Week 7 poll, is it time to Bench Hurts

[EazyEaglez]

1 hour ago, Cochis_Calhoun said:

Unless he thinks this is some sort of hothousing I genuinely have no clue why you would call the games he has.

And again I reiterate I have no idea whether Hurts is the answer or not,  I can point to at least a couple of the current top ten quarterbacks who were massively inconsistent and had games where they dropped below 50% completion their first season of games, not that this fan base wants to hear it, young QB's will be inconsistent and especially so with a game 'plan' like the Eagles are currently running.

 

He’s doing nothing to cultivate or build Hurts. If anything his offense and his play calling has done nothing but expose Hurts. He’s over 80% of their offense. It’s just plain stupid. When he finally decided to run something remotely NFL looking the team marched right down the field and scored and he basically abandoned that football from that point on. Even with Sanders getting injured he still should’ve stayed with the offense that was working. This guy is supposed to be a WR guru. Does any of the receivers that were here before him really look any better? Has Reagor really progressed all that much as a route runner. Has JJAW improved as an actual receiver? Meanwhile we are expecting this coaching staff to groom a young quarterback like Hurts when the Head coach doesn’t even understand his responsibilities as a leader. But Minshew is going to fix all this. 🙄🤦🏾‍♂️

[brkmsn]

4 hours ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

I think what we know is that Hurts isn't the answer... And I'm pretty sure Minshew isn't either. My point is I don't think Hurts is a terrible back up long term in the NFL. 

We don't know if either is true at this point. We're talking about 2 guys that require development that takes several seasons to become the best version of themselves as NFL QBs. Right now, we just have to figure out which of the two is the better fit. Since we don't have another obvious long-term answer on the roster, you have to work with what you have. We've had a chance to see Hurts so far this season and the development is stagnant. We should take a look at Minshew soon and at the very least create some competition between the two in practice. 

[birdman#12]

It doesn't matter who plays QB really if Sirianni's playcalling and game planning doesn't get better.

In typical philly fashion, the fans and media blame the QB, a young inexperienced QB, for the head coaches brutal shortcomings.  

WTF makes you think that anything will change next year with a highly drafted young QB if Sirianni doesn't get any better?  

[kiwieagle]

On 10/27/2021 at 11:05 PM, Cochis_Calhoun said:

The offensive line Sunday was Dickerson and Driscoll at Guard neither are starters and one isn't a Guard, Mailata played both tackle positions because Lane went down again.

Last year JJAW played 12.5% of offensive snaps, so far this year he's playing 12.1%

Yeah but that OL depth is significantly better. Dickerson and Driscoll > Opeta, Pryor, Brown. These backups can actually play.

JJAW, Rod Davis and Greg Ward as top-3 WRs (down the stretch in 2018) doesn't come close to what we have now.

If you cant see the offensive talent is improved, I don't know what to tell you 

[kiwieagle]

9 hours ago, Cochis_Calhoun said:

And again I reiterate I have no idea whether Hurts is the answer or not,  I can point to at least a couple of the current top ten quarterbacks who were massively inconsistent and had games where they dropped below 50% completion their first season of games, not that this fan base wants to hear it, young QB's will be inconsistent and especially so with a game 'plan' like the Eagles are currently running.

 

This I agree with, its early and we need to give him most of the year at least to show if he can fix things and improve.

The reason I say its not promising so far is a few consistent things that keep popping up in his game and haven't been improving:

1. Not seeing the field well, albeit a lot of young QBs take time here

2. Misses open receivers. Hasn't shown repetitive accuracy, particularly in the medium passing game which is key in the NFL

3. Lots of 3 and outs early in the game and inability to move the ball till the defence backs off. Best moments seem to come in the 4th quarter when other team is up big

[eagle45]

13 hours ago, Cochis_Calhoun said:

Unless he thinks this is some sort of hothousing I genuinely have no clue why you would call the games he has.

