Can The Eagles Defense Carry The Offense?

Last week, I placed the blame for the Eagles' 0-2 start squarely at the feet of the offense. Despite this week's win over the Jets (yay!), Chip Kelly's favorite unit continued to perform woefully.

Yes, Ryan Mathews, subbing in for DeMarco Murray, rushed for 108 yards on 25 carries. But his numbers hide the fact that there were still far too many negative or no gain rushes (10 total). Between Mathews and Darren Sproles, the rushing game averaged just 3.47 yards per carry, a heady improvement from the prior weeks, but nothing to get excited about. Everyone on the offensive line, including Kelce, Peters, and Johnson, are struggling to run block consistently.

Meanwhile, despite being sacked just once, Sam Bradford played another horrible game. His final numbers were 14 for 28 (50% completion rate) for just 118 yards. One touchdown and zero turnovers, if you want to focus on that. But his accuracy was poor, his ball placement terrible, and he has zero guts to throw the ball downfield, one of the only things that might give the running game enough room to breathe. See more at ChipWagon, as always.

All of which leads to...

The #Eagles offense is regressing. 2013: 6.3 yards per play 2014: 5.6 yards per play 2015: 4.5 yards per play
— Phil Bicking (@p_Red) September 28, 2015

Really bad. So the question is, until the time the offense recovers (assuming that's in the cards?), can the Eagles defense carry the team? And on that front, at least, there are some promising signs. To the stats!

Through three games, the Eagles have given up the 5th-fewest points per drive (1.42), the 9th-fewest yards per drive (26.9) and the 10th-fewest plays per drive (5.6). The run defense has been fantastic—allowing a league-low of 3.1 yards per rush and zero rushing touchdowns. Most important, they've forced turnovers on one out of every five opposing possessions. To keep it going, we'll need more Walter Thurmond ball-hawking and disruption at the line of scrimmage (Brandon Bair sighting FTW).

The worrisome note is that the Eagles haven't gotten consistent pressure on quarterbacks. The defense ranks 8th-worst in sack rate so far. Overall, this isn't terribly surprising. The two-gapping scheme means players like Fletcher Cox are responsible for the run first, then the pass second. Neither Connor Barwin nor Brandon Graham are consistent man-beaters on the outside. And now the top two middle linebackers are hurt. Billy Davis needs to mix in some good blitz concepts to get pressure if this defense is going to sustain itself.

Three games is also quite a small sample size, especially when about half of that time the Eagles faced Brandon Weeden and Ryan Fitzpatrick. Luckily, due to a combination of easy schedule and injuries, the Eagles aren't scheduled to face many top quarterbacks down the stretch. The next three games match up against Kirk Cousins, Luke McCown, and Eli Manning, with Cam Newton as the pre-bye week chaser.

Still, that we're having this conversation at all is a good sign. The defense was atrocious two years ago, and improved to average or slightly above last year. If it can take another leap, that's a huge deal for this team—especially if the offense can't turn it around.

Why Nick Foles Is Better Than Ever (But Can't Stay This Good)

I call him SuperNick. The man who threw seven touchdown passes in little more than three quarters of play deserves such a cartoon moniker. But how did "one of the better backups in the NFL" become in one afternoon the guy who plays what "might have been the best three-quarters of a game we've ever witnessed"?

The simple answer is, he didn't. With the notable exception of four horrendous quarters against Dallas where he looked like he sustained a concussion before he ever got to the stadium, Foles has looked good all year. Andy Reid and Marty Mornhinweg may have the quarterback guru reputation, but Chip Kelly's offense has been much friendlier to QBs than he gets credit for. Why? Because his spread-option, up tempo, zone read running attack forces opponents to pick their poison. Kelly has repeated versions of this quote for years:

"They can't defend it all. I'm really happy with how we threw the ball. If you're going to devote nine guys and try to stop the run, God bless you, and we'll throw it."

