The Eagles seem to have signed Joe Flacco for an obvious role, but could he end up starting over Jalen Hurts?
No team knows the value of a backup quarterback more than the Philadelphia Eagles, after Nick Foles led them to a Super Bowl win a few years ago. But rather than reunite with Foles, they’ve brought Joe Flacco in on a one-year deal to be the backup to Jalen Hurts.
Flacco’s deal has a base value of $3.5 million, and he can earn up to $4 million. He will earn more in one year than Hurts will on his entire four-year rookie deal as a second-round pick. But any move the Eagles made to add a quarterback, shy of a run at Deshaun Watson or drafting one with the sixth overall pick in April’s draft, was going to come off as a profession of faith in Hurts as the starter.
But could Joe Flacco wind up starting over Hurts?
The Eagles consider the backup quarterback to be a top-15 spot on their roster. That likely spurred the decision to draft Hurts in the second round last year, even if it was the first step in Carson Wentz being gone. Hurts had a promising run as a rookie, in five games and four starts. But the fact he completed just 52 percent of his passes shouldn’t be overlooked, even if it was a product of a passing offense that was too downfield-oriented.
Dave Spadaro of Eagles.com had some interesting insight on the Flacco signing.
While the Eagles are high on second-year man Jalen Hurts based on their study of him coming out of college in the 2020 NFL Draft and from what they saw of him last season in five games and four starts, they are going to challenge the position. Flacco, now healthy and still in possession of one of the game’s biggest arms, is here to do just that.
Challenging Hurts isn’t bad in a broad sense. The question is if Flacco is the guy capable of doing it, with the team website’s spin that he still has “one of the game’s biggest arms.”
The only way Flacco should see the field next season is if Hurts is injured or remarkably ineffective. The idea of a competition for the starting job is far-fetched at minimum, and flat-out ludicrous more bluntly.