NFL News

[Tom]

Austin Ekeler requests permission to seek a trade

Posted by Myles Simmons on March 13, 2023, 12:29 PM EDT

Getty Images

Could Austin Ekeler be on his way out of Los Angeles?

Though he’s been one of the Chargers most productive offensive players for the last few seasons, he might be.

Ekeler has requested permission to speak with other teams about a trade, Ekeler’s agent Cameron Weiss told ESPN’s Adam Schefter.

Ekeler is entering the last year of his contract and is set to make $6.25 million in base salary in 2023. Ekeler has been seeking a new contract but preliminary talks did not progress with L.A., which induced the trade request.

Entering the league as an undrafted free agent in 2017, Ekeler immediately displayed ability as a change-of-pace back behind Melvin Gordon. But in the last few seasons, he’s been the lead back and has been one of the most productive offensive players in the game.

Ekeler led the league with 20 touchdowns in 2021 and again led the league with 18 touchdowns in 2022. He caught a career-high 107 passes last year, though he tallied only 722 yards receiving. He also rushed for 915 yards, averaging 4.5 yards per carry.

The Chargers do not have to grant Ekeler’s request. But the club could do so to gauge the potential compensation it would get in exchange for the running back.

I would love to have Ekeler but he’s probably only got a couple years left and the compensation is probably high. I would give up Swift as part of a trade.

[Futureshock]

Eagles formally propose latest overhaul of jersey numbers, including No. 0

Posted by Mike Florio on March 13, 2023, 8:32 PM EDT

Getty Images

Two years ago, the NFL dramatically changed the range of numbers available to skill-position players. Now, the Eagles want to take it even farther.

The league has announced that the Eagles have proposed making No. 0 for all players except offensive and defensive linemen.

The proposal also would expand the range of potential numbers for kickers and punters from 1-19 to 0-49 and 90-99.

So why not double zero? Former players who wore the iconic “OO” include center Jim Otto and receiver Ken Burrough.

And, as I’ve previously mentioned on PFT Live, I once had a generic green “00” jersey from Sears. I was very proud of it. I wore it to school once, on a day when uniforms weren’t required. Then someone said, “What’s that, your IQ?”

And I never wore it again.

[Futureshock]

Chargers propose playoff seeding change that could let wild card teams host division champs

Posted by Michael David Smith on March 13, 2023, 6:44 PM EDT

Getty Images

Under current NFL rules, division winners will always host wild card teams in the playoffs. Under a proposed rule change by the Chargers, that would not necessarily be the case.

The Chargers have proposed a change to the NFL bylaws that would seed wild card teams higher than division winners in the playoffs if the division winner had a losing record and the wild card team had at least four more wins than the division winner.

That would have come into play last year, when the 8-9 Buccaneers won the NFC South and got the 4 seed, while the 12-5 Cowboys were a wild card team and got the 5 seed. When the two teams met in the playoffs, it was at Tampa Bay. Under the Chargers’ proposal, the Cowboys would have been the 4 seed, the Buccaneers the 5 seed, and the playoff game would have been in Dallas.

The Chargers themselves lost on the road in the playoffs to a team that had a better record than them, although that situation wouldn’t change under the Chargers’ new proposal. Last year the 10-7 wild card Chargers played on the road at the 9-8 division champion Jaguars, and that would still be the case in the future if this proposal is adopted. Still, it’s easy to see why the Chargers think this proposal could benefit them in future years: As long as the Chiefs have Patrick Mahomes, the AFC West is going to be a tough division to win, and the Chargers may find themselves a wild card team a lot in the years ahead.

All 32 NFL teams will consider the Chargers’ proposal, and they will need 24 teams to vote in favor of it for the rule to change.

[chemiclord]

Ope, CGVT is drivin' down to the league offices to make sure they don't approve this change.

Personally, good idea. Winning a shitty division should grant you a playoff spot, but you should have to hit the road if your opponent has a better record.