Since early in the season, defenses have made their choice: plug the box with seven or eight players and keep just one safety back deep. That often leaves man-to-man coverage on the outside against DeSean Jackson and Riley Cooper. Those are golden matchups for a quarterback, but the Eagles haven't executed. As Sheil Kapadia wrote after the Cowboys game, "An average QB performance likely would have yielded 300+ yards and a score in the 20s." Unfortunately, Foles couldn't make that happen. Neither could Matt Barkley, as Derek Sarley showed last week.

Jump ahead to the Raiders game, and Foles finally started taking advantage of those one-on-one matchups, just as he did against the Buccaneers. Fran Duffy diagrammed all 7 TDs, and over and over you saw Cooper and Jackson beating man coverage -- and passes actually finding them. The gains were comical. Check out how Foles' numbers on long passes differ from last year (stats courtesy Pro Football Focus):

Screen Shot 2013-11-05 at 12.07.52 AM.png

To start with, Foles is attempting about 50% more long passes than he did with Andy Reid at the helm. That's a big jump. His current rate of 16.1% is near the top of the league, after placing in the bottom half last season. This change is entirely about the offense; Michael Vick has also seen a spike in his deep balls, bringing him back to 2010 levels after declines the last two years.

But where things start to get crazy is the long ball effectiveness. Foles completed only 36% of passes 20 yards or longer in 2012. That's up to nearly 53% so far this year. Long ball completion percentage is a huge indicator of success. Look at the list of QBs who posted 48% or above last year: Kaepernick, Rodgers, P. Manning, Newton, Griffin, Brees, Wilson. That's elite territory.

Can Foles keep that completion rate up? Unclear. While there may be some regression to the mean, I'm actually bullish on this front. Kelly's offense seems to be giving his QBs a boost. Vick has also seen a double-digit jump in 20+ yard completion rate, so Foles' numbers may not be an aberration.

Touchdown and interception rates are another matter. Foles is averaging an insane four TDs for every ten long passes he throws. Eight out of his ten completions at that distance have gone for six points. He also has no interceptions at any distance all year -- the only quarterback with more than 75 passes who can say that. (No fumbles either.)

Even if the completion percentage stands, those most certainly won't. Last year, RGIII led the league in touchdown rate on passes of 20 yards or more -- at only 19.4%. Even if defenses don't significantly adjust their coverage schemes (although I expect they'll have to back out of the box more now), Foles simply can't count on the type of luck he's had so far with defenders falling down, receivers wide open, and more. He also eventually will start throwing interceptions. Last year he threw them on just 1.9% on all throws, but Football Outsiders' adjusted interception rate showed a more pedestrian 4.2% after accounting for defenders dropping would-be picks.

The first takeaway here is that SuperNick's current outsized numbers will almost certainly come back to Earth. He may be good the rest of the year, but he won't be that good. The second takeaway is more important, though. Foles' improvement is only over a small sample, but it may not be an anomaly. Kelly is putting his quarterbacks in a great position to succeed, and when defenses change to prevent that, it will only give McCoy more room to run. If the Chip's scheme looks this good with competent QB play from a limited upside guy like Foles, think about what it might do with a true top-tier talent at the position.

Let's Not Panic Just Yet

While I missed the Eagles-Steelers game live, I certainly caught the harsh real-time reaction to the loss. However, once I caught up on the game myself yesterday, I was surprised how little cause for alarm I saw. Sure, the Eagles lost. But not all losses are created equal.

The Eagles lost by 2 points, on the road at a good Pittsburgh team. That, on its face, should be enough to keep the sky from falling. The Arizona loss and even the Cleveland win were both more alarming.

For starters, the defense continues to play well overall. They went into the game 2nd in defensive DVOA, and allowed only 16 points to a Pittsburgh team that averaged nearly 26 per game through the first three weeks, was coming off its bye, and returned its top running back. I don't see much to complain about with that performance.

