Iggles Blog - Philadelphia Eagles Blog

Jason Peters, Spawn Of Grendel

A couple weeks ago, Gabe linked to this KC Joyner blog post.  Joyner provided a sneak peek at some of his personal stats to make the point that the Eagles' offensive line wasn't a bad run-blocking unit last year; the problems came more with the fullbacks and tight ends.

I mentioned at the time I was too unfamiliar with Joyner's statistics to have a handle on how decent the run-blocking performance of the line actually was.  This is no longer a problem, now that Joyner's website is finally working for me.  He's distributed his rushing stats for four of the eight divisions -- and it's just our lucky day that among those four are the NFC East and the AFC East, former home to the Eagles' two newest offensive linemen.

I'm going to be more selective than usual in what I put up here.  This stuff is proprietary and unlike the FO numbers or that stats on NFL.com, it's not simply a case of slicing and dicing data everyone else has.  If you want all the numbers (as I do), then pre-order the book (as I have).

But a taste is in order:

 

These data are ridiculously intriguing.  In no particular order, what they suggest:

Jason Peters is a friggin' beast.  He had the best POA percentage in the four divisions and the second-best YPA.  (You'll never guess who was #1, although they rarely ran behind him, with only 64 POA attempts).  Buffalo as a unit has weird numbers.  Aside from Peters, their win percentages aren't great, but their YPAs are.  Good backs / blocking tight ends?

Last year's bookends were OK to poor.  Tra had a pretty decent win percentage, but his YPA lagged way behind.  Runyan was 12th and 15th out of the 19 ranked RTs.  Tra was also among the half-league worst in terms of allowing penetration.

Herremans put up great numbers.  No surprise.

Jackson has a split.  He was second-best in win percentage, but 11th in YPA.  We can make up stories as to why, but I'm not sure I find any of them convincing.

Nick Cole and MJG weren't that good.  (This is where you picture Chandler jumping out from behind the door shouting "I knew it!")  Their POA win percentages were 16th and 20th (out of 21) and their YPAs were 15th and 9th.  Even the POA / YPA split is interesting, with MJG blowing more blocks, but having greater success paving the way when he does make a block, which completely supports my anecdotal recollection of his performance. 

And the bad news ... Stacy Andrews kinda sucked.  In his defense, the entire Bengals offensive line seems to have been pretty terrible last year, at least in terms of YPA.  The only decent guy was former Eagle Bobbie Williams.*  Moving Stacy inside should help, but still, you have to wonder.

- - - - - -

Bonus non-Eagles nuggets:

• Andre Gurode's win percentage was terrible.  I'm flabbergasted.
• Mega free agent Jason Brown (whom no one had heard of before February) was 13th in win percentage among centers.  And remember, this is just half the league.
• Left tackle David Diehl is the clear weak link on the Giants' line.  The three interior guys have beastly numbers.
• Dallas ran behind RG Leonard Davis a lot last year ... but his win percentage was 19th out of 21.  Guest the bust is back.

- - - - - -

* Atta boy, Castillo!

The Long Shadow Of The King Of Pop

So I'm at the airport comma again (today completes an NYC trifecta for me: JFK Friday, LGA Monday, EWR Wednesday), milling about the Hudson News when I spot a copy of Us Weekly, its cover boasting of EXCLUSIVE Kendra wedding photos.

Fair enough, I think, let's see if any Eagles merit mention. So I flip it open.

Fail. Nothing more than a mention of "NFL buddies" and nothing close to a photo. I guess we'll have to wait for Garry Cobb to give us the skinny.

In all fairness, Hank amd Kendra did get a bit pre-empted this week by The King Of Pop. I suspect they may have gotten more column inches had MJ not passed.

Any Given Sunday, I s'pose.

Akers Post

Just because there are times it's fun to mess around with the visual display of quantitative information:

Although this chart is a little interesting:

We know the average kickoff distance is a bogus stat, because the league thoughtlessly includes onside kicks in the numbers.  Which, really, is just sort of lazy on the part of STATS Inc.

Anyway, if you adjust the numbers to account for those, you still find a nice jump from 2007 to 2008.  And while the adjusted average is good, the adjusted touchback percentage is great.  Almost one-fifths of Akers' kickoffs last year weren't returned, seventh-best in the league and far better than anything he's accomplished before.

Keep working the P90X, man.

