January 24Jan 24 10 hours ago, Swimm said: Thats great and all. Except for the fact the Eagles basically have 2#1 WRs and a great TE. Dotson is also pretty good. I'm assuming you're okay then with trading Smith or Brown in the offseason? I’d rather trade the "great” TE because he’s always injured. Get a cheaper blocking TE instead and spend the money elsewhere.
January 24Jan 24 11 minutes ago, Ace Nova said: In most cases, QB's don't "hit the big payday" until they are "proven winners". There are some exceptions and depending on the team, etc they may give them large contracts for various reasons (like seeing what their team is like when the starting QB doesn't play). And btw, Geno Smith did not get a "huge contract" he got roughly 50% of the money the top starting QB's in the NFL get on an annual basis. (25 mil per year average) I'm not saying "it's impossible" to win the Super Bowl with rookie QB's or low paid QB's - it's happened before and will likely continue to happen. The idea is that in almost all cases, the QB played at a very high level to win the Super Bowl and went on to get paid that way. What would people do if their team won a Super Bowl, with the QB playing at a high level, won Super Bowl MVP - then the team immediately trades him the following season and starts either a rookie or a backup? What would that say to the team? The fans? And what would happen if the team fell on its face the following season? You want to talk about a dumpster fire? That would be the definition of a dumpster fire. To the bolded, I didn't say that. In fact, I said after proving it by winning, they've earned the contract. I never said trade away a SB winning QB. That's ridiculous. My point was not paying average QBs who haven't won anything, and cited 9 examples of SB winning teams that had a cheap/rookie QB deal. If you need to, go back and re-read what I posted.
January 24Jan 24 4 minutes ago, NOTW said: To the bolded, I didn't say that. In fact, I said after proving it by winning, they've earned the contract. I never said trade away a SB winning QB. That's ridiculous. My point was not paying average QBs who haven't won anything, and cited 9 examples of SB winning teams that had a cheap/rookie QB deal. If you need to, go back and re-read what I posted. Hurts was given his contract after he went to the Super Bowl and played one of the best games a QB has ever played in the Super Bowl. Granted, they didn't win but had a bounce (or a call) gone the Eagles' way, they would have. So obviously Hurts deserves his contract by your standards, yes? I also edited my previous post...this is what I added: A proven way to build a perennial winner is to follow what Patriots did with Tom Brady. Get together with the star QB and say, "Listen, this is what we need to have available in terms of $$ to build a perennial winner around you. We can pay you record breaking amounts of money every year but you won't have the team that we could potentially build around you." If the QB is smart, the way Brady was - he realized that winning multiple championships and sacrificing a little money would actually not only make him a perennial winner but he would end up making even more money in the long run (even after his NFL career was over) by being a "perennial winner". Brady likely gave up millions and millions of dollars on his NFL deals but just signed a deal worth over $300 million as a broadcaster well after his retirement. Not to mention the fact that he likely had already made up from taking less than his worth from NFL contract money from endorsements alone while he was still playing.
