12 hours ago, nipples said:

I’m still not sold on him. He could still go either way. He’s shown promise recently, now it’s all about continuing to improve and becoming more consistent. Jury is still out. 

"not sold on him"   and  "Jury is still out"

so, what does that mean when it comes down to specifics?

I don't like to pay QBs big money.  The Eagles have Hurts under contract at a very low price for the rest of this year, and then 2 years more.  And then they keep him or not.

Jalen Hurts is doing great for how much money he costs - almost none.  I'm sold on him through the end of the 2023 season.   But I'm not sold on him for the 2024 season,  at a much higher price.

When you, and others, are saying they're "not sold",  what time frame are they looking at? 

 

 

9 hours ago, Random Reglar said:

I don't like to pay QBs big money. 

You aren't the owner. It's not your money. 

I couldn't care less what certain players make. I only care about team results. A team can save money at any position with a rookie contract and use the extra cap space to overpay a FA at another position. Paying top dollar to FAs like Byron Maxwell, Byron Jones, Austin Hooper, etc... is less of a sure thing than extending players that already do fit your team, culture, system, etc...

1 hour ago, brkmsn said:

You aren't the owner. It's not your money. 

I couldn't care less what certain players make. I only care about team results. A team can save money at any position with a rookie contract and use the extra cap space to overpay a FA at another position. Paying top dollar to FAs like Byron Maxwell, Byron Jones, Austin Hooper, etc... is less of a sure thing than extending players that already do fit your team, culture, system, etc...

Once again concepts are over your head. He understands he’s not the owner. Without saying it he’s basically noting the history of paying quarterbacks top dollar and how difficult it becomes to field a competitive team due to how much high priced quarterbacks eat up cap space. He obviously doesn’t think he’s the owner fool. 

4 minutes ago, EazyEaglez said:

Once again concepts are over your head. He understands he’s not the owner. Without saying it he’s basically noting the history of paying quarterbacks top dollar and how difficult it becomes to field a competitive team due to how much high priced quarterbacks eat up cap space. He obviously doesn’t think he’s the owner fool. 

That becomes astronomically more difficult to do by not paying a QB. You could very easily be the Browns and be in QB hell for decades.

Just now, Swoop said:

That becomes astronomically more difficult to do by not paying a QB. You could very easily be the Browns and be in QB hell for decades.

The Seahawks haven’t been anywhere since they paid their quarterback. Heck Brady used to take less money to the Pats could field a more competitive team. Rodgers has been considered the greatest quarterback over the past decade and has one ring he basically won in the beginning of his second contract. Heck the Eagles won a SB when they didn’t have to pay Wentz. Overall selecting talent is more important, but it’s far more difficult to keep talent when the quarterback dominates so much of the cap especially if a team gives a big contract to the wrong quarterback. I don’t know if a fully agree with the concept of letting a quarterback go every 4-5 years either, but in a way that would be something a "quarterback factory” would do isn’t it? Ultimately if winning is what matters most why do you care who plays quarterback and for how long? The Lions had the same quarterback for over a decade and didn’t win squat. 

1 hour ago, EazyEaglez said:

The Seahawks haven’t been anywhere since they paid their quarterback. Heck Brady used to take less money to the Pats could field a more competitive team. Rodgers has been considered the greatest quarterback over the past decade and has one ring he basically won in the beginning of his second contract. Heck the Eagles won a SB when they didn’t have to pay Wentz. Overall selecting talent is more important, but it’s far more difficult to keep talent when the quarterback dominates so much of the cap especially if a team gives a big contract to the wrong quarterback. I don’t know if a fully agree with the concept of letting a quarterback go every 4-5 years either, but in a way that would be something a "quarterback factory” would do isn’t it? Ultimately if winning is what matters most why do you care who plays quarterback and for how long? The Lions had the same quarterback for over a decade and didn’t win squat. 

I don't really care if they win. 

Point being, if you look at the bottom 10 teams the last 10 years, there's a common theme: 

No Quarterback.

Top 10?

All have a QB.

1 hour ago, EazyEaglez said:

The Seahawks haven’t been anywhere since they paid their quarterback. Heck Brady used to take less money to the Pats could field a more competitive team. Rodgers has been considered the greatest quarterback over the past decade and has one ring he basically won in the beginning of his second contract. Heck the Eagles won a SB when they didn’t have to pay Wentz. Overall selecting talent is more important, but it’s far more difficult to keep talent when the quarterback dominates so much of the cap especially if a team gives a big contract to the wrong quarterback. I don’t know if a fully agree with the concept of letting a quarterback go every 4-5 years either, but in a way that would be something a "quarterback factory” would do isn’t it? Ultimately if winning is what matters most why do you care who plays quarterback and for how long? The Lions had the same quarterback for over a decade and didn’t win squat. 