More On Those Spending Stats

Ok, this is going to be a bit convoluted, but stay with me.

This weekend, Eagletarian linked to a story by NFL.com's Jason La Canfora about how much each team had spend in terms of actual salary dollars from 2004 through 2008.  We linked to it, a spirited discussions has ensued (here and elsewhere), and so it goes.

Anyway, today, Eagletarian linked to La Canfora's latest offering, in which LC demonstrated he's just as bored with the offseason as the rest of us by breaking down the spending per win. 

Now, I tell you all that just to establish where everything is before I link to this post on Don't Boo The Birds, in which those guys do the same thing LC did in his most recent post, except they also do the analysis for postseason wins and provide some commentary on the bottom for why some teams really stuck out.

Anyway, it's an interesting read.  I still hope when the MSM guys get back from vacation they pick things back up by waving the numbers in Banner's face and demanding an explanation. 

As mentioned before, the "controversy" itself is meaningless, but it sure is fun when the Eagles have to pull back the curtain a bit.  Bray, jackals, bray...

Sean Considine, Starter

Nice catch by Eagletarian today:

From the ex-Eagles file, Sean Considine has been penciled in as the starting strong safety for the Jacksonville Jaguars.

“I wanted the opportunity to start when I first went in and talked to them," Considine told the Rockford Register Star in his hometown in Illinois. "They told me I would be given that chance, and the rest is up to me. Their defense is quite a bit different from what I’m used to, though. There are a lot of adjustments I still need to make.”

I'm not here to give Considine a hard time again, it's just yet another data point on the issue of how solid the Eagles' roster is.

Spin Commencing In 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

This one hits a bit close to home, given the Eagles' contention that while they're never a team burning up salary cap space with dead money, when it comes to actual dollars, they're right at the top.

Um, not so much:

The Eagles ranked 20th in the NFL in actual dollars spent on salaries from 2004 to '08, according to numbers obtained by Jason La Canfora, the former Washington Post Redskins writer who recently joined the NFL Network. The numbers are gross totals spent on player salaries and bonuses.

The Eagles spent $495.75 million, and La Canfora says the Birds are among the teams that "stand out, stringing together a good run without grossly overspending." He makes the same case for the Giants (No. 19, $497.63 million) and Bears (21st, $495.57 million). Of course, all three teams reached a Super Bowl during that span, with the Giants winning the title. New England is 10th at $513.31 million.

Conversely, the team at the top of the list in spending -- to no one's surprise -- is the Dallas Cowboys at $566.89 million and still searching for an elusive playoff victory. The Redskins -- backed by Daniel Snyder's cash -- are third at $547.37 million. Seattle is a surprising second at $552.42 million.

On one hand, the list is self-nullifying as a marker of success.  Money doesn't equal wins. 

On the other, with their new stadium and passionate fanbase, the Eagles are one of the most valuable franchises in the league.  They should be able to stretch out a bit more than 20th.

I actually love when this kind of information comes out.  Not because it will be endlessly rehashed as a talking point whenever these guys drop two games in a row, but because it's a stick that pokes the beehive.  Usually there's a response.  And then we learn even more.

RSVP

Well, well, well, it looks like the McNabbs (or at least Mr. McNabb) will be attending today's nuptials at the Playboy Mansion, unless Donovan has another wedding to attend in LA today:

"Ironically, I am in Los Angeles for a few days between shooting a commercial and attending a teammate’s wedding this weekend."

Whew.  Really glad we settled that one.

Bonus question: so if the band/ DJ plays a Michael Jackson song at a wedding this weekend (not just Hank and Kendra, but any wedding), everyone's going to have to treat it like a head of state died, right?  Like the whole place will get up to dance, the bandleader will give some half-assed eulogy, something like that? 

Bonus bonus question: which Eagles attendee will be playing the role of uncomfortable alcoholic relative/ lonely unmarried bridesmaid at the ceremony tonight and just make a drunken jackass of themselves?  I mean, it happens at every wedding I attend, I can't imagine these guys are any different.  Is it Reggie Brown?  By 10:30 he's draped over DeSean Jackson's shoulder and slurring, "You just think you're soooo big, dontcha.  DONTCHA!  Well I wuz gonna be the new star...me...the Reg!  Don't trustem, kid, don't trustem.  They're bullsh*t.  Who's drunk?  I'm not drunk.  You're drunk." 

