Jalen Hurts - shoulder sprain injury; expected for playoffs

[Swoop]

32 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

That's a mighty fine list QB/defensive-stud-two-way-players he had to "battle" when he was on the field. Honestly, if you want to knock our defense for our victories based on QBs faced, there may be some relevance, but it's a stretch to try to use that list to belittle our QB in some way. Bridgewater, for example, may not have ever become the QB he was projected to become, but his defense was pretty stellar, especially vs the pass. They were at home and Hurts passed well in that game against a quality defense. Bridgewater had nothing to do with how Hurts played. The only thing Denver's offense had to do with the game flow was how we called plays in the second half. Denver's game plan was to keep Hurts from being a factor with his legs. Other than 1 long run from him, that defense accomplished that goal. Hurts' INT came late in the 3rd quarter after Gainwell whiffed on a block and Hurts' hand was hit by the free pass rusher on a deep throw. 

The final outcome of every game is based on one entire team playing the other entire team. But if you need to cherry pick the win / loss from a game and the quality of the opposing QB we faced and somehow form an argument to draw a conclusion about our QB, that's just ignorant. 

So you're saying that Hurts can only overcome teams when the defense can shut down opposing QBs and isn't good enough to step up and beat teams that are more capable of scoring because of their QB.

Thanks for clarifying.

[brkmsn]

1 hour ago, Swoop said:

So you're saying that Hurts can only overcome teams when the defense can shut down opposing QBs and isn't good enough to step up and beat teams that are more capable of scoring because of their QB.

Thanks for clarifying.

Nope. That's what you're saying. I'm saying football is a team sport and the best chance for victory is if everybody on the team is playing well or executing their assignment. Individual players can play well while the team loses and likewise can play poorly in a win. But individual players on offense don't "face" individual players on opposing offenses. Everybody knows this. Do you?

[EagleJoe8]

3 hours ago, AngryBird said:

I want Super Bowls, not participation trophies like you do. You can’t win with an inaccurate, run first QB. Lamar Jackson sells a lot of jerseys but he’s a terrible quarterback. They get destroyed in the playoffs and the same is going to happen to us, we already saw it against Tampa. 
 

And before you go rooting the horn of winning all these games, look at the state of the opposition we beat. I rest my case.

He's been told many times. It falls on deaf ears.

[Swoop]

2 hours ago, brkmsn said:

Nope. That's what you're saying. I'm saying football is a team sport and the best chance for victory is if everybody on the team is playing well or executing their assignment. Individual players can play well while the team loses and likewise can play poorly in a win. But individual players on offense don't "face" individual players on opposing offenses. Everybody knows this. Do you?

Obviously it's a team sport. Sometimes though, you're going to need your QB to make plays to win when the other team scores points. The league as a whole is very good at that. The fact that he can seemingly only win games against bottom tier QBs and routinely lose against anyone decent is an issue. The defense shouldn't need to blank opposing QBs in order for him to win. 

I don't know if you're intentionally being obtuse or what the situation is.

[ManchesterEagle]

4 hours ago, brkmsn said:

That's a mighty fine list QB/defensive-stud-two-way-players he had to "battle" when he was on the field. Honestly, if you want to knock our defense for our victories based on QBs faced, there may be some relevance, but it's a stretch to try to use that list to belittle our QB in some way. Bridgewater, for example, may not have ever become the QB he was projected to become, but his defense was pretty stellar, especially vs the pass. They were at home and Hurts passed well in that game against a quality defense. Bridgewater had nothing to do with how Hurts played. The only thing Denver's offense had to do with the game flow was how we called plays in the second half. Denver's game plan was to keep Hurts from being a factor with his legs. Other than 1 long run from him, that defense accomplished that goal. Hurts' INT came late in the 3rd quarter after Gainwell whiffed on a block and Hurts' hand was hit by the free pass rusher on a deep throw. 

The final outcome of every game is based on one entire team playing the other entire team. But if you need to cherry pick the win / loss from a game and the quality of the opposing QB we faced and somehow form an argument to draw a conclusion about our QB, that's just ignorant. 

