On 12/16/2022 at 11:13 AM, Alphagrand said:

In the end, the direction NFL franchises go will be dictated by winning championships.  It's a copycat league, so to speak.

The only true "dual threat" QB to win a Super Bowl was Russell Wilson in 2013, and that was greatly aided by an elite defense.  Hurts will hopefully have an opportunity to win a Super Bowl this season (maybe against Josh Allen -- another dual threat QB), but until these QBs begin winning the Super Bowl with regularity, there will still be many organizations that prefer the prototypical pocket QB -- who also provides "some" ability to run, such as Mahomes, Herbert, Rodgers, etc.

Mahomes, Burrow, Hebert etc are a part of the "mobile Qb's" I was referring to vs. the  95%+ pocket passer types (Brady, etc) 

Some of the mobile QB's will run more often (Jackson, Hurts, Allen, etc) and others will use their mobility mostly to evade pressure (Mahomes, Rodgers, etc) but they are all capable of using their mobility to do both when needed (run and to avoid pressure).  And that was my point.

  
 

8 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

If a team is within 7 points, they are literally one play away from a tying/go-ahead TD.  

That's true but the Packers offense never had the ball within 7 in the 4th Quarter.

And the plot thickens 

3 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

Dude, stop obsessing of these "people".  It's discussion board.  No one ever wins here.

Sit back and enjoy watching your boy succeed.

 

No, not going to happen.  The amount of crap I took all off season for simply supporting and believing in the development of the teams QB was absurd.  Those people don't get to crawl into a hole and not get called out for how wrong they were especially when they continue to double down on it.  

1 minute ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

No, not going to happen.  The amount of crap I took all off season for simply supporting and believing in the development of the teams QB was absurd.  Those people don't get to crawl into a hole and not get called out for how wrong they were especially when they continue to double down on it.  

lmao so mad. All because Carson Strong outplayed Hurts smh

5 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

No, not going to happen.  The amount of crap I took all off season for simply supporting and believing in the development of the teams QB was absurd.  Those people don't get to crawl into a hole and not get called out for how wrong they were especially when they continue to double down on it.  

Ruben Randle

Nick Foles ( the guy you got banned from the previous EMB over )

 

Just now, downundermike said:

Ruben Randle

Nick Foles ( the guy you got banned from the previous EMB over )

 

@RememberTheKoy

15 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

He's likely going to win MVP this year and predictably you have people here that are still against signing Hurts and keeping him as the QB.  

I don't know about the others but I'm hesitant because we were fooled recently and other QBs have played great in the regular season only to not play well in the playoffs

If he continues to play great in the playoffs then by all means give him the contract afterwards 

8 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

No, not going to happen.  The amount of crap I took all off season for simply supporting and believing in the development of the teams QB was absurd.  Those people don't get to crawl into a hole and not get called out for how wrong they were especially when they continue to double down on it.  

2 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

I'm lost. Cox on salmon? Cox on fish?

Just now, Mike030270 said:

I'm lost. Cox on salmon? Cox on fish?

Lox 

 

The removal of Reagor and JJAW shouldn't be ignored.

15 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

If a team never has a higher than 20% win probability the entire second half of a game, do you think that’s a "close” game?

That's completely irrelevant and contrary to what I said.   If a team is literally one play away from tying the game or taking the lead, then yes... it is a close game.   

What was the win probability of the Miracle at the Meadowlands?  0.000001%?   Did Herm Edwards pick up the fumble and take the team to a win? 

What was the win probability of the Miracle at the Meadowlands part 2?  

 

The Scoreboard dictates if the team is really in it or not, or if it is close or not.  Dominating a team for 59 minutes and 50 seconds means nothing if in the last 10 seconds, the team that's been dominated pulls a victory from the jaws of defeat.   For that matter, the Colts were 'in command' of the Eagles for most of that game.  And then in the last 2 minutes, the Eagles pulled that victory out at the end.  I don't know what the win probability was... nor does it matter.  Colts were leading... until they weren't.  

 

 

1 minute ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

 

The removal of Reagor and JJAW shouldn't be ignored.