I'll check US Weekly next week and let you know.  

Down, Down The Slippery Slope We Go

It's the National Football League, not the National Justice League, but not everyone agrees.

Evaluating The Cowboys Offense

So after yesterday's New Coke post, it's back to football around here.  And while I wish the Sixers the best of luck with their new pick, man, you guys have your work cut out for yourselves when it comes to making people care.

Continuing the semi-theme of looking around the division, I spent some time looking at the Cowboys offense last night.  I was curious about a few things, like why the offense wasn't as good last year, how Roy Williams should fare this year, and just generally how has the shape of it evolved since Romo took over two and a half seasons ago.

This isn't going to be one of those argument posts, where I make a case for one reading of the data.  Instead, it's more descriptive, with some new questions at the end.

The first player I looked at was Jason Witten.  For my money, he's the best skill-position player Dallas has, but I do think tight end is a position with diminishing marginal pass-catching returns.  That is, you want a great tight end to make situational plays and help open up the rest of the offense, but if you go to him too many times, you may be missing opportunities on the outside for bigger plays.  (TO probably wouldn't describe the situation the same way, but he'd no doubt agree.)

The traditional stats give some support to this position:

Almost 100 receptions for a tight end is a very big number.  Witten's yard/catch number has been remarkably stable, but has their been a per-play downside to "forcing" him the ball?  For that, we turn to FO's stats:

Uh, no.  It hasn't been a problem.  His DVOA dropped a bit last year, but you're still looking at remarkably consistent production, whether you throw him the ball 91, 120 or 141 times. 

What about Marion Barber?  That's a guy whose role really changed last year.  He went from being the "closer" to the "man," and it doesn't seem to have been a good shift:

And unlike Witten, Barber's FO stats don't bail him out:

That's a big time regression right there.  Of course, when we're talking about running backs having issues, the first thing to check is always the offensive line.  The problem for Barber is that the rest of the backs didn't share his issues:

 

Yes, Barber had the toe injury late last year, but check out his game logs.  They don't tell the story of a guy who was playing great until he got hurt. 

Especially given how well the other two guys ran the ball last year, and how dangerous Felix Jones can be when he has the ball in his hands, I don't see how Dallas doesn't shift Barber back to his old role as a late-game punisher.  Sure, let him start because he's earned it, but give the other guys the mid-field and early carries, and bring in Barber when it's late or you're down by the goal line.

A new coaching staff would probably have no problem doing that.  Fortunately, Wade Phillips is still around.

Here's another chart that suggests the offensive line wasn't really the problem last year:

The two columns at right have two different ways of calculating sack rates.  In the end, it doesn't really change the numbers much, although I think the big difference between Johnson's 07 and 08 numbers probably comes from kneeldowns.  The biggest difference in overall sack rates just comes from Johnson playing more last year.

For the overall shape of the passing offense, we have this chart (click for full size):

I cut it down to the top players at each position because it removes a lot of clutter.  The bottom line gives you the contributions of the chaff.

Basically, it looks to me like the Cowboys had two good receivers (2005), two very good receivers (2006), and then just Terrell Owens and a bunch of guys (2007 and 2008).  I know the folks in Dallas are all excited about Miles Austin -- and he did post an impressive YPC of 21.4 last year -- but even with the addition of Roy Williams, I don't see how this isn't a much less talented receiving corps than they used to have.  Patrick Crayton looks like a #2 Eagles receiver (pre-2008 edition), meaning he'd be a #3 anywhere else. 

With that said, Dallas may be making it up somewhat in other areas.  After years of watching how the Eagles use Brian Westbrook, it shouldn't be hard for Dallas to figure out how to get Felix Jones involved in the passing game, if the receivers don't step up.

There's nothing really interesting about Romo's stats last year.  He was pretty much the same player, just not quite as good.  Blame Jessica, TO, Garrett or a decrease in receiving talent (including the aging of TO), as you see fit.

