I can see both sides... but what i disagree 100% is the “organization” part he cites... no way DP did that without GM / owner approval, or he would have already been fired
The Eagles is exactly what not trying to win looks like and is in no way, shape or form similar to simply fielding a bad team like the Jets did. Sure, the Jets made deliberate roster/player decisions that weakened the team in the short term with the hopes of it paying off long term, but that still isn’t the same as deliberately not trying to win a specific game. That being said, teams deliberately rest players all of the time when it doesn’t serve their long term goals so I don’t see the problem with what he did. Now, if his players have a problem with it that’s another story.
Agree...I don’t really have an issue with a team playing young guys to see what they have. I get the Giants were pissed but honestly, they are 6-10....not really playoff worthy to begin with. it’s more of an issue with your own team and having the players out there trying to win while seeing that the coach isn’t putting his best guys out there. Not that Hurts is any good anyway....
I really was hoping the Jets WERE tanking. It turns out, they were really just that pathetic and inept to start (0-13).
What I don't understand about the Eagles' situation last night was how that can even be justified in terms of wanting to get a look at another player, which is usually what we see as justification for benching players in these late season games. You'd have to think that the Eagles' organization would still be in evaluation mode on Jalen Hurts, so wouldn't it make more sense for him to have played the whole game? Yes, he was playing poorly, but see if he has the kind of mental fortitude to gut out a poor performance and put things together in crunch time at the end when things matter most. Also, that game was as close to a playoff game as the Eagles are getting to this year, so wouldn't you want to see how Hurts can handle somewhat elevated pressure, not to mention how he does in an entire game against a very good defense? Definitely not the same thing as what the Jets and Jaguars were doing.
I mean look, everyone wants to Pooh-Pooh tanking but in a scenario where a team lands a generational talent, whom changes the organization for the better due to said tanking...suddenly everyone has amnesia about the tanking right.
The decision had nothing to do with evaluating the 3rd stringer. Maybe they didn’t want to risk Hurts getting injured, but ultimately they simply did not care about winning the game. Problem is the players do. the Jets players may have known Gase wasn’t good enough to prepare them for victory, but they likely never thought they were going out there to play hard (or as hard as they had the motivation left to do), but Gase wasn’t trying to win in return.
The difference is what Pederson did likely hurt the team more than moving up three spots in the draft will help. That wouldn't have been the case with us and tanking for Trevor.
Sorry, I don't buy that for one second. If Douglas had made moves to deliberately lose the last 3 games, the players would have known, and none of them would want to be here with JD as GM.
The eagles hate the giants the most, and they wanted a better daft position. Put it this way. NE needs us to beat the Bills in the final week in a game that meant nothing to us. Winning would cost us 3 spots in the draft and get NE in the playoffs. Would we care if we put in a 3rd stringer that game? If anything the NFL has a problem with young talent now being much more valuable then meaningless late season wins. This is affecting the competitiveness of the schedule.
Agree with this. I wouldn't have been happy if we had been intentionally tanking the entire season but once it became apparent we were in the driver's seat for the #1 pick I do think we should have done everything possible to seal the deal. Not all tanks are created equal. When you're 3-5 losses away from a TL I think you do everything you can to lose those last few games. People would make a fuss for a bit but nothing negative would ultimately come of it. We also didn't have to worry about Gase losing the players because he wasn't going to be here beyond this season anyway.
I don't buy it. we screamed to see morgan play when darnold was hurt over flacco to see the young players in a lost season. why would anyone not take the chance to evaluate a QB in a meaningless game?
Because Hurts’ isn’t established enough to not give him more playing time. It makes no sense to sit a QB that you are apparently trying to develop rather than actually develop them.
The players having a problem with it is my problem with it. I can't imagine those linebackers and defensive backs playing their balls off were OK with it. Jason Kelce sure didn't sound like he was OK with it. That franchise has been a mess since the Super Bowl anyways though. The culture is fucked.
I would despise the hiring of Pedersen as the next HC...as much as I did the hiring of Gase. I would absolutely be done with them.
it makes sense to bench a young struggling player to give another young player a shot. not like hurts was having a good game.
No it doesn’t if you still need to identify whether Hurts is your long term solution. He needs show he can play through it. Not to mention the fact that they know what they have with their third stringer — playing him only identifies how bad he is; and seeing how bad he was it is unlikely they weren’t aware if that and had some sort of hope he’d actually be good.
Tanking has become an issue that the NFL Competition Committee has to address. While I believe the Giants have no one but themselves to blame, it just looks bad. It may be time for the NFL to institute a draft lottery like the NBA or NHL.
