Chip Kelly Wants a Running Quarterback, and We Should Too

This whole quarterback debate has gotten all gummed up with false narratives. There are a lot of people out there, especially Nick Foles fans, who cling to Chip Kelly's words about how he doesn't need a running quarterback, and that he can adapt his offense to whatever personnel he has at his disposal. Here's Kelly on that topic at his first Eagles press conference:

There’s perception and then there’s reality. The perception is we run our quarterback all the time and this is what we do. The reality is that’s not the case. One of the best qualities in a quarterback is durability and a lot of that has to do with play calling. Our quarterback is not going to get the direct snap like Dick Kazmaier did at Princeton in the single wing and have him run it 25 times, I can tell you that... That’s not the determining factor for me and I’m not married to whether we have to do this. I’m an equal opportunity scorer, and we’ll score any way we can. It’s all based on what our personnel is. I’m not married to try to take a quarterback who can’t run and make him run, and a quarterback who can’t throw and make him throw. It’s putting your players in the best position you can to be successful, and how you can score points.

That's what we wanted Kelly to say, and he lived up to expectations. You never want your offensive-minded head coach to be unable to work with players who don't fit into his perfect mold. That's a recipe for disaster. Kelly can build an offense around a more stationary quarterback. In Darron Thomas's last season at Oregon, he only ran the ball 4.3 times per game. Before that, Kelly designed a pass-first offense at New Hampshire to best utilize Ricky Santos. If he had Tom Brady or Peyton Manning on his team, I'm sure he could create a more than competent playbook around their skill set.

But there's a difference between what Kelly can do and what he wants to do. He had inordinate success at Oregon running a spread option attack that, at its best, utilizes quarterback runs (and threats to run). The NFL last year was a proving ground for those ideas, where zone read and option concepts worked at the highest level for playoff teams like the Redskins, Seahawks, and 49ers. If Kelly is going to build the best offense he can, why wouldn't he pursue a similar path, one that he has already won with? Why would he shackle himself to a quarterback like (the still unproven) Foles, who would instantly take away an entire dimension of the offense?

Fans can cling to his comments if they want, but Kelly's actions speak louder. Re-signing Michael Vick isn't my favorite piece of news. And the rumored imminent signing of Dennis Dixon won't solve any quarterback problems. But both moves suggest that Kelly isn't content with going forward with Foles, as much as he may like him as a person and a (limited) player. He needs to install his own offense with players who can run it. Neither eliminating quarterback runs from the playbook, nor installing a completely different package for the backup is an attractive option. To that end, I think there's a good chance the Eagles will trade Nick Foles this offseason -- or at least they should seriously consider it.

Foles is cheap and has some upside potential. He showed flashes at the end of last season that may or may not indicate he has a future as a starter in the NFL. That's not an insignificant asset. But if the Andy Reid era taught us anything, it's that selling high on quarterbacks can be a winning strategy. If Foles isn't in the plans for Kelly's offense -- and there's little reason to think he is, barring an offseason jump to "elite" QB status -- now is the time to get some value in return that can help the team. Stop clinging to Foles and start looking at potential draft picks in 2013 and 2014 who actually fit the system.

It's great that Kelly can adapt his offense to the personnel. But to do so in the extreme is foolhardy. Don't take away one of Kelly's best attributes, especially in a league that's already trending in that direction. If a running quarterback can help make the offense more explosive, we should all be in favor of that. End of story.

Photo from Getty.

Vick Re-Works Deal to Compete for Starting Job

The Eagles announced Monday that they've re-signed Michael Vick to what amounts to a one-year deal. Reports suggest he can make up to $10 million, although that likely includes some questionable performance bonuses. Quick thoughts on the news:

Even the Eagles' website says Vick is only going to "compete" for the job. This is not any indication that he will be starting week one.
That said, I don't think Chip Kelly bothers keeping Vick unless he is seriously considering him as a bridge candidate to get the Eagles to their QBOTF. Moreover, it indicates that -- despite Kelly's pleading to the contrary -- he does want a mobile quarterback running his offense, even if that player is 33 years old.
Nick Foles is on the trading block. If Kelly thought the immobile Foles was a great candidate for the job, he wouldn't have re-signed Vick. And if Foles isn't in the long or short term plans, it's time to see what you can get for him on the open market. The Andy Reid era taught us that it's profitable to sell high on quarterbacks. With a weak draft class this year, maybe Foles pulls you a late second or early third round pick.
Nothing about this move should make anyone mad. If Vick is less expensive, it's much easier to keep him around. That said, there's greater downside with Vick than other candidates. At best he plays well, stealing time from your draft pick and winning games that don't mean anything. And if he doesn't play well or gets benched for a younger guy? Vick has never been happy as a backup.
There must not have been much interest for Vick in the rest of the NFL, or his agent never would have let him take a pay cut.

