Has there ever been a more transparent tank job?

[Thaiphoon]

30 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said:

This is nonsense. If they were so concerned about injury then they wouldn’t have played him at all. Yes it’s a meaningless game but Pederson didn’t just have an epiphany. I actually don’t really have a problem because in the bigger picture losing that game will help them but let’s not act like this isn’t sketchy and the motives lied elsewhere.

Because...work through it here...Hurts was not moving the ball outside of those 2 drives in the 2Q (agan - one of which was massively helped by officiating). Like at all. He was gifted the ball on the 15 and couldn't move it. He was not playing well. He had barely over 100 total yards of offense in 3Q and the 2nd lowest rating ever for an Eagles QB. 

Hurts was less effective the more the game wore on. So you go with someone else to see if they can do it.  And evaluate him and get tape on him.

At that point my scenario is correct. The Eagles were in a no-lose situation with the move.

[warfelg]

5 hours ago, Thaiphoon said:

I can only go by what the coach said. My point is that coaches throw backups in when young QBs struggle. And Hurts was not that good tonight. It was probably a situation where they said "well Jalen's not getting it done, let's see if Nate can do it".

Little thing, but why I wouldn't take Pedersons word for it was he said "We're trying to win the game" then a few moments later he said "we just wanted to get Nate some snaps".  You don't toss a guy in to get some snaps when you are trying to win.

[Thaiphoon]

9 minutes ago, Kiltman said:

Would it have mattered if it was for a higher pick? is Pick 6 too low to be worthy of a tank?

Doug was going for 4th downs all game, and using it to get tape on guys.

Not caring about winning so much doesn't necessarily mean tanking.

What was to be gleaned by letting hurts go out there with this banged up squad a little more?

This is what I've been trying to say.

[Thaiphoon]

Just now, warfelg said:

Little thing, but why I wouldn't take Pedersons word for it was he said "We're trying to win the game" then a few moments later he said "we just wanted to get Nate some snaps".  You don't toss a guy in to get some snaps when you are trying to win.

He's evaluating players in a meaningless game. If Nate sparks the win, great. If he doesn't, also great. But again, Hurts wasn't good last night. People need to be honest about what they saw.

[Tk3]

edit

Edited January 6, 2021 by Tk3

[SmittyBacall]

3 minutes ago, Thaiphoon said:

This is what I've been trying to say.

Trying not to win the game is pretty much just as bad as trying to lose. Don’t make me quote Herm Edwards.

[warfelg]

1 minute ago, Thaiphoon said:

He's evaluating players in a meaningless game. If Nate sparks the win, great. If he doesn't, also great. But again, Hurts wasn't good last night. People need to be honest about what they saw.

If you need 15 minutes to evaluate a guy who's been in house 5 years and has played and started for you before, maybe you need to change your evaluating process.

Besides if you wanted to lose and Hurts was playing that bad, then why replace him?

Two things can be true:

I don't blame the Eagles for wanting to lose, I wouldn't blame them for 'tanking', but also the optics of this is terrible.  Replace Hurts at halftime then.  Call a few max protects to keep him safe but limit the chances of completing passes.  Have the defense go cover-0 a few times pulling a Gregg Williams.  The optics of this are terrible and his 'justifications' are head scratching; but the end result is good for the Eagles.  And both are 100% true.

[Kiltman]

1 minute ago, warfelg said:

If you need 15 minutes to evaluate a guy who's been in house 5 years and has played and started for you before, maybe you need to change your evaluating process.

Besides if you wanted to lose and Hurts was playing that bad, then why replace him?

Two things can be true:

I don't blame the Eagles for wanting to lose, I wouldn't blame them for 'tanking', but also the optics of this is terrible.  Replace Hurts at halftime then.  Call a few max protects to keep him safe but limit the chances of completing passes.  Have the defense go cover-0 a few times pulling a Gregg Williams.  The optics of this are terrible and his 'justifications' are head scratching; but the end result is good for the Eagles.  And both are 100% true.

I think his reasoning for putting Suds in was also based in doing him a bit of a solid. Doug more than anyone can relate to riding a bench, Nate played week 17 his first year, sat the entire 2018, broke his wrist like the first preseason game in 2019 and decided to come back to Philly to be the backup in 2020, before Howie drafted Hurts a little over a month later. There was no preseason to evaluate him or give him snaps this year, if Hurts is the guy why get him injured in this meaningless game. He wasn't going to show anything to end the game they hadn't already seen.

Quote

and his 'justifications' are head scratching

Welcome to Doug. He isn't the best at using his words. He will have a much more coherent and coached answer next time he speaks.
 

[warfelg]

1 minute ago, Kiltman said:

I think his reasoning for putting Suds in was also based in doing him a bit of a solid. Doug more than anyone can relate to riding a bench, Nate played week 17 his first year, sat the entire 2018, broke his wrist like the first preseason game in 2019 and decided to come back to Philly to be the backup in 2020, before Howie drafted Hurts a little over a month later. There was no preseason to evaluate him or give him snaps this year, if Hurts is the guy why get him injured in this meaningless game. He wasn't going to show anything to end the game they hadn't already seen.

