Together At The Close

On Sunday, Andy Reid will go out and coach his last game with the Eagles. His 243rd game as head coach in Philadelphia, 14 seasons of ups and downs. And I'm so glad that Michael Vick will be quarterbacking that final game.

I know it doesn't really matter. Getting another chance to see Nick Foles is probably a better use of our time. But Vick's story will always be so closely tied to Reid for me. Sure, Donovan McNabb was the long-running franchise icon who Reid groomed and partnered with for the best years. And Kevin Kolb was supposed to be second in line after that. But Vick disrupted that natural progression — leading to one of the highest points in Reid's tenure and, ironically, his lowest.

If there was one thing you could say about Reid (beside fat jokes and run-pass ratio gripes), it was that the coach was a quarterback whisperer. McNabb and Kolb both crumpled after they departed Philly. Guys like AJ Feeley and Jeff Garcia had no business being successful, but Reid made them so. Yet nothing cemented Reid's reputation more than salvaging Vick's career.

Truthfully, I think even Reid believed Vick was beyond saving. He did provide refuge after Vick spent two years in jail. But it always seemed like an investment more than a true rebuilding project. With the backing of Tony Dungy and Roger Goodell, Reid saw a beaten down player with immense talent who he could buy cheaply and sell later on, while being a fun toy to play with in the meantime. He never intended to start Vick. The 2010 offseason was filled with nearly as many Vick trade rumors as there were for McNabb.

If not for a twist of fate (or Kolb's neck), Vick never would have started in Philadelphia. But not only did he start, he experienced a resurrection. Vick was always a dynamic fan-favorite, but suddenly he was commanding one of the most explosive offenses in the NFL. The player  who had never been a complete player was running, passing, and executing Reid's offense better than McNabb ever did. That 2010 team didn't win a playoff game, but there were eternal memories nonetheless. Remember the opening play bomb to DeSean Jackson that kicked off a 59-point score against the Redskins? Remember the Miracle at the New Meadowlands? 

Although we didn't know it at the time, these victories were the last hurrah for both Reid and Vick in Philadelphia. The last two years devolved as both Reid and Vick fell from their lofty 2010 peak. What had seemed to be the master stroke of Reid's career turned out to be a fleeting mirage of success. He made terrible coaching and personnel decisions. Vick couldn't replicate the efficiency he had demonstrated for the first time at age 30.

With the end of their careers in Philly inexorably entwined, it is fitting that Vick and Reid should go out together. And while I still hope for the best draft pick losing can buy, it will be hard for me not to root for them on the way out. 

Photo from Getty.

A Reason for Optimism on the Young Linebackers

Since the Football Outsiders Almanac was released, I haven’t had a chance to really delve into some of its more interesting conclusions.  The first of these gives me, the down-on-our-linebackers poster boy, a reason for optimism.

That reason: the Eagles linebackers were much worse in 2010 than I realized. 

First of all, the linebackers took a huge step back in coverage. In 2009, when stalwarts Chris Gocong, Akeem Jordan, and a resurrected Jeremiah Trotter all received extensive playing time, the Eagles were ninth in the league covering tight ends and a middling 16th covering running backs out of the backfield. Last year, those dropped to 19th and 31st, respectively. 

If you remember, coverage was supposed to be a strength of the 2010 group. Stewart Bradley and Ernie Sims were expected to be every down backers. Yet Bradley was still a step slow from injury and Sims from general bone-headedness.

Their run-stuffing skills also suffered. In 2009, the Eagles ranked sixth in the NFL in defensive second level rushing yards, those five to ten yards after the line of scrimmage that the linebackers should generally be responsible for. Last season, that rank dropped to 23rd.

So the linebackers were bad. Why does this give me hope? Because I went into this offseason thinking that the linebackers weren’t a big problem. The Eagles coaches, supported by Football Outsiders, realized that wasn’t true. The linebackers were bad and needed to be majorly shaken up. While I wanted the team to bring back Bradley, it seems clear now that he probably wasn’t worth the money. And, obviously, good riddance to Sims.

Maybe optimism is the wrong word. We still don’t know if this group of youngsters will be any better than last year’s stiffs. But at least now I at least understand and support the Eagles rationale for making a change.

Photo from Getty.

What to Do With Joselio Hanson?

Last year during training camp, I talked about how Joselio Hanson could be on the chopping block. That didn’t come to pass and Hanson had a pretty good year overall. He didn’t have gaudy stats, but his solid play was a welcome respite as the rest of the cornerbacks not named Asante Samuel looked like turnstiles on gameday.

Yet here we are again, debating Hanson’s merits because of a bigger lockjam at cornerback than last year. With the additions of Nnamdi Asomugha and Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, the Eagles now have three starting-caliber corners. That pushes Hanson down to dime back, a role that doesn’t put him on the field very often.

