So, y’all are trying to talk yourselves in to being ok with average QB play? 

1 minute ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

You decide whether a QB elite or not based off of one game?  

 

I think your definition of elite is the one that is way off.  

No....who is?  

Seeing a lot more posts about how average QBs can get to / win championships.

 

2 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

But it wasn’t just the QB that Howie overpaid and then he overused guarantees and void years on those contracts so the players cost more than they were worth to the team in declining years.  I agree that too high contracts regardless of position hamstrings a team.  But Howie also used draft choices to much for individual players without getting return on those investments.  Howie fails on several fronts. The Rams better win it all soon because they are about to implode.  Similar situation for the Saints and the cowpads aren’t far behind. 

Sooner might be happening now. If you look at The 3 games against their best competition: Arizona, Bucs, titans. They’ve lost 2 of the 3 and Matt Stafford has been terrible in the two losses. And all three of those games were at home. And it’s not just Matt Stafford. 

I think the Cardinals and the Rams schedule is going to catch up to them where they’re probably gonna be playing each other in the 4/5 seed game.  The Cowboys, Packers and Bucs are going to be competing for that one seed. 

8 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

Mahomes was 26 of 42 with two picks for 286 yards, or 6.8 yards per attempts and a 61 percent completion percentage.

Your definition of elite is way off here, chump.

And apparently your reading comprehension skills are always elite. Go back and read what I wrote about mahomes. I said when they needed him to he came through and was elite meaning when they needed him the most in that game he shine through as elite. Meanwhile win the 49ers needed Jimmy Garoppolo to be that type of player and carry the team he couldn’t do it. 

but good job reading. I know not your strong skill set chump 

Just now, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

And apparently your reading comprehension skills are always elite. Go back and read what I wrote Patching mahomes. I said when they needed him to he came through and was elite theory meaning when they needed him the most in that game he shine through as elite. Meanwhile win the 49ers needed Jimmy Garoppolo to be that type of player and carry the team he couldn’t do it. 

but good job reading. I know not your strong skill set chump 

Umm, how about last year? They needed him to be elite in that game, and he crapped all over himself. So he is only elite when you need him to be elite to make an argument, and when he sucks, you just ignore that.

That's why you are a chump.

1 hour ago, eagle45 said:

I resent the way Hurts plays the QB position and see it as completely backwards and against the competitive grain of the way professional football is played.  As a result, I will not be a believer in Hurts until he carries the Eagles to a SB win.  Until then, I'm looking for an upgrade at QB.  That's just my philosophy at the position.  I cannot wrap my head around even considering a QB whose weakness is all aspects of passing the football, even if he is improving.

That's my opinion.  That's my bias.

With that said, in an effort to get beyond that and see the big picture, I will say one positive about Hurts and the position.  I always said that every team in the NFL has one of 3 types of QBs: 1.  Teams with elite QB's.  2.  Teams who think they are developing future elite QBs.  3.  Teams who are looking to upgrade at QB.

I might revise that.  Tier 1: teams with Brady/Mahomes/Rodgers.  Tier 2: teams with the other big name "elite" QBs, ranked #4-10.  

I might actually argue that tier 2 is the death zone.  You've got QB's that aren't so transcendently dominant to carry a team to a title.  But they are great.  And you either traded 3 #1 picks for them, stripping your team of draft capital...or you are paying them $33m per year...or both.

You either get the generational QB (which is ideal), or you might actually want the tier 3 guy that won't cost you an arm and a leg and allows you to stack your picks and cap for the rest of the team.

Has Green Bay been in death zone with Rodgers? Is KC in one now with Mahomes? What about Wilson in Seattle? I think Brady's situation is unique because he took a less than market deal repeatedly which allowed NE to compete.  I think it skews the results to some extent but it highlights the importance of having an otherwise competitive roster in order to be a competitive team.  I think QB is the most important piece but it isn't the only piece of the puzzle.  

I agree that looking over the last 10 years it doesn't make sense to bet on the field vs. a top 10 QB to win the SB.  Aside from from the perennial top 5 QBs in the last 10 years that have won a Super Bowl, the list is Eli, Flacco and Foles.  All 3 were also very good to elite QBs leading up to the SB and in the game.  On the other hand, the only 2 top 5 QBs to appear more than once in the game are Wilson, Mahomes and Brady.  Brady is the only top 5 QB playing with more than one win.  