Projecting the Billy Davis Defense

It's easy to make snap judgments about assistant coach hires and their past record on other teams. New Eagles defensive coordinator Billy Davis certainly doesn't have a sparkling resume as a coordinator on paper. But he has tons of experience in 3-4 schemes, and recently has employed more of the hybrid look that many fans were clamoring for when Gus Bradley was in town.

In Arizona, where Davis was linebackers coach for two seasons and defensive coordinator for another two, his preferred scheme was the "4-3 Under". The name is deceptive, because it's not a classic 4-3 look like we're used to seeing from the Eagles. It borrows elements from both the 3-4 and 4-3, and depending on the formation, can lineup looking like either. You can (and should) read about it directly from Davis' mouth here and here. But let me show you, to the best of my ability. Here's what the base 4-3 Under defense looks like:

Let's start up front and work our way back. If you focus on the two defensive linemen DE-NT on the strongside (left) of the formation, the look is similar to a lot of 3-4 schemes. The nose tackle should be a big run stuffer who ideally can occupy two blockers. He'll often come off the field in passing situations. On the strongside, there's a defensive end whose primary job is similar to the all-around 3-4 defensive end: get some pressure, but mainly stuff the run.

Coming to the weakside (right), you look more for pass rushers. Because the nose tackle will be occupying two linemen in the middle, both your defensive tackle and end should have mostly one-on-one matchups. This is where you want to get a lot of pressure. That defensive end, known as the "Predator" in Davis' scheme, is going to rush nearly every play, so he doesn't have to be as versatile as your typical 3-4 outside linebacker. However, he looks like that 3-4 player at times because he can move around, rush from a standing position, and occasionally drop into a zone.

Moving to the linebackers, let's start with the strongside (SLB). Last year in the Eagles' more typical 4-3 scheme, the strongside backer was mostly a coverage guy who handled the tight end. In this defense he's much more of the classic 3-4 OLB. He's going to stand up at the line and engage the tight end, but he'll often pass rush instead of dropping back into coverage. With a player like this, you're adding some of the great unpredictability of a 3-4 defense.

The middle linebacker in this scheme has to be someone willing to go up against offensive linemen. As you can see in the diagram, unless the nose tackle holds a double team, the MLB is heads-up against a guard. A slightly bigger "thumper" is necessary here. In contrast, the weakside linebacker is free to roam. Because he lines up behind three defensive linemen, he shouldn't have big blockers coming at him. While the MLB engages in the trenches, this faster player should be flying through the chaos to make the tackle.

The scheme is a nice change from the Wide Nine, not because that scheme was fundamentally unsound, but because the 4-3 Under is more flexible and unpredictable. Rather than rushing the same four linemen in the same way every down, you have a 3-4 OLB on the strongside who can cause havoc. You've also set up two of your presumably better pass rushers with great routes to the QB, while still shoring up the run game. On early downs you have a big bodied player clogging up the middle, and on pass plays you can take him out and focus on creative stunts and blitzes.

Importing Davis' ideas also looks good because, at least on paper, it seems perfect for a number of the defenders we want to keep. Fletcher Cox is a great attacking DT. Getting him one-on-one matchups on the weakside should be fantastic for generating inside pressure. The "Predator" DE looks like a great opportunity for older Trent Cole and/or emerging Brandon Graham to pin their ears back. DeMeco Ryans, at 6'1" and 247 lbs, should be able to admirably fill the MLB role, while speedy Mychal Kendricks slips right into the play-making WLB spot.