The last question, and maybe the most important, is what we can expect from Roy Williams this year.  I'm honestly not that impressed by the guy.  He's got great physical attributes, but on the field he seems like a poor man's Braylon Edwards.  Compare his last four seasons to TO's:

Now, granted, you can't use these stats to strip out quarterback effects.  There's no question about who was in the better situation.  But even in Williams' big-stat 2006 season, his FO numbers just aren't that good.  A DYAR of 250 and DVOA of 8.7% puts you just outside the top 10 in terms of NFL receivers.  That's down in Derrick Mason / Greg Jennings territory.  Those guys are good receivers, but they're not HOFers.  And while Williams' big body can provide matchup issues in the red zone, he's not a guy with the greatest hands.  He'll make some amazing catches, but he'll also drop some he should come up with.  You at least have a shot down there.

After looking at all these numbers, I'm pretty firmly convinced that if the Cowboys are going to get the offense revving again, it's not going to be the receiving corps carrying the load.  It's going to be on that big offensive line and a very talented backfield instead.  And if Dallas is controlling the line of scrimmage and Romo has time when they pick his spots, they can be a very dangerous offense indeed. 

State Of Origin, Other Semi-Related Notes From Down Under

Hello from Sydney!  The day job has had me down under for the week, and my hosts here have made sure that there hasn't been much free time to keep up with Eagles-related goings-on (which I must imagine pleases my corporate masters).  Mercifully, this has been one of the slowest Birds news weeks in recent memory, so it doesn't look like I missed too much. 

In the absence of actual Eagles commentary, some football-related notes from Down Under, as I await the departure of my return flight:

Sav Rocca.  I had grandiose plans of chatting up as many Aussies as possible about Sav Rocca: what was he like as an Aussie Rules player, do they follow him in the NFL, that sort of thing.  I was hoping to get some good scuttlebutt on both Rocca himself as well as the local opinion of his exploits in the NFL.  This "didn't really work out."  I must have been asking the wrong people, as most I spoke with could only manage a vague reference to "North Melbourne," followed by a set of questions for me about the NFL.  Whoa whoa whoa.  I'm the one asking the questions around here.  One guy even tried to start explaining to me that he was pretty sure that Rocca had played in the Super Bowl this year.  Grrrr. 

State of Origin.  I had the pleasure of catching a bit of the State of Origin rugby match on Wednesday night on TV.  State of Origin is essentially a mid-season All-Star series where all the guys who came up in New South Wales (Sydney) play the guys who grew up in Queensland (Brisbane).  The locals assured me that the games were taken quite seriously by the players, and the tenor of the contact on the field led me to believe that this was true (these guys were hitting).  Of course, this led to some idle speculation on my part regarding what the NFL equivalent of State of Origin would look like -- would you do it by state?  By college conference?  Also, they've done similar things with the NHL All-Star Game in the past (North America versus World, that sort of thing?).  Obviously, this would never actually happen in pro football, what with the whole "it's too dangerous to ever let these guys play anything but a fully sanctioned and official game" thing.            

U-S-A!  U-S-A!  So when I got on the plane Saturday afternoon, I was pretty bummed about the US Soccer team.  After a couple disappointing qualifiers (even the win was disappointing), they showed a little life against Italy and then completely puked on themselves versus Brazil.  Given what I'd seen of Egypt, I didn't give them much of a chance of getting a result in their third game, much less advancing on an exotic goal-differential scenario.  Well well well. I guess I hadn't taken into account the possibility of the soccer equivalent of a 13.5-favorite losing at home in Week 17, much less standing up to Spain in the semi-final.  If the key to USMNT success is making sure my *ss is on another continent (and I see no reason to suspect that it isn't), then I'm booking flights to South Africa for next summer ASAP.

(I look forward to reading your comments in 21 hours; Australia is "far.")

One Day Of Basketball

Short of a World Series run, we don't generally give the other Philly sports their due around here, but I'm actually kind of intrigued by the Sixers and the draft tonight.  Obviously the Brand thing hasn't worked out great, but the Sixers seem to be doing a nice job of identifying talented players with those mid-teen picks you get saddled with every year as a team that just barely makes the playoffs.

That seems like a pretty impressive feat to me.  The bad teams can pick studs and the good teams generally are good because they already have one of those studs, so they can focus on complenetary players.  It's harder for the bunch in the middle to do anything all that productive.

So let's open the floor to you closet basketball fans (which, attendance figures notwithstanding, I think still exist). 

Questions:

1. Player you want to see them take tonight?
2. Other moves you'd like to see made?  (And no, I don't think they're going to find much interest in Brand.)
3. Any reason we should expect Eddie Jordan to take this team to new heights?  (Also, would it kill NBA.com to update his bio?  That's linked to from the Sixers page.)
4. Lastly, thoughts on the "new" logo?  Something tells me Gabe loves that 70s/80s look.

