Injuries and the Offseason Debate

Stewart Bradley

So Moving the Chains has kicked off the discussion over how much injuries played in the 2009 Eagles season. The post is based on NFL/Special Teams/Injury Guru Rick Gosselin’s Games Lost stat. The numbers are really interesting because they can tell you which teams over or underperformed this year because of health (or lack thereof), respectively. Sheil Kapadia is interested in how the injuries affected this season, but I’m more interested in what they mean for next season.

Teams should tend to revert back to the average in terms of injuries from year to year. You can debate how much effect that will/would have, especially considering other large factors like player and coach turnover, etc. But overall, contending teams like the Eagles ought to go into next season with a similar starting lineup as the past year, minimizing the influence of such change. Thus, we can speculate how well a team will do next year based on their injury situation this year.

Teams due to for a fall:

  • Dallas: They never put a single starter on IR. That won’t happen two years in a row.
  • Minnesota: How did Brett Favre not get hurt?
  • Arizona: Ditto with Kurt Warner.
  • Denver: Apparently they weren’t even that good to begin with.
  • NY Jets: Cinderella story will have a difficult time repeating.

Teams set to rise up:

  • Buffalo: Unluckiest team this year.
  • St. Louis: Bad team made worse by injuries.
  • Jacksonville: If starters fall in the Jacksonville Municipal Stadium and no one’s there to see it, did they ever really fall?
  • Philadelphia: See below.
  • Indianapolis/New Orleans: Yikes. They should be even better.

So the Eagles are due for a little bit of a rebound. Again, its tough to say how much, since they could go out and lose Trent Cole in the Pro Bowl (knock on wood). But overall it is unlikely they suffer through the same fate of OL and LB decimation again.

Okay, you’re probably saying, what does this have to do with the Eagles Offseason QB Clusterf%$k™?

To make a long story short, this is part of any argument that says McNabb should be back next year. The Eagles were a legitimate playoff team, one win away from the NFC East Division champ and a first round bye. By changing quarterbacks now Andy & Co. risk setting everything back and keeping the team from improving on this year’s result. Maybe with McNabb the team can take the next step to greatness without injury problems to derail them. Who knows if Kolb can handle that?

Kolb is to McNabb as Rodgers was to Favre?

Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers

So in the pursuit of understanding the McNabb v. Kolb discussion, its always good to look for comparisons. One that’s been raised a lot has been the similarities in situation to Aaron Rodgers and Brett Favre. As John Clayton writes:

Favre is an interesting comparison. I don’t think Kolb is as talented as Aaron Rodgers, but you saw what happened to the Packers once Favre left. They fell to 6-10, even though Rodgers threw for more than 4,000 yards. First-year starting quarterbacks don’t win the close games, and the Eagles could drop to 6-10 or 7-9 with Kolb learning on the job.

So this raises a number of questions. Let’s go through the similarities first.

  • Oldish QB in Favre (who was 38 at the time) traded to make way for young early-pick QB in Rodgers who had been sitting patiently and quietly for 3 years.
  • No one really knew what Rodgers could do. The organization was high on him, but he had very limited playing experience.
  • Organizational inertia invested in Favre was great— i.e. the QB was synonymous with the team.
  • Favre was coming off one of his best seasons.
  • The team was good. (This can be questioned, especially considering relative performance, but both were playoff teams when the decision was made.)

Differences:

  • McNabb is 33, not 38.
  • McNabb has never been loved by the media/public the way Favre was in Green Bay. (To the extent that public opinion mattered in either of these decisions, a topic to be explored at a later time.)
  • McNabb and Favre, while both West Coast Offensive QBs, are radically different players. The interception at the end of this year’s NFC Championship Game ought to prove that.
  • Kolb started 2 games this past year. That gives us a window into his potential that is much clearer than was Rodgers’s.

It’s easy to prove this helps your argument from either side. If you’re on Team McNabb, then Favre’s amazing year at age 40 proves the Eagles should keep him. Team Kolb cites Rodgers’s solid play and youth as evidence of a good decision.

Let’s take a look at the short term, Year 1 AD (After Decision) numbers.

Favre’s last year in Green Bay, Football Outsiders shows the team had a 16% weighted offensive DVOA (4th in the league). 2008, Rodgers’s first year, puts the Packers at 13% weighted offensive DVOA (10th). Rushing offense was essentially the same, so the dropoff was entirely in passing. Thus comes Clayton’s argument. Rodgers, despite solid numbers, wasn’t as good as Favre — especially in close games, and thus the Packers were worse.

The problem with this analysis is that it discounts other factors by placing all the weight for wins/losses on the QB. Another huge difference between the 2007 and 2008 teams: run defense. FO’s numbers show a drop from 12th to 28th in Rushing Defense DVOA (it looks even worse in the defensive line breakdown). Think the ability to prevent short yardage runs might have affected the team’s ability to win close games?

Rodgers’s play in his first year shows TEAM > QB. Yes, (by conventional and FO stats) Rodgers was worse in 2008 than Favre was in 2007. But he played comparatively better than Favre did with the NY Jets in 08 — and had to deal with a declining defense. The Packers would likely not have been better than 6-10 with Favre under center.

