Former NFL QB and NBC Sports analyst Chris Simms has had a tempestuous relationship with his evaluation of Eagles QB Jalen Hurts - and it doesn't seem to be over just yet.
Last offseason Simms boldly left Hurts off his list of the Top 40 quarterbacks in the league, a clear miscalculation which was quickly proved incorrect by Hurts' play.
MORE: After rebuilding roster, Roseman faces even bigger challenge
Stay in the game with the latest updates on your beloved Philadelphia sports teams! Sign up here for our All Access Daily newsletter.
Eventually Simms admitted his mistake, joining the Eagle Eye podcast to break down where he went wrong:
"I took an L on it. I should have had him on the top 40,' Simms said. 'I was wrong to (leave him off). I think the reason I didn't have him on the top 40 are some of the things you're talking about. Those are my concerns. Still my concerns going forward. Hey, I agree with the Eagles' standpoint that Jalen Hurts did enough this year, certainly, to come back and be the starter and be that guy. There's no doubt about that."
A notable sports personality admitting they were wrong isn't terribly common, so Simms' admission earlier this year of the L was appreciated.
And yet... it seems the former QB still doesn't have much respect for Hurts and his game, as evidenced by where Hurts falls in this year's edition of his rankings.
NFL
Simms is slowly unveiling his Top 40 in descending order over the course of multiple days, but on Thursday his Nos. 25-21 were released and Hurts is behind some players he should not be.
Simms put Hurts at No. 25, two spots behind the Bears' Justin Fields (!) and three spots behind the Jets' Zach Wilson (!!), which frankly feels crazy.
Before we go any further, here's what Simms says his rankings are based on:
"-This is not an all-time rank
-This is not about career potential
-This is not about how good a QB's team is
"This is which QB I’d take right now, this year, with a generic supporting cast."
Hmm. So it's not about potential, which I could see helping the Fields and Wilson cases because of their first-round pedigrees?
Then, uh... what's the argument here?
MORE: The real reason Eagles-Foles reunion didn't work out
A quick look at last year's numbers:
- Hurts: 61.3% comp, 7.2 Y/A, 16 TD, 9 INT | 5.6 rush Y/A, 10 rush TD
- Fields: 58.9% comp, 6.9 Y/A, 7 TD, 10 INT | 5.8 rush Y/A, 2 rush TD
- Wilson: 55.6% comp, 6.1 Y/A, 9 TD, 11 INT | 6.4 rush Y/A, 4 rush TD
I don't know about you, but it's pretty clear which QB I'm choosing based on those stats. Add in Hurts' extra year of experience in the league (even if it was just a few starts, he's had an entire extra 12 months as an NFL player) and I just don't see Simms' justification for putting those two ahead of Hurts.
Believe me: I think Hurts has a long way to go until he's considered a legit long-term starter, and I have plenty of reservations about his game.
But there is no way I'm taking either of those guys ahead of Hurts if I need to win a game in Week 1 of 2022.
Looks like Hurts will just need to keep showing up and proving that he's better than many believe.