Took way too long for the removal 

16 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

That's true but the Packers offense never had the ball within 7 in the 4th Quarter.

Eagles offense didn't when they were down 4 at the Meadowlands either in 1978.

Eagles offense didn't have the lead in the 4th quarter in 2010 either against the Giants, but won on a punt return.

Eagles offense didn't have the lead in the 4th quarter in 2002 against the Giants when Westbrook returned the ball for a TD to take the lead.  

 

Being within one play doesn't mean that it has to come from the offense... just one play.

4 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

That's completely irrelevant and contrary to what I said.   If a team is literally one play away from tying the game or taking the lead, then yes... it is a close game.   

What was the win probability of the Miracle at the Meadowlands?  0.000001%?   Did Herm Edwards pick up the fumble and take the team to a win? 

What was the win probability of the Miracle at the Meadowlands part 2?  

 

The Scoreboard dictates if the team is really in it or not, or if it is close or not.  Dominating a team for 59 minutes and 50 seconds means nothing if in the last 10 seconds, the team that's been dominated pulls a victory from the jaws of defeat.   For that matter, the Colts were 'in command' of the Eagles for most of that game.  And then in the last 2 minutes, the Eagles pulled that victory out at the end.  I don't know what the win probability was... nor does it matter.  Colts were leading... until they weren't.  

The original argument was the game was close. It wasn’t. The Eagles were in complete control, and had their way with GB. As somebody else pointed out, the GB offense never had the ball down only one score in the 2nd half

5 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

 

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Eagles offense didn't when they were down 4 at the Meadowlands either in 1978.

Eagles offense didn't have the lead in the 4th quarter in 2010 either against the Giants, but won on a punt return.

Eagles offense didn't have the lead in the 4th quarter in 2002 against the Giants when Westbrook returned the ball for a TD to take the lead.  

 

Being within one play doesn't mean that it has to come from the offense... just one play.

Yes and all of those games were insane plays that you can list off the top of your head because they were so unexpected. 
 

If by some miracle GB had beat us, it would fall into that category of game. But they didn’t, because the Eagles dominated them and it wasn’t as close as the score suggests 

7 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Eagles offense didn't when they were down 4 at the Meadowlands either in 1978.

Eagles offense didn't have the lead in the 4th quarter in 2010 either against the Giants, but won on a punt return.

Eagles offense didn't have the lead in the 4th quarter in 2002 against the Giants when Westbrook returned the ball for a TD to take the lead.  

 

Being within one play doesn't mean that it has to come from the offense... just one play.

Sure, but the likelihood of tying a game (or winning by going for two) is going to come on offense. There could be a fluky defensive TD, but it's not likely. And in two of those scenarios, the offense was getting the ball back down one score, the ST's just did it first. That didn't happen against GB.

I think context matters. And in hindsight, every time the Packers made it a one score game, the Eagles did whatever they wanted and turned it into a two score game right away, until time ran out and they just kneeled up 7. The game wasn't as close as the box score says it was.

What a slam dunk this pick has turned into. With all the stuff working for us this season, he’s getting hella overshadowed

 

Just now, TorontoEagle said:

Yes and all of those games were insane plays that you can list off the top of your head because they were so unexpected. 
 

If by some miracle GB had beat us, it would fall into that category of game. But they didn’t, because the Eagles dominated them and it wasn’t as close as the score suggests 

They were by definition 'close', because the team could actually come back and win on a single play.   IF a team is within one score it is close.   There's no getting around that.

 

The Eagles have been very good in close games, but that doesn't mean that they haven't played in close games.   And if it gets close late... it is still a close game.   Now, if a team is up 2 possessions and the other team scores on the final play of the game... then that game 'wasn't as close' as the score says.   But, if a team has to seal the deal with a 4 minute drill to eat up the clock while holding on to a one score lead... that's a close game.   If a team has to score at the end of the game to make it a two possession game, that too is a close game, because all it takes is one badly timed turnover to flip the game on its head.  

 

A game that is not close cannot be flipped by a single play.  A game that is close can be.   That doesn't mean it always happens, but the fact that there's a CHANCE for that... makes it close.