12 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Yup.  And players that put their body in harm's way more often are more likely to get hurt than players that don't.  

I really hope you understand how transparent dudes like you are. We all can friggin taste what you mean when you say "running Qb's get hurt more" or "don't win superbowls" or "don't read defenses". We've been hearing it our whole lives.

You like a certain type of Qb. Fine. Go route for another team. Cause this franchise has made it clear with their signings of multiple mobile Qb's that they have no problems handing the franchise over to them. It's only people like you, that have the issue. And no amount of ridiculous and transparent excuses will cover for the fact that you like your Qb a certain way.

6 hours ago, brkmsn said:

Having the wind knocked out of you isn't an injury. The rules regarding sliding were purposed for QBs that run to give them an option as protection. Hurts uses this option much of the time. When Hurts decides to put his shoulder down and fight for a critical extra yard or two, he could very well be the guy dishing out the hit as opposed to taking the hit. 

Pinkston didn't like to put his body in harm's way and his career lasted 4 seasons. In most cases, career length has to do with talent and production. 

RBs are a dime a dozen and they price themselves out of work in most cases. Josh Adams had a short career because he wasn't anything special --- Same with Pumphrey. Acting like it's always about "the pounding" is short-sighted. You simply don't hear the term "Franchise RB." Why? Because they are easily replaced  and thus playing a position where teams don't like to dedicate a lot of cap space toward. 

Their careers are short because of the pounding they take. The NFL tells you that. Spin it any way you want.

9 hours ago, eephraim said:

I really hope you understand how transparent dudes like you are. We all can friggin taste what you mean when you say "running Qb's get hurt more" or "don't win superbowls" or "don't read defenses". We've been hearing it our whole lives.

You like a certain type of Qb. Fine. Go route for another team. Cause this franchise has made it clear with their signings of multiple mobile Qb's that they have no problems handing the franchise over to them. It's only people like you, that have the issue. And no amount of ridiculous and transparent excuses will cover for the fact that you like your Qb a certain way.

Just say it, don’t hide. Call him a racist. It’s what you wanna do, so stop being a coward and say what you mean. 
 

You race baiting POS

6 hours ago, Talonblood said:

Their careers are short because of the pounding they take. The NFL tells you that. Spin it any way you want.

How did Gore and AP play 16 and 15 years?

 

LBs, DBs, TEs, WRs, and RBs all have careers that average more than 2.5 and less than 3 seasons. So you are implying that RBs (on average) don't last 3 seasons because of "the pounding?" You're just going to completely ignore all the other factors to drive home a claim. 

9 hours ago, eephraim said:

I really hope you understand how transparent dudes like you are. We all can friggin taste what you mean when you say "running Qb's get hurt more" or "don't win superbowls" or "don't read defenses". We've been hearing it our whole lives.

You like a certain type of Qb. Fine. Go route for another team. Cause this franchise has made it clear with their signings of multiple mobile Qb's that they have no problems handing the franchise over to them. It's only people like you, that have the issue. And no amount of ridiculous and transparent excuses will cover for the fact that you like your Qb a certain way.

I didn't post the things you say I did.  I said he was taking unnecessary punishment, which he is, when he chooses not to slide but to take on multiple defenders, which he has done many times this season.  Many times he has slid, many times he has run out of bounds, and those plays I like.   The plays where he lowers his shoulder to try to run guys over I do not like because he's putting himself in harm's way needlessly.

 

5 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

How did Gore and AP play 16 and 15 years?

 

LBs, DBs, TEs, WRs, and RBs all have careers that average more than 2.5 and less than 3 seasons. So you are implying that RBs (on average) don't last 3 seasons because of "the pounding?" You're just going to completely ignore all the other factors to drive home a claim. 

Different positions require different things from their bodies.  How many LBs, DBs, TEs, WRs or RBs can throw the football at all?  How many of them have shoulder issues because of the pounding on their shoulders?   They can play through those things because they aren't asked to use their shoulders for anything precision.   A QB, on the other hand, has to have a sound throwing shoulder in order to be highly effective.   How does the abuse to the shoulders from taking more hits at that position than any other QB in the history of the game look after a full season? After 2 seasons?  After 5?  Can he make it to 10 years?  We've never seen this before.  So far, the evidence does not suggest longevity.

