On 2/15/2022 at 6:24 PM, ManchesterEagle said:

There are actually very few "Hurts huggers" Most of us who defend him just don't think he is nearly as bad as you make out and recognise that he is still young and was always viewed as a developmental QB and may get better.

What is he good at?

 - You can go on all day about wanting a pocket passer, but Hurts can extend and make plays with his legs that most other QBs can't. He also forces other teams to take account of his running ability and that affects their coverage, pass rush and the way they defend against the run. 

- His short and intermediate passing is pretty accurate. 

- He takes care of the football - generally makes good decisions and rarely turns the ball over.

- He's part of a surprisingly effective offense. The running game is a huge part, but his ability to convert with both his arm and legs to keep drives alive plays a significant part as well.

Now he has weaknesses for sure, deep ball, looking off safeties, going through his progressions quickly enough, leading receivers, red zone passing. Can he improve those weaknesses to the point that he is worthwhile sticking with in 2023/after his rookie contract? Maybe not. 

But while he is on a rookie contract and the rest of the team, particularly the D, needs serious help, then I don't see the rush to replace him unless an obvious better solution comes up which doesn't stop us from addressing our other glaring needs in free agency and the draft.

@Swoop - this is my view on Hurts.

1 hour ago, Swoop said:

That's my issue. In terms of strictly passing the ball, he's extremely limited. His only real value is being able to run/buy time. At his best, he is a low end starter that can get by with the BS against poor teams and get beaten by better teams. We saw it this season. 

With more film, teams will be able to see what he can't do. Again, we saw it this season. His play dropped off from the first half of the year until the second.

I would also add that Hurts was pretty similar against good teams and bad teams. In fact two off his best performances were against Denver and the Saints, two legitimate top 10 Defenses. The Eagles D was so bad against any half decent QBs, that Hurts didn’t really have a shot in those games. 

I don’t agree about the drop off, but I do agree that teams will test his weaknesses next year and he could regress. But if he does, we get a better pick to get a QB in 2023. 
 

 

17 minutes ago, ManchesterEagle said:

I would also add that Hurts was pretty similar against good teams and bad teams. In fact two off his best performances were against Denver and the Saints, two legitimate top 10 Defenses. The Eagles D was so bad against any half decent QBs, that Hurts didn’t really have a shot in those games. 

I don’t agree about the drop off, but I do agree that teams will test his weaknesses next year and he could regress. But if he does, we get a better pick to get a QB in 2023. 
 

 

The saints this past year or the year before? Because if it's this past season he was not very good. 54% completion for 147 yards and a 72 rating. Sacked 3 times and a fumble. Now is that because the saints had tape on him from the year prior? I'm going to say yes and if that's the Hurts we get when a team has film on him then that is not good. 

Denver I agree that was the game I thought he took a step forward but then the  Saints game happened. 

25 minutes ago, ManchesterEagle said:

I would also add that Hurts was pretty similar against good teams and bad teams. In fact two off his best performances were against Denver and the Saints, two legitimate top 10 Defenses. The Eagles D was so bad against any half decent QBs, that Hurts didn’t really have a shot in those games. 

I don’t agree about the drop off, but I do agree that teams will test his weaknesses next year and he could regress. But if he does, we get a better pick to get a QB in 2023. 

Saints was a good performance?   As a QB or as a RB?  

13 for 24 for 147 yards isn't exactly lighting the world of fire.   But, never fear, he had 18 rushes for 69 yards and 3 TDs.   Woo-hoo!   I love it when my QB has more rushing attempts than completions, that's absolutely what I look for in a QB.

 

I'll give you the Broncos, that was really the only game (for 30 minutes, as the second half required no passing due to the way the game was going) that he took any kind of step forward, and then he went right back to running too much, too soon and not throwing the ball effectively.

 

58 minutes ago, ManchesterEagle said:

@Swoop - this is my view on Hurts.

Obviously you and I disagree so to continue to go back and forth for the next several months is kinda pointless. 

Having said that, I truly enjoy debating with you. You have always kept it respectful and are usually pretty objective. Can't say the same for most, so I appreciate that.

One interesting stat from the deep ball analysis.

Hurts was bad in throws between 21 and 30 yards - his adjusted completion rate was 27th. And he was bad on balls over 40 yards (29th).

But he was really good between 31 and 40 yards. And not just good, but legit top 10. His completion percentage went up 20 points on these throws as compared to ones between 21 and 30 yards. No one else improved, and several qbs saw their percentages plummet.

He was also the only qb to throw as many passes between 21-30 yards and 31-40 yards. Everyone else threw far fewer longer passes (31-40 yards) than intermediate ones (under 30).

I think these anomalies are a function of the type of defenses he faced as well as issues with the wr position. It also is a sign that he is able to hit bigger plays because of the extra time he can give himself due to his mobility.

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, eagle45 said:

And no matter what the Eagles want, if Hurts is their QB, they are going nowhere.  And the whining that doesn't impact what the Eagles want will grow...until the Eagles no longer want Hurts.

It's just a question of how many years the Eagles choose to waste in the meantime.  We are at 1.5 and counting.

Well if you wish to be frustrated by things beyond your control then so be it, but it’s funny you’re at wits end for a 23 year old quarterback just after 1.5 years. Do you realize the guy before him was here 5 years and for his career is only 3 games over .500 and never even won a playoff game? Regardless the true question is what is the other option the Eagles so desperately need that’s going to make this team the Super Bowl team you expect or is actually winning the Super Bowl not the issue here? You just want a quarterback you can be happy about even if he’s taking you nowhere? 

2 hours ago, Bwestbrook36 said:

The saints this past year or the year before? Because if it's this past season he was not very good. 54% completion for 147 yards and a 72 rating. Sacked 3 times and a fumble. Now is that because the saints had tape on him from the year prior? I'm going to say yes and if that's the Hurts we get when a team has film on him then that is not good. 

Denver I agree that was the game I thought he took a step forward but then the  Saints game happened. 

 

2 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Saints was a good performance?   As a QB or as a RB?  

13 for 24 for 147 yards isn't exactly lighting the world of fire.   But, never fear, he had 18 rushes for 69 yards and 3 TDs.   Woo-hoo!   I love it when my QB has more rushing attempts than completions, that's absolutely what I look for in a QB.

 

I'll give you the Broncos, that was really the only game (for 30 minutes, as the second half required no passing due to the way the game was going) that he took any kind of step forward, and then he went right back to running too much, too soon and not throwing the ball effectively.

 

He had a five game stretch, including the Saints game, where he had the highest QBR in the league. His passing numbers weren’t pretty against the Saints, but he was effective in moving the chains. The Eagles put up 40 on them, so the offense did their job.

As I’m about to reply to Swoop, I’m going to bow out of this discussion, because nobody is going to be changing their mind until the season starts. I think we all know that it’s really likely Hurts will start this year. Let’s see how it plays out. He may stink, he may not. Hopefully we all want him to succeed.

On 2/16/2022 at 6:24 AM, ManchesterEagle said:

There are actually very few "Hurts huggers" Most of us who defend him just don't think he is nearly as bad as you make out and recognise that he is still young and was always viewed as a developmental QB and may get better.

What is he good at?

 - You can go on all day about wanting a pocket passer, but Hurts can extend and make plays with his legs that most other QBs can't. He also forces other teams to take account of his running ability and that affects their coverage, pass rush and the way they defend against the run. 

- His short and intermediate passing is pretty accurate. 

- He takes care of the football - generally makes good decisions and rarely turns the ball over.

- He's part of a surprisingly effective offense. The running game is a huge part, but his ability to convert with both his arm and legs to keep drives alive plays a significant part as well.

Now he has weaknesses for sure, deep ball, looking off safeties, going through his progressions quickly enough, leading receivers, red zone passing. Can he improve those weaknesses to the point that he is worthwhile sticking with in 2023/after his rookie contract? Maybe not. 

But while he is on a rookie contract and the rest of the team, particularly the D, needs serious help, then I don't see the rush to replace him unless an obvious better solution comes up which doesn't stop us from addressing our other glaring needs in free agency and the draft.

 

I think this is where most of us are at with Hurts & for good reason.

 

For sure Hurts needs to improve his reads & deep ball accuracy but not to the huge almost unachievable extent many believe. A few % better next year, a few % better the year after & we've got ourselves a more than adequate QB. & I'd much rather take that patient approach than piss away all those draft picks on an ageing QB & severely limit the teams FA options going forward while the rest of the roster remains full of holes.

2 hours ago, Swoop said:

Obviously you and I disagree so to continue to go back and forth for the next several months is kinda pointless. 

Having said that, I truly enjoy debating with you. You have always kept it respectful and are usually pretty objective. Can't say the same for most, so I appreciate that.

Thanks Swoop. The feeling is mutual.

Good opportunity for me to bow out of this topic for a while. As you say nothing’s going to happen for a while and no minds (whether objective/rational or not) are going to change until well into the season.

We both want Hurts to do well and more importantly we both want the Eagles to win, so let’s see how it plays out.

1 hour ago, ManchesterEagle said:

 

He had a five game stretch, including the Saints game, where he had the highest QBR in the league. His passing numbers weren’t pretty against the Saints, but he was effective in moving the chains. The Eagles put up 40 on them, so the offense did their job.

As I’m about to reply to Swoop, I’m going to bow out of this discussion, because nobody is going to be changing their mind until the season starts. I think we all know that it’s really likely Hurts will start this year. Let’s see how it plays out. He may stink, he may not. Hopefully we all want him to succeed.

I was back and forth about Hurts all year and at one point was also told the same things that you are being told by people that don't like him. It got to a point where I just don't see it with him. That being said I want Hurts to go into 2022 as the starter for a lot of reasons, a lot of them are the reasons you have given. 

I agree though it's time to let this go for now, no point in arguing the same points over and over again. Just going to have to wait and see what they do in the off-season and see what he looks like next season.

Going back and forth right now is just a waste of time till we have more games being played.

I'll see you in the other threads! Lol 

 

7 hours ago, Bwestbrook36 said:

I was back and forth about Hurts all year and at one point was also told the same things that you are being told by people that don't like him. It got to a point where I just don't see it with him. That being said I want Hurts to go into 2022 as the starter for a lot of reasons, a lot of them are the reasons you have given. 

This is where I'm at too bud. I don't think that Hurts is the long term answer but I don't want them to trade for a veteran and I don't love any of the draft options. I'd be OK with them bringing in a project guy in say the second or third and seeing what they've got but ultimately they need to build this roster. 

19 hours ago, ManchesterEagle said:

 

He had a five game stretch, including the Saints game, where he had the highest QBR in the league. His passing numbers weren’t pretty against the Saints, but he was effective in moving the chains. The Eagles put up 40 on them, so the offense did their job.

As I’m about to reply to Swoop, I’m going to bow out of this discussion, because nobody is going to be changing their mind until the season starts. I think we all know that it’s really likely Hurts will start this year. Let’s see how it plays out. He may stink, he may not. Hopefully we all want him to succeed.

🥱  QBR bores me.  It counts rushing, so of course Hurts' QBR against the Saints would be high.  18 rushes for 69 yards and 3 TDs is nothing to sneeze at, but its completely outside the realm of what really matters for a successful QB in the NFL, specifically about sustainability or long term effectiveness.  That's why running QBs are always coming and going so fast.  Only the ones that can learn to play within the pocket have any kind of longevity and/or effectiveness.   And the argument is always about the individual game... yes, in that game, they were successful, against a terrible offense where they got the ball back continually had no pressure on them to score quick to come back from a hole, etc.  But, what we saw in the playoffs and always will is that that is a short term success with no hope for long term success.  The goal should always be playoff success, not regular season success.   And that style is not successful in the playoffs, and there are no no signs of that changing any time soon.

3 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

QBR bores me.  It counts rushing, so of course Hurts' QBR against the Saints would be high.  18 rushes for 69 yards and 3 TDs is nothing to sneeze at, but its completely outside the realm of what really matters for a successful QB in the NFL, specifically about sustainability or long term effectiveness. 

@ManchesterEagle I agree with the above about QBR.  And for all the pumping up about it fir Hurts, he was 19th in QBR for the season.

19th puts him behind Tua and Mac Jones, and the guy who the people who hate him can’t stop discussing, Carson Wentz was 9th in QBR, Tannehill was 8th.

Remeber those tanks any time you wanna use QBR to make a point.

38 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

🥱  QBR bores me.  It counts rushing, so of course Hurts' QBR against the Saints would be high.  18 rushes for 69 yards and 3 TDs is nothing to sneeze at, but its completely outside the realm of what really matters for a successful QB in the NFL, specifically about sustainability or long term effectiveness.  That's why running QBs are always coming and going so fast.  Only the ones that can learn to play within the pocket have any kind of longevity and/or effectiveness.   And the argument is always about the individual game... yes, in that game, they were successful, against a terrible offense where they got the ball back continually had no pressure on them to score quick to come back from a hole, etc.  But, what we saw in the playoffs and always will is that that is a short term success with no hope for long term success.  The goal should always be playoff success, not regular season success.   And that style is not successful in the playoffs, and there are no no signs of that changing any time soon.

It's weird how some of these stats are used to come up with QBR and QB Rating.  I've always said numbers are just numbers and they need context for the numbers to really get a good idea of the situation, but it's also about how you apply that context to the numbers.  For instance, say a QB has an opportunity to hit a WR on a long pass that would have resulted in a TD, but instead he holds the ball and runs for a 1st down.  OK, that's still a positive play and I think these 2 forms of rating/grading a QB would have him with a net positive result there.  But, what if the team then goes 3 & out and has to punt or the RB fumbles and turns it over?  The net result would be a negative since the QB left points on the field for failing to make a play when he had the chance.  I don't think they account for that in these ratings.  It's more like a play by play basis instead of connecting a string of plays together to determine whether the final outcome was positive or negative.

 

30 minutes ago, downundermike said:

@ManchesterEagle I agree with the above about QBR.  And for all the pumping up about it fir Hurts, he was 19th in QBR for the season.

19th puts him behind Tua and Mac Jones, and the guy who the people who hate him can’t stop discussing, Carson Wentz was 9th in QBR, Tannehill was 8th.

Remeber those tanks any time you wanna use QBR to make a point.

Yup.  Funny how when you're trying to have a discussion/debate about whether Hurts could be a better QB or he is what he is that certain posters have to mention Wentz even though NOBODY else brought up his name nor made any kind of reference to him.  It's RTK's hatred of Foles level of obsession and it's weak and pathetic.

 

25 minutes ago, Green_Guinness said:

It's weird how some of these stats are used to come up with QBR and QB Rating.  I've always said numbers are just numbers and they need context for the numbers to really get a good idea of the situation, but it's also about how you apply that context to the numbers.  For instance, say a QB has an opportunity to hit a WR on a long pass that would have resulted in a TD, but instead he holds the ball and runs for a 1st down.  OK, that's still a positive play and I think these 2 forms of rating/grading a QB would have him with a net positive result there.  But, what if the team then goes 3 & out and has to punt or the RB fumbles and turns it over?  The net result would be a negative since the QB left points on the field for failing to make a play when he had the chance.  I don't think they account for that in these ratings.  It's more like a play by play basis instead of connecting a string of plays together to determine whether the final outcome was positive or negative.

Exactly.  Its context-less number crunching and really misses the intended mark.

6 hours ago, downundermike said:

But if you average all that out, he’s top 10ish, right??

On 3/5/2022 at 12:21 PM, EazyEaglez said:

First off no matter how much you whine about it the Eagles are still going to do what they want. Is see so much whining, but no viable options. 

Exactly.

Let's see: Rodgers is staying, Wilson is going to Denver, Watson remains mired in legal scandal.  It's a much-below average QB draft class (but deep at other positions) so Joe Burrow isn't walking across that stage on Draft Night and Jameis Winston is the top rated free agent.  So who, exactly, do the Hurts Haters want to bring in?  

No matter. The Eagles see what everyone sees and will use that tremendous 2022 draft capital to build an elite young core.  Year 3 is a big one in the development of a quarterback.  If Hurts grows and improves, great.  If not, they'll have a strong foundation of young players in place and can go out and find a quarterback.  

On 3/4/2022 at 4:46 PM, ManchesterEagle said:

 

There is a guy on the blog who literally said he would replace Hurts with any quarterback at any price. 
Plenty of others have said we need to replace Hurts now. It’s settled down a bit in the past week as people start to realise how limited the options are, but there are still those who are absolutely set on Hurts not being the starter next year.

What gets me is the narrative that Hurts sucks and can be nothing more than a backup, when most respected analysts already have him as a middle of the road starter, 

Hurts needs to improve for sure and he may not be good enough. But it’s not a given he can’t improve sufficiently and the Eagles obviously want to see him next year.

Me. I think Smith deserves better

1 hour ago, Hawkeye said:

Exactly.

Let's see: Rodgers is staying, Wilson is going to Denver, Watson remains mired in legal scandal.  It's a much-below average QB draft class (but deep at other positions) so Joe Burrow isn't walking across that stage on Draft Night and Jameis Winston is the top rated free agent.  So who, exactly, do the Hurts Haters want to bring in?  

No matter. The Eagles see what everyone sees and will use that tremendous 2022 draft capital to build an elite young core.  Year 3 is a big one in the development of a quarterback.  If Hurts grows and improves, great.  If not, they'll have a strong foundation of young players in place and can go out and find a quarterback.  

You realize there are people who think that Hurts isn't the answer, but also understand given the options there may be no other choice, yes?

17 minutes ago, Swoop said:

You realize there are people who think that Hurts isn't the answer, but also understand given the options there may be no other choice, yes?

He will be just good enough to keep us out of the top 10/15, when we won't have the additional resources to trade up for a QB.

5 minutes ago, downundermike said:

He will be just good enough to keep us out of the top 10/15, when we won't have the additional resources to trade up for a QB.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I agree. 

Having said that, unless they take a kid in this draft (which they may) or trade for Watson, options are pretty limited.

48 minutes ago, Swoop said:

You realize there are people who think that Hurts isn't the answer, but also understand given the options there may be no other choice, yes?

Minshew is a cheaper option and better passer

21 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Minshew is a cheaper option and better passer

I also agree, but I'm not sure that the Eagles do.