News: ESPN's Sal Paolantonio calls for NFL to investigate Eagles, coach for tanking

gjkoeppen

gjkoeppen

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,703
Reaction score
3,327
Vtwin said:
I don't know.... When we start talking about the "integrity of the game" I don't see much difference between the Steelers sitting starters including the QB and the Eagles pulling their QB.

Didn't that Steelers game have significant importance to the Browns? Would another team have benefited from a Browns loss to a Steelers team fielding it's best players? Why doesn't the integrity of the game matter in that scenario?

I'm not defending the Eagles. As a fan I want to see the best players playing every game. I just find it difficult to make a distinction between the time honored tradition of sitting starters simply because a team has nothing to gain by playing them and what the Eagles did. Hell, at least the Eagles played their starter for three quarters. The Steelers must have even less respect for the integrity of the game.
Click to expand...





Here's the difference you don't see. First the league has always turned a blind eye to teams that have already locked up a playoff spot and decide to sit starters and not risk playing them in the last game and getting injured and possibly missing the playoffs. In the eagles/WFT game the eagles were only down by THREE going into the 4th quarter. That was close enough of a game to stick with your best option which was Hurts and try to tie or win the game. Now Pederson claims he said during the week that he was possibly planning on playing Sudfeld but i think most probably assumed that if the eagles were down by 3 or more scores and had no real chance to win. What Pederson did was just intended on draft position. Now I think Pederson did say that and I also think after saying that Schwartz suddenly announced that he was going to walk away after the season because I think he no longer wanted to work for a coach that was planing on tanking. The long and short of it is there is a NFL rule that requires teams to try their best to win games and Pederson didn't do that.
.
.
 
DZSierra

DZSierra

Well-Known Member
Messages
874
Reaction score
689
catiii said:
Eagles SUCK. Dat Giants coach gets my respect.:bow:
Click to expand...

The entire NFC east sucks.

The ONLY reason why this made any news is because it was the last game of the season, it was nationally televised, and a team that wasn't even playing that night didn't get to back into the playoffs. The head coach put in a back up QB in the fourth quarter down by 3, last game of the season that had no playoff possibilities for the team. Big deal, both teams played like NFC divison champs that last night, horrible.

The NFC is so bad that people tend to forget that the Eagles weren't even out of the division race until a month ago.

All that said, the best guess is Penderson knew what he was doing and it was approved by the men above him. He'll take some flack being the head coach, but at the end of the day, that is the kind of coach an owner would want to keep if he can turn things around.

I would guess half the board here would be screaming for Pendersons head if the cowboys would of beaten the Giants in the last game forgetting that (and hate to say this) the cowboys weren't really good this year, no different than the rest of the division.

At the end of the day, I have more respect for Penderson doing something he'd know he'd take flack for doing than MM not contesting that Giants catch when even the announcers said it wasn't a catch. I mean, who in the heck was watching the replay for the Cowboys that couldn't get word to MM to throw the red flag. The play really wasn't even that close to being debatable if it was a catch as it wasn't.
 
atlantacowboy

atlantacowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
18,098
Reaction score
24,820
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Yeah, Goodell is judge, jury, and executioner. With the league bleeding revenue, pretty sure nothing is going to happen.
 
Flamma

Flamma

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,023
Reaction score
18,825
DZSierra said:
The entire NFC east sucks.

The ONLY reason why this made any news is because it was the last game of the season, it was nationally televised, and a team that wasn't even playing that night didn't get to back into the playoffs. The head coach put in a back up QB in the fourth quarter down by 3, last game of the season that had no playoff possibilities for the team. Big deal, both teams played like NFC divison champs that last night, horrible.

The NFC is so bad that people tend to forget that the Eagles weren't even out of the division race until a month ago.

All that said, the best guess is Penderson knew what he was doing and it was approved by the men above him. He'll take some flack being the head coach, but at the end of the day, that is the kind of coach an owner would want to keep if he can turn things around.

I would guess half the board here would be screaming for Pendersons head if the cowboys would of beaten the Giants in the last game forgetting that (and hate to say this) the cowboys weren't really good this year, no different than the rest of the division.

