Official Week 17 Thread

[Ken]

What if Hurts suffered a Wentz-like knee injury in the 4th quarter of a meaningless game?

While I generally agree with the rest of your post, this part makes no sense. If that was truly the concern, then you don't play him in the 1st quarter or the 2nd quarter either.

They tanked for a higher draft pick. It happens all the time, they were just more brazen than most.

[umjewman]

While I generally agree with the rest of your post, this part makes no sense. If that was truly the concern, then you don't play him in the 1st quarter or the 2nd quarter either.

They tanked for a higher draft pick. It happens all the time, they were just more brazen than most.

Sure, they obviously tanked. My point, not stated so well, was more that Giants fans who are pissing and moaning now would not have given two shits if Hurts suffered some catastrophic injury in the 4th quarter of some meaningless game for the Eagles.

[revo]

What if Hurts suffered a Wentz-like knee injury in the 4th quarter of a meaningless game? And that hurt the long-term future of the Eagles? How stupid would that have looked? Don't the Eagles want to get a better draft pick? Same reason I don't begrudge college players sitting out bowl games after you see what happened to the University of Miami QB. Or Jake Butt for Michigan a few years ago.

You can play the what if game all you want. Also, Hurts had the two rushing TDs but was 7-20 for 72 yards and a pick. It's not like they were benching Mahomes here. In fact, they were losing when he went out of the game. Maybe this was an opportunity to get a guy who busts his ass in practice some time in an actual NFL game that he would never otherwise have. I am reasonably certain that if the Giants brought in their third string QB with the Eagles playoffs on the line, Giants fans (at least the ones I am friends with) would be laughing uproariously at the Eagles missing the playoffs.

And I'm not saying that 6-10 means they would get rolled in the playoffs, I'm saying if you want to make the playoffs, don't be 6-10 and have to rely on your primary rival to do you a favor. Just be better than 6-10 and you don't have to worry about it.

There are countless instances where a team needed another team to lose to make the playoffs. This surely isn't the first one. Saying "well, just be one win better" is a great argument to make when you're the team in first.

And while Hurts is not Mahomes, is he their starter next year? Have they definitively made that decision? Like you said, he was just 7-20 for 72 yards. Wouldn't it have made sense to continue to see how he does in big games (at least for one of the teams)? Well, at least now they know what they have in Nate Sudfeld.

And virtually every other team out of it played their starters the entire game yesterday. Matt Stafford had a thumb injury, yet he played the entire game. DeShaun Watson played the whole game. And Justin Jefferson. And Josh Jacobs. And Darren Waller. And lots of other young up and coming stars. In fact, the only starter on a non-playoff team to exit the game while it was still in contention was Hurts.

There's really no defending what they did. It was idiotic. They gave up midway through a game that had playoff implications and can -- and likely will -- alter the postseason landscape. If they didn't want to play Hurts in a meaningless game, they should have started Sudfeld.

[Ken]

Sure, they obviously tanked. My point, not stated so well, was more that Giants fans who are pissing and moaning now would not have given two shits if Hurts suffered some catastrophic injury in the 4th quarter of some meaningless game for the Eagles.

I'm about as far from a Giants fan as I could be, and I thought it was ridiculous. It's not about "pissing and moaning". It's about obviously tanking in a game that costs a team the playoffs. It was ridiculous. I was watching it as simply a "football fan" and I hated it. I wanted to see a good football game. I don't like either team but I still wanted to see a game. That's what the NFL is selling. They put this game in prime time and then one team decided to tank which made it less entertaining. That's not pissing and moaning.

As far as "giving two shits" if Hurts got hurt... clearly the Eagles didn't give two shits either or they wouldnt have started him. This wasn't about Hurts getting injured and you know it. It was tanking. Pure and simple.

[Gregg]

I'm about as far from a Giants fan as I could be, and I thought it was ridiculous. It's not about "pissing and moaning". It's about obviously tanking in a game that costs a team the playoffs. It was ridiculous. I was watching it as simply a "football fan" and I hated it. I wanted to see a good football game. I don't like either team but I still wanted to see a game. That's what the NFL is selling. They put this game in prime time and then one team decided to tank which made it less entertaining. That's not pissing and moaning.

As far as "giving two shits" if Hurts got hurt... clearly the Eagles didn't give two shits either or they wouldnt have started him. This wasn't about Hurts getting injured and you know it. It was tanking. Pure and simple.

Moving the Eagles from 9th pick to 6th.

[Ken]

Moving the Eagles from 9th pick to 6th.

That move on the trade chart is worth about the same as an early 3rd round pick. So... a free Antonio Gibson basically.

[umjewman]

I'm about as far from a Giants fan as I could be, and I thought it was ridiculous. It's not about "pissing and moaning". It's about obviously tanking in a game that costs a team the playoffs. It was ridiculous. I was watching it as simply a "football fan" and I hated it. I wanted to see a good football game. I don't like either team but I still wanted to see a game. That's what the NFL is selling. They put this game in prime time and then one team decided to tank which made it less entertaining. That's not pissing and moaning.

As far as "giving two shits" if Hurts got hurt... clearly the Eagles didn't give two shits either or they wouldnt have started him. This wasn't about Hurts getting injured and you know it. It was tanking. Pure and simple.

Well, if you wanted to see a good football game, you shouldn't have tuned into an NFC East contest

I already acknowledged it was tanking. I guess I'm not so up in arms about tanking. I honestly only watched the first quarter of the game for some DraftKings action.

[umjewman]

That move on the trade chart is worth about the same as an early 3rd round pick. So... a free Antonio Gibson basically.

I'd bench Hurts for a free Antonio Gibson. He looks like he might be pretty good.

