6 hours ago, eagle45 said:

I think Carson Strong belongs in round 1, as long as there are no major, tangible red flags with his knee.  (It's already a red flag just due to his past).

He has the best upside as a passer in the draft and it's not remotely close.

 Imagine that dude with the ability to see the field, his accuracy and arm strength behind the Eagles O line, sheesh.  If his knee checks out, big if, on the right team should be a good one, but that knee history still may prevent him from going in the 1st Round.  
 
 Last I read he was meeting with the Rams Dr. last Thursday to check his knee out and see if he’ll play in Nevada’s bowl game (useless) or get ready for the draft.    His Nevada WR Romeo Dubbs is going the Senior Bowl.  

6 hours ago, eagle45 said:

I have a question for the "Hurts deserves more time" crowd.

Clayton Thorson: 0 starts before the Eagles moved on.

Matt Barkley: 0 starts before the Eagles moved on.

Mike Kafka: 0 starts before the Eagles moved on.

Kevin Kolb: 7 starts before the Eagles moved on.

Jalen Hurts: 16 starts, still can't pass.

 

Why, exactly, does he have to continue to start?  Why are so many fixated on how he can improve?  If we just force-fed unearned snaps to those other out of their depth QB's too, they also would have improved in some capacity.

2nd round draft pick. Simple as that. Otherwise any team/GM would have no issue moving on and picking up a veteran like Bridgewater or someone.

5 hours ago, Infam said:

Often used but flawed argument.

If I tell you I feel offended if you don‘t call me ‚your majesty‘ should you be forced by law to do it?

Or should you if I find enough people that want to be called that?

That same 1st amendment that protects our right to free speech from the government, also protects speech against that free speech. The so-called cancel culture. People have the right to free speech. Other people also have the right to tell them to shut the f up and stop being idiots. Both are protected by the constitution.

3 hours ago, eagle45 said:

There is no upside.  He can’t pass.  He is not talented.  You can’t be talented if you can’t pass.

Every time people talk about Hurts, all they mention is running and intangibles.  That’s pretty much the definition of not talented and low upside.

I lean that way too. Lack of progress in him as a passer has me close to being done with him. And yeah, the reason people mention running and intangibles is because that's all he has shown so far that he delivers consistently. Re. passing, I have a game against Atlanta and a half against Broncos but outside of those, haven't really been impressed.

Hurts has no doubt attended QB camps in high school, played at 2 powerhouse college programs, has had nearly 2 years of NFL coaching and I assume hired private QB coaches. So at what point does everyone realize that this is who he is as a QB? 

He is absolutely a top tier running QB, but he is also absolutely bottom tier throwing the ball. 

9 hours ago, ShutDownDB said:

Hurts has no doubt attended QB camps in high school, played at 2 powerhouse college programs, has had nearly 2 years of NFL coaching and I assume hired private QB coaches. So at what point does everyone realize that this is who he is as a QB? 

He is absolutely a top tier running QB, but he is also absolutely bottom tier throwing the ball. 

Get ready for "Saban and Riley don't ever develop QBs" and/or "He's still a rookie" and most likely "your God is gone, you beanbagger!"

On 12/6/2021 at 11:38 AM, MF POON said:

Sam Bradford could throw better than Michael Vick, but who was considered better back then? Who had the better career? Bye.

Sam Bradford vs Michael Vick if wayyyyyy different than Hurts vs Minshew. Michael could throw very well and run as well.

The "Jalen Hurts needs time to continue to improve as a passer" crowd needs to see this.  First we have passing yards by chronological start.  Then we have passer rating by start.  A line of best fit analysis shows you a modest decline in his passing since he got the starting job.  He's not improving.  

26 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

The "Jalen Hurts needs time to continue to improve as a passer" crowd needs to see this.  First we have passing yards by chronological start.  Then we have passer rating by start.  A line of best fit analysis shows you a modest decline in his passing since he got the starting job.  He's not improving.  

Nice stats. But they only tell part of the story.

For example, Passing yards as a measure of success? The focus has been on running the ball in recent games. 