January 24Jan 24 13 hours ago, NOTW said: There's a potential possibility here that the league may be trending toward. Unless a QB proves themselves as a top guy deserving a huge contract, teams might trend toward drafting new guys instead of overpaying for someone (Eagles were ahead of the curve on the QB factory). There are QBs with big contracts getting benched or cut like Daniels, Cousins. There are cheap QBs performing well like Darnold. There are teams in QB purgatory like the Cowboys with Dak. You have Trevor Lawrence who was supposed to be the next great QB. Then you have young QBs performing and NFL offenses adjusting to college QB schemes and strengths. The way the Eagles team is currently built with strong lines on both sides, a top defense and Defensive Coordinator who isn't going to leave for a HC job, and a top running game they could potentially be plug and play at QB. This is not a knock on Hurts specifically. In limited time we saw both Pickett and McKee have success. If a team has an elite QB, that's always great. If not, don't overspend on a QB. Teams will learn to move away from that trend and instead keep trying to find the long-term guy. Or keep rotating QBs and build out a solid roster. Hurts is going nowhere for the foreseeable future
January 24Jan 24 3 hours ago, NOTW said: So my first post was about the FUTURE, I said potentially and possibility...that the future could trend away from paying QBs that aren't worth it. Because of young QBs having success and teams learning from the mistake of overpaying for a mid QB. You're citing the PAST, which is fine, so I then I pointed out many QBs that have won past Super Bowls that were not elite. Look at the list I posted again: @TEW tagging you because you've been making this argument and I did all this research so thought you might be interested. Stafford - traded away from a losing organization, his cap number on his new deal with the Rams was $20m, total contract $160m Foles (how could you forget) - cheap free agent journeyman backup, cap number $1.6m that year Russell Wilson - on his rookie deal, his cap number that year was $800k Eli Manning - the first SB win was still on his rookie deal, cap number $10m. Signed his extension in 2009. Won a 2nd SB as a veteran SB winner, his cap number that 2nd SB was only $14m. Joe Flacco - on his rookie deal, his cap number was $8m. Never won again after the extension to a total $120m contract. Big Ben - won 1st SB on rookie deal, extended then won a 2nd SB as a veteran proven SB winner. Brad Johnson - cheap game manager (Over the cap website doesn't list him) So you have 9 Super Bowls won in that list with QBs on cheaper contracts, 3 of them on rookie deals. And that's the past going back 20 years. Now let's look at Brady and Mahomes who are elite, generational talents. They got their contracts after winning championships also. Brady: Won his 1st SB on a rookie deal making $310k (he obviously started as a backup late round draft pick). Renegotiated contract in 2002 to a total contract of a whopping $29m. SB win in 2003 he made $3.3m, SB win in 2004 he made $5m. 2005 renegotiated contract for a total of $48m. Other renegotiations/extensions throughout but he never had huge contracts. Won SBs 2014 ($14m), 2016 ($13m), 2018 ($22m) Mahomes: Won 1st SB on a rookie deal making $4.4m. Got his huge contract after that and won 2 more SBs. Now let's look at the top QB contracts this year. Who on this list is worth what they're making? Top QB total contracts: 2024 top contracts: This tells me that you can win championships with QBs on rookie deals or average free agent salary if the team is loaded otherwise (top defense, run game just like the Eagles currently have), and that if a QB wins championships and proves themselves, they earn that big contract. But guys like Dak, Daniels, Lawrence, Tua, etc. haven't won anything and shouldn't get those contracts. Thanks for that. It’d be a pain in the arse, but the best way to look at this would be as a % of cap space the second contract. The big takeaway is if you give someone that 2nd contract, they better be a HOF caliber player.
January 24Jan 24 9 hours ago, Ace Nova said: Hurts was given his contract after he went to the Super Bowl and played one of the best games a QB has ever played in the Super Bowl. Granted, they didn't win but had a bounce (or a call) gone the Eagles' way, they would have. So obviously Hurts deserves his contract by your standards, yes? I also edited my previous post...this is what I added: A proven way to build a perennial winner is to follow what Patriots did with Tom Brady. Get together with the star QB and say, "Listen, this is what we need to have available in terms of $$ to build a perennial winner around you. We can pay you record breaking amounts of money every year but you won't have the team that we could potentially build around you." If the QB is smart, the way Brady was - he realized that winning multiple championships and sacrificing a little money would actually not only make him a perennial winner but he would end up making even more money in the long run (even after his NFL career was over) by being a "perennial winner". Brady likely gave up millions and millions of dollars on his NFL deals but just signed a deal worth over $300 million as a broadcaster well after his retirement. Not to mention the fact that he likely had already made up from taking less than his worth from NFL contract money from endorsements alone while he was still playing. Jalen Hurts should not be paid any records amount when he is the weakest link on offense.
January 24Jan 24 1 hour ago, Swimm said: Jalen Hurts should not be paid any records amount when he is the weakest link on offense. That's a very sports radio talk take you have there. What does that even mean? Weakest link on offense? Why? How do you attribute that to one person when the others are evaluated by the group? IMO he's a top 10 qb in this league. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
January 24Jan 24 7 hours ago, Swimm said: Jalen Hurts should not be paid any records amount when he is the weakest link on offense. Don't you ever get bored of being negative, Nancy? We have a home NFCCG to look forward to and we've won 16 games already this year. I get you don't like Hurts. I am sure you have your reasons. But is there not a part of you, deep down, that wants to enjoy this team? Not looking for a beef, but genuinely curious because it seems like this team - more specifically, this QB - makes you more miserable than is reasonable.