There are still personnel issues to sort out. Only the disappointing Antonio Dixon has the body type of the prototypical NT, although Mike Patterson has lots of run-stuffing experience. Cedric Thornton showed some promise at defensive tackle last year, but might not be a big enough presence to take on the 3-4 DE role on the strongside. Cullen Jenkins has played that role before, but at 32 he may not make it through cuts. Most importantly, the Eagles definitely don't have a promising candidate to play the strongside linebacker. Here's one description of that player:

The number one reason why more teams don't run a 4-3 Under is the difficulty in finding a player good enough to play the SAM. He needs to be big, strong, fast, and able to cover or rush the passer at any given time. He lines up on the outside edge of the TE at all times, and harasses him off the line, never allowing a free release, staying underneath on routes because you have your safety over the top. He also gets one-on-one matchups on the outside to pass rush.

It's worth noting that there will be a number of potential stud 3-4 OLB-types available at the fourth overall pick. That could be something to watch for as we get closer to the draft.

Want to read more? Check out these links for longer discussion: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Photo from Getty.

Billy Davis in as New Defensive Coordinator

Geoff Mosher broke the news that Billy Davis will be the Eagles new defensive coordinator. The former Browns linebackers coach has been with eight different NFL teams, and has coached under 3-4 luminaries like Dom Capers, Dick LeBeau, Vic Fangio, Wade Phillips, and Mike Nolan. Davis's two previous stints as coordinator -- in San Francisco and Arizona -- didn't go so well, but don't necessarily count him out in Philly. At the very least, he has the experience to chop up the Eagles' long-running 4-3 scheme and put it back together with new pieces.

Where Does Alex Henery Rank Among NFL Kickers?

On paper, Alex Henery had a great 2012 campaign. The Eagles sophomore kicker made 27 of 31 field goal attempts, including a franchise-record 22 in a row. He has been a consistently accurate kicker since the Eagles drafted him in the fourth round in 2011.

Still, Henery has not yet moved from "reliable" to "weapon," the way David Akers once was. He may be headed in the right direction though. In 2011, he attempted only four field goals from 40-49 yards out, and only two beyond that. He made five of those six attempts, but didn't exhibit a big leg. In fact, he struggled to hit long field goals in warm-ups, and Andy Reid shied away from kicking field goals of 50 yards or more.

Last year was a good year for Henery, and he quieted some of the doubters. In addition to his perfect 22-kick string, he connected on 11 of 12 attempts from 40 to 49 yards out. That was huge. Still, his longest make was only 49 yards. Henery's only attempt from beyond that was a 58-yard miss. That makes judging his performance tricky.

In order to do so, let's back up and look at the entire league. I pulled every field goal attempt from the raw play by play data (including those negated by penalty, if I could, but removing blocks) and plotted field goal percentage in 5 yard buckets. Here's what it looks like:

Keep in mind that at the top end (above 55 yards), there were only 24 total kicks, so the sample size is limited there. But overall this is the state of field goals in today's NFL. Any kick up to 35 yards should have a greater than 90% chance of success. Even up to 50 yards out, NFL kickers are averaging over 75% accuracy. And they're still more likely to make a kick than miss it up to 55 yards distance. That's mind blowing.

The frustrating thing about field goal stats is that folks rarely look beyond the overall percentage or a particularly high-profile miss. I tried to do that with the table below, where I plotted every field goal against the "expected" likelihood that it would be made, based on the distance buckets above. The difference between the points they accumulated (or would have, + penalties - blocks) and the expected points shows us how valuable each kicker was in 2012:

The numbers aren't too surprising. Blair Walsh, rookie kicker for the Vikings, came in at number one, scoring 13.4 points more than the "average kicker" would have. He only missed three field goals all year, but more importantly, he made 10 of 10 kicks from beyond 50 yards. That's incredible (even if he was playing in a dome). At the other end of the spectrum is Mason Crosby of the Packers and our old friend David Akers. The former Eagles kicker connected on only 9 of 19 kicks further than 40 yards. It remains to be seen whether that was simply bad luck or a sign that retirement may be coming up for Akers.

As for Henery, he ranked 12th. His field goal percentage was slightly higher than what was expected, and it gave him a 2.5 point lead over the average. That's certainly good, but it's not — to steal a phrase from Joe Flacco — elite. Perhaps Henery just didn't have enough opportunities for long kicks, but it would be hard to blame Eagles fans who would rather the team have spent a 6th round pick on Walsh than a 4th round pick on Henery. Hopefully he can continue to improve and justify that investment in 2013 and beyond.