At the end of the day, I have more respect for Penderson doing something he'd know he'd take flack for doing than MM not contesting that Giants catch when even the announcers said it wasn't a catch. I mean, who in the heck was watching the replay for the Cowboys that couldn't get word to MM to throw the red flag. The play really wasn't even that close to being debatable if it was a catch as it wasn't.
Click to expand...

The hype over this is overblown. The bottom line is the Eagles had absolutely nothing to play for. Nothing. Other teams do the same thing. Does anyone think if the Chiefs were playing the Dolphins instead of the Chargers they would have done anything different? That would have cost the Colts a playoff spot.
 
Jarv

Jarv

Loud pipes saves lives.
Messages
13,158
Reaction score
7,834
jsb357 said:
vegas is mad and they want heads to roll
Click to expand...
Which is why the nfl labels themselves as a entertainment business, not a sports business so people who bet on the game cannot sue.

Sad what the nfl has become, another wwe.
 
Valkyr

Valkyr

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,781
Reaction score
2,502
This whole thing can't be good for Nate Sudafed's self-esteem.

The mere act of putting me in the game means that the team is tanking and needs to be investigated.
 
DZSierra

DZSierra

Well-Known Member
Messages
874
Reaction score
689
Flamma said:
The hype over this is overblown. The bottom line is the Eagles had absolutely nothing to play for. Nothing. Other teams do the same thing. Does anyone think if the Chiefs were playing the Dolphins instead of the Chargers they would have done anything different? That would have cost the Colts a playoff spot.
Click to expand...

My numbers could be wrong, but Hurts had a passer rating of less than 26% for 3 quarters vs the Giants. Any way you cut it, Hurts sucked. Perhaps investigate Hurts for sucking so bad so he was replaced in the 4th quarter? LOL
 
DZSierra

DZSierra

Well-Known Member
Messages
874
Reaction score
689
Jarv said:
Which is why the nfl labels themselves as a entertainment business, not a sports business so people who bet on the game cannot sue.

Sad what the nfl has become, another wwe.
Click to expand...

As I've gotten older, I have gotten another view point on "news".

The news industry relies on stories to sell.

Well, last game of the season, and a team that had nothing to play for is now making the news because all these people who need to write things to get a paycheck now have something to write about.

A horrible team that had nothing to play for inserts another QB in the last quarter because thier primary QB (who replaced Carson Weiner who now sucks, but you'd never know it for his salary and was supposed to be a "great") because their "now" primary QB, who replaced the over priced original starting QB pretty much sucked the his last game as well .

Long story short, and flame suit on, the birds suck, the little giants suck, the boys suck and the Commanders suck. The entire division sucks but the last game of the season on national TV gives something the news can write about and try to sell.

F the "Washington Football Team", they are the Commanders.

At the end of the day, why do men become millionaires to play sports? Entertainment only is the reason why they are paid what they get paid, and the revenue they can generate.
 
dreghorn2

dreghorn2

Original Zoner (he's a good boy!)
Messages
2,211
Reaction score
2,160
Vtwin said:
I don't know.... When we start talking about the "integrity of the game" I don't see much difference between the Steelers sitting starters including the QB and the Eagles pulling their QB.

Didn't that Steelers game have significant importance to the Browns? Would another team have benefited from a Browns loss to a Steelers team fielding it's best players? Why doesn't the integrity of the game matter in that scenario?

I'm not defending the Eagles. As a fan I want to see the best players playing every game. I just find it difficult to make a distinction between the time honored tradition of sitting starters simply because a team has nothing to gain by playing them and what the Eagles did. Hell, at least the Eagles played their starter for three quarters. The Steelers must have even less respect for the integrity of the game.
Click to expand...

Hey Vtwin.

I talked about the difference in my post it's the in game management that has people upset. Once you start a game you need to be trying to win that game, not noticably try to lose.

Once again i'll say, you never hear players and coaches get upset about the Steelers scenario, but you do about this one, that should tell us all we need to know.
 
