3 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Goes back to yesterdays disagreement.  The season is fluid and every game is different.  He can come back from the bye and look great against Pittsburgh and Houston and his struggles will be swept under the carpet.   They can cruise to a 13-4 record and get embarrassed in the playoffs.  Too much emphasis on a week 6 game.  I’ll judge him on each game but I’ll wait for the season to conclude before I eat crow or say ITYS to the Squirters.   

I think youre giving him a lot more respect in these posts than you have in the previous 2 seasons and this pre-season.

It seems his recent play has really calmed you down on the criticisms of his play. Thats why I wonder how many more bad games youll tolerate before you go back to doubting him.

And not just you- its the overall tone in the blog. As I said, hes earned a lot more respect in just 2 games. Im curious how far those 2 games will carry him if he has another Arizona type game on Sunday night.

4 minutes ago, RLC said:

My god, how did we score 20 points?

I wonder what your point is, asking that question.

My question to your question is, My god, how are you satisfied with 20 points?

Youll probably say, because they won, and act as though Im not happy with a win.

Ill say, it is not a sustainable way to win, and playing like that will lose against Dallas and other teams who are better than Arizona. And around in circles we go.

Im trying to discuss things philosophically, and you are over here asking dumb questions based on one very basic, obvious thing like the score total. There is no substance behind that.

43 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Arizona apparently wanted to blitz Hurts, use a spy, and make him make quick decisions and beat them with his arm.

The eagles seemed prepared with a game plan featuring endless WR and TE screens.

Arizona's plan didnt get them a win (close), but was fairly successful. It did significantly limit Hurts and we wont be beating playoff teams with him playing that way.

It appears that not only did Arizona not believe he could beat them with his arm, in the pocket, facing blitzes. But the eagles did not trust him to either, evidenced by the way they called plays.

He bailed when he didnt need to. Never threw the ball down field- Even when it was there. Turned the ball over (though saved by a penalty on that one). On throws that werent screens, he made poor decisions (shoulda had AJ Brown on the crosser for a TD instead of incomplete to Quez), and threw inaccurately (there was a ball to Brown that never got there but AJ Brown had to stop/slide to reach back behind him where the ball was headed if it ever had a chance to reach).

Arizona messed him up in every way the possibly could have hoped.

Hurts made one play (the audible for Goedert).

Will see if Dallas follows the blueprint. Against teams better than Arizona, it will be ugly.

The question is, who did a better job of stopping Hurts? Arizona, or our own coaches?

Think it was more they (the coaches and Hurts himself ) didn't trust their Oline with Mailata, Dickerson and Kelce out at various points in the game against an aggressive blitzing D.  When Hurts trusts them to block it up, he is more willing to sit back there for deep passes.  Hoping either we get back Mailata and Dickerson and/or he gains more trust in his blockers.

Nailed it.

 

11 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

I wonder what your point is, asking that question.

My question to your question is, My god, how are you satisfied with 20 points?

Youll probably say, because they won, and act as though Im not happy with a win.

Ill say, it is not a sustainable way to win, and playing like that will lose against Dallas and other teams who are better than Arizona. And around in circles we go.

Im trying to discuss things philosophically, and you are over here asking dumb questions based on one very basic, obvious thing like the score total. There is no substance behind that.

You said that Arizona constantly messed up, which is why we won. That's not the case. They had a logical gameplan, and we were playing short-handed on the OL. Together, that's a bad combo.

You called the offensive performance an abomination, which again is wrong, given that it was a league average score.

I have legitimate worries about the offense, but playing in the NFL is hard and when your down weeks are 20 points with a banged up OL, you're a good offense.

This huge game will be decided by 3 things

1) Hurts- he is the #1 question in this game, how good will he look when the run lanes are lacking, and he is under constant pressure?

2) The Oline- the question is, how well do we handle the Dallas front 7?  I know health is also a question, but this was going to be an issue even if we were healthy along the oline, can we have a dominant run game? (and limit having to rely on Hurts)

3) The Dline- Can we limit the run and make Rush have to beat us in the air? 

2 minutes ago, Cliftoma said:

Think it was more they (the coaches and Hurts himself ) didn't trust their Oline with Mailata, Dickerson and Kelce out at various points in the game against an aggressive blitzing D.  When Hurts trusts them to block it up, he is more willing to sit back there deep passes.  Hoping either we get back Mailata and Dickerson and/or he gains more trust in his blockers.

In previous seasons this is known as a Hurtscuse. "But his OL" 

In a season where he has won people over, insofar as earning a more "wait and see" approach to evaluating him rather than a "everything he does sucks" approach to evaluating him, I wonder how long we can go on pinning it on OL?

