Jalen Hurts wasn't a good pick by the Philadelphia Eagles — he was a great one

[hey suess]

5 hours ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

Is that true though? He's a run first QB is how I see him...

Sure, he’s mobile. That’s not a detriment in today’s NFL. Good to know that he can extend a play, if it breaks down. And, plus 77% accuracy on balls thrown over 10 yards isn’t anything to sneeze at, especially with the speed we have now.

[UK_EaglesFan89]

8 hours ago, hey suess said:

Sure, he’s mobile. That’s not a detriment in today’s NFL. Good to know that he can extend a play, if it breaks down. And, plus 77% accuracy on balls thrown over 10 yards isn’t anything to sneeze at, especially with the speed we have now.

Mobility and speed isn't a bad thing, being able to avoid pressure and extend plays isn't a bad thing but it is if that's the QBs first instinct. 

[Lemonphosphate]

I stopped reading when they labelled Wentz as an above average QB but not an elite QB.  11-20 but not in the top 10 hmm... time to throw out the model you're using when you come up with above average QB.

[PaulyB384]

On 4/29/2020 at 8:44 PM, Uscg-green said:

That was a glorious fluke. It will not be repeated. 99 percent of the time when you lose your starter long term, season over. 

99% ? See Earl Morral who started 9 games and went 9-0 during the Dolphins 1972 perfect season or Doug Williams with the Redskins  in 1987 or the NYG in 1990 with Hostetler or Tom Brady in 2001 with the Patriots or Nick Foles in 2017. 

** Vince Ferragamo almost won the SB vs the Steelers in 1979 after filling in for an injured Pat Hayden 

 

I get your point but good teams with good backups have won championships multiple times 

[Uscg-green]

19 minutes ago, PaulyB384 said:

99% ? See Earl Morral who started 9 games and went 9-0 during the Dolphins 1972 perfect season or Doug Williams with the Redskins  in 1987 or the NYG in 1990 with Hostetler or Tom Brady in 2001 with the Patriots or Nick Foles in 2017. 

** Vince Ferragamo almost won the SB vs the Steelers in 1979 after filling in for an injured Pat Hayden 

 

I get your point but good teams with good backups have won championships multiple times 

You just referenced 5 times in almost 50 years. 

[PaulyB384]

22 minutes ago, Uscg-green said:

You just referenced 5 times in almost 50 years. 

Yeah my point was that in about 10% of the Superbowls won - a good back up was involved including our own. It is hardly a fluke, it is a real thing. Does it happen often? No.But it happens. I get your point that when your starter goes down, you're basically done.

[ManchesterEagle]

On 4/30/2020 at 12:13 AM, KOJO said:

So this is basically saying that the Eagles have soured on the idea that Wentz is/can be elite, and at the very least they needed to draft Hurts to bolster the performance at the position if not outright replace Wentz.

 

 

On 4/30/2020 at 1:41 AM, Procus said:

Here's what I can't grasp - the Eagles won the 2017 SB with a BACKUP AT QB!!!!!!

How can you not grasp the importance of getting it right at this position?  Hasn't this team shown through the years that more often than not, it gets it right at the QB position? 

 

On 4/30/2020 at 4:02 AM, Uscg-green said:

I said long term. A backup can fill in for a game or two. That's where a guy like Flacco comes into play

You see I agree that the backup QB is important. But here's the thing, if things go to plan, realistically Hurts is not going to be able to come in and be better than a veteran QB in his rookie year, given that the offseason is likely to be compromised, he will be a rookie, he will not be getting first team snaps and most analysts see him as a QB that needs work.

Let's say Hurts develop as they hope, then in the next two years you are relying on Wentz getting pretty seriously hurt in order for him to be a worthwhile pick. Most QBs stay healthy most years. Some have real ironman records. Now obviously Wentz has an injury history. But if the Eagles truly believe there is a good chance of getting hurt most years, do they really want him as their long term guy? The contract suggested they just thought he had been unlucky and that he could stay healthy long term.  

After year 3 of Hurts you have a decision. Do you trade him while he is still under contract? Or keep him and potentially let him walk after year 4. If he is any good he will want a clear route to start. 

And if Wentz does get hurt again and Hurts comes in and plays really well, isn't Hurts at that point the guy? Howie intimated a comparison to Russell Wilson. If you have a healthy young player like that, don't you have to trade Wentz.

My point is that Hurts just isn't worth it as a temporary back-up. Will he be more effective than a Dalton/Flacco/Sudfeld etc? He may be in years 2-3, but even if he is, it takes a pretty specific set of circumstances for him to be worthwhile, ie Wentz getting hurt at a crucial juncture and the team being good enough to win with Hurts at QB. 

Now the point may well be that those specific set of circumstances happened the past 3 years. But if they happen again and Hurts is good enough to potentially lead them to a Super Bowl because he is the next Russell Wilson (not get hot, like so many Eagles backup QBs have managed to do effectively in the past), at that point do you not have to trade Wentz? Otherwise you are forced to repeat the exercise over and over again and spend high pick after high pick on drafting and developing a QB who may not be remotely effective in any event.

This move doesn't say to me they want a high end back-up. This move says they are truly concerned whether or not Carson can be the franchise guy here going forward because of his injury history and they want a plan B.