Why Field Goals are Largely Inconsequential

How do we rank offenses? Total yards gained? Total points scored? Those numbers aren’t nearly as helpful as we might think.

Not all points are created equal. Touchdowns are better than field goals. Some times have more opportunities or better field position than others. We can’t completely eliminate those biases, but we can try.

Let’s start today with touchdowns and field goals. How are they related? Do great offenses score more of both, since they make it down the field more? Do worse offenses, stalling in the red zone, turn to field goals as a replacement for touchdowns? Both would make sense, but neither is correct.

Look at the graph at right. There is simply no correlation, positive or negative, between touchdowns and field goals.

And that’s not the only thing we can learn. The difference between the team in 2010 with the most field foals (Oakland) and the team with the least (Buffalo) was 18 — or 3.4 points per game. Having an extra field goal a game sounds like a path to victory, but notice that the Raiders, as league leader, weren’t exactly taking the NFL by storm. On the flip side, the difference between the most offensive touchdowns (New England) and the least (Carolina) was 40 — a whopping 17.5 points per game including extra points.

It might seem like a cliche of conventional wisdom, but touchdowns are the difference maker. Everyone’s going to hit about the same number of field goals by the end of the season — teams are within 3.4 points per game of each other there. The key is to get into the end zone.

Perhaps not a revolutionary conclusion, but we’ll take this a step further tomorrow.

Photo from Getty.

Is Albert Haynesworth the Next Terrell Owens?

The Eagles have spent the last three years stocking the ranks with lots of young, respectable team players. They’ve drafted captains and All-Americans, guys who can represent the team proudly. They’ve also jettisoned a number of me-first malcontents and with questionable work ethics, like Chris Clemons, Quentin Demps, and Shawn Andrews.

Yet, after praising this change, now fans everywhere are clamoring for the Eagles to grab one of the most notoriously selfish players in the NFL: Albert Haynesworth. Here’s a guy who signed one of the richest contracts ever, and then refused to go earn it on the field. He’s undeniably one of the most talented defensive linemen in the game, but has spent most of the last two years loafing it with the Redskins. Not to mention that even when he was productive in Tennessee, Big Al was still causing trouble.

I can see the allure of a player like Haynesworth. His disruptive abilities from the defensive tackle spot are perhaps unparalleled in today’s NFL. And in theory DL Coach Jim Washburn knows how to get the most out of him. But doesn’t he represent exactly the qualities that the Eagles have purposely avoided recently? If the team trades for or signs Haynesworth, they effectively wipe away the high standards they’ve set on personnel decisions.

In many ways, getting Haynesworth would remind me a lot of 2004, when the Eagles acquired Terrell Owens. TO was another player who was unhappy with his current team and wanted out. The Eagles scooped him up and his talent propelled the team to a Super Bowl appearance. He was the quintessential difference-maker, and I’d expect the same from Haynesworth. Pairing Big Al with Trent Cole might be the defensive equivalent of Owens and Brian Westbrook.

But at what cost? TO was happy for a year, then the sit-ups began and he helped torpedo the Super Bowl hopes of a team that he cared nothing about. I wonder how long Haynesworth would remain a happy Philly citizen, especially if they sign him relatively cheaply. I wonder how long he could stay out of trouble with the law and with the league office, given his long history.

In hindsight, TO wasn’t a gamble. He was a sure thing — sure to be ticking time bomb. Is Big Al any different?

Photo by Getty.

How the Eagles Misused Brent Celek in 2010

During Andy Reid’s online chat with fans at Philly.com yesterday, he was asked a question, “What are you going to do differently this year so that Brent Celek gets involved more?” Andy’s answer wasn’t particularly revealing, as usual. He only said that the team needed to put “more emphasis” on the short to intermediate passing game.

I’ve already talked about Celek’s disappointing season and have laid a large part of the blame on Michael Vick’s shoulders. When Celek was running routes, he just wasn’t being targeted as often. And throwing over the middle was where Vick was most inaccurate.

