Inquirer: Super Bowl or bust for Hurts, Eagles

[Nivraga]

4 hours ago, olsilverhair said:

its ok to be wrong

You should know

[jsdarkstar]

The Defense should be better but, the unit is still a question mark. Especially, with our D Coordinator. Will he play passive ball again, or will he blitz more? Will he allow teams to drive down the field or will he attack and try and take the ball away. Only time will tell on that one. 

This team will go as far as the Defense takes them. 

Of course Hurts has to perform as well. 

[DawkinsOwnage03]

Dumbest ish ever said 

Herbert Burrow Watson Allen etc ZERO rings 😂😂

[nipples]

2 hours ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Sirianni has shown nothing to be "fine" and was the last second hire after 5+ other guys said no to Lowie.  All Sirianni did was make the decision to turn our offense to a college offense, mid-season because Hurts stinks.  

You acknowledged that the QB "stinks” so what exactly did you expect Sirianni to do? 

[Hawkeye]

57 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

You don't pay attention.  They tried to replace him, multiple times this off-season.  And they made the conscious effort to take the ball out of his hands, about halfway through the season last year.  Just because you want it to be, doesn't make it so.  And he's not a kid.  

That’s just not true.  Factually inaccurate. Revisionist history.  They had multiple opportunities to move on over the last two seasons but chose not to and instead brought in a lot of talent around him.  He’s the starter.  The team has gone out of their way to keep him there.  Your dislike of him is irrelevant.  The ship has sailed. 

And he’s 23 and heading into his second season as QB1 so…

[Mike030270]

11 hours ago, pallidrone said:

QBs that throw to a RB never won a Super Bowl until they did. Teams that passed more than run the ball never won a Super Bowl until they did. A QB taken in the 6th round of the draft never won a Super Bowl until he did.

Just because something has not happened before does not mean it will never happen.

That's a pretty outlandish take that can be used for anything that just hasn't happened yet

9 hours ago, ManchesterEagle said:

And it has anyway. Russell Wilson was a running QB for his first 2/3 years including the Super Bowl year 

He wasn't but sure you can think that

Also lets not kid ourselves. He had a historic defense that helped too

If he fails in Denver then it's very likely that he was just carried to a Lombardi by the Hawks defense that year. They hadn't done anything since that defense was dismantled so you can argue that it was them that is the reason for the Lombardi

[nipples]

1 hour ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

It’s not an either or situation.  They both can be bad.  I’d prefer for the team to have a real preseason with preseason games, so it doesn’t take 1/2 season to figure ish out.  

My point is that if the QB is so bad (which I agree) then how can you say Sirianni isn’t a good head coach? He hasn’t had the chance to even run his actual offense because he had to pivot to a run heavy attack due to the lack of passing ability Hurts showed. 

[nipples]

9 hours ago, ManchesterEagle said:

And it has anyway. Russell Wilson was a running QB for his first 2/3 years including the Super Bowl year 

No he was not a running QB his first 2-3 years. He had a 100+ passer rating with 26 TDs in each of his first two seasons. 

[nipples]

1 hour ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Because it was a bad hire in the first place.  Would you say the same for me?  Have me as the HC and you wouldn’t be able to pass judgement on me because Hurts sucks?   You hear and see the guy talk?   You think all of the sudden, behind closed doors, he’s an intelligent communicator?   Players see that.  Good position coach?  Sure ok.  Rah rah guy?   Great.  Head coach of a major NFL market?  Come on.  

Ok, and nobody wanted Pederson either. Everyone said it was a "bad hire.” Then he brought the city it’s first super bowl. If only they had hired Adam Gase instead, like everyone wanted.  
 

Everyone questioned the Andy Reid hire at the time too. His first year was awful. Then things obviously changed. 

Then there was Chip Kelly… a hire that was largely applauded. How did that work out?

[nipples]

48 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Yeah.  And Pederson got canned rather quickly.  No one is taking 2017 for granted.  But let’s not pretend like DP was some great coach.  It was divine intervention.  
 

Andy Reid?  Come on?  You’re gonna use an example from 2 decades ago.  Should I list all of the coaches that have come and gone that we’re just as unqualified as Sirianni is/was?  
 

So because Chip Kelly was an a-hole, that all of the sudden makes NS a good coach?   What’s that gotta do with anything?   

Dude I went back to AR because this team has literally only had two other  coaches since his tenure until Sirianna was hired.  Why is that? Because Lurie has generally been pretty good about hiring head coaches. 
 

I brought up Kelly in contrast to DP because they’re the only two coaches between Reid and Siri. It’s a prime example of the popular hire not always being the right decision. 

[nipples]

Just now, 4for4EaglesNest said:

The Kelly hire was no way near as "popular" as you are saying.  Again, we can list dozens of head coaching hires of relative unknowns that flamed out, over the past 20 years.  So using AR as an example is rather silly.  Lurie and Howie had their sites set on multiple other guys and met with McDaniel for a couple days.  If he said yes, he would have been hired.  So you'll have to excuse me if I am not overwhelmed with them hiring like the 8th guy they met with whose name just came out of nowhere.  

You have no clue if they’d have hired McDaniel. 

You can just say that you didn’t like Sirianni’s first couple of press conferences, so you decided he’s a bad coach without even giving him a chance. 

[Swoop]

5 hours ago, DawkinsOwnage03 said:

Dumbest ish ever said 

Herbert Burrow Watson Allen etc ZERO rings 😂😂

Peyton, Brady, Brees, Rodgers etc SEVERAL rings 😂😂

[pallidrone]

11 hours ago, Mike030270 said:

That's a pretty outlandish take that can be used for anything that just hasn't happened yet

It is a lazy take to just assume something will not work just because it has not happened yet.