In that game, he had solid protection and still occasionally bailed from phantom pressure usually leading to a bad result. In other games he was keeping his eyes down field and starting to complete passes on the run. In this game, they ended in incompletes, run for short gain or maybe sack... Not very successful.

The OL wasnt bad. But we can say he lacked trust because of the backups playing. At one time there were 3 backups in. Not ideal. Now, when Dickerson comes back, should Hurts be cured? Or does he continue bailing when he doesn't need to, and we say, "well, Dickerson is banged up so Hurts probably doesnt fully trust his protection yet"?

 

 

Im just saying, I find it very interesting that so many of us were so very anti-Hurts, and how drastically 2 games changed that. Even though, since those 2 outlier games, we have already had 2 more sub-par games from him. I thought by now people would be quickly growing wary again. It doesnt seem to be happening.

Suddenly, after just TWO good performances, which werent even his 2 most recent performances, everyone is on board with Hurtscuses such as weather, OL, blitzing and taking what was given, coaching/game plan.... Thats a lot of excuses in just 2 games, and theres no push back yet.

Ferris is right- weather didnt cause all of his issues in that Jacksonville game. No one has agreed with him on that. Arizona did blitz a lot but he has to beat the blitz. Not by game planning a game entirely of all screens. But by being a good QB, and throwing real passes, diagnosing a blitz, and getting it out quickly to a hot route. His OL WAS banged up, but if theyre protecting him, he has to realize that and stop bailing when he doesnt need to. The excuses are all there, and to an extent, legitimate. But if he is taking the next step we hoped after those 2 nice games, we shouldnt be talking about that stuff like we are. We should be talking about how he overcame those things.

Ill be honest. As you can probably tell with these posts today- Im already back to doubting.

 

5 minutes ago, RLC said:

You said that Arizona constantly messed up, which is why we won. That's not the case. They had a logical gameplan, and we were playing short-handed on the OL. Together, that's a bad combo.

You called the offensive performance an abomination, which again is wrong, given that it was a league average score.

I have legitimate worries about the offense, but playing in the NFL is hard and when your down weeks are 20 points with a banged up OL, you're a good offense.

No. I didn't. 

As far as being ok with 20 points because its a league average score- I dont believe we have a league average offense. I dont think, with our skill players, and our QB supposedly taking the next step, that league average is an acceptabl result. 

Relative to the talent on this team, AND the opponent we played, playing to a league average score is a failure. Which is why, it looked ugly. Because it was ugly. This team with its talent, against a weaker opponent has to play very badly to end up with a league average score. And/or, the coaches have to coach very poorly. Those things happened.

We are 5-0. We should be talking about being super bowl contenders. Here you are celebrating league average.

2 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

In previous seasons this is known as a Hurtscuse. "But his OL" 

In a season where he has won people over, insofar as earning a more "wait and see" approach to evaluating him rather than a "everything he does sucks" approach to evaluating him, I wonder how long we can go on pinning it on OL?

In that game, he had solid protection and still occasionally bailed from phantom pressure usually leading to a bad result. In other games he was keeping his eyes down field and starting to complete passes on the run. In this game, they ended in incompletes, run for short gain or maybe sack... Not very successful.

The OL wasnt bad. But we can say he lacked trust because of the backups playing. At one time there were 3 backups in. Not ideal. Now, when Dickerson comes back, should Hurts be cured? Or does he continue bailing when he doesn't need to, and we say, "well, Dickerson is banged up so Hurts probably doesnt fully trust his protection yet"?

 

 

Im just saying, I find it very interesting that so many of us were so very anti-Hurts, and how drastically 2 games changed that. Even though, since those 2 outlier games, we have already had 2 more sub-par games from him. I thought by now people would be quickly growing wary again. It doesnt seem to be happening.

Suddenly, after just TWO good performances, which werent even his 2 most recent performances, everyone is on board with Hurtscuses such as weather, OL, blitzing and taking what was given, coaching/game plan.... Thats a lot of excuses in just 2 games, and theres no push back yet.

Ferris is right- weather didnt cause all of his issues in that Jacksonville game. No one has agreed with him on that. Arizona did blitz a lot but he has to beat the blitz. Not by game planning a game entirely of all screens. But by being a good QB, and throwing real passes, diagnosing a blitz, and getting it out quickly to a hot route. His OL WAS banged up, but if theyre protecting him, he has to realize that and stop bailing when he doesnt need to. The excuses are all there, and to an extent, legitimate. But if he is taking the next step we hoped after those 2 nice games, we shouldnt be talking about that stuff like we are. We should be talking about how he overcame those things.