And again I reiterate I have no idea whether Hurts is the answer or not,  I can point to at least a couple of the current top ten quarterbacks who were massively inconsistent and had games where they dropped below 50% completion their first season of games, not that this fan base wants to hear it, young QB's will be inconsistent and especially so with a game 'plan' like the Eagles are currently running.

 

I don't like to be belligerent, but at this point...if you have no idea whether Hurts is the answer or not, I don't think you are paying attention.  

[Cochis_Calhoun]

7 hours ago, eagle45 said:

I don't like to be belligerent, but at this point...if you have no idea whether Hurts is the answer or not, I don't think you are paying attention.  

Go and look at Josh Allen and Lamar Jackson's first 16 games, they were all over the place, I don't doubt you'll have a reason that their sub 60% completion was somehow different quality to Hurts sub 60% completion, make vague references to them not making the 'same sort of mistakes' in games you didn't watch 3 years ago but lets be honest, your book on Hurts was written before he ever picked up a football at the Novacare and there's not a damn thing he could do now to change it, there never was.

[E-A-G-L-E-S Eagles]

On 10/28/2021 at 1:56 AM, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

Back ups aren't usually really good to be fair. I think he's steady enough to be a decent back up. He can make some plays and he's not going to turn the ball over at a high rate. 

Maybe.  I don't see him as a consistent performer during meaningful times of the games and his game is likely completely inconsistent with the primary starter.  At this point though, him being the backup is a upgrade for the team over spending time trying to turn him into the starter.

[eagle45]

2 hours ago, Cochis_Calhoun said:

Go and look at Josh Allen and Lamar Jackson's first 16 games, they were all over the place, I don't doubt you'll have a reason that their sub 60% completion was somehow different quality to Hurts sub 60% completion, make vague references to them not making the 'same sort of mistakes' in games you didn't watch 3 years ago but lets be honest, your book on Hurts was written before he ever picked up a football at the Novacare and there's not a damn thing he could do now to change it, there never was.

Not a damn thing he has done to change it.

[UK_EaglesFan89]

11 hours ago, E-A-G-L-E-S Eagles said:

Maybe.  I don't see him as a consistent performer during meaningful times of the games and his game is likely completely inconsistent with the primary starter.  At this point though, him being the backup is a upgrade for the team over spending time trying to turn him into the starter.

To be fair mate... That sounds like pretty much every back up in the league? Not consistent, doesn't really go and win you games. 

[roadagain65]

F no

[Swoop]

On 10/27/2021 at 6:53 PM, ManchesterEagle said:

 

 

So Minshew has 25 NFL game tapes. He is on a really cheap rookie contract. There are 32 teams with numerous professional scouts who would have reviewed the game tape. The most the Jags could get for him was a 6th.

Perhaps he could win some games here. But he's benefiting from Eagles back-up QB syndrome. I bet if Minshew had of done what Hurts did against the Panthers, people would be calling him clutch and a gamer.

He is not going to be our franchise QB. We do not need to see him this year. If Hurts continues to struggle maybe give him 3-4 games (although to be honest may as well give him just 2 as we want to keep our 5th rounder).

Hurts hasn't been great, but most QBs aren't in their first 10-12 games. He is being hurt by a poor O-Line, bad playcalling and a pretty awful D. People who want to bench him at this stage just hate him, maybe because of Wentz, maybe because of something else.

Let him play. He may well not be good enough, but if he isn't we hopefully get two top 5 picks to add some much needed defensive talent.

Minshew is not the answer and we do not need to see him.

Not a single person has said Minshew is the future franchise QB or the slam dunk answer at QB, but continue to pull nonsense out of your ass.

[ManchesterEagle]

9 hours ago, Swoop said:

Not a single person has said Minshew is the future franchise QB or the slam dunk answer at QB, but continue to pull nonsense out of your ass.

Lol - where did I say somebody did, I was just stating a fact which has obviously got you worked up. 

