1 minute ago, ManuManu said:

Guys, I mean, come on. I’m aware there have been mobile and running QBs in the history of the NFL. Thanks for pointing it out to me. 

I think you guys are talking past each other a bit. 

Your argument is that more NFL teams are handing over their offenses to "mobile" QBs than they've done in the past

Their argument is that doing so is not a reliable recipe for success, and that "mobile" QBs being successful in leading an offense does not have a strong track record to date.

Both can be true, one of them on its own is not necessarily dispositive of the other. 

1 minute ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

And you think by not playing well for 2.5 quarters it justifies in saying he played well enough to win a Super Bowl? That’s 2.5 quarters (More than 50% of the game) he played poorly.the Niners found themselves down 28-6 because of defense and ST but also him/offense with stalled drives, interceptions and poor red zone efficiency.

I think he played well enough for all 60 min for his team to have won that game, and they very nearly did.

Quote

Just point out the niners defense and ST also helped kaepernick in that second half.  They got a 3 and out deep in the niners territory. Ginn returned the punt to the 20 so kaepernick only had to go 20 yards for a td. 

 

Right. So it's a team sport. We agree. 

Quote

Tom Brady I could argue played well enough to justify winning a Super Bowl in Super Bowl 32. From start to finish he was outstanding. When you only look good for 1.5 quarters of a 4 quarter game i can’t justify anyone played well enough to win a super bowl. Cause if you showed up for more than 1.5 quarters you would’ve won 

Uh, yeah, he absolutely did. It would be weird to me if anyone tried to blame Brady as the reason why they lost that game against us. That's like, my entire point from the beginning of this conversation?

26 minutes ago, 315Eagles said:

You talking about Barnett?  Wasn't he a Joe Douglas guy?

No i recall howie crowing about how he came to douglas with barnett and joe had the same name prepared

We're just dealing with better athletes at QB than we ever have before. Guys who can really move and still throw the hell out of the football. Offenses are more creative with how they utilize their skillsets as well. And you better be able to play off-script and extend plays, those are game changers.

13 minutes ago, downundermike said:

Already proven false.  There has always been mobile QB's.  Rich Gannon had 500 yards rushing his age 35 season.  Randall, Young, Elway, this is not new.

The guys you mentioned didn’t even play the same game as this 2021 boring, two-hand-touch, running as fast as you can is the only thing that matters because no one is allowed to hurt you NFL.

In the time period you mentioned running was a bonus… and extremely dangerous. Now, not running is a negative. (Before anyone even says it: Tom Brady makes up for his lack of mobility by not turning the ball over and rarely getting sacked. Those hidden yards are worth even more than rush yards.)

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I think you guys are talking past each other a bit. 

Your argument is that more NFL teams are handing over their offenses to "mobile" QBs than they've done in the past

Their argument is that doing so is not a reliable recipe for success, and that "mobile" QBs being successful in leading an offense does not have a strong track record to date.

Both can be true, one of them on its own is not necessarily dispositive of the other. 

Yes.  It came down to Manu and I disagreeing on whether running ability is a bonus or not for a QB.  He says it should be part of the evaluation process, and I put it more as a bonus.   I think we met somewhere along the way in terms of understanding what the other is saying.  The rest of the conversation is mostly talking past one another.

1 minute ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Rushing yards by QB, all time leaders.  

https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask/who-had-the-most-qb-rush-yards-career

There are 4 current QB's in the top 25....... of all time (since it's a recent "trend")  

Those guys....

 

Russell Wilson (not surprising) 

Aaron Rodgers (been in the NFL for 16 years)

Lamar Jackson (not surprising)

Ryan Fitzpatrick (38 year old "dual threat" )

Surprising... 

I would want my QB to stay  and move around in the pocket , throw it away if it’s not there ,  running QBs more often than not won’t succeed , they don’t learn the nuisances of the position , because they rely on their legs to get them out of trouble  , that’s why your top QBs are not running QBs  . Smart QB who knows where to go with the ball , and can navigate the pocket , is what I would want .

 

Why is it that the "Pro-Hurts" crowd gets so damn emotional when someone isn't on board?

You guys must be vegans, too.

25 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I think he played well enough for all 60 min for his team to have won that game, and they very nearly did.

Right. So it's a team sport. We agree. 

