When Will NFL Coaches Stop Acting Like Sheep?

The following is a post by @sunset_shazz.

We have previously discussed in these pages the principal-agent problem, and how idiot principals (aka NFL owners) are to blame for suboptimal decision-making by agents (aka GMs and coaches). In an entertaining Twitter thread, some analytics nerds were discussing the use of RPOs and the implications for run/pass decision making. A turning point in the thread:

Brian Burke believes that coaches are optimizing for success rate. They want to move the chains and string together first downs to form drives. If you get nearly 5 yards per rush on average there’s no way you’ll convince a coach to pass.

— Josh Hermsmeyer (@friscojosh) May 18, 2019

Josh is citing this piece of descriptive analysis from Brian Burke back in 2014, where Burke showed (from a positive, as opposed to normative standpoint) how coaches tend to maximize the success rate of each individual play, which doesn’t necessarily map to game-level success (“just win, baby”).

I replied with my time-worn take that this suboptimal decision-making is the fault of the principals, who have set up bad incentive structures. Sean Domnick asks an excellent question: why did the coaches choose this particular strategy? It’s not as if the owners incentives are particularly clear in favoring per-play success rate:

Yeah, right now I'm just curious about why incentives lead to success rate optimization compared to other metrics.

— Sean Domnick (@sean_domnick) May 18, 2019

The hypothesis below is drawn from social science, and is speculative.

Decision theory is a very young field. My Decision Sciences professor in the nineties came from Xerox PARC and leaned heavily on Kahneman, Slovic and Tversky. But prior to formalized decision theory, Friedrich Hayek and Edmund Burke posited mechanisms by which traditional decision-making can evolve to be “good enough” over time. Conventional wisdom improves through an iterative, blind process. In the decision space, though traditional decision-making may be suboptimal, it can still be good enough to have adaptive success. Joseph Henrich has, using modern data collection methods, formalized how norms and traditions may evolve to be broadly efficient. Bill Walsh did not have access to modern data, software or computing power. But his analysis was good enough, and was dominant enough, to change how coaches stretch the field and emphasize short passes.

Yes, per-play success rate is suboptimal. But it is an evolutionarily stable strategy in that it is dominant, provided that nobody has implemented a better strategy. Moreover, to the extent that norm violators are punished (cf. Henrich) herding behavior is a rational response to the threat of being fired. Thus, a “good enough” strategy such as per-play-success-rate maximization will perpetuate because everybody is doing it.

1)     Maximizing success rate, though suboptimal for maximizing wins, has the advantage of being an easy, tractable heuristic that dominates over other, worse, decision rules.

2)     Over time, principals and agents will coalesce around this (arbitrary, though minimally successful) decision rule, which becomes self-perpetuating.

Is this equilibrium stable? It is until it isn’t. Just as Roger Bannister showed the world what is possible, it takes only one coach to show that sound evidence-based decision-making will dominate the conventional wisdom. We are at a moment in time when internet nerds are mining data to show the traditionalists there is a better way. My tentative prediction is that NFL coaching heuristics will change for the better, just as they have in the NBA and MLB.

Clearing Up The Coaching Confusion

The following is a guest post by @sunset_shazz.

Should the Carolina Panthers have fired Head Coach Ron Rivera or traded QB Cam Newton the day after they lost the Super Bowl? Scott Kacsmar at FiveThirtyEight argues they should have done either or both. Do read the whole piece; the argument is presented as follows:

• In NFL history, only 4 coaches have won their first Super Bowls after 5 seasons on the job with the same team;
• No team has ever started the same quarterback under the same head coach for more than 5 years and seen that duo win its first championship.

Having examined the history of prior first time Super Bowl winners, FiveThirtyEight infers that these characteristics are conducive to winning championships. The study’s conclusion: “If championship success doesn’t come within five years, things tend to get stale, and someone eventually has to move on from their position of power.”

Can you spot the flaw in this reasoning?

How about if I used the same exact logic, using a more emotionally salient characteristic:

• In NFL history, only 4 minority head coaches have won Super Bowls. Therefore you shouldn’t hire minority head coaches. [1]

Does that framing device make the flaw in reasoning clearer?

FiveThirtyEight’s study suffers from the confusion of the inverse, a statistical fallacy that undergraduates are commonly taught to avoid. One of the best recent treatments of this problem was a brilliant piece by Katherine Hobson on the lab-testing startup Theranos  (also, funnily enough, at FiveThirtyEight). Chapter 8 of Nate Silver’s excellent The Signal and the Noise provides a lucid discussion on this topic, in the context of Bayes’s theorem.

Here is the issue: the fraction of Super Bowl winners that possess a certain characteristic, by itself, tells you nothing about the probability that those who possess that characteristic will win a Super Bowl. A better way to estimate the latter would be to go back and examine the historical success rate of coaches who possess the characteristic you’d like to study.

I compiled every season coached since the 1970 merger, then excluded the seasons after a coach has won his first Super Bowl.  Coaches who were tenured 5 years or fewer with their teams won 24 first Super Bowls in 1009 opportunities, for a success rate of 2.38%. Coaches tenured 6 or more years won 4 first Super Bowls in 176 opportunities, a 2.27% success rate. Using a technique previously used in the Duck Bias study, I applied the cumulative distribution function of the binomial distribution to test whether the success rates were different, to a statistically significant degree. The P value of 0.592 indicates no statistically significant difference.[2]

However, Super Bowl success is a noisy, sparse data set, due to the very small sample size. An alternative measure of coaching success which enjoys the advantage of more data is the frequency with which a coach makes the playoffs. I compiled the playoff rate for every coach in the dataset, and compared this with the base rate of success for that year.[3] The data shows that coaches with longer tenure are actually ­­more likely (47.7%) to make the playoffs than shorter tenured coaches (31.1%) and the base rate (38.0%); both of these differences are statistically significant.

