Making Sense of the Matt Barkley Pick

There's been a lot of hand-wringing over the Matt Barkley pick and what it means for the Eagles, what it means for the other quarterbacks on the roster, and what it implies about Chip Kelly's offense. I've gone through all those same thoughts in my head over the last few days, trying to make sense of the whole thing.

My initial reaction was mostly shock. I had been operating under specific assumptions regarding Kelly's needs at quarterback -- based on his own actions -- and the Barkley selection didn't fit neatly into any of them. Tim McManus said it best:

Kelly has stated on numerous occasions that he is not married to a specific scheme and will cater to his players’ strengths. But a golden rule when reporting on a team is to watch what they do, not what they say. Up until this point, everything Kelly had done was pro-mobile quarterback. He made the decision to keep Michael Vick. Signed G.J. Kinne and Dennis Dixon. Released Trent Edwards. Nick Foles was on an island. And when word got out that the Kelly had already implemented the read-option, you wondered how Foles could compete and survive.

Eventually you get beyond that shock, though, and start to rationalize why Kelly would like Barkley. Maybe we were wrong about what he really wants for his NFL offense. Maybe he really values "repetitive accuracy" more than anything else. While Barkley was undoubtedly a value pick (the team passed over him 3 times), Kelly says the USC quarterback was in their top 50 players overall. This isn't the same as Mike Kafka being selected explicitly as a backup (also see: the Dennis Dixon signing). In fact, we have reason to believe that Barkley is more desirable to Kelly than either Michael Vick or Nick Foles -- both of whom he inherited.

This is where Chris Brown's interesting piece over at Grantland comes in. He posits that Kelly might not be trying to bring his Oregon offense to Philly, but rather import the New England Patriots offense:

In addition to drafting Barkley, among the major moves Kelly made was signing tight end James Casey in free agency and drafting Stanford tight end Zach Ertz, two movable chess pieces to go along with Philadelphia’s other multipurpose tight end, Brent Celek. These moves might be an indication that Kelly’s focus is shifting from the roster of speedy running backs and dual-threat quarterbacks he had at Oregon. Instead, Philadelphia may be looking to mesh the fleet-footed receivers already on its roster with a group of dynamic tight ends. As part of that group, Kelly is likely hoping Barkley can be an extremely accurate, intelligent, intangible-heavy quarterback who can efficiently operate his lightning-fast no huddle.

Brown's take is smart and logical. If Barkley does win the starting job, the offense would certainly cater more around his strengths and the read-option would be relegated to a side show. But the one thing that's tough for me to accept is that there was that much foresight in the selection of a fourth round player. To suggest that the Barkley pick -- which Kelly himself admits he didn't expect to make -- speaks some broader truth about the planned direction of the offense may be reading too much into it.  

This is where Kelly's own words come in. Check out what he said on WIP the other day:

Obviously if you can get a quarterback that has great size, is really smart, can run, and do all those things, then yeah, let's go get him. But you don't always get the ideal guy, where in every category he's a ten. You have to value some categories more than other categories. There have been some unbelievable athletes that have played quarterback both at the collegiate level and the NFL, that can throw the ball and run 4.5 and do all those other things. But really, for a quarterback you have to be a great decision-maker first and foremost. Now, if the fact that we can run -- I think of that as a bonus, not as a prerequisite. 

This is the most complete answer I've ever seen Kelly give about the quarterback position. He likes to throw around phrases like, "We'll start whichever QB can get us to the endzone." But here he is talking about his ideal quarterback -- big, smart, fast, good decision-maker. These are traits that most teams look for, but Kelly admits that it's tough to get all of them. There's an implicit assertion herein that Barkley is not the whole package, the way someone like EJ Manuel could have been.

Kelly talks about trade-offs, and I think that's a better way to look at the Barkley pick -- as well as his stance on quarterbacks in general. Neither Barkley nor Foles is his ideal starter, so any assumption (like Brown's) that rests on a plan to abandon the read-option is flawed. However, it's clear that Vick's poor decision-making and ball skills put him at a disadvantage as well. Kelly will evaluate the trade-offs with each player and make a choice based on that. If Vick's experience, athleticism, and arm strength trump the strengths of his non-mobile brethren, he'll start and the read-option will certainly be a part of the offense. Or it will go the other way.

Shifting your offense to match your quarterback's strength isn't some foreign concept. Andy Reid went through a bunch of dissimilar quarterbacks over the years: Donovan McNabb, AJ Feeley, Jeff Garcia, Kevin Kolb, Michael Vick, Nick Foles. He had a base system predicated on the West Coast offense, but play calling adapted based on who was taking the snaps. Kelly's offense will the be the same way. Doubtless he will start with spread concepts, translating Oregon ideas for use with playmakers like DeSean Jackson, LeSean McCoy, and Bryce Brown. His no-huddle offense (and its unique play-relay system) will be a major factor, especially coupled with versatile weapons that allow the Eagles to take what the opponent gives them. 

After those core strategies (a "specific scheme" I believe Kelly is married to), the rest is detail. Without (yet) an ideal all-purpose quarterback like Robert Griffin III or Andrew Luck, the offense must make trade-offs. An up-tempo spread can be effective with the read-option or without, with Barkley or Vick. The question isn't who fits best into some mythical version of Kelly's offense -- it's who is the best, period. And we won't know that until training camp.

Photo from Getty.

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.

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 Geno Smith Parade

The Eagles worked out the West Virginia QB earlier this week in Morgantown, and they brought owner Jeff Lurie with them. When asked if that means the Eagles are going to take a quarterback early in the draft, Chip Kelly demurred. From Tim McManus:

“You know, I don’t know,” said Kelly. “I know one thing about since I’ve been here is we’re going to look at anybody and everybody that can help us win football games. If it takes us getting on a plane to watch a guy go work out or bring someone in, they’re not going to be the last two guys that we go to see or bring in here to see. Just because it’s quarterbacks people get enamored with that.”

Smith is widely considered the best quarterback in the draft and the Eagles hold the No. 4 pick, so obviously it will get people’s attention when word gets out that the team brass hopped a flight to work him out. That is especially true when owner Jeffrey Lurie is along for the ride.

I'm torn on what this means for the Eagles' plans, but at the end of the day I come down on the side that they are actually less interested in Geno Smith than we might have thought. Sure, they sent a full contingent of coaches, scouts, and even Lurie down to watch him. Due diligence is important. But I think if he were really at the top of the team's list, they would have been more subtle.

Remember: last year the Eagles paraded Dontari Poe past reporters at NovaCare, then sent Jim Washburn down to Mississippi to work out Fletcher Cox in private.

Putting the Stopwatch on QB Release Times

Fantastic work by Jimmy Kempski (two links in two days). He timed every throw by Michael Vick and Nick Foles last year:

The Eagles have a very dynamic set of skill position players. When your QBs are holding the football for 2.87 seconds on average, you're essentially asking the QB to do a large portion of the work in your offense. That is not ideal when you have one aging QB that is in steep decline and another that was a rookie 3rd round pick. The quicker you can get the ball out of your QB's hands and into the hands of the guys who should be making plays, the better the offense will be.

Definitely check out his full breakdown. You can even tell when the Eagles decided it was time to change things up for Vick (as confirmed by All-22 tape).

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.