It wasn't Hurts who couldn't win big games, it was the Eagles. Now obviously Hurts is part of that, but he played well against some good teams and some good defences. But ultimately the D let any top 10 or near top 10 QB control the ball at will and that made it really hard on the O, with a developing QB relying on Reagor as one of his main weapons.

 

[brkmsn]

1 hour ago, Swoop said:

Obviously it's a team sport. Sometimes though, you're going to need your QB to make plays to win when the other team scores points. The league as a whole is very good at that. The fact that he can seemingly only win games against bottom tier QBs and routinely lose against anyone decent is an issue. The defense shouldn't need to blank opposing QBs in order for him to win. 

I don't know if you're intentionally being obtuse or what the situation is.

I'm not the one that keeps using the same pointless "concern" over and over. As I said, he doesn't play against QBs. Hurts played well against some good defenses and also played poorly against some that weren't as good. As a player, he needs to play well each week. Realistically, all QBs will suffer some bad games from time to time.

I'm not overly concerned with Hurts' inconsistencies yet because he is a very young player on a very young offense that was trying to figure out what they were. As the season progressed, the offense gained an identity and started building on things they could do well. We all know that I'm talking about running the ball. The passing game is still a work in progress and most of us probably believe passing needs to be a bigger part of our offense in order to compete with the better teams week to week. Where you and I differ is that you are convinced that Hurts is not capable of becoming a reliable passer. I believe it is possible for him to become that guy. 

Assuming we go into 2022 with Hurts as the guy for (at least) 1 more season, I would like to see us bring in a solid vet WR that can help in the passing game as well as helping our young group of WRs and Hurts by adding veteran leadership on the field in practice and games. I agree with McNabb's position that this team (offensively) gained a lot from 2021 and that they know what things they need to work on to be a better offense in 2022. We already know that Hurts, Smith, and Watkins will be putting in extra work during the offseason. Hopefully other guys will be motivated to join them. In order for this team to be considered a good team, this offense, especially the passing game, will need to be more efficient and more consistent in 2022. At this point the debate revolves around whether or not Hurts can be a part of improvement. 

[Mike030270]

20 hours ago, EagleVA said:

I can't recall ever seeing a QB "suck at throwing the football" worse than Josh Allen in his first year, so there's hope for Hurts because as it stands now Josh Allen is a top 3 QB.

Hurts, Sirianni, and the QB coach need to review the film of every game and see the mistakes made, it shouldn't be hard to find them as there were many, especially the bolting from the pocket for no reason.  If these guys are on a beach somewhere none of them is worth a damn, they need to review these mistake ASAP.

Shouldn't they have done that with the games he played in 2020? His 2021 season seemed like he didn't try fixing anything in the offseason

[Iggles_Phan]

3 hours ago, brkmsn said:

I'm not the one that keeps using the same pointless "concern" over and over. As I said, he doesn't play against QBs. Hurts played well against some good defenses and also played poorly against some that weren't as good. As a player, he needs to play well each week. Realistically, all QBs will suffer some bad games from time to time.

Which good defenses did he pass well against?

[brkmsn]

1 hour ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Which good defenses did he pass well against?

Denver, LAC. 

[Iggles_Phan]

38 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

Denver, LAC. 

I'll concede the first half against Denver.    

I wouldn't call 11 for 17 as being that good against the Chargers.  They didn't ask him to do much of anything against the Chargers.  

 

I think it's very interesting that the only games that you want to say that Hurts was good against good passing defenses were games where he threw 23 and 17 passes respectively.   That's an average of 20 pass attempts per game.  Meanwhile, that average would put him at 31st in the NFL over the course of the season.  (That sounds a lot like hiding your QB to me.) 

And in those games... Hurts had 13 carries versus 16 completions (Denver) and 10 carries versus 11 completions (Chargers).   That's glorified RB type QB play.

[brkmsn]

3 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I'll concede the first half against Denver.    

I wouldn't call 11 for 17 as being that good against the Chargers.  They didn't ask him to do much of anything against the Chargers.  

 

I think it's very interesting that the only games that you want to say that Hurts was good against good passing defenses were games where he threw 23 and 17 passes respectively.   That's an average of 20 pass attempts per game.  Meanwhile, that average would put him at 31st in the NFL over the course of the season.  (That sounds a lot like hiding your QB to me.) 