According to Football Outsiders, the average NFL team only ran eight percent of its offensive plays with four or more wide receivers. And against the Eagles defense last season, they only ran formations like that a miniscule three percent of the time. Is it worth paying Hanson about $2.2 million for that small bit of playing time and some injury protection?

Plus, if Hanson is going to be active on game day as the fourth corner, he’d have to play great special teams. Last year though, Hanson contributed very little in that area.

Meanwhile, the Eagles have three younger cornerbacks who have all shown promise. Trevard Lindley was last year’s fourth round pick. He may not fit this system any more, but it would be rare to see him go so soon. The Eagles drafted Curtis Marsh this year in the third round, so he’s not going anywhere. Then there’s Brandon Hughes, who has impressed in practice since the Eagles signed him off the Giants practice squad late last year.

I anticipate that the Eagles will try to keep six corners, but even so there’s not enough room for everyone. And with a Samuel trade looking more unlikely by the day, that means the team will either have to cut loose one of its young guys or find a suitor for Hanson.

At this point that last possibility looks relatively likely. I’d give it a 60 percent chance that Hanson is with another team by next week. If that’s the case, I wouldn’t mind trading him within the division, even to the cornerback-needy Giants. Hanson is a solid player, a great nickel back — but he’s not starting caliber. If the Eagles can get a mid-round draft pick in return for a guy who is unlikely to play much this year, that’s a win.

Of course, I also speculated about Hanson last year, and nothing ever happened. So maybe he’ll stick around once more.

Photo from Getty.

Michael Vick is a Scrambler, Not a Runner

What made Michael Vick so much better in 2010 than he was in 2009? To some extent we already know the narrative. Vick needed a year to mature, to learn the system, to shake off the rust, to get back his trademark speed.

But I wonder now how much was really physical improvement from year one to year two and how much was simply opportunity. Obviously such a question is hard to measure.

One statistic does make that case, though. If we look purely at Vick’s running chances, we see that he didn’t really improve - he just had different (read: better) opportunities.

In 2010, according to Pro Football Focus, Vick was in on 21 planned runs, not including QB sneaks or kneel downs. On those runs, which were mostly wildcat plays, Vick averaged only 3.9 yards per carry and caused only three missed tackles. I wouldn’t necessarily call him ineffective just based on those numbers, but everyone wondered if those snaps were better spent with Donovan McNabb at the helm.

Fast forward a year, and Vick had almost the exact same number of planned runs. In 29 chances, Vick ran for 3.8 yards per carry and four total missed tackles. Those numbers are almost identical to 2009. He didn’t show any increased speed or agility in that category of plays.

Vick’s “newfound” speed in 2010 manifested only in scrambling attempts. In that subset of runs, Vick averaged 9.6 yards per scramble, scored 10 touchdowns and broke 22 tackles in 62 attempts. Since Vick wasn’t on the field to pass in 2009, he never got the opportunity to scramble. Yet that was where he was most effective - and where I’d reckon he has always been most effective.

Vick isn’t a really a “running quarterback.” Like many others before him, Vick is a scrambler. That’s what separates him from the pack, or, more accurately, from the defenders. When he wasn’t utilized that way in the last two years, he was ineffective.

Hopefully, in 2011 the Eagles will leave the planned runs to LeSean McCoy and let Michael Vick do what he does best: improvise.

Photo from 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.

Which NFL Referee Was the Strictest in 2010?

Back during the 2010 season, I started charting penalties by referee crew to see if there was any significant and consistent difference in how strict particular referees are, or whether they favor home or away teams.

The data I used was just the standard total penalties from each game, and thus it does have some problems. First, 17 weeks is obviously a small sample size. It’s better than one or two games, but we will still need to take a few years to see if the same referees keep popping up. Furthermore, the total penalties don’t account for those that were declined, nor do they break them down into categories by type: holding, roughing the passer, facemask, etc.

However, the results are still interesting to examine. Let’s start with average penalties per game in 2010:

Just like it was most of the way through the season, Ed Hochuli’s crew gave out the most penalties, followed by Jeff Triplette and Tony Corrente’s teams. There’s a three to four penalty gap between those referees and the outlier on the other end, Pete Morelli.

Whether that difference is statistically significant is hard to say. Certainly there’s a good deal of variance game-by-game. However, Hochuli’s crew had only three games where they gave out just nine penalties. Refereeing the same teams, Morelli’s group had seven games in which they gave out nine penalties or fewer. It seems likely that somebody’s approaching the rules a little bit differently.

The above graph breaks down the penalties as to whether they were against the home or away team. This data was more volatile when I added in the final few games, but overall the trend is similar to the previous version. Some referees, like Walt Anderson, penalized one side on average much more heavily than the other.

The Takeaway Message

The reality is that we can’t tell for certain, using these numbers, whether any one of these referees is particularly biased or is unfairly enforcing or ignoring the rules. But the graphs do at least pose the question. When we see a football game turn on a single call by a referee, it’s tough not to conclude that a few extra violations called or disregarded can have a big difference.