I am not sold on Hurts as a top tier QB.  I don't think you can ignore his improvement.  The question is what resources to spend to obtain a QB.  The argument that Hurts puts us in a poor position to get an elite QB isn't wrong but you have to also look at teams like Green Bay and Seattle where their QBs haven't helped them win anything despite their continued high level of play.  I have no objection to building the roster to have better players before making a decision on Hurts.  He has shown improvement.  If he starts playing consistently like he did in the first half of the Devner game, he looks a lot more like a top tier QB capable of winning consistently.  My guess is that he won't but I can't set aside that possibility.  

Aside from Tampa, I don't think there's a purgatory of bad to mediocre QB teams.  I think the purgatory is when the team is otherwise terribly coached or lacking talent.  

4 minutes ago, Parrot Head said:

So, y’all are trying to talk yourselves in to being ok with average QB play? 

McNabb, Kolb, Vick, Foles, Bradford, Wentz.  Kind of used to that.  Each except Kolb had individual years where they excelled but not consistently.  Would I like an above average QB or better yet an elite QB?  Sure.  But those are driven by luck as much as anything.  

Football is a team game and any QB with this defense would suffer losses. There appears to be no great QB prospects in the 2022 draft and I argued that 2021 draft QBs were overvalued.  But there are some pretty exciting defensive and OL prospects in the 2022 draft.  

10 minutes ago, Parrot Head said:

So, y’all are trying to talk yourselves in to being ok with average QB play? 

Depends what the goal is.  Everyone can say the goal is to win the Super Bowl but I think most everyone would agree:

a)  The Eagles won't be competing for the Super Bowl in 2021 or 2022 no matter who the QB is

b)  It's likely at some point beyond next season an upgrade at QB will need to be made when the team is ready to be a contender.

 

Average QB play might be "ok" while the roster is being built.

14 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

Umm, how about last year? They needed him to be elite in that game, and he crapped all over himself. So he is only elite when you need him to be elite to make an argument, and when he sucks, you just ignore that.

That's why you are a chump.

Lol so an argument when he’s playing against another elite QB Tom brady is the same as Jimmy G not being great and not being able to turn it on like mahomes was able to in that particular super bowl cause he doesn’t have that in him. The difference in the 49ers/chiefs Super Bowl was the fact Patrick Mahomes when the chiefs needed him to be elite he had the ability to be elite whereas Jimmy g couldn’t.

And just so we know in last year Super Bowl how many drops did Tyreek Hill have and his wide receivers have that would’ve been touchdowns to make that game closer? Was at least two. He was Fing horizontal throwing a football that should’ve been caught for a touchdown.

I rather be a chump than you who disappears for months only to come back start arguments with people that he holds grudges against. I guess you think that makes you cool. 

** i forgot to add the word chump. Cause name calling makes you cooler on here. 

3 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Depends what the goal is.  Everyone can say the goal is to win the Super Bowl but I think most everyone would agree:

a)  The Eagles won't be competing for the Super Bowl in 2021 or 2022 no matter who the QB is

b)  It's likely at some point beyond next season an upgrade at QB will need to be made when the team is ready to be a contender.

 

Average QB play might be "ok" while the roster is being built.

I think we can compete next year. The roster doesn’t get the credit it deserves, all we need is more experience and a few more pieces.

And I still think Hurts is a top tier QB.

1 hour ago, Mike31mt said:

Lurie wants a flashy passing game, he hired SIrianni based on that sort of logic

So Sirianni couldnt come out of the gate calling games with a 40/60 pass/run ratio until Hurts demonstrated it was necessary.  Sirianni played it the right way.  Sometimes you have to show people their ideas are bad, and that you know what youre doing.

I wonder if Lurie and Howie are having weekly post game debriefs like they used to with Pederson.

If Sirianni gets through the year with 7-8 wins, he'll have gained a ton of credibility in the building moving forward.

Indy didn't have a flashy passing game under Reich/Sirianni. Only deep threat was Hilton, and he's was already past his prime. Big possession receivers in Pittman and Pascal, lots of throws to RBs (Hines) and TEs (used all three). They passed b/c Luck and Rivers were immobile so you had to get the ball out of their hands quickly, but they were smart and accurate and could drive a short passing game.

2018:  362 rushes, 634 passes, 46 QB runs - targets, RB 128, TE 164, WR 327

2019:  407 rushes, 488 passes, 64 QB runs - targets, RB 91, TE 135, WR 272

2020:  434 rushes, 535 passes, 35 QB runs - targets, RB 144, TE 120, WR 271

Balanced offense in 2020 b/c Taylor was such a great threat as a runner (1169 yards, 5.0 YPC), taking the pressure off Rivers.

