7 hours ago, Random Reglar said:

Russell Wilson.  

Ran for 849 yards one year.

That's a running QB. 

Running QBs are QBs who have a lot of rushing yards. 

You can make a stronger version of your argument if you understand that running QB Russell Wilson did win a Super Bowl 8 years ago.  

Russel Wilson is a QB who can run, Jalen Hurts is a running QB

12 minutes ago, downundermike said:

Russel Wilson is a QB who can run, Jalen Hurts is a running QB

I really hate punching down here, but you do realize that Seattle had the 27th ranked passing offense in his rookie season, the 26th ranked passing offense in his second (when they won the Super Bowl) and the 27th ranked passing offense in his third season, when they lost the Super Bowl. They also had a top ranked running game all of those years, which was the only reason they had a functional offense. In fact, prior to his rookie season, the team's passing game was actually better.

Yes, Russell Wilson turned into a good passer later in his career, but all of his early success came primarily due to his running ability.

You really should google stuff before you post here.  

6 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

I really hate punching down here, but you do realize that Seattle had the 27th ranked passing offense in his rookie season, the 26th ranked passing offense in his second (when they won the Super Bowl) and 27th ranked passing offense in his third season, when they lost the Super Bowl. They also had a top ranked running game all of those years, which was the only reason they had a functional offense. In fact, prior to his rookie season, the team's passing game was actually better.

Yes, Russell Wilson turned into a good passer later in his career, but all of his early success came primarily due to his running ability.

You really should google stuff before you post here.  

Russell Wilson was always a good passer who has grown into an elite passer as his career went on. It's beyond foolish to suggest otherwise. 

28 minutes ago, Swoop said:

Russell Wilson was always a good passer who has grown into an elite passer as his career went on. It's beyond foolish to suggest otherwise. 

The Seahawks didn't win anything due to their passing game the first three years of his career.

They won because of their defense and their running game.

That's the whole point of this conversation, that a team can't win a championship without a qb throwing for a lot of yards, because an offense based on running the ball can't win a championship.

Try to keep up. 

1 minute ago, jsb235 said:

The Seahawks didn't win anything due to their passing game the first three years of his career.

They won because of their defense and their running game.

That's the whole point of this conversation, that a team can't win a championship without a qb throwing for a lot of yards, because an offense based on running the ball can't win a championship.

Try to keep up. 

You said he became a good passer later in his career, which is false.

You also said that his success came from his running ability, which is also false.

They had arguably the best running back in football and a great defense. This hasn't been disputed. The notion that his only success came because he was a running QB is wrong and has been proven so multiple times in this very thread. Just because he didn't need to throw the football 45 times a game doesn't make him a bad passer the 25 times that he did, right? You know he's one of the few to have a 100 or greater QB rating in his first two seasons, right?

Try to keep up.

Even tho he used his legs to run, Wilson was always able to use his arm. He's accurate, fits it in tight windows, and throws one of the best deep balls in the league. He can also read a defense and he goes through his progressions. Hurts can't do any of that. He sucks. Go ahead and hump away Hurts humper

To break it down further: 

For his rookie season, Wilson averaged about 5.5 carries a game for 30 yards.

By comparison in Hurts "rookie" season he averages about 10.5 rushes a game for 60 yards. 

Both had/have a top rushing offense outside of QB runs. The difference is that one completed 64% of his passes, had more passing TDs, had a QB rating of 100 and a QBR of 72.7

See the difference?

27 minutes ago, Swoop said:

Just because he didn't need to throw the football 45 times a game doesn't make him a bad passer the 25 times that he did, right?

But Hurts Haters like you claim that a qb being asked to throw only 25 times a game is one that is being protected by the coaching staff. So your arguments get very confusing.

Here's the simple facts.

Russell Wilson in 2012 - 3,500 total yards, 30 total TDs and 13 turnovers.

Jalen Hurts in 2021 - 3,100 total yards in 12 games, 21 TDs and 9 turnovers.

Hurts is on track to have fewer turnovers, more yards and about the same number of TDs as Wilson in 2012. And Wilson was arguably worse in 2013, when he had more yards (3,900) but fewer TDs (27) and more turnovers (14).