What can we learn from this? Well, a lot of that depends on whether you think Kolb is worse or better than Rodgers. If you assume similar performance, the drop off likely will not be significant enough to cost the Eagles a playoff spot. However, it also depends on your view of McNabb and Favre. Favre was 5 years older, but has shown this season an ability to still produce at a high level. If McNabb continues to play well, why risk a Kolb dropoff? On the other hand, while this was a great season for McNabb, he only graded out in the middle of the pack of starting QBs, according to FO. Maybe Kolb would perform similarly?

Plenty more to consider…

Andy Reid, Co. Give Tepid Endorsement of McNabb

Andy Reid Look

Andy Reid endorsed McNabb as the 2010 starting QB a few days after the playoff loss to Dallas:

“I was asked” late Saturday night “if Donovan [McNabb] would be my quarterback next year, and I said yes,” Eagles coach Andy Reid said yesterday as he continued to sort through the remnants of his team’s lopsided first-round playoff loss to the Dallas Cowboys. “That’s what I’m saying now.”

When pressed on the issue, however, Reid admitted that there is a lot to consider between now and the start of training camp, and a lot of time to consider it.

“We’ll look at all of this,” Reid said. “Obviously, I haven’t gotten to the points that you’re asking here with comparing players, contracts, and everything else. I’m not at that point right now. We like Kevin Kolb and we like Michael Vick and we like Donovan McNabb. I think it’s a pretty good situation to be in. The rest of the things will take place as we go through the off-season.”

“That’s what I’m saying now.” What a calculated statement. Sure, on the surface he’s quelled ideas that McNabb is on the outs. Andy said what needed to be said to calm the ravenous hordes down. But saying that he still has to look at “comparing players, contract, and everything else” means he really hasn’t made a decision at all. Everything is still up in there air.

Here’s what a real endorsement sounds like, from Joe Banner c. 2007:

“I can’t envision a situation in which he is not our quarterback next year … I believe there is a very, very sizable silent majority who realize how lucky we have been to have Donovan McNabb. I mean, we are talking about a quarterback who went to four straight championship games. There are only four quarterbacks in the history of the league that have done that. You are talking about a quarterback who has had a higher winning percentage in his first 7 years in the league than Peyton Manning. You are talking about a quarterback that has one of the highest quarterback ratings over the first seven seasons, one of the best TD-to-interceptions ratios of any quarterback in the history of this game in his first seven seasons in the league … My expectations, and I can’t really even picture a different scenario, is that he’ll be the quarterback [next season].”

Banner couldn’t “even picture a different scenario” than one in which McNabb was back in midnight green. This was a “yes, he’s our QB next year no matter what and stop asking.”

Banner had a similar guarantee for McNabb (and Reid) after the 2008 season ended:

“The reality is, my view and our view is unambiguous, that we can win a championship with those people, and they will be back. We believe we’re very lucky to have them.”

See that — unambiguous support.

Andy’s endorsement, on the other hand, reads “we’re going to investigate all our options, including trades.” The very fact that the front office is hedging its bets is a clear sign they are going to consider jettisoning Donovan. They don’t want to be caught with their own words guaranteeing the future of the franchise will be back if there’s a solid chance they’ll be shipping him off to Cleveland or St. Louis or somewhere. Especially considering the uproar when management indicated Brian Dawkins’s return was likely last offseason — right before he signed with the Broncos.

McNabb to San Fran?

McNabb TD against 49ers

If you’re the 49ers, would you call up the Eagles in March and check to see if you can pry loose Donovan McNabb for a 2010 second-round pick? No way I’d give up either of their No. 1s, but for a No. 2… Worth a thought, if Philly’s interested.

The Eagles have Kevin Kolb and Michael Vick, both free agents in a year (if they keep Vick). McNabb’s contract is also up after a year, so he’d need a large extension to go with any trade, which lessens his trade value dramatically.

Despite the strong talk from Philly that McNabb definitely will be the QB next season, I dunno about that. And by going after Kurt Warner last year, the 49ers have proven that they think they might be one big-time QB away from making some postseason noise. They might be right.

—Tim Kawkami, San Jose Mercury News

Interesting comparison to 49ers’ pursuit of Warner. Otherwise just speculation.

Spuds Speaks on Vick, Eagles QB Situation

Spadaro:

To me, the true value of making that decision to sign Vick has yet to be determined. I wonder, looking ahead, what is next for Vick and for the Eagles. The entire quarterback situation is a fascinating one, and head coach Andy Reid is correct when he says the Eagles have a great situation there with Donovan McNabb, Kevin Kolb and Vick all under contract through 2010 (Vick’s deal is a team option worth a reported $5.2 million). How many teams have three quarterbacks who have won games in the NFL?

At the same time, it would be highly, highly unusual to have all three playing in ‘10 on the final year of their contracts. Imagine the constant questions and scrutiny and the endless speculation about the future. It would seem — and this is merely my perspective — that the Eagles would be best served to listen to any offers that might be forthcoming and use the quarterbacks as assets and see how they can strengthen the roster by dealing a quarterback or two should solid offers reach the trading table.

Because we all value his expert opinion so much. Hmmmm, the Eagles should listen to all offers. So brilliant.