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I didn't post the things you say I did.  I said he was taking unnecessary punishment, which he is, when he chooses not to slide but to take on multiple defenders, which he has done many times this season.  Many times he has slid, many times he has run out of bounds, and those plays I like.   The plays where he lowers his shoulder to try to run guys over I do not like because he's putting himself in harm's way needlessly.

 

I expect players to do everything possible on a play to help the team win. If that means fighting for extra yards, then I expect that effort. Losing a game like Kyler Murray did earlier this season to us is not an acceptable effort. 

1 minute ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Different positions require different things from their bodies.  How many LBs, DBs, TEs, WRs or RBs can throw the football at all?  How many of them have shoulder issues because of the pounding on their shoulders?   They can play through those things because they aren't asked to use their shoulders for anything precision.   A QB, on the other hand, has to have a sound throwing shoulder in order to be highly effective.   How does the abuse to the shoulders from taking more hits at that position than any other QB in the history of the game look after a full season? After 2 seasons?  After 5?  Can he make it to 10 years?  We've never seen this before.  So far, the evidence does not suggest longevity.

What is the bar for longevity? How long do you expect the Eagles to keep a franchise QB under contract before making a change? Will Hurts play until he's 45. History says that's unlikely, but to play until 33-35 is realistic. That would be 8-10 more seasons. If the guy is durable like other players that have managed to stay healthy for a majority of their careers, than your worries are for nothing. If he dings his shoulder on a run, he might have to miss some time to heal. That is life. It doesn't mean his career is over. I'm genuinely curious just how long people expect a typical franchise QB to be the guy for this team. Even McNabb was eventually traded by the Eagles as was Wilson by the Seahawks. 

9 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

I expect players to do everything possible on a play to help the team win. If that means fighting for extra yards, then I expect that effort. Losing a game like Kyler Murray did earlier this season to us is not an acceptable effort. 

Not sure which play you are referring to.  But, that's ok.  We don't have to agree.   After a 30 yard run, I'm ok with my QB running out of bounds or sliding in the first half.  He doesn't have to try to run over 3 or 4 defenders to get into the end zone.   On 2nd and 10, he can get a 5 yard scramble rather than an 8 yard scramble with a hit at the end.

 

If the game is actually on the line on a given play, or even a drive where the game is on the line, that's different.  To quote Steve Coates, "Time, Score, Situation".  These things change whether or not the moment is worthy of the 'effort'.   There are times where "maximum effort" is not only not required, but potentially detrimental for the long term benefit of the team.  

Just now, Iggles_Phan said:

Not sure which play you are referring to.  But, that's ok.  We don't have to agree.   After a 30 yard run, I'm ok with my QB running out of bounds or sliding in the first half.  He doesn't have to try to run over 3 or 4 defenders to get into the end zone.   On 2nd and 10, he can get a 5 yard scramble rather than an 8 yard scramble with a hit at the end.

 

If the game is actually on the line on a given play, or even a drive where the game is on the line, that's different.  To quote Steve Coates, "Time, Score, Situation".  These things change whether or not the moment is worthy of the 'effort'.   There are times where "maximum effort" is not only not required, but potentially detrimental for the long term benefit of the team.  

There are always plays you can look back on in a game and argue they were the deciding factor or tipping point. What you do on a play as a leader can positively or negatively motivate teammates. The way I see it, it's always better to get a first down (or TD) than to get a 2nd or 3rd and short (or goal) because you just don't know what will happen on the next play. A false start? A hold? A defensive stand? Every play should matter or you start getting into the whole, "For who, for what?"

2 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

What is the bar for longevity? How long do you expect the Eagles to keep a franchise QB under contract before making a change? Will Hurts play until he's 45. History says that's unlikely, but to play until 33-35 is realistic. That would be 8-10 more seasons. If the guy is durable like other players that have managed to stay healthy for a majority of their careers, than your worries are for nothing. If he dings his shoulder on a run, he might have to miss some time to heal. That is life. It doesn't mean his career is over. I'm genuinely curious just how long people expect a typical franchise QB to be the guy for this team. Even McNabb was eventually traded by the Eagles as was Wilson by the Seahawks. 

In this case, playing at a high level past 30 would be the mark to set the bar.  No QB has ever done it, playing with the style that Hurts is doing. No QB has ever had the number of carries that Hurts is on pace for... ever.  He's on pace for roughly 200 carries.  We can deduct a number for kneel downs, but that would be the case for all the other QBs who have ever set these types of records as well.  