It comes down to whether or not they feel that QB is helping to win games. The reason Rodgers, Wilson and even Brady make so much money is because they are leading league MVP candidates every year. They make their teams better. A lot of people around here don't want to give Dak any respect, but when he was gone last year, his team sucked even more (they suck already because they are dallas). Since Washington let Cousins go, they've been unable to field a decent offense. Miami gave up on Tannehill and that made the Titans a better team. 

When you have a highly respected veteran QB on your team, it makes your team an attractive destination for FAs. Sometimes they (outside FAs) are willing to sign with that team for less money than offers they receive from other teams with less certainty surrounding them. 

Every year, there are teams looking to upgrade at QB. If a team drafts one and he develops into one of the league's best QBs by the time he hits free agency and they decide to replace him with an unproven player on a rookie deal (draft pick) to save money, they are just making some future opponent a better team. If you already have one of the better QBs in the league on your team and you don't attempt to keep him, that's pretty idiotic. Believing that the money saved will somehow boost your team is equally idiotic. 

9 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

It comes down to whether or not they feel that QB is helping to win games. The reason Rodgers, Wilson and even Brady make so much money is because they are leading league MVP candidates every year. They make their teams better. A lot of people around here don't want to give Dak any respect, but when he was gone last year, his team sucked even more (they suck already because they are dallas). Since Washington let Cousins go, they've been unable to field a decent offense. Miami gave up on Tannehill and that made the Titans a better team. 

When you have a highly respected veteran QB on your team, it makes your team an attractive destination for FAs. Sometimes they (outside FAs) are willing to sign with that team for less money than offers they receive from other teams with less certainty surrounding them. 

Every year, there are teams looking to upgrade at QB. If a team drafts one and he develops into one of the league's best QBs by the time he hits free agency and they decide to replace him with an unproven player on a rookie deal (draft pick) to save money, they are just making some future opponent a better team. If you already have one of the better QBs in the league on your team and you don't attempt to keep him, that's pretty idiotic. Believing that the money saved will somehow boost your team is equally idiotic. 

Except when you are sure you have a better QB already on the roster. But yeah, agree.

1 minute ago, Infam said:

Except when you are sure you have a better QB already on the roster. But yeah, agree.

That's what KC did with Smith / Mahomes. That's what the Eagles were unsuccessful with when they traded McNabb in favor of Kolb. I agree that you'd better know the answer before you make the decision. 

55 minutes ago, Swoop said:

I don't really care if they win. 

Point being, if you look at the bottom 10 teams the last 10 years, there's a common theme: 

No Quarterback.

Top 10?

All have a QB.

The Lions blow that concept out the door, and if winning isn’t important, but having a top quarterback is well that’s just confusing. For years Elway was considered one of the greatest quarterbacks in the NFL, but he didn’t actually win until they got him a 2000 yard back. Winning is more important than QB status. 

The offense that Hurts is using to "improve" suits us both a damn sight better than one that demands he throw 40+ times a game.  Would be ok with the addition of a veteran X added to the mix with this group next year.  Use as many picks as can be spared to rebuild the D.

28 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

It comes down to whether or not they feel that QB is helping to win games. The reason Rodgers, Wilson and even Brady make so much money is because they are leading league MVP candidates every year. They make their teams better. A lot of people around here don't want to give Dak any respect, but when he was gone last year, his team sucked even more (they suck already because they are dallas). Since Washington let Cousins go, they've been unable to field a decent offense. Miami gave up on Tannehill and that made the Titans a better team. 

When you have a highly respected veteran QB on your team, it makes your team an attractive destination for FAs. Sometimes they (outside FAs) are willing to sign with that team for less money than offers they receive from other teams with less certainty surrounding them. 

Every year, there are teams looking to upgrade at QB. If a team drafts one and he develops into one of the league's best QBs by the time he hits free agency and they decide to replace him with an unproven player on a rookie deal (draft pick) to save money, they are just making some future opponent a better team. If you already have one of the better QBs in the league on your team and you don't attempt to keep him, that's pretty idiotic. Believing that the money saved will somehow boost your team is equally idiotic. 

