Should vs. Will: Pre-Draft Eagles Offense Breakdown

The draft finally arrives this week, which means it's time to take one final look at the Eagles roster and figure out where the team stands, what spots are in good shape, and what is in desperate need of a talent infusion. Today we'll take on the offense, noting what I think the Eagles should do at each position against what I think they will do.

Quarterback: Michael Vick, Nick Foles, Dennis Dixon, G.J. Kinne -- one of these things is not like the others. I mean, sure, "Everybody has two legs," but plenty of read-option in mini-camp reinforces what kind of player Chip Kelly is looking for. Foles is not in the long term plans. Unfortunately, none of the other guys look like they are either. Vick is a workable stopgap, but the other two players are no more than third-string system fits. The question is whether this draft gives the Eagles an opportunity to add that franchise quarterback. Consensus seems to be that Geno Smith isn't worth the fourth overall pick. EJ Manuel is really the only other athletic quarterback likely to be taken early -- and he comes with even higher risk.

QB Should: Don't over think it. Quarterback is the most important position and you need to take them early and often. Smith has all the NFL tools plus experience running a fast-paced offense. I would trade back a few slots and draft him. And if not Smith, than seriously consider getting Manuel at the top of the second round. QB Will: Nothing, maybe a late round pick. Start looking at the 2014 class.

Running Back: LeSean McCoy said the new offense is "like a freaking track meet," yet as of this moment there are only three running backs on the roster: McCoy, Bryce Brown, and Chris Polk. Assuming he has worked on his fumbling issues, Brown joins McCoy to make one of the most dynamic 1-2 backfields in the NFL. But who else will be taking the baton? Polk was a good player in college, but he had a shoulder injury and didn't play at all as a rookie -- although the team kept him on the roster all year. Can't expect anything from him at this point. The niche this group needs to fill is a smaller third-down back to slot in with McCoy's shifty stardom and Brown's raw, big-bodied talent. If Kelly's offense works out, there should be plenty of space for all three to run through.

RB Should: Early round running backs need to be players who can start, but I'm focused on later in the draft. Whether it's Kenjon Barner or Kerwynn Williams, a speedster with bonus kick return skills would be a perfect fit. RB Will: At least one late-round back plus another two UDFAs.

Wide Receiver: The Eagles currently have 12 receivers on the roster. Most of them aren't much more than camp bodies, but there are hard decisions to be made at the top. In the short term, I doubt Jason Avant is long with this team seeing as old, slow receivers wouldn't seem to be at the top of Kelly's wishlist. Jeremy Maclin, meanwhile, is entering his contract year. No one can deny his overall production over his first four seasons, and I'm always in favor of retaining young talent. That said, he's never developed into the star that many expected and probably isn't worth top free agent money. Outside of those two and DeSean Jackson, there's not much to go on. Riley Cooper and Arrelious Benn have flashed talent and it would be fabulous to see one of them step into the valued "big WR role" we've been waiting for.

WR Should: Trade "culture carrier" Avant to Andy Reid for some seventh round pick he doesn't want. Draft a WR in the fourth-fifth round with starting potential; without knowing exactly what Kelly's looking for, it's tough to pick out one or two. WR Will: Keep Avant at least through training camp, draft a late round receiver.

Tight End: On the surface, you don't need to tinker much with this spot. Brent Celek has been an above-average tight end for years and the team just signed James Casey to take on expanded, versatile role. Clay Harbor deserves some competition but otherwise they're in good shape. I wonder, though, what Kelly and Howie Roseman think about Celek long term. You don't sign Casey if you think the incumbent can already perform as well, and starting in 2014 Celek costs nothing to cut.

TE Should: Focus on more pressing needs and check back in a year. Add a high-risk, high-reward late round pick or UDFA to compete. TE Will: In a good class, draft a third-fourth round tight end with upside. Travis Kelce, anyone?

Offensive Line: I've called the offensive line the biggest question mark on the team. Ideally, Jason Peters, Todd Herremans, and Jason Kelce will return from injury, joining Evan Mathis as four-fifths of a great line. But that's no guarantee, and it doesn't start to answer any of the subsequent questions: what about right guard? what about depth? what about the future? The unit needs an infusion of talent to compete across all positions and the team did next to nothing to address that in free agency.