And there's been a history of RBs and how they do after they hit a magic plateau for carries in a single season.  350 attempts seems to be the magic number.  When a RB hits about 350+ rushes in a year, their effectiveness usually drops off dramatically after that.  There are a few exceptions, but over the course of the history of the NFL, those are the probabilities.  If the RB carries 350+ times, they might have one or two good years left, before they fall off the table.   What's the line for a QB rushes?   Is it 150?  175?  200?   Not a lot of evidence as to where it is yet, because as the table I included shows, we are in pretty unprecedented levels of QB carries.   Newton was cooked (shoulder trouble) at about 29 years old.   Jackson is currently only 25 years old himself, but he also doesn't seek contact as part of his running style, unlike what Newton did and Hurts has done on a number of occasions this year.  

 

But, again, I'm fine with the runs where he avoids contact running out of bounds and sliding untouched.  Those are 'plus plays' to me.  The plays where he takes on multiple defenders, and the copious number of QB sneaks can take a toll on his body, both in the short and long term.  I'm not a fan of that.  It is hard to find a QB that you can win with in the NFL.  When you have one, you need to protect them.   Incidentally, I am just as critical of Josh Allen when he does the same thing, for the same reason.  Allen has far fewer carries overall, but takes similar punishment to Hurts for no reason at times.  

9 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

There are always plays you can look back on in a game and argue they were the deciding factor or tipping point. What you do on a play as a leader can positively or negatively motivate teammates. The way I see it, it's always better to get a first down (or TD) than to get a 2nd or 3rd and short (or goal) because you just don't know what will happen on the next play. A false start? A hold? A defensive stand? Every play should matter or you start getting into the whole, "For who, for what?"

In the case of the QB... "For the good of the whole team... for the entirety of the season."  

Having the QB availability is the most important 'ability', especially when playoff time comes.

4 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

In this case, playing at a high level past 30 would be the mark to set the bar.  No QB has ever done it, playing with the style that Hurts is doing. No QB has ever had the number of carries that Hurts is on pace for... ever.  He's on pace for roughly 200 carries.  We can deduct a number for kneel downs, but that would be the case for all the other QBs who have ever set these types of records as well.  

And there's been a history of RBs and how they do after they hit a magic plateau for carries in a single season.  350 attempts seems to be the magic number.  When a RB hits about 350+ rushes in a year, their effectiveness usually drops off dramatically after that.  There are a few exceptions, but over the course of the history of the NFL, those are the probabilities.  If the RB carries 350+ times, they might have one or two good years left, before they fall off the table.   What's the line for a QB rushes?   Is it 150?  175?  200?   Not a lot of evidence as to where it is yet, because as the table I included shows, we are in pretty unprecedented levels of QB carries.   Newton was cooked (shoulder trouble) at about 29 years old.   Jackson is currently only 25 years old himself, but he also doesn't seek contact as part of his running style, unlike what Newton did and Hurts has done on a number of occasions this year.  

 

But, again, I'm fine with the runs where he avoids contact running out of bounds and sliding untouched.  Those are 'plus plays' to me.  The plays where he takes on multiple defenders, and the copious number of QB sneaks can take a toll on his body, both in the short and long term.  I'm not a fan of that.  It is hard to find a QB that you can win with in the NFL.  When you have one, you need to protect them.   Incidentally, I am just as critical of Josh Allen when he does the same thing, for the same reason.  Allen has far fewer carries overall, but takes similar punishment to Hurts for no reason at times.  

Jackson's 2 highest marks were both from 15 games (since you are projecting Hurts on 17). But the NFL is changing every year and mobile / dual-threat QBs are on the rise. It will be interesting to revisit this discussion in 20 years after there is more data. But, IMO, it's too early to presume a true dual-threat QB can't also be durable and have a long career. 

11 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

In the case of the QB... "For the good of the whole team... for the entirety of the season."  

Having the QB availability is the most important 'ability', especially when playoff time comes.

When McNabb played the game on the broken Fibula, he missed several weeks, but it brought a win that day and motivated the entire team to step up the remainder of the season. 

1 minute ago, brkmsn said:

Jackson's 2 highest marks were both from 15 games (since you are projecting Hurts on 17). But the NFL is changing every year and mobile / dual-threat QBs are on the rise. It will be interesting to revisit this discussion in 20 years after there is more data. But, IMO, it's too early to presume a true dual-threat QB can't also be durable and have a long career. 

