We're talking about a young quarterback with starting experience, a winning record, a chance to still get better, and for a bargain basement price on his rookie deal as a backup. That's a solid signing for them on paper.
Of course you want to see him play. But how is that any different than Russell Wilson, who is going to be a starting quarterback?
I hear the Kool-Aid is being passed around before seeing Russell Wilson play one down on a team that wants to compete for a super bowl but paid next to nothing for him and he has one of the worst won/loss records over the last couple seasons. But saying a team that wants to compete for a super bowl got a great deal on a young, former starter with a winning won/loss record on the cheap to play backup for them is just a financial move with no upside potential?
This isn't a nasty gram. I just don't understand how anyone can look at what the Eagles got and think it isn't a good deal for them.
And contrary to some here, I think there is a distinct possibility that Hurts gets injured and misses time at some point this season. I wish Pickett well, and hope he plays well if he gets the chance.
Sometimes I think some here hope that Pickett never gets a chance because they are afraid it may show that the Steelers may have had a decent quarterback but didn't know how to coach him or support him. That it may reflect badly on the Steelers staff.
The way I see it, if Pickett can't play well with the Eagles if he gets a good chance, it verifies that the team was correct and it is good that they moved on from him and didn't waste anymore time on him. If he plays well, it identifies a mistake by the team and a weakness in the chain that needs to be corrected or removed from the equation.
Either way, the organization gets an answer that can help them going forward.