I disagree

14 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

I disagree

I agree with your disagreement.

Just now, downundermike said:

I agree with your disagreement.

I agree with your agreement of his disagreement. 

11 minutes ago, ManchesterEagle said:

 

Hurts had a solid year. The Hurts Haters on this board will deny it, but pretty much every advanced quarterback metric had him as a solid starter.

Read this. 

https://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2022/1/27/22901120/eagles-all-22-film-review-jalen-hurts-deep-dive-analysis-quarterback-qb-starter-franchise-highlights

It's an in depth breakdown of Hurts and his strengths and weaknesses. From a guy who is not a Hurts fan. It's balanced and fair.

Overall

Hurts clearly had a pretty good year. I had a look at some QB rankings to see where others ranked him as I obviously can’t watch every QB in detail and everyone had him around the 12-18 range. Gregg Rosenthal had him at 15 and I trust his opinion a lot. PFF had him 11th. ESPN had him 16th. Pro Football Network had him 16th. It’s interesting comparing him to Jimmy Garappolo who was always just slightly behind Hurts in the rankings (except for one).

 

He is already at Tyrod Taylor level. If you want to believe that's his ceiling as well, fair enough. But it may be higher. We shouldn't be shooting in a weak draft for guys who might turn into Carr or Hasselbeck if we are lucky. We should be building the team and trying to get an extra first or second for next year.

There are other rankings that have him a little higher and some lower.  Take those as a grain of salt.  Those guys are perfect to build around, so I don't get the Carr/Hasselbeck slam.  And why do you want extra picks next year?  We can get real talent right where we are...2 on defense and a QB.  I don't get the next year silliness when anyone posts it.

Until you are willing to admit that his statistics are bloated mostly due to this use as a RB more than a QB, this can go nowhere.  While you are at it, go look at Tyrod's years as a starter.  You might be surprised how similar that they are.  It's a great comparison. 

You only need to know 3 things.  1) The offense ran better without his arm, 2) when you have to depend on him to be a QB, you get the equivalent of the embarrassing playoff loss, and 3) never beating good teams means the Eagles never go anywhere.   We need a QB with upside. 

 

7 minutes ago, EagleJoe8 said:

I agree with your agreement of his disagreement. 

What are we disagreeing on again?  Whatever it is....I disagree, too.

2 minutes ago, E-A-G-L-E-S Eagles said:

There are other rankings that have him a little higher and some lower.  Take those as a grain of salt.  Those guys are perfect to build around, so I don't get the Carr/Hasselbeck slam.  And why do you want extra picks next year?  We can get real talent right where we are...2 on defense and a QB.  I don't get the next year silliness when anyone posts it.

Until you are willing to admit that his statistics are bloated mostly due to this use as a RB more than a QB, this can go nowhere.  While you are at it, go look at Tyrod's years as a starter.  You might be surprised how similar that they are.  It's a great comparison. 

You only need to know 3 things.  1) The offense ran better without his arm, 2) when you have to depend on him to be a QB, you get the equivalent of the embarrassing playoff loss, and 3) never beating good teams means the Eagles never go anywhere.   We need a QB with upside. 

 

What are we disagreeing on again?  Whatever it is....I disagree, too.

Disagreeing with the idea that he had a solid year or that he should be ranked as high as 11th. I think most people with eyes saw he wasn’t good against good competition and against bad competition, he was still mediocre at best and carried by the o-line and running game. 

6 minutes ago, EagleJoe8 said:

Disagreeing with the idea that he had a solid year or that he should be ranked as high as 11th. I think most people with eyes saw he wasn’t good against good competition and against bad competition, he was still mediocre at best and carried by the o-line and running game. 

11th huh.  QB's who are no doubt better

Mahommes, Allen, Rodgers, Herbert, Burrow, Brady, Stafford, Prescott, Murray, Jackson, Prescott, Wilson ( that puts Hurts 13th after this group )

QB's that are probably better

Carr, Cousins, Wentz, Mac Jones ( so that puts Hurts 17th after this group )

The QB's you can debate Hurts may be better than, but I still say no

Tannehill, Ryan, Jimmy G, Mayfield, Goff, Davis Mills, Lawrence

So I do not see how Hurts is even top 20

2 minutes ago, downundermike said:

11th huh.  QB's who are no doubt better

Mahommes, Allen, Rodgers, Herbert, Burrow, Brady, Stafford, Prescott, Murray, Jackson, Prescott, Wilson ( that puts Hurts 13th after this group )

QB's that are probably better

Carr, Cousins, Wentz, Mac Jones ( so that puts Hurts 17th after this group )

The QB's you can debate Hurts may be better than, but I still say no

Tannehill, Ryan, Jimmy G, Mayfield, Goff, Davis Mills, Lawrence

So I do not see how Hurts is even top 20

Hey, I agree. However, with Brady retiring, Hurts moves up 1 spot!

