Editorial: Eagles’ Hurts Has Earned More Than Anonymous Doubt

If you like this type of coverage, please let us know by Following us on social media: Twitter/X – @lebcosports1 and Facebook.

For any questions, comments, or discrepancies, please reach out to dan@lebcosports.com.

Written by Gavin Sweeney

Sweeney is a local high school student, avid Philadelphia sports fan, & LebCoSports.com contributor.

Photo Credit: Kiel Leggere (Philadelphia Eagles)

Eagles’ Hurts Has Earned More Than Anonymous Doubt

On April 1st, ESPN.com published an article titled, “Inside Eagles’ 2025 friction as Jalen Hurts stands at crossroads.”The piece, written by Tim McManus and Jeremy Fowler, paints a harsh picture of the Eagles quarterback. It argues that Hurts had a hand in the offense becoming “calcified” during Kevin Patullo’s controversial time as Philadelphia’s offensive coordinator.

The article then takes it a step further by citing an unnamed team source who questions his coachability and body language. 

That is exactly why this article bothered me.

As a Philadelphia sports fan, and even from a journalism perspective, the narrative being told about Jalen Hurts just does not fully add up. I understand criticism. I understand asking hard questions after an offensive season that did not fully meet expectations. But there is a difference between fair criticism and building a national storyline around unnamed criticism that does not match the full body of work.

Since becoming the Eagles’ full-time starter, Hurts has been one of the most productive quarterbacks in football. He has averaged roughly 3,800 to 4,200 total yards per season and around 35 to 40 total touchdowns per season. He has been a top-5 quarterback in total touchdowns over that span, and one of the biggest reasons the Eagles have stayed in contention year after year. 

His rushing impact is historically elite. Hurts has consistently given the Eagles 600 to 800 rushing yards per season and around 10 to 15 rushing touchdowns a year. That is not normal quarterback production. That is record-level production. He became the first quarterback in NFL history to post 10 or more rushing touchdowns in four straight seasons, and his ability around the goal line has changed games and changed defenses. 

He is also the first Eagles quarterback to start a season 8-0, tied the franchise record for 35 total touchdowns in a season, owns the mark for most rushing touchdowns by an Eagles quarterback in a season, and has posted one of the best winning percentages against winning teams in franchise history. Those are franchise-quarterback accomplishments, not “system QB” numbers. 

And if you want to talk about clutch playoff performances, go look at Super Bowl LVII. Hurts completed over 70 percent of his passes, accounted for more than 370 total yards, scored 4 touchdowns, and set records with 70 rushing yards and 3 rushing touchdowns, the most ever by a quarterback in a Super Bowl. That is not “system QB” production. That is historic production on the biggest stage. 

He also rarely turns the ball over at a reckless level. His interception rate has generally been around league average or better, and when turnovers have spiked, there has usually been context around it, whether that was injuries, broken schemes, or instability around him. Even then, his overall touchdown-to-turnover profile is still strong, especially for a quarterback who handles the ball as much as he does. 

If you want advanced metrics, Hurts has been right there too. Since becoming the starter, he has been in the Top 5 to Top 10 range in QBR, top 10 in EPA per play, and elite in red-zone efficiency. If you are trying to replace that level of production — 4,000-plus total yards and 35-plus touchdowns a year — you are not just finding that anywhere. Those quarterbacks either cost more than Hurts or simply are not available. 

And that is what makes the ESPN article so frustrating. Even the article itself acknowledges that the Eagles have not exactly given Hurts stability. Hurts has had constant coaching turnover, different offensive coordinators, different voices, and different systems, yet he still keeps winning. Most quarterbacks are judged while working within continuity. Hurts has had to keep adjusting while the Eagles kept changing things around him. 

That matters.

Over the last four years, Hurts has kept winning despite the kind of offensive instability most quarterbacks do not have to deal with. Since 2022, he has been one of the winningest quarterbacks in football. He has continued to produce while the Eagles cycled through offensive coordinators and philosophies. 

Let’s not ignore context either. The “bad” 2025 season people want to point to included 3,224 passing yards, 25 touchdowns, 6 interceptions, a 98.5 passer rating, two 1,000-yard receivers, a tight end with 11 touchdowns, and an 11-6 team record. If that is the season being used to build a national case against him, then I think people are reaching. 

So when people throw around words like “inflexible” and “uncoachable,” I think that deserves real pushback.

If Hurts is so “inflexible,” then why has he made the playoffs every season since becoming the full-time starter despite having a different offensive coordinator nearly every year? If he is so “uncoachable,” then why has he kept producing, kept winning, and kept getting the Eagles deep into January?

I do not buy it.

And I especially do not buy the idea that he should be defined by unnamed criticism when there is so much evidence pointing the other way. Hurts has received praise from football figures like Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Joe Montana, and there are plenty of examples that challenge the idea that he is disconnected from teammates or difficult to lead. 

That is not to say Hurts is above criticism. He is not. If the passing game stalled, he deserves part of that criticism. If the offense needs to expand, he needs to keep evolving with it. That comes with being the quarterback in Philadelphia.

But there is a difference between fair criticism and forcing a narrative.

If Jalen Hurts has the numbers to back him up, praise from respected football minds, playoff success, leadership credentials, and a history of winning through instability, then why is the media so eager to frame him through the most negative possible lens? That is the part that does not add up to me. It feels like the article wants readers to focus more on unnamed labels than the actual résumé.

I may be young, but I have never seen a player get this much disrespect while continuing to prove he is a winner.

Photo Credit: Philadelphia Eagles Media Guide