I'm not presuming.  I am saying that I don't like it, because it is unprecedented.  There's no data for where we are going.  But there is data for longevity of RBs being cut short after a certain plateau of carries.  Can that be extrapolated to the QB position?   Maybe, maybe not.   Time will tell.  Maybe I'll be on the wrong side of history, maybe I won't.   

Maybe the idea that a team will have a QB for 15 years like a Brady, Manning, Montana will be a thing of the past and teams will only get 5-8 years out of the QB, sort of what we are seeing from the RB position now.  And teams are content with that.  Of course, that flies directly against the salary cap investment teams are making in their QBs.  Something has to give.  

17 hours ago, time2rock said:

It would be nice to add a bulldozer type back for those short yardage situations.  

Everyone wants to bring back these old guys (Sproles/Gronk/Jenkins), is it time to give Jon Ritchie a call?

3 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I'm not presuming.  I am saying that I don't like it, because it is unprecedented.  There's no data for where we are going.  But there is data for longevity of RBs being cut short after a certain plateau of carries.  Can that be extrapolated to the QB position?   Maybe, maybe not.   Time will tell.  Maybe I'll be on the wrong side of history, maybe I won't.   

Maybe the idea that a team will have a QB for 15 years like a Brady, Manning, Montana will be a thing of the past and teams will only get 5-8 years out of the QB, sort of what we are seeing from the RB position now.  And teams are content with that.  Of course, that flies directly against the salary cap investment teams are making in their QBs.  Something has to give.  

Maybe that's why I like it. 

10 hours ago, eephraim said:

I really hope you understand how transparent dudes like you are. We all can friggin taste what you mean when you say "running Qb's get hurt more" or "don't win superbowls" or "don't read defenses". We've been hearing it our whole lives.

You like a certain type of Qb. Fine. Go route for another team. Cause this franchise has made it clear with their signings of multiple mobile Qb's that they have no problems handing the franchise over to them. It's only people like you, that have the issue. And no amount of ridiculous and transparent excuses will cover for the fact that you like your Qb a certain way.

3 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

When McNabb played the game on the broken Fibula, he missed several weeks, but it brought a win that day and motivated the entire team to step up the remainder of the season. 

Anecdotes.

But, in that particular situation, the question that needs to be asked is the same one Herb Brooks asked in Miracle... "if he plays, can he hurt it worse?"  I think McNabb could have.  Surprising in that game, they never took x-rays, not even at halftime.  It was likely not a smart move to keep him in the game.  And frankly, the Cardinals completely flubbed that game by not blitzing him.  They allowed him to just stand in the pocket as a statue.   Bad job by that DC.

 

But, his playing in that game really had no bearing on the games that followed.  Or did Koy Detmer flailing around on the field after he got hurt in the very next game also motivate the entire team to step up the remainder of the season?   I think the inspirational piece is far overblown.  I think as a society, we tend to remember the inspirations that lead to victory and quickly forget the inspirations that don't.  ND was inspired to 'win one for the Gipper'.... but the Chicago Bears lost the game they dedicated to Brian Piccolo.   Was George Gipp's illness more inspirational than Brian Piccolo's?  

 

The point is, I don't like playing with fire with the most important position on the team.   I'd like to see fewer QB sneaks and more sliding or running out of bounds by Hurts when he has the opportunity to do so.  And according to some, that makes me racist.  🤷‍♂️

Russel Wilson won the SB with the Seahawks.  Was Wilson a "running back playing QB?"  Let's compare his numbers that year to Hurts numbers this year, projected over a 16 game season since we now have a 17 game season just to keep to the same number of games.

Wilson:
Rushing yards: 539 (Lynch 1,257)
Passing yards: 3,357 yards
TDs: 26
INT: 9

Hurts: projection taking his averages and projecting for 16 games:
Rushing yards: 860 (Sanders 1,309)
Passing yards: 3,724 yards
TDs: 25
INT: 4

So Hurts is on pace for more rushing yards (and Sanders more than Lynch), but also 400 more passing yards, on par TDs, less INT than Wilson who won a Super Bowl.  Was Wilson a "running back playing QB" with those numbers?  If Hurts has 400 more passing yards does that negate him being a run only QB?

