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

Guys hear me out. Sounds crazy but the colts brought Rivers out of retirement at 44 after not throwing an NFL pass since 2020…. Time to bring out the secret weapon… BIG DICK NICK FOLES!!!!

2 minutes ago, DaBirds said:

Weird how the best offensive performance of the season was when AJ didn’t play. Ever since he threw his temper tantrum and became offensive coordinator AJ has been getting his but the team…?

Weird.

Before ditching the QB, I would like to see Jalen play without AJ. Devanta is your number 1, Dotson as the 2 and Cooper as the 3. Think the ball gets spread around and we don't miss a beat. I really didn't think that way last year. But we become a nice balanced unit there with speed now at the WR 2. And get the ball in the hands of others without worrying about pleasing AJ. That can totally eff with the QB dynamic. He just plays free and doesn't have to force it to anyone.

35 minutes ago, eglz1 said:

I would think contracts can be redone if both parties agree to it. Whether both parties could get together would be the question.

There is nothing that can be done to reduce the dead money as it reflects cash paid to Hurts less cap charges taken. Now, if he gave up his 2026 or 2027 guarantees (which kick in March 2026), that makes cutting him the same as trading him. But he'd never do that.

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

The no trade clause is easier to get around. I think if they went to him and said we want to trade you and give you a chance to start somewhere else as we are moving on then he’d do it. the NTC is more in place as he can decline going to a place he doesn’t want to go to like Cleveland. Basically have to deal him to a place he’d feel comfortable going too

I understand that. But nevertheless it's there, so fans that just want to say "Trade Hurts!" often aren't considering the NTC and the financial impact.

Things would have to get much worse, he would have to be benched and hate it here and want out. His coach is sticking by him and saying it's "ridiculous" to think of benching him.

3 minutes ago, eglz1 said:

I wonder if Kansas City not scoring their first point until there were 34 seconds left in the 3rd quarter had anything to do with it.

It did, as did the QB putting up points on the board to allow the defense to be as dominant as it is. It's called playing complementary football. This year's offense with last year's defense, the team probably still struggles, as the defense would be worn out. Still need a good QB and offense, as it's getting proven now. The defense could peel its ears back when an offense is going to become one dimensional and passing the ball when trailing as the Chiefs were.

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

There is nothing that can be done to reduce the dead money as it reflects cash paid to Hurts less cap charges taken. Now, if he gave up his 2026 or 2027 guarantees (which kick in March 2026), that makes cutting him the same as trading him. But he'd never do that.

Purely theoretical - no I don't think Hurts is going to be moved - If Hurts' agent had a deal in place that replaced those 2026 and 2027 guarantees in his new contract he (Hurts) wouldn't be out anything would he?

6 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

I agree with you, and with Vikas.

As I see it, the team is best set for success next year with McKee starting, and since Hurts is unmovable, he can be our #2 QB.

Considering my concussion theory, and possibly getting Wentz'd permanently, making Hurts the #2 also hides his further deterioration from other teams and holds his high value whereas continuing to play him further degrades his value by the time we can trade him.

The point where I disagree with you is if he’s on this roster, he’s not gonna be the number 2 quarterback. Whether or not he is the best option for them winning is a different subject matter. I don’t see them bring him back and he’s just sitting on the bench with a financial aspect on there. For the same reasons that if they could’ve brought Carson wentz back, he was going to be the starter because they’re paying in that money even if Jalen hurts at that point in time was a better option to win football games. I imagine Jalen hurts is going to be the starter going into 2026 if he is on this roster which is pretty much a 99% chance of happening.

Now I do think there’s a better chance next year that if this continues on that they just bench him. Because at least at the end of 2026 there are ways to move off of him even if it’s going to hurt your cap, what happened with wentz too.

Just now, eglz1 said:

  3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

There is nothing that can be done to reduce the dead money as it reflects cash paid to Hurts less cap charges taken. Now, if he gave up his 2026 or 2027 guarantees (which kick in March 2026), that makes cutting him the same as trading him. But he'd never do that.

