I wouldn't mind Doug getting canned

5 minutes ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

I think to be honest at this point I'm just going to let the Wentz lovers love. 

You might as well. They are not going to let up and they are going to continue to point out the rookie mistakes. They will keep comparing a five year vet to a four game rookie, which is the most idiotic and ironic thing I have ever seen. They STILL believe wentz should have never been benched and that Hurts is going to be flat out awful....mind you, they assess this after 3 and a half games. SOME of them claim they have hated him since his college days (whatever) and so their dislike of him is justified. Some of them even point out that meaningless game stats two nights ago while conveniently leaving out he had to throw some balls away while under duress and to avoid getting sacked as well as some receivers just flat out dropping the ball. None of this matters to them....they are just SURE that Hurts isn't the answer either. So I am no longer responding to any of them...just let them keep being in love with wentz

1 minute ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

I'm sure we won't. We will hear the same things from the organisation regardless of what's discussed behind closed doors.

They can't hide forever. The fans need to know what's going on. Unless they want to play to cardboard cuts outs for enternity after the fan base quits

1 minute ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Glad I got to see Suds, now I am certain he is cuttable. Just HORRIBLE. Street QB's would blow him away

Agree, he really, really, sucks. 

JP sucks

23 minutes ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

Hurts was a clear upgrade. Wentz was a bottom 3 in the league QB this year, Hurts was not. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous and quite frankly laughable.

His numbers are essentially identical to Wentz.  If Wentz is bottom 3 with those numbers, then where does Hurts come in?  Bottom 4?  

I'm not talking about value for the money, because Hurts is a better value as a bad QB because he is cheaper.

Just now, GreenbleedinNC said:

They can't hide forever. The fans need to know what's going on. Unless they want to play to cardboard cuts outs for enternity after the fan base quits

They have to play it smart though. They can't announce that he wants out because that may affect his trade value. 

Just now, E-A-G-L-E-S Eagles said:

His numbers are essentially identical to Wentz.  If Wentz is bottom 3 with those numbers, then where does Hurts come in?  Bottom 4?  

I'm not talking about value for the money, because Hurts is a better value as a bad QB because he is cheaper.

You're not using your eyes. You're not seeing that Hurts clearly improved this offense. I'm not saying Hurts was top 10 but he was an average QB and he helped the offense move the ball. Wentz was awful. That's all I have to say on it. I'm not going to continue with this rather pointless back and forth. You have your views, I have mine. We aren't going to change our mind on this subject. 

1 minute ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

They have to play it smart though. They can't announce that he wants out because that may affect his trade value. 

Talk doesn't matter, agents numbers matter, bottom lines matter. There are always enough rumors to go around regardless of what they DO or DONT say

Just now, GreenbleedinNC said:

Talk doesn't matter, agents numbers matter, bottom lines matter. There are always enough rumors to go around regardless of what they DO or DONT say

I don't disagree. But we still won't learn much from their meeting today.

1 minute ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

You're not using your eyes. You're not seeing that Hurts clearly improved this offense. I'm not saying Hurts was top 10 but he was an average QB and he helped the offense move the ball. Wentz was awful. That's all I have to say on it. I'm not going to continue with this rather pointless back and forth. You have your views, I have mine. We aren't going to change our mind on this subject. 

I wanted Wentz benched in week 4(you know when we still had chance to win some games)

1 minute ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

I don't disagree. But we still won't learn much from their meeting today.

never know,could be zero,could be HUGE. We just have to wait

4 minutes ago, greend said:

Had Doug said this in his presser that would be one thing. But all he said was he wanted to get Nate some time like it's preseason. 

No debate that Doug's communication style is suspect.   He's rarely, if ever, stated anything bad about a player's performance.

Look, I don't think he benched Hurts for being ineffective (he surely was), but it's not out of the realm of possibility and a swap of QB for being ineffective shouldn't be an issue in here.  This place cries about that every week.