Let's check in on the Bills since everyone loves to compare to Josh Allen.  Rushing yards between QB and top RB:

Bills QB Allen: 581
Bills QB Singletary: 603
Eagles QB Hurts: 597
Eagles RB Sanders: 900

Is Josh Allen a "running back playing QB?"  Why is he rushing so much, almost as much as the RB?  Why is he putting his body in harm's way?  Why is he playing hero ball?

 

2 hours ago, brkmsn said:

How did Gore and AP play 16 and 15 years?

 

LBs, DBs, TEs, WRs, and RBs all have careers that average more than 2.5 and less than 3 seasons. So you are implying that RBs (on average) don't last 3 seasons because of "the pounding?" You're just going to completely ignore all the other factors to drive home a claim. 

Where are YOU getting your "facts?"

I want him to run less. I get that it was working and teams will keep doing it if the defense doesn't stop it

I also think Allen should stop running and trying to break tackles

Hurts has shown the ability to find a happy medium of running and passing. I think Nick was asked about it and he said he doesn't plan to lower the designed QB runs

Hurts could end up winning a Lombardi while running so much

55 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Russel Wilson won the SB with the Seahawks.  Was Wilson a "running back playing QB?"  Let's compare his numbers that year to Hurts numbers this year, projected over a 16 game season since we now have a 17 game season just to keep to the same number of games.

Wilson:
Rushing yards: 539 (Lynch 1,257)
Passing yards: 3,357 yards
TDs: 26
INT: 9

Hurts: projection taking his averages and projecting for 16 games:
Rushing yards: 860 (Sanders 1,309)
Passing yards: 3,724 yards
TDs: 25
INT: 4

So Hurts is on pace for more rushing yards (and Sanders more than Lynch), but also 400 more passing yards, on par TDs, less INT than Wilson who won a Super Bowl.  Was Wilson a "running back playing QB" with those numbers?  If Hurts has 400 more passing yards does that negate him being a run only QB?

Let's check in on the Bills since everyone loves to compare to Josh Allen.  Rushing yards between QB and top RB:

Bills QB Allen: 581
Bills QB Singletary: 603
Eagles QB Hurts: 597
Eagles RB Sanders: 900

Is Josh Allen a "running back playing QB?"  Why is he rushing so much, almost as much as the RB?  Why is he putting his body in harm's way?  Why is he playing hero ball?

 

Wilson had 96 attempts that year. 
 

Hurts will likely double that amount 

2 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

But, again, I'm fine with the runs where he avoids contact running out of bounds and sliding untouched.  Those are 'plus plays' to me.  The plays where he takes on multiple defenders, and the copious number of QB sneaks can take a toll on his body, both in the short and long term.  I'm not a fan of that.  It is hard to find a QB that you can win with in the NFL.  When you have one, you need to protect them.   Incidentally, I am just as critical of Josh Allen when he does the same thing, for the same reason.  Allen has far fewer carries overall, but takes similar punishment to Hurts for no reason at times.  

 

1 hour ago, NOTW said:

Russel Wilson won the SB with the Seahawks.  Was Wilson a "running back playing QB?"  Let's compare his numbers that year to Hurts numbers this year, projected over a 16 game season since we now have a 17 game season just to keep to the same number of games.

Wilson:
Rushing yards: 539 (Lynch 1,257)
Passing yards: 3,357 yards
TDs: 26
INT: 9

Hurts: projection taking his averages and projecting for 16 games:
Rushing yards: 860 (Sanders 1,309)
Passing yards: 3,724 yards
TDs: 25
INT: 4

So Hurts is on pace for more rushing yards (and Sanders more than Lynch), but also 400 more passing yards, on par TDs, less INT than Wilson who won a Super Bowl.  Was Wilson a "running back playing QB" with those numbers?  If Hurts has 400 more passing yards does that negate him being a run only QB?

Let's check in on the Bills since everyone loves to compare to Josh Allen.  Rushing yards between QB and top RB:

Bills QB Allen: 581
Bills QB Singletary: 603
Eagles QB Hurts: 597
Eagles RB Sanders: 900

Is Josh Allen a "running back playing QB?"  Why is he rushing so much, almost as much as the RB?  Why is he putting his body in harm's way?  Why is he playing hero ball?

 

I never said Allen was a running back playing QB, but I did address his running and his putting his body in harm's way.   I believe that both need to do it less than they do, for their own sakes, as well as the welfare of their teams.

Also the people that would always compare Allen were the people in defense of Hurts