[Mike030270]

On 5/24/2022 at 11:48 PM, pallidrone said:

It is a lazy take to just assume something will not work just because it has not happened yet.

I don't get the fascination people have with running QBs. It constantly fails. So your suggestion is to keep trying until it succeeds?

[ManchesterEagle]

On 5/24/2022 at 12:26 PM, Swoop said:

Was he really, though? Or was he more of a QB that could run as a wrinkle? In his first 32 starts (his rookie season and the entire season leading up to their SB run) he ran for 1,028 yards on 190 attempts. He had 5 TDs. 

By comparison Hurts has run for 1,056 yards on 185 attempts as a starter. He has 13 TDs and has only started 19 games. In barely over a single seasons worth of starts he has already run the ball more than Wilson did through his first two seasons combined. 

Additionally, Wilson ran a whopping 11 times over the course of three games on their way to winning the Super Bowl. 

One runs because he needs to. The other runs because he can. 

There's a distinct difference.

Yeah okay I hear you.

But my question is where do you draw the line? There haven’t been many out and out running QBs. I would regard Josh Allen as a dual threat QB. He still puts up big passing numbers. He should win a Super Bowl. 

2021 Hurts isn’t good enough. But he has AJ Brown now and might improve and evolve so he becomes less run first. If he improves the Eagles have a chance next year. 
 

 

[Swoop]

21 minutes ago, ManchesterEagle said:

Yeah okay I hear you.

But my question is where do you draw the line? There haven’t been many out and out running QBs. I would regard Josh Allen as a dual threat QB. He still puts up big passing numbers. He should win a Super Bowl. 

2021 Hurts isn’t good enough. But he has AJ Brown now and might improve and evolve so he becomes less run first. If he improves the Eagles have a chance next year. 
 

 

This is just my opinion, obviously, but to me if a QB is a clear and obvious primary passer that can also run, that would be the line so to speak. 

I'd like to see Hurts run no more than 80/85ish times a season. Enough to make a difference and buy time, keep the defense on it's toes, etc, but not to the point where he depends on it as much. 

For the record, I don't expect him to go from 140 rushes to 70 in a single off-season. I would think that's unrealistic for a young QB, even if I'm not a fan of his play. I'd call it a win if he could do essentially what Wilson did in his second season and proves he can beat good teams.

[ManchesterEagle]

2 minutes ago, Swoop said:

This is just my opinion, obviously, but to me if a QB is a clear and obvious primary passer that can also run, that would be the line so to speak. 

I'd like to see Hurts run no more than 80/85ish times a season. Enough to make a difference and buy time, keep the defense on it's toes, etc, but not to the point where he depends on it as much. 

For the record, I don't expect him to go from 140 rushes to 70 in a single off-season. I would think that's unrealistic for a young QB, even if I'm not a fan of his play. I'd call it a win if he could do essentially what Wilson did in his second season and proves he can beat good teams.

Yeah fair enough. Josh Allen has run more than 100 times his last two years, but the Eagles have a better rushing attack and will run the ball more.

Hurts has a significantly better WR group this year. I expect to see an increase in passing attempts. 

I agree with you in what he needs to do, I just think too many people are assuming he will do exactly the same as he did last year. He can grow.
 

 

[Random Reglar]

7 hours ago, Mike030270 said:

I don't get the fascination people have with running QBs. It constantly fails. So your suggestion is to keep trying until it succeeds?

Running QBs win more than non running QBs.

There are way more non running QBs than running QBs,  so bottom half of the QB are non running QBs, and usually, the winner is a non running.

Russell Wilson won the Super Bowl.  He went twice,  Kaepernick and Newton went. 

[Mike030270]

20 hours ago, Random Reglar said:

Running QBs win more than non running QBs.

There are way more non running QBs than running QBs,  so bottom half of the QB are non running QBs, and usually, the winner is a non running.

Russell Wilson won the Super Bowl.  He went twice,  Kaepernick and Newton went. 

They don't

That's because running QBs just aren't successful in the playoffs

I don't see how you can think Wilson is a running QB. He also had a historic defense. Kaep went once and didn't do anything after. Cam fell off as well

Not great examples or even great help with the running QB argument 

[MF POON]

If Hurts had been the starter for like 3 seasons already, and all he did was run, I could understand the complaints. The guy has been the starter for one season. Give him some time to develop ffs. If he fails to become a better passer this season, then let the hate rain all day.

[Shalodeep]

1 hour ago, MF POON said:

If Hurts had been the starter for like 3 seasons already, and all he did was run, I could understand the complaints. The guy has been the starter for one season. Give him some time to develop ffs. If he fails to become a better passer this season, then let the hate rain all day.

Not when he hasn't shown anything other than the ability to run. His arm plays are too few and far between to have expectations of somehow getting good, let alone great plays consistently with his arm. If it was a running league, then cool let cam Lite be the QB without question....but it's not, and he won't last...none of them do 

 

[time2rock]

53 minutes ago, Shalodeep said:

Not when he hasn't shown anything other than the ability to run. His arm plays are too few and far between to have expectations of somehow getting good, let alone great plays consistently with his arm. If it was a running league, then cool let cam Lite be the QB without question....but it's not, and he won't last...none of them do 

Safe to assume they had interest in upgrading the position since there was reported interest in Wilson, Rodgers, and Watson.  And can't blame them for not blowing a high draft pick this year on a prospect that is likely not going to turn out to be much better overall.  So the smart play is to let Hurts serve as a bridge / bandaid QB for another year (we do have a proven QB in Minshew to step in if need be) and address QB next offseason when there should be much better prospects available in the draft.  We have the draft ammo to go get one.