January 24Jan 24 15 hours ago, Procus said: Hurts is going nowhere for the foreseeable future The Eagles QB history shows that isn't a certainty.
January 24Jan 24 17 hours ago, Ace Nova said: Hurts was given his contract after he went to the Super Bowl and played one of the best games a QB has ever played in the Super Bowl. Granted, they didn't win but had a bounce (or a call) gone the Eagles' way, they would have. So obviously Hurts deserves his contract by your standards, yes? I also edited my previous post...this is what I added: A proven way to build a perennial winner is to follow what Patriots did with Tom Brady. Get together with the star QB and say, "Listen, this is what we need to have available in terms of $$ to build a perennial winner around you. We can pay you record breaking amounts of money every year but you won't have the team that we could potentially build around you." If the QB is smart, the way Brady was - he realized that winning multiple championships and sacrificing a little money would actually not only make him a perennial winner but he would end up making even more money in the long run (even after his NFL career was over) by being a "perennial winner". Brady likely gave up millions and millions of dollars on his NFL deals but just signed a deal worth over $300 million as a broadcaster well after his retirement. Not to mention the fact that he likely had already made up from taking less than his worth from NFL contract money from endorsements alone while he was still playing. Teams will have to evaluate their situation and how much they value the QB. Do they think attaching themselves to that QB is their path to championship? In cases like Burrow or Allen, sure. But Dak Prescott and Daniel Jones? No. I think with Hurts they did it too quickly, especially after what they just experienced with Wentz. Gave him a big contract then immediately drafted Hurts in the 2nd round. They drafted Kolb in the 2nd when they had McNabb. Drafted Foles behind Vick. They know better than most the value of having a backup to be able to take over. Again my overall point here is about potential (potential) trends away from overpaying certain QBs that haven't proven anything yet. Teams have been scared of moving on from a mid QB because they fear they might fail in picking the replacement. But that may (may) trend away from that. We're not talking about the top QBs in the league that aren't going anywhere like Burrow, Allen, Lamar. But mid guys, why give them a big contract?
January 25Jan 25 3 hours ago, NOTW said: The Eagles QB history shows that isn't a certainty. Hurts ain't Wentz who punched his ticket out of town.
January 25Jan 25 3 hours ago, NOTW said: . Teams have been scared of moving on from a mid QB because they fear they might fail in picking the replacement. But that may (may) trend away from that. We're not talking about the top QBs in the league that aren't going anywhere like Burrow, Allen, Lamar. But mid guys, why give them a big contract? Because you just said it yourself. "Teams are scared to move on from "solid/good but not elite" QB's because its the most difficult position in the NFL to fill. We have short memories around here sometimes but after the team let Cunningham go - in the years prior to McNabb, all you would hear fans asking about is "when would we find out franchise QB" Then after McNabb left, We had Vick and Foles for a few seasons but the same thing went on for years until they drafted Wentz. Wentz seemed like the guy and thanks to Nick Foles for taking off where he left off, they won a Super Bowl - but that entire scenario is referred to as "hitting lightning in a bottle" because it rarely )if ever) happens. Then Wentz didn't work out so they went on to Hurts, etc. I personally think Hurts has played like a top 10 QB for most of his career. Top 5 during the Super Bowl year. Last year barely top 10 but bounced back this year and is somewhere in the top 5-10, imo. So I think his contract makes sense for the team. Now lets pretend we didn't replace Wentz with Hurts and completely whiffed on his replacement in the draft. That could easily cost us 2-3 years of losing seasons. Then let's say we whiffed on the next guy. That's a total of 6-7 (likely losing)seasons because we missed on our last 2 franchise QB's, Teams aren't willing to take that risk so if they know they have a guy that can play (not necessarily elite but can make plays and win games, looks decent our there for the most part - like a Dak Prescott - of course they're going to give him a contract vs risking anywhere from 2-6+ losing seasons with guys that didn't work out.
