2020 NFL Thread...

Ironman92 Administrator
56,729 posts 140 reps Joined Nov 2009
Sun, Jan 3, 2021 10:53 PM
posted by mhs95_06

Washington back-up QB throws a nice punt!

Then misses a low snap. Giants fans are salty but win more and hush


Heretic Son of the Sun
20,517 posts 189 reps Joined Nov 2009
Sun, Jan 3, 2021 11:35 PM

Lol, good effort, Philly!

wildcats20 In ROY I Trust!!
29,653 posts 76 reps Joined Nov 2009
Mon, Jan 4, 2021 5:54 AM

I keep seeing that Philly threw the game. What exactly happened?

Ironman92 Administrator
56,729 posts 140 reps Joined Nov 2009
Mon, Jan 4, 2021 6:15 AM
posted by wildcats20

I keep seeing that Philly threw the game. What exactly happened?

Put in 3rd string guy who had barely hung around the league and 4 or 5 drives had a chance to tie or take lead in the 4th and the journeyman QB just couldn’t do a thing. Was so slow, no arm, lacking on instincts....it was crazy to watch.  A terrible look. Perfect chance for Hurts to show if he could do it or not. Everyone kept thinking Hurts would come back in after 1-2 horribly failed drives (int and mishandled snap/fumble away)...

Kinda had to see it


Al Bundy Senior Member
4,526 posts 37 reps Joined Nov 2009
Mon, Jan 4, 2021 10:02 AM
posted by Ironman92

Put in 3rd string guy who had barely hung around the league and 4 or 5 drives had a chance to tie or take lead in the 4th and the journeyman QB just couldn’t do a thing. Was so slow, no arm, lacking on instincts....it was crazy to watch.  A terrible look. Perfect chance for Hurts to show if he could do it or not. Everyone kept thinking Hurts would come back in after 1-2 horribly failed drives (int and mishandled snap/fumble away)...

Kinda had to see it


This stuff goes on every year. It's become a big story because a New York team is involved. In 2007, the Colts let the Titans win the last week when the Browns were trying to back in. The Dolphins could have backed in yesterday if the Steelers played all of their guys against the Browns. The bottom line is that a team has no responsibility to help another team back in.

BR1986FB Senior Member
27,923 posts 113 reps Joined Feb 2010
Mon, Jan 4, 2021 10:15 AM
posted by Al Bundy

This stuff goes on every year. It's become a big story because a New York team is involved. In 2007, the Colts let the Titans win the last week when the Browns were trying to back in. The Dolphins could have backed in yesterday if the Steelers played all of their guys against the Browns. The bottom line is that a team has no responsibility to help another team back in.

Funny part about 2007 is that the Colts almost beat the Titans with Jim Sorgi at QB. Colts started Manning but benched him early. Think it came down to a 4th down throw that Sorgi missed as the Colts were driving for a GW TD.

justincredible Honorable Admin
37,969 posts 192 reps Joined Nov 2009
Mon, Jan 4, 2021 10:25 AM

LOL @ the Giants. Don't lose 10 games and this isn't an issue.

33,369 posts 118 reps Joined Nov 2009
Mon, Jan 4, 2021 10:48 AM

There is a big difference between resting starters for playoffs (Colts started Manning because of his games started streak), and pulling them in the 4th cause they might win the game. 

Colts were always resting the starters that year to be healthy and fresh for playoffs. Eagles pulled their QB because the team had a shot to win and go from 6th pick to 9th. 

Comparing the two is honestly idiotic. 

Not that Giants can complain. No team can when you rely on someone else’s result. But the blatant tank by the Eagles I’m not sure I’ve ever seen before and it was bad.

like_that 1st Team All-PWN
29,228 posts 311 reps Joined Apr 2010
Mon, Jan 4, 2021 10:48 AM

Yeah, I was pissed in 2007 when the Colts didn't play Manning against the Titans, but I was more pissed that DA choked against a very mediocre Cincinnatti Bengals the week before. 

like_that 1st Team All-PWN
29,228 posts 311 reps Joined Apr 2010
Mon, Jan 4, 2021 10:51 AM
posted by Laley23

There is a big difference between resting starters for playoffs (Colts started Manning because of his games started streak), and pulling them in the 4th cause they might win the game. 

Colts were always resting the starters that year to be healthy and fresh for playoffs. Eagles pulled their QB because the team had a shot to win and go from 6th pick to 9th. 

Comparing the two is honestly idiotic. 

Not that Giants can complain. No team can when you rely on someone else’s result. But the blatant tank by the Eagles I’m not sure I’ve ever seen before and it was bad.

Peyton hardly played that game if you are referring to 2007.  It was actually a lot closer than I thought and I forgot that VY got hurt during the game.


https://www.espn.com/nfl/recap?gameId=271230011

BR1986FB Senior Member
27,923 posts 113 reps Joined Feb 2010
Mon, Jan 4, 2021 11:08 AM
posted by like_that

Yeah, I was pissed in 2007 when the Colts didn't play Manning against the Titans, but I was more pissed that Chudzinski having DA throw the ball 40+ times in 30-50 mph winds when Jamal Lewis had run on their defense for 220+ yards in the first meeting and wasn't being stopped in the second meeting choked against a very mediocre Cincinnatti Bengals the week before. 

Fixed
Heretic Son of the Sun
20,517 posts 189 reps Joined Nov 2009
Mon, Jan 4, 2021 11:23 AM

I mean, if we're being honest, the Philly coach had said that he wanted to get Sudfeld in as a reward for being the third-string/practice squad guy for a few years, so that was the plan all along. The part that looks bad is when you yank your young starter (in a game he didn't have good numbers, but had accounted for both touchdowns and had the team in front in the third quarter) in a very close game and replace him with a guy who didn't look like he belonged out there.

I guess, to me, it's just kind of weird/funny when a team plays to win for a good bit of the game and then, even though they're right in it, moves to essentially throw the game by giving playing time to someone whose actual ability doesn't warrant it. Even more so when the QB that gets benched is a rookie who doesn't have a lot of experience and who could probably have benefited from being in those "close games; division rivals; clutch time" situations. If anything, I thought the change was hilarious because you'd think that the concept of your new rookie starter being able to finish the season with a hard-fought win would be a good springboard into the offseason in that "this year stunk, but next year will be better!" sort of way. Playing Sudfeld is good for, uh, I guess him. But no one else.

Login

Register

Already have an account? Login