OL Should: Outside of my general admonishment to never pass on a QB, this is where I'd put my focus with the fourth overall pick. Eric Fisher looks like a perfect combination of need and value. Best case scenario he would start at right tackle immediately, pushing Herremans inside. I also wouldn't hesitate to pick up another linemen or two later on. OL Will: Draft Fisher. I'd peg this as the most likely outcome on Thursday.

Photo from Getty.

Geno Smith and Expected Draft Value

I hope everyone is reading Brent Cohen's work over at Eagles Rewind. He's playing with stats and coming to interesting conclusions, especially with his PVM (Positional Value Multiplier) prospect rankings that add a discerning adjustment to the standard draft preparation.

Brent's goal is to take the consensus draft prospect rankings and apply two main modes of adjustment. First is a risk factor that attempts to quantify how reliable different positions are. He shows that offensive tackles, for example, have a bust rate of only 26%, compared to 50% for quarterbacks and 66% for running backs. One can quibble with the metric (you might adjust for likelihood of Pro Bowl appearances instead of failure to start), but it's a good one to have. The second main adjustment is for positional value, i.e. how much one player is worth relative to another at a different position. Brent uses salary cap data to show a clear hierarchy, from centers and guards at the bottom to defensive ends and quarterbacks (far and away) at the top. Again, you can quibble with the exact numbers, but it's quite promising stuff.

The PVM rankings that emerge are interesting to look at. Certain players receive bumps -- especially quarterbacks. Others fall slightly, like guards and centers. The final result is not a radical departure from the original consensus, but that's not Brent's goal.

It is mine, though. I look at the numbers pulled, especially on salary cap figures, and it's obvious to me that there's a huge disparity in value between different positions. Brent's cap percentages are at right, and you can see that while the middle group is close, there are certain spots that vastly outweigh others. As I described above, the PVM rankings make an adjustment along these lines, but it doesn't come close to matching the discrepancies in value. In expected value terms, if you have two similarly-talented prospects -- one a center and one a defensive end, you should take the defensive end every time. In fact, if you take it literally, the center would have to be three times as good of a prospect as the end to warrant consideration.

Maybe this is too extreme of an adjustment for your tastes. If you want something closer to the consensus prospect values, Brent's PVM should serve you well. But I think this more accurately represents the reality on the ground. Chance Warmack may become a Pro Bowl guard -- many scouts rate him as the best player in the draft. But there's a strong case to be made, based on this data, that he would have to be 1.5 times better than the next best cornerback, 1.8 times better than the next best defensive end, or 2.7 times (!!!) better than the next best quarterback.

Plenty of caveats apply here, including the risk factor that I mentioned above. And you may either disagree with the salary cap distinctions entirely or have a more refined model based on it. I also haven't run my own projections for using this data to provide an updated draft list.

But if you look at the draft through this qualitative lens, it's easy to make an affirmative case for a quarterback, even Geno Smith. At this point I don't expect the Eagles to draft him. Most scouts consider Smith the best quarterback prospect, but also suggest that he wouldn't be so in previous years. Average rankings seem to consider him about 20th overall. That doesn't seem like the type of player you want to use your top five pick on.

However, I've said before that you always take the quarterback if you think he's your guy and the data backs that up. A good starting quarterback is worth nearly 50% more than the next most valuable position, according to salary cap numbers (and one might argue that's understating it). It's importance towers over other concerns. That means that even if Smith has a worse chance than average to become a good starter, his expected value from that smaller probability is still high -- likely higher than many players who will be drafted ahead of him. Smith may not be the safe pick, but if the goal is to maximize value, he may be the right one.

Photo from Getty.

Pass Rushers Here, There, and Everywhere

In Chip Kelly's second press conference in Philadelphia, he told us that he liked the 3-4 defense best, but that scheme flexibility was of the major reasons he hired defensive coordinator Billy Davis:

What we're going to do is put our guys in the best position for them to make plays. I don't know if that's being a 3-4 team, a 4-3 team, a 5-2, a 6-1 team. I know we could add up at the numbers to see where we are. We're also not caught up in that. It's about making sure we play sound defense on first, second and third down. We could look drastically different on first and second downs than third downs. And that's going to be entirely personnel-driven for us. Could it be a 4-3 under defense? Yeah, or it could be a 3-4 under defense.