Uh, yeah, he absolutely did. It would be weird to me if anyone tried to blame Brady as the reason why they lost that game against us. That's like, my entire point from the beginning of this conversation?

he played well enough for ALL 60 mins? Kaepernick for the first two and half quarters he scored 6 points, threw an interception, took multiple sacks (one in the red zone that forced a FG) and was 0-2 in the red zone. The defense and ST had no barring on his interception or his three and outs giving the ravens the short field for TDs or his inability to get the ball into the end zone once inside the red zone for 2.5 quarters  

now imagine if he actually showed up in the first half and played well….. they wouldve Won. Who gives a flying F if they almost won. Because if he would’ve showed up for the first half and played well they would’ve. along with their defense and ST would have as well could have. he was good after a blackout delay for 1.5 quarters doesnt not justify his underwhelming first half performance (defense and st too) that would up costing the Niners (as well as their defense and St first 2.5 quarter performances). And his defense and special teams weren’t good either and their lackluster first half also cost them 

Donovan McNabb against the Cardinals in the NFC championship game was not good for the first half. They had 6 points, defense and special ST were bad. And then mcnabb got hot for about a quarter and a half. I’m guessing you’re probably gonna say Donovan didn’t play well enough win that game as they lost 32-25. I know i wouldn’t say he did cause he didn’t play well for a majority of the game  

honest question if I told you your qb only scored 6 points in the first half, threw an interception, took a sack in the red zone that made you settle for a fg and you were 0-2 inside the red zone would you consider that a well played half by your quarterback? If you say yes that’s bs

Any Tuesday workouts for the Eagles?

My guess is they are replacing BG in house.

Just now, 4for4EaglesNest said:

 

 

I laid it out earlier.  They are trying to speak it into existence.  

 

 

BTW, you know how you know when someone is a Vegan?  Oh, they'll make sure you know.  

Yeah, they're pro-Hurts 😂

20 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Guys, I mean, come on. I’m aware there have been mobile and running QBs in the history of the NFL. Thanks for pointing it out to me. 

But did you know...

The quarterback position dates to the late 1800s, when American Ivy League schools playing a form of rugby union imported from the United Kingdom began to put their own spin on the game.  Walter Camp, a prominent athlete and rugby player at Yale University, pushed through a change in rules at a meeting in 1880 that established a line of scrimmage and allowed for the football to be snapped to a quarterback. The change was meant to allow for teams to strategize their play more thoroughly and retain possession more easily than was possible in the chaos of a scrummage in rugby. In Camp's formulation, the "quarter-back" was the person who received a ball snapped back with another player's foot. Originally he was not allowed to run forward of the line of scrimmage:

A scrimmage takes place when the holder of the ball puts it on the ground before him and puts it in play while on-side either by kicking the ball or by snapping it back with his foot. The man who first receives the ball from the snap-back shall be called the quarter-back and shall not rush forward with the ball under penalty of foul.

— Walter Camp, rule adopted at Springfield, Massachusetts Intercollegiate Football Association convention, 1880

In the primary formation of Camp's time, there were four "back" positions, with the tailback playing furthest back, followed by the fullback, the halfback, and the quarterback closest to the line. As the quarterback was not allowed to run past the line of scrimmage, and the forward pass had not yet been invented, their primary roll was to receive the snap from the center, and immediately hand or toss the ball backwards to the fullback or halfback to run. By the early 1900s, their role had been further reduced, as teams began to employ longer, direct snaps to one of the other backs (who by rule were allowed to run) and the quarterback became the primary "blocking back", leading the way through the defense but rarely carrying the ball themselves. This was the primary strategy of the single wing offense which was popular during the early decades of the 20th century. After the growth of the forward pass, the role of the quarterback changed again. The quarterback would later be returned to his role as the primary receiver of the snap after the advent of the T-formation offense, especially under the success of former single wing tailback, and later T-formation quarterback, Sammy Baugh.

5 minutes ago, Swoop said:

Why is it that the "Pro-Hurts" crowd gets so damn emotional when someone isn't on board?

You guys must be vegans, too.

And youre "hardcore TRUE fan" who views himself as the real fan because you constantly ish on all of our players and tell us how they really suck....you know, like a true fan does, because youre so hard and objective. 

Not like all those pro-Eagles losers who think the players are good.  You know better, because youre a real fan

Too many of you are thinking way too simply. It's not running QB vs pocket passer anymore. You can have both.

7 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

Any Tuesday workouts for the Eagles?

My guess is they are replacing BG in house.

Given your appetite for roster move analysis...

....my guess is that they bring back TY McGill with the intent of having Williams take a prominent role at DE.