Obviously, this data doesn’t tell you anything about causation. There is likely a survivorship bias / selection effect: those coaches who are kept by their team after 5 years without a championship are likely of higher quality than average, which is probably why their subsequent success rate is higher.

For Coach-QB pairings, 28 Super Bowls were won in 1137 opportunities for the short tenured pairs, a 2.46% success rate. There were only 48 seasons where a Coach-QB pairing lasted more than 5 years without having won a Super Bowl. The zero success rate is, statistically speaking, the effect of randomness, rather than a measured effect. In terms of playoff success rate, once again the longer tenured coaches had a higher success rate, though this effect was not found to be statistically significant.

The data is pretty clear: you shouldn’t fire your coach, or your QB, just because he has not won a Super Bowl after an arbitrary number of years. The only reason short tenured coaches seem to have been historically more successful is they vastly outnumber the long tenured ones. FiveThirtyEight’s model was fooled by the fallacy of the inverse.

But given that we’re in the midst of a coaching carousel accompanied by a Rooney Rule kerfuffle: what about the reductio ad absurdum argument I cheekily proffered above? What does the data say about minority head coaches?

I used Wikipedia’s Rooney Rule page to code every minority head coach in the dataset, presented below. This data comprises every coaching season between 1970 and 2016, including all seasons for coaches who won multiple Super Bowls.

Minority coaches won Super Bowls in 3.31% of their opportunities, which is statistically indistinguishable from the base rate of success of 3.22% (note that minorities have disproportionately coached in more recent years, after the league has expanded, which lowers the base rate of championship success). Interestingly, minority coaches made the playoffs 58 times in 121 opportunities (47.9%) which is 11.6 more times than one would expect given the base rate, a difference that is statistically significant (p=0.02). This is a noteworthy result: historically, the presence of a minority head coach is associated with a 25% greater rate of making the playoffs.

Again, one shouldn’t make causal inference claims from historic data. I’m not arguing that minorities are inherently better coaches. In this situation, there is no survivorship bias. Might there be a selection effect? The late Nobel Laureate Gary Becker argued in 1957 that employment discrimination (racial or otherwise) is inefficient. Not only does the victim of discrimination bear a cost, but so does the discriminating employer (through lower productivity per unit labor cost). Axiomatically, to the extent that some employers exhibit an unfounded bias, an employer who doesn’t discriminate can capture a portion (but not all) of the foregone surplus. Moreover, selecting from a pool of employee candidates who are the victims of racial discrimination will yield supernormal productivity. Becker’s theory of discrimination is one plausible explanation for the effect shown by the data.

What does this mean for NFL teams today? The data is unequivocal that Ron Rivera shouldn’t be fired solely because he hasn’t yet won a Super Bowl. The data also shows that Al Davis, who got many things wrong, got a few things very right. An NFL team should examine the pool of minority head coach candidates very carefully, and should strongly consider hiring from this pool.

Not merely because it’s the right thing to do, but because the data suggests it helps you Just Win, Baby.

[1] To be clear, this is not argued by FiveThirtyEight. I employed this reductio ad absurdum to permit the reader to more easily intuit the confusion of the inverse.

[2] The P-value is the probability that, conditional on the null hypothesis being correct (i.e. no effect), one would observe the data in question by chance. Though subject to recent debate, the conventional standard for social science is to reject P-values greater than 0.05.

[3] The base rate of success is # of playoff teams / # of total teams in the league, both of which have changed over time. I accounted for the league’s expansion of teams in 1976, 1995, 1999 and 2002, as well as the evolution of the playoff format from 8 to 12 teams in 1978 and 1990, and the 16 team playoff that occurred during the strike-shortened 1982 season.

Year Two Begins: An Eagles Offseason Rundown

This time last year, fresh off a sickening 4-12 season and the long-anticipated firing of one of the best coaches in franchise history, we watched as the Eagles spun their wheels in a coaching search. Fresh off being rejected by some of their top candidates, the organization seemed to be turning toward Gus Bradley, although interviews with Bruce Arians, Brian Kelly, and rumblings about Ken Whisenhunt cast an ominous cloud over the proceedings. It wouldn't be until January 16th that Oregon's belle finally came back around and agreed to a surprise contract in Philadelphia.

Chip Kelly's arrival was met with lots of fanfare, and more than a few skeptics. I won't bother to link to those old columns written about the "college coach" and his "gimmick offense," but suffice it to say that no one's a skeptic now. If anything, we're still underestimating the job he did in his first year. Before the season began, I found all 113 teams in Football Outsiders' database that finished 20th or worse in both offensive and defensive DVOA. Those bad teams had an average overall DVOA improvement of +11.9% in their next season. Kelly's Eagles, as it stands now, posted a +37.8% increase, the third-largest jump on record.