And in those games... Hurts had 13 carries versus 16 completions (Denver) and 10 carries versus 11 completions (Chargers).   That's glorified RB type QB play.

The second half of the denver game was mostly about controlling the clock with the run game. It's not like we were throwing many passes at that point. But you bring up a valid point about run/pass ratio. I think limiting Hurts' passing attempts was the right strategy while this offense grows collectively. Ideally, passing needs to become a bigger threat  for the running game to continue to be effective in the future. I believe that is the plan going forward. Hurts will need to improve for this to happen. If the passing game doesn't progress next season under Hurts, then he likely isn't the long term answer. I get that not everybody is a believer in Hurts, but there are still plenty of people in the NFL circle that do believe based on positive things he did this season. 

[Iggles_Phan]

5 hours ago, brkmsn said:

The second half of the denver game was mostly about controlling the clock with the run game. It's not like we were throwing many passes at that point. But you bring up a valid point about run/pass ratio. I think limiting Hurts' passing attempts was the right strategy while this offense grows collectively. Ideally, passing needs to become a bigger threat  for the running game to continue to be effective in the future. I believe that is the plan going forward. Hurts will need to improve for this to happen. If the passing game doesn't progress next season under Hurts, then he likely isn't the long term answer. I get that not everybody is a believer in Hurts, but there are still plenty of people in the NFL circle that do believe based on positive things he did this season. 

Sure.  Which is why I want to trade him this offseason while he stills has value.

The issue with the Denver game is that it wasnt a full game of good passing.  Only doing it for a half means that he's never played a full game of good football as a passer against any kind of competition.  That remains a concern.  The only thing we have seen is struggles for a full game against top competition.

[EagleVA]

17 hours ago, Mike030270 said:

Shouldn't they have done that with the games he played in 2020? His 2021 season seemed like he didn't try fixing anything in the offseason

Yeah, I hate to call into question anyone's cognitive ability but maybe someone is lacking in that area, I mean I sure have seen some stooupid sheet.

[Thrive]

Just now, EagleVA said:

Yeah, I hate to call into question anyone's cognitive ability but maybe someone is lacking in that area.

Nobody on TATE has any grounds to call anyone’s cognitive ability into question. I can’t imagine the sheer amount of brain cells I’ve lost reading some folks attempts at putting together coherent thoughts on here.

[brkmsn]

3 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Sure.  Which is why I want to trade him this offseason while he stills has value.

The issue with the Denver game is that it wasnt a full game of good passing.  Only doing it for a half means that he's never played a full game of good football as a passer against any kind of competition.  That remains a concern.  The only thing we have seen is struggles for a full game against top competition.

I contend that it was a full game of good passing (Not a "perfect" game, though). We had a game that was tied 10-10 and then before halftime, we put up a two score lead. After halftime, our focus shifted to controlling the clock. After halftime, denver drove down the field and had their FG attempt blocked. We were kind of pinned deep and went 3 and out after Hurts attempted 2 passes. Hurts only attempted 1 pass after that and it was the INT that resulted when Hurts' hand was hit by the free rusher that Gainwell missed.   Denver was for the most part containing Hurts all day as a runner. Offensively in the second half, Denver had a few time consuming drives that resulted in: Blocked FG, a FG, and a 4th and short fumble that resulted in an Eagles TD. There was no reason to throw anymore passes. The end result was we attempted only 3 passes in the 2nd half and won the game by 17 points. 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, brkmsn said:

The second half of the denver game was mostly about controlling the clock with the run game. It's not like we were throwing many passes at that point. But you bring up a valid point about run/pass ratio. I think limiting Hurts' passing attempts was the right strategy while this offense grows collectively. Ideally, passing needs to become a bigger threat  for the running game to continue to be effective in the future. I believe that is the plan going forward. Hurts will need to improve for this to happen. If the passing game doesn't progress next season under Hurts, then he likely isn't the long term answer. I get that not everybody is a believer in Hurts, but there are still plenty of people in the NFL circle that do believe based on positive things he did this season. 