A More Balanced Team Than That

Garry Cobb makes a statement today that most people would probably nod their heads to:

Even though we talk much more about the Eagles offense than the defense, the Birds have been a defensive-oriented team over this past decade.

During that time, it was the defense which has been the most consistent part of the football team.  The offensive lit up the sky in 2004 but in the other years, it was the defense that led the way.

I'm not singling out Cobb, since the way he phrases this thought, it's actually not that inaccurate.  The defense has been somewhat more consistent and the Birds have been a defensive-oriented team, when they've had their greatest success.

But the numbers really aren't as black and white as the people who argue that Jim Johnson has carried Andy Reid would think.  Take a look:

 

In Andy's 10 seasons, the defense has been more highly ranked than the offense five times by yards, eight times by points, and six times by DVOA. 

Some will argue that points are the only things that matter, but that leaves out the impact of special teams -- huge earlier this decade -- and also concedes too much ground on the defensive question.  After all, it's nice to have a defense that gives up yards but not points, but it's much better to have a defense that gives up neither (ask the New York Giants). 

As usual, DVOA's a pretty good tie-breaker.  But even there, if not for the Mike McMahon experience in 2005, the defense could have been looking at a five-year streak as the junior partner before last season.

The defense definitely carried the load during the early years, but since then, it's been a much more equal partnership.  And now that the D is back on track and the O has all those fun new toys to play with, things should get interesting.

Fresh FO Content!

Yeah, we don't use exclamation points around here very often, but when the Football Outsiders guys start giving premium content away for free, we're all over it.

Gabe noted a few weeks ago that FO would be doing something a little different with Pro Football Prospectus this year, due to a little issue related to not having a publisher.  In an attempt to assuage everyone's concerns that maybe this year's version of the Football Outsiders Almanac (née PFP) wouldn't be the same great offering, they're giving away sample chapters for free. 

You can start today with the New York Giants chapter, wherein we get to see the new book is pretty much the same as the old book.  Long live the new book.

Now, with all of that said -- and really, I can't overemphasize how much you need to buy this book -- I know from personal experience that there are times one can get so excited about disproving conventional wisdom that, well, you get out in front of the data.  And they've done that here:

The correlation of the incident to the team’s downswing in performance yielded a simple narrative: The Giants offense wasn’t as good without Plaxico Burress, and it turned them into a totally different team.

That narrative is simply untrue.

The Giants’ passing offense actually improved with Burress out of the lineup ... The running game declined some without the threat of Burress stretching the field to concern opposing safeties, but it wasn’t enough to drag the offense down; the team’s offensive DVOA was 20.6% with Burress in the lineup and 27.8% over the eight games he wasn’t around.

Those topline numbers are all well and good, but check out the chart they also helpfully include:

(Ordinarily I'd not just pilfer the graphic, but since they're giving the chapter away for free -- and since you should really, really buy the book -- I think we're ok.)

I'm not denying the extent to which defensive issues contributed to the team's slide, but look at those rushing numbers.  Going from a DVOA of 21.1% to 11.3% is a huge swing.  It's basically the difference between "we can't stop those guys" and "now we've got a chance." 

And it's exactly what we predicted would happen when Plax went away for good:

Burress demands a double team ... But that's out the window now.  Today, rather than worrying about how he's going to square the circle by constantly helping over the top on Burress while also bringing enough guys into the box to stop that wicked running game, Jim Johnson has the luxury of saying, screw it, I'll let my secondary cover these guys one-on-one, focus on stopping the run, and bring extra guys all day to try to shake up Eli.

This is a huge change for the Giants.  And while it might not be enough for the Eagles to pull off a win this week, it will be enough to ensure New York isn't winning another Super Bowl. 

The reason, I would wager, that the passing statistics look relatively unaffected is that I imagine every defensive coordinator in the league came to pretty much the same conclusion:  I can't beat these guys if I don't stop their running game, so I'll throw what I have at that and take my chances with Eli. 

There's tons of other good stuff in the chapter, of course, so get reading.  The info on how the defense will change now that Spags is gone is also interesting.  Personally, I'm not a huge fan of seeing great pass rushers dropping into coverage all that often either, but if I'm a Giants fan, I have to wonder if we're changing things up because that makes the most sense or because our new defensive coordinator has never held that position before and only has two years in the scheme.