But with an early bounce from the playoffs, the long offseason looms and more changes are inevitable. In today's NFL, huge improvement can always be followed by huge disappointment. In my opinion, the Eagles are much more likely to add to, grow from, and improve off of their 2013 success. But that's far from guaranteed. Here's where the team goes from here:

1. Prune The Dead Wood

Being only a year away from a 4-12 season, there are still a number of players on the Eagles roster who shouldn't be around at training camp next year, whether for reasons of age, performance, or both. Let's do a quick roundup of the top targets.

• Todd Herremans: Even moving back to guard this season didn't seem to halt the Toddfather's decline. He's not the worst guard in the league, but Herremans was the weakest link on the offensive line and you can't expect him to get better heading into his age-32 season. Maybe you offer a restructured contract and the chance to compete for his job, but guard is one of the more fungible starting positions in the league. Time to see if there's a younger, less expensive backup who can take over.
• Trent Cole: The Eagles' longtime DE-turned-OLB passed Clyde Simmons for second place on the Eagles all time sack list with a late season revival. Like Herremans, Cole is heading into his age-32 season and the third year of a contract extension. Despite his resurgence in the second half of the season, Cole never fully adjusted to his linebacker role and couldn't rescue the Eagles' moribund pass rush. We wish him the best, but it's time to move on. 
• Brent Celek: Another member of the old guard, Celek turns 29 before the end of the month. He proved his worth blocking, made some key receptions down the stretch, and finished with his highest DVOA since 2008. But Zach Ertz figures to replace him more and more as the down-the-field tight end. Celek is probably still a useful player on this team for his versatility, but he's not worth the $4 million salary he's due next year. Prime (Stache) restructure candidate.
• James Casey: That was always a one year deal, disguised as three years. Not a bad blocker (and the Eagle could use an H-Back/FB from time to time), but barely saw the field the field for anything else. He probably would rather seek his fortune elsewhere too, although maybe he comes back on a reduced salary as the 3rd TE.
• Jason Avant: While Riley Cooper and DeSean Jackson had big DVOA improvement, Avant was one of the few Eagles offensive players to decline this year. He had perhaps his worse season statistically in at least 5 years. Love the leadership, but Avant's not sticking around.
• Patrick Chung: Another guy on a fake 3 year deal who should and will be cut posthaste.
• Alex Henery: I'll go into depth on this once I can crunch more numbers, but Henery isn't worth keeping for beans. 

2. Keep An Eye On

There are difficult decisions elsewhere too. Would be surprised if any are cut this offseason, but the team has reason to examine these relationships closely.

• DeMeco Ryans: Leader of the defense and stout run defender who's a major liability in coverage. Turns 29 this summer and has a contract that's easy to do away with. Don't think you cut him yet, but the conversation about the future has to happen.
• Cary Williams & Bradley Fletcher: Let's consider the two corners together. Using a broad stat like passer rating, both of these players were middle of the pack. On a good defense, each is probably a solid #2 corner. They're not going to shut down the other team's top receiver one-on-one, but they'll hold their own against most everyone else and get their share of victories. The question is how highly you value that kind of production. Both Williams and Fletcher have salaries that spike substantially in 2014. Do you let one go to make room for Brandon Boykin? Do you keep them both around another year and draft replacement(s)? Could a restructure/extension be on the table?
• Brandon Graham & Vinny Curry: Both are young and relatively inexpensive, so they probably get another year in this 3-4 transition. But if the right offer came along, Graham especially could be on the block.
• Jason Peters: Nothing big here but he's entering the final year of his contract. Peters was named to his fifth All-Pro team but looked like he lost a step. Eagles hope to already have his replacement on the roster (Lane Johnson), but we can't rule out an extension if he proves he's still capable. Remember, Tra Thomas manned the left tackle spot in Philly until he was 34.
• DeSean Jackson: His salary goes up by over 50% in 2014. Hopefully both he and the team are happy with that. Or not.

3. Are They Worth Keeping?

Retaining your own free agents can be tricky, but this year there aren't too many questions. The big decisions come at wide receiver.

• Jeremy Maclin: The biggest name on this list comes with a huge "What If?" label following his ACL tear last August. I was on record for a Maclin contract extension before the injury and still want him back. The question is how healthy he is and what kind of money he's looking for. The market for wide receivers isn't especially deep, but you don't often see guys get big money coming off knee injuries. A one-year deal with the Eagles might make sense for both sides.
• Riley Cooper: The wide receiver went from racist problem-child to key contributor quickly. He has size, blocks well, and adjusts to deep balls better than most. But on a good team he's a 3rd or 4th wide receiver, and I wouldn't pay him more than that because he'll never be someone who can consistently beat single-coverage. In other words, let him test the market (where there may not be much interest) and only resign him at a backup rate.
• Michael Vick: If he resigns himself to taking a paycheck as a backup, there are worse places to do it than Philadelphia. But maybe he's looking for one last shot at a starting role, and he could get it with the Jets, Jaguars, or somewhere else.
• Donnie Jones: Fantastic job this season. Sign the man.
• Nate Allen: Actually became the best member of the safety corps, which just shows how bad the safeties were. Let him walk.
• Kurt Coleman: Bye.
• Colt Anderson: Never going to be a competent safety, but still a great special teams player. Bring him back and let him compete.

4. Seek Improvement From Youngsters

The last two drafts have been tremendously successful for the Eagles, and they have more than a handful of young players who are forming a new backbone to this team. Their improvement (or decline) will largely decide how the team does in 2014 and beyond. It will also determine who deserves contract extensions and who might not be worth the trouble.

