Iggles Blog - Philadelphia Eagles Blog

Cancel That Pre-Order

I guess they're going a different direction with the calendar this year:

Morning Quick Hits

Is this good news or bad news:

The good news on this relatively dull day was that the tendinitis that forced the Eagles to shut down McNabb in June is gone in July. The quarterback said the tightness he felt had disappeared and his velocity was back. What said even more was the way he threw the football.

He hit wide receiver Michael Gasperson with a precisely thrown laser in the afternoon for a 20-yard touchdown during a seven-on-seven drill. Rookie DeSean Jackson said he could tell the difference between this McNabb and the one that was struggling to throw the football last month.

"That's more velocity than I've ever seen in my life," Jackson said. "It caught me off guard, and I dropped a pass that hit right off my chest. I won't let that happen to me again."

Yes, it's good that McNabb's shoulder is healthy.  But I think we've all seen quite enough of wide receivers struggling to adapt to #5's velocity.

- - - - - - -

How exactly does one perform a "coordinated 'McNabb, you rock!' cheer"?  I'm having trouble figuring out where the accented syllables would go. 

McNABB You ROCK
McNABB You ROCK

McNaaaaaaaab Yooooooooou ROCK
McNaaaaaaaab Yooooooooou ROCK

You can almost see why he gets booed so much.  "Donnie Sucks" just flows off an inebriated tongue so much more easily.

- - - - - - -

Following that same link, is Sean Considine really pretending to run back interceptions that are actually incomplete passes? 

- - - - - - -

I'm loving the way reporters are finding creative ways to call Westbrook's contract demands "nuts" while still keeping that crucial journalistic objectivity:

Tomlinson's guaranteed money was actually $21 million, and he signed his eight-year, $60 million deal with the Chargers when he was 25. Westbrook will be 29 on Sept. 2, and age typically has not worked to the advantage of a running back in contract negotiations.

- - - - - - -

Still love Jim Johnson:

"It's always been kind of a passing camp, without pads," Johnson said. "They're here, they're both signed, they're learning in the classroom and spending time with [defensive line coach] Pete [Jenkins] in the classroom. Right now, I don't think they're missing a lot on the field. Wait until we get the pads on."

Jenkins, by the way, got the morning practice off since he had nobody to coach.

"Pete's in the over-60 club," Johnson joked, a reference to Reid's plan to rest over-30 veterans for the morning practice every third day of camp.

- - - - - - -

I dropped the link, but somewhere I read that Bradley and Gaither would have the helmet radios for the defense this year, with Bradley being the primary guy and Omar wearing the no-radio helmet when they're both out there.

Seems like that's kind of a pain in the neck, but I guess they can always just go back to the signals for a few plays if Bradley comes out.

Also suggests that Bradley really is going to be a full-time player this year.  It would be weird for someone other than the MIKE to call the signals, but still, if he's shuttling in and out, you'd think they'd do it.

- - - - - - -

MSM Eagles blogs are proliferating at an alarming rate.  Eagletarian, which might as well be called LesBowenarian, came online this summer from the Daily News.  Now the Inquirer has gotten into the act with Birds' Eye View.  (Note the oh-so-newspaper-y use of correct punctuation.  That's not how we roll here in the blogger realm, my good man.)

And not to be completely left out, philly.com has started a more catholic NFL blog called: Moving the Chains.

Three seems like a good number for now, but should our local media goliaths find a need for YAEB, may I suggest a potential candidate?

Pay Westbrook Like LDT

From an outsider's perspective, one of the problems with sports contract negotiations seems to be a lack of creativity on the part of the two sides in defining exactly what a successful outcome would be. 

Of course, in the salary cap age, the bottom line is always going to be the bottom line.  There are only two numbers that truly, objectively matter -- the guaranteed dollars and the total contract value -- but that isn't the way things usually work out, is it?

Consider Brian Westbrook's case.  By any measure, the guy makes a ton of money.  If he plays out the full term of the six-year deal (five year extension) he signed in 2005, he'll make more than $25 million. 

I could live on that.

We also know that if this were 1998, rather than 2008, Westbrook would be perfectly happy with his contract, and not just because the dollar actually used to be worth something.  The problem for Westbrook isn't how much money he makes, it's how much money everyone else makes.