You want to bench Hurts right? There is no reason to unless you genuinely think Minshew could be the answer. Siriani will get another year anyway. We know what Minshew is. May as well be sure about Hurts. 

[Swoop]

1 minute ago, ManchesterEagle said:

Lol - where did I say somebody did, I was just stating a fact which has obviously got you worked up. 

You want to bench Hurts right? There is no reason to unless you genuinely think Minshew could be the answer. Siriani will get another year anyway. We know what Minshew is. May as well be sure about Hurts. 

It isn't a fact, though. 

Wanting Minshew to start has nothing to do with thinking he's the answer. As I said earlier, doing so will help us evaluate: 

How much of an issue the OL is/isn't 

How good/bad the young WRs are 

How good/bad Sirianni's game plan is 

How the defense responds to not having to be on the field the entire game 

Etc

Now obviously Minshew could play the same or worse, but there's a clear cut argument as to why he should start. Or again, you can pull nonsense out of your ass.

[ManchesterEagle]

6 hours ago, Swoop said:

It isn't a fact, though. 

Wanting Minshew to start has nothing to do with thinking he's the answer. As I said earlier, doing so will help us evaluate: 

How much of an issue the OL is/isn't 

How good/bad the young WRs are 

How good/bad Sirianni's game plan is 

How the defense responds to not having to be on the field the entire game 

Etc

Now obviously Minshew could play the same or worse, but there's a clear cut argument as to why he should start. Or again, you can pull nonsense out of your ass.

Okay - you need to stop pulling nonsense out of your ass.

The fact I stated was that Minshew is not going to be our franchise QB. You agree with that right as you said nobody is trying to claim that he may be? So it is a fact.

Everything else you state is rubbish. The coaches can see how the OL is playing, whether the receivers are getting open or not. 

You just want to bench Hurts because you have an agenda. You are probably right that Hurts isn't the guy, but benching him now makes no sense. Even anti Hurts media guys like BLG admit that.

[UK_EaglesFan89]

5 hours ago, ManchesterEagle said:

You just want to bench Hurts because you have an agenda. You are probably right that Hurts isn't the guy, but benching him now makes no sense. Even anti Hurts media guys like BLG admit that.

I mean I'm not sure I'd agree that it makes no sense. And I say this because...

We know that it is very likely Hurts is going to be one and done as a starter here. He's not playing well enough to even make the organization think about whether they give him another year. 

We don't know if Sirianni will be one and done. He probably should be but that's not generally how Lurie operates. And when they hired him they knew he was going to be a raw HC. 

What we know right now is that both Hurts and Sirianni look like utter ish and we don't know which one is impacting the other more. So I think they do need to bench Hurts to see if a different type of QB can succeed or at least show something in this scheme. 

[Swoop]

7 hours ago, ManchesterEagle said:

Okay - you need to stop pulling nonsense out of your ass.

The fact I stated was that Minshew is not going to be our franchise QB. You agree with that right as you said nobody is trying to claim that he may be? So it is a fact.

Everything else you state is rubbish. The coaches can see how the OL is playing, whether the receivers are getting open or not. 

You just want to bench Hurts because you have an agenda. You are probably right that Hurts isn't the guy, but benching him now makes no sense. Even anti Hurts media guys like BLG admit that.

I don't have an agenda, though. 

Obviously coaches can see some things better than we do, but it's hard to determine how efficient they are/are not when the starting QB can't read the field and continually takes off to the right. 

They can see if a WR is getting open, but they aren't able to see what they do in space, with an accurate ball, at any spot on the field other than the right side.  

We should see what the offense looks like with a QB that actually stays in the pocket or uses more than the short right of the field. 

We should see how the game plan adjusts with a QB that is more focused on throwing versus running. Again, how does Sirianni look? Better? Worse? Things the franchise needs to know moving forward.  

How does the defense play if there is more consistency on offense? Better? Worse? 