January 25Jan 25 Here is everyone who gets paid more than Hurts. Can you guys STFU about his salary! He was the one that audible both of Saquans huge runs against the Rams. He's the one that helps Squans run game. Penalty on Goederts play and AJ catches that ball, he's well over 200yds passing. Since that's what some of you care about. Dak Prescott Joe Burrow Jordan Love Trevor Lawrence Tua Tagovailoa Jared Goff Justin Herbert Lamar Jackson
January 25Jan 25 2 hours ago, Procus said: Hurts ain't Wentz who punched his ticket out of town. Not just Wentz to Hurts. I said history not one instance.
January 25Jan 25 2 minutes ago, NOTW said: Not just Wentz to Hurts. I said history not one instance. I suspect Hurts is more in the mold of Jaws, Randall and DMac. With his contract and his demeanor, absent injury, I don't see him leaving Philly for another few years.
January 25Jan 25 10 hours ago, kiwinavega said: Don't you ever get bored of being negative, Nancy? We have a home NFCCG to look forward to and we've won 16 games already this year. I get you don't like Hurts. I am sure you have your reasons. But is there not a part of you, deep down, that wants to enjoy this team? Not looking for a beef, but genuinely curious because it seems like this team - more specifically, this QB - makes you more miserable than is reasonable. I don't dislike Hurts on a personal level. He certainly has some good traits as well. I just don't think his success is sustainable nor does he elevate the talent around him. The team winning is usually in spite of him and his poor QB play. If the Eagles didn't have the best O-line , WR Duo, RB and top-5 TE in the NFL I wouldn't be as hard on him. But he does. Which makes his ineffectiveness in the passing game inexcusable... He doesn't have to throw for 400 yards. But he does needs to make completions and move the chains consistently through the air, and stop with the negative plays.
January 25Jan 25 2 hours ago, Swimm said: I don't dislike Hurts on a personal level. He certainly has some good traits as well. I just don't think his success is sustainable nor does he elevate the talent around him. The team winning is usually in spite of him and his poor QB play. If the Eagles didn't have the best O-line , WR Duo, RB and top-5 TE in the NFL I wouldn't be as hard on him. But he does. Which makes his ineffectiveness in the passing game inexcusable... He doesn't have to throw for 400 yards. But he does needs to make completions and move the chains consistently through the air, and stop with the negative plays. Firstly I think he’s a winner and a leader and I think that goes a long way. He isn’t the best QB and we all know he has some flaws that can hold us back. But I also don’t agree that we win in spite of him. Last week he didn’t have a good game we all know that. He still didn’t turn the ball over. He still ran for the opening TD. He still made some big throws. And if it weren’t for a nasty hit to Smitty and AJ have the dropsies he’d have had 200 yards and a TD.
January 27Jan 27 This thread deserves a bump. Hurts played a clean game and came up big with three td's with his legs and one in the air. Defense and STs force four turnovers and offense converts each into a td. Another turnover on downs converted to a td. This, despite being banged up on the OL. An amazing club.
January 27Jan 27 4 minutes ago, EazyEaglez said: Shout out to the only coach and quarterback in Eagles history to go to a SB twice. People still dont like either one of them and want them gone lol.
January 27Jan 27 4 minutes ago, Bwestbrook36 said: People still dont like either one of them and want them gone lol. My brother was trashing Hurts all game. Finally I was like you do realize he’s outplaying Daniels don’t you? Some people just can’t change.
January 27Jan 27 Just now, EazyEaglez said: My brother was trashing Hurts all game. Finally I was like you do realize he’s outplaying Daniels don’t you? Some people just can’t change. Daniels is damn good for being a rookie, actually hate he is on the Commanders because he seems like a guy i would root for otherwise. That being said, id agree Hurts was doing it all. Only criticism i have for him is he still doesn't let it go when he should in some cases Brady even said how well he was playing but, still needs to be quicker on some reads
January 27Jan 27 2 hours ago, Bwestbrook36 said: Daniels is damn good for being a rookie, actually hate he is on the Commanders because he seems like a guy i would root for otherwise. That being said, id agree Hurts was doing it all. Only criticism i have for him is he still doesn't let it go when he should in some cases Brady even said how well he was playing but, still needs to be quicker on some reads You could have some criticisms for what Jalen did. A lot of guys make mistakes out there though. Daniels played well, but he also left a lot out there too. For a rookie he is so poised it’s scary, but Howie, Jalen, and Sirianni make it hard for me to believe they will simply hand the division over to Washington anytime soon.
Create an account or sign in to comment