• On defense, the young studs are Brandon Boykin, Mychal Kendricks, and Fletcher Cox. They've all shown flashes, but where is the ceiling? Meanwhile, Bennie Logan and Earl Wolff will be given every opportunity to win starting jobs, but both need to make big leaps this offseason.
• On offense you're looking at Lane Johnson, who had a successful rookie season by mostly avoiding making news. All eyes will be on him next year, to see if he can take over at left tackle after Jason Peters. Zach Ertz also seems inline for a big year as the featured tight end in 2014.
• Nick Foles' offseason matters the most. I'm not convinced he's a franchise quarterback, but he played like one in 2013. Defenses will study him intently next year, and he's unlikely to maintain his fantastic interception rate. Can he improve in other areas to maintain an edge? Foles has earned the benefit of the doubt, but we will find out.
• As for backups: guys like Bryce Brown, Chris Polk, Dennis Kelly, Damion Square, Najee Goode, and Matt Barkley need to prove they're worth trusting. Does Casey Matthews get another year? What about Curtis Marsh, Roc Carmichael, and Julian Vandervelde? Lots of question marks.

5. Identify Obvious Roster Holes

Last offseason, the Eagles had gaping holes across the defense. They drafted a smattering of young players (Wolff, Logan), and added low-to-mid price veterans (Barwin, Williams, Fletcher, Chung, Sopoaga). Due to the relative success of that plan, there aren't as many problem spots as there were a year ago. Here are the main starting spots that need help.

• Safety: It's easy to imagine a future where Wolff is the only guy left from last year, and he's certainly not a sure thing. Major upgrade still needed here.
• Pass Rusher: The Eagles need to generate more of a pass rush. Some of that could come from improvement along the defensive line. But a dynamic pass rushing outside linebacker might make the biggest difference of anyone on the team.
• Wide Receiver: At the very least you bring back Riley Cooper, but ideally you're looking at someone more dynamic across from DeSean. Plus, a new slot receiver to replace Avant would be nice.
• Kicker: Forget field goals for a second. You need a kicker who can consistently reach the end zone on kickoffs.
• Nose Tackle: Logan may be the guy, but my lasting memory of him from 2013 will be the Saints blowing him off the line of scrimmage.
• Guard: If you jettison Herremans.

6. Plan For The Future

While you're logging the problems the team faces right now, it's also time to take stock of the future. Where will the team have holes a year or two from now?

• Cedric Thornton is an exclusive-rights free agent (meaning he can't negotiate with anyone else). One of the few eligible players on the roster probably worth a long term extension.
• Can't count on 30-something offensive linemen to stay healthy in the short term or sustain performance long term. Grab more depth on the offensive line. 
• Draft a quarterback. Always draft a quarterback.
• Kendricks looks like a keeper, but Ryans may not have more than a year left. Time to get another young middle linebacker.
• Boykin is probably a long term answer at cornerback, given his stellar performance in the slot. But tied to the Williams & Fletcher questions above, drafting more corners should be high on the list.

7. Find Difference-Makers In Free Agency

Building through the draft is great, but being active at the top of the free agent market is also important. I'm not talking about bringing in another Nnamdi Asomugha, but the Eagles will have plenty of cap space and few in-house players to spend it on. Howie Roseman and company must identify a few key players who can come in and not only fix problem spots in the short term, but are also good long term bets. Some candidates...

• Jairus Byrd: If the Bills safety makes it to free agency, he'll command top dollar. You'd rather he wasn't going into his age-28 season, but he's an All-Pro caliber player still in his prime who would immediately lock down one of the Eagles' safety spots.
• TJ Ward: Fellow second-team All-Pro safety may be slightly less expensive than Byrd. He's also nearly a year younger. Would be a great get.
• Eric Decker: Again, I'd rather just bring Maclin back. But Decker is a much better version of Riley Cooper (albeit at a significant markup). There's also the underachieving Hakeem Nicks out there
• Julian Edelman: Probably can go cheaper in the Avant-replacement department, but there aren't many better slot guys when healthy. Maybe Chip wants more upgrade here.
• Brian Orakpo: Who knows what's going on in D.C. these days? Elite pass rushers don't come cheap, but Orakpo would fit right into a key role on the Eagles defense.
• Donald Butler: If he makes to the open market, you could grab San Diego's young stud middle linebacker and jettison Ryans earlier than planned.

8. Refine The Scheme

To be fair, this is more than one-eighth of the offseason agenda, but it's the one that's least conditional on specific player debates. No matter who the Eagles bring back and who they add, the coaches have to adjust and prepare for a new season.

Chip's offense lit up the league, and ended up second only to Peyton Manning's Broncos on the DVOA chart. He'll be on every defensive coordinator's To-Do list this offseason. I have confidence in the head coach, since he's shown the ability to adjust his offense to two quarterbacks with opposite skill sets. But Kelly needs to stay a step ahead. Defenses stymied some of his schemes, and in some areas he became too predictable by the end of the season (see Cowboys and Saints defenders reading nearly every screen). New weapons will help on that front, but so will new wrinkles. I'm looking forward to seeing what he draws up in 2014.

When you switch to defense and special teams, it's worth noting that the team finished in nearly the same place as 2012 according to DVOA. The defense improved slightly, but there's still a long way to go. Patient, accurate quarterbacks (a species the Eagles were lucky to avoid for long stretches of the season) tore this defense apart with its weakness in coverage down the middle, complete lack of pass rush, and horrible missed tackles. Again, personnel was often at fault there, and this was only year one of a defensive scheme shift. But the scheme can't be as predictable going forward either. Time for Billy Davis to prove he can lead the unit to a renaissance.