Ill be honest. As you can probably tell with these posts today- Im already back to doubting.

 

ohh after last weeks game where he regressed into doing circles again?  Yeah I am wary what will happen this game. 

We admire Brady, Peyton, Rodgers, etc. because nothing the defense does surprises them.  They've seen everything.

Hurts hasn't yet.

I'm pretty sure you could find a game in the above QBs career's where they struggled with something for the first time. 

4 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

We admire Brady, Peyton, Rodgers, etc. because nothing the defense does surprises them.  They've seen everything.

Hurts hasn't yet.

I'm pretty sure you could find a game in the above QBs career's where they struggled with something for the first time. 

yep.

But Im sure you can find a lot more examples of QBs having 2 nice games and never coming anywhere close to Brady, Peyton, Rodgers comparisons. 

In year 3 if you are telling me Hurts hasnt seen a team blitz him a lot yet and try to make him beat them with his arm, Ive got nothing for you.

4 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

This huge game will be decided by 3 things

1) Hurts- he is the #1 question in this game, how good will he look when the run lanes are lacking, and he is under constant pressure?

2) The Oline- the question is, how well do we handle the Dallas front 7?  I know health is also a question, but this was going to be an issue even if we were healthy along the oline, can we have a dominant run game? (and limit having to rely on Hurts)

3) The Dline- Can we limit the run and make Rush have to beat us in the air? 

Good summation.  The trenches will be the determining factor for sure.  Eagles need to play "in front of the sticks"; lots of 2nd and 3rd-and-shorts.  Penalties become a big factor in that regard.  Have to eliminate the drive-killing false start and holding penalties that set up 3rd and long.  Neither Hurts nor Rush will be able to convert many 3rd and long.

DAL has a really good pass rush.  It remains to be seen how well their DL does against a sustained rushing attack.  As other posters have said, if you want to limit Parsons' effectiveness -- run right at him.  Make him expend energy getting off blocks and making tackles.  Lawrence is the same way -- better rushing the passer than stopping the run.

As for your number 1 question and Hurts -- the Rams made two huge plays against Diggs.  One was the bomb to Atwell which was a very nice throw, if not slightly under-thrown by Stafford.  Atwell got behind Diggs pretty easily.  The other was a terrible play by Diggs, trying to undercut a shallow crosser by Kupp.  Stafford had the arm to get the throw past him, and Kupp simply turned upfield and sprinted 75 yards for a TD.  Diggs shut down DeVonta Smith last year by playing press and sticking right on him.  I think that was more because he didn't think Hurts could beat him, more than he didn't respect Smith or his skills.  It will be interesting to see if Diggs shadows either AJ Brown or Smith -- or whether he stays on one side of the field.  DAL will have a plan for Hurts just as ARI did.  The key for Hurts will be not to turn the ball over.  

1 minute ago, HazletonEagle said:

yep.

But Im sure you can find a lot more examples of QBs having 2 nice games and never coming anywhere close to Brady, Peyton, Rodgers comparisons. 

In year 3 if you are telling me Hurts hasnt seen a team blitz him a lot yet and try to make him beat them with his arm, Ive got nothing for you.

It's not just "blitz him a lot".  How the D lines up, disguises, etc. isn't a generic event.

And how Hurts chooses to change protection or check the play is a function of the game plan that week.

You're making one game do a lot of work in driving a narrative.

Just now, Connecticut Eagle said:

It's not just "blitz him a lot".  How the D lines up, disguises, etc. isn't a generic event.

And how Hurts chooses to change protection or check the play is a function of the game plan that week.

You're making one game do a lot of work in driving a narrative.

well, see, its not just 1 game...

9 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Good summation.  The trenches will be the determining factor for sure.  Eagles need to play "in front of the sticks"; lots of 2nd and 3rd-and-shorts.  Penalties become a big factor in that regard.  Have to eliminate the drive-killing false start and holding penalties that set up 3rd and long.  Neither Hurts nor Rush will be able to convert many 3rd and long.

DAL has a really good pass rush.  It remains to be seen how well their DL does against a sustained rushing attack.  As other posters have said, if you want to limit Parsons' effectiveness -- run right at him.  Make him expend energy getting off blocks and making tackles.  Lawrence is the same way -- better rushing the passer than stopping the run.

