Eagles Coaching Search: Go Big or Go Home

By the end of last week, I was more than ready for the Eagles' coaching search to be over. This third stage of the search process, when the top options have gone away and the team is reportedly picking over the leftover bin, is excruciating. While there are still a few names out there that seem attractive (Gus Bradley, I'm looking at you), many fans anticipate a disappointing announcement.

But fan disappointment is nothing compared to the sudden onslaught of negative national media attention shining on Jeff Lurie's search. On Monday this came to a sudden head with a few prominent reporters casting judgment. Overall, I find their line of criticism lacking.

First we have Peter King (emphasis mine):

I think that, while I agree that the Eagles' aggressiveness in interviewing the best college coaches (minus Nick Saban) in the country is good, it says much about the impression of this franchise that Chip Kelly, Bill O'Brien and Brian Kelly all either turned down the chance to coach the team or withdrew their names from consideration after being interviewed.

I understand the vagaries of college coaches interviewing for jobs, and how some of them (most, maybe) want to use the interviews to better their lots in college. But the Eagles have averaged 10.4 wins a year, with nine playoff appearances since the turn of the century. That's about as good as it gets, aside from the Super Bowl drought, in a highly competitive league. But now, this could be a team trending downward...

Fine. But would three premier college coaches say no to the Steelers? The Giants? The Packers? Don't think so.

King tries to cast aspersions on the Eagles' claim to being a top franchise, but it's funny to see him do it while hedging so strongly. In fact, you could take his two caveats and build a stronger argument. The Eagles struck out interviewing college coaches -- but is it so bad that they tried? I agree with Lurie that some of the most exciting names are in the college game, and it would be disappointing if he didn't go after O'Brien and (Chip) Kelly.

Kelly has now declined an NFL job three times over, with completely different franchises. It sounds like he isn't waiting for organizational control or anything so much as a job that assures him a similar comfort level to what he enjoys at Oregon. Not sure he'll ever find that. O'Brien, meanwhile, needed to wrap up his NFL flirtation as quickly as possible, since he had recruits to retain and a reputation to uphold. That he leveraged the Eagles' interest into a raise and more was no big surprise.

Jason LaCanfora took the issue further than King with this hit piece:

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone told me one esteemed coach or another advised one of the Eagles' top candidates not to take the job precisely because of Roseman's presence there. Roseman isn't the general manager they should tie their wagon to. It's clear Chip Kelly wasn't leaving Oregon for anywhere unless he had a large measure of control over the organization, and owner Jeffrey Lurie has already entrusted that to Roseman. There has been trepidation by some candidates to go all-in given the questions about this existing power structure.

The rumblings about Roseman lacking nuance and foresight, about him turning people off with how drunk with power he's become, only grow louder as his coaching search grows stranger.

I think it's possible that, despite Lurie's protestations to the contrary, Howie Roseman is a terrible GM and a negative aspect to the Eagles head coaching job. But LaCanfora paints this as the sole reason the team failed to hire one of their top candidates. Notice how he conveniently leaves out that Kelly could have gone to Cleveland instead, where he could have not only avoided the dreaded Roseman, but also hand-picked his own GM?

All of this speculation is misguided. It's not as if the Eagles wanted Rob Chudzinski or Doug Marrone and the Browns/Bills were more attractive situations. They went after big names and failed to reel them in. That's disappointing from an organizational and fan perspective, but it's not indicative of any greater dysfuction.

The team's main problem right now is one of perception. They look desperate. While the Browns gave up on college coaches all together and settled on Chudzinski, the Eagles were still tilting at the windmill. They went after the second, lesser Kelly, even though no one expected the Notre Dame coach to leave South Bend and few thought he would be a good NFL coach. Then they interviewed Brian Billick, one of the worst TV analysts out there.

Sure, as people like Dan Graziano point out, the Eagles have a questionable GM, no franchise QB, and a fanbase and local media market that's known for being ruthless -- as if other franchises who needed to clean house this offseason are in such great shape. Hysteria aside, the Eagles job is still quite attractive, and I expect Lurie to come to a conclusion on the new coach in the next few days.