Granted, there are shortcomings on defense that need to be shored up. The defensive line got pressure on Ben Roethlisberger, but failed to record a sack. The run defense was lacking at times, especially when Fletcher Cox was on the sidelines. And Nnamdi Asomugha continues to show that he's not a bad corner, but certainly a limited one. But these are complaints at the fringes of success.

The bigger question marks were on offense, but even there I see more silver linings than storm clouds. For the second straight week, Andy Reid toned down the offense, keeping the run-pass ratio under control while providing easier routes for Michael Vick. Vick responded with his second straight solid week through the air: completing two-thirds of his passes, two touchdowns and zero interceptions. And the offense left multiple plays on the field. Obviously there was the fumble down at the goal line, which is just killer bad luck. The Eagles also should have received a defensive pass interference call on Ike Taylor against DeSean Jackson in the second quarter. That would have put them in position for another score.

The biggest problem, which we already knew going in, was the offensive line. They don't have the individual players to match up well, but they could *ahem* muddle through if only their communication was better. The Steelers' zone-blitz scheme isn't easy to protect against, but you can't have rushers coming free at the quarterback if you want to win in the NFL.

One final point, regarding Michael Vick's fumbling. There's a lot of hand-wringing over it, even people saying he should be benched. I don't believe that. Vick has always been rather fumble-prone, with a rate often hovering around or just below 10% of all sacks and runs. He led the NFL in fumbles twice, in 2004 and 2010. But through all that, he's never had a fumble rate as bad as he is putting up this year.

A few weeks back, I suggested that Vick's interception rate was ridiculously high, bordering on a statistical anomaly. Since then, after two interception-less games, it has dropped to just a tick under last year's number. At this point, I'm looking at Vick's absurd 17.4% fumble rate and thinking the same thing. He's probably never going to be great at controlling the ball, but this poor trend isn't likely to sustain itself either.

Photo from Getty.

By the Numbers: Eagles Triumph Over Ravens

If the ending of the Browns game came as a collective sigh of relief among Eagles fans, this one point win was a jubilant scream. Despite more turnovers, penalties, and a spate of injuries that grounded three offensive starters, the Eagles beat what looks like at worst a solid contender and at best a team primed to make a deep playoff run. Kudos all around. Let's go to the numbers:

71.9 = Michael Vick's completion percentage. That's Vick's second-highest single-game completion percentage since he came to Philly. He still isn't out of the woods; that end zone interception on the first drive was too ambitious, and he almost had a third pick when he tried to force the ball to Brent Celek in the red zone, but this was a much better version of Vick.

36.0 = Average QB rating vs Eagles defense. Average QB rating in opponents' other games (both vs CIN): 121.7. Great stat find by The Guy On The Couch, at the very least it shows how much better the Eagles D is compared to the Bengals D.

42:31 = Eagles pass-run play call ratio. The actual ratio of passes to runs tilts the other way because of Vick's scrambles, but overall Andy Reid and Marty Mornhinweg called a fairly balanced attack (especially compared to last week). Two other notes on this. One: LeSean McCoy clearly has a pitch count. Otherwise they wouldn't have given six early carries to Bryce Brown/Stanley Havili/Damaris Johnson. Two: the pitch count makes it obvious early on when the Eagles are going to focus on the run. If the coaches know they want to run more, they work hard to limit McCoy's touches early in order to preserve him for later.

9 = Eagles turnovers in their first two games. It's amazing that the Eagles have managed to win twice with these turnovers (plus other mistakes like penalties). The only five teams with worse turnover margins are a combined 3-7 so far. What does DeSean Jackson think about this?

"If you cut away those turnovers, the best team in the league," he said, "period, hands down."

30 = Possessions by Eagles opponents in two games. Not to harp on the same theme, but the defense has had to deal with the ramifications of those turnovers. Let me put it this way: the Ravens offense racked up 44 points in 10 drives against the Bengals. They could only muster 23 points in 14 drives against the Eagles.