But the other side was just how differently the Eagles used Celek in 2010 from the previous season. His chances to go run routes as a receiver dropped and he was called on to pass block a lot more.

Take a gander at the table at right. Celek was still a receiver most of the time, but his snaps as a pass blocker increased by more than half. Instead of blocking once for every six times he ran a route, Celek was a receiver only 3.4 times for every play of pass protection in 2010.

A number of factors contributed to this change in how the Eagles used Celek. The offensive line was having trouble, especially the right side with Winston Justice. However, it wasn’t as though the Eagles were constantly trying to help out the offensive line. They had the seventh-least number of blockers per pass play in the NFL. Another problem was the loss of Leonard Weaver, who was a solid pass protector. He blocked more often and more efficiently than both LeSean McCoy and Brian Westbrook in 2009.

Someone had to pick up the pass protection slack. But, unfortunately, Celek is simply a bad blocker — and he didn’t get any better with more practice. Look at the Pass Blocking Efficiency (PBE) statistic in the table above, calculated from PFF. It shows the total pressures allowed per blocking play. While Celek was alright in 2009, last year he was awful. He was the seventh-worst tight end in the NFL, yet the Eagles made him pass block more than all but four other players at his position.

That’s insanity. Wide receivers are the focal point of the offense, but Celek should be a great weapon down the middle, helping to keep the defenses honest. Making him pass block more not only removes that asset, but actually make Celek a liability.

Photo from Getty. Originally published at NBC Philadelphia.

2011 Will Test Utility of NFL Offseason Work

Work expands so as to fill the time available.

I’m sure everyone has come across this saying (also known as Parkinson’s Law) at some point in regard to school homework, projects at the office, or jobs around the house. But might it also apply to the NFL offseason?

In a normal offseason, NFL teams go through almost constant work. There are minicamps and weight training and film sessions and scouting and drills and preseason games. The events go on and on, filling almost the entire possible time between the end of one season and the start of the next. As the game has become more complex, we’ve largely accepted this increase as the cost of doing business. Some players complain about the workload, but it’s tough to side with guys who make millions but don’t want to work.

This interminable lockout, however, has already cut way back on the possible preparation time. Minicamps long forgotten, playbooks unable to be distributed. In lieu of “voluntary” workouts, the players have organized truly optional group practices. If the work stoppage stretches into the July and August, lost more will have to be cut back.

But how essential is this lost time? Are we likely to unprepared players and disorganized teams whenever football begins again? Could 2011 be the sloppiest season on record?

Bill Parcells doesn’t think so. He told Peter King, “I always felt like you really do a better job with less time than more time because when you have less time you focus immediately on what’s of the utmost importance. Whereas when you have a lot of time to deliberate as to what to do, a lot of times you kind of get off on little tangents.”

I tend to agree with Parcells. NFL teams may not be able to plan for every contingency, but the important things will be accomplished. However, 2011 will be an interesting test of his theory, and Parkinson’s Law in general. If football is still accomplished at a high level, perhaps there was never any need for offseason programs to become so comprehensive. On the other hand, if rookies produce at an all-time low we might be able to conclude that the opposite is true.

With any luck, we’ll find out soon enough.

Photo from Getty. Originally published at NBC Philadelphia.

Kickoff Rule Update: Expect Touchbacks Galore

After the NFL owners approved the new rule moving kickoffs up by five yards, I wrote a post about how the change might affect the number of kickoff returns. Only 16 percent of all kickoffs ended up as touchbacks last year, and I projected that they would more than double. However, my projection was only moderately scientific — I didn’t have all the data for every kickoff. Instead, I was just modeling from the averages of each kicker.

So I thought I’d go back and comb through the actual play-by-play data and see if I could come up with a more definite answer.

First, let’s look at how often kickoffs become touchbacks by distance. Mostly it matters where the ball lands. Obviously, if the kick never makes it to the end zone, the returner has to pick it up and take it out. But when it lands in the endzone…

Turns out that the first yard or two don’t make a big difference. More than nine in every ten kickoffs landing less than two yards deep in the end zone get returned. But the ratio goes up sharply from there. By the time we get three yards deeper, the returner is only bringing out less than one in three kicks. And once the ball gets seven, eight, or nine yards in, only desperation would cause a player to attempt a return.