2 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

And youre "hardcore TRUE fan" who views himself as the real fan because you constantly ish on all of our players and tell us how they really suck....you know, like a true fan does, because youre so hard and objective. 

Not like all those pro-Eagles losers who think the players are good.  You know better, because youre a real fan

Real fans have no problem talking about players on the team they support not playing well.

For example, Derek Barnett is an idiot, was over drafted, and can leave after this year. 

Is that Ok to say because it is not Jalen Hurts  ?????

2 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

And youre "hardcore TRUE fan" who views himself as the real fan because you constantly ish on all of our players and tell us how they really suck....you know, like a true fan does, because youre so hard and objective. 

Not like all those pro-Eagles losers who think the players are good.  You know better, because youre a real fan

Thanks for proving my point. 

Now tell me the huge list of players I "ish" on. 

2 minutes ago, schuy7 said:

Too many of you are thinking way too simply. It's not running QB vs pocket passer anymore. You can have both.

Do we have both?  Can he be both?

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

Real fans have no problem talking about players on the team they support not playing well.

For example, Derek Barnett is an idiot, was over drafted, and can leave after this year. 

Is that Ok to say because it is not Jalen Hurts  ?????

The irony is astounding.

3 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

Given your appetite for roster move analysis...

....my guess is that they bring back TY McGill with the intent of having Williams take a prominent role at DE.

That's the sort of thing I envision.  Forgot about McGill. 

Don't know if the film backs this up but...

Ryan Kerrigan looks rough. Hopefully it's just him figuring out how to rush with a destroyed thumb

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

how are you going with a straight face say he played well enough for ALL 60 mins? Kaepernick for the first two and half quarters he scored 6 points, threw an interception, took multiple sacks (one in the red zone was all on him that forced a FG) and was 0-2 in the red zone. The defense and ST had no barring on his interception or his three and outs giving the ravens the short field for TDs or his inability to get the ball into the end zone once inside the red zone for 2.5 quarters  

now imagine if he actually showed up in the first half and played well….. they wouldve Won. Who gives a flying F if they almost won. Because if he would’ve showed up for the first half and played well they would’ve. He along with their defense and ST were an issue. he was good after a blackout delay for 1.5 quarters doesnt not justify his underwhelming first half performance that would up costing the Niners (as well as their defense and St). And his defense and special teams weren’t good either  

Donovan McNabb against the Cardinals in the NFC championship game was not good for the first half. They had 6 points, defense and special ST were bad. And then mcnabb got hot for about a quarter and a half. I’m guessing you’re probably gonna say Donovan didn’t play well enough win that game as they lost 32-25

honest question if I told you you’re a quarterback only scored 6 points in the first half, threw an interception, took a sack in the red zone that made you settle for a fg and you were 0-2 inside the red zone would you consider that a well played half by your quarterback? If you say yes that’s bs

I'm not sure why you seem so intent to discounting the totality of the performance based on a subset of it. That's like saying a QB, who put together a season of MVP-level numbers,  shouldn't get the MVP if he was just average for half of the season. Pretty sure most people would judge the entire body of work in question, not just the first half of it, but maybe that's just me.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You guys think Milton can be a star at DE?

15 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I'm not sure why you seem so intent to discounting the totality of the performance based on a subset of it. That's like saying a QB, who put together a season of MVP-level numbers,  shouldn't get the MVP if he was just average for half of the season. Pretty sure most people would judge the entire body of work in question, not just the first half of it, but maybe that's just me.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If a quarterback was average for half the season and MVP like for the half of the season but dead mvp like numbers  he likely wouldn’t get it. just so you know Russell Wilson last year was an MVP candidate and likely lead mvp candidate for the first eight games of the year. He wasn’t nearly as good in the second half and guess what happened? He didn’t win the MVP because of it. He had totality season mvp numbers. Kyler Murray was considered as well for the first 9 games that year, then he still was ok but not nearly mvp like during the second half of the season.  He had 37 total TDs and 12 ints. He also didn’t win it. So two examples from just last year where something like kind of happened  

The fact that you can’t even admit he didn’t play well for the first 2.5 quarters of that game is humorous when you talk about totality of the game. Want to talk about totality of the performance? you can’t even recognizing the first half (really first 2.5 quarters) he didn’t play well

4 minutes ago, uncphillyfan said:

You guys think Milton can be a star at DE?

His college tape seemed like he was a lot better at stopping the run than getting to the passer to me.