The fact that you are having to pump up a game that Hurts didn't even throw for 200 yards tells me all I need to know.

[Shalodeep]

40 minutes ago, downundermike said:

The fact that you are having to pump up a game that Hurts didn't even throw for 200 yards tells me all I need to know.

Didn't pass for 300 yards after October 3.

[Iggles_Phan]

1 hour ago, brkmsn said:

I contend that it was a full game of good passing (Not a "perfect" game, though). We had a game that was tied 10-10 and then before halftime, we put up a two score lead. After halftime, our focus shifted to controlling the clock. After halftime, denver drove down the field and had their FG attempt blocked. We were kind of pinned deep and went 3 and out after Hurts attempted 2 passes. Hurts only attempted 1 pass after that and it was the INT that resulted when Hurts' hand was hit by the free rusher that Gainwell missed.   Denver was for the most part containing Hurts all day as a runner. Offensively in the second half, Denver had a few time consuming drives that resulted in: Blocked FG, a FG, and a 4th and short fumble that resulted in an Eagles TD. There was no reason to throw anymore passes. The end result was we attempted only 3 passes in the 2nd half and won the game by 17 points. 

Yes.  They didn't have to pass more.  But, even with a 2 score lead, teams throw the ball in the second half in the NFL more than 3 times.  The offense greatly benefitted from the Denver gaffes.    But, the fact that they completed took the air out of the ball as soon as they felt they could tells you what the coaches actually think of his passing, doesn't it?

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Shalodeep said:

Didn't pass for 300 yards after October 3.

He played in 11 games after October 3, he only had 1 game of 300 yards of total offense.  That is sad.  Only 3 games of the 11 he was over 250 yards of total offense.

[Shalodeep]

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

He played in 11 games after October 3, he only had 1 game of 300 yards of total offense.  That is sad.  Only 3 games of the 11 he was over 250 yards of total offense.

Due to the crap schedule the record doesn't reflect the abysmal stats. We got tebowed

[brkmsn]

59 minutes ago, downundermike said:

The fact that you are having to pump up a game that Hurts didn't even throw for 200 yards tells me all I need to know.

 

13 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Yes.  They didn't have to pass more.  But, even with a 2 score lead, teams throw the ball in the second half in the NFL more than 3 times.  The offense greatly benefitted from the Denver gaffes.    But, the fact that they completed took the air out of the ball as soon as they felt they could tells you what the coaches actually think of his passing, doesn't it?

All but 2 of his yards came in the first half. Are you going to sit here and tell me we should have been throwing the ball on our last possession instead of in victory formation? I'm not sitting here pumping up this game as some kind of NFL all-time performance. I simply feel Hurts passed well in that game and it was on the road vs one of the NFL's best defenses. Of the passes he threw, he was mostly on the money. I was impressed by his performance in that game as a passer. For comparison, it's the opposite of my impression from his performance vs the giants. We need our QB to play at his highest level on a consistent basis. 

I think, when we want to critique a player performance, we have to acknowledge the good and the bad. If all we ever do is highlight the good, we're just being cheerleaders. If all we ever do is  grab something to complain about, we're just being Chicken Little.

Some of the people posting in this thread are clearly campaigning for leadership of one of those two parties. It's weird to me that I've been asked what good defenses Hurts faced that he passed well against and when I answered with the Broncos, the push back is that we played ball control in the second half, so that's not a valid conclusion since it wasn't 4 quarters of good passing or 350 yards. Heck, Foles has some stuff in the HOF from his 7TD performance vs the Raiders several years ago and he only passed for 3 quarters (against a terrible defense). 

[Iggles_Phan]

Just now, brkmsn said:

 

All but 2 of his yards came in the first half. Are you going to sit here and tell me we should have been throwing the ball on our last possession instead of in victory formation? I'm not sitting here pumping up this game as some kind of NFL all-time performance. I simply feel Hurts passed well in that game and it was on the road vs one of the NFL's best defenses. Of the passes he threw, he was mostly on the money. I was impressed by his performance in that game as a passer. For comparison, it's the opposite of my impression from his performance vs the giants. We need our QB to play at his highest level on a consistent basis. 

