45 minutes ago, pallidrone said:

And there is the crux; were the WRs bad, or did McNabb make them look bad? Or was it a combination of both?

I mean, McNabb did have a couple of years with Westbrook/McCoy, Jackson, Maclin, and Celek. Those are not bad weapons to have. Hurts would have made that work.

Early McNabb, they were bad. Jackson/Maclin/McCoy was a really good core but I don't remember the defense being all that great during those years and of course McNabb was tailing off. I dont think there would've been any more success with Hurts at the helm vs McNabb in the later years. In the early years no way Hurts would have survived an offense with Pinkston and Thrash.

28 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I wonder how much Lurie is charging WIP to be on their show. Should help with his cash problems though.

The only way they could afford to pick up Davis' fifth year.

7 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

The only way they could afford to pick up Davis' fifth year.

It’s why we paid Hurts instead of Ian Book. Couldn’t afford him.

37 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I wonder how much Lurie is charging WIP to be on their show. Should help with his cash problems though.

In fairness to Lurie, due to the large fee he charged to crawl out of the poor house, he gave WIP staffers a discount on the playoff snow.

1 hour ago, pallidrone said:

And there is the crux; were the WRs bad, or did McNabb make them look bad? Or was it a combination of both?

I mean, McNabb did have a couple of years with Westbrook/McCoy, Jackson, Maclin, and Celek. Those are not bad weapons to have. Hurts would have made that work.

The WRs were bad. Really bad. Especially early in his career. He had 1 year with Maclin, Jackson, and Celek, and was on the decline at that point in his career.

I agree though that Hurts is a better QB. Not more talented, but better. He’s more accurate and a better clutch player. I think Hurts would have struggled early with the James Thrash group at WR, but with Owens and Westbrook we probably win the Super Bowl on 04.

McNabb started to decline after he bulked up and the injuries began to stack up. Once he lost a step, the running threat was reduced and he couldn't escape sacks as much or move the chains at will like he could in his prime. I went back and watched the first NFCCG loss to the Rams and he played better than I recalled. Does make you wonder how good he could've been had he stayed as quick on his feet from his younger days and actually had one or two decent WRs to throw to. But I will admit that sometimes the moment seemed to big for him whereas Hurts just seems to have ice water in his veins and rises to the occasion when the pressure is the highest.

1 hour ago, Alphagrand said:

Any discussion about a Hurts vs McNabb legacy provides Exhibit A of how important a surrounding cast is for almost any QB. If he wasn't in Pittsburgh, I doubt anyone would remember Terry Bradshaw. Aikman wouldn't be remembered the same way if not for those DAL teams with Jimmy Johnson. Even Joe Montana likely would have had a much different career had he not been in SF with Bill Walsh; yes, he was very good in KC, but he brought all that experience and confidence with him.

When all is said and done, Hurts is well on his way to climbing the all-time Eagles QB list (it's not a great list). At this point, Hurts will be remembered for two very good Super Bowl performances, while McNabb will be remembered for puking on the field in his -- he was much better in the Super Bowl loss than he was in those NFCCG losses to CAR and TB (where he was dreadfully bad in both). Even the ARI loss he had a very poor start -- IIRC, the Eagles were down 24-6 before McNabb woke up.

I don't rank either of Hurts' Super Bowl performances as highly as Foles', though. I think that BDN performance in SB LII to give the Eagles their first Super Bowl will be very hard for anyone to match.

McNabb should be remembered fondly, but he was good not great and his biggest issue was his victim mentality that started when he got booed on draft day that he never let go. I think that more than anything rubs Philly fans the wrong way.

1 hour ago, pallidrone said:

Hey, I don't disagree with you. Don't take my words as trying to disparage McNabb. McNabb helped turn this entire franchise around, and maybe if they had supported him earlier in his career, he might have become a Hall of Famer. He was elite for some time there.

However, I do think that a Hurts may have been able to make some of it work. They did have Westbrook, who was amazing. They had Celek, who was an all-pro TE. They had an awesome defense. While the WRs were below average, maybe with the right QB and the right scheme, they could have gotten more out of them.

How many worm burners did we see from McNabb? How many times did he gun it into the WR when it was not necessary? Hurts seems to play with so much more touch. He can hit a WR in stride, where I don't remember McNabb necessarily doing that, or at least doing that consistently.

McNabb was an LB playing quarterback and could take the hits that came with running the ball, whereas Hurts is not.

McNabb also played in a different time when the CBs could interfere with the WRs. That rule changed in 2004 and eventually led to better WR play. Would Hurts have been able to deal with that?

Westbrook was drafted in 2003 and didn't become a starter until 2004. Those 2000-2002 teams were Duce, Chad Lewis and a bunch of scrubs at WR. Celek was drafted in 2007; Chad Lewis was an undrafted FA.

The revisionist history really needs to stop. Those teams pre-TO were basically the McNabb show.

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I wonder how much Lurie is charging WIP to be on their show. Should help with his cash problems though.

I don't think WIP has much of a budget judging by their on air talent choices

26 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

McNabb started to decline after he bulked and the injuries began to stack up. Once he lost a step, the running threat was reduced and he couldn't escape sacks as much or move the chains at will like he could in his prime. I went back and watched the first NFCCG loss to the Rams and he played better than I recalled. Does make you wonder how good he could've been had he stayed as quick on his feet from his younger days and actually had one or two decent WRs to throw to. But I will admit that sometimes the moment seemed to big for him whereas Hurts just seems to have ice water in his veins and rises to the occasion when the pressure is the highest.

