At their peak, the Eagles imposed their will. They ran downhill with purpose. They used quarterback mobility as a weapon. They stretched defenses vertically with play-action and layered passing concepts. Their offensive line overwhelmed opponents physically. Their quarterback thrived in improvisational scenarios, using instinct and playmaking rather than robotic, over-structured progression reads.
The offense was designed to let the quarterback be a quarterback — not a mannequin in a scripted sequence.
Shorr-Parks argues that the Eagles have drifted far from that approach.
Instead of playing to strengths, they’ve introduced rigidity.
Instead of attacking defenses, they’ve reacted.
Instead of dictating, they’ve hesitated.
The play designs have become horizontally predictable, featuring quick-game staples that opponents sit on with ease. The passing concepts lack synergy — receivers run routes that don’t create natural conflict points in coverage. The quarterback is boxed into structured decision trees that emphasize caution over creativity.
Shorr-Parks emphasized that the Eagles now operate like a team afraid to reinvent, afraid to adapt, and afraid to unleash their full talent.
The roots of this shift are complex: changes in staff, philosophical disagreements behind the scenes, and a quarterback-coach dynamic still evolving. But the result is unmistakable — an offense that no longer reflects the personnel executing it.
3. Quarterback Usage: Over-Coaching Has Become a Problem
Few analysts have been as outspoken as Shorr-Parks about how the quarterback is being handled. His argument is not that the quarterback is exempt from blame — far from it. Rather, he believes the Eagles are preparing and deploying their franchise quarterback in ways that restrict his natural abilities instead of enhancing them.
According to Shorr-Parks, the Eagles have turned one of the league’s best instinctual players into a cautious executor of scripted reads. They have placed unnecessary guardrails around his decision-making. They have discouraged improvisation, discouraged mobility, and discouraged aggressive downfield playmaking — the very strengths that once powered this offense to elite heights.
The Bears game showcased this problem repeatedly. The quarterback held the ball not because he didn’t see the field, but because the play concepts gave him no advantageous leverage. Progressions forced him into late throws. Routes were stacked too closely. Horizontal spacing was tight. Defenders sat on routes with confidence because nothing in the design threatened their leverage.
Shorr-Parks argues that the Eagles must immediately stop micromanaging the quarterback.
He believes the coaching staff must:
Until that happens, Shorr-Parks warns, the offense will remain disjointed, disoriented, and unable to capitalize on its talent.
4. The Run Game Has Lost Its Teeth — and Its Purpose
One of the most glaring regressions Shorr-Parks highlighted was the Eagles’ run-game identity. This franchise once dominated the line of scrimmage with an offensive-line unit that turned defensive fronts into debris fields. The run game was not simply an option — it was a tone-setter.
Against Chicago, the Eagles ran without conviction. They ran without angles. They ran without sequencing. They ran because the play sheet required it, not because the team believed in it.
Shorr-Parks argues the Eagles have forgotten how to use their offensive line as a weapon. Instead of attacking downhill with double-team combos and gap-scheme brute force, they’ve leaned too heavily into lateral designs that require precision and timing — two things this offense currently lacks.
When the Eagles lose the physicality battle, everything else collapses around it.
Shorr-Parks’ prescription is simple: restore the run game as a philosophical staple, not a situational accessory.
5. The Defense: Confusion, Miscommunication, and a Scheme Lost in Translation
As troubling as the offense was, Shorr-Parks saved some of his strongest criticism for the defense — a unit that looked consistently out of alignment, out of sorts, and out of answers.
The Bears, a team not known for surgical precision, created chunk plays through simple concepts — a damning indictment of the Eagles’ defensive structure.
Shorr-Parks laid blame on several layers:
Assignments were unclear
Coverages rotated too late
Communication in the secondary was inconsistent
Personnel groupings shifted without purpose
The scheme asked players to execute roles that didn’t fit them
The most concerning theme: players didn’t appear to know exactly what they were doing.
This wasn’t about effort. It was about clarity — or lack thereof.
Shorr-Parks argued that defensive simplification must happen immediately. The Eagles must stop forcing a system onto a roster that cannot execute it smoothly and shift toward a structure that enhances strengths rather than exposing weaknesses.
The Bears loss showed what happens when a defense thinks rather than reacts: it hesitates, it misaligns, it breaks.
6. Personnel Accountability: Loyalty Can’t Override Performance
One of Shorr-Parks’ most pointed critiques addressed personnel decisions — and the Eagles’ long-standing habit of leaning heavily on veteran starters even when those starters are struggling.
He believes the time for sentimental loyalty is over.
The Bears exposed players whose effort and impact did not match their roles. Younger defenders who play faster and with more urgency should receive expanded opportunities. Veterans who fail to communicate or execute should see reduced snaps. Offensively, skill players who do not win matchups or separate consistently cannot be protected simply because they are established names.
Shorr-Parks stresses that nothing kills a locker room faster than stagnancy. Players know when accountability is selective. They know when depth players outperform starters in practice. They know when energy on the field drops.
The message he believes the Eagles must deliver: every snap is earned, not inherited.
7. The Coaching Staff: Philosophy, Adaptability, and Sideline Leadership
Perhaps Shorr-Parks’ most impactful argument involved coaching — not as a call for firing, but as a call for philosophical urgency.
His critique focused on three themes:
A lack of adaptability
A lack of clarity
A lack of emotional leadership
The Bears played aggressively; the Eagles played passively. The Bears dictated the terms of engagement; the Eagles reacted. The Bears adjusted their plan; the Eagles clung to theirs.
Shorr-Parks believes the staff must rediscover the creative confidence that once defined their approach. He pointed out that this team, at its best, coached aggressively — unafraid to attack defenses vertically or send pressures defensively.
That aggression has evaporated.
The Eagles need a sideline presence that rallies the team emotionally when adversity strikes. They need a leadership voice that breaks slumps, not observes them.
Coaches set tone. Against the Bears, the tone was resignation.
8. The Mentality Problem: Flat, Passive, and Unrecognizable
Shorr-Parks was adamant that the Eagles’ biggest issue was not talent or injuries — it was mentality.
In the Bears game, the Eagles played without:
Urgency
Swagger
Physical authority
Situational awareness
They resembled a team waiting for the game to happen rather than forcing it. They looked like a team burdened by confusion rather than fueled by conviction. They looked like a team unsure of themselves.
Shorr-Parks argues that championship teams do not simply fix schemes — they fix mentality.
The Eagles must reclaim:
Their physical edge
Their emotional toughness
Their situational sharpness
Without those traits, schematic adjustments will not matter.