70 = Defensive snaps for both DeMeco Ryans and Mychal Kendricks. They played every down yesterday. Looks like the linebacker shuffle may be over, at long last.

19.6 = Yards per catch for Celek. The Eagles tight end had a tremendous game, not the least of which was his vault over Hall of Fame safety Ed Reed. I think this will be easier to see on All-22, but it seems that the Ravens—like the Browns before them—kept their safeties deep to prevent the long ball. That opened up a lot of space in the middle of the field for Celek to exploit in crossing routes. One of the things that such success suggests, however, is how much better Vick is throwing to larger targets. At least until Riley Cooper returns, Celek is by far the Eagles biggest receiver—and that's unfortunate.

25 = Pass targets, out of 42 total, for Ray Rice and Dennis Pitta. Again, tough to tell before the All-22 is released, but it seemed that the Eagles were very effective in man coverage on the Ravens wide receivers. Aside from a few breakdowns, like Jacoby Jones beating Nnamdi Asomugha with a double move or Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie inexplicably bailing out of coverage on Torrey Smith down the sideline, Flacco couldn't get anything going on the outside or up the field. He was forced to check down to his tight end and running back, a trade-off the Eagles will take every time. There's definitely room to improve against those players, though. Nate Allen and Kurt Coleman each had trouble at times keeping up with Pitta/Rice.

2 = Back-to-back Eagles wins by a single point. Last season, the Eagles went 2-5 in games decided by a touchdown or less. This year, they've won two straight by a single point. I think some of the "if this were 2011, they would have lost" talk is misleading, because this isn't about "heart" or something similarly abstract. A large part is substantive improvement in the defense. In both games, the Eagles opponent had ample time to mount a game-winning drive in the final seconds (and the Ravens certainly had the kicker to pull it off). The difference in 2012 is that the defense is good enough that it can shut down an offense in the last moments.

Photo from Getty.

Same Old Eagles? Not So Fast

The prevailing reaction to Sunday's season opener was, "Here we go again." The Eagles won, despite showing shockingly bad tendencies across the field. Anyone who was optimistic all offseason that the problems of 2011 were behind us was sorely mistaken.

But the more I think about the game, the more I think that narrative rings false. In fact, the team we saw on Sunday looked markedly different than last year's version — for better and worse. This version looked like a Bizarro Eagles — comically exaggerated in some ways and a complete 180 turn in others. All told, I may actually be more optimistic today that I was before Sunday.

Let's start, as one should, with Michael Vick. The conventional wisdom was that whatever was wrong with Vick in 2011 could be fixed in a few months of one-on-one tutelage with Marty Mornhinweg. I was never so sure. To me, Vick looked like a flawed quarterback last year. I use the word flawed purposely. He certainly wasn't the elite player we glimpsed in 2010, a Superman quarterback. But for 2011 Football Outsiders ranked him 12th in passing DVOA, the second-best mark in his career — by far — and just a tick below his 2010 performance. Other measures were even more positive: lowest sack rate in his career and highest yards per rush since 2006, despite staying in the pocket more than ever.

Vick's biggest problems in 2011 were accuracy and turnovers, both of which reverted back toward his career averages. That alone, though, doesn't make Vick a bad quarterback — just flawed. And they are flaws Vick is unlikely to snap out of at age 32. But the Vick we saw against the Browns wasn't merely flawed, he was broken. He posted a shocking single-game -50.7% DVOA, third-worst in the NFL, in front of only Ryan Tannehill and Brandon Weeden (-106.4% LOL). He threw four interceptions, tying a career-worst. His quarterback rating was 51.0, worse than in all but one game he's played in the last two years.

