3 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

By the way, if its 65 million dead money to trade Hurts, or similar to trade AJ Brown, it sounds like a bargain to offload Hurts and Id encourage the team to do that in a heartbeat. Money well spent fi they still have McKee here ready to take over. That 65 million buys you more super bowls in that case.

The no trade clause doesnt mean he cant be traded. I dont see why Hurts would be difficult about getting traded out of here. A place where he has been reported to have a rocky relationship with the HC. Where he has a ruined relationship with his best friend, star WR. A place where he has been labeled a system QB by the media. And where he has been afforded almost 0 stability on offense with a new OC every year.

Hurts has won super bowls here. But its not been easy. Its not been a really great scenario for him.

I almost think he would welcome an opportunity to prove himself outside of the confines of the so called Siri offense. Maybe he wont go to some of the absolute bottom feeders of the NFL, but I bet itd be fairly easy to find a team he agrees to.

You are preaching to the choir with how limited Hurts is and how bad his passing is lately.

Defining clutch as being someone who is better than their baseline aptitude in the biggest moments, Hurts is clutch. Hurts is also dynamic with running and tush push…talents that seem to be in decline.

Put it all together and you’ve got a win-now team with a uniquely limited but dynamic, clutch qb.

That might be a lot better than what McKee can offer. He could be Kevin Kolb or Carson Strong 2.0. Given where he was drafted, that’s probably exactly what he’ll be.

The worse Hurts looks, the more curious I become to find out. But a benching or transitioning to a new qb is most likely going to be like a regime change in the Middle East. It’s not good now but it’s going to get even worse when you wipe out the status quo things are built around.

1 hour ago, Parrot Head said:

This is such a chicken ish message and no wonder he’s lost the locker room again. He has no backbone and the players know it.

I agree with Siri that is not just one thing. Where I totally differ with him is that I just don’t think KP has shown much / any improvement as a play caller to inspire any sort of confidence that he can be part of the solution to help turn this around. Some change to the staff is needed.

2 minutes ago, DaBirds said:

Agree. It would be one thing if they held up for a while and then the dam broke but they’ve been getting blown off the ball from the jump.

They did come up with some turnovers that the offense did nothing with though.

They gave up 7 points in the first half last week (14 in the first 3 quarters). They gave up 10 points in the first 3 quarters this week. They gave up a total of 16 points in the two games prior to that. They have been dealing with 3 and outs at a ridiculous pace from this offense and the cumulative effect of that cannot be overstated. They are playing the number of snaps that the Chip Kelly defenses had to play because of his stupid constant fast offense. The difference there is that those offenses usually scored some points and got a first down or two along the way.

1 minute ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Pete Carroll is back as a HC now too, so age isn't the impediment it once was. And teams just want offensive HCs more than defensive.

Also true.

I still view it this way it doesn’t matter how old or young the offensive coordinator is that you bring in here. If he comes in in 2026 and has his offense being a top five offense in yards per game and points scored, then he is very likely going to get head coaching interviews. if somebody offers it to him taking the job simply cause he transformed the offense from 2025 and knowing how every other year this offense gets derailed it makes sense for him to leave.

25 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

The approach needs to be Jurgens and Dickerson not playing until they are far healthier than this.

Will need to rewatch the game but to my naked eye, looked like it was the tackles (both of them) struggled the most in the run game today. Jurgens had a nice block on that Hurts run at least

7 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I don't even get the other side of it other than the emotional angle of being down "only one score" but then not knowing if you need two more scores or just one. It's like saying you'd rather start with the ball first in NCAA OT rules because of the emotional aspect of "having a lead" if you score on your first possession. Any college coach would be destroyed if they won the toss but then decided to take the ball first. I don't see how this is any different.

It’s the hope of the unknown vs accepting reality, basically.

I feel like being transparent but buttoned up is the way to go as HC when things get rough.

Just say we are embarrassed by every aspect of our offense right now, from coaching straight through to execution by the players. We will do everything we can to keep after it and to evolve and get better. But can’t commit at this time to personnel changes or changes in coaching logistics such as play calling. Some level of acknowledgement of that this offense is abysmal and that the staff is aware and attempting to accordingly has to cool down the temp in the press room at least a couple degrees.

8 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

What's wrong with half the guys on offense running one play, while the other half are doing something completely different?

Quarter 6 offense?

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

It was the right decision.

The facts are they needed two TD’s and at least one 2pt conversion just to tie. Kicking the XP there just extends hope but backs yourself into a corner.

What if they kicked the XP, managed to score another TD and then didn’t convert the 2pt conversion to end the game? Games over and they lose. Going for it when they did gives them more information with more time left on the clock.

no...

Kicking the XP there means they have the opportunity to tie the game on their next possession.

Not getting any points there with the failed 2PC basically meant they lost. Having that info earlier doesnt help, because they found out they lost the game. Having the TD and still life in the game would have been much better to know.

And if you dont make it at the end of the game, thats tough. But their decision prevented the opportunity from ever presenting itself. Horrible decision.

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

It was the right decision.

The facts are they needed two TD’s and at least one 2pt conversion just to tie. Kicking the XP there just extends hope but backs yourself into a corner.