Great, but that doesn't change the cap hit from trading him, which can't be absorbed unless he is traded after June 1, 2026.

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

The point where I disagree with you is if he’s on this roster, he’s not gonna be the number 2 quarterback. Whether or not he is the best option for them winning is a different subject matter. I don’t see them bring him back and he’s just sitting on the bench with a financial aspect on there. For the same reasons that if they could’ve brought Carson wentz back, he was going to be the starter because they’re paying in that money even if Jalen hurts at that point in time was a better option to win football games. I imagine Jalen hurts is going to be the starter going into 2026 if he is on this roster which is pretty much a 99% chance of happening.

Now I do think there’s a better chance next year that if this continues on that they just bench him. Because at least at the end of 2026 there are ways to move off of him even if it’s going to hurt your cap, what happened with wentz too.

If Hurt's contract on the bench precluded the team from finding a QB who could actually win games I would be with you. However, with McKee already here, on a later round rookie contract, its very doable to live with the Hurts contract on the bench. And continue winning a lot of games.

Ideal to pay the backup that much? No. But you play to win the game. So play the best players.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Great, but that doesn't change the cap hit from trading him, which can't be absorbed unless he is traded after June 1, 2026.

Even if the financial aspect wasn’t there, I’d be surprised with the Eagles likely going to get a new offensive coordinator in there next year that they didn’t give him 2026 to see if he could bounce back. I just kind of think he’s always gonna be on the roster in 2026 and going into the season as a starter. Whether or not next year he gets benched if this continues is a completely different story. Because I think next offseason they’re more flexible (albeit not great) and what they can do going forward and needing to find an answer with mckee at that point.

10 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

I agree with you, and with Vikas.

As I see it, the team is best set for success next year with McKee starting, and since Hurts is unmovable, he can be our #2 QB.

Considering my concussion theory, and possibly getting Wentz'd permanently, making Hurts the #2 also hides his further deterioration from other teams and holds his high value whereas continuing to play him further degrades his value by the time we can trade him.

If you make him the backup in 2026, you kill his trade value completely.

In your scenario, you trade him after June 1, 2026, split the cap hit between 2026 and 2027, and get max value for him before benching him. Then hand the reigns to McKee for 2026 and hope to get a 2027 1st for Hurts (you also try and give McKee a small extension beyond 2026). An acquiring team would owe Jalen $51.5 million for 2026 and $22 million of guaranteed money for 2027 ($51.5mm total comp, only $22 of it guaranteed), though you'd think anyone giving up a premium pick would look to extend him.

4 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Great, but that doesn't change the cap hit from trading him, which can't be absorbed unless he is traded after June 1, 2026.

If ever there were a deal begging for the June 1 trick, that would be it.

6 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Great, but that doesn't change the cap hit from trading him, which can't be absorbed unless he is traded after June 1, 2026.

1 minute ago, HazletonEagle said:

If Hurt's contract on the bench precluded the team from finding a QB who could actually win games I would be with you. However, with McKee already here, on a later round rookie contract, its very doable to live with the Hurts contract on the bench. And continue winning a lot of games.

You can think the Eagles are going to do it. Is not going to to happen even if you and i Wanted. It’s the same in the wentz situation. They could’ve had wentz just sit on the bench and be fine with Jalen hurts. They weren’t going to do it because of the financial aspect they had invested in him. They were still gonna try to rebuild him with a new head coach and a new OC. Id bet a lot of money that going into next year We’re gonna have a new offensive coordinator and Jalen hurts is going to be the starter because the financial aspect of it and them wanting to see if they can still fix the issues with different potentially better coaching. Whether or not he finishes the season as the starter is a completely different story.

Just now, vikas83 said:

If you make him the backup in 2026, you kill his trade value completely.

