1 minute ago, ManuManu said:

Yes, having a QB who can effectively run and pass the ball is a good thing. That’s common sense. 

Where I disagree is that we "need” it or should commit a first-round pick to one who can do it. 

Stoutland has spearheaded a lot of great running games without a running threat at QB like Hurts. Sirianni was OC for a pretty efficient offense that had a statue at QB. 

A late first makes more sense than a 2nd or 3rd rounder IMO because of the extra contract year.

And we should absolutely get players that fit our system. That’s just common sense. Why have to change the entire game plan because your backup has a completely different skill set than your starter? It makes no sense. It’s not like you can’t find dual threat QBs…

2 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Wouldn’t we need him to be our QB in 5 years if he were a top QB?

That’s another benefit — optionality.

Going into year 5 you can trade him, trade Hurts, let Hurts walk, etc. depending on the situation.

Just now, TEW said:

A late first makes more sense than a 2nd or 3rd rounder IMO because of the extra contract year.

And we should absolutely get players that fit our system. That’s just common sense. Why have to change the entire game plan because your backup has a completely different skill set than your starter? It makes no sense. It’s not like you can’t find dual threat QBs…

It makes sense to build a system around your QB’s skill set, yes. I don’t think Sirianni’s "system” is built around a running QB though. He simply tailored it to Hurts, which is what good coaches do. 

1 hour ago, ManuManu said:

Damn. 

Crud

1 minute ago, TEW said:

That’s another benefit — optionality.

Going into year 5 you can trade him, trade Hurts, let Hurts walk, etc. depending on the situation.

Of course in this theoretical, Richardson is a top QB. He could also be out of the league. 

3 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Our philosophy is to pass first, even with Hurts this year. 

That’s the NFL in general, but relative to other teams, we are the #4 in rushing attempts.

7 minutes ago, TEW said:

I’d be looking to flip him. You get 5 years in a first round contract.

Year 1: learning year, maybe even QB3

year 2-4: best backup QB in the NFL

Then you flip him. And you probably get a higher first rounder because people will pay anything for a top QB.

No one is giving you a first round pick for a backup quarterback who has been in the league for four years and is set to make serious money.

Just now, ManuManu said:

It makes sense to build a system around your QB’s skill set, yes. I don’t think Sirianni’s "system” is built around a running QB though. He simply tailored it to Hurts, which is what good coaches do. 

Sirianni with Rivers was very different than Sirianni with Brissett. Heck, the 2021 first-half offense was very different than the 2021 second-half offense.

Sirianni is the most flexible offensive play-caller the Eagles have had in 20+ years.

4 minutes ago, TEW said:

A late first makes more sense than a 2nd or 3rd rounder IMO because of the extra contract year.

And we should absolutely get players that fit our system. That’s just common sense. Why have to change the entire game plan because your backup has a completely different skill set than your starter? It makes no sense. It’s not like you can’t find dual threat QBs…

Doesnt matter at qb if they are any good you have to plop down big money after year 3 anyway

I expect Kern elevated to the roster. Remember he is the holder as well as the punter. 

1 minute ago, ManuManu said:

It makes sense to build a system around your QB’s skill set, yes. I don’t think Sirianni’s "system” is built around a running QB though. He simply tailored it to Hurts, which is what good coaches do. 

Right, the offense is tailored to Hurts. So when Hurts goes down with an injury, and we don’t have a dual threat backup, the offense is no longer tailored to the QB.

2 minutes ago, TEW said:

That’s the NFL in general, but relative to other teams, we are the #4 in rushing attempts.

Right. We have a QB that runs a lot, and we are 13-3, so we’ve been in position to run the ball heavily late to eat clock. 

We saw a same approach in 2017. 

Just now, TEW said:

Right, the offense is tailored to Hurts. So when Hurts goes down with an injury, and we don’t have a dual threat backup, the offense is no longer tailored to the QB.

The offense is then tailored to the backup’s skill set. 

21 minutes ago, downundermike said:

He can’t hear that.  He wants to trash Minshew as much as he can because he is a Hurts fan boy.

And right on cue with the childish, name calling attacks.

10 minutes ago, TEW said:

I’d be looking to flip him. You get 5 years in a first round contract.

Year 1: learning year, maybe even QB3

year 2-4: best backup QB in the NFL

Then you flip him. And you probably get a higher first rounder because people will pay anything for a top QB.