And in this case, by everyone else we pretty much mean LaDanian Tomlinson, Clinton Portis and a few other guys.  All of whom make more money than Westbrook, even though he is just as good as any of them, at least in this offense.

Westbrook seems never to have gotten over the fact that he was just a third-round pick coming out of college.  He knew even back then that he was something special, it just took awhile for everyone else to figure it out.  But because he came in as a mid-round pick, Westbrook never got the kind of enormous rookie deal that sets a guy for life.  It seems that ever since then he's been playing catch-up in his own mind.

The challenge the Eagles now face is that Westbrook doesn't seem that interested in being fairly compensated for his undoubtedly superlative performance.  It's not about that.  It's about the headline that says:

Westbrook Signs for XX years, $XX million
Becomes league's highest-paid running back

That's what's driving statements like this:

"If LaDainian [Tomlinson] got paid $25 million guaranteed in 2003 and now it's 2008, the next person needs to be paid $30 million guaranteed," Westbrook said. "It works its way up. You can't sit here and say, 'I'm as good as LaDainian right now, and I'm getting paid five years after him. . . . So I'll take $15 million.' That doesn't make any sense."

In the same story where you read this:

The Eagles said they made a fair offer to Westbrook and maintain that [Westbrook's former agent Fletcher] Smith also believed it was a reasonable deal. Smith has not returned phone calls since the news broke that he is no longer the running back's agent, and Westbrook also has not been available for comment.

(And while we're on the subject of Westbrook's former agent, are we sure that it was Westbrook who ended the relationship?  Given that it's been more than a week and he hasn't picked someone new, could it be that Smith was the one who decided there was no point in representing a player who wouldn't take his advice?  It's worth pondering.)

As two other writers have already pointed out, there's a better chance the Eagles re-sign Terrell Owens than give $30 million guaranteed to a 29-year-old running back, no matter how good he is. 

Which means we are officially at an impasse.

Now, there are really only a couple ways this can work out.  Westbrook is not going to play out the next three years at his current contract.  I'd give him one more season max before he starts going all Chad Johnson (but with class) on us.  At the same time, the Eagles aren't going to give Westbrook the kind of money he claims he's looking for. 

Soooo ... what has to happen here is for the "reasonable" money the Eagles are offering to be positioned in such a way that Westbrook can justifiably feel as if he's being recognized as not just a great running back, but truly one of the elite.

I have an idea on that.

Westbrook likes to compare himself to LaDanian Tomlinson.  I think it's fair to say that Brian thinks he and LDT are the two best backs in the league.  So start by taking a look at the contract LDT signed in 2004.

LaDainian Tomlinson signed the richest contract for a running back in NFL history Saturday, a deal with the San Diego Chargers worth nearly $60 million.

The star back will get $21 million in guarantees in the eight-year deal.

Westbrook signed his six-year deal a year later and got a measly $10.5 million guaranteed and $25 million overall.  So here's my proposal: give Westbrook a two-year extension that turns his original six-year deal into an eight year deal and bumps the value past what LDT got.  Here's how you could do it.

Start with Westbrook's current deal (all numbers from the indispensable EaglesCap.com):

What we need to do here is find some way to bump the guaranteed money up to what LDT got by adding roughly $10 million in bonuses.  But since Brian has suggested that the Eagles offered him $15 million, let's go with that.

To make that happen, all we have to do is give Brian roster bonuses over the next three seasons of $5 million a year.  (As you may have heard, the Eagles have plenty of cap room for such an arrangement.)  That changes his contract to look like this:

 

Which, hey, is pretty nice of me, but still leaves Westbrook about $20 million short of where LDT is sitting.  To fix that, we add on two more years and bump up some base salaries:

 

And voila, Westbrook has an eight-year, almost $64 million contract with $25 million in guaranteed money.  By my calculations, that makes Westbrook the highest-paid running back in the history of the NFL.  And if you compare those numbers above with the specifics of the LDT deal you will see they are very much in line, with Westbrook coming out just a little bit ahead.  One could in fact argue that this is exactly the sort of deal Westbrook would have signed in 2005 if everyone had known then how good he was going to be.

Of course, by structuring the deal this way, the Eagles have some protection too.  If something happens with Westbrook by 2011, the team can part ways without crippling their future cap.  But's those two years are just gravy to Westbrook, since he's getting $20 million in new money over the next three years and doesn't have a contract that extends beyond 2010 anyway. 