And before anyone trots out the "the game was different in 2013" argument, Brees threw for over 5,000 yards with 42 TDs and 14 turnovers.

There is no argument to be made here. The team is moving the ball and scoring points under Hurts. You may not like how they are doing it, but we are a top 10 offense because Hurts is producing like a top 10 QB.

3 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

But Hurts Haters like you claim that a qb being asked to throw only 25 times a game is one that is being protected by the coaching staff. So your arguments get very confusing.

Here's the simple facts.

Russell Wilson in 2012 - 3,500 total yards, 30 total TDs and 13 turnovers.

Jalen Hurts in 2021 - 3,100 total yards in 12 games, 21 TDs and 9 turnovers.

Hurts is on track to have fewer turnovers, more yards and about the same number of TDs as Wilson in 2012. And Wilson was arguably worse in 2013, when he had more yards (3,900) but fewer TDs (27) and more turnovers (14).

And before anyone trots out the "the game was different in 2013" argument, Brees threw for over 5,000 yards with 42 TDs and 14 turnovers.

There is no argument to be made here. The team is moving the ball and scoring points under Hurts. You may not like how they are doing it, but we are a top 10 offense because Hurts is producing like a top 10 QB.

I don't criticize Hurts for not throwing 40 times a game. I criticize Hurts for not being able to throw worth a damn when he's asked to.

As for your last point, you might want to rethink Hurts being a top 10 QB, you can't possibly be serious.

He's 28th in completion percentage, 24th in passing yards (had it not been for injuries to Wilson and Jones, he would be 26th), 22nd in average, 29th in passing yards per game, 24th in passing TDs, 26th in QB rating and 21st in QBR (which takes running into account).

2 minutes ago, Swoop said:

I don't criticize Hurts for not throwing 40 times a game. I criticize Hurts for not being able to throw worth a damn when he's asked to.

As for your last point, you might want to rethink Hurts being a top 10 QB, you can't possibly be serious.

He's 28th in completion percentage, 24th in passing yards (had it not been for injuries to Wilson and Jones, he would be 26th), 22nd in average, 29th in passing yards per game, 24th in passing TDs, 26th in QB rating and 21st in QBR (which takes running into account).

The Eagles are a top 10 offense. That's an undisputed fact.

The only thing that is called into question is whether the Eagles are a top 10 offense because of Jalen Hurts or despite Jalen Hurts.

Hurts Haters seem to think that plugging anyone into the offense will make it better.

Hurts Humpers think that replacing him will make it worse.

Rational people like me think, why take the chance? What's the upside in replacing him? You already have a top 10 offense. Why not see if he can get better and instead use draft capital/cap space to improve the defense or other areas of the offense (looking at you Reagor).

Sure, they could get extremely lucky and draft the next Drew Brees or Patrick Mahomes. But it's way more likely they are going to end up with the next Mitchell Trubisky, Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariota, San Darnold, Baker Mayfield or Daniel Jones.

Sure, we could be the next Bucs or Broncos and win a title by bringing in an established vet. But the Bucs signed Brady as a free agent and so did the Broncos. They didn't have to give up any draft capital to get those players. That isn't the case with getting a Wilson or Watson.

I get that you aren't a rational thinker and don't understand basic economic principles like cost-benefit analysis or the law of diminishing returns. So this post is lost on you and the Hurts Haters on this board. But when the team sticks with Hurts (if they stick with Hurts), at least you can't say no one ever explained to you why they did it.

 

1 hour ago, Godfather said:

Even tho he used his legs to run, Wilson was always able to use his arm. He's accurate, fits it in tight windows, and throws one of the best deep balls in the league. He can also read a defense and he goes through his progressions. Hurts can't do any of that. He sucks. Go ahead and hump away Hurts humper

Yep.  Completed 64% of his passes as a rookie, and 63% year 2.  

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

Yep.  Completed 64% of his passes as a rookie, and 63% year 2.  

More useless short bus stats.

Do they hand out trophies for completion percentage? Then we should sign Bridgewater, Goff or any of the 30 or so other qbs who can complete 65 percent of their passes.

Do they move the ball and score points?

Those are the numbers anyone with a brain cares about.

3 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

More useless short bus stats.