What if they kicked the XP, managed to score another TD and then didn’t convert the 2pt conversion to end the game? Games over and they lose. Going for it when they did gives them more information with more time left on the clock.

Not only that I am guessing that Elliott missing the extra point on their last touchdown probably also came in to play with us. Now when they got into field goal range, they were pretty much forced to kick the field goal because it was the only way they would have a chance to even win the game. And he missed that too.

5 minutes ago, kiwieagle said:

I agree with Siri that is not just one thing. Where I totally differ with him is that I just don’t think KP has shown much / any improvement as a play caller to inspire any sort of confidence that he can be part of the solution to help turn this around. Some change to the staff is needed.

I know the talk will always be Hurts vs the scheme. Both have issues. The reason I pin more on the scheme is because we don’t do the easy button things that all offenses should do to make life easy for both the QB and the receivers. No rub routes. No creative screen calls. No misdirection plays. Not enough play action. Look at the Bears offense today. Caleb wasn’t even good, but he had a lot of easy button stuff (his TD to Kmet was incredible I admit).

I know Hurts isn’t the pocket passing QB many prefer. He does not throw tight window throws over the middle. While that is a problem, no doubt, it isn’t the problem.

The problem is a scheme that doesn’t provide any edge or advantage. It relies on stars to win one on one. Literally any bad OC can do that.

1 hour ago, ManuManu said:

It’s not hyper aggressive. It’s simply giving you more information with more time left…

Just because you can rationalize it, does not mean it is logical and right.

It gave them information at far greater risk. It ended up giving them very sad information, that they had prematurely lost the game because of their decision.

They could have taken the far smaller risk of missing another XP. And with much less risk, theyd likely have received excellent news- that they still had a chance to win the game!

Wrong. Decision. Clearly. The earlier information rationalization is laughably bad.

Just now, HazletonEagle said:

Just because you can rationalize it, does not mean it is logical and right.

It gave them information at far greater risk. It ended up giving them very sad information, that they had prematurely lost the game because of their decision.

They could have taken the far smaller risk of missing another XP. And with much less risk, theyd likely have received excellent news- that they still had a chance to win the game!

Wrong. Decision. Clearly. The earlier information rationalization is laughably bad.

Wrong.

4 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

no...

Kicking the XP there means they have the opportunity to tie the game on their next possession.

Not getting any points there with the failed 2PC basically meant they lost. Having that info earlier doesnt help, because they found out they lost the game. Having the TD and still life in the game would have been much better to know.

And if you dont make it at the end of the game, thats tough. But their decision prevented the opportunity from ever presenting itself. Horrible decision.

What difference does "opportunity to tie the game on the next TD” make vs getting the 2pt there and having the "opportunity to tie the game on the next TD”?

They would lose either way if they fail, regardless of when they fail.

11 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

You are preaching to the choir with how limited Hurts is and how bad his passing is lately.

Defining clutch as being someone who is better than their baseline aptitude in the biggest moments, Hurts is clutch. Hurts is also dynamic with running and tush push…talents that seem to be in decline.

Put it all together and you’ve got a win-now team with a uniquely limited but dynamic, clutch qb.

That might be a lot better than what McKee can offer. He could be Kevin Kolb or Carson Strong 2.0. Given where he was drafted, that’s probably exactly what he’ll be.

The worse Hurts looks, the more curious I become to find out. But a benching or transitioning to a new qb is most likely going to be like a regime change in the Middle East. It’s not good now but it’s going to get even worse when you wipe out the status quo things are built around.

While I agree Hurts makes us limited.. his contract makes him here whether people like it or not

He's won when he's had a good OC. Or when we were able to rely heavily on Barkley. Also the SB when the defense won the lombardi for us

We really don't have any of those at the moment

2 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

no...

Kicking the XP there means they have the opportunity to tie the game on their next possession.

Not getting any points there with the failed 2PC basically meant they lost. Having that info earlier doesnt help, because they found out they lost the game. Having the TD and still life in the game would have been much better to know.

And if you dont make it at the end of the game, thats tough. But their decision prevented the opportunity from ever presenting itself. Horrible decision.

They needed 2 TDs, one with a 2pt and one with xp. Both obviously needed to be successful. XP

Vs 2pt on the first TD doesn’t tangibly impact their chances of scoring the second TD (which they never scored anyway). And the chance of converting the 2pt conversion doesn’t get higher or lower if you attempt it on the first versus 2nd TD. Unless you want to argue a more abstract point that the defense will be more vulnerable one way or the other based on pressure/panic or something.

Otherwise, it didn’t matter.

Just now, LeanMeanGM said:

What difference does "opportunity to tie the game on the next TD” make vs getting the 2pt there and having the "opportunity to tie the game on the next TD”?

They would lose either way if they fail, regardless of when they fail.

Vibes!

Just now, HazletonEagle said:

Just because you can rationalize it, does not mean it is logical and right.

It gave them information at far greater risk. It ended up giving them very sad information, that they had prematurely lost the game because of their decision.

They could have taken the far smaller risk of missing another XP. And with much less risk, theyd likely have received excellent news- that they still had a chance to win the game!