As for your number 1 question and Hurts -- the Rams made two huge plays against Diggs.  One was the bomb to Atwell which was a very nice throw, if not slightly under-thrown by Stafford.  Atwell got behind Diggs pretty easily.  The other was a terrible play by Diggs, trying to undercut a shallow crosser by Kupp.  Stafford had the arm to get the throw past him, and Kupp simply turned upfield and sprinted 75 yards for a TD.  Diggs shut down DeVonta Smith last year by playing press and sticking right on him.  I think that was more because he didn't think Hurts could beat him, more than he didn't respect Smith or his skills.  It will be interesting to see if Diggs shadows either AJ Brown or Smith -- or whether he stays on one side of the field.  DAL will have a plan for Hurts just as ARI did.  The key for Hurts will be not to turn the ball over.  

Make no mistake about it - this could be Hurts coming out game-

Does he make the plays needed, when the oppotunity is there? He has the weapons to do so. Dallas cannot cover Brown, Smith Watkins and Goedert at the same time. Can hurts find the open guy and take advantage, or is he the guy we thought he was after the Tampa game last year? 

 

3 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Mmmhmmm.  So, we are being angry about something that we ASSUME is happening, but hasn't actually been reported.   Got it.  

 

I prefer to stick to what is actually happening and being reported rather than speculate and project onto the situation.  If he sues, he should likely be criticized, but shouldn't he have immunity from the criticism until he actually commits the act for which he is being criticized?

 

 

Hurts sucked on Sunday night, I can't believe he turned the ball over 3 times and cost the Eagles the chance to go 6-0!  

Almost four decades handling and overseeing liability claims and with responsibility for the general liability line for claims for the largest country for one of the largest insurance carriers in the world gives me a bit of experience in this area than you.  As far as "reported”, that depends who does the reporting. Yesterday, I saw a piece that talked about misdemeanor assault and the likelihood of sentence that at the very end had a small sentence stating no charge had yet been filed.

The police report cited in reports is basically a synopsis of what the camera man filed, so by its very nature, one sided.  That is not uncommon in civil disputes because the complaining party has the burden of proof.  Thus the defendants often wait for the case to be presented until presenting their full side of the matter.

You have speculated on what injury might have been incurred. Projection is projection.  Just that several times you have come back with the "no lawsuit has been filed”.  @NCiggles and @TorontoEagle also are professionals in the claims arena.  His response to mine about when a personal injury lawyer became involved was a good one.  

Want another "projection”?  At this point the insurers of the camera man’s employers, the stadium operators, the Raiders and Adams are involved.  

The stadium operators are projecting a claim involving whether the camera man should have even been there jutting into the narrow exit space and their role in allowing such. Basically a business invitee claim.  Did they act as a reasonable and prudent event operator in how they allowed traffic in the narrow tunnel as the players exited the stadium?  Don’t be surprised if the operator doesn’t have some sort of hold harmless/indemnity clause and additional insured obligations to the stadium owner, the Chiefs and the NFL (and that might possibly extend to the Raiders and possibly even Adams).

The camera man’s employer is going to have two insurers involved.  Worker’s compensation, for his injury. (I know a good worker’s comp attorney in North Carolina if he is interested, not sure he can practice in Missouri). The employer’s liability carrier is facing an argument they placed the camera man there.  While immune to his claims directly, I wouldn’t be surprised if in obtaining the credentials, the employer agreed to a hold harmless/indemnity agreement that favors the venue operator and also requires the venue owner and operator be named as additional insureds on the camera man’s employer’s policy. (Projection but you can bet any adjuster who worked for me was trained to look for such.). Heck, such clauses may also extend to the Chiefs, NFL, maybe even the Raiders and Adams.  (Most clauses include employees as well as the entities themselves). Were the actions of the camera man to jut directly into Adams’ path reasonable and prudent?  Was he instructed by the employer to do so?  He clearly is their agent.  Is there recording of any instructions to the camera man?  

Then there are the Chiefs, Raiders, the NFL and Adams.  The NFL probably takes a franchisor defense but with regards to game coverage, that is probably weak.  They probably have a hold harmless/indemnity clause with the Chiefs and the Raiders in favor of the NFL. The Chiefs may be entwined with the venue.  Otherwise a claim against them would seem frivolous.  Was Adams in course and scope of employment?  Are players employees or independent contractors?  That ties to whether his action was towards the furtherance of the Raiders’ business. That is going to tie as to whether Adams might qualify as an insured under the Raiders’ policy.  That matters because usually personal policies exclude coverage for activities in the course of employment or business (business pursuits exclusion). (Not meaning to offer advice, but if I was a teacher, I would have a policy myself - Horace Mann used to be the big insurer for those because teachers get sued way too much.) 

