10 hours ago, EagleVA said:

I'll tell you what, Robert Brooks was a damn good receiver.

He had one stellar year in 1995 and a good one in 1997. The rest of his career he was a low end #2 / decent #3

10 hours ago, brkmsn said:

Those weren't exactly his words and it has nothing to do with "being on Carson's side" or not. 

For comparison purposes, Wentz has 70 career regular season turnovers (64 starts) so far (1.1 per start). Favre had 410 (298 starts) (1.4 per start). Favre has 1.75 total TDs (passing /rushing) per start and Wentz has 1.8 total TDs per start. Just saying ...

Ok, now compare the league average QB numbers during Favre’s career compared to Wentz’s. Considering how much more skewed the rules are in favor of the passing game now, this isn’t even a fair comparison. 
 

just picking a year in Brett’s prime when he had 39 TDs in 1996. Only 4 QBs in the league that year had 25 or more TD passes, and only 3 had 4000 yards or more. 12 quarterbacks had 15+ interceptions. 
 

Now look at 2019. 11 4000 yard passers, 12 QBs with 25+ TD passes. You had only 5 QBs with 15 or more interceptions. 
 

It’s not even the same league, so this Wentz/Favre comparison based on TDs and turnovers is pretty pointless.

Doug said he respects Favre’s opinion. Hmmm.

34 minutes ago, EazyEaglez said:

Doug said he respects Favre’s opinion. Hmmm.

Doug forgets that it is 2020.   Respecting or even listening to contrary opinions is illegal.

At this point Id actually like to see Wentz go down for a very minor injury for 3-4 weeks so Hurts can come in for a few games. Not to give Hurts a shot, but to show that Doug and his game planning and coaching staff is the issue. I feel that strong that the issue is in this coaching staff. I think Hurts might have some success in the first game cause teams have nothing to go by and we all seen backups in most cases do well to start but then teams get tape. But in multiple weeks we will see the same issues with recs not getting open, bad play calling, poor game planning. Yes maybe we wont have the picks cause Hurts wont take the chances as much, but the offense will be flat like it always has been under Doug.(Yes excluding the one year he finally gave up major roles of the offense to Frank)

My biggest worry is they make a giant mistake and move on from Wentz only to see him have success somewhere else and we are still having the same struggles for 2 more years under Doug and his lack of creativity and poor game planning on Offense.

44 minutes ago, nipples said:

Ok, now compare the league average QB numbers during Favre’s career compared to Wentz’s. Considering how much more skewed the rules are in favor of the passing game now, this isn’t even a fair comparison. 
 

just picking a year in Brett’s prime when he had 39 TDs in 1996. Only 4 QBs in the league that year had 25 or more TD passes, and only 3 had 4000 yards or more. 12 quarterbacks had 15+ interceptions. 
 

Now look at 2019. 11 4000 yard passers, 12 QBs with 25+ TD passes. You had only 5 QBs with 15 or more interceptions. 
 

It’s not even the same league, so this Wentz/Favre comparison based on TDs and turnovers is pretty pointless.

Perhaps you can list all the rules changes since then that support your claim? Other than rules protecting QBs and WRs, the emphasis on rule enforcement relative to defensive holding and pass interference has been pretty much in favor of offenses since the 90s --- since the league decided to "promote" passing. The only thing that has really changed since the 90s is that the typical defense already "starts" with 5 DBs instead of 4 --- which is a direct counter to the pass-first offensive philosophy. 

A person could actually argue that it may have been easier for a QB during Favre's time to exploit defenses with the pass than it is today based on defensive philosophy. But honestly, IMO, this has all been part of 1 big era, not two completely different ones. 

Can people here join me in an exercise? I am serious as well. Doesn't matter if you've never played football before, have been a college quarterback, are a couch scout, whatever. In this exercise, you are a quarterback. Here are the scenarios...

Scenario 1 - You have spent too much time in the pocket and no one is open. You see a 6'5, 280-pound man running at you with the intent to do egregious bodily harm to you. What do you do with the football? 

Scenario 2 - Somehow, you didn't pick "throw the ball away" in Scenario 1 and chose "run like hell" and made it to where now a group of large men are coming to kill you. What do you do with the football? 

