This is anecdotal but it seems to me that many college AD's/NFL owners fall into the trap of believing that because someone coached at a college with a competitive advantage or an NFL team with a top tier QB, that those people will be successful somewhere else without those advantages........that theory has proven time and time again to be false. (i.e., all the Patriot assistants who failed as NFL head coaches, successful colleges coaches at schools with a recruiting advantage that were abject failures in the pros or P5 coordinators from schools with a competitive edge that failed in programs that lacked that same recruiting leverage).
Given the importance of QB's to the success, or lack-there-of, of any football team on any level, one has to ask, "What type of coach would give the Eagles the best chance to sign a difference maker at Q?" I think the answer to that question is obvious in terms of background. Institutions like BC (those without a recruiting advantage), have to hire an OC as head coach, someone who works with the quarter backs, a guy who played either QB or WR in college.
.......don't think it matters so much what level that person comes from (NFL assistant, P5 OC/head coach, or FCS head coach) but rather how that candidate projects in the interview process as a recruiter and offensive tactician (prefer in- person impression as the primary evaluation tool vs recommendations as the latter is often times more about networking whereas the former is not - need a technical consultant on the committee who understands offenses in order to assess schematic competency). Anyone who has coached Q's and been an OC at any of the levels mentioned above, whose teams have posted records significantly better than the school's/organization's historical average over the last two decades or so, should merit serious consideration.