He was never the same after the injuries in 2005 (sports hernia) and 2006 (ACL). He bulked up way too much -- be it muscle, fat or both. Early in his career he was an escape artists avoiding sacks, but that guy didn't come back in 2007.

I have no doubt if McNabb had TO for all those years from 2000-2004, we'd have won a Super Bowl. Post ACL McNabb wasn't the same.

As for Hurts, I look at it this way. I don't think Hurts would have had the same success as McNabb with the early teams (2000-2003), but he likely has more success with 2004-2009.

Hinton seems like a great well spoken guy. Rooting for him over the other guys (jk)

McNabb has warts for sure, but he was the offense for awhile. Even with Westbrook around we (frustratingly) avoided the run game like the plague for some reason. It was all on his shoulders.

Outside of being black and mobile, McNabb and Hurts couldn't be different. Different supporting cast, different OL, different offensive coaching philosophies, asked to play very different roles. I don't think Hurts would be nearly as successful running and gunning with 40 pass attempts per game to no name WRs. Nor do I think McNabb had the discipline to manage game scenarios nearly as well in our current offense.

3 minutes ago, pgcd3 said:

Hinton seems like a great well spoken guy. Rooting for him over the other guys (jk)

I want my linemen QBs and LBs to be well spoken. I want my receivers to speak like a sociopath 7 drinks deep and trying to pick a fight.

6 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

He was never the same after the injuries in 2005 (sports hernia) and 2006 (ACL). He bulked up way too much -- be it muscle, fat or both. Early in his career he was an escape artists avoiding sacks, but that guy didn't come back in 2007.

I have no doubt if McNabb had TO for all those years from 2000-2004, we'd have won a Super Bowl. Post ACL McNabb wasn't the same.

As for Hurts, I look at it this way. I don't think Hurts would have had the same success as McNabb with the early teams (2000-2003), but he likely has more success with 2004-2009.

If that one cheap SOB on the Cowboys didn't injure him they would have won that SB. Same if Chad didn't go down on that last TD vs ATL or if the rookie TE could have held onto that ball in the SB when they were in FG range and they stood him up and stripped it. Post ACL he fell off a cliff.

Terrace Marshall has no shot to make the team wearing #46. Good god. 46 for a WR is Fing hideous.

2 hours ago, pgcd3 said:

Welp we had a good run. This is a clear sign of the start of a downward spiral

He's basically Jerry Jones now

1 minute ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Williams really intrigues me. Had he stayed and played another year, he could have been a 1st or 2nd round pick. The measurables are great.

2 hours ago, vikas83 said:

Seeing how Thrash went back to Washington and was the 5th receiver after being #1 here, Pinkston and Mitchell never played again after Philly (Pinkston did tear his Achilles, but never came back), the evidence is pretty clear that the WRs sucked.

McNabb took those 3 to 3 straight NFC Championship games. 2000-2004 McNabb was elite and carried the team along with the defense.

Picking up Thrash as a FA after his stint in Washington only to trade him back to the R-words for a 5th that turned into Trent Cole will never not amuse me.

1 hour ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Early career, they were bad. Later career, they were finally upgraded to average.

But, Charles Johnson, Torrence Small, James Thrash, Greg Lewis... they were bad.

Na Brown says thank you

5 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

McNabb has warts for sure, but he was the offense for awhile. Even with Westbrook around we (frustratingly) avoided the run game like the plague for some reason. It was all on his shoulders.

Outside of being black and mobile, McNabb and Hurts couldn't be different. Different supporting cast, different OL, different offensive coaching philosophies, asked to play very different roles. I don't think Hurts would be nearly as successful running and gunning with 40 pass attempts per game to no name WRs. Nor do I think McNabb had the discipline to manage game scenarios nearly as well in our current offense.

The Chiefs have a few SB thanks to our growing pains. I'm not sure how an offensive coach didn't realize sooner in his career the importance of weapons, but he really did McNabb a disservice. Yeah, he got it right at the end with Jackson and Mac but what did that take a decade? Andy was as stubborn SOB. The thing I remember most about that Panthers NFCCG outside of McNabb getting hurt was driving the field running the ball and then passing the ball in the RZ. They could not stop the Eagles and I think we got a FG and it changed the entire flow of the game. Him pulling the tag back from Trott may have cost them a SB as well. I'm always going to wonder if him being on the field vs Tampa would have changed that game vs an old washed up guy.

5 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Yessssss! That should be a lot easier for a rookie to learn as well, right?

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Williams really intrigues me. Had he stayed and played another year, he could have been a 1st or 2nd round pick. The measurables are great.

Yup. Said the same thing during and after the draft. We have the luxury where he doesn’t have to play for a year or two if guys stay healthy. He has good size and measurables. Like you said if he would’ve went back to school, he’s unlikely falling to six round if he went back and got better. It’s more likely he goes in the top three rounds. Im sure stoutland is excited to see if he can mold him. He’s the guy on day 3 I’m most excited about. I think he can become a legit starter

2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Yessssss! That should be a lot easier for a rookie to learn as well, right?

Heard a good amount of people mention he might be best suited to play inside

2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Yessssss! That should be a lot easier for a rookie to learn as well, right?

Someone else can answer the technical part but i don’t remember reading that he’s ever played guard. So it’s entirely new position to learn. Then again the eagles are unlikely to need him to play there for at least a year so he’s going to get development for a year under stoutland. Hopefully we see the work in year 2