(And yes, I am fully aware that the Lions would be the first team to get bitten on the ass with such a rule change. Too bad. Want to host a playoff game, win games, not merely be in a shit division.)

[CGVT]

Once again, you are wrong on this issue.

[jaadam4]

I can see both sides of the argument. I’d probably keep it the way it is.

[chemiclord]

Yes, it's so wrong to suggest that your playoff seeding should depend on your performance, not the performance of three other teams that wouldn't even be in the playoffs.

[chemiclord]

I can see both sides of the argument. I’d probably keep it the way it is.

I'm largely fine with that proposal, even if I think it tries to split hairs too gently.

Detractors say winning your division should "mean something." I argue it does. A playoff spot. Teams like Tampa wouldn't have even made the playoffs at all if they hadn't won their division. That's their reward. Now hit the road.

They already got the benefit of getting a third of the season being filled with garbage teams inherently (not to mention whatever bottom feeders landed on their schedule from other divisions). Why should a guarantee of a home playoff game be included in that?

[jaadam4]

What happens when a division is really tough and they're strength of schedules are far more difficult than a cupcake division that has 2 good teams with 1 being the wild card?

TB was so bad last year. I get the rationale but I'm not sure that happens enough to justify a rule change for it. Normally most division leaders don't have that bad of a record.

[jaadam4]

TB was just not good

[Cody_Russell]

NFC South division winner might have a losing record again in 2023. I was thinking it’s the Saints for the taking. However, they’ve apparently lost a crap ton of players in free agency.

If Desmond Ridder is any good or competent… maybe the Falcons? The Panthers probably have the best roster, but will be starting a rookie QB. (Though, the 1st overall pick).

Bucs would be my last pick at this point. That’s easy.

[CGVT]

Fuck it. Just get rid of the divisions. Let every team in and start the lose and you're out playoffs at about week 10 or so (you do the math).

It's the only fair way to do it.

[chemiclord]

What happens when a division is really tough and they're strength of schedules are far more difficult than a cupcake division that has 2 good teams with 1 being the wild card?

TB was so bad last year. I get the rationale but I'm not sure that happens enough to justify a rule change for it. Normally most division leaders don't have that bad of a record.

Well, and that's why this debate isn't that serious. We're talking about a scenario that emerges roughly once every five years, and it really doesn't amount to much. The sub-500 division winner usually goes quietly into the night (or in rare occasions manages to win and promptly gets washed in the divisional round).

But in your scenario, well... we've seen how that usually plays out just last year with the NFC East. Good teams get good records; the difficult in-division foes are countered by those teams dominating their out of division schedules. A good team getting its record artificially suppressed by a tough schedule to the point it impacts their playoff hopes happens even less than a sub-500 division winner.

Personally, if I were resolving the issue, better record gets the home game, tiebreaker goes to the division winner. The number of times where the #2 or #3 seeded team actually has a lower record than the wild card would be so rare that you'd probably go your entire life before you saw it happen. It would really only impact that #4 vs #5 matchup with anything resembling regularity, which is inherently the weakest division winner against the best wild card team.

It's not that big of a deal, no matter how much CGVT and I might make it sound with our trolly rhetoric. (At least I hope he realizes it's all in good fun...)

[Topweasel]

With Chemic on this. Winning a division means something. It's a play-off spot.

Seeding should be based on overall performance and not eeking in over a crappy division.

Nothing looks worse than a team with a losing record playing at home to a team with a winning record. Tampa last year had the 9th (or 10th depending on time breakers I am not going to look into) record in the NFC. They still got into the playoffs and I am fine with that, they won their division. But to say the 9th or 10th in the conference should be treated like they were top 4. I think that is a step too far.

[Topweasel]

The one reason I wouldn't want to see a change. When the reverse happens. When a team does exceptionally well 12+ wins, but doesn't win their division. It's even more rare. But I do feel like their should be a penalty on not winning the division. It's a bit hypocritical. I think the the team with a losing record getting a top 4 seed is worse. But it's also not college football and being really really good but not closing out your division should cost you more than just not being in position to get the bye.