Do they win if Wentz played?

[xray]

No way to tell...he was only in for around 5 minutes .

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Yep, not way to tell.
But, Wentz and that offense did absolutely NOTHING with him in there. In fact, they got a lot better with his backup playing.
Who we got to hear from the announcers 73 times that he's "40 years old"
Or about how Philly had SO many injuries. Because the Hawks are playing so healthy and with all their guys. :?

 

[TreeRon]

If he doesn't get hurt on this play, it would have been another.
Post should read: Do they win if Hawks can not touch Wentz?

 

[TreeRon]

"Tag the guy down like everyone else does week in and week out."

Doesn't happen as often as you suggest. More often than not on ball carriers, everyone takes their shot.

 

[Boycie]

Nope. Pete likes to keep the games close for some reason.

 

[A.D.I.D.A.S.]

They had like 22 yards of offense right around the time Wentz was replaced he was not playing well at all, i'm going to say yes we were winning that game period. 7 sacks today .

That's like trying to judge Wilson in the first 2:30 of the first quarter. Who knows what he would have looked like but this argument is flat out silly as heyal lol.

 

[xray]

Most likely not...but on the flipside...do the Hawks win without Wilson ?....Most likely not

 

[SanDiego49er]

They play you better and harder with Wentz in the game. We can stop with this nonsense they were better off with the backup QB. Nobody is better off with a 40 year old backup QB. That's absolutely absurd. But IMO they probably still lose. Just too banged up. Even worse than you guys. But it sure didn't make their chances any better to have Wentz out and a 40 year old backup QB in. Whatever chance they had was hurt by that a lot.

 

[Donn2390]

Most likely not...but on the flipside...do the Hawks win without Wilson ?....Most likely not

Wilson played, Seattle won...
If the whole team would have stayed home, the other team would have won.. ! Makes about as much sense as you statement... Why invent situations, the game is over the best team won... Next game up..!

 

[Donn2390]

They play you better and harder with Wentz in the game. We can stop with this nonsense they were better off with the backup QB. Nobody is better off with a 40 year old backup QB. That's absolutely absurd. But IMO they probably still lose. Just too banged up. Even worse than you guys. But it sure didn't make their chances any better to have Wentz out and a 40 year old backup QB in. Whatever chance they had was hurt by that a lot.

Yea, we all get that he is 40 years old, I heard that somewhere.... He old guy was the better qb yesterday.
Woulda lost by more with Wentz. They traded off their best qb, too late to look back now,,,

 

[SanDiego49er]

They play you better and harder with Wentz in the game. We can stop with this nonsense they were better off with the backup QB. Nobody is better off with a 40 year old backup QB. That's absolutely absurd. But IMO they probably still lose. Just too banged up. Even worse than you guys. But it sure didn't make their chances any better to have Wentz out and a 40 year old backup QB in. Whatever chance they had was hurt by that a lot.

Yea, we all get that he is 40 years old, I heard that somewhere.... He old guy was the better qb yesterday.
Woulda lost by more with Wentz. They traded off their best qb, too late to look back now,,,

If I was the Eagles I would rather not get rid of Nick Foles the Super Bowl winning QB who has big size, height, stature and a very strong arm for an unproven Carson Wentz. I believe the story is he exercised an option to pay back the Eagles option and became a unrestricted free agent. So I don't believe he was technically traded. But I don't see how you can have a 6'6" 243 lb. QB with a rocket for an arm who proved to you he can win the Super Bowl in dramatic fashion and then get rid of him. For Carson Wentz because you drafted him high. It just doesn't make sense IMO. Not to me at least.

But the Economics of football are just such that you can't have two $100 million + players on your roster at QB under the salary cap. How would that work? You just can't fit all that under the cap. No way. So they made a decision. Maybe the wrong one. Who knows? I wouldn't want to get rid of him based on what I saw in that playoff and Super Bowl season. There was certainly a lot there that season at least.

 

[cymatica]

They play you better and harder with Wentz in the game. We can stop with this nonsense they were better off with the backup QB. Nobody is better off with a 40 year old backup QB. That's absolutely absurd. But IMO they probably still lose. Just too banged up. Even worse than you guys. But it sure didn't make their chances any better to have Wentz out and a 40 year old backup QB in. Whatever chance they had was hurt by that a lot.

That's actually not true. Seattle was the most injured team in the NFL by missed player time, the Eagles weren't even in the bottom 5. All of the other teams around Seattle with that stat were bottom feeders in the NFL.

It's really just pathetic how Seattle is the pariah of the NFL and gets completely disregarded on facts like this. Like how we heard SF only lost to Seattle because of their injuries, as if Seattle wasn't even more beat up.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Yeah, because we didn't hear that he was 40 years old at least 25 times during that game...…….. ukeface: