57 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Well, the truth is that they're both young and inexperienced with room to grow, but maybe I should just use the formula you guys use for Hurts: "Doesn't pass the eye-test! Low ceiling! He sucks because I said so, end of discussion!"
 

90% of Minshew's TD passes happened almost two years ago. The recent sample size is so small that you can only take it with a fine grain of salt, but if you compare their recent history, they are relatively comparable, even with Minshew padding his stats against the hapless Jets.

Irony.

1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Well, the truth is that they're both young and inexperienced with room to grow, but maybe I should just use the formula you guys use for Hurts: "Doesn't pass the eye-test! Low ceiling! He sucks because I said so, end of discussion!"
 

90% of Minshew's TD passes happened almost two years ago. The recent sample size is so small that you can only take it with a fine grain of salt, but if you compare their recent history, they are relatively comparable, even with Minshew padding his stats against the hapless Jets.

BTW... nice straw man on the 'eye-test'.  He doesn't meet the standard metrics test... or the advanced metrics either.   His comp. pct was low compared to the starters around the league.  His passing ranks low at deep balls, his comp pct was actually buoyed by the number of at or behind the LOS throws.  Sirianni saw the limitations, and changed the offense dramatically around the mid point of the season to mask those limitations as best he could.

First 7 games, he averaged 34 attempts per game.  He never threw fewer than 23 times.

Last 8 games he played... he hit that average of pass attempts 0 times.   His average passes was only 22 times.  

Just a completely rebuilt offense starting with the Detroit game.  

 

Incidentally, the comp. pct before the change and after the change was almost identical.  61.1% comp pct before the change... 61.6% comp pct after the change.

Before the change... 10 TDs passing, 5 rushing TDs.    After the change... 6 TDs passing, 5 rushing TDs.  
Before the change... passer rating was 87.2.   After the change... exactly the same.
Before the change... QBR 41.1.       After the change... 60.6.   

 

So, what does that mean... in the metric where rushing doesn't count, he was just as bad after the change.  But, when his rushing counts, his evaluation jumps dramatically in the rating.  🤔.  He's not a passer... and it's not about any 'eye-test'.  It's about evaluating what he does and doesn't do well on the football field.

24 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

BTW... nice straw man on the 'eye-test'.  He doesn't meet the standard metrics test... or the advanced metrics either.   His comp. pct was low compared to the starters around the league.  His passing ranks low at deep balls, his comp pct was actually buoyed by the number of at or behind the LOS throws.  Sirianni saw the limitations, and changed the offense dramatically around the mid point of the season to mask those limitations as best he could.

First 7 games, he averaged 34 attempts per game.  He never threw fewer than 23 times.

Last 8 games he played... he hit that average of pass attempts 0 times.   His average passes was only 22 times.  

Just a completely rebuilt offense starting with the Detroit game.  

 

Incidentally, the comp. pct before the change and after the change was almost identical.  61.1% comp pct before the change... 61.6% comp pct after the change.

Before the change... 10 TDs passing, 5 rushing TDs.    After the change... 6 TDs passing, 5 rushing TDs.  
Before the change... passer rating was 87.2.   After the change... exactly the same.
Before the change... QBR 41.1.       After the change... 60.6.   

 

So, what does that mean... in the metric where rushing doesn't count, he was just as bad after the change.  But, when his rushing counts, his evaluation jumps dramatically in the rating.  🤔.  He's not a passer... and it's not about any 'eye-test'.  It's about evaluating what he does and doesn't do well on the football field.

 

So what? They had to manage him/limit him somewhat down the stretch due to his limited experience. He had issues that couldn't be fixed overnight, and the team recognized that their backfield gave them a significant advantage, so they did what any smart coaching staff would do and utilized their running game to take pressure off their young QB. Most important, the ground game was actually working, so why wouldn't they go run heavy? Either way, the guy is still just 23 years old, there's no reason to be freaking out over it.

9 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

So what? They had to manage him/limit him somewhat down the stretch due to his limited experience. He had issues that couldn't be fixed overnight, and the team recognized that their backfield gave them a significant advantage, so they did what any smart coaching staff would do and utilized their running game to take pressure off their young QB. Most important, the ground game was actually working, so why wouldn't they go run heavy? Either way, the guy is still just 23 years old, there's no reason to be freaking out over it.

The so what is the fact he literally wasn't a strength so they had to cover his ass with a new scheme mid season. He was a glaring weakness as a passer so they ran a pseudo wildcat offense taking advantage of his legs. We seen how quickly the wildcat fire got stomped out like a decade ago. How do you think the league is going to respond to this? That is many peoples fear. The other thing....him being 23 would work if came out of a D-II program and had only played the position for a couple years....he isn't a raw prospect at all. He has had solid coaching his entire football career.  He's 23, but has played the position probably since pre teen years. It's not new, it's just much faster than before. 

5 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

So what? They had to manage him/limit him somewhat down the stretch due to his limited experience. He had issues that couldn't be fixed overnight, and the team recognized that their backfield gave them a significant advantage, so they did what any smart coaching staff would do and utilized their running game to take pressure off their young QB. Most important, the ground game was actually working, so why wouldn't they go run heavy? Either way, the guy is still just 23 years old, there's no reason to be freaking out over it.

Who's freaking out?  I just addressed why your strawman wasn't valid.  He was objectively bad.  He was objectively limited.   It wasn't about some mythological 'eye test', but it was objectively observable with data to back it up.   That's 'so what'?  Don't make straw men to knock down and act like you've achieved some sort of moral high ground. 

 

I do find the statement that they had to limit him down the stretch due to his limited experience a hilarious response though.   He was more experienced by that point, and was still having the same struggles.  Then they limited him, and he had the same exact issues but they were less noticeable due to the weaker opponents and the dominance of the run game.   But, he was statistically equivalent once they handcuffed him as a passer.    And we saw him face the same opponent in Tampa as before they handcuffed him, and saw no improvement from where he had been at that stage of the season, even though he was more experienced by that point.  He might have even been worse in the playoff game than he was in the previous matchup against the Bucs.  

3 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Who's freaking out?  I just addressed why your strawman wasn't valid.  He was objectively bad.  He was objectively limited.   It wasn't about some mythological 'eye test', but it was objectively observable with data to back it up.   That's 'so what'?  Don't make straw men to knock down and act like you've achieved some sort of moral high ground. 

 

There were literally people in here doing exactly that. 'Member "arm talent?" 

1 hour ago, Iggles_Phan said:

One would allow a more balanced passing attack and letting the HC implement the offense he came here looking to run.  The other forces a complete overhaul of the offense, forces them into being a run dominant team, and loads up on passing plays that are at or behind the LOS rather than anything even remotely down the field (and by 'down the field', I literally mean 5 or more yards beyond the LOS).

I am curious, how many passes beyond five yards of the LOS do you think Misnhew completed in the Jets game?

Did you watch that game? Did you count them? 

54 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

There were literally people in here doing exactly that. 'Member "arm talent?" 

Arm talent isn't eye test.   And yeah, Hurts' arm talent is limited.  He's got a below average to average arm at best in the NFL.  

48 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

I am curious, how many passes beyond five yards of the LOS do you think Misnhew completed in the Jets game?

Did you watch that game? Did you count them? 

Looks like 10, at or beyond 5 yards.  Out of 22 shown here (not sure where the other 3 throws are, I assume they must have been throw aways given they aren't shown.

 

But, remember, this is still the same basic offense that they ran with Hurts, they weren't going to go with a THIRD style of game plan with Minshew for one week after they'd just changed over the offense almost overnight just a few weeks ago with Hurts back there.  

 

 

Here's a throw chart I found with Jacksonville.  

3 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Looks like 10, at or beyond 5 yards.

Minshew completed four passes longer than 5 yards against the Jets. The one pass on the chart that is close to 8 yards was most likely the dump off to a running back that was juggled for five yards before he could control it. So not 10, 4.

This is why Minshew is not considered by serious football people as a legit starter, or at least not one better than Hurts. He just hasn't show any real upside in three years.

You can argue that all of Hurts' upside is in his running ability, but the undeniable fact is that Hurts has upside that Minshew doesn't.

It's not some conspiracy theory. It's not the GM or the owner demanding Hurts start to save face or to promote some social agenda. It's the fact that Hurts has more potential than Minshew.

Landon Dickerson was bad his first few games. Should we have kept him on the bench because Herbig would have played better? Or was the team right in thinking that a player with a lot more upside should be on the field. You are literally arguing that the intelligent move would be to play Herbig, and that the only reason Dickerson played was to make the front office look better. Does that sound like a rational argument?

 

 

 

Nope.  Read what I post, not what you think it means.  Not sure where your numbers are coming from. Clearly shows more than 4 throws over 5 yards.  I mentioned 10, because I was counting attempts.  Even if it's completions, it's still more than 4.  But it doesn't matter to me though, apparently you only see what you want.  I never claimed Minshew was a long term solution, again your issue with reading what is posted, not what you think it says.  I never wanted to hitch my wagon to Minshew.  Of course, I never wanted them to draft Hurts in round 2 either.  It was a reach then for a backup QB with Taysom Hill potential (their words, not mine), and two years later he still looks like a backup QB, with limited potential.  

May you be blessed by all the Gods and Goddesses, @Iggles_Phan for all your good works in this thread.

 

Call it what you want but the Eagles are looking for a QB.  Somebody like Allen.  Got it wrong with Wentz.  Got it wrong with Hurts.  Is what it is.

20 minutes ago, Miami said:

Call it what you want but the Eagles are looking for a QB.  Somebody like Allen.  Got it wrong with Wentz.  Got it wrong with Hurts.  Is what it is.

There it is Allen!

2 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Not sure where your numbers are coming from. Clearly shows more than 4 throws over 5 yards.  I mentioned 10, because I was counting attempts.  Even if it's completions, it's still more than 4.

Here's the game film showing around 15 of the completions from the game. The five not shown are dumpoffs to running backs that went for no yards.

There are four completions of more than 5 yards. Two to Goedert, Two to Watkins.

(21) Eagles vs. Jets Week 13 Highlights | NFL 2021 - YouTube

If there was a longer completion that that in this game, it would be on here.

Go ahead and find the completions you claim exist. Post the timestamps when they happen. 

Look, I'll give a little on Minshew. He's a cool cat who's had some big games. He reminds me of Foles a little bit, right down to the awkward swag ('member Napoleon Dynamite?!). Overall, this team has a great 2 QB setup, and both these guys realistically have a chance to win games. I'm willing to take a chance with this QB cast either way, but I'm more intrigued to see what Hurts has to offer.

19 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 Overall, this team has a great 2 QB setup

There is nothing great about this team's QB setup.

19 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

There is nothing great about this team's QB setup.

7 hours ago, eagle45 said:

There is nothing great about this team's QB setup.

Cheap? Lol 

8 hours ago, jsb235 said:

Here's the game film showing around 15 of the completions from the game. The five not shown are dumpoffs to running backs that went for no yards.

There are four completions of more than 5 yards. Two to Goedert, Two to Watkins.

(21) Eagles vs. Jets Week 13 Highlights | NFL 2021 - YouTube

If there was a longer completion that that in this game, it would be on here.

Go ahead and find the completions you claim exist. Post the timestamps when they happen. 

You want me to watch a HIGHLIGHT video from the game and identify all the throws 5 yards or more, when I already provided a source showing the throws?    Nah.  

I'll trust Next Gen Stats can count the yards appropriately and watched the whole game to come to their conclusions, not just the highlights.

But, I did number the throws at or beyond 5 yards for you.  You can argue about #7 and #8 if you'd like.  That would still leave 6 completions over 5 yards, and that's more than 4.  Plus the two incompletions... and that's where I got my 10 from.  Feel free to dispute it more if you'd like.  I'm not going to waste any more time on this.

 

7 hours ago, eagle45 said:

There is nothing great about this team's QB setup.

The Lions of the early 90s must have have the best situation with their 3 QBs: Rodney Peete, Erik Kramer and Andre Ware.

A lot of breath was wasted in this thread. The huggers will not quit until Hurts is gone. They are irrational, with some weird agenda. That said I expect him to get exactly what they want. One more year to prove himself.

3 minutes ago, greend said:

 They are irrational, with some weird agenda. 

The irony ... 

1 hour ago, Iggles_Phan said:

You want me to watch a HIGHLIGHT video from the game and identify all the throws 5 yards or more, when I already provided a source showing the throws?    Nah.  

I'll trust Next Gen Stats can count the yards appropriately and watched the whole game to come to their conclusions, not just the highlights.

But, I did number the throws at or beyond 5 yards for you.  You can argue about #7 and #8 if you'd like.  That would still leave 6 completions over 5 yards, and that's more than 4.  Plus the two incompletions... and that's where I got my 10 from.  Feel free to dispute it more if you'd like.  I'm not going to waste any more time on this.

 

So you are now shifting the goalposts that you set?

Your original statement was that Minshew was a better option than Hurts because he threw the ball "more than five yards down the field." Throws six, seven and eight are not more than five yards down the field, they are five yards. Counting them is dumb on two levels - first, they don't technically meet the parameters you set, and two, they fail to meet the spirit of what your point was, namely that Minshew, in this offense, would throw the ball down the field more than Hurts does.

And throw five wasn't thrown more than five yards down field. It was a checkdown that was thrown three yards and Gainwell bobbled it for the extra yards.

So the correct answer is 4.

13 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

The irony ... 

The stupidity......