Bears fans oddly quiet about "dominating the north for the next decade”

30 minutes ago, Texas Eagle said:

If he’s not cleared he won’t be able to play at all

Yes but that scenario assumes he is cleared by next week

 

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Yes but that scenario assumes he is cleared by next week

I don’t know why but I’ve got this feeling (given how it played out as the time) that this might end up being a multiple week thing.

11 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Sure... if you think that the only way to have a successful running game is with a running QB taking big hits from opponents and putting your $50M player at risk.

 

Riddle me this Batman... why is Saquon Barkley's contract so cheap compared to a QB salary?  Is it because running backs take a ton of abuse and hits and have a limited shelf life?  And if it is, why would I want to expose my QB to that kind of punishment while investing $50M a year in him?   If that's the only way to make the running game work, then so be it, but don't put your organization in trouble by investing so much money, especially long term money in the QB.  Get a lower cost, younger version, and have more money invested in a similar style backup for when the inevitable eventually happens.  But don't put your most expensive and longest term contract player into that type of jeopardy.

 

Btw, I don't believe for a moment that Stoutland is incapable of designing a running game that can be just as effective without exposing the QB like the Eagles do.

 

This is all about the philosophy of team building, allocation of assets and protecting those assets.  I find a significant incongruity with the length and financial commitment they have made to their QB1 and the way that they design plays leaving him out there vulnerable to be hit and beat up as much as he is.  If he's worth the contract they gave him, then he needs to be better protected.  And if he's not, then they need to find a different solution with the QB position and find cheaper fodder to throw to the wolves.

So tell Hurts that because they intend to have him run the ball, they will need to discount his contact accordingly?

Also, please provide examples of the lower cost, younger versions.  Can you actually win NFL games with a poor man's version of Hurts?

I see the logic behind your concept.  But teams will always pay top dollar for a QB that can lead them to a championship.  Hurts fits that mold.

 

12 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Sure... if you think that the only way to have a successful running game is with a running QB taking big hits from opponents and putting your $50M player at risk.

 

Riddle me this Batman... why is Saquon Barkley's contract so cheap compared to a QB salary?  Is it because running backs take a ton of abuse and hits and have a limited shelf life?  And if it is, why would I want to expose my QB to that kind of punishment while investing $50M a year in him?   If that's the only way to make the running game work, then so be it, but don't put your organization in trouble by investing so much money, especially long term money in the QB.  Get a lower cost, younger version, and have more money invested in a similar style backup for when the inevitable eventually happens.  But don't put your most expensive and longest term contract player into that type of jeopardy.

 

Btw, I don't believe for a moment that Stoutland is incapable of designing a running game that can be just as effective without exposing the QB like the Eagles do.

 

This is all about the philosophy of team building, allocation of assets and protecting those assets.  I find a significant incongruity with the length and financial commitment they have made to their QB1 and the way that they design plays leaving him out there vulnerable to be hit and beat up as much as he is.  If he's worth the contract they gave him, then he needs to be better protected.  And if he's not, then they need to find a different solution with the QB position and find cheaper fodder to throw to the wolves.

On the surface that seems logical. However, if you look at a QB of this type as being comparable to a RB, which I do, with a limited shelf life, then the idea is to squeeze the maximum out of him for the time he’s under contract. Do you see him quarterbacking this team when he’s 35? I sure don’t.

That may be harsh but I think it’s realistic.

6 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

So tell Hurts that because they intend to have him run the ball, they will need to discount his contact accordingly?

Also, please provide examples of the lower cost, younger versions.  Can you actually win NFL games with a poor man's version of Hurts?

I see the logic behind your concept.  But teams will always pay top dollar for a QB that can lead them to a championship.  Hurts fits that mold.

Well, see that's the issue with the plan.   1 - I am not suggesting that they need to go with the younger, cheaper route... only that it would be a more cost effective mold.  OR, that they need to be smarter about how they use Hurts' legs by design.  I'm not suggesting that he not use his legs to escape the pocket, that would be foolish.  BUT, to use him as much as they do as a primary runner... that's a bad option.  It invites extra risk.  And we've seen it, each and every year that he's been the starter.  He's been hurt every year, and those injuries continue to happen on designed runs by him, not from getting caught in the pocket.    Part of that is his style of running, where he generally doesn't shy away from contact.  So, part of this is on him.  He needs to pick and choose his spots where he invites contact a little more carefully.  For example, the hit he took against Washington was not a 'good' decision.  He was the primary running option on 2nd and 20 and he got a nice chunk of yards, but he wanted more.  If he slides down after about 10, no contact, no injury, and a 3rd and 10 is set up in field goal range in a game that they already hold a 7-0 advantage.  But, instead he goes to try to get 15 and he dives forward, and is contacted as he's going to the ground.  And bingo, we have a concussion.