I would be interested in reviewing the run yards, time of possession, and W/L for each of the most recent games. And maybe +/- for turnovers.

And look at the QBR for games 13 and 14, low yardage on those games. but effective. Did we win?

That game 16 is a stinker. So was game 4. Maybe he bounces back and has 11 good games before his next stinker. Can't really say games 9 and 10 were "good".

Not sure I like looking at last year's stats for a first year QB in combination with this year's. I almost see them as separate data sets. Lots happened. Off season training. More understanding.

I see a change of focus to a running offense in recent games as almost a separate subset. There was a change in the system.

But, however you slice it, that game 16 is a stinker. 

2 minutes ago, CouchKing said:

 

 

I would be interested in reviewing the run yards, time of possession, and W/L for each of the most recent games.

The point is to evaluate him as a passer.

 

Not sure I like looking at last year's stats for a first year QB in combination with this year's. I almost see them as separate data sets. Lots happened. Off season training. More understanding.

Also the point...we look at last year.  Lots happened, more understanding, offseason training...and he's not getting better.

 

4 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

 

Yeah, he really laid a turd in that last game.

55 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

The "Jalen Hurts needs time to continue to improve as a passer" crowd needs to see this. 

And you need to see this.

Eagles points per game in 2021 - 25.9, an increase of 5 from 2020.

Eagles yards per play in 2021 - 5.7, an increase of .7 from 2020.

All other stats are useless. The only stats that really matter are scoring and moving the ball. And we score and move the ball at a top 10 rate in the league with an offense that is one of the youngest in the league. And we did that despite having an inexperienced coaching staff.

What YOU fail to realize is that changing the qb could make these numbers a whole lot worse. There's a cost to changing qbs. Just ask the Bears, who are scoring about a touchdown less this year after spending significant capital to bring in Fields. Maybe he works out and maybe he doesn't, but the fact remains that the Bears were much better offensively last year than they are right now. And their future isn't great either. Even if Fields works out, the team will be good just as they have to pay him $50 million a year. 

So you are banging the drum for the team to make a change that, realistically, has a much greater chance of making us worse than better. And your justification for that is that you think Hurts can't get better. Well, if he doesn't, we still have a top 10 offense.

I think that is why there is so much angst surrounding Hurts. His critics have to constantly nitpick him because they can't accept the fact that the offense works with him at QB. 

26 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

And you need to see this.

Eagles points per game in 2021 - 25.9, an increase of 5 from 2020.

Eagles yards per play in 2021 - 5.7, an increase of .7 from 2020.

All other stats are useless. The only stats that really matter are scoring and moving the ball. And we score and move the ball at a top 10 rate in the league with an offense that is one of the youngest in the league. And we did that despite having an inexperienced coaching staff.

What YOU fail to realize is that changing the qb could make these numbers a whole lot worse. There's a cost to changing qbs. Just ask the Bears, who are scoring about a touchdown less this year after spending significant capital to bring in Fields. Maybe he works out and maybe he doesn't, but the fact remains that the Bears were much better offensively last year than they are right now. And their future isn't great either. Even if Fields works out, the team will be good just as they have to pay him $50 million a year. 

So you are banging the drum for the team to make a change that, realistically, has a much greater chance of making us worse than better. And your justification for that is that you think Hurts can't get better. Well, if he doesn't, we still have a top 10 offense.

I think that is why there is so much angst surrounding Hurts. His critics have to constantly nitpick him because they can't accept the fact that the offense works with him at QB. 

Very interesting.  So you want to ignore innumerable external factors and ignorantly distill your evaluation of Hurts into one stat which is "all that matters"...points per game.  

Why stop there?  Let's take it one step further, ignore more external factors, and say that W/L is the only state that matters: 5-7.

So you are banging the drum for a 5-7 team to *not* make a change because "things could be worse."  

41 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

So you are banging the drum for a 5-7 team to *not* make a change because "things could be worse."  

No, I just see a different path to turning a 5-7 team into a legit contender, one that doesn't involve a massive risk of failure, or at best leaving us running in place.