Also, I've really, really been looking for an excuse to link to this. 

This Is Awesome

Sound required, so save it for later if you can't turn the speakers up at work.

(HT Deadspin)

ESPN %#@$ Up Again

I have an ironclad rule against commenting on other people's "lists."  I'm not going to get worked up over some idiot's decision to rank the best defenses of all time without mentioning the old Gang Green or even naming Eli Manning the first player in the division you'd draft if starting a new team.  That's not worth my time.

But when ESPN puts its full institutional weight behind something ... and when you know that same weight is going to be brought to bear further down the line when more important discussions about things like Hall of Fame credentials are going to come up ... and when that stupid network once again proves it doesn't know it's head from its a-- when it comes to what actually happens on the field.

Well then we have problems.

And here we are, with ESPN's all-decade team (which they're helpfully naming before the decade has ended -- you can't parody these guys):

Safeties Troy Polamalu and Ed Reed: Lynch (seven) and Dawkins (six) have more Pro Bowls this decade, but the Steelers' Polamalu and Ravens' Reed stood apart in overall athletic ability and their flair for the spectacular play.

"I love watching [Polamalu] play," Cowboys Ring of Honor member Cliff Harris told Mosley. "They give him a lot of freedom and he's able to make a lot of plays. I think I'd love playing in that defense -- even though it's the Steelers. I'm biased, but I still think it's one of the most important positions on the field. And no one can match Reed and Polamalu right now."

Reed's production -- 43 interceptions in seven NFL seasons, compared to 34 picks in 13 seasons for Dawkins -- separates him from all challengers.

I think we can all agree Ed Reed needs to be on that team.  No objection here or anywhere else.

But Troy Polamalu?  Because an ex-Cowboy says he loves watching him play?  And no one's better "right now"?  Never mind that we're talking about the all-decade team.

Give me a friggin' break.

To his credit, Matt Mosley shares this concern:

But for now, let's focus our attention on the defense. I was responsible for talking to numerous coaches, players and personnel types to come up with the best safeties of the decade. I made a strong argument for Brian Dawkins during those discussions, but it became very clear that Ed Reed and Troy Polamalu would prevail...

The only name that really bothers me not being on the list is Dawkins. I think he's a potential Hall of Fame player, although the voters haven't been kind to safeties. But you could also make a very strong argument for John Lynch. At the start of the decade, he was the measuring stick for drafting safeties.

So we'll carve Matt out of the general blanket ESPN condemnation and just go on ripping the rest of the Bristol Bunch. 

Now here's a crazy idea.  Rather than just making stuff up based on what people spout off, why don't we look at some numbers?  I know, that's nuts, right?

Well let's try it anyway.  Here are the numbers for the two guys starting with the 2000 season:

That is, as they say, not even friggin close.  Dawk destroys Polamalu across the board, in literally every single category.

Now wait, you're saying, let's be fair.  Polamalu only came into the league in 2003.  Surely it's not fair to compare his numbers to Dawkins', when Dawk played three more seasons?

Answer:  It's the all-decade team, right?  Not the 2003-2009 team?  So shouldn't all stats through the decade count?  After all, we're not doing anything crazy like including Dawk's ridiculous numbers from the 90s, just the ones from this decade. 

But OK.  Let's compare apples to apples.  Here are their numbers starting with the 2003 season:

 

Much closer.  Polamalu gets the edge in assists and INTs, Dawk has sacks, forced fumbles and passes defensed.

But check out that column at the left.  Polamalu actually played an extra half season during this timeframe, since 2003 was the year when Dawk had the bad injury that limited him to only seven games. 

Just out of curiosity, what happens when you compare the two players on a per-game basis during that time period:

 

Polamalu has the edge in assists and (just barely) in INTs.  They tie tackles and Dawk wins solos, sacks, forced fumbles (hugely) and passes defensed.  And this despite Dawk entering the twilight of his career and Polamalu being in his prime.

Beyond the stats, Polamalu has five Pro Bowls and three All-Pro selections (two first team).  Just during the last decade, Dawk has six Pro Bowls and four first-team All-Pros. 

Look, Troy Polamalu is a great player.  He really is.  I'm not trying to take anything away from him.