Since saying that, Kelly and Howie Roseman have added new pieces to the mix. Isaac Sopoaga can immediately step in at nose tackle. Connor Barwin is a starting outside linebacker. These are important steps in the direction of a 3-4, or a 4-3 under defense (as discussed previously). But which is it? Does it matter? What's the direction to take this year, even if it's only a stopgap measure? The key to answering those questions is in the sudden surplus of pass rushers the Eagles seem to have between Barwin, Trent Cole, and Brandon Graham. Here are their numbers from Pro Football Focus, including the last two years for Barwin:

Before we get into ramifications for the defense, let's discuss each player in turn. Graham wasn't a full time starter last season, although only Andy Reid knows why. When he was on the field he was an absolute beast in every phase. Graham put up the highest Pass Rush Productivity mark of any defensive end in the league. He was also a top run defender -- ranking third out of the top 37 qualifying players in tackle and stop percentage.

Cole's performance was mixed in 2012. Despite being slightly undersized, he has always been solid against the run. That seems to have held up in his age 30 season. His run defense percentages were nearly as good as Graham's. But Cole definitely suffered a decline in his pass rush. From 2009-2011, he ranked seventh, third, and first respectively in PRP. This year he dropped to 18th. That still put him in the top half of 4-3 defensive ends, but only barely.

Finally we get to the newcomer Barwin. Truthfully, his numbers aren't pretty. As a 3-4 OLB, he was classified differently than Cole or Graham, but he didn't impress compared to his peers. Even during his 11 sack season in 2011, he was only middle of the road in total PRP, suggesting that the sacks may have been a lucky break despite less actual pressure. Barwin was also a subpar run stopper.

So can all three coexist at outside linebacker in a standard 3-4? That's going to be tough. Based on these stats, Graham needs to be on the field at all times, no matter what the role. Barwin wasn't signed to be a backup, either. He needs to be slotted in as pass rushing OLB. Where does that leave Cole? In a world where his contract wasn't so large, it probably leads to his trade. But if he's staying, it's silly to see him backing up a (worse) player like Barwin. And Cole's potentially-declining pass rush doesn't lend itself to a specialist role either.

What if the answer is relatively simple -- Cole goes back to playing more or less his old position of defensive end, but in the new 4-3 under scheme? He's no prototypical 5-technique defensive end, but Cole works there if you think more about the player and less about a rigid scheme. First, he's still great against the run, which is that player's primary job. Second, it allows him to keep his hand on the ground, rather than convert to a stand-up linebacker in his ninth season. Third, it keeps the team's best personnel in the game, and actually aids scheme flexibility. (Tinfoil theory: if Vinny Curry is bulking up to compete at DE rather than slimming down for OLB, that could be hinting at this move.)

As you can see from the numbers above, both Barwin and Cole played the vast majority of their snaps on the right side. Set them up on that side again, with Cole as the DE and Barwin as SAM. Across the formation, Sopoaga is the nose tackle on run downs, with Fletcher Cox is the penetrating 3-technique defensive tackle. Graham, hopefully your star, mans the "Predator" DE/OLB spot on the left -- where he lined up all of last year.

Because offensive alignments will shift, the defense won't necessarily have clear strongside-weakside assignments, but it will have flexible pass rushing duos. Graham + Cox and Cole + Barwin are dangerous pairings for an offense to handle. Whether Graham or Barwin are standing up or putting their hands on the ground doesn't really matter, they should both get one-on-one matchups on the outside when rushing the passer.

If Kelly was telling the truth about crafting the defense to fit his players, this is the direction he should head. Rather than forcing Cole to convert positions and sit on the bench, keep him where he's comfortable. In a year or two, after you've groomed young backups, you can revisit whether you need to replace Cole with a more traditional 3-4 end. Until then, live those "personnel-driven" words you preach.

Photo from Getty.

Chip Stew: What Kelly Needs In The NFL

The latest edition of Chip Stew brings a discussion of the spread offense in the NFL, from ESPN's Ivan Maisel:

"It would take an organizational commitment," [Stanford Coach David] Shaw said. "Everybody from top to bottom, the GM, the owner, the personnel people, need to be on a mission to give that offense what it needs. You can't waver from it. Everybody needs to be on the same page. It can't be, 'Well, let's bring this receiver in.' If he doesn't fit their offense, they can't bring him in. It's so different than [what] most people are used to."

Between free agency and the upcoming draft, this is an important point to keep in mind. The question isn't always "Who is best?" as much as "Who fits best?"