Welcome to Doug. He isn't the best at using his words. He will have a much more coherent and coached answer next time he speaks.
 

Like I said then....throw him in there at halftime.  The optics are a little better and you can easily say "we needed a spark and wanted the team to feel it".

[Kiltman]

Just now, warfelg said:

Like I said then....throw him in there at halftime.  The optics are a little better and you can easily say "we needed a spark and wanted the team to feel it".

I think it would've been worse. Like in what world is Suds a spark? ha

I get what you are saying. I just don't think Doug really thinks about optics or how things look or sound. Perfect example being how reporters almost had to coach him out of incendiary takes this year on the QB situation.

I don't remember the timing but it almost seemed like a 2nd or 3rd preseason game in how they dealt with not only the qbs, but a lot of other vets.

[Superman(DH23)]

The eagles dont anybody anything.  If this was an organizational decision then so be it, if it wasnt, I would probably fire Pederson.  Now why would I say that after saying they dont owe anybody anything?  Bc of the players.  The players definitely weren't on board.  If it was the plan all week long they dodnt seem to know about it.  Your qbotf seemed pretty dejected about it.  Maybe Pederson as a former backup wanted to get some shine on his backup that he loves.  Maybe he intentionally threw the game bc of his relationship with Alex Smith.  I honestly dont care what the reasoning was.  What I care about is what those players felt, and I would be willing to bet he lost a good portion of the locker room with that decision.  

[warfelg]

2 minutes ago, Kiltman said:

I think it would've been worse. Like in what world is Suds a spark? ha

I get what you are saying. I just don't think Doug really thinks about optics or how things look or sound. Perfect example being how reporters almost had to coach him out of incendiary takes this year on the QB situation.

I don't remember the timing but it almost seemed like a 2nd or 3rd preseason game in how they dealt with not only the qbs, but a lot of other vets.

Oh I think it was a no win situation.  17-14 at halftime making the change makes more sense than 17-14 at the start of the 4th though from a visual standpoint.  That video of Hurts on the bench is why you do it at halftime IMO.

Timing was kinda similar.  When Nate came in then so did everyone else.  If the optics were Nate comes in at halftime, then you go down 24-14, then you put in the other backups?  That's a fine looks and you go "hey I thought Nate would give a spark, then I wanted to save guys from themselves late."

[Kirill]

3 minutes ago, Superman(DH23) said:

The eagles dont anybody anything.  If this was an organizational decision then so be it, if it wasnt, I would probably fire Pederson.  Now why would I say that after saying they dont owe anybody anything?  Bc of the players.  The players definitely weren't on board.  If it was the plan all week long they dodnt seem to know about it.  Your qbotf seemed pretty dejected about it.  Maybe Pederson as a former backup wanted to get some shine on his backup that he loves.  Maybe he intentionally threw the game bc of his relationship with Alex Smith.  I honestly dont care what the reasoning was.  What I care about is what those players felt, and I would be willing to bet he lost a good portion of the locker room with that decision.  

Agree with all of this. He's definitely lost that lockeroom. And he's fractured the relationship with Wentz. He's just not cut out to be a head coach and he's clearly not enjoying his time in Philly anymore. I think him being a backup QB for like 10 years is a part of his downfall as a coach. He never got a chance to be a starter to she denied Hurts that chance to the point of insanity and then after finally starting him he benches him the first chance he gets.

[BigTrav]

7 minutes ago, Kirill said:

Agree with all of this. He's definitely lost that lockeroom. And he's fractured the relationship with Wentz. He's just not cut out to be a head coach and he's clearly not enjoying his time in Philly anymore. I think him being a backup QB for like 10 years is a part of his downfall as a coach. He never got a chance to be a starter to she denied Hurts that chance to the point of insanity and then after finally starting him he benches him the first chance he gets.

I think it's because he has Wentz over with the family for dinner. Just loves his some Wentz. 

[Superman(DH23)]

6 minutes ago, Kirill said:

Agree with all of this. He's definitely lost that lockeroom. And he's fractured the relationship with Wentz. He's just not cut out to be a head coach and he's clearly not enjoying his time in Philly anymore. I think him being a backup QB for like 10 years is a part of his downfall as a coach. He never got a chance to be a starter to she denied Hurts that chance to the point of insanity and then after finally starting him he benches him the first chance he gets.

I disagree about his relationship with Wentz.  He likely had to be forced to start Hurts as he refused to make any change even as Wentz continued to be the worst starting QB in the NFL.  Too many guys have come out against Wentz for me to believe that anybody but Wentz is responsible for that relationship being broken.  But I wonder if hes broken his relationship with Hurts now.