Derek gave you the pessimistic scenario for Vick's problems — that Andy Reid and company have actually made him worse by tinkering. There is truth there with regard to Vick's regression in 2011. He was at his best when he was playing off the cuff, taking the world by storm in 2010. But in terms of Sunday, we may have watched something akin to a statistical anomaly. It is unlikely that Vick has permanently fallen back to the realm of overmatched rookies, unable to see linebackers dropping back into coverage. You can't wave away his performance with a "rusty" tag, but what you saw is basically worst case scenario Vick. I would be surprised if he is still be playing at that level next week, let alone six weeks from now.

That is, assuming the offensive line gets fixed. Bizarro Eagles exaggerated Vick's flaws — as well as the line's problems. King Dunlap is a poor substitute for Jason Peters, but he wasn't the (main) issue. There were simply too many communications breakdowns. Sheil Kapadia ran through every hit Vick took, and by my quick examination, eight of those involved either a completely unblocked rusher or one that was handed off improperly. Considering four out of the five linemen played together last year, that shouldn't happen. Nor do I expect it to going forward. Molding the line into a coherent unit is what Howard Mudd gets paid the big bucks to do — and it's an easier fix than having to replace overmatched players.

Clearly the play-calling was also an issue. Why did the Eagles keep four running backs if they aren't going to use them? Take some pressure off of Vick by running more of the offense through LeSean McCoy. And if you're worried about McCoy breaking down, give some carries to Bryce Brown (or Dion Lewis or Chris Polk). Last year, right after the Eagles fourth preseason loss, I advocated unleashing McCoy. Coincidentally, that was right after Vick played in a similarly crappy manner to last Sunday (2 TDs, 4 INTS, 315 yards passing). Marty Mornhinweg listened (or at least had the same thought), and proceeded to call Shady's number for 58 rushes over the next two games. He didn't disappoint — racking up 311 yards and three scores. Mornhinweg and Reid aren't complete idiots. They know last week's pass-run ratio was untenable, and nearly cost them the game.

Thus, in my mind, the team's three biggest problems are eminently fixable (four, if you count an extreme number of penalties). Moreover, their biggest liability from last year — the defense — showed signs of improvement. Look, it's hard to draw conclusions playing against Brandon Weeden & Co. That offense looked pitiful. But Juan Castillo's defense was rock solid. They did everything they were asked to do and more.

Cleveland had the fourth-highest average starting field position in the NFL on Sunday, courtesy of the five Eagles turnovers. They were also tied for first (with the Eagles) in total number of offensive possessions (15). Despite that, the defense only allowed three measly field goals. Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie stole two interceptions (Asante Samuel who?). The defensive line stacked up against the run better than we've seen since Jim Washburn came to town. DeMeco Ryans put last year's linebackers to shame with his burst through the hole.

No one should expect this level of dominance from the defense against the Ravens or other opponents, but it seems well on its way to competence and more. If you're looking for a reason for optimism, this is it. The offense is unlikely to be as bad as we saw in week one. The defense looks better than it has in quite some time. Is it too early to talk playoffs? (Yes, for the record.)

Photo from Getty

Recap: Eagles vs. Browns

I don't know what everyone's all excited about. This is why the Eagles schedule five preseason games in the first place.

Michael Vick didn't have his greatest game. In fact, he was downright bad, with four interceptions and a few more close calls. But, as Andy Reid said after the game, Vick was just "rusty." After he injured himself the last two times he took the field, it was good to see Vick back out there today, and his ability to "just keep shooting" will help him once the real games start.

What's that? Yes, you're right. Vick was supposed to show improvement this year, considering he had his "first real offseason as a starter" with quarterback gurus Reid and Marty Mornhinweg. But I'm sure that "new Vick" is coming soon. The fact that he looked worse than ever, making poor decisions and forgetting that linebackers existed in coverage, is a small thing. Vick needed to get out some of the bugs, and what else is a dress rehearsal for?