Originally published at NBC Philadelphia. Photo from Getty.

Can LeSean McCoy Carry the Eagles in 2011?

Fans have always wanted Andy Reid to run the ball more, but those calls were especially loud last season when LeSean McCoy was tearing up field in his first season as the starter. On Monday I examined the striking similarities and subtle differences between McCoy and former Eagle Brian Westbrook. Those statistics showed that McCoy may be an even better runner than Westbrook was at the same point in his career.

Yet even if McCoy is a better runner than Westbrook, he still may not be able to handle the bigger workload that many fans want him to take on. Last year he only averaged 13.7 carries per game, surpassing the 20 carry mark only once — in a week six win over Atlanta.

That’s not surprising. Westbrook himself only rushed more than 20 times twice in his first four and a half years in the NFL. And, to be fair, there just aren’t many running backs left in the NFL who can handle the ball all the time. In fact, only six players had over 20 carries per game in 2010, and none averaged higher than 22 carries.

But could McCoy handle a bigger workload than the one he was given last season? Let’s look at his number of carries and yards per carry in 2010 on a game by game basis:

So the blue is carries, corresponding to the left axis, and red is yards per carry, measured on the right axis. Over the season, McCoy’s workload and effectiveness varied substantially.

In the first half of the season, McCoy was being used a lot; he had 16 or more carries six times in the first eight games. Yet his production was actually down. McCoy had only three games during that stretch in which he averaged above five yards per carry and also had his two least effective games, in weeks six and seven.

Then things changed. McCoy only carried the ball an average of 12 times a game after week nine, but posted some of his best performances. While his yards per carry was a respectable 4.8 in the first half, it rose to 5.5 over the last eight games.

We can also separate McCoy’s performance by carry:

Through the first 15 carries, McCoy was consistently great, averaging over five yards per carry. And while it’s a small sample size beyond that, McCoy experienced a significant drop off when the Eagles kept feeding him the ball last season.

Eagles fans will never stop calling for the team to run the ball more, and McCoy’s talent only makes that prospect even more tantalizing. But the truth is that McCoy might look much less special if he had to take on a huge workload. The Eagles may be better off limiting his touches, at least for now, and keeping McCoy as a fabulous second or third option — rather than the focus on offense.

Originally published at NBC Philadelphia. Photo from Getty.

My Worst Eagles Predictions for 2010

Sports have a way of making predictions look silly. There’s so much luck and uncertainty involved in every part of an NFL game or season that the reliability of any prediction is suspect.

But what were my worst predictions of 2010? Let’s break it down.

* * *

I disagreed with the Football Outsiders Almanac that Brent Celek’s numbers would drop from 2009, and predicted that Celek would have a monster, career year with Kevin Kolb under center:

“I look at it basically this way: by virtue of his great rapport with Kolb, Brent should exceed his great 2009 season — any numbers that suggest Celek will be worse don’t take into account the facts… My actual projection for Celek in 2010: Jason Witten circa 2007.”

That didn’t turn out so well. Celek’s production was almost cut in half from ‘09, although at least it was only because of Kolb’s benching and Michael Vick’s allergy to throwing to his tight ends over the middle.

* * *

Predicting any kind of draft strategy is probably a bad idea in general.

* * *

I thought last year’s biggest personnel blunder would probably be that the Eagles only kept three safeties going into the regular season:

“What if Mikell gets hurt? Playing two rookies at safety isn’t very “safe” at all. Or what if if Allen, talented though he may be, struggles in his transition to the NFL? Are you going to replace him with another rookie?”

Turns out, safety wasn’t the problem, but cornerback. The Ellis Hobbs-Dimitri Patterson-Joselio Hanson-Trevard Lindley group shuffled in and out as starters with equally subpar results, and when Asante Samuel went down to injury the unit devolved into complete chaos.

* * *

I argued that the McNabb-to-Washington deal couldn’t be accurately judged in 2010, with so many pieces (such as the development of the Eagles draft picks) still up in the air.

Turns out, that argument was unnecessary. Even with all of the long-term ramifications of the trade still unresolved, the disintegration of the Redskins and likely departure of McNabb from Washington this offseason proves that the Eagles “won” this deal handily.

* * *

This headline doesn’t sound so likely now: Could Nick Cole be the Eagles Best Pass Blocker?

* * *

Finally there was this gem:

“I know that if Vick starts a game in Philadelphia it means that Kevin Kolb has been unfortunately injured and the team will undoubtedly go down in a horrific display of offensive ineptitude.”

Followed by this one:

“Having Kolb go down for any extended period of time would essentially end the season.”

I’m not going to try to justify those beauties.

* * *

Make any poor Eagles predictions? Guarantee something that never came true? Let your badges of shame ring in the comments.

Originally published at NBC Philadelphia. Photo from Getty.