Photo from Getty.

On the Eagles Trading Up in the First Round

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Except when it comes to the NFL draft, in which case the smoke may be planted ten miles away to distract everyone from the actual blaze.

If you ask me, that’s what’s going on with all these rumors about the Eagles moving high up in the draft. First there was the report saying the team was in the hunt to move up to the fourth overall pick. Then there’s this nugget, from National Football Post’s Dan Pompei:

A buzz is building in NFL front offices that the Eagles are going to take a quarterback fairly high. If they don’t make a move for Ryan Tannehill in round one, the Eagles could wait until the second round and go after Kirk Cousins or Brandon Weeden. Such a move could indicate the Eagles have concerns about Michael Vick’s ability to stay healthy and how he fits in Andy Reid’s offense.

First of all, there is ample evidence to suggest the Eagles aren’t finished at quarterback. Mike Kafka is no sure-thing backup, and Trent Edwards didn’t receive more than the most token endorsement from Andy Reid as the third-stringer. They might be looking to draft another quarterback to develop or pick up another veteran.

But why would the Eagles move up to get Tannehill? He’s way overvalued as a top ten pick, and there’s no reason for the team to mortgage most of their draft to reach for a guy like that. To get up to the Browns pick, for example, would require three-quarters of the cost the Redskins paid for the rights to RG3 and you probably wouldn’t get half as good of a player.

Moreover, if the team really was interested in moving up to get Tannehill or drafting one of the other quarterbacks a little bit later on, it would be in their interest to keep such thoughts to themselves.

All of which brings us to Peter King, who Tommy noted yesterday is quite the Eagles prognosticator:

The Eagles don’t want to trade up from 15 to anywhere between three and eight. It’d cost too much, and I sense their interest in Tannehill has been overstated. Philadelphia has sniffed around the quarterback position through the offseason, which could be a sign they’ve cooled on Michael Vick as their long-term solution at the position, and the Eagles have been linked to the Texas A&M quarterback because they sent quarterback coach Doug Pederson to the school to work out Tannehill two weeks ago. The Eagles might pay something to move up for Tannehill, but it won’t be much, and the move won’t be far.

I think it’s interesting that King pegged ninth overall as being the highest the Eagles would be likely to trade up. That probably has something to do with the Dolphins pick at eight being about as far as Tannehill is likely to drop, but more importantly, the Eagles can move up that high using just one of their second round picks.

If I were sitting at 15, I’d probably be content to see how the first eight picks shake out. Three quarterbacks are likely to go that high, which could leave one or more elite position players within striking distance. If not, Howie Roseman can still watch the board and jump ahead of any team he thinks might be targeting his top player (say, Fletcher Cox).

The rest is just smoke.

Photo from Getty.

Washburn and Spagnuolo

Peter King:

Someone Who Knows told me a major roadblock to Steve Spagnuolo taking the defensive coordinator job in Philadelphia was the presence of very strong personality Jim Washburn on the defensive line.

This doesn’t surprise me. The Wide Nine was always a red herring in talks about whether a new coordinator would be compatible with Washburn. The bigger issue is that a new coordinator would have to cede all control of the line to his supposed underling. Remember, Washburn doesn’t take orders from anyone.

2011 Will Test Utility of NFL Offseason Work

Work expands so as to fill the time available.

I’m sure everyone has come across this saying (also known as Parkinson’s Law) at some point in regard to school homework, projects at the office, or jobs around the house. But might it also apply to the NFL offseason?

In a normal offseason, NFL teams go through almost constant work. There are minicamps and weight training and film sessions and scouting and drills and preseason games. The events go on and on, filling almost the entire possible time between the end of one season and the start of the next. As the game has become more complex, we’ve largely accepted this increase as the cost of doing business. Some players complain about the workload, but it’s tough to side with guys who make millions but don’t want to work.

This interminable lockout, however, has already cut way back on the possible preparation time. Minicamps long forgotten, playbooks unable to be distributed. In lieu of “voluntary” workouts, the players have organized truly optional group practices. If the work stoppage stretches into the July and August, lost more will have to be cut back.