 

I wish we got Mac Jones last year but then we wouldn't have Devonta and the WR group would have been dreadful. Mac needs a good O-line something we excel at. Probably would've been a bad first year but then we could've went heavy on WR this year.

3 hours ago, downundermike said:

I agree with your disagreement.

I strongly disagree, with you disagreement. LOL

Bottom line. Tampa stacked the box and game planned to take the run away. They dared Hurts to beat them with his arm. And you saw the result. Hurts looks good against bad teams. When he plays a good team he isnt good enough. He's fools gold.

11 minutes ago, Uscg-green said:

Bottom line. Tampa stacked the box and game planned to take the run away. They dared Hurts to beat them with his arm. And you saw the result. Hurts looks good against bad teams. When he plays a good team he isnt good enough. He's fools gold.

Yup. 

6 hours ago, downundermike said:

11th huh.  QB's who are no doubt better

Mahommes, Allen, Rodgers, Herbert, Burrow, Brady, Stafford, Prescott, Murray, Jackson, Prescott, Wilson ( that puts Hurts 13th after this group )

QB's that are probably better

Carr, Cousins, Wentz, Mac Jones ( so that puts Hurts 17th after this group )

The QB's you can debate Hurts may be better than, but I still say no

Tannehill, Ryan, Jimmy G, Mayfield, Goff, Davis Mills, Lawrence

So I do not see how Hurts is even top 20

Goff freaking played lights out down the stretch for that god awful lions team with Jack sheet for weapons. I hate Goff but, the guy is accurate and can make all the throws. 

Actually basically any QB that is accurate and can make all the throws with out having to take a running start and a frog leap to get it 10 yards down the field is better. 

7 hours ago, EagleJoe8 said:

Hey, I agree. However, with Brady retiring, Hurts moves up 1 spot!

 

But then that 49s kid is gonna get to be their starter. So he'll probably drop a spot too. 

4 hours ago, Uscg-green said:

But then that 49s kid is gonna get to be their starter. So he'll probably drop a spot too. 

Good point. 

19 hours ago, downundermike said:

11th huh.  QB's who are no doubt better

Mahommes, Allen, Rodgers, Herbert, Burrow, Brady, Stafford, Prescott, Murray, Jackson, Prescott, Wilson ( that puts Hurts 13th after this group )

QB's that are probably better

Carr, Cousins, Wentz, Mac Jones ( so that puts Hurts 17th after this group )

The QB's you can debate Hurts may be better than, but I still say no

Tannehill, Ryan, Jimmy G, Mayfield, Goff, Davis Mills, Lawrence

So I do not see how Hurts is even top 20

This is kind of a laughable list, and shows how delusional Hurts Haters are (anyone who thinks Wentz is better than Hurts in 2022 has clearly lost the plot.)

But it does show something important. There are 11 really good qbs in the league. And the drop off between 11 and 12 is pretty steep. So it really doesn't matter if Hurts is 12 or 20, because there really isn't a whole lot of difference between 12 and 20. The real difference is between 12 and 11.

I am sure anyone would be happy to replace Hurts with a clear-cut top 10 qb, but there are 21 teams in the same boat. So trading for one of the existing top 10 qbs is going to be very costly, and finding one in the draft isn't looking very likely right now.

Look at the senior bowl practices. There is one qb with any hope of breaking into the top 10 (Willis), and he is a three-year project. Also, interestingly enough, none of the Hurts Haters want him because he is a clone of Hurts, except he has a better arm, which is funny to me.

The Hurts Haters have talked themselves into a "anyone is better than Hurts" position, but realistically if we replace him with anyone who isn't a top 10 qb, we will just be spinning our wheels, and wasting resources that could make other areas of the team better.

 

  

   

5 hours ago, jsb235 said:

This is kind of a laughable list, and shows how delusional Hurts Haters are (anyone who thinks Wentz is better than Hurts in 2022 has clearly lost the plot.)

But it does show something important. There are 11 really good qbs in the league. And the drop off between 11 and 12 is pretty steep. So it really doesn't matter if Hurts is 12 or 20, because there really isn't a whole lot of difference between 12 and 20. The real difference is between 12 and 11.

I am sure anyone would be happy to replace Hurts with a clear-cut top 10 qb, but there are 21 teams in the same boat. So trading for one of the existing top 10 qbs is going to be very costly, and finding one in the draft isn't looking very likely right now.

Look at the senior bowl practices. There is one qb with any hope of breaking into the top 10 (Willis), and he is a three-year project. Also, interestingly enough, none of the Hurts Haters want him because he is a clone of Hurts, except he has a better arm, which is funny to me.

The Hurts Haters have talked themselves into a "anyone is better than Hurts" position, but realistically if we replace him with anyone who isn't a top 10 qb, we will just be spinning our wheels, and wasting resources that could make other areas of the team better.