Most of these young quarterbacks don’t win when they get their big contracts. Tannehill was given up on by the Dolphins, because he wasn’t very good there due to the fact they didn’t have a good roster. I don’t care how good the quarterback is if he’s not surrounded by talent he won’t win. The teams that fail get it wrong. They become obsessed with finding the messiah quarterback instead of coming up with the idea of building their roster. That’s why teams like the Browns have had like 20 quarterbacks in 30 years time. It’s not because they aren’t trying to find the guy, rather the opposite. The are spending too much capital doing that very thing. Build up the roster which is a more plausible thing to do when the quarterback is on the rookie deal, but mainly draft that quarterback after the team has been developed and let that player grow. The problem is there’s no patience anymore. Swoop just wrote he’d rather have the quarterback that actually win. This is an idiotic concept. With this being these none of this means that anyone thinks they’re the owner of the team and he’s spending their money. 

5 minutes ago, Greenakers2 said:

The offense that Hurts is using to "improve" suits us both a damn sight better than one that demands he throw 40+ times a game.  Would be ok with the addition of a veteran X added to the mix with this group next year.  Use as many picks as can be spared to rebuild the D.

If the Eagles build this roster to a top five defense and their offense can remain in to 10-15 range they are a consistent playoff team easy.  

20 hours ago, EazyEaglez said:

The D schemes have been proven to be taken advantage of by better quarterbacks. I still wonder how much of it is Gannon and how much of it is due to a lack of playmakers. I mean they lack so much talent they’re forced to keep playing Barnett even when he makes a boneheaded plays out there. The safeties definitely need an upgrade, the linebackers are better than what was out there before ( but that doesn’t mean they are good) and the line completely lacks depth. Before they could send waves of rush at quarterbacks, but now the starting line feels like a second string line. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done on that side of the football. 

Yet I have seen the defense make more big gamechanging plays than I have for years. 
 

It’s inconsistent, up and down, but there is talent. Plus it’s without question the best CB group in a long time.

Let’s break it down like this. If you’re team completely goes to crap when your quarterback is lost for the season then you have a poorly constructed roster. If your team goes on and wins the Super Bowl without your elite quarterback then you’re paying that guy too much money.

1 minute ago, Infam said:

Yet I have seen the defense make more big gamechanging plays than I have for years. 
 

It’s inconsistent, up and down, but there is talent. Plus it’s without question the best CB group in a long time.

It’s been few and far between. The problem is things have been so bad lately that the little we have seen makes us think it a lot. The 2017 SB team got to the quarterback, stopped the run, and did make turnovers. To put this into perspective Rasul Douglas in 2017 had 2 interceptions and eleven passes defended . He started only 5 games and right now he’d be tied for the team lead in interceptions and will be well ahead of all of these guys in pass breakups. 

2 minutes ago, EazyEaglez said:

It’s been few and far between. The problem is things have been so bad lately that the little we have seen makes us think it a lot. The 2017 SB team got to the quarterback, stopped the run, and did make turnovers. To put this into perspective Rasul Douglas in 2017 had 2 interceptions and eleven passes defended . He started only 5 games and right now he’d be tied for the team lead in interceptions and will be well ahead of all of these guys in pass breakups. 

That defense got us to the SB, so that‘s a high bar. Still, the games we won this year the defense did.. dominate.

We need some good young players, we need to get used to the coaching.. but it certainly isn’t all bad either.

7 minutes ago, Infam said:

That defense got us to the SB, so that‘s a high bar. Still, the games we won this year the defense did.. dominate.

We need some good young players, we need to get used to the coaching.. but it certainly isn’t all bad either.

I would like to see more playmakers. I feel like they could use a safety, and much more pass rush. The reason why this defense struggles is due to the line lacking depth. The linebackers weren’t really making any plays until Edwards and Taylor got in there, but I’m still not sure I trust those guys. They need a sideline to sideline playmaking linebacker to sure things up. 

1 minute ago, EazyEaglez said:

I would like to see more playmakers. I feel like they could use a safety, and much more pass rush. The reason why this defense struggles is due to the line lacking depth. The linebackers weren’t really making any plays until Edwards and Taylor got in there, but I’m still not sure I trust those guys. They need a sideline to sideline playmaking linebacker to sure things up. 

Sure, there is not a single position on the defense where a good draftpick wouldn’t help us. Just saying we got some players, and it’s not doom and gloom.

Ultimately, we should draft bpa and fill in FA, no matter what.

But when it comes to need, I agree: Our biggest need is at DE, followed by safety.

Still want Linderbaum and Ross for the offense, but that’s just me. I can’t help it.