So hiring Sirianni seems to be a repudiation of the pass first offensive philosophy.

29 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

Despite of having one of the worst general managers and roster in the league.

Having a QB who's bottom 10 in the league that no one seemed to want(and was drafted as a back up)

Having to build what seems to be 3 different playbooks since getting hired 

Having one of the worst defenses in the league and a DC who should/may get fired

He's some how fighting for a playoff spot. 

Yep, WAY OVER HIS HEAD LOL

Nah, he shouldn't and won't be fired. He's given up 6, 17, 18, 6, and 13 points to average or below average offenses. Against good offenses, he's given up 41,42,28, and 27. Considering the talent he's working with, that's pretty good. It frustrates us as fans to watch those good offenses have their way with us, but we aren't alone in that. I think Gannon is doing a fine job honestly. 

8 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Lol so an argument when he’s playing against another elite QB Tom brady is the same as Jimmy G not being great and not being able to turn it on like mahomes was able to in that particular super bowl cause he doesn’t have that in him.

Tom Brady plays defense? What difference does it make who is playing qb for the other team? Plus, Brady threw for 200 yards, not exactly a dominant performance. The running game won them that game, and Mahomes being complete trash.

If anything, you are making the argument that an elite defense and running game are more important than an elite qb to winning a Super Bowl. If that's the case, bravo. You really are playing 4D chess.

But I love the "how can you expect Mahomes to be elite when Tom Brady is standing on the other sideline" argument. 

24 minutes ago, Parrot Head said:

So, y’all are trying to talk yourselves in to being ok with average QB play? 

Count me in for average QB play next year rather than trading all of our draft picks for a 35 year old QB or using a high pick on any of them coming out

3 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

Nah, he shouldn't and won't be fired. He's given up 6, 17, 18, 6, and 13 points to average or below average offenses. Against good offenses, he's given up 41,42,28, and 27. Considering the talent he's working with, that's pretty good. It frustrates us as fans to watch those good offenses have their way with us, but we aren't alone in that. I think Gannon is doing a fine job honestly. 

I keep bringing up JJ, but when he was hired, it was who??? Because he had a mediocre track record, coaching mediocre talent. Then he got to coach top talent.

Gannon has taken basically the same talent Schwartz had last season (add Nelson, Harris, Kerrigan, subtract Mills, Graham, Curry) and done a better job with it. That's really all you can ask.

With Garoppolo beating Stafford and Cousins beating Herbert this past week, the "you need an elite qb to win in the NFL" crowd is really coming out swinging today. I am worried what will happen to their heads when Tannehill hands off his way to a Super Bowl title. 

8 minutes ago, Infam said:

I think we can compete next year. The roster doesn’t get the credit it deserves, all we need is more experience and a few more pieces.

And I still think Hurts is a top tier QB.

I had you in mind when I said "most everyone"     

Well, if Hurts is a top tier QB the team is still very likely to finish the season with a losing record.  More experience leads me to believe you're referring to FA acquisitions -- the Eagles don't have any money for that; they'll be hard-pressed to re-sign guys like Goedert.  A few more pieces would likely mean the high draft picks, but it's very rare (maybe unrealistic) to believe rookie draft picks will be able to make a big impact -- certainly no more than 1.

Just now, jsb235 said:

With Garoppolo beating Stafford and Cousins beating Herbert this past week, the "you need an elite qb to win in the NFL" crowd is really coming out swinging today. I am worried what will happen to their heads when Tannehill hands off his way to a Super Bowl title. 

I think you're making too much of a small sample size. In any given season, a lesser QB will beat a better QB. It's basic statistics. 

15 hours ago, jsb235 said:

Tom Brady plays defense? What difference does it make who is playing qb for the other team? Plus, Brady threw for 200 yards, not exactly a dominant performance. The running game won them that game, and Mahomes being complete trash.

If anything, you are making the argument that an elite defense and running game are more important than an elite qb to winning a Super Bowl. If that's the case, bravo. You really are playing 4D chess.

But I love the "how can you expect Mahomes to be elite when Tom Brady is standing on the other sideline" argument. 

You do realize that Patrick Mahomes throws a ball where he was horizontal to the ground that should’ve been caught for a touchdown. Was dropped. And then there was another drop by Tyreek Hill in the Endzone that would’ve been a touchdown.  