I'm telling you, this could work.

Some possible objections:

Isnt't this really just a two-year extension and not and eight-year deal?

Yes, but that doesn't matter if the team, player and agent are all on board with the idea that this represents the largest contract ever given to an NFL running back.  Which it would be.  By a very defensible measure.  Just repeat it over and over.

But why would Westbrook agree to this deal?

Because it's a $20 million raise with $15 million in new guaranteed money and would make his total eight-year package the largest contract for a running back in NFL history.

Isn't that a lot of money to be guaranteeing a guy with such a checkered injury history?

Yes, yes it is.  But in this case you're weighing the risk of a possible career-threatening injury versus the absolute certainty that at some point this whole situation is going to blow up if something isn't done.  And besides, the new money at the end of the deal isn't guaranteed, so if things don't work out when he's 32 years old, both sides can move on.

Won't such a huge contract cripple the Eagles' salary cap situation, at least for the next few years?

Absolutely not, for three reasons:

1)  Donovan McNabb's enormous contract is coming off the books soon.  That's $10 million to $16 million of cap space each year right there.  Plenty of money to re-sign Kevin Kolb.

2)  With the cap exploding at the rate it is, very few teams are going to have problems staying under the limit.  Which means that a) there's room for this sort of deal and b) salary cap space is less valuable going forward since it won't be as scarce.

3)  The Eagles have locked up the vast majority of their young players to deals that will be sub-market in a few years.  That's going to cause some problems eventually, but what it means is that there's plenty of cap room for this.

I'm sorry, but that's just an insane amount of money for a running back.  Especially one who's already under contract.

Over the next three seasons, the Eagles will pay Asante Samuel just over $32 million in cash.  Under my proposal, Westbrook would receive $30 million over that same time period.

Which player do you think is more important to the success of the franchise between now and 2010?

About That "30+ Club"

Five points:

1.  Why is no one mentioning Kevin Curtis?  Guy's 30th birthday was four days ago. 

2.  Juqua Parker too.  Birthday: 5/15/78

3.  And what about Darren Howa--- oh right, he should probably try to stay on the field.

4.  Jerome McDougle is only five months away from qualifying.

5.  No doubt Reid is doing this to try to save the legs of his veterans, but surely it doesn't hurt that some of the most important position battles (Safety, OT of the Future) will come at those 30+ positions. 

Now What's Lito Worth?

So I know some people think the Eagles "always ask for too much in trade," but not dumping Lito for some crappy third-round draft pick is looking pretty good right now, isn't it? 

I mean, Washington gave up a second and a sixth for Jason Taylor, a very fine player who can't wait to stop playing football.  And the news has just broken that the Saints have traded a second and a fifth for Jeremy Shockey.

Now Shockey's not a bad player, but his numbers are really just a half-step better than L.J. Smith's.  Tell me in a league where cornerbacks are considered about twice as valuable as tight ends that Lito Sheppard isn't worth more in a trade.

Also, so long Shockey.  Been nice hating you.

The Ball Starts Rolling

Trying to get a sense of the mood out there right now... 

Is it just me, or is everyone else starting to get excited, too?  I realize it's July, but this feels like the start of football season to me. 

I'm pretty pumped.

Although not everyone is.  Boy, it really must suck to have to go to training camp every year and walk around with that special media access badge and interview all those coaches and players the rest of us only get to see on autograph days. 

They should just do the whole thing in Philadelphia, because the Northeast Extension is just sooooo loooooong.  And have you seen what there is to do in Bethlehem? 

Anywho, grinches be darned because, ladies and gentlemen, it's FOOTBALL SEASON.

Ish.

- - - - - - -

As the Brian Westbrook salary saga continues to lurch forward in fits and starts (and could the local commentariat be any more obvious about how hard they're rooting for some training camp drama this year?) I thought you all might be interested in a few charts I worked up looking at price vs. performance for last year's offense.  Here's the raw data:

 

For the salary column, I took the information from EaglesCap.com and computed an average salary over the course of a full contract.  I realize that's only one of about 20 ways one could go about doing that, but it seemed like a pretty fair approach for this kind of back-of-the-envelope sort of thing.  And no, I didn't give Mahe his $4 million pseudo bonus that was just a salary cap shift.