But how essential is this lost time? Are we likely to unprepared players and disorganized teams whenever football begins again? Could 2011 be the sloppiest season on record?

Bill Parcells doesn’t think so. He told Peter King, “I always felt like you really do a better job with less time than more time because when you have less time you focus immediately on what’s of the utmost importance. Whereas when you have a lot of time to deliberate as to what to do, a lot of times you kind of get off on little tangents.”

I tend to agree with Parcells. NFL teams may not be able to plan for every contingency, but the important things will be accomplished. However, 2011 will be an interesting test of his theory, and Parkinson’s Law in general. If football is still accomplished at a high level, perhaps there was never any need for offseason programs to become so comprehensive. On the other hand, if rookies produce at an all-time low we might be able to conclude that the opposite is true.

With any luck, we’ll find out soon enough.

Photo from Getty. Originally published at NBC Philadelphia.

Peter King Chimes In On Eagles QB Clusterf%$k

Peter King dedicates about 1000 words to the case for trading/trading for Donovan McNabb in his MMQB column. Most of his talk rehashes everything you’ve heard before, so I don’t have a ton to say on it. Just a couple notes.

This is a good opportunity to bash this recurring dialogue:

I think the Eagles should go with Kolb and make the best deal they can for McNabb this offseason, because, basically, it’s Groundhog Day in Philadelphia. Every year’s the same, and I don’t see McNabb getting Philly over the hump and into another Super Bowl.

There are plenty of reasons to argue for a McNabb trade. But this one is just stupid, largely because it gets repeated so often. It comes from this desire to change something, anything. And since people realize Andy Reid isn’t going anywhere, McNabb is the next best thing.

Having consistency is good. Having great players who keep you in the hunt every year is good. Has McNabb been good enough for the Eagles to win a Super Bowl? Absolutely. Could he be good enough next year for that? Absolutely. The idea that McNabb should go just because he’s been around and the team’s never gotten over the hump is silly. If you think McNabb should go, say why the team would be better without him. Don’t call for change for change’s sake.

Also, King lays out the case for sending a 1st round pick for McNabb:

So why would I want to pawn him off on another quarterback-needy team when I don’t think he’s a top-five quarterback? Simple. Because he’s a top-10 or top-12 quarterback, and they’re too hard to find to let one pass when he’s just sitting there for the taking. McNabb would shore up any team’s most important position for the next half-decade. Some team’s going to take Jimmy Clausen between, say, the fourth and 20th pick in the first round, and whoever takes him is going to have no idea if he’s the long-term solution at quarterback.

We can debate about whether McNabb’s really a top-10 or -12 quarterback anymore, but you can certainly make the argument. I sincerely doubt any GMs listen to Peter King for advice, but the Eagles front office must be happy that their demands for a 1st round pick are finding acceptance in the mainstream media.

Finally, an interesting note about a guy the Eagles may be targeting in the middle rounds to groom in that third QB spot:

Fordham University, not exactly a football hotbed, had its pro day for NFL coaches and scouts Friday in the Bronx. Fordham has a late-round quarterback prospect, John Skelton. The Eagles were at the workout with not one coach but two — quarterback coach James Urban and offensive coordinator Marty Mornhinweg. Maybe it means nothing, but it’s pretty rare for two coaches to be looking at a late-round quarterback — especially when you’re as packed at quarterback as the Eagles are.

The Eagles are obviously in the market for a long term prospect, since all of their QBs don’t have contracts past this year. But that does seem pretty amazing that they’d send two of their top offensive minds to go look at this guy. Tommy Lawlor has the briefest of scouting reports on him.

Update: Don’t miss KSK’s always hilarious takedown of MMQB here.

Also, tune in later for the explosive third part of the “How Good is McNabb Really?” series. You don’t want to miss this one…

“Lot of buzz about whether the Eagles will go with Kevin Kolb or Donovan McNabb as the QB of the future. Only one man knows for sure. The Big Man. Andy Reid. He says McNabb, but why do I think that’s a tepid endorsement?”

— Peter King