In your scenario, you trade him after June 1, 2026, split the cap hit between 2026 and 2027, and get max value for him before benching him. Then hand the reigns to McKee for 2026 and hope to get a 2027 1st for Hurts (you also try and give McKee a small extension beyond 2026). An acquiring team would owe Jalen $51.5 million for 2026 and $22 million of guaranteed money for 2027 ($51.5mm total comp, only $22 of it guaranteed), though you'd think anyone giving up a premium pick would look to extend him.

I dont agree that it kills his value. I get why you are saying it. But I dont think all teams think the same way.

There will be the teams who already think Hurts stinks and theyll know why he is benched and they wont value him. But there will be the teams who still believe in him.

There will be teams who are still feeling Hurts is an elite player, Super Bowl MVP and all that. Theyll think the issue is the eagles coaching and understand that the eagles benched him because THEY wouldnt make it work. Not because Hurts sucks. Theyll be willing to pay a lot to get him to their team because theyll believe they know how to design an offense with him.

NFL should get rid of Post 6/1 rules. Just give the teams the option of whether they want to spread dead cap hit over 2 years or take it all in one. Let them manage the cap how they want regardless of when the transaction occurs.

I guess you could argue it takes away some player stability but on the same hand it opens up teams to spend more if they want to.

1 minute ago, HazletonEagle said:

I dont agree that it kills his value. I get why you are saying it. But I dont think all teams think the same way.

There will be teams who are still feeling Hurts is an elite player, Super Bowl MVP and all that. Theyll think the issue is the eagles coaching and understand that the eagles benched him because THEY wouldnt make it work. Not because Hurts sucks. Theyll be willing to pay a lot to get him to their team because theyll believe they know how to design an offense with him.

The way to get max value is to not be a forced seller. If he is riding the bench all of 2026, everyone knows you have to trade him or cut him. Look no further than the idiot Falcons with Kirk Cousins - yeah, he's old, but they couldn't move him after squatting on him in a world where Dillon Gabriel and Joe Flacco were starting.

If the team decides they are done with Hurts, the value maximizing way to move off him is to trade him after June 1. Sitting him on the bench for a year, he's a decaying asset and a shadow hanging over McKee. You get more value by trading him in the 2026 offseason -- you're only keeping him in 2026 as a week 1 starter.

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

NFL should get rid of Post 6/1 rules. Just give the teams the option of whether they want to spread dead cap hit over 2 years or take it all in one. Let them manage the cap how they want regardless of when the transaction occurs.

I guess you could argue it takes away some player stability but on the same hand it opens up teams to spend more if they want to.

Or let teams designate a trade pre June 1 as a post June 1 trade, like they do with cuts.

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

You can think the Eagles are going to do it. Is not going to to happen even if you and i Wanted. It’s the same in the wentz situation. They could’ve had wentz just sit on the bench and be fine with Jalen hurts. They weren’t going to do it because of the financial aspect they had invested in him. They were still gonna try to rebuild him with a new head coach and a new OC. I’ve been a lot of money that going into next year. We’re gonna have a new offensive coordinator and Jalen hurts is going to be the starter because the financial aspect of it and them wanting to see if they can still fix the issues. Whether or not he finishes the season as the starter is a completely different story.

Well, we can debate it forever but only time will tell how it plays out. The longer this goes on with Hurts flailing about for the rest of this season, the more likely it becomes that they have to start McKee next year.

They can call it an open competition in camp. But McKee at this point would win without a fight. 

Quite honestly, the most damaging thing to Hurts value would be for teams to see it play out that way. Hurts failing the rest of this season and losing a training camp battle next year is proof that hes washed. Benching hurts right now, and going in to the season with McKee as the presumptive starter leaves open for some teams to think the eagles just couldnt get it right, and that his next team still can.

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

The way to get max value is to not be a forced seller. If he is riding the bench all of 2026, everyone knows you have to trade him or cut him. Look no further than the idiot Falcons with Kirk Cousins - yeah, he's old, but they couldn't move him after squatting on him in a world where Dillon Gabriel and Joe Flacco were starting.