For any insurer that might have Adams as an insured, the issue of whether there was an "occurrence” will come up.  Most liability insuring grants apply to an "occurrence”.  Usually defined as "an accident, including continuous and repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions”.  Was the push accidental?  Maybe.  That may depend on the jurisdiction governing the interpretation of the policy.  Some hold that the injury has to be intentional.  I meant to push him but not to cause injury, just to get him out of my path.

2 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

Make no mistake about it - this could be Hurts coming out game-

Does he make the plays needed, when the oppotunity is there? He has the weapons to do so. Dallas cannot cover Brown, Smith Watkins and Goiedert at the same time. Can hurts find the open guy and take advantage, or is he the guy we thought he was after the Tampa game last year? 

 

One of my knocks against Hurts last season was that he didn't seem to play any better the second time seeing an opponent; often times he was worse.  This will be his third crack at the DAL defense and I'm very hopeful we see a much better result than the first two games.  I'm almost willing to give him a pass for the first one in 2020 -- he was actually a rookie then -- but I was disappointed last season.

I'm hopeful we will see 30+ points and 300+ yards passing from Hurts -- but a win is the crucial part.  If it has to be another 20-17 win with most of the offense coming on the ground, so be it.  Hurts has to eliminate the mistakes from the first 2 DAL games, though.

47 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

Again, I never said any of those things.

What I did say was that when we finally had  to play a tough team and Hurts didnt look great. 

His performance didnt raise an eye brow with sunday?

 

72.2% passing, 2 TDs and a win despite musical chairs being played along the oline and a questionable offe wive gameplan. 

As much as it is about the players, for me it is equally about the coordinators.

All I ask is for 4 complete quarters. *not a dollar either.

The Chiefs lost 20-17 to the Colts 2 weeks ago. Mahomes is going to have 5 TD games, but even he has  0-1 TD games.

The Rams' last year had back to back losses where they scored 16 & 10 points.

The point is that it's a long season and you can't expect a top 10 performance every week.

18 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

It's not just "blitz him a lot".  How the D lines up, disguises, etc. isn't a generic event.

And how Hurts chooses to change protection or check the play is a function of the game plan that week.

You're making one game do a lot of work in driving a narrative.

It's not one game when he has looked like that the last two years.

1 hour ago, HazletonEagle said:

Ok. I can agree with that.

Now this question-

Hurts appears to have really moved in to good graces with nearly all Philly fans, including myself based on what now appears to have been, only 2 games, out of 5 so far this season and his previous 2 years.

In those 2 games, he looked like a legitimate starting NFL QB. 2 other games, average or below average. 1 game was kind of ugly but we can write off due to weather.

I wanted to see him bounce back in a big way against Arizona (knowing weather would not be a factor), the stage was set for that to happen. It didnt. Whether it was him, or as you believe, the coaches.

Question now is- How much more leash has he earned based on just those 2 games?

I say, he better be damn good against Dallas, or else those 2 games look like a fluke.

Agree with this 100%.  I said the same thing prior to the Cardinals game.  I wanted to see Hurts get back in to the QB rhythm he showed in weeks 2-3.  He didn't.  As you mentioned, we have to wonder how much of that is on the play calling and how much is on Hurts.  I really need to see him step up this week to make me think those 2 games weren't a fluke.  Dallas is going to be a tough test but if he wants to be THE guy then step up. 

44 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Im just saying, I find it very interesting that so many of us were so very anti-Hurts, and how drastically 2 games changed that. Even though, since those 2 outlier games, we have already had 2 more sub-par games from him. I thought by now people would be quickly growing wary again. It doesnt seem to be happening.

My perception is his play has levelled off after his two excellent showings vs MIN and WASH.  As for the bolded, this week's performance will shape the narrative for more people.  I do not see this Sunday's game as "just one game" -- this is the most important game of the regular season; the division will come down to the Eagles and Turds.  The Giants 4-1 start will fade from memory by the late part of this season.  

I've said before I don't see DAL scoring more than 17-20 points unless the Eagles help them out.  Their QB just doesn't have the upside to hang 30+ and 300+ unless the opposition lays an egg.  It'll be on the Eagles offense to put up the 24+ points that should mean a win.

13 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

It's not one game when he has looked like that the last two years.

This wasn't the first Giants game last season.  Or even the playoff game.

He looked better than those games.  He is trending in the right direction.

This 'bad' game would have been average last season.

You’d think sportscenter would’ve updated he picture of hurts to the jersey number he wears now. At first i thought it was slay but it’s not.