Debate over benching Jalen Hurts is ‘the dumbest conversation of the NFL season.’ Here’s what else they’re saying.

A nightmarish five-turnover game from Jalen Hurts in the Eagles’ Week 14 overtime loss to the Los Angeles Chargers led some to wonder aloud if it would be beneficial to bench the quarterback for the team’s Week 15 game against the Raiders.

Nick Sirianni called the idea of benching Hurts “ridiculous” Wednesday morning during an interview with 94 WIP, but the coach’s comments did not stop the wave of opinions about Hurts.

“You know what’s really, truly, magnificently ridiculous to think? That any quarterback could play as poorly as Hurts has played in back-to-back losses to the Bears and the Chargers without prompting some level of discussion about whether or not he should continue to start,” Inquirer columnist David Murphy wrote Friday. “As good as Hurts has played in his two Super Bowl appearances, that’s how bad he has played over the last couple of weeks.”

» READ MORE: Why Jalen Hurts plans to ‘stay the course’ after turnovers stalled the Eagles offense

Meanwhile, fellow columnist Marcus Hayes also believes the conversation needs to at least happen, whether the Eagles ultimately go through with it or not — adding that one more bad game and the Birds might really need to consider sitting Hurts. And Eagles writer Jeff McLane opened the week by suggesting there’s “merit” to the idea of starting Tanner McKee against the Raiders, but that “opening that can of worms may cause more harm than good — especially in the long term."

Needless to say, the national media has had plenty to say about the idea of benching Hurts. Here’s a look a what they’re saying ahead of Sunday’s game in Vegas …

Stephen A. Smith addressed the idea of benching Hurts in favor of backup Tanner McKee on Thursday morning’s episode of ESPN’s First Take. Smith dismissed the idea, largely on the basis that it would be irresponsible to give McKee, a 2023 sixth-round pick out of Stanford, his second career start in a pivotal game.

“Jalen Hurts ain’t going to be benched,” Smith said. “The backup quarterback’s name is Tanner McKee, right? We all know Tanner McKee ain’t playing. We just know this, OK? Down the line, in the future, sure, but this year, Tanner McKee is not going to replace the reigning defending Super Bowl champion and Super Bowl MVP.”

Smith said calls for Hurts benching is a way for Philly fans to “light a fire” under the team after a three-game losing streak.

“They’re saying, ‘What do we do? What do we have to do to light a fire under these dudes? Because, [expletive], what’s going on isn’t working, because Sirianni ain’t doing anything about it. [Offensive coordinator Kevin] Patullo ain’t doing anything about it. We got a problem.’ That’s the Philadelphia fan base,” Smith said. “There’s nobody with sense that would think for one second that Jalen Hurts is going to find himself on the bench in favor of Tanner McKee.”

» READ MORE: Eagles vs. Raiders predictions: Our writers pick a winner for Week 15

Former NFL quarterback — and one-time Hurts critic — Dan Orlovsky agreed with his ESPN colleague on Thursday’s First Take, calling the talk of benching Hurts “the dumbest conversation of the NFL season.”

“I was probably the most critical person of Jalen Hurts early in his career,” Orlovsky said. “He has gone to the playoffs four times. He’s gone to the Super Bowl twice. He’s won the Super Bowl once, and he was the MVP of the Super Bowl. And 10 months later — 10 months later from doing that — we’re going, ‘Do you think we should bench the quarterback?’ … Do you know how stupid of a question that is?”

Orlovsky pointed out the absurdity of Hurts, whose 27 combined rushing and passing touchdowns are the fourth-most in the NFL, having his job security in question. Orlovsky, who has been critical of the Eagles’ struggling offense this season, said the team’s problems are too interconnected to blame on Hurts alone.

“Saquon Barkley is one of two running backs that have over 50 carries this year that have gone for either no yards or negative yards,” Orlovsky said. “Is that because Saquon can’t play anymore? Or is it all connected?”

» READ MORE: Benching Jalen Hurts would be short-sighted, but it isn’t ridiculous to wonder | David Murphy

Colin Cowherd just wishes Hurts was a little bit taller.

His criticism of the Eagles quarterback runs deeper than a game or the remaining weeks of the season. Cowherd said on Wednesday’s episode of Fox Sports 1’s The Herd that Hurts’ size may be enough of a reason for the franchise to move on from the quarterback. Cowherd pointed out that many of the league’s best quarterbacks, including Justin Herbert and Josh Allen are 6-foot-3 and above.

“I’m 6-2,” Cowherd said. “I can’t be taller than your franchise quarterback.”

At 6-foot-1, Hurts is the same size as Brock Purdy, Tua Tagovailoa, and Baker Mayfield. Cowherd wondered if the league’s 17-game season is wearing on its smaller quarterbacks.

“[Hurts is] smart, he’s athletic, he’s tough,” Cowherd said. “He’s tiny. It’s not just the size and the length of the quarterback, it’s the length of the season. It’s now 17 games. NFL defensive players are now bigger, stronger, faster. The hits hurt more, they’re more punitive.”

However, Hurts did not shrink — nor did the NFL schedule grow — over the offseason, and neither seemed to be an issue during last year’s Super Bowl run.

» READ MORE: Nick Sirianni: Sitting Jalen Hurts ‘ridiculous’? Hardly. Bench him if he struggles Sunday. | Marcus Hayes

This season, Hurts has not missed time due to injury, but he is on pace to finish with his fewest rushing carries since his rookie year. Hurts has carried the ball just 88 times this season.

The Eagles’ move away from running Hurts may protect his long-term health, but the team has struggled with Hurts throwing the ball more frequently. The Birds are 1-5 in games where Hurts throws more than 30 passes.

“The truth is, the more Jalen Hurts throws, the worse Philadelphia is,” Cowherd said. “Those are the facts.”