None of that is "nonsense". But sure, I'm the one with an "agenda".

[UK_EaglesFan89]

9 minutes ago, Swoop said:

How does the defense play if there is more consistency on offense? Better? Worse? 

I mean you'd think there would be no change to the defense. But perhaps if the offense is sustaining drives and putting up more points throughout the game then perhaps they get a little more aggressive? Take a few more risks?

[Swoop]

1 hour ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

I mean you'd think there would be no change to the defense. But perhaps if the offense is sustaining drives and putting up more points throughout the game then perhaps they get a little more aggressive? Take a few more risks?

That's kind of where my thinking is. I don't suspect the defense would suddenly become good, but better? Potentially. Longer periods of risks and yes, potentially being a little more aggressive might go a long way.

By long way I mean from utter garbage to just garbage, lol 

[UK_EaglesFan89]

8 minutes ago, Swoop said:

That's kind of where my thinking is. I don't suspect the defense would suddenly become good, but better? Potentially. Longer periods of risks and yes, potentially being a little more aggressive might go a long way.

By long way I mean from utter garbage to just garbage, lol 

I mean I don't think under Gannon much would change. I don't think he has a very aggressive or a creative defense. But it must be hard when the offense for so much of the game is giving very little. 

[ManchesterEagle]

5 hours ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

I mean I'm not sure I'd agree that it makes no sense. And I say this because...

We know that it is very likely Hurts is going to be one and done as a starter here. He's not playing well enough to even make the organization think about whether they give him another year. 

We don't know if Sirianni will be one and done. He probably should be but that's not generally how Lurie operates. And when they hired him they knew he was going to be a raw HC. 

What we know right now is that both Hurts and Sirianni look like utter ish and we don't know which one is impacting the other more. So I think they do need to bench Hurts to see if a different type of QB can succeed or at least show something in this scheme. 

 

3 hours ago, Swoop said:

I don't have an agenda, though. 

Obviously coaches can see some things better than we do, but it's hard to determine how efficient they are/are not when the starting QB can't read the field and continually takes off to the right. 

They can see if a WR is getting open, but they aren't able to see what they do in space, with an accurate ball, at any spot on the field other than the right side.  

We should see what the offense looks like with a QB that actually stays in the pocket or uses more than the short right of the field. 

We should see how the game plan adjusts with a QB that is more focused on throwing versus running. Again, how does Sirianni look? Better? Worse? Things the franchise needs to know moving forward.  

How does the defense play if there is more consistency on offense? Better? Worse? 

None of that is "nonsense". But sure, I'm the one with an "agenda".

Okay firstly, unless Siriani loses the locker room, he is going to get another year. 

On the receivers, they can see what they can do and who do we need to evaluate? They are all on cheap controllable contracts. 

The D needs to help Hurts, not the other way around. They were disgustingly bad against Carr and have let any half decent offense move the ball with ease and complete over 80% of passes. 

I'm not under any illusions. There are some clear red flags with Hurts. But we have a much easier run now. The D needs to get some stops and Siriani needs to call a balanced game, because when he has, Hurts has looked pretty good. It's stupid to put everything on a young QB who is still learning.

We need to give him another 6-7 games to be sure in what we have. The benefits of starting Minshew at this stage would be minimal.

[Uscg-green]

Minshew active today so we will see. 

[UK_EaglesFan89]

3 hours ago, ManchesterEagle said:

Okay firstly, unless Siriani loses the locker room, he is going to get another year. 

Oh I know he is... But if they are going to go after a QB in the draft (they may, they may not) then I think that's a mistake to give him another year. 

[EazyEaglez]

Jaemis Winston just went down. Maybe Howie can flip Minshew for a 2nd? 

[ManchesterEagle]

Just now, EazyEaglez said:

Jaemis Winston just went down. Maybe Howie can flip Minshew for a 2nd? 

I would love that. But if I'm the Saints I'm trading for Foles.