The Rise and Fall of the Andy Reid Era

I know we've all moved on to the wonderful potential of the Chip Kelly era, but I wanted to take a moment to look back at the era that was, the 14 years of longstanding success and, ultimately, failure under Andy Reid.

Building on work I started in 2011, and inspired by previous work by Derek Sarley, I put together a few graphs that I hope will illustrate one aspect of the Reid era's rise and fall -- as well as the core precepts of team building that the new regime needs to learn from. Below is a graph showing the Eagles starters each year, colored by years experience with the team. For example, the yellow demarcates starters for whom this is their first season in Philadelphia -- both rookies stepping right into impact roles and free agents signed off the street. Check it out:

Hopefully the graph looks less like a jumble of colors and more like a series of patterns that you can follow. Look, for example, at those first year starters. It spiked in Reid's first season, when he drastically remade the roster. However, it fell off quickly and stayed low -- until the great free agent binge of 2011. Another piece to look at is the top of the graph. Green demarcates the culture-carriers, the players who have been with the team for eight or more seasons. Check out how after Reid took over, he eliminated any players with that distinction, only to have the group slowly reappear and grow from 2003 to 2008.

Here's another, simpler version of the graph, in which I grouped some of the levels together:

You can see the broader trends easier when you break it down into just three categories. In Reid's first two seasons, he culled the longstanding veterans and added a bunch of new players -- rookies like Donovan McNabb and free agents like Jon Runyan. But during the celebrated run of four NFC Championship games, Reid maximized stability and growth and minimized turnover. You can also see clearly the mini-rebuild he embarked upon following the disastrous 2005 campaign. However, you'll note that while first and second-year starters spiked, the number of starters who'd been in Philly for seven years or more stayed flat. Reid had kept longstanding veterans like McNabb, Runyan, Brian Westbrook, Brian Dawkins, and Tra Thomas while rebooting with youngsters like Todd Herremans, Mike Patterson, Trent Cole, Jamaal Jackson, and Sean Considine.

What's fascinating is the third wave, another rebuild that started in 2010 but never really ended. Before the 2010 season, the Eagles had moved on from stalwarts like McNabb, Dawkins, Westbrook, Runyan, and Thomas. The problem is that as they eliminated those players, the replacements never came into their own. Some young players stepped in, like DeSean Jackson and LeSean McCoy. But guys like Nate Allen and Danny Watkins fizzled. Free agents were brought in by the boatload in 2011 to shore that up, but they caused more problems than they solved. In Reid's last two years, half of the starters were basically new to the team -- more than double the amount during the 2001-2004 run.

Here's another related graph, showing the number of starters in each year who have either been with the team for two years prior or were actually starters for two years prior:

The same pattern emerges. From 2002-2004 the team had 11 or more returning starters, and 15 or more starters who had been with the team for a few years. For example, in 2003 Jermane Mayberry missed most of the year due to injury. Bobbie Williams, in his third year with the team, stepped up to replace him. In 2004 Lito Sheppard and Sheldon Brown took over full time from Bobby Taylor and Troy Vincent. The new pair were relatively inexperienced, but it wasn't their first year on the job either. That makes a big difference. Compare that to 2011. The squad had three rookie starters, three sophomore starters, and four new free agent starters. That kind of discontinuity was a recipe for failure.

The lesson Kelly and company need to learn from the Reid era is that you can't build a Super Bowl team in a year. You have a lot of turnover when a new coach arrives, but the front office has to quickly shape the roster and find a core of young players who can grow together. By the time you're ready to compete, 2-3 years later, the team should be stable. And if you're going to rebuild, half-measures and plug-and-play starters won't do. There are no shortcuts to success.

Photo from Getty.

Confident Comeback

Jason Peters talked to the media yesterday for the first time since his season-ending injury last year. Sheil Kapadia brings us the money quotes:

Asked what kind of difference he could have made, Peters said, “A big difference. I’m a starter. I’m the number one offensive lineman in the league. So me being out there carries everybody else and makes them play their best. It was a big part, me not being out there, so I’m back now.”

“I’m going to do what I’ve been doing,” Peters said. “Any time I get an offensive line coach, I don’t forget what I learned from the last one. I just take what he gives me and add it on to my game. So it’s not that I’m going to throw away Howard Mudd’s stuff. I’m just going to add on what Coach Stoutland’s going to give me."

