A lot of people are missing the point on Jalen Hurts and the Eagles
Hurts is who the Eagles have, and he is who the Eagles will and should continue to have, given the lack of credible alternatives. At the same time, he isn’t above critique.
I know I’ve probably already lost a big chunk of readers by writing a column whose headline includes the words “Jalen Hurts.” To anybody who made it here to sentence No. 2, I thank you for your patience and open mind. I will commit to three things:
I will not attempt to litigate the Jalen Hurts Era, be it past or future. I will attempt to keep us all safely in the No Judgment Zone.
I will not attempt to draw any conclusions about Hurts from ESPN’s recent reporting that implied a certain level of disaffection within various parts of the organization.
I will not impose any sort of ultimatums with regard to Hurts’ contract and the impact of the upcoming season on his long-term future with the Eagles.
I want to make two simple points that seem to get lost in the back-and-forth between the Pros and the Antis.
The discourse about Hurts is the same discourse that we’ve had about every multiyear Eagles starter in my conscious lifetime. Randall Cunningham, Donovan McNabb, Michael Vick, Carson Wentz. It always reaches this point.
The term “franchise quarterback” is a relic that inevitably leads to a false choice (is-he/isn’t-he) that derails any productive back-and-forth that may have followed.
» READ MORE: The power of Jeffrey Lurie’s love for Jalen Hurts is a curious thing. Will it make the Eagles weep or sing?
The first point stands on its own. The second point stands on the fact that Sam Darnold just won a Super Bowl and that four of the last 10 quarterbacks to win one are Darnold, Eli Manning, Joe Flacco, and Nick Foles. Hurts is a fifth, Matthew Stafford a sixth. The rest: Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Patrick Mahomes.
In reality, “franchise quarterback” consists of two subgroups:
Quarterbacks that can win with most any team.
Quarterbacks that can win with certain teams.
A better way to break it down might be this:
Group 1: Quarterbacks you win because of
Group 2: Quarterbacks you can win with
Group 3: Quarterbacks you lose with
Group 4: Quarterbacks you lose because of
Regarding Hurts, the debate tends to get bogged down with one side arguing that he belongs in Group 1 and the other side arguing that he belongs in Group 2 while each side pretends the other side is arguing the inverse.
The Hurts proponents end up arguing that Hurts clearly belongs at least in Group 2. After all, the Eagles have won with him. They continue to win with him.
We are sitting here wringing our hands about a quarterback that has made the playoffs each of his five full seasons as a starter, two of them Super Bowls, one a victory and an MVP. Problem is, the Pros don’t acknowledge the difference between Group 1 and Group 2.
Likewise, the Antis argue that Hurts isn’t a Group 1 quarterback, but also fail to acknowledge that Group 2 quarterbacks are still much, much better (and rarer) than those in Groups 3 and 4. We’re talking about maybe 10-15 quarterbacks in Groups 1 and 2 combined.
Ask the Steelers or Giants if they’d be happy with a Group 2 quarterback. You can spend a long time looking for another quarterback outside of Group 3 or Group 4.
Hurts is who the Eagles have, and he is who the Eagles will and should continue to have, given the lack of credible alternatives. At the same time, he isn’t above critique.
I don’t think we need to get any deeper or more philosophical than what I just laid out there. Quarterbacks have different leadership styles. They have different personality traits. Rarely do those factors differentiate a quarterback. The impact of those traits and styles depends on the quarterback’s talent. Tom Brady could act like Tom Brady because he played quarterback like Tom Brady. If Kenny Pickett acted like Tom Brady, it would have landed differently.
The Eagles are reaching a point where they will need Hurts to be more of an on-field differentiator than he was or needed to be in 2022-24 in order for them to be an elite team. The big question is whether he can. It is a fair question.
True, we saw Hurts go to two Super Bowls in three years. But we haven’t seen him do it without A.J. Brown and an offensive line at their most dominant. We haven’t seen him do it without an offensive coordinator who went on to become an NFL head coach. Maybe that last variable is the important one. Maybe Sean Mannion is the fix that is needed. But let’s be honest about the question.
One data point that you might find instructive:
Last season, Hurts averaged 6.3 yards per attempt on 110 passes on first-and-10 in one-possession games (score differential between -8 and +8). That ranked dead last among quarterbacks with at least 80 attempts. Only Bryce Young and Cam Ward averaged fewer yards per attempt among quarterbacks with at least 35 attempts.
It’s one small data point. I chose the parameters in order to limit the impact of variables that can wildly skew play selection and defensive alignment. In terms of context, first and 10 in one-possession games is about as neutral as it gets.
Does the data point matter? There’s some evidence that it does, at least to some degree. In 2025, Darnold and Drake Maye led the league at 9.9 yards and 9.6 yards per attempt. You may have seen them in the Super Bowl. In 2024, when Hurts was in the Super Bowl, he ranked eighth with 8.9 yards on 88 attempts. That’s a difference of +41% over his 2025 mark. It’s also an outlier in his career.
Since 2022, the only quarterbacks with lower than Hurts’ 6.9 YPA on first-and-10 throws in neutral score situations are Aaron Rodgers (6.8) and Young (6.3). That’s among 32 quarterbacks with at least 175 attempts.
The point isn’t that a better quarterback equals a higher YPA on first and 10 in score neutral situations. The point is exactly what the parameters say it is: the Eagles gain fewer yards when Hurts throws the ball on first and 10 than virtually any other team does with their starter. Any interpretations beyond that are up for debate. I think the sample size is big enough to say that Hurts himself is generally less effective at getting the ball downfield than a lot of quarterbacks, and much less effective than quarterbacks who are considered to be “elite.” But I’m also more than willing to acknowledge that a quarterback can be effective without being elite in one cherry-picked category.
As I noted earlier, our cherry-picked data point also says that Hurts can be elite over the course of a season. I’d consider his 8.9 yards per attempt on first-and-10 throws in 2024 to be elite. But it’s also an exception among his last four seasons as a starter.
In 2024, the Eagles averaged 4.8 yards on 215 carries on first-and-10 in score neutral situations. Only one team ran the ball more often. Interestingly enough, it was the Packers, where Mannion was an offensive assistant coach. Also interesting: the Packers averaged 5.9 yards per carry in those situations, about 20% better than the Eagles’ 4.8 YPC average.
The more relevant comparison: the Eagles averaged just 3.8 YPC in 2025 on first-and-10 in score neutral situations. That ranked 29th out of 32 teams. They also ran the ball far less often (54% in 2025 vs. 63% in 2024).
Does any of this prove anything? Of course not. But I would argue that it is suggestive of a quarterback whose ability to complete downfield passes varies dramatically depending on his situation. Which brings us back to our original point about quarterback classification. Some guys are more context-dependent than others.
In 2022 and 2024, Hurts was clearly the right quarterback for a team in the Eagles’ situation. The real divide right now is this:
Is Hurts a quarterback who can — and who thus needs to — be the right quarterback for the Eagles’ reality in the present/near-future?
Or, are the Eagles a team that can — and who thus needs to — get back to being the right team for the quarterback Hurts is?