Scenario 3 - Ok, you're a complete idiot and picked continue to try and juke these people. You're Carson Wentz. You've been sacked and fumbled by now. If you haven't though, we'll keep playing. You have a receiver wide open, but you don't see him because, well ... you're Carson Wentz. Do you throw into triple coverage? 

A. Of course. I'm a f'ing winner. 

B. No. I have common sense. 

 

This is the problem. Andy Reid would have sat Donovan's butt on the bench and tossed in whoever. "I put up with Favre for years, I'm not putting up with anymore of this heart attack inducing nonsense. You kill a worm with that ball Donovan!" 

It's just being allowed to happen. Like a creepy uncle. I don't get it. I've seen people write articles about protecting your investment and not overreacting. I don't think you're overreacting at this point to sit him down and saying, "Champ, what the heck is your problem? I can get a plumber from Bleigh Avenue to make better decisions." 

And, I don't want Wentz to not work out. He's just not being treated like any other QB I've ever seen. 

3 hours ago, Cochis_Calhoun said:

He had one stellar year in 1995 and a good one in 1997. The rest of his career he was a low end #2 / decent #3

He dropped off the radar after an injury I believe.

27 minutes ago, stinkfist said:

Can people here join me in an exercise? I am serious as well. Doesn't matter if you've never played football before, have been a college quarterback, are a couch scout, whatever. In this exercise, you are a quarterback. Here are the scenarios...

Scenario 1 - You have spent too much time in the pocket and no one is open. You see a 6'5, 280-pound man running at you with the intent to do egregious bodily harm to you. What do you do with the football? 

Scenario 2 - Somehow, you didn't pick "throw the ball away" in Scenario 1 and chose "run like hell" and made it to where now a group of large men are coming to kill you. What do you do with the football? 

Scenario 3 - Ok, you're a complete idiot and picked continue to try and juke these people. You're Carson Wentz. You've been sacked and fumbled by now. If you haven't though, we'll keep playing. You have a receiver wide open, but you don't see him because, well ... you're Carson Wentz. Do you throw into triple coverage? 

A. Of course. I'm a f'ing winner. 

B. No. I have common sense. 

 

This is the problem. Andy Reid would have sat Donovan's butt on the bench and tossed in whoever. "I put up with Favre for years, I'm not putting up with anymore of this heart attack inducing nonsense. You kill a worm with that ball Donovan!" 

It's just being allowed to happen. Like a creepy uncle. I don't get it. I've seen people write articles about protecting your investment and not overreacting. I don't think you're overreacting at this point to sit him down and saying, "Champ, what the heck is your problem? I can get a plumber from Bleigh Avenue to make better decisions." 

And, I don't want Wentz to not work out. He's just not being treated like any other QB I've ever seen. 

If you have a RB that fumbles the ball on a play, a typical coach likes to display confidence in the guy and give him another carry as soon as possible. Now, if the RB fumbles again, most coaches are going to sit that guy for awhile and play somebody else. After the game, the fans and media don't start talking about a RB controversy brewing. Basically, what happened happened and it's a coachable moment. 

When you are a franchise QB and you get benched, you automatically have a media circus. This becomes a huge distraction and dominates every press conference for the time remaining that both QBs involved are on the team.

We have seen repeatedly what happens whenever a backup QB comes in as an injury replacement --- the narrative invokes a reaction from readers/listeners. When Feeley came in for McNabb, the offense was statistically worse in every category, but that didn't stop people from insisting we move on from McNabb's struggles. When McNabb was benched in 2008 for Kolb, and Kolb came in and actually looked worse, it didn't help the team. McNabb had a bad half and that happens. The move just started the talk about when will Kolb be ready to stay in? After 2009, the Eagles decided it was time and traded McNabb. The decision to ride Kolb going forward was turning into a disaster if an injury to him didn't allow Vick to show the difference between a decent QB and garbage (Kolb). Vick salvaged that season, but the damage was done as players stopped "buying in" to Andy Reid. 

The media clamors for benchings like this because it is good for business --- not because this has been historically a successful approach (because it hasn't). Almost every time it happens either the QB or the HC, or both, have to go. 