The Chip Kelly Honeymoon Begins

There's a lot to love about Chip Kelly. But one simple thing I enjoy is his press conference demeanor. Like Andy Reid before him, Kelly isn't going to give out any useful information. While that may rankle the beat reporters, I'm going to sit back and enjoy the way Kelly always manages to say something interesting, even when he's not saying anything. Forget "We'll have to look at that." The new coach isn't afraid to poke fun at a reporter or turn a question on its head, and he's quick with the one-liners. His most recent 15 minute question and answer session on Monday was a tour de force. Here are some of the best lines:

Hypothetically, Chip, what are you looking for in your offensive coordinator?

"I don't mean to say it this way, and I'm not being gruff, but I'm not a hypothetical guy," Kelly said. "Hypothetically, I want a guy who can score a billion points in a game."

About those darn fast practices you ran at Oregon — can you replicate that in the NFL?

"You have to adjust to the numbers," Kelly said. "The Philadelphia Eagles are a football team, not a cross country team. If we go at the pace that we practiced at Oregon, we'd have a real good cross country team. But we're not playing at Valley Forge Park."

Alright, Chip, what about the defensive coordinator?

"I'll give you a new word -- Shutoutability. That would be the one, overriding quality," Kelly joked. "I'm not sure how we can define that, but that's a pretty good word. ... If you have Shutoutability, I need to talk to you."

* * *

We're currently in the dark about the Eagles defensive coordinator, which will be the second-most important coaching role on the team. All we have are a few names of likely assistants: DL coach Jerry Azzinaro seems to be following Kelly from Oregon. Other college coaches, namely Rick Minter and Bill McGovern, have also been rumored.

On the offensive side, most of the coaches seem unlikely to share Kelly's background in the hurry-up, read-option spread offense. He is supposedly keeping Duce Staley on for the running backs and moving Ted Williams to tight ends (odd if only because Williams has been a consistently great RBs coach since he started in 1997). The big rumor is that Pat Shurmur, former Reid assistant for a decade and most recently the Browns head coach, is coming back on board as offensive coordinator. 

Hiring Shurmur is a fascinating move that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense on the surface. Why bring in someone who has spent his career teaching the West Coast offense, rather than one who is more compatible with the head coach's schemes? Kelly painted an interesting picture on Monday:

“I think you need a lot of different personalities. I think if not, everything’s the same. And I think for you to flourish, there’s a lot of different things you need. You need really, really smart people. I think you need people that are dedicated. And sometimes, you need people that are just a little bit off too, so it’s a rare combination. But I don’t want everybody to be the same because I don’t think we’d grow as a group. I think we need to challenge each other.”

Kelly is still going to mastermind the offense and call the plays, one assumes. The Eagles aren't going to retain the same offensive system that they've run for years. But as long as they can coexist, adding a completely different perspective could be quite positive. Kelly is a run-first coach who doesn't have experience attacking NFL defenses. Adding a veteran voice who can tutor quarterbacks and help him out in the passing game might help smooth out that transition. Kelly also warned against tying people to one scheme or another. Shurmur's only 47, and he might get another shot as a head coach down the road. A partnership with Kelly (i.e. learning as well as teaching) is potentially beneficial to him as well.

* * *

Do we want a GM who spurns Tommy Lawlor at the Senior Bowl? I think not:

So I’m standing there watching the OL drills and trying to find us a tackle or guard to draft.  Howie walks over and stands kind of in front of me.  There is a pecking order where coaches, GMs, and senior scouts can stand where they want.  The rest of us deal with it.  Howie wasn’t rude, just wanted to be as close to the drill as possible.  Anyway…I figure I’ll just play it cool and watch the drill.  Howie looks around between reps.  He glances at me, since I’m wearing an Eagles shirt.  I’m still locked into the players.  I can feel he’s staring at me so I make eye contact.  He’s confused because he sees the shirt, but knows I’m not part of his staff and he’s never seen me at the NovaCare.  I mention I write for the team’s website, shake his hand, and mention what a great day it is (safe, general comment).  Howie just walked away, probably because he didn’t want me seeing who/what he was watching.  Would have been nice to have more than a 10-second conversation, but I got the vibe that forcing the issue would have been a bad idea so I let him be.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Photo from Getty.

The Chip Kelly Era Begins

I'll put it right out there. I have no idea if Chip Kelly is going to succeed. The odds are stacked against any coach who doesn't have NFL experience. But, then again, they're stacked against the ones who do as well. Most head coaches don't last more than four years. 

To that end, I'm happy because whether or not he succeeds, Kelly is going to make things exciting in Philly. This is going to be the most exciting offseason in decades, as we anticipate new schemes and a revamped training routine. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Kelly was the smartest coach in college football. Maybe not the best recruiter or the best motivator or the one with the best NFL credentials, but the Eagles just went out and brought one of the brightest football minds in to run the organization. I can get behind that decision in a big way, win or lose.

* * *

Thank goodness we're done with this coaching search, if only so we don't have to hear another beat reporter on Twitter complain about how tedious it's been for them. Give me a break, guys.

* * *

Filling out a staff is the top priority for any head coach, but it will be especially important for Kelly. He needs assistants who can implement his unique system, not ones stuck in their own ways of teaching. Yet he also needs assistants who have lots of NFL experience, since Kelly himself has none.