Do they hand out trophies for completion percentage? Then we should sign Bridgewater, Goff or any of the 30 or so other qbs who can complete 65 percent of their passes.

Do they move the ball and score points?

Those are the numbers anyone with a brain cares about.

They don't hand out trophies for yards and points either.  They hand them out for wins, and the Eagles are in the bottom 3rd of the league in that category.

You keep comparing Wilson to Hurts, guess what Wilson did his first two years.  24-8 and a Lombardi.

3 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

The Eagles are a top 10 offense. That's an undisputed fact.

The only thing that is called into question is whether the Eagles are a top 10 offense because of Jalen Hurts or despite Jalen Hurts.

Hurts Haters seem to think that plugging anyone into the offense will make it better.

Hurts Humpers think that replacing him will make it worse.

Rational people like me think, why take the chance? What's the upside in replacing him? You already have a top 10 offense. Why not see if he can get better and instead use draft capital/cap space to improve the defense or other areas of the offense (looking at you Reagor).

Sure, they could get extremely lucky and draft the next Drew Brees or Patrick Mahomes. But it's way more likely they are going to end up with the next Mitchell Trubisky, Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariota, San Darnold, Baker Mayfield or Daniel Jones.

Sure, we could be the next Bucs or Broncos and win a title by bringing in an established vet. But the Bucs signed Brady as a free agent and so did the Broncos. They didn't have to give up any draft capital to get those players. That isn't the case with getting a Wilson or Watson.

I get that you aren't a rational thinker and don't understand basic economic principles like cost-benefit analysis or the law of diminishing returns. So this post is lost on you and the Hurts Haters on this board. But when the team sticks with Hurts (if they stick with Hurts), at least you can't say no one ever explained to you why they did it.

 

No one argued that the offense wasn't top 10, but for what it's worth it isn't. 15th in yards per game, 30th in passing, 1st in rushing, 12th in points.

You want to argue Hurts is a top 10 QB. Based on what? The offense as a whole? He's in the bottom 3rd of the league in every way as a passer and his only real value is running the football.

Which bring us to our original argument, there is a difference between a running QB and a QB that can also run, but that's neither here nor there.

The problem, is that you choose to ignore that they are actively taking that ball out of his hands with the more experience he gets. It should be the other way around. As I posted in this thread, he has gotten worse across the board from his first 8 starts, to his last 8. 

Beyond that, the offense is good despite Hurts. Amazingly, we saw Minshew come in for his first start of the season (albeit against a bad team) and not only helped Goedert to a career day, but posted a stat line very much better than the average of what Hurts can give you. 

The argument going into the game was that the running game wouldn't be as good because Hurts wasn't on the field. Miraculously with no Howard, a gimpy Sanders and a Boston Scott who was ill, they still ran the ball 185 yards (or 174 if you take out the few Minshew runs). 

We average 356.2 yards per game with Hurts and 25.9 points per game.

With Minshew (albeit a small sample size) those numbers are 427 yards and 33 points.

If Hurts was the engine that made the running game go, as has been argued by some for months and he's this top 10 QB that you're arguing, you'd think the offense wouldn't: 

A) Be able to run the ball as efficiently

and 

B) Be able to score as well

Yet they did both, just fine. 

 

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

They don't hand out trophies for yards and points either.  They hand them out for wins, and the Eagles are in the bottom 3rd of the league in that category.

You keep comparing Wilson to Hurts, guess what Wilson did his first two years.  24-8 and a Lombardi.

Odd that you would make the case for building a strong defense and a strong running game, which is how the Seahawks won all those games and which is essentially my position.

And, for the love of God, stick to the blog. I like it when all of the short bussers hang out there. 

3 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

Odd that you would make the case for building a strong defense and a strong running game, which is how the Seahawks won all those games and which is essentially my position.

And, for the love of God, stick to the blog. I like it when all of the short bussers hang out there. 

You are the guy saying a QB completing 57.7 % of his career passes, which are primarily within 3 yards of the LOS, and who has 19 passing TD's in 16 starts is top 10.  Not a chance you take Hurts over any of the following QB.s

Brady, Rodgers, Wilson, Mahommes, Allen, Stafford, Herbert, Burrow, Prescott, Wentz, Jackson, Murray, Jones, Lawrence. Thats 14.