But Dawk has the acccolades, he's got the numbers and he's even got the edge if you just compare them game-to-game for as long as Polamalu's been in the league.  (Which, again, is spurious, since we're talking about the all-decade team.)

You know what the problem is?  Polamalu has those two rings.  And they're just so damn shiny, there are a lot of people who can't see past them.  And now Dawk's stuck on a team that doesn't look like it's headed anywhere near the Super Bowl. 

This is just the beginning.

Evaluating Albert Haynesworth

It may just be that I've been staring at the same Eagles-related material for so long I'm starting to go cross-eyed, but now that things have really slowed down, I thought it might be interesting to look around the division a bit. 

In an ideal world, the other guys would do all this work and I'd just link to it -- but good luck getting a Giants fan to be objective about anything.  And remember how the Cowboys blogs and message boards last year were all inflamed when I only gave Dallas an 18-11 edge in a head-to-head match-up of starters?

If you want something done right ...

The first question I wanted to know the answer to is:  How good is Albert Haynesworth?  I know he's really good.  Everyone knows he's really good.  But can we quantify how much of an impact he might have this year based on his history in Tennessee?

It turns out I think we can.  Haynesworth is a great player, but he's had some issues in his career staying on the field.  In seven years, he's only played a full 16 games once (his rookie season).  The last three years he's missed a total of 10 regular season games, some due to injury and others due to unrelated unpleasantness.

So while it's not a perfect comparison -- given some variation in opponents -- it's at least instructive to look at how the Tennessee defense performed from 2006 through 2008, with and without Haynesworth on the field.

Chart time:

 

That's a comparison of all the major defensive stats with and without Haynesworth on the field.  I've called out in red the (very few) places where the numbers were better when he was out.  Also, the 2007 numbers are a little screwy due to a game against the immortal Quinn Gray that makes Tennessee's "without" numbers look a lot better.

Collapsing all that per season data into one big-picture chart:

 

Remember, that's 28 games with Haynesworth and 10 without, so we're starting to get some decent sample sizes there.  And the results are striking.  Half a yard better against the run; far better against the pass in terms of INTs, sacks and YPA; and almost 50 yards better per game with Haynesworth in the game.

I'll be honest, this is not the lack of impact I was hoping to see.  Good thing we re-built that offensive line.

Too Good To Check

I was out of town this weekend and Gabe's out of the country, so not much for today, but I do have a little housekeeping:

Calling bogus on Peter King.  I guess this was just way too good to check with someone other than "an acquaintance":

I think the most amazing thing I've heard in the past month, and I've confirmed it with someone close to Roy Williams, is that the Dallas receiver was never on a consistent weightlifting program in his life before this off-season, when he got after it at Valley Ranch. "I'm serious,'' this acquaintance of Williams told me. "Roy never lifted before. Now that he has, and now that he's serious about making himself a great football player, especially with T.O. gone, I think he's really going to have a good year.''

As a reminder, this is a guy who looks like this, this and this.

Was Roy kind of lax in his preparations?  Sure, I'll buy that.

Is it remotely possible that "Roy never lifted before"?  No.  No it's not.

Otis Smith was fired.  Once again, the out of town papers get the news.  From shlynch:

Official proof that Otis was canned, and without warning. First outright firing of the AR era:

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/articles/2009/06/21/secondary_was_primary/?page=5

 

"Four nuggets with Patriots ties from last week: ... 3. Former Patriots defensive back Otis Smith, who was in his second season as assistant defensive backs coach for the Eagles, was surprised when coach Andy Reid released him June 12. Smith said he plans to return to the sidelines with another team, but the timing of the move could make it difficult."

I never thought Warren Sapp would become a grumpy old man.  Gues it's just inevitable, because I'm sure Sapp was a great listener when he was 21.

More WhatIfSports Stuff

Spadaro wrote a column about this yesterday, but if you didn't click through the links, you might have missed the full Eagles write-up.  Here's the NFC East.  I found a lot of the discussion of the other teams extremely interesting.  I especially like the sound of our fleet of wide receivers matched up against a weak Dallas secondary...

Free Donte

First of all, know that I'm not just looking to stir up trouble here.  This isn't a controversy-for-clicks deal.  I really believe these things.