“Any player will tell you… you wouldn’t see Tom Brady change his game if he got a new coach. He’s going to be Tom Brady. So same thing I’m going to bring to the table this year. I’m going to play hard. Whatever scheme they give me, I’m going to do it 100 miles an hour.”

I've talked (briefly) with Peters in the locker room and listened to/read a number of quotes from him over the last few years. He's never been the most expressive player, but right now he appears enthusiastic, confident, and motivated. Hopefully this is a positive sign.

No Quarterback, No Problem?

Jeff McLane writes:

There may be plenty of reasons the Eagles won't draft Geno Smith with the No. 4 overall pick. But Chip Kelly's belief that his offense can thrive without a franchise quarterback suggests that a team with many needs will pass on the West Virginia prospect... Kelly stated two weeks ago at the NFL owners meetings that his system doesn't require a Tom Brady-like quarterback "because we didn't have a traditional marquee quarterback at Oregon."

I wouldn't necessarily take those words at face value, especially when Kelly also described quarterback as "the key position" in the NFL. Still, this highlights one of the biggest doubts I have about transporting Kelly's offense to the pros. I've discussed this before -- just because he had a 65 percent run-to-pass ratio at Oregon doesn't mean he can slot in any quarterback at this level. The best teams have the best quarterbacks, and I'm skeptical of any suggestion that Kelly can do without one long term.

The Biggest Question Mark

The Eagles have now made a number of free agent moves, almost all on the defensive side of the ball. Given that unit's poor play, such focus wasn't unexpected. The team needed at least four new defensive backs and some 3-4 building blocks. But I'm puzzled as to the front office's seaming lack of worry about one offensive position -- and it isn't quarterback.

Whither the offensive line? This is an area that so far at least has been totally ignored in free agency, despite a multitude of questions. I understand there's a lot of optimism surrounding the o-line, as everyone comes back from injuries. Football Outsiders tracks injuries with their Adjusted Games Lost metric:

Not that Eagles fans need another reason for self-loathing, but congratulations, your team had the highest offensive line AGL on record and the largest-ever increase in offensive line AGL. In 2011, only Jason Peters had an AGL above 1.0. In 2012, there were five: Peters (16.0), Jason Kelce (14.0), Todd Herremans (8.0), King Dunlap (2.0), and Danny Watkins (2.0). I don't think it's a stretch to muse that the offensive line injuries played a role in producing the third-worst quarterback AGL this year as well.

That kind of historic injury collapse is unlikely to happen again, so there's a lot of potential for a rebound season. But that conveniently avoids the underlying fact that the team has three starters returning from season-ending injuries -- including Peters coming back from a wicked ruptured Achilles tendon. We don't know if any of these players, especially Peters, will be the same players they once were.

Moreover, even putting aside the injuries themselves, we're looking at an increasingly aging line. The four presumed starters -- Peters, Mathis, Kelce, Herremans -- have an average age of 30. Teams can do well despite older offensive lines (Jimmy Kempski has tracked average age the last two seasons and coincidentally both times the oldest line has worked for the Super Bowl winner). But that doesn't mean it's a good idea overall to trust aging players during a rebuilding process. Are we sure that Peters and Herremans and Mathis are solid options for the next 2-3 years?

There are also major questions about performance. Danny Watkins is still around, for now. He's likely an unsalvageable bust at guard but there's no obvious replacement on the roster. Herremans had a subpar year in 2012 at right tackle. Is he capable of manning that spot long term, or does the team need to kick him back inside as an expensive guard? If so, they'll need a new offensive tackle, which is even harder to find than a new interior lineman.

And all of the above is just about the starting spots. As we saw last year, it's vital to have depth that you can count on. Right now, with the possible exception of Dennis Kelly, there's not a lot to like about any of the backups.

Howie Roseman and Chip Kelly have talked about filling holes now so that they are free to take the best player available in the draft. That's a good strategy, but they seem to have completely ignored this one glaring need. There were three intriguing right tackles on the open market, including Jake Long, who has already signed. Could Andre Smith or Sebastian Vollmer be on the docket next? Both have serious question marks, but a young, talented tackle would do so much to shore up this position.

There may be top linemen available with the Eagles' first pick, but you can't count on that -- and you also don't want to prevent yourself from going after a different player that you like better. Unless they make a late move here though, that's looking like the path the team is headed down.

Photo from Getty.