In the previous Super Bowl against the Niners the difference in the game was when the Chiefs needed Patrick Mahomes to be great and make great plays, he was able to turn that switch on and do it like what great elite type players can do. Meanwhile Jimmy Garoppolo when the Niners still had a chance in that game and needed him to match that from mahomes he couldn’t. That was the difference in that game  

so you want to bring up one instance in his postseason, where I have about 5 where he turned it on and became elite when the chiefs needed him the most and to become that player. Titans playoff game down 10-0 after the first quarter. Texans playoff game down 24-0. Bills playoff game where they got down 9-0 after the first quarter. Niners super bowl. Or even the loss to the patriots in the afc title where he got down 14-0 and then destroyed them for 31 points in the second half and the only reason the patriots withstood that mahomes magic was cause of a defensive end jumping offsides.  So because one time he didn’t means we dismiss the multiple other times where it’s held true. 

18 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

McNabb, Kolb, Vick, Foles, Bradford, Wentz.  Kind of used to that.  Each except Kolb had individual years where they excelled but not consistently.  Would I like an above average QB or better yet an elite QB?  Sure.  But those are driven by luck as much as anything.  

Football is a team game and any QB with this defense would suffer losses. There appears to be no great QB prospects in the 2022 draft and I argued that 2021 draft QBs were overvalued.  But there are some pretty exciting defensive and OL prospects in the 2022 draft.  

Let's see, those average to above average QBs lost 4 NFC Championship games, 1 SB loss, 1 SB win.

During that same stretch, Favre/Rodgers lost 5 NFC Championship games, 1 SB win.

5 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Sooner might be happening now. If you look at The 3 games against their best competition: Arizona, Bucs, titans. They’ve lost 2 of the 3 and Matt Stafford has been terrible in the two losses. And all three of those games were at home. And it’s not just Matt Stafford. 

I think the Cardinals and the Rams schedule is going to catch up to them where they’re probably gonna be playing each other in the 4/5 seed game.  The Cowboys, Packers and Bucs are going to be competing for that one seed. 

I don't know if Stafford was that bad.  His receivers didn't help him out much in the game.  I counted 4 or 5  drops that killed drives.  

8 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

I had you in mind when I said "most everyone"     

Well, if Hurts is a top tier QB the team is still very likely to finish the season with a losing record.

Made me smile. 😄

Not sure about it, we can still win some games going forward.

Quote

  More experience leads me to believe you're referring to FA acquisitions -- the Eagles don't have any money for that; they'll be hard-pressed to re-sign guys like Goedert.

Nah, I meant our rookie players and coaches need some games under their belt.

Quote

  A few more pieces would likely mean the high draft picks, but it's very rare (maybe unrealistic) to believe rookie draft picks will be able to make a big impact -- certainly no more than 1.

Not so sure. That’s usually how it goes, but you don’t usually have three firsts..

2 hours ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

This is a big game this week.  I F-ing hate the Saints.  I hate their uniforms.  I hate their fans.  I hate their smug ass Head Coach.  I even hate the mole on Drew Brees's face.  I hate everything about them.  We need a win at home.  We win and we are fully involved in the playoff discussion.  This will be the most invested in a game that I would have been up to this point.    Which is why I fully expect them to let us down.  But I am hopeful. 

 

 

I think the fans, especially some of us in here, should get some game balls for coaching the Eagles up on how to win with this offense.  I'm not talking about those who were saying that Nick's "scheme" was working in the beginning of the season, when we were handing the ball off less than 10 times a game.  I'm not talking about the guys who were touting his "scheme" because guys were running "wide open" with a bad QB who couldn't read the field.  I am talking about those who clearly saw the direction of the offense should be similar to what Baltimore does.  Run....A Lot......play action......rinse and repeat.  And get Jordan Howard on the field.  Now Boston Scott has been less Jagalishish as of late.  I will admit I was a little critical with that one.  But just the fact we have seen the offense philosophy change and yield nice results is enough to tell anyone that his "scheme" was not working.  

If they can only win 1 game the rest of the year I hope its this week against the Saints.

Not sure about this season but it always seems the Saints don't play that well on the road.  Hoping we win 50-7.

2 hours ago, Mike31mt said:

I cant stand people who take 45 seconds to break down a play, and we have sit and listen to them yapping away as the play is frozen.

If we're watching a breakdown on twitter, we dont need a 5 minute explanation.  Just play the f'ing video and let us watch

Baldinger does that ish.  It takes him like 3 minutes of talking before he actually hits "play".   No thanks, Im good

/Rant

I'll add to your rant.  Twitter videos are blurry for the first 10 seconds so half the time you don't even see the play on some of these things.