Vtwin

Vtwin

Safety third
Messages
8,112
Reaction score
11,026
gjkoeppen said:
Here's the difference you don't see. First the league has always turned a blind eye to teams that have already locked up a playoff spot and decide to sit starters and not risk playing them in the last game and getting injured and possibly missing the playoffs. In the eagles/WFT game the eagles were only down by THREE going into the 4th quarter. That was close enough of a game to stick with your best option which was Hurts and try to tie or win the game. Now Pederson claims he said during the week that he was possibly planning on playing Sudfeld but i think most probably assumed that if the eagles were down by 3 or more scores and had no real chance to win. What Pederson did was just intended on draft position. Now I think Pederson did say that and I also think after saying that Schwartz suddenly announced that he was going to walk away after the season because I think he no longer wanted to work for a coach that was planing on tanking. The long and short of it is there is a NFL rule that requires teams to try their best to win games and Pederson didn't do that.
.
.
Click to expand...
I "see" and understand all that. It is 100% rationalization. I guess nowadays "turning a blind eye" equates to accepting something as righteous and good?

The "integrity of the game" expects that teams put forth their best effort. Not playing your best players simply because you don't need to is just as much a slap in the face to the "integrity of the game" than playing a starter for 3 quarters and then pulling him.

The Browns played a win and you're in game against a Steelers team which rested starters including their QB.

Explain to me how the Browns being given an easier path to the playoffs AND the negative effect on whichever team would have gotten in had the Browns lost isn't talked about as having been an insult to the "integrity of the game"?

The Steelers decision to rest starters affected the fortunes of multiple teams and somehow that is fine and dandy?

In your own words, "The long and short of it is there is a NFL rule that requires teams to try their best to win games and Pederson didn't do that".

Again, please explain to me how Tomlin tried his best to win against the Browns.
 
gjkoeppen

gjkoeppen

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,703
Reaction score
3,327
Vtwin said:
I "see" and understand all that. It is 100% rationalization. I guess nowadays "turning a blind eye" equates to accepting something as righteous and good?

The "integrity of the game" expects that teams put forth their best effort. Not playing your best players simply because you don't need to is just as much a slap in the face to the "integrity of the game" than playing a starter for 3 quarters and then pulling him.

The Browns played a win and you're in game against a Steelers team which rested starters including their QB.

Explain to me how the Browns being given an easier path to the playoffs AND the negative effect on whichever team would have gotten in had the Browns lost isn't talked about as having been an insult to the "integrity of the game"?

The Steelers decision to rest starters affected the fortunes of multiple teams and somehow that is fine and dandy?

In your own words, "The long and short of it is there is a NFL rule that requires teams to try their best to win games and Pederson didn't do that".

Again, please explain to me how Tomlin tried his best to win against the Browns.
Click to expand...




Again you still trying to use what has always been accepted as resting starters when the team has a playoff spot locked up and equating that to a team that has a losing record and no longer puts their bst players out there to win the game so it will he4lp their draft status. The need is there because there's an NFL rule that says you NEED to.
.
.
 
Vtwin

Vtwin

Safety third
Messages
8,112
Reaction score
11,026
dreghorn2 said:
Hey Vtwin.

I talked about the difference in my post it's the in game management that has people upset. Once you start a game you need to be trying to win that game, not noticably try to lose.

Once again i'll say, you never hear players and coaches get upset about the Steelers scenario, but you do about this one, that should tell us all we need to know.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree I guess, my friend.

Didn't Dak play a couple series against the Eagles then come out, in a meaningless to the Cowboys game a couple years ago? It is true there were no playoff implications on the line but there were draft order implications. Dak did start the game. Should he have finished it since he started it?
 

French

New Member
Messages
11
Reaction score
12
The only chance this investigation has is Mara's involvement. Tanking did prevent his Giants from making the playoffs.
 