If the team decides they are done with Hurts, the value maximizing way to move off him is to trade him after June 1. Sitting him on the bench for a year, he's a decaying asset and a shadow hanging over McKee. You get more value by trading him in the 2026 offseason -- you're only keeping him in 2026 as a week 1 starter.

Just now, HazletonEagle said:

The longer this goes on with Hurts flailing about for the rest of this season, the more likely it becomes that they have to start McKee next year.

They can call it an open competition in camp. But McKee at this point would win without a fight. 

Quite honestly, the most damaging thing to Hurts value would be for teams to see it play out that way. Hurts failing the rest of this season and losing a training camp battle next year is proof that hes washed. Benching hurts right now, and going in to the season with McKee as the presumptive starter leaves open for some teams to think the eagles just couldnt get it right, and that his next team still can.

1 minute ago, HazletonEagle said:

Well, we can debate it forever but only time will tell how it plays out. The longer this goes on with Hurts flailing about for the rest of this season, the more likely it becomes that they have to start McKee next year.

They can call it an open competition in camp. But McKee at this point would win without a fight. 

Quite honestly, the most damaging thing to Hurts value would be for teams to see it play out that way. Hurts failing the rest of this season and losing a training camp battle next year is proof that hes washed. Benching hurts right now, and going in to the season with McKee as the presumptive starter leaves open for some teams to think the eagles just couldnt get it right, and that his next team still can.

I honestly can't grasp your point. Why would you want Hurts as a backup in 2026 instead of trading him post June 1? Get a better return and he's off the team.

Is this some weird fetish where you want him to have to be embarrassed and be a backup? If they decide to move on, rip the band aid once it is financially viable.

23 minutes ago, jojodancer said:

Before ditching the QB, I would like to see Jalen play without AJ. Devanta is your number 1, Dotson as the 2 and Cooper as the 3. Think the ball gets spread around and we don't miss a beat. I really didn't think that way last year. But we become a nice balanced unit there with speed now at the WR 2. And get the ball in the hands of others without worrying about pleasing AJ. That can totally eff with the QB dynamic. He just plays free and doesn't have to force it to anyone.

I know AJ is the easy target for some of you but we had problems spreading the ball around before he spoke out

So I doubt removing him would make have the ball spread around and we don't miss a beat

2 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Well, we can debate it forever but only time will tell how it plays out. The longer this goes on with Hurts flailing about for the rest of this season, the more likely it becomes that they have to start McKee next year.

They can call it an open competition in camp. But McKee at this point would win without a fight. 

Quite honestly, the most damaging thing to Hurts value would be for teams to see it play out that way. Hurts failing the rest of this season and losing a training camp battle next year is proof that hes washed. Benching hurts right now, and going in to the season with McKee as the presumptive starter leaves open for some teams to think the eagles just couldnt get it right, and that his next team still can.

I’m willing to make a sizable wager that Jeffrey Lurie hires new OC to try and tries to fix hurts this offseason over accepting a sunk cost of hurts rotting on the bench (assuming hurts doesn’t get a torn acl or something like that).

1 minute ago, Mike030270 said:

I know AJ is the easy target for some of you but we had problems spreading the ball around before he spoke out

So I doubt removing him would make have the ball spread around and we don't miss a beat

I mean, benching one of your best players isn't usually a good idea.

Maybe we had a great day because we were playing the Giants.

1 minute ago, Mike030270 said:

I know AJ is the easy target for some of you but we had problems spreading the ball around before he spoke out

So I doubt removing him would make have the ball spread around and we don't miss a beat

I'm willing to try that idea more than benching Hurts. Neither are too smart right now. In reality, there's all kinds of people who can be benched right now playing like horsecrap. Think this offense just needs to get to mediocre by playoffs and then they can have a fighting chance.