Derrick Gunn reports that University of Georgia defensive coordinator Todd Grantham is at the top of Kelly's list to run the Eagles defense. With top talent at his disposal at Georgia for the last three seasons, Grantham put together highly-ranked defenses. Before that he was an assistant in the NFL for 11 seasons, including three as the Cleveland Browns coordinator (with poor results). Interestingly enough, from 1996 to 1998, Grantham served as Nick Saban's defensive line coach at Michigan State. He employs the 3-4 defense, a change that would require some serious personnel changes in Philly -- not that those aren't necessary anyway. 

Another name that has popped up in the rumor mill: Mark Whipple, most recently the quarterbacks coach for the Cleveland Browns. Whipple coached at New Hampshire around the time Kelly played there, and was known for running wide-open spread passing attacks at the college level. He was also an offensive assistant in Philadelphia from 2007-2008, and Derek Sarley wrote a hopeful profile of him back then.

Other NFL assistants Kelly has coached with in the past include Pete Carmichael (OC, Saints) and Jack Bicknell Jr. (OL, Chiefs). Of course, he may also recruit a few Oregon coaches to make the NFL leap with him.

* * *

Come on, Jon Gruden, you know you want to come back to Philly to be Kelly's offensive coordinator.

* * *

Hiring Kelly was also a stick in the eye of a lot of naysayers. First, Joe Banner, who has trashed Eagles executives since he left and engaged in his own highly public pursuit of Kelly. The fact that his former protege Howie Roseman and (former?) friend Jeff Lurie beat him is wicked karma. Second, what about all those national reporters who attacked the Eagles organization for being unable to get a top coach? Jason LaCanfora said that Roseman is "drunk with power" and that his presence ruined any chance of Kelly coming to Philly. Since Roseman's persistent recruiting was actually key to Kelly leaving Oregon, LaCanfora is eating his words now.

* * *

Interesting nugget about Kelly's version of "complete control" from Jeff McLane's story:

Kelly can be a control freak, two sources close to the coach said. But he is selective over the things he wants to control. Kelly will want little interference over how he coaches his team. He will want to decide on the strength and conditioning program. He will obsess over details as minor as what kind of thigh pads the players wear. As one source said, "He will turn that place upside down. But he only wants extreme control in certain areas."

* * *

The quarterback question is huge going forward. In some ways, Kelly's Oregon offense decreased emphasis on the position. For example, the team averaged 53 rushes vs. only 29 pass attempts per game in 2012. Kelly cycled through four different quarterbacks without a drop-off in offensive production. Still, this is one of the trends I would be most skeptical about him being able to continue in the pros. The NFL is a passing league, and teams without top quarterbacks are relegated to also-rans.

So does Kelly have his quarterback of the future on the roster right now? I doubt it. He may be able to adjust the offense to accommodate Nick Foles, but I see little reason to install the Kelly offense only to deprive it of one of its best weapons -- the running quarterback. Plus, as I've written before, we don't have any idea yet if Foles is even worth changing an offense for. He's still unproven as a long term option.

Michael Vick certainly seems like he was created to run Kelly's offense, at least based on his athletic gifts. But at 33, he's not an option beyond a year or two -- and he may be too old to learn a completely different offense anyway. Plus there's the situation regarding his contract. No way he returns to the Eagles at all unless he accepts a pay cut. Still, I think if Kelly wants to try him out, there's some upside with Vick.

Other than those two, you have to start looking at trades, free agency, and the draft. Alex Smith might be an option. He's an efficient, if not explosive, passer and still retains some of the athleticism that allowed him to run for over 1000 yards in college. West Virginia's Geno Smith may be available at the fourth overall pick. He's a mobile QB, if not a running one. EJ Manuel out of Florida State may be a later round option.

* * *

I love that there's a headline on Philly.com Sports right now that reads "Too soon to judge Kelly." I'm glad we're all waiting until at least his second week.

Photo from Getty.

The Case For The Right Retread Coach

Sometimes the new shiny thing is the most attractive option. Sometimes it just seems that way.

In the Eagles head coaching search, most people are firmly against hiring a retread coach, someone who's been around the block once already. Sure, there are Jon Gruden supporters and Bill Cowher supporters, but most people would rather get Chip Kelly or Mike McCoy or some other new name. I think the Eagles probably agree with this philosophy as well. They've been strongly linked to college coaches and other coordinators, but Mike Nolan is the only retread they've interviewed so far.

Nolan is a poor candidate, if you use history as any judge. As I detailed on Thursday, Bill Belichick is the only example of a recently hired coach who went on to have great success at his second job after posting a losing record in his first. Trying to find the one diamond in the rough is a losing proposition.

But that doesn't mean that all second-chance coaches are bad. 32 have been hired since 1999 (not including KC's hiring of Andy Reid today). Many of those hires were predicated on the idea that the coach learned something from their previous failure. But I wanted to look at only the ones who earned their second shot with solid performance the first time around. I isolated 16 who had winning records and won at least one playoff game at their previous job. That list looks much more promising. Here's how they did (or are doing) in their second chance:

Let me break it down by color. Five coaches marked in blue are clear success stories. Dungy, Coughlin, and Gruden all won Super Bowls with their second team. Holmgren came close. I suppose Parcells in Dallas is more debatable, but he reversed three straight 5-11 seasons, posted a winning record, and formed the foundation of the reasonably successful Wade Phillips era. Then you have the four green coaches, who are current and relatively new hires. Three of the four — Carroll, Shanahan, and Fox — are currently in the playoffs and look to have bright futures. Too early to tell with Jeff Fisher in St. Louis.