1 hour ago, brkmsn said:

Perhaps you can list all the rules changes since then that support your claim? Other than rules protecting QBs and WRs, the emphasis on rule enforcement relative to defensive holding and pass interference has been pretty much in favor of offenses since the 90s --- since the league decided to "promote" passing. The only thing that has really changed since the 90s is that the typical defense already "starts" with 5 DBs instead of 4 --- which is a direct counter to the pass-first offensive philosophy. 

A person could actually argue that it may have been easier for a QB during Favre's time to exploit defenses with the pass than it is today based on defensive philosophy. But honestly, IMO, this has all been part of 1 big era, not two completely different ones. 

Oh come on dude, you can’t honestly believe that the current era isn’t much easier on the offense, particularly the passing game, than it was in the 90s. For one, I believe it was 2005 that the emphasis on illegal contact and defensive holding was put in place. Just go back and watch film from the early/mid 90s.  DBs were allowed to be all over wide receivers without being flagged. Now a CB can’t look at a receiver the wrong way without being called for a penalty. 
 

There’s a reason a 4000 yard passing season is no big deal anymore, when it was concerned a great season in the 90s. 

I think I would care if Foles was actually playing well for another team but in fact the Bears team record is worse with Foles and the Bears offense is worse with Foles in as QB when compared to Trubisky. 

Just now, phil77 said:

I think I would care if Foles was actually playing well for another team but in fact the Bears team record is worse with Foles and the Bears offense is worse with Foles in as QB when compared to Trubisky. 

That was true but he’s had a pretty good last couple games. He’s sure as hell been way better than Wentz this year. 

3 minutes ago, nipples said:

That was true but he’s had a pretty good last couple games. He’s sure as hell been way better than Wentz this year. 

We get it, you were a Foles lover back then and still a Foles lover today. The fact is he is not on the Eagles, Carson is. Get over it and switch to being a fan of what ever team Foles is on each year. Makes it a lot easier for you. 

1 minute ago, DeathByEagle said:

We get it, you were a Foles lover back then and still a Foles lover today. The fact is he is not on the Eagles, Carson is. Get over it and switch to being a fan of what ever team Foles is on each year. Makes it a lot easier for you. 

You couldn’t be further off. Nice try though. I was 100% on board with sticking with Wentz. Simply stating the fact that Foles has been much better than Wentz this year, as have about 25 other QBs. 

13 minutes ago, nipples said:

That was true but he’s had a pretty good last couple games. He’s sure as hell been way better than Wentz this year. 

 

It is FACT that the Bears offense has been better this year with Trubisky compared to Foles.  Look up the numbers if you want.  On the games Foles has started the Bears are 2-4 and he has only thrown 7 TD in those 6 games with 6 INTs.   The Bears offense is averaging under 20 points a game for the season now.   Local media and National media as well as fans are calling for the Bears to go back to Trubisky.   

This will be yet another example of Foles not being a good long term starting QB in the league. He can come in and have a few games here and there but this will be another starting job that he is going to lose.  It will be his what 4th time losing a starting job?  

Also it is not FACT that Foles has been better than Wentz this year.  There is no perfect QB rating system but QBR is OK I guess.  Foles QBR 48.7   Wentz QBR 51.1. 

19 minutes ago, phil77 said:

I think I would care if Foles was actually playing well for another team but in fact the Bears team record is worse with Foles and the Bears offense is worse with Foles in as QB when compared to Trubisky. 

The Bear's O Line is at least as bad as ours and Nagy runs Doug close for predictable play calling. whoever is at QB at the Bears has about a second and a half to guess where an open receiver is and release the ball, whatever else Foles is he isn't mobile.

4 hours ago, brkmsn said:

If you have a RB that fumbles the ball on a play, a typical coach likes to display confidence in the guy and give him another carry as soon as possible. Now, if the RB fumbles again, most coaches are going to sit that guy for awhile and play somebody else. After the game, the fans and media don't start talking about a RB controversy brewing. Basically, what happened happened and it's a coachable moment. 

When you are a franchise QB and you get benched, you automatically have a media circus. This becomes a huge distraction and dominates every press conference for the time remaining that both QBs involved are on the team.