Here's the same information organized a little differently to show touches, yards and touchdowns per dollar spent on each player:

And in graph form (click for full size):

I didn't mess with the y-axis scales to prove a point, that's just how excel spit it out.  And there's nothing really definitive about this.  Around the league, I would bet starting wide receivers have much higher prices per yards than running backs, for a variety of reasons. 

But if you look at the chart -- and take out Mahe (return man mostly) and Hunt (never played) -- there's sort of a nice relationship there between dollars spent and yards produced.  Schobel is the clear underachiever in that group -- you can kind of see L.J.'s point, by the way -- but the two starting wide receivers also seem a little off, if only by the eyeball test.

- - - - - -

In other news, good article today on why Westbrook's age, not his production, is the real issue.  As that bountybowl guy has mentioned several times, you just know Joe Banner has a printout in the top drawer of his desk showing the rapidly declining performance of running backs past a certain age.

I'm big-time in the "pay the man his money" camp, but if Westbrook really is looking for something like $30 million guaranteed, then I can see why an agreement hasn't exactly been easy to reach.

Interesting in this case, though, that this is one of the rare times that this information came from the player, and not some anonymous source.  The general source for that sort of thing is usually a little closer to the NovaCare complex.

- - - - - -

Finally, this just goes to show that Dan Snyder hasn't learned a thing.  All offseason people have been talking about how Snyder had changed his business model and was committed to building long-term depth rather than just signing the latest quick fix. 

Oops.  Not so much.

The best part about this, if you're an Eagles fan, is that it's almost no net gain for the Redskins.  No, I'm not saying I'm rooting for guys to get hurt.  But since the Daniels injury happened, basically Washington went out and gave away second and sixth round picks for a guy who's a better player, but not that much better. 

If he's going to be in the division, that's the best place for him to be.

Football's Back!

Full slate of coverage at philly.com today.

Hallelujah.

Check out this particulary informative pdf that lays out the Eagles training camp schedule.  Interestingly, it also includes a picture of Sav Rocca practicing either field goals or kickoffs?

Best line in the bunch:

Booker is more of a third-down back than Westbrook ... but he sure seems to be able to run a pattern and catch a pass. Andy Reid likes backs who do that, the Daily News has learned.

--Les Bowen

Bits & Pieces

Quick hitters today:

- - - - - -

Saw this item on SI.com about how the Eagles should make the playoffs this year.  Great.  So long as we don't become the designated "sleeper" team that always ends up underachieving, all this outside love is a sign things are on the right track.

With that said:

Secondly, the Eagles used the offseason to improve their pass rush, something that was lacking last year. Adding DE Chris Clemons from the Raiders gives Eagles premier pass rusher Trent Cole some relief from the double teams he faced last season. With the added rush, the Eagles are hoping to improve on their paltry 19 takeaways in 2007, which was last in the league. Pressuring the passer means turnovers and I expect the Birds to be vastly improved in this area.

First of all, the pass rush wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible either.  The Eagles managed 37 sacks last year, good for a tie for 9th-best in the league.  Not awesome, but any time you're top 10, that's not terrible.

Secondly, I evidently screwed something up in the numbers -- or the stats changed? -- but back in January I looked at where the rush was coming up short.  It wasn't the defensive ends.

Finally, can we please put to bed the notion that Trent Cole was double-teamed all the time last year?  Search here and here for two times I specifically watched every play to see what people were doing against Cole.   (Do a page search for "double"). 

- - - - - -

Trevor Laws' brother emailed me yesterday to ask if I would link to the web site he's (re)built for one of the newest Eagles. 

I would strongly suggest checking out the media page (because it's always fun to watch professional football players singing a capella) and the blog, which looks like it might actually be updated semi-regularly with items that are more interesting than, for example, this.

- - - - - -

Finally, you really should check out this YouTube clip that a Penn State blogger put up on his site while announcing his vacation.  It's not football-related, but it pretty much made my day yesterday.  Listened to it about 20 times.

Oh This Is Great News About Lito

Per PFT:

It's a move that likely will provoke bad memories in Philadelphia.

Per a league source, [IB HINT: RHYMES WITH SCHMOSENMAUS] Eagles cornerback Lito Sheppard has hired agent Drew Rosenhaus.

We’re told that the team and Rosenhaus held an initial meeting on Wednesday, and that both sides hope to avoid a repeat of the ugliness that unfolded in 2005 between the team and another Rosenhaus client, receiver Terrell Owens.