I marked another three coaches in orange as special cases. Gibbs and Shell each came back to coaching after over a decade sitting on the couch. Hiring coaches who have been away from the game for that long is unlikely to ever work, and I doubt the Eagles are interested in any such candidates. Schottenheimer is also in this special category because Dan Snyder unwisely fired him after a single season in Washington. He won 8 of his last 11 games that year, and went on immediately to the Chargers, where he posted a solid .588 winning percentage over five seasons (although no playoff victories).

That leaves only four hires, marked in red, who really turned out poorly: Green, Seifert, Mariucci, and Mora Jr. Any coach could end up just as bad. But I look at the success rate, including three Super Bowl-winning coaches and three current up-and-comers and wonder if the Eagles could find a similarly successful retread candidate. If they avoided the Nolans of the world in favor of coaches with a winning background, they might have a greater chance of a favorable outcome. You would be looking at people who have already proven they can run an organization, win games, and get to the playoffs — even if they may not have reached the promised land yet.

Who might that be? Well, Jon Gruden is an obvious example. He did this once already, and is widely hailed as one of the smartest football minds around. Lovie Smith is another potential candidate. I've heard few rumors about where he might end up, which is surprising considering he had only three losing seasons in nine years in Chicago, and has built top defenses everywhere he's been. Both have weaknesses as candidates, but as cool as it would be to snag a hotshot like Kelly, history suggests a retread like one of them could be just what the Eagles need.

Photo from Getty.

Parsing Jeff Lurie's Words on Andy, Howie, the Future

Maybe it's because Jeff Lurie so rarely speaks to the media, but he always surprises me with his eloquence and thoughtfulness behind the podium. Last year, Lurie expressed anger and disappointment about the 2011 results, but gave Reid one more chance to turn things around. It turned out to be the wrong decision, one that made Monday's announcement fait accompli. 
There was a lot to digest in his remarks about firing long time coach Andy Reid and the future direction of the Eagles franchise. Let's get to it.

"His work ethic was incredible and his ability to work with others was incredible. He had the love and respect of every individual in this organization. And I don't say that lightly because I think if you were to interview owners and other franchise operations around the league, not everybody could say that. This man is amazing to work with, smart and dedicated himself, and the record will speak for itself. History will focus on exactly what he's been able to accomplish and what the team has been able to accomplish. I look forward to the day we all welcome him back and introduce him as  a member of the Eagles Hall of Fame, because that's inevitable."

Lurie went out of his way to praise Reid for all that he's accomplished, as well as simply who he is as a person. He's right, most firings in the NFL aren't nearly as respectful as this one. You can't say the Eagles organization failed to do right by their all-time winningest coach.

I think in life, whenever you have either a downturn or a problem or something that you've got to face (like a) challenge, it should, if you are healthy about it, make you stronger. That's exactly what's going to happen here. We're used to winning and we're used to winning big. It's rare that we're not in the playoffs or playing in the (conference) championship game, and that's what we've got to return to.

Like other owners, Lurie isn't content with mediocrity. It's why so many coaches and general managers were fired on Monday. But I think this was also the first salvo in Lurie courting the next coach. Arizona, Jacksonville, Buffalo, Carolina, Kansas City, and (most importantly) Cleveland can't claim a winning tradition. Whether that really matters may be debatable, but Lurie is going to milk it for all it's worth.

"I think, as you know, I stood up here last year and went through some of the arguments for making a change, and decided not to. One of the key arguments, for me, for not making a change at the end of last year was that every time our team under Andy Reid was 8-8 or less, and it wasn't very often, but every single time after that the next season we were a double-digit playoff team. (We were a) double-digit and playoff team (or) advancing to the NFC Championship."

Lurie said he doesn't regret keeping Reid on for another year, but I think he learned a valuable lesson. Hope is not a viable managerial strategy. You can't assume that things are going to turn around just because they have in the past. Make decisions for the future.

He was very excited about the future of this team and this franchise. He wanted to stay. We spent some time on Friday going over exactly what his plans would be for the team, knowing that there was a very good chance that he was going to be let go.

When asked directly, Lurie denied that Reid was informed before Monday that he would be fired. But they clearly had an interesting end-of-season conversation. What I wouldn't have given to be a fly on the wall of that conference room...

"I think if you had to point to anything, it's when you had as much success as we had and are so close to winning a Super Bowl, (that) at some stage you have an opportunity to think that the next move, even if it's not consistent with all of your previous moves, will be the one that gives you the chance to win the Lombardi Trophy. I think that in the last couple years we've done things that have not been as consistent. They've been more scattered in terms of decision making. You notice it with any organization that has had a lot of success that you will start to reach thinking, ‘That's the thing that's going to (get us over the top), that's the player, that's the method, that's the mechanism, that's the coach, that's the thing that is going to put us over the top'... So I think we lost some of the exact nature of the method that we've all shared that created the success, which was discipline, strategic thinking, and don't do necessarily what is popular but do what's right."

This was the money quote. Lurie knows that Reid wasn't the same coach who lorded over the Linc a decade ago. Instead of drafting for the long term, letting veterans walk before they slowed down, this front office has been reaching in the draft, grabbing free agents willy-nilly, and re-signing veterans to long term extensions. It seems like you're just a step away from getting back to the pinnacle, but really you're going in the wrong direction.

