Eagles 2022-2023 Season

zambonir 2023-01-02 17:35:47 UTC #462

So, Giants game is definitively Sunday but time still not set?

schillingfan 2023-01-02 18:37:12 UTC #463

Yes, that is my gripe with Gannon, he seems to make good adjustments, dur8ng halftime, but not during the game. I am so sick of watching the defense let the other team Mach up and down the field in the first half. Possibly his initial game plans aren’t good early. But if the quarterback is in a Ruth, you need to mess him up. I dnt think I’ve ever seen an all out blitz in the first half.

While there was a lot of blame to go around, the biggest finger should be pointed at the offensive and defensive plea calling.

xogfog 2023-01-02 23:15:23 UTC #464

Eagles vs. Giants, 4:25PM on CBS.

gmwannabe 2023-01-02 23:45:34 UTC #465

It's 2 NFC teams. Why CBS?

HopeSpringsEternal 2023-01-03 00:04:42 UTC #466

It’s good news for Eagles fans in the Washington DC area, because the Commanders-Cowboys game is on FOX in the same time slot.

zambonir 2023-01-03 01:13:06 UTC #467

I'm sure it has something to do with the lack of Monday Night Football and all the flexing in general, some slot-trading among the networks.

Philsmania 2023-01-03 18:36:44 UTC #468

Yes, there is some kind of swap arrangment. At one time last decade, the Eagles played the Seahawks in an NFC vs. NFC matchup on CBS.

xogfog 2023-01-04 00:30:49 UTC #469

With the Bills/Bengals game not going to be played this week, I don't know how they are going to handle the AFC playoff seeding. The Bills are in their own control for the number 1 seed, but they have to win both their games to stay ahead of the Chiefs. The Bills are scheduled to play the Patriots on Sunday, so if the Bills win and the Chiefs win on Saturday, the Bills would have to play the Bengals game the following week, and that means the Bengals would have to move their playoff game. It's a sad situation, but it has created a real scheduling mess.

Philsmania 2023-01-04 02:03:42 UTC #470

Why not just cancel Week 18 period?

bkeich 2023-01-04 02:42:45 UTC #471

They may be forced to do something goofy like play an overtime between the Bengals and Bills if the game is still needed to decide seating (or declare it a tie).

I can't see delaying the season (playoffs really) by a week.

zambonir 2023-01-04 03:44:19 UTC #472

Yeah option 1 in the PFT article is really the only one: top seed goes to the best winning percentage, the Bills would potentially lose out, and who cares (if we're pretending that some things are more important).

Or call it a tie (based on the loss column) and flip a coin.

andyb 2023-01-04 14:42:39 UTC #473

Just don't play it and go by winning percentage. There are more important things in life than playoff tiebreakers. Forcing players to play yet another game on some sort of tight schedule would be borderline criminal.

zambonir 2023-01-04 15:52:45 UTC #474

Yup there is literally no other option where it wouldn't look like the NFL is saying "remember when we put health and safety and player welfare first? Now we're not gonna."

The Ravens are actually the team that loses out more than the Bills potentially. They beat Cincinnati twice and would likely lose the division title by a half-game. A financial loss as much as a competitive one (but that's an issue that can be addressed).

Also having to play the game would negate the advantage of the Bills getting the bye week to begin with, even if seeding of subsequent opponent is still a factor.

phillychuck 2023-01-04 16:05:05 UTC #475

I don't know that the "there are more important things in life" argument holds much sway. Of course there are more important things, but working out a way to play the Bills/Bengals game at a later date doesn't diminish those things, and for the players on the Bills especially, not playing it would prevent them from achieving the #1 seed goal that they have sweated and sacrificed for all season.

The best proposal I've seen is week 18, followed by Bills/Bengals and the NFC first round in week 19; then the AFC first round in week 20, then move forward and eliminate the week off prior to the super bowl. That is pretty fair to all the teams involved.

andyb 2023-01-04 16:11:39 UTC #476

Forcing teams playing for a bye to play an extra game seems like it might diminish those things. Sometimes games get cancelled for weather or other reasons. Sometimes tiebreakers are not fair. That's life.

Frankly I am happy baseball no longer has game 163 playoffs to decide playoff spots. Why play a game that will put the winner potentially in an inferior position rest-wise.

Philsmania 2023-01-04 16:54:45 UTC #477

I too think that declaring the game a tie is probably the best outcome.

zambonir 2023-01-04 17:22:51 UTC #478

A compressed schedule/extra travel/more practice are all detrimental to the health and welfare of the players (which is also why rules about those things are collectively bargained). Now, I suppose it's possible both teams could vote to play, just as they essentially voted not to play.

Declaring the game a tie doesn't really matter one way or another as far as the standings (i.e. it's the same as just not counting it at all).

xogfog 2023-01-04 19:41:27 UTC #479

Except that would give the Eagles three weeks off, assuming they clinch the 1 seed.

phillychuck 2023-01-04 21:10:10 UTC #480

The "compressed schedule" argument only affects three teams, the two in the super bowl and one more only if the Bills or Bengals aren't one of those teams. AFC playoff teams get an off-week in week 19 they would not normally get, and NFC teams get the same in week 20. This schedule is LESS compressed for the other 13 or 14 teams.

I don't like the weeks off for the Eagles (it's really 2 weeks, 19 and 20) particularly. either, if they get the #1 seed, but they willl figure it out.

zambonir 2023-01-04 21:40:16 UTC #481

Do they get paid an extra week's salary?