What about Hurts gives you the impression he can be the future? He barely improved and when he actually faced good defenses he just reverts back to what the issues were for him in college

8 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

What about Hurts gives you the impression he can be the future? He barely improved and when he actually faced good defenses he just reverts back to what the issues were for him in college

SWAG, and he is in a Halo commercial.

Jalen Hurts is presently an objectively bad passer.  Not debatable.

Maybe he has improved (debatable).  Maybe he will improve more (debatable, possible).

So now, let's step away from Hurts.  Big picture.  Why do you want to build the team around the hope of an objectively bad passer improving?  Wouldn't you want to start with a qb that doesn't suck at throwing the football and see if they can improve?

1 minute ago, eagle45 said:

Jalen Hurts is presently an objectively bad passer.  Not debatable.

Maybe he has improved (debatable).  Maybe he will improve more (debatable, possible).

So now, let's step away from Hurts.  Big picture.  Why do you want to build the team around the hope of an objectively bad passer improving?  Wouldn't you want to start with a qb that doesn't suck at throwing the football and see if they can improve?

Just imagine how dangerous this team could be if both the Jalens could somehow shock the world and really improve to actually be a top 10 player at their respective positions!   😱

 

 

 

 

I won't hold my breath.

6 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Just imagine how dangerous this team could be if both the Jalens could somehow shock the world and really improve to actually be a top 10 player at their respective positions!   😱

 

 

 

 

I won't hold my breath.

Reagor would have to improve to be top 100

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

Reagor would have to improve to be top 100

So true.

31 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

 

Jalen Hurts is presently an objectively bad passer.  Not debatable.

Maybe he has improved (debatable).  Maybe he will improve more (debatable, possible).

So now, let's step away from Hurts.  Big picture.  Why do you want to build the team around the hope of an objectively bad passer improving?  Wouldn't you want to start with a qb that doesn't suck at throwing the football and see if they can improve?

Every single player you bring in to a team requires "hope."

I hope he plays well. I hope he gets better. I hope he doesn't get hurt. I hope he fits the scheme. I hope he works hard. I hope he doesn't get into trouble. I hope he doesn't get shot, beat up, killed in an accident, etc...

 

Since virtually every QB not closing in on retirement needs to constantly improve his game, I'm not sure why we're acting like this is a bombshell. So you take a guy like Hurts who has the respect and  backing of his teammates, is familiar with the coach and the scheme as it moves forward and has an awareness of his own deficiencies which he'll likely attempt to improve --- There is time from a cap standpoint to work on this development while we use our remaining cap and draft picks to improve the roster at several other positions.  So it seems like you're asking why I don't want to throw more money and/or draft capital at another unknown player that may or may not work out, may or may not stay healthy, or may need a similar amount of time to adjust to the NFL, while at the same time letting things ride at other areas of the team where improvement is needed or replacement is required. 

As for Hurts, so far, I'd say he has worked out a lot better than  JJAW or Reagor as an NFL player. So I don't feel the need to bail on him as the starter and look immediately elsewhere for his replacement. 

8 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

As for Hurts, so far, I'd say he has worked out a lot better than  JJAW or Reagor as an NFL player. So I don't feel the need to bail on him as the starter and look immediately elsewhere for his replacement. 

Wow... you set a high bar there.

1 hour ago, brkmsn said:

Every single player you bring in to a team requires "hope."

I hope he plays well. I hope he gets better. I hope he doesn't get hurt. I hope he fits the scheme. I hope he works hard. I hope he doesn't get into trouble. I hope he doesn't get shot, beat up, killed in an accident, etc...

 

Since virtually every QB not closing in on retirement needs to constantly improve his game, I'm not sure why we're acting like this is a bombshell. So you take a guy like Hurts who has the respect and  backing of his teammates, is familiar with the coach and the scheme as it moves forward and has an awareness of his own deficiencies which he'll likely attempt to improve --- There is time from a cap standpoint to work on this development while we use our remaining cap and draft picks to improve the roster at several other positions.  So it seems like you're asking why I don't want to throw more money and/or draft capital at another unknown player that may or may not work out, may or may not stay healthy, or may need a similar amount of time to adjust to the NFL, while at the same time letting things ride at other areas of the team where improvement is needed or replacement is required. 

As for Hurts, so far, I'd say he has worked out a lot better than  JJAW or Reagor as an NFL player. So I don't feel the need to bail on him as the starter and look immediately elsewhere for his replacement. 

Every single defense of Hurts doesn't involve a damn thing about what he's capable of as a quarterback.  That's why I feel the need to bail on him as the starter immediately.

21 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Every single defense of Hurts doesn't involve a damn thing about what he's capable of as a quarterback.  That's why I feel the need to bail on him as the starter immediately.

But, he's basically a rookie.