Photo from Getty.

Chip Stew: The Future of the NFL is More Up-Tempo No-huddle

There are plenty of questions about which pieces of Chip Kelly's offense can be imported from the college game to the NFL. But one thing everyone seems to agree on is that the no-huddle offense is here to stay, and that has been a major part of Kelly's success at Oregon. Here's Chris Brown at Smart Football:

It’s only a slight exaggeration to say that huddling is an archaism destined for the dustbin. I say it’s a slight exaggeration because there is a value to huddling, primarily when you have a great leader at quarterback as a huddle is an opportunity for him to show his leadership skills. But otherwise, it’s inherently inferior to going no-huddle. It’s slower, which is a problem both in games but also in practice where your offense gets fewer reps, and, maybe most importantly, the safety net of a huddle leads coaches to transform plays that can be communicated in just one or two words into multi-syllabic monstrosities. That’s the sad secret of those long NFL playcalls: They convey no more information than can be conveyed with one or two words or with a combination of hand-signals.

Chip Stew: As Likely to be the Next Great Coach as Anyone Else

Back in November, when Chip Kelly-to-the-NFL talk was only rumor, Chase Stuart disputed the notion that Kelly was likely to be the next Steve Spurrier. I know most Eagles fans have moved past this line of argument, but the broader context Stuart brings to the disucssion is still worthwhile:

But the bigger question isn’t ‘whether or not Kelly will fail’ because ultimately most coaches do. Rex Ryan was the toast of the town two years ago, reaching the AFC Championship Game in each of his first two seasons, and now seems on his way out the door. Tom Coughlin may be the single best coach in professional football, and Giants fans have wanted him fired for long stretches of his career. After awhile, every coach becomes a failure. Andy Reid is learning that lesson quite painfully in 2012...

Few elements of football are more art than science than the hiring of a head coach. The options always come with bright red flags. College coaches aren’t even in the same league as NFL coaches, young coordinators have never shown the ability to lead, and retreads have already proven that they can fail. The skills needed to make a person a great position coach or a great coordinator often have little overlap with what is needed of a head coach. And while it’s true that the skills needed to make a great college coach a great NFL coach are different as well, criticism of Kelly as ‘just a college coach’ is short-sighted. You can’t pluck the next Bill Walsh off of Craigslist. Kelly is smart, creative, and a proven winner. He can bring a level of clarity to an otherwise dysfunctional organization. To me, he’s the most attractive option out there for the half-dozen or so teams that will need a new coach in 2013.

Long Road Ahead

The Super Bowl takes place this weekend, and the Eagles will not be participating. Breaking news, everyone.

But in all seriousness, this is the height of the sport, and the Eagles are far, far away from getting back there. Let's just take a moment to realize how far. Look at the 49ers roster and try to think of players on the Eagles who could start for the NFC Champs. It's a short list.

On offense, San Francisco has two quarterbacks who are better than anyone on the Eagles roster. They have an athletic freak of a tight end, and two Pro Bowlers on their mauling offensive line. 2011 Jason Peters could play for them, but not sure you take the 2013 version over Joe Staley. Evan Mathis, the Eagles' best offensive lineman in 2012, is probably a notch below former first round pick Mike Iupati. I would take LeSean McCoy over Frank Gore, certainly. And DeSean Jackson beats old Randy Moss. But that's all.

Moving to the defensive side brings an even worse comparison. The 49ers have two of the best linebackers in the NFL, Patrick Willis and Navarro Bowman. They also have two Pro Bowl pass rushers, Justin Smith and Aldon Smith, and both Pro Bowl safeties, Donte Whitner and Dashon Goldson. I love Fletcher Cox and maybe he can sneak in on the defensive line if we're being generous, but that's all.

That's three players -- make it four with Alex Henery over the dearly departed David Akers. You'll get the same results if you compare the Eagles to other championship teams, even the 2004 squad that made it to the Super Bowl. You wouldn't be able to sneak many 2013 Eagles on to that roster.

All of which is to say: this isn't a quick-fix job, it's a long-term rebuilding process. Set your expectations accordingly.

Photo from Getty.