Vtwin

Vtwin

Safety third
Messages
8,112
Reaction score
11,026
gjkoeppen said:
Again you still trying to use what has always been accepted as resting starters when the team has a playoff spot locked up and equating that to a team that has a losing record and no longer puts their bst players out there to win the game so it will he4lp their draft status. The need is there because there's an NFL rule that says you NEED to.
.
.
Click to expand...
You avoided my question about the Steelers/Browns and the very significant playoff implications that game had.

Steelers play the entire game short handed giving the Browns an easier path and hindering the chance for some other team to get in equals good.

The Eagles play short handed for less than a quarter giving the FT and easier path and hindering the Giants chance to get in equals bad.

I'm not seeing it bud. Once again though, I'm not defending the Eagles. Every team 'should' put forth their very best effort every game IMO. I just think it is hypocritical to call out the Eagles while other teams do the same thing while the league and the fans "turn a blind eye".

Can you please quote this rule you reference? I am not familiar with it and can find no reference to it.
 
Last edited:
gjkoeppen

gjkoeppen

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,703
Reaction score
3,327
Vtwin said:
You avoided my question about the Steelers/Browns and the very significant playoff implications that game had.

Steelers play the entire game short handed giving the Browns an easier path and hindering the chance for some other team to get in equals good.

The Eagles play short handed for less than a quarter giving the FT and easier path and hindering the Giants chance to get in equals bad.

I'm not seeing it bud. Once again though, I'm not defending the Eagles. Every team 'should' put forth their very best effort every game IMO. I just think it is hypocritical to call out the Eagles while other teams do the same thing while the league and the fans "turn a blind eye".

Can you please quote this rule you reference? I am not familiar with it.
Click to expand...





No I didn't avoid your steelesr question. I've answered it a couple of time. It's been accepted for a long time for teams, like the steelers, who have locked up a playoff spot to sit starters and not risk them getting injured and possibly missing the playoffs. i get it that you either don't get that or you don't like that but it's been done for a long time. That has nothing to do with a team with a losing record that does not try to win a game and starts to pull starters especially in a very close game just to make sure it doesn't affect their draft status. You may not like this either but there is a NFL rule that forbids that.

I'm starting to go through a PDF file I have on NFL rules. It has 192 pages and when I find it I'll let you know.
.
.
 
Vtwin

Vtwin

Safety third
Messages
8,112
Reaction score
11,026
gjkoeppen said:
No I didn't avoid your steelesr question. I've answered it a couple of time. It's been accepted for a long time for teams, like the steelers, who have locked up a playoff spot to sit starters and not risk them getting injured and possibly missing the playoffs. i get it that you either don't get that or you don't like that but it's been done for a long time. That has nothing to do with a team with a losing record that does not try to win a game and starts to pull starters especially in a very close game just to make sure it doesn't affect their draft status. You may not like this either but there is a NFL rule that forbids that.

I'm starting to go through a PDF file I have on NFL rules. It has 192 pages and when I find it I'll let you know.
.
.
Click to expand...
You really didn't address the question other than to say 'that's the way it's been done'.

Help me understand the difference from the point of view of a fan of the team that very possibly didn't get in because the Steelers didn't put forth their best effort.

Put another way, why should the fans of that team NOT be equally upset at the Steelers for not going all in on winning that game?

Thanks for trying to find the rule. My brief search found nothing other than a few references that there is no specific rule but it certainly wasn't a comprehensive search so no conclusion.
 
gjkoeppen

gjkoeppen

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,703
Reaction score
3,327
Vtwin said:
You really didn't address the question other than to say 'that's the way it's been done'.

Help me understand the difference from the point of view of a fan of the team that very possibly didn't get in because the Steelers didn't put forth their best effort.

Put another way, why should the fans of that team NOT be equally upset at the Steelers for not going all in on winning that game?

Thanks for trying to find the rule. My brief search found nothing other than a few references that there is no specific rule but it certainly wasn't a comprehensive search so no conclusion.
Click to expand...




Those team that feel they got screwed can file a complaint but it won't go anywhere because of the long history of letting playoff teams protect starters in the last game.

I did a word search in my file and didn't find anything with tank but I didn't think I would. When I do find it it will probably be worded like all teams have to make ever effort to win or something like that..
.
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top