth in Europe's biggest club competition because they cooked their books but because of being on the stock market lied to investors about players taking pay cuts during the pandemic but were given back salaries in forms of bonus. The supporters are bitching how the league is out to get them and so is FIFA's governing body to keep them out of champions league. Meanwhile they are run by an owner with ties to the mafia. It was their clubs own doing.

I'm sure if this was the SF or DAL doing this you and others would be complaining about them complaining about this. I honestly can't blame fans on this when sports radio in this city has driven the woo is me mentality for yrs.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top