The problem is, you don't see any path to success with Hurts. Which is fine. After a year of you posting the same thing every day, we all get it. But the fact remains that you could be wrong. You obviously don't see how you could be wrong, and if the fact that we have a top 10 offense doesn't do it, nothing will. But your stubborn insistence that you are right doesn't make it so.

 

I am super excited for Hurts to start again next week. Can't wait to squash the WFT as long as the defense can hold up.

2 hours ago, jsb235 said:

No, I just see a different path to turning a 5-7 team into a legit contender, one that doesn't involve a massive risk of failure, or at best leaving us running in place.

The problem is, you don't see any path to success with Hurts. Which is fine. After a year of you posting the same thing every day, we all get it. But the fact remains that you could be wrong. You obviously don't see how you could be wrong, and if the fact that we have a top 10 offense doesn't do it, nothing will. But your stubborn insistence that you are right doesn't make it so.

 

I prefer not to take a path to success that has never been taken by any NFL team in history...ie...building the offense around a poor passing, running QB.  I don't see that path.  You see it.  You want to take it.  Go ahead, get in the weeds, grab your machete, and try to blaze that trail.

I'll take the highway.

3 hours ago, jsb235 said:

No, I just see a different path to turning a 5-7 team into a legit contender, one that doesn't involve a massive risk of failure, or at best leaving us running in place.

The problem is, you don't see any path to success with Hurts. Which is fine. After a year of you posting the same thing every day, we all get it. But the fact remains that you could be wrong. You obviously don't see how you could be wrong, and if the fact that we have a top 10 offense doesn't do it, nothing will. But your stubborn insistence that you are right doesn't make it so.

 

Explain that path to us. I see a path of mediocrity until Hurts body wears out from running and getting hit all the time and then we're looking for a new qb anyways

14 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

I prefer not to take a path to success that has never been taken by any NFL team in history...ie...building the offense around a poor passing, running QB.  I don't see that path.  You see it.  You want to take it.  Go ahead, get in the weeds, grab your machete, and try to blaze that trail.

I'll take the highway.

You are seriously not very smart, are you?

Since 2000, at least five teams have won a Super Bowl with an offense that was ranked 10th or worse (the Ravens twice, the Broncos in 2015, the Giants in 2007 and the Patriots in 2003). We went to the Super Bowl in 2004 with an offense ranked 8th in the league.

What are you talking about "no one has ever done it?" Teams with offenses ranked 10th or worst in the league literally win Super Bowls all the time.

Again, you being stubborn and ignorant does not mean you are right anywhere but your own head.

7 minutes ago, greend said:

Explain that path to us. I see a path of mediocrity until Hurts body wears out from running and getting hit all the time and then we're looking for a new qb anyways

You can win a Super Bowl with a great defense and a top 10 offense. Teams do it all the time.

The offense is extremely young (second youngest in the league), has a clear weakness at wr, and has a defense in need of talent. Fix those problems before you go fixing problems that may not be a problem.    

16 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

You are seriously not very smart, are you?

Since 2000, at least five teams have won a Super Bowl with an offense that was ranked 10th or worse (the Ravens twice, the Broncos in 2015, the Giants in 2007 and the Patriots in 2003). We went to the Super Bowl in 2004 with an offense ranked 8th in the league.

What are you talking about "no one has ever done it?" Teams with offenses ranked 10th or worst in the league literally win Super Bowls all the time.

Again, you being stubborn and ignorant does not mean you are right anywhere but your own head.

No team in NFL history has won a SB with a QB who was primarily a runner and a sub-par passer.

6 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

No team in NFL history has won a SB with a QB who was primarily a runner and a sub-par passer.

Until one does, just like everything else.

So what's the word in Philly, who gets the start Sunday?

6 minutes ago, EagleVA said:

So what's the word in Philly, who gets the start Sunday?

The couch?

1 minute ago, pallidrone said:

The couch?

What da??

Just now, EagleVA said:

What da??

Well considering they are on a bye this week I would assume the couch would start as one of the QBs watch TV.