The graph shows how much of a difference five extra yards is going to make. Many more footballs last year fell in the 5 to -5 yard range than in the deep zone. As those push forward they get exponentially more difficult to return.

Therefore, when I added five yards to each kickoff from last year and assumed the same return percentage by distance, there was a huge jump in touchbacks. Unless the kickers in 2011 take a big step back, touchbacks should go from 16 percent to just under 40 percent. I know that was my rough estimate last time, but now I can fully back up such a prediction. Also, as I wrote before, this is actually still a low projection. It assumes that kickoff coverage teams won’t get any better even though they have five less yards to cover, and kickers themselves won’t change their tactics to further maximize touchbacks.

Finally, there’s the question of how much this changes the role of the players. For starters, kickers with the most powerful legs aren’t huge difference makers any more, which should please middle-of-the-road David Akers.

There’s an additional benefit for Eagles fans though. Andy Reid hasn’t been keen on investing in a kickoff returner. Last year’s main man was Jorrick Calvin, who was only slightly better than awful. Plus, kickoff coverage has often been one of the Eagles weakest units. But the rule change takes a lot of the power out of the returner’s hands. Their ability to make big plays has dropped by at least at least 30 percent.

Again, this might seem like a small rule change. But it’s going to have a big impact throughout the NFL.

Photo from Getty. Originally published at NBC Philadelphia.

Hot Read: More on DeSean, Little on Asante

Jimmy Kempski gave us a chance to examine all of DeSean Jackson’s supposed drops from last season. He only counted eight drops, instead of the 12 that Pro Football Focus found. The thing is, though, that doesn’t really change mcuh. Instead of being the 55th-worst receiver, now DeSean’s only the 49th-worst. Big deal.

I’ve already written about DeSean’s drops before, and why they might or might not be a real problem going forward. Whatever side you come down on, it’s important not to dismiss PFF’s game charting or even their subjective grading system. The truth is that these kind of statistics can be quite valuable. No numbers are perfect, and we always have to add some skepticism. Just because they are always somewhat subjective, somewhat biased, and somewhat incomplete doesn’t mean we can’t learn something from them.

That was part of the point of last week’s post comparing DYAR and EPA for receivers. It wasn’t to say that DYAR is wrong or EPA is right, or certainly that stats are wrong and our eyes are right. The point is that every piece of information tells us a different story. If one number praises DeSean and another finds fault, that means something. Even if we can’t immediately figure out what that is exactly.

* * *

ESPN’s John Clayton did his own handicapping of Kevin Kolb’s potential suitors. Interestingly enough, his thoughts are quite similar to my own predictions.

Clayton matches me with 2-1 for the Cardinals, but he thinks a lot less highly of the Seahawks.

* * *

The most boring possible commentary on Asante Samuel, courtesy of the NFL’s Top 100 Players program. Juan Castillo says Asante plants his foot. That’s better than the rest of the meaningless superlatives thrown in there to fill three minutes, but still. I assume he’s doing some heavy-duty film study and he knows other tricks. Give me something more concrete about what makes Asante such an interception machine, please.

Premature to Discuss the End of Vick's Career

Yesterday, Tommy Lawlor wrote that Michael Vick is the “short term guy” at quarterback. He wasn’t making an extensive argument on the subject and I don’t want to mischaracterize his actual point. But I think there’s an interesting question raised there: how long do we expect Michael Vick to be the Eagles quarterback?

Everyone expects that as soon as possible the team will offer Vick a new contract extension. I’m on record saying that they may already have the terms mostly settled. But how long will that contract be? Should the Eagles be looking for a new long term prospect already? Vick will turn 31 this month, after all.

To put it bluntly, I think it’s premature to suggest that Vick is anywhere particularly close to the end of his time in Philadelphia. Look at the career of his predecessor, Donovan McNabb. The Eagles signed McNabb to a contract that would pay him through age 34. They decided to trade him before that final season began, but I don’t think that was because the front office thought he was over-the-hill. Maybe on the downside of his career — but not washed up yet.