 

As for where to find the younger, cheaper options... that's the tough part of the equation, isn't it?   Of course, the flip side of that is that they could at least try to have a backup QB that fits the same mold as the starter so that when (not if) the injury takes place, the offensive game plan doesn't need an overhaul midstream.  The Eagles haven't really made that a priority, and really should be the focus moving forward if they aren't willing to revamp the way that they use Hurts.  They need to organize a single stream offensive philosophy.  The primary backup needs to be more like the starter if this is their way forward.  Mariota made some sense.  Pickett has some mobility, but that's not really a strength of his.  Tyrod Taylor would be a good option, Justin Fields would have been a better choice than Pickett in terms of keeping things more in line.   

1 hour ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

I don’t know why but I’ve got this feeling (given how it played out as the time) that this might end up being a multiple week thing.

Obviously it is very hard to tell and each case is unique but it it looked mild to me as far as these things go. 

5 minutes ago, just relax said:

On the surface that seems logical. However, if you look at a QB of this type as being comparable to a RB, which I do, with a limited shelf life, then the idea is to squeeze the maximum out of him for the time he’s under contract. Do you see him quarterbacking this team when he’s 35? I sure don’t.

That may be harsh but I think it’s realistic.

It’s very realistic.  I’ve long said Hurts would not be a QB you give a 3rd contract to.  It’s why I was so scared when there were rumors Howie wanted Russell Wilson in his 30s.  

2 minutes ago, just relax said:

On the surface that seems logical. However, if you look at a QB of this type as being comparable to a RB, which I do, with a limited shelf life, then the idea is to squeeze the maximum out of him for the time he’s under contract. Do you see him quarterbacking this team when he’s 35? I sure don’t.

That may be harsh but I think it’s realistic.

No, I think that's 100% accurate.  Of course, with that in mind, I don't see how the contract can be equivalent with the QBs that are primarily pocket passers, where the NFL has put more protections in place.  The QB on the run is a mobile bullseye, and plenty of defenders will take their shots when they present themselves and deal with the 15 yards and the potential fine without a second thought.  

McNabb was reticent to take off running... and his effectiveness, having taken far less punishment than Hurts at the same point in their careers, quickly waned and he was traded away at the age of 33, and his final year in the NFL was 35.  RGIII missed his 25 and 27 year old seasons, and was retired by age 31.  It's the harsh reality of the QB who relies so heavily on their legs.  A 35 year old starting running QB is just as much a rare sight in the NFL as a 30 year old starting RB.  It just doesn't happen.   

But, I'm even looking at the deal for the current situation.  They need a better BACKUP plan for the in-season injury which is an inevitability, season in and season out.  And I wish they had a better plan in place if they wish to use Hurts in this manner.  I don't like having to switch transmissions on the car mid-road trip.  

4 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

No, I think that's 100% accurate.  Of course, with that in mind, I don't see how the contract can be equivalent with the QBs that are primarily pocket passers, where the NFL has put more protections in place.  The QB on the run is a mobile bullseye, and plenty of defenders will take their shots when they present themselves and deal with the 15 yards and the potential fine without a second thought.  

McNabb was reticent to take off running... and his effectiveness, having taken far less punishment than Hurts at the same point in their careers, quickly waned and he was traded away at the age of 33, and his final year in the NFL was 35.  RGIII missed his 25 and 27 year old seasons, and was retired by age 31.  It's the harsh reality of the QB who relies so heavily on their legs.  A 35 year old starting running QB is just as much a rare sight in the NFL as a 30 year old starting RB.  It just doesn't happen.   

But, I'm even looking at the deal for the current situation.  They need a better BACKUP plan for the in-season injury which is an inevitability, season in and season out.  And I wish they had a better plan in place if they wish to use Hurts in this manner.  I don't like having to switch transmissions on the car mid-road trip.  

We can agree to disagree on your first point.  There’s more than one way to measure how a QB can bring a competitive advantage to your offense, and if one brings a clear advantage, he’s paid well for it.

I completely agree with your second point.  It doesn’t make a lot of sense to have a backup QB that is so different in terms of play-style.  I would like to think that if the timing had worked out better this off-season, Pickett would find himself on another team and Justin Fields would be the back up here.

13 minutes ago, McMVP said:

We can agree to disagree on your first point.  There’s more than one way to measure how a QB can bring a competitive advantage to your offense, and if one brings a clear advantage, he’s paid well for it.

I completely agree with your second point.  It doesn’t make a lot of sense to have a backup QB that is so different in terms of play-style.  I would like to think that if the timing had worked out better this off-season, Pickett would find himself on another team and Justin Fields would be the back up here.

Absolutely, but given the higher need for a functional backup QB... I prefer to keep the cost of the position fairly uniform as across the league, which means less for QB1, so that you can have the QB2 of choice.  Because while I agree with the notion that on a given field, on a given day, offenses can defeat defenses through a multiple number of options... each team deals with the same salary cap and roster restrictions.    