"While you're trying to decide what you're going to do with your coach, at least the way I operate, is doing a lot of research over the past month or so. That is done meticulously and in great detail. We do have a very, very defined list of candidates. We hope to be able to meet with some of them as soon as possible. I think it's better to find the right leader than it is to make the fastest decision."

Lurie's quote here, combined with the news that he's going to interview three (!) candidates from the Atlanta Falcons this week, leads me to believe that he's got a long list of people he wants to talk to before he makes his decision. Sometimes teams interview two or three coaches as a formality before picking the one they wanted all along. Doesn't sound like that's the route Lurie's headed.

"I keep voluminous notes on talent evaluation on not just who we draft, but who is valued in each draft by each person that is in the organization that's working here. I came to the conclusion that the person that was providing by far the best talent evaluation in the building was Howie Roseman. I decided to streamline the whole decision-making process for the 2012 draft and offseason and that's the first draft and offseason I hold Howie completely accountable for. The mistakes that were made in the 2011 draft have little or nothing to do with Howie's evaluations and I think it was important for me to own up to the mistakes that were made and understand where they were coming from and it was awfully clear."

First of all, that's smart ownership. Lurie isn't out front making personnel decisions. But he sure is keeping track of who makes those moves. Accountability is vital. It's the conclusion from those notes that is more surprising, though. Lurie essentially said that Reid and Joe Banner were the ones making poor decisions over the last few years, and that Roseman was consistently right behind the scenes. He absolved his GM of all responsibility for the abysmal 2010-2011 drafts, as well as the 2011 free agent binge (which we were told at the time was all Roseman), while crediting him for the great early returns from 2012's biggest moves. I don't know if such faith is deserved, but it looks like Roseman will be the key player in the front office going forward.

"But my goal is to have the coach and the general manager work hand-in-hand and work collaboratively and work in a very, very terrific way together. But there's no question in my mind the head coach will report directly to me as every head coach has and that's important. It's important in terms of attracting the right coach, it's important in terms of the autonomy that coach will have and it also fosters an owner-coach relationship that I think benefits a football team in many, many ways. That shared responsibility with the coach and the ultimate support for a coach when it's coming directly from the owner and you build an organization that is supportive and give the coach all the resources possible and have the G.M. collaborate very, very moment-to-moment and day-to-day with that coach, that's a great support system and that's what we have here."

This is going to be an important question in attracting the right coach. Many candidates will insist on complete control. But, paired with his earlier praise of Roseman, Lurie doesn't seem willing to give it over. He described having the GM and coach work together with each reporting directly to the owner. Roseman won at least partial control in the last year, and that won't be relinquished, a fact which could eliminate a few of the most prominent candidates.

"Good question. I think the most important thing is to find the right leader. I'm not one who wants to buy schemes, wants to buy approaches that are necessarily finite. What you've got to find is somebody who is strategic. Somebody who is a strong leader. Somebody who is very comfortable in his own skin. That, to me, is probably one of the one or two top traits because players today see right through if you're not. If you're a salesman coach, that's not going to work. Somebody who is completely comfortable in his role and in who they are as a person, that's the most important thing. But there's a lot of other characteristics that go into it. How well does the person hire? Is he going to surround himself with strong coordinators and good assistant coaches? ... I'm looking for someone that's innovative. Somebody that is not afraid to take risks. Somebody that looks (at) and studies the league and studies the college world and decides what the best inefficiencies are on offense and defense and special teams and can execute it with their coaches so that you take advantage of trends and take advantage of, again, inefficiencies in terms of where the game is at and understand where it's going. So, a student of the game who is obsessed and who absolutely and, on his own, is completely driven to be the best, that's what you're looking for."

Innovative leader, not scheme champion. Sounds more like Bill O'Brien than Chip Kelly to me.

"I think to be really successful in this league, you've got to be able to have the freedom to make short-term plans, mid-term plans and long-term plans and if you feel like you're under the gun where you're going to be given two years and that's it or this year has to be absolutely the panacea to every problem you have, you're not going to get the best coaching."

So, what you're saying is that it might not have been such a good idea to give Reid a public ultimatum for 2012? Oops.

"I think the new coach will have a big factor in evaluating Nick. Nick is obviously very promising. I think when you bring in a new coaching staff, you have the opportunity to really get to know him and evaluate him. He has only played six games behind an offensive line that's been really battered. I think they're going to have a great opportunity. I know Andy was very excited about Nick and that's an understatement."

Interesting that Lurie describes Reid's excitement about Foles but not Roseman's. Obviously there's some organizational momentum behind the young QB, but we'll see what the next head coach says.

"I feel the pain. I feel the pain so much that I sometimes wonder, it's harder for me to lose than it is to win a game. I still play over, just to give you a feel for it, I will go back and go through a red zone series in New Orleans in a playoff game and I can't get it out of my mind. It could be a pass that is underthrown in a playoff game here against Green Bay a few years ago, or an early pass in the Super Bowl with a guy open that got intercepted. Things like that. I don't get it out of my mind. When we have a season like this year, it's embarrassing to me and it's personally crushing. Really, it's terrible."

Whatever else you want to say about Lurie, this team is his entire life. Let's all hope he makes the right decisions going forward.

Photo from Getty.

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.