If we assume that the Eagles have the same timeline envisioned for Vick, he’s due for at least a three year extension through 2014. For starters, any player that you plan on counting on until 2014 is a long term guy. Short term is a year or two, at least in my book. Once you get to three or four football seasons out, that’s the equivalent of making predictions about 2050.

And yet I think the extension may be for even longer than three years. I actually expect something in the four to five year range. Tom Brady signed an extension for four years at age 33. The Redskins gave 34 year-old McNabb a deal for five years. That’s the going rate. Plus, who’s to say that Vick — with his extra mobility and two years of rest while in jail — isn’t cut out for playing until at least as long as those more stationary quarterbacks?

After Andy Reid surprised McNabb and the rest of the NFL by grabbing Kevin Kolb in 2007, fans are always going to expect that to happen again. But Vick isn’t a short term option. He should be in Philly a long time.

Photo by Getty.

Behind Trent Cole, Only Question Marks

Even if the rest of the NFL world often underestimates Trent Cole, we know how great he’s been for the Eagles. Yet for what seems like the 15th year, the Eagles will enter their next season with Cole as their only truly reliable, above average end. There are a bunch of players behind Cole, even with none drafted in this year’s draft, but every one comes with huge question marks and caveats. Let’s quickly run through each one:

Brandon Graham — Last year’s first round pick had a promising, if not spectacular rookie season. Graham would have been the guy we all expected to step up and provide the complementary opposing pass rush to Cole, except that he tore his ACL in Week 14 against the Cowboys. Now, instead of improving on his rookie performance, he’ll likely still be rehabbing when the season starts. Andy Reid called it a “real stretch” to expect Graham back in time.

Juqua Parker — He had another solid season, but was exposed late in the year by quarterbacks as bad as Joe Webb (I was at that Vikings game, and I can’t get the image of Juqua getting consistently fooled out of my head). The truth is that if Graham hadn’t gotten hurt, Parker would probably be expendable this offseason. He’s already 33 years old. How much left is in the tank?

Darryl Tapp — The former Seahawk, acquired before last year’s draft for Chris Clemons, had a mediocre first season. He had almost as many pass rush opportunities as Parker, but caused significantly less pressure. At least he’s only 26.

Daniel Te’o-Nesheim — For a third round pick, Te’o-Nesheim had a remarkably unimpressive 2010. In fact, he barely got on the field — more than half of his season snaps came in the Week 17 reserves game. Hopefully Te’o-Nesheim can improve enough to contribute something, but he hasn’t shown anything yet.

Ricky Sapp — Not much to say other than he was on injured reserve all of last year. He’ll have to prove he’s back to full form to even have a shot at the roster, let alone get substantial playing time.

Victor Abiamiri — A weird quirk in the free agent rules means Abiamiri will be back after missing all of 2010 after microfracture surgery 16 months ago. I have no idea what to expect, since he’d never shown all that much before the injury.

Philip Hunt — 2011 will be Hunt’s first year in the NFL. After breaking the sacks record in college at Houston, he wasn’t drafted and ended up playing two seasons in the CFL. Last year Hunt led that league with 16 sacks and subsequently the Eagles signed him in January. Best case scenario he replicates Miami DE Cameron Wake’s similar journey, but that’s obviously a longshot.

The uncertainty surrounding each of these players is only compounded by the fact that new defensive line coach Jim Washburn is installing a completely new system that may play to different player strengths than the previous Eagles scheme. Trying to sort out the wheat from the chaff in this scenario seems impossible. I wouldn’t really be surprised to see any one of these guys start; nor would I be shocked if anyone outside of Graham was cut outright. Then of course there’s the possibility that free agency could bring new contenders into the mix.

Ultimately, if and when training camp ever starts, defensive end looks like the position to watch. For such an important spot, its outlook might be the most murky of any on the team.

Photo from Getty. Originally published at NBC Philadelphia.