1 minute ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

You're not using your eyes. You're not seeing that Hurts clearly improved this offense. I'm not saying Hurts was top 10 but he was an average QB and he helped the offense move the ball. Wentz was awful. That's all I have to say on it. I'm not going to continue with this rather pointless back and forth. You have your views, I have mine. We aren't going to change our mind on this subject. 

You are using splash plays to make this assessment.  Two stats.

Eagles have scored on 2 of 21 second half possessions since Hurts became the starter.

Eagles had 250+ more yards against the Cowboys with Hurts at QB, net result, 2 points and 1 loss.

 

5 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Glad I got to see Suds, now I am certain he is cuttable. Just HORRIBLE. Street QB's would blow him away

Another product of the "QB factory"......

1 minute ago, E-A-G-L-E-S Eagles said:

No debate that Doug's communication style is suspect.   He's rarely, if ever, stated anything bad about a player's performance.

Look, I don't think he benched Hurts for being ineffective (he surely was), but it's not out of the realm of possibility and a swap of QB for being ineffective shouldn't be an issue in here.  This place cries about that every week.

If he was ineffective how did we get a lead playing our scub players??? It's not like we had(what few) starters we had out there. Please

1 minute ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

You're not using your eyes. You're not seeing that Hurts clearly improved this offense. I'm not saying Hurts was top 10 but he was an average QB and he helped the offense move the ball. Wentz was awful. That's all I have to say on it. I'm not going to continue with this rather pointless back and forth. You have your views, I have mine. We aren't going to change our mind on this subject. 

You don't have to change my mind and I don't have to change yours.  The bottom line is that Hurts' stat line looks eerily close to Carson's.  He was just as ineffective at racking up wins.  Sorry.

1 minute ago, EaglesfanfromND said:

Another product of the "QB factory"......

Yeah the Pilly Willy Wonka Tonka knock off factory

Just now, GreenbleedinNC said:

If he was ineffective how did we get a lead playing our scub players??? It's not like we had(what few) starters we had out there. Please

7 for 20 for 72 yards and an interception.  Please.

Everyone is acting like it was unexpected. Doug said before the game he was going to get Suds into the game, the announcers talk about it at length during the game and Doug did exactly what he said he was going to do.

It was a meaningless game that with the Eagles losing gave them a higher pick and it made the Giants players/coached get their panties all in a twist. I see this as a win/win.

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

7 for 20 for 72 yards and an interception.  Please.

How much on the ground? I could care less if he got 5 yards and 2 scores. He SCORED which Wentz was incapable of. I will take 27 points with 10 passing yards all day lol(and he did this with scrubs). SO after dodging my question, how did we get a lead playing with scrubs if he was ineffective? I don't care what the yards are,I care what the SCOREBOARD says

6 minutes ago, downundermike said:

You are using splash plays to make this assessment.  Two stats.

Eagles have scored on 2 of 21 second half possessions since Hurts became the starter.

Eagles had 250+ more yards against the Cowboys with Hurts at QB, net result, 2 points and 1 loss.

 

He improved this offense i watched with my own eyes. Wentz was atrocious, Hurts was more functional. 

7 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

I wanted Wentz benched in week 4(you know when we still had chance to win some games)

never know,could be zero,could be HUGE. We just have to wait

And here I felt generous for wanting him benched around game 8.....I think I was just still having hope he would turn it around

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

You don't have to change my mind and I don't have to change yours.  The bottom line is that Hurts' stat line looks eerily close to Carson's.  He was just as ineffective at racking up wins.  Sorry.

Ok. I'm not going to argue this. I saw a better team when Hurts was under center.

Just now, GreenbleedinNC said:

How much on the ground? I could care less if he got 5 yards and 2 scores. he SCORED which Wentz was incapable of. I will take 27 point with 10 passing yards all day lol(and he did this with scurbs)

He rarely scored in the 2nd half,  fumbled like a Pez dispenser, and missed on 48% of his passes.  All that good stuff you saw netted 1-3 record.  LOL!

3 minutes ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

He improved this offense i watched with my own eyes. Wentz was atrocious, Hurts was more functional. 

Empty yards that are not leading to points, and doing nothing to help winning.