Shaq Barrett signed with Tampa Bay.

 

Kenny Pickett needs to use his legs some tomorrow.   He's not Jalen running with it but he can move a little.  He might need to use his wheels to get some 1st downs.

I'm also interested to see if they get to any 3rd and 1 or 3rd and inches if they try the shove play with him.

4 minutes ago, metal said:

Shaq Barrett signed with Tampa Bay.

 

🤷‍♂️.  I don't know that this is a needle mover.  

Shaq said long ago (via his wife) that TB was going to be his landing spot.  This was no surprise whatsoever.

2 minutes ago, 315Eagles said:

Kenny Pickett needs to use his legs some tomorrow.   He's not Jalen running with it but he can move a little.  He might need to use his wheels to get some 1st downs.

I'm also interested to see if they get to any 3rd and 1 or 3rd and inches if they try the shove play with him.

Honestly, Kenny just needs to lead this team to 17 points.  Without Lamb playing, the Eagles defense should be embarrassed if that’s not enough for the W.

Heck, the offense may only need 10.  The defense should score a TD of their own tomorrow 

https://www.nbcsportsphiladelphia.com/nfl/tanner-mckee-on-staying-prepared-in-the-midst-of-eagles-qb-injuries/638307/

Wish McKee was starting this week.  I know we have limited film on him but I have a feeling he has what it takes.

I hope the Bengals get in. If they didn't get robbed by the refs vs the Chiefs, they'd be favored to get in right now. Plus playoffs are more fun with Burrow. Even though with that defense, odds are they'd get bounced early.

1 hour ago, 315Eagles said:

Kenny Pickett needs to use his legs some tomorrow.   He's not Jalen running with it but he can move a little.  He might need to use his wheels to get some 1st downs.

I'm also interested to see if they get to any 3rd and 1 or 3rd and inches if they try the shove play with him.

 

Don't think you're going to see that with him playing with injured ribs.

Maybe consider running the tush push with either Gainwell or Barkley as the QB and the other as the RB.  It's not a deceptive play, the defense knows what's coming, so there's no harm in having a position player at QB on them provided they can execute it.  

Eric Allen a HOF finalist again

2 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Well, see that's the issue with the plan.   1 - I am not suggesting that they need to go with the younger, cheaper route... only that it would be a more cost effective mold.  OR, that they need to be smarter about how they use Hurts' legs by design.  I'm not suggesting that he not use his legs to escape the pocket, that would be foolish.  BUT, to use him as much as they do as a primary runner... that's a bad option.  It invites extra risk.  And we've seen it, each and every year that he's been the starter.  He's been hurt every year, and those injuries continue to happen on designed runs by him, not from getting caught in the pocket.    Part of that is his style of running, where he generally doesn't shy away from contact.  So, part of this is on him.  He needs to pick and choose his spots where he invites contact a little more carefully.  For example, the hit he took against Washington was not a 'good' decision.  He was the primary running option on 2nd and 20 and he got a nice chunk of yards, but he wanted more.  If he slides down after about 10, no contact, no injury, and a 3rd and 10 is set up in field goal range in a game that they already hold a 7-0 advantage.  But, instead he goes to try to get 15 and he dives forward, and is contacted as he's going to the ground.  And bingo, we have a concussion.

 

As for where to find the younger, cheaper options... that's the tough part of the equation, isn't it?   Of course, the flip side of that is that they could at least try to have a backup QB that fits the same mold as the starter so that when (not if) the injury takes place, the offensive game plan doesn't need an overhaul midstream.  The Eagles haven't really made that a priority, and really should be the focus moving forward if they aren't willing to revamp the way that they use Hurts.  They need to organize a single stream offensive philosophy.  The primary backup needs to be more like the starter if this is their way forward.  Mariota made some sense.  Pickett has some mobility, but that's not really a strength of his.  Tyrod Taylor would be a good option, Justin Fields would have been a better choice than Pickett in terms of keeping things more in line.   

They weren't getting fields. Chicago let him choose where he wanted to go 

Looks like Maye is coming back in after his concussion check. Josh Allen got borderline KO’d earlier this season and came back. Hurts seemed fine last week but who knows what they found in the check and now he’s out again for tomorrow. The protocol seems to be inconsistent across the league. 

1 hour ago, eagle45 said:

Maybe consider running the tush push with either Gainwell or Barkley as the QB and the other as the RB.  It's not a deceptive play, the defense knows what's coming, so there's no harm in having a position player at QB on them provided they can execute it.  

I wouldn’t trust a running back fielding a direct snap from a center in such a critical situation. I have to think the risk of a fumble would be pretty significant, at least compared to a quarterback.