That must have been the reason Reid and Mornhinweg didn't use LeSean McCoy. Vick had 65 pass drop backs in the game, while the Eagles All-Pro running back—who the Browns demonstrated an inability to stop—was a sideshow for most of the afternoon. Better to keep McCoy fresh for the games that count, I suppose, and let Vick get more practice throwing interceptions.

That goes double for Jeremy Maclin, who racked up yardage and a touchdown, but wisely avoided blocking down the field and dropped a few balls just for practice. We wouldn't want the biggest of the Eagles' healthy wide receivers to actually demonstrate toughness yet.

We can probably also discount the inebriated performance of the offensive line. Howard Mudd was just using this game to test the replacement referees' definition of holding and roughing the passer. When Danny Watkins let his man stream by him off the snap, I'm sure it was in service of one of those goals. Same with the time that McCoy tried to run behind his left tackle, and the King in the North just stood there, idly watching.

Besides, the defense looked great, didn't it? Let's not discount their improvement. Yes, it was against on offense that probably had trouble tying its shoes in the morning, but that's no matter. Brandon Weeden and his 5.1 passer rating is surely up to the quality of the rest of the quarterbacks the Eagles will face. And the Browns' other offensive weapons were at least average, right?

Save your outrage. Embrace "rusty." And wake me up next week in time for the season opener against the Ravens. There's a game I'm looking forward to.

Photo from Getty.

Same As It Ever Was

Deep breaths.

It was just the first preseason game. We can't expect greatness. We can't even reasonably expect quality. So why do I feel so disappointed after last night's first preseason game? I think theguyotc summed it up well in 140 characters:

The reason people are freaking out over a preseason game is because almost everything bad we've seen we also saw last year. #Eagles
— the guy (@theguyotc) August 10, 2012

Yep, that's it. It isn't the fact that we saw many issues with the team—it's that they were the exact same issues that killed playoff hopes in 2011. Watching the first team defense, I briefly wondered if I was seeing a greatest hits collection of last year's worst tackling attempts. Then there were the deja vu coverage breakdowns. That wasn't supposed to happen. Everyone knew what the problems were and they were getting fixed, right? Let's talk highlights and lowlights:

Brian Rolle looked worse than I've ever seen him. Really poor angles to the ball, completely whiffed tackles. Shouldn't he have improved this offseason, not regressed?
On the other hand, some positive signs from rookie Mychal Kendricks. He certainly wasn't perfect, but Kendricks was the only starting linebacker who I saw make a clean wrap-up tackle (twice).
The whole team is lucky that Michael Vick didn't break a finger or three when his hand slammed into Jason Kelce's helmet. Vick deserves more than to be judged on his first two short series, but initial impressions weren't great. He stepped into pressure multiple times when he had a mostly clean pocket. (Although Kelce shouldn't be getting pushed back either.)
While we're on the subject of injuries, I hold my breath every time LeSean McCoy touches the ball in the preseason.
Alex Henery's game-winning field goal was Akers-esque.
Mike Kafka threw a terrible interception on a screen pass. There isn't a quarterback competition, but Nick Foles looked more poised out there than Kafka.
The defensive line did stand out. The Steelers o-line was a revolving door all night and some of that may have been on them. Still, at least so far, Jim Washburn is delivering on his promise for an even better line—and that was without both starting ends. Philip Hunt and Brandon Graham looked like Pro-Bowlers for 20 minutes.
Also exciting: the return game. Brandon Boykin erased all memories of Dion Lewis with his first kick return, and Damaris Johnson showed DeSean-like quickness on punts. Brought tears to my eyes (not really).
Not faulting Nnamdi Asomugha for the touchdown, which looked like a Jaiquawn Jarrett special. However, Antonio Brown did beat him badly one-on-one for a quick slant route. Quickness isn't really Nnamdi's strength at this point.
Finally, Nate Allen will look like a Pro Bowler when he comes back and replaces Jarrett. This image is going to haunt my nightmares:

What Would a New Contract for Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie Look Like?