I would also not take Hurts over Cousins, Jimmy G, Ryan, Tannehill, Mayfield, Tua, Wilson or Fields.   That is 23 QB's I would take over Hurts.

There is not a single metric other than running the football that shows Jalen Hurts himself (not the Eagles offense as a whole) is anywhere close to being top 10 and is instead, generally around the bottom third of the league.

There is no argument.

People want to argue about him improving or whatever, fine. I disagree, but fine. Saying he's a top 10 QB should be ban worthy for how foolish it is.

14 minutes ago, downundermike said:

Yep.  Completed 64% of his passes as a rookie, and 63% year 2.  

The humpers won't accept those stats since they're blinded by trash. Comparing the 2 is nonsense. Hurts is a bottom 10 qb

Just now, Godfather said:

The humpers won't accept those stats since they're blinded by trash. Comparing the 2 is nonsense. Hurts is a top 10 qb

FYP. Get with the program. 

1 minute ago, Swoop said:

FYP. Get with the program. 

I'm not a humper so I refuse too

@jsb235 why is Jalen Hurts ranked 21st in QBR, the stat that incorporates the impact of a QB running ?????

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/stats/player/_/table/passing/sort/adjQBR/dir/desc

@jsb235 your thoughts ???

 

3 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

Was thinking about the quality of talent we have on offense and where our QB fits in.

• Playing really well...Kelce, Johnson, Mailata, Goedert
• Showing some upside...Smith, Dickerson
• Quality players, not just JAGs...Seumalo, Sanders
• The rest...Reagor, Watkins, Hurts

When the only player starting on offense worse than your QB is Reagor, there's a problem.

Explains why addressing that position sooner than later could unlock the potential on offense.

 

8 minutes ago, downundermike said:

@jsb235 why is Jalen Hurts ranked 21st in QBR, the stat that incorporates the impact of a QB running ?????

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/stats/player/_/table/passing/sort/adjQBR/dir/desc

He has a higher score than Dak, so I guess we should be happy?

BTW, the argument isn't whether or not Jalen Hurts in a vacuum is a top qb. It's whether or not the team can win with Jalen Hurts as a qb.

You don't think they can, which is fine.

But my argument is that they have a top 10 offense in every important metric, and would be better off improving other positions that we know are below average rather than spending draft picks and cap space on a position where upgrading could have a negative impact.

It's really quite simple. We know we can have a top 3 running game with Hurts at qb. We also know that we could drastically improve the defense with our draft picks next year to improve our takeaways and yards and points conceded. That's a formula that other teams have used to win Super Bowls. And it doesn't depend on taking a wild swing in the draft on a qb or spending a ton of capital to bring in a vet.

I mean, if I said the Eagles were going to have a top 10 offense prior to the season starting, you and your buddies would have relentlessly mocked me, similar to what you are doing now for suggesting they can be successful with Hurts. So part of me wants to just let it go. And guess what, I am. If you aren't convinced by now, nothing I say will change your position. You are dug into your bunker of ignorance, and I am happy to let you stay there. 

 

49 minutes ago, downundermike said:

You are the guy saying a QB completing 57.7 % of his career passes, which are primarily within 3 yards of the LOS, and who has 19 passing TD's in 16 starts is top 10.  Not a chance you take Hurts over any of the following QB.s

Brady, Rodgers, Wilson, Mahommes, Allen, Stafford, Herbert, Burrow, Prescott, Wentz, Jackson, Murray, Jones, Lawrence. Thats 14.

I would also not take Hurts over Cousins, Jimmy G, Ryan, Tannehill, Mayfield, Tua, Wilson or Fields.   That is 23   22 QB's I would take over Hurts.

FYP (you counted hurts)

Flip Jimmy G for Lance and my list has the exact same names. Matt Ryan is a borderline guy for me, I would rather watch Hurts play, but Matt has more talent.

6 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

It's really quite simple. We know we can have a top 3 running game with Hurts at qb.

Another false narrative.  We have a top 3 running game because we have a top 3 offensive line.

Eagles average 160 rushing yards per game, and ran for 185 in Minshew's start.