We have seen repeatedly what happens whenever a backup QB comes in as an injury replacement --- the narrative invokes a reaction from readers/listeners. When Feeley came in for McNabb, the offense was statistically worse in every category, but that didn't stop people from insisting we move on from McNabb's struggles. When McNabb was benched in 2008 for Kolb, and Kolb came in and actually looked worse, it didn't help the team. McNabb had a bad half and that happens. The move just started the talk about when will Kolb be ready to stay in? After 2009, the Eagles decided it was time and traded McNabb. The decision to ride Kolb going forward was turning into a disaster if an injury to him didn't allow Vick to show the difference between a decent QB and garbage (Kolb). Vick salvaged that season, but the damage was done as players stopped "buying in" to Andy Reid. 

The media clamors for benchings like this because it is good for business --- not because this has been historically a successful approach (because it hasn't). Almost every time it happens either the QB or the HC, or both, have to go. 

Yeah, we can Tommy Lawlor approach it all we want, but the fact of the matter is if the Eagles are that worried about PR and if Wentz is that weak minded, we have bigger problems. I'm not shooting you down or saying you're wrong, but I'm a bit past that point. And to your point, we have seen what happens when a QB comes in as an injury replacement --- Nick Foles wins a Super Bowl. AJ Feeley gets us a 2nd round pick that season which ended up being Pick 35 overall. Vick came in and won games and Andy Reid needed to go. If you think Andy Reid that is in Kansas City is anything close to Andy Reid that was in Philly, that's another 6 month long convo that we will never agree on. 

 

And for the record, Andy Reid would have put Carson Wentz on his butt weeks ago. Without question. Sit your arse down and think about what you just did. 

1 hour ago, phil77 said:

 

It is FACT that the Bears offense has been better this year with Trubisky compared to Foles.  Look up the numbers if you want.  On the games Foles has started the Bears are 2-4 and he has only thrown 7 TD in those 6 games with 6 INTs.   The Bears offense is averaging under 20 points a game for the season now.   Local media and National media as well as fans are calling for the Bears to go back to Trubisky.   

This will be yet another example of Foles not being a good long term starting QB in the league. He can come in and have a few games here and there but this will be another starting job that he is going to lose.  It will be his what 4th time losing a starting job?  

Also it is not FACT that Foles has been better than Wentz this year.  There is no perfect QB rating system but QBR is OK I guess.  Foles QBR 48.7   Wentz QBR 51.1. 

The best system for rating quarterbacks is simple passer rating. QBR is a fake joke of a stat made up by ESPN. In terms of passer rating, Wentz is 10 points below Foles. 
 

 

33 minutes ago, nipples said:

The best system for rating quarterbacks is simple passer rating. QBR is a fake joke of a stat made up by ESPN. In terms of passer rating, Wentz is 10 points below Foles. 
 

 

So we use that one because Foles is ahead in that rating system and throw out the others where Wentz is ahead.  Got it. 

39 minutes ago, phil77 said:

So we use that one because Foles is ahead in that rating system and throw out the others where Wentz is ahead.  Got it. 

Nope. QBR has always been a joke. But I get it, you’d rather just pretend everything is fine with Wentz despite him being a bottom 5 qb this year. 

Wentz really reminds me of Sam Bradford. Sam too had a high ceiling.

Overpaid, overrated due to draft position, injury prone, turn over prone. No playoff success (yet). What else am i forgetting?

1 hour ago, nipples said:

Nope. QBR has always been a joke. But I get it, you’d rather just pretend everything is fine with Wentz despite him being a bottom 5 qb this year. 

I’m honestly struggling to come up w/ 4 QBs worse than him.

6 minutes ago, FitzIsAtTheAirport said:

I’m honestly struggling to come up w/ 4 QBs worse than him.

Current starters?

Alex Smith

Daniel Jones

Andy Dalton/Ben D/Garret Gil

You can easy say he is best in the NFCE

5 minutes ago, Sturm said:

Current starters?

Alex Smith

Daniel Jones

Andy Dalton/Ben D/Garret Gil

You can easy say he is best in the NFCE

 

5 minutes ago, Sturm said:

Current starters?

Alex Smith

Daniel Jones

Andy Dalton/Ben D/Garret Gil

You can easy say he is best in the NFCE

But the sad thing is I can’t think of many outside of the NFC East that have been worse. Maybe Drew Lock, Darnold... that might be it.