[revo]

Even Al Michaels was exasperated with the Eagles call last night. He was visibly disgusted with the move, and even mocked Sudfeld at one point saying when he botched a pass, "And Sudfeld looking....and.....what was that??" It was embarassing.

[umjewman]

There are countless instances where a team needed another team to lose to make the playoffs. This surely isn't the first one. Saying "well, just be one win better" is a great argument to make when you're the team in first.

And while Hurts is not Mahomes, is he their starter next year? Have they definitively made that decision? Like you said, he was just 7-20 for 72 yards. Wouldn't it have made sense to continue to see how he does in big games (at least for one of the teams)? Well, at least now they know what they have in Nate Sudfeld.

And virtually every other team out of it played their starters the entire game yesterday. Matt Stafford had a thumb injury, yet he played the entire game. DeShaun Watson played the whole game. And Justin Jefferson. And Josh Jacobs. And Darren Waller. And lots of other young up and coming stars. In fact, the only starter on a non-playoff team to exit the game while it was still in contention was Hurts.

There's really no defending what they did. It was idiotic. They gave up midway through a game that had playoff implications and can -- and likely will -- alter the postseason landscape. If they didn't want to play Hurts in a meaningless game, they should have started Sudfeld.

I'm not a WFT fan at all, so I'm not arguing from first. I already acknowledged they tanked. I guess I just don't care about tanking all that much. I honestly think that if you can't even get to .500, you don't belong in the playoffs at all (and that includes WFT - they suck too). Maybe it stems from how pissed I was years ago when my fantasy commissioner made 8 out of 12 teams make the playoffs and my brother went 5-8, made the playoffs and then beat me in the finals. Bastard.

And I would defend what they did by moving up three spots in the draft from 9th to 6th. That's a big jump. I read somewhere that it's worth a free Antonio Gibson, but I can't remember where.

[Ken]

Well, if you wanted to see a good football game, you shouldn't have tuned into an NFC East contest

True.

I already acknowledged it was tanking.

But you brought up the injury thing again, which was odd since we already established that Philly didn't give a shit about his health or they wouldn't have started him in the first place. Given that we had moved past that, I'm not clear why you went with the line of "Giants fans who are pissing and moaning now would not have given two shits if Hurts suffered some catastrophic injury"

The Eagles didn't give two shits, so why should Giants fans?

I guess I'm not so up in arms about tanking. I honestly only watched the first quarter of the game for some DraftKings action.

Tanking is problematic in a sport where teams are playing "equitable" schedules to determine the best team to get to the playoffs.

Granted, you may have an issue with the divisional format, but the teams can only play under the format that they are given.

Given that format, tanking is an issue for any league. If the league is trying to present a format where the best teams in each division move on to the playoffs, then one in which a team tanks makes that problematic. WFT got in not because they were the better team or because they performed better, but because they were lucky enough to play the team in the last week who decided to tank. If they had played Philly earlier in the year, like the Giants on 12/9, then it's likely they would have faced a real opponent.

[umjewman]

True.



But you brought up the injury thing again, which was odd since we already established that Philly didn't give a shit about his health or they wouldn't have started him in the first place. Given that we had moved past that, I'm not clear why you went with the line of "Giants fans who are pissing and moaning now would not have given two shits if Hurts suffered some catastrophic injury"

The Eagles didn't give two shits, so why should Giants fans?




Tanking is problematic in a sport where teams are playing "equitable" schedules to determine the best team to get to the playoffs.

Granted, you may have an issue with the divisional format, but the teams can only play under the format that they are given.

Given that format, tanking is an issue for any league. If the league is trying to present a format where the best teams in each division move on to the playoffs, then one in which a team tanks makes that problematic. WFT got in not because they were the better team or because they performed better, but because they were lucky enough to play the team in the last week who decided to tank. If they had played Philly earlier in the year, like the Giants on 12/9, then it's likely they would have faced a real opponent.

Well, only tanked for 1/4 of the game, right? Didn't Hurts play until the 4th? And wasn't WFT winning at the time he was removed? Does Hurts staying in mean that the Eagles win? Because they weren't winning to that point.

And, I'll concede one more thing - I am stirring the pot a little bit since I am in Giants country and not a Giants fan. I would do the same if this was the Jets missing out under similar circumstances because I am also in Jets country and not a Jets fan. Also, things are getting a little tame around here with the election over. Time to get some fires burning.

[chancellor]

Well, if you wanted to see a good football game, you shouldn't have tuned into an NFC East contest

The admin can lock the thread now. Umjewman wins!

[Ken]

Well, only tanked for 1/4 of the game, right? Didn't Hurts play until the 4th? And wasn't WFT winning at the time he was removed? Does Hurts staying in mean that the Eagles win? Because they weren't winning to that point.

Eagles had the ball (obviously) and were down by 3 when Sudfeld came in. So it was definitely a game they could have won.

And, I'll concede one more thing - I am stirring the pot a little bit since I am in Giants country and not a Giants fan. I would do the same if this was the Jets missing out under similar circumstances because I am also in Jets country and not a Jets fan. Also, things are getting a little tame around here with the election over. Time to get some fires burning.

Agree, the arguments you are making aren't totally intellectually honest, it's more in jest. I get it. As I said before I'm not a Giants fan either, it's just annoying to see this in a game that knocked a team out of the playoffs. I'd truly be pissed if I were a Giants fan.

[umjewman]

Eagles had the ball (obviously) and were down by 3 when Sudfeld came in. So it was definitely a game they could have won.



Agree, the arguments you are making aren't totally intellectually honest, it's more in jest. I get it. As I said before I'm not a Giants fan either, it's just annoying to see this in a game that knocked a team out of the playoffs. I'd truly be pissed if I were a Giants fan.

I'm a lawyer, I'm not sure I know what this phrase "intellectually honest" means.