I’ve opined before on giving Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie a contract extension, going as far as to call it an offseason priority. With Nnamdi Asomugha aging and only unproven recent draftees behind him, locking up Rodgers-Cromartie would go a long way to preserve continuity in the defensive backfield. Obviously, whether you want to extend him also stems from your impression of him as a player. If you’ve been following along, you know that I think DRC’s stellar play on the outside at the end of 2011 after he languished in the slot for most of the year suggests big things could be in store for him. (And reports out of training camp are stellar so far.)

But unless Howie Roseman is discussing things behind the scenes during training camp, it doesn’t look like he agrees, with either Rodgers-Cromartie’s value or his skill. Let’s go deeper and see what the difference in money might be based on letting DRC play out this contract year. Here’s a table of recent top cornerback contracts given out for players in his age range. Financial details are on the right and on the field stats are on the left (Pro Bowl appearances, games started, yards per attempt, interceptions):

Looking at the finances first, you can see there are different measures for large contracts. The total millions is a nice overall number, although it tends to overstate the “real” value of the deal (with fake years at the end). The yearly figure and guarantee may give a more accurate accounting of the contract.

It’s interesting to look at how the deals were structured and how they turned out. DeAngelo Hall and Dunta Robinson got massive contracts that turned out to be bad for their teams—although you can see why the Redskins and Falcons, respectively, were willing to dish out that kind of dough. For example, Hall was young, even for this group, and already had two Pro Bowl appearances and 22 interceptions.

The following year, Antonio “Headcase” Cromartie received a smaller contract than his number stats warranted because of his off the field problems. Leon Hall got a slightly larger and slightly longer deal. Johnathan Joseph made out like a bandit, with nearly $10 million a year and $24 million guaranteed.

This offseason, Brandon Carr and Cortland Finnegan both just bested Joseph’s contract. Eric Wright has had an up-and-down career, most recently in Detroit, and he signed a more modest five-year free agent deal. Meanwhile, Lardarius Webb, who had a stellar 2011 season with the Ravens, got the largest total amount. That figure is inflated by an extra year though; as you can see the guarantee is less than some of his peers.

So, where does Rodgers-Cromartie fit in? At 26 years old, he has fewer games started than anyone other than Webb, although his other stats are better than average. He has a low yards per attempt figure and a high interception rate. Even with his atrocious play in the slot last season, 2011 was much more in line with his first two seasons in the league. DRC’s 2010 letdown that prompted him to be traded might have been an outlier.

The question becomes what Rodgers-Cromartie would command in today’s market. Given his perceived inconsistency, lack of physicality, and a deficit of experience compare to his peers, DRC probably wouldn’t be in line for a Carr or Cortland-sized contract. Wright’s deal this year and Hall’s in 2011 look like better comparables: perhaps 5 years, $40 million, $16 million guaranteed.

Let’s say though, that Rodgers-Cromartie plays out this season, putting up his career averages, and enters the market in 2012. At that point, with 60 games started, 7.2 yards per attempt against, and 16 or so interceptions, he could make the case that he’s better than Carr or Finnegan. DRC would probably received $25 million guaranteed and upwards of $10 million per year on the open market—a substantial upgrade from his current value.

By not re-signing his second cornerback now, Roseman risks the price going up next year. He may be making one of a few calculated bets, though. Perhaps he thinks DRC simply isn’t worth a long term contract. He’s betting that Rodger-Cromartie will show that he’s not worth top money. Or Howie’s looking at the other backups and assuming that someone like Curtis Marsh will be able to slide in a year from now. Or maybe Roseman is willing to use the franchise tag (at enormous one-year cost) as necessary to keep DRC on hand in 2013.

Looking at the state of the defensive backfield and the market for cornerbacks as it stands now, I would buy into DRC long term. The potential rewards, both financially and on the field, are great, and the downside to not paying him could be severe next offseason. Get it done.

Photo from Getty.