😁

57 minutes ago, EazyEaglez said:

The Lions blow that concept out the door, and if winning isn’t important, but having a top quarterback is well that’s just confusing. For years Elway was considered one of the greatest quarterbacks in the NFL, but he didn’t actually win until they got him a 2000 yard back. Winning is more important than QB status. 

I was saying that I don't really care who the QB is, if they win. 

The bottom line is, teams with good QBs routinely have a chance at winning. Teams without one, typically don't. Nothing you say will change that. You may get flukey, but the teams consistently in the mix for the title have a good QB, season after season, on more occasions than not.

There is a reason it's the highest paid position in the game.

 

15 hours ago, Random Reglar said:

"not sold on him"   and  "Jury is still out"

so, what does that mean when it comes down to specifics?

I don't like to pay QBs big money.  The Eagles have Hurts under contract at a very low price for the rest of this year, and then 2 years more.  And then they keep him or not.

Jalen Hurts is doing great for how much money he costs - almost none.  I'm sold on him through the end of the 2023 season.   But I'm not sold on him for the 2024 season,  at a much higher price.

When you, and others, are saying they're "not sold",  what time frame are they looking at? 

 

 

I agree with you about Hurts the next 2 years. Evaluate him further. He's improving lately. 

For me if I'm not sold on him I mean as the long term franchise guy you give a big contract and build around for 10 years. But he has time to prove himself if he grows and improves. 

2 hours ago, EazyEaglez said:

The Lions blow that concept out the door, and if winning isn’t important, but having a top quarterback is well that’s just confusing. For years Elway was considered one of the greatest quarterbacks in the NFL, but he didn’t actually win until they got him a 2000 yard back. Winning is more important than QB status. 

So ... you're telling me that the lions spent so much money on their good QB that they were unable to afford to build a better team?

 

Elway went to 3 Super Bowls long before T. Davis arrived. Elway retired as the winningest QB in NFL history to that point. Cunningham played his Eagles career behind one of the worst O-lines in NFL history. While he was here, he never had a standout RB. It was his playmaking ability that carried the offense. Dan Marino never had a great running game to keep pressure off the passing game nor did he have a defense that could bail him out. He carried that team offensively, year after year. McNabb had a pretty good run for us despite rarely having even good receivers to throw to. 

 

Now ... there is a difference between winning games and winning the Super Bowl. You can put together one of the best teams in NFL history and still lose to a better team that year in the Championship. But if you aren't winning games along the way, you won't get to a championship. In your argument, if the SB is the only measuring stick, then the entire team is overpaid if they fail to win one. 

6 hours ago, brkmsn said:

You aren't the owner. It's not your money. 

I couldn't care less what certain players make. I only care about team results. A team can save money at any position with a rookie contract and use the extra cap space to overpay a FA at another position. Paying top dollar to FAs like Byron Maxwell, Byron Jones, Austin Hooper, etc... is less of a sure thing than extending players that already do fit your team, culture, system, etc...

Right.   But it's the shorter way to say something like "I much prefer when a team doesn't spend so much money on a QB that the rest of the team doesn't have as many good players, or gets into cap problems, or gets locked into a QB who isn't good enough for a long time."

I think that people understand that it's not my money that's being spend, as do I.

Generally,  you don't have any players except QBs making extreme amounts of money.

3 minutes ago, Random Reglar said:

Right.   But it's the shorter way to say something like "I much prefer when a team doesn't spend so much money on a QB that the rest of the team doesn't have as many good players, or gets into cap problems, or gets locked into a QB who isn't good enough for a long time."

I think that people understand that it's not my money that's being spend, as do I.

Generally,  you don't have any players except QBs making extreme amounts of money.

You are both right.

Brady is a really good QB, but you can’t deny that part of his success is due to relatively moderate contracts he took to win.

1 minute ago, Random Reglar said:

Right.   But it's the shorter way to say something like "I much prefer when a team doesn't spend so much money on a QB that the rest of the team doesn't have as many good players, or gets into cap problems, or gets locked into a QB who isn't good enough for a long time."

I think that people understand that it's not my money that's being spend, as do I.

Generally,  you don't have any players except QBs making extreme amounts of money.

I think we all know that it isn't the fans writing checks to players, but we often read people complaining about certain players' salaries as if one or two of them are the reasons that team failed in some form. There's a  salary cap and you can lose just as many games having $100M of space left under your cap as you can by having only $2M left to spend. Money not spent by the team is just additional profit for the owner. So it's weird to me to form an argument to get a lesser player to save money, that isn't necessarily helping the team to win games. The team should always try to retain players that are near the top of the league in their respective positions.