Wrong. Decision. Clearly. The earlier information rationalization is laughably bad.

No greater risk. They were going to have to get a 2 point conversion at one point or the other. The odds of scoring a 2 point conversion on the second score isn't any better than after the first, and if you don't get the 2 points, then you need another possession... there's no getting around that math. So you might as well know if you need one or two more possessions as soon as possible. Other wise, you find out, whoops we need another possession, but by the time you find out, the clock is expired. Either way, you are way behind the 8 ball when you are down 15 at that stage of the game.

9 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

They gave up 7 points in the first half last week (14 in the first 3 quarters). They gave up 10 points in the first 3 quarters this week. They gave up a total of 16 points in the two games prior to that. They have been dealing with 3 and outs at a ridiculous pace from this offense and the cumulative effect of that cannot be overstated. They are playing the number of snaps that the Chip Kelly defenses had to play because of his stupid constant fast offense. The difference there is that those offenses usually scored some points and got a first down or two along the way.

They really couldn’t get off the field from the beginning though. They got that stop on 4th down on the first drive but the Bears seemed to move the ball at will from the beginning of the game and throughout most of it. I think they are tired but a lot of it is their fault.

The Dallas game the team had a 21 pt lead. They should have been able to score more points but the defense gave up the lead.

The offense is definitely a bigger problem but I was really surprised/disappointed in how the defense got ran all over today.

3 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

No greater risk. They were going to have to get a 2 point conversion at one point or the other. The odds of scoring a 2 point conversion on the second score isn't any better than after the first, and if you don't get the 2 points, then you need another possession... there's no getting around that math. So you might as well know if you need one or two more possessions as soon as possible. Other wise, you find out, whoops we need another possession, but by the time you find out, the clock is expired. Either way, you are way behind the 8 ball when you are down 15 at that stage of the game.

No. Vibes are important!

33 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

And screw the NFL for giving the Eagles two Thursday games and a Friday game. (Granted the first Thursday game wasn't a 'short week', but it was still outside the regular rhythm of the season.). No excuse for that type of schedule other than the greed of more days for games.

Yeah to have this happen twice this season is brutal. Im not sure how many other teams have had this many short weeks.

I mean, its nice to get the mini-bye on the other end of it.

Maybe if the eagles were better at handling the short weeks, we would be appreciative of it. But a loss on the front end of the short week makes recovery in the 2nd game seem pretty difficult. We havent been close to bouncing back in those 2nd games.

Why Im still not out on this season. Im more interested in what happens next week. Loss means collapse is officially on. Win... this team has the talent to turn it up now that they feel the urgency as the division lead is slipping away. Soon we will be backed against the wall to where Jalen typically plays his best ball. If they win next week, I am going to get pretty excited. Cause then they probably beat Oakland the week after and suddenly they have 2 wins in a row and a chance to get hot.

1 minute ago, DaBirds said:

They really couldn’t get off the field from the beginning though. They got that stop on 4th down on the first drive but the Bears seemed to move the ball at will from the beginning of the game and throughout most of it. I think they are tired but a lot of it is their fault.

The Dallas game the team had a 21 pt lead. They should have been able to score more points but the defense gave up the lead.

The offense is definitely a bigger problem but I was really surprised/disappointed in how the defense got ran all over today.

Vic's defense has always been predicated on one thing above everything else... stop the opponent from scoring. That's the ultimate objective, not necessarily to get 3 and outs, but to get stops, eventually. And they did that successfully based on the points on the scoreboard, which at the end of the day are what really matter. They are a bend but don't break defense and they have been really good at it, even during this stretch of offensive ineptitude. They don't look to kill the offense quickly, its much more of a boa constrictor squeeze than it is a cobra strike. For it to work effectively, you need complementary football. Last year with the historic rushing attack, we had that. This year with the schizophrenic offense, we do not. Very different results for the defense as a result.

The decision doesn’t even matter. Eagles were down 15 with less than 5 minutes. Nothing they showed in the other 55 minutes suggested they would turn it on or stop the Bears. Bears played prevent and gave up a stat padding TD.

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

The decision doesn’t even matter. Eagles were down 15 with less than 5 minutes. Nothing they showed in the other 45 minutes suggested they would turn it on or stop the Bears. Bears played prevent and gave up a stat padding TD.

Yup. But, AJ feels good about it. So there's that.

1 minute ago, ManuManu said:

The problem isn’t s a scheme that doesn’t provide any edge or advantage. It relies on stars to win one on one. Literally any bad OC can do that.

i’ve been saying this since 2023. This team is way too over reliant on the fact that they have more talent than the other team. eventually our talent will come through and beat yours. They do not maximize the personnel on offense. Small example, Calcaterra is an awful blocker. So for like 10 games this season they have them going out there trying to be blocker and running the ball. Know your Fing personnel.

We talked about this last week, it is mind blowing that AJ Brown is a top tier WR and our coaches go quarters with giving him 1 target. I see all these teams were great wide receivers and it’s nothing remotely as weird as that. Even Justin Jefferson was crap at Qb gets targets to try getting them going