With that said, it's not hard to see that I'm out of step with, well, everything I've read so far.  I'm not really sure why that is.  Generally, I'm a law and order kind of guy, probably more so than many of you.  But there are some things about this Donte suspension that really bother me.  In no particular order:

The "indefiniteness" of the term.  This seems arbitrary and capricious to me.  It feels like the action of an individual who knows he answers to no one, and so doesn't even have to think before he acts.

The nature of what Donte did has been known almost since the day it happened.  The facts were out there, Donte didn't dispute them and the only thing left was judicial resolution.  Goodell has had ample time to determine an appropriate punishment. 

The idea that this is a "make up" call.  This really, really disturbs me:

No one is bound to ask Goodell, either, if the suspension of Stallworth is apt punishment for the wide receiver. In their heart of hearts, most people who felt Stallworth's sentence was light, and perhaps the product of his financial wherewithal, knew that Thursday's ruling was the right thing to do.

That's from ESPN's Len Pasquarelli, writing about the suspension yesterday.  The NFL should not be in the business of righting perceived wrongs by the justice system.  It is fair to consider how the two punishments fit together.  For example, if an individual's conduct merits a two-year ban, but he serves one year in jail, I think it's only right to consider that "time served" and tack on only one additional year.  With a resolution in the Vick case fast approaching, we'll see if Goodell agrees.

But the appropriate punishment should be determined apart from the judicial outcome.  Goodell should not now be proposing a harsher sentence because the courts were "too lenient."

The weighing of wrongs.  What Donte did was wrong.  He has, at least in his public statements and a civil settlement, accepted responsibility for his actions.  He should never have been driving that night after having had that much to drink.

But this was also an accident.  A terrible accident, mostly caused by his carelessness, but an accident nonetheless.  I'm not sure how much better that would make me feel if it had been my loved one he killed, but the outcome here is not the best way to determine how Donte should be treated by the league.  By the courts, yes, by the league, no.

Consider a hypothetical.  What if everything about that night had been the same, except instead of killing the pedestrian, Donte had merely broken his leg?  His "personal conduct" -- what the league claims to be regulating -- would have been exactly the same, and yet it's doubtful Goodell would be treating his case even remotely the same way.

That is, I feel, because this is not about personal conduct.  It's about public perception.  It's about the NFL protecting its brand from the kind of fan disenchantment the NBA struggled with for so long the last decade. 

It is, in short, about business, not justice. 

Now I know some of you will argue that the NFL has every right to protect its business.  Fine.  What bothers me is when the language of justice is used to justify the protection of profits.

- - - - - -

What I think should have been done instead.  I'm not anti-suspension, by any means.  I believe a one-year ban and a significant -- say $500,000 -- fine to be passed along to MADD would be a fitting punishment.  And Goodell may end up there eventually, once he finally decides whether it's thumb up or down.

But what's most important is that the punishment should have been time-delimited, the language should have taken into account Stallworth's conduct since the accident, and Goodell should recognize that citing the "integrity" of the league is a laughable contention.

Bonus Kendra Coverage: So Do the McNabbs Attend The Wedding?

Hank and Kendra are getting hitched on June 27 at the Playboy Mansion. 

The McNabbs have to be invited to the wedding, right?  Hank always comes to Arizona, and there's no way he can afford not to invite his quarterback +1. 

With that in mind, you think Mrs. McNabb and Kendra have a lot to talk about?  Suburban mother of three/ college graduate/ D-1 athlete and, um, nude model/ television personality?     

Also, you think Donovan has any shot at flying solo for the wedding AT THE PLAYBOY MANSION?  As the guy whose name was just in the papers for getting a big raise?  Any chance Mrs. McNabb signs off on that one?  

Note that we have to assume that a bunch of the dudes on the team will get invites to the wedding.  I look forward to seeing their attendance covered in Us Weekly.  Figure that the wide receivers all get a look, as well as a few other guys on offense.  If I'm a single guy on the team I'm pretty much begging Hank for a spot on the list (no +1, thank you very much).  As such, we can only expect that young DeSean will be there (he's a SoCal guy as it is), and that Kevin Curtis will be bringing his long hair to charm the ladies.  

I do not imagine that Andy Reid has received an invitation. 

And one more: will the Philly papers cover the event?  If so, does anyone from the sports department get a plane ticket, or is this all just for the gossip pages?  (Essentially, we want to find a way to get Les and the boys out to the Playboy Mansion....)