I think, when we want to critique a player performance, we have to acknowledge the good and the bad. If all we ever do is highlight the good, we're just being cheerleaders. If all we ever do is  grab something to complain about, we're just being Chicken Little.

Some of the people posting in this thread are clearly campaigning for leadership of one of those two parties. It's weird to me that I've been asked what good defenses Hurts faced that he passed well against and when I answered with the Broncos, the push back is that we played ball control in the second half, so that's not a valid conclusion since it wasn't 4 quarters of good passing or 350 yards. Heck, Foles has some stuff in the HOF from his 7TD performance vs the Raiders several years ago and he only passed for 3 quarters (against a terrible defense). 

No.  That would be absurd.  I am saying that NFL teams that trust their QB throw the ball in the 3rd quarter, and even early 4th quarter, even with a 2 possession lead.  27-13, start of the 4th quarter.  Maybe on 3rd and 2 on the drive before the kneel downs, they might consider a play action pass... if they trusted him and then they keep the ball to run out the clock.  And he threw an INT on his last pass attempt, a lot of coaches would let their young QB throw one or two more just to get that taste out of their mouth.  

 

But, whatever.  Hurts is what he is.  Eventually it will become obvious to everyone.

[thedanone82]

Hurts doesn't suck and I rather roll with him then trade value picks for over the hill QBs. However I don't see how anyone can watch him and say he is or can be our franchise QB. Once those legs take a step back he's going to go from average to liability. 

[brkmsn]

6 hours ago, thedanone82 said:

Hurts doesn't suck and I rather roll with him then trade value picks for over the hill QBs. However I don't see how anyone can watch him and say he is or can be our franchise QB. Once those legs take a step back he's going to go from average to liability. 

I understand the concern. The longevity of a typical RB is much shorter than that of a typical QB. Running QBs are subjected to more hits than usual and foot / leg injuries can impact their performance more than with a pocket passer. But historically, dual threat QBs in the NFL have to become better passers each year. Their running can help them make plays while their lack of experience is hindering their decisions as a passer. It can be a good thing at times, but can also be a crutch that stunts their growth. Former Eagles QBs like Cunningham and McNabb did improve as passers early in their careers. Vick improved later once he actually made an effort. John Elway and Steve Young also became better passers with time. Josh Allen is the latest example of this. Just because some players have developed, doesn't guarantee that everyone will. Likewise, Tim Tebow doesn't prove that it's impossible for everybody. 

At this point, I'm not calling Hurts a franchise QB. But I'm definitely not ruling out that he could become one some day. Saying he "can be" isn't the same as anointing him. I see a young player that is currently getting the opportunity to become that guy. We all expect him to work hard. Not everybody expects him to pan out. 

This team is not in a situation where going all in on a big name trade acquisition at QB makes a lot of sense. Our defense was less consistent than our QB last year. For all the arguments about how "Hurts faced trash QBs" --- the truth is, our defense faced those QBs. Some of them had their best games of the year against our D. Our offense's ability to control the clock made our defense seem a lot less of a liability than it really was. On top of all that, our defense doesn't have a lot of young talent to build around and needs that going forward. So, yeah --- a lot of us think rolling with Hurts for another year is the best approach. See if he makes strides as a passer going forward

[Iggles_Phan]

1 minute ago, brkmsn said:

I understand the concern. The longevity of a typical RB is much shorter than that of a typical QB. Running QBs are subjected to more hits than usual and foot / leg injuries can impact their performance more than with a pocket passer. But historically, dual threat QBs in the NFL have to become better passers each year. Their running can help them make plays while their lack of experience is hindering their decisions as a passer. It can be a good thing at times, but can also be a crutch that stunts their growth. Former Eagles QBs like Cunningham and McNabb did improve as passers early in their careers. Vick improved later once he actually made an effort. John Elway and Steve Young also became better passers with time. Josh Allen is the latest example of this. Just because some players have developed, doesn't guarantee that everyone will. Likewise, Tim Tebow doesn't prove that it's impossible for everybody. 

You know what the bold names have in common?   Their arms.

 

You know what Hurts lacks?