Not when they have to extend him at 40m per

this strategy only works if you flip Hurts now and get another qb playing on the cheap deal

5 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Right. We have a QB that runs a lot, and we are 13-3, so we’ve been in position to run the ball heavily late to eat clock. 

We saw this same thing on 2017. 

https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask/nfl-team-with-the-highest-neutral-pass-rate

Eagles are 5th in neutral pass rate. We're a pass first team.

8 minutes ago, lornemalvo4133 said:

I expect Kern elevated to the roster. Remember he is the holder as well as the punter. 

Yup, it makes no sense to play games with that roster spot when the bottom five guys on the roster aren't going to contribute this year and will likely be fighting for a job next year. 

1 minute ago, RLC said:

https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask/nfl-team-with-the-highest-neutral-pass-rate

Eagles are 5th in neutral pass rate. We're a pass first team.

Yep. Hurts’ ability to run helps us get advantageous passing looks, but we’re most definitely a pass-first team. That’s just an organizational philosophy. We only got away from it last year because Hurts couldn’t handle that kind of offense (and frankly it was stupid to expect him to at the time). He can handle it now. 

31 minutes ago, TEW said:

The explanation is the coaching staff does not have confidence in it without the threat of Hurts running. That’s kind of my point.

That's on them.   They need to get confident in it.  

6 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Not when they have to extend him at 40m per

this strategy only works if you flip Hurts now and get another qb playing on the cheap deal

Disagree. Plenty of teams trade for veteran QBs and then pay them. Just this year we saw Russell Wilson traded for multiple firsts. The Eagles have traded the likes of Wentz and Bradford.

Richardson has incredible physical talent and would be young. If he develops, he’s probably worth a lot more than 1 first even with the contract he would get.

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

That's on them.   They need to get confident in it.  

That’s like telling Andy Reid to run the ball more. You can say it until you’re blue in the face, but it doesn’t matter. So you get personnel that works for the playcallers and offense.

28 minutes ago, TEW said:

Because it’s effective. Very, very effective. He’s a MVP candidate for a reason.

And with only 17 games in a season, you play to win in all of them. This isn’t the MLB or NBA where you can strategically rest players.

That being the case, we need a backup QB who is a dual threat and can replicate what Hurts brings to the offense. The good news is that, like Hurts himself, athletic QBs with that need NFL coaching to fix flaws in their game can be had outside the top 10 in the draft.

And it's a risky business, leading to A LOT of unnecessary hits to your QB.  I'm not asking them to strategically 'rest' players.   I am asking them NOT to run their QB at historically high levels.  Not sure that that's a novel concept.

 

I'd add, that if this is the plan moving forward, then the QB position needs to become a short term, not a long term position, and you constantly churn the position every 3-5 years.  You can't hitch your wagon to a QB that plays that style and pay $40M, while also requiring top flight players around him and the right backup QB.  Turns the NFL into an NCAA clone at least at the QB position.

30 minutes ago, TEW said:

I think it worked because they didn’t use it much. Basically, both sides knew the normal game plan of running 30 times between the QB and RBs wouldn’t work, and both sides adjusted.

Baloney.

The Atlanta freaking Falcons put up a huge running game against the Saints, with a rookie QB making his first start and a sub-par OL.  Give me a break.  The Saints can't defned the run well, plain and simple.

28 minutes ago, TEW said:

I think we need a QB who can run in order for our offense to be at its best. That’s what we are — a running team that combines a great OL with QB options. That’s our bread and butter. We shouldn’t give up the most effective aspect of our offense, upon which nearly everything else is based, because our QB gets hurt.

You are discussing the future of the backup QB position.  I'm pretty sure the rest of us are discussing last week's game on what they should have done differently for that single game.

Just now, Iggles_Phan said:

Baloney.

The Atlanta freaking Falcons put up a huge running game against the Saints, with a rookie QB making his first start and a sub-par OL.  Give me a break.  The Saints can't defned the run well, plain and simple.

And yet we didn’t run the ball. What does that tell you about the coach and his view towards the game?

Just now, Iggles_Phan said:

You are discussing the future of the backup QB position.  I'm pretty sure the rest of us are discussing last week's game on what they should have done differently for that single game.

Nope, you’re discussing the future of the QB position, and for some reason are getting very angry about it.

45 minutes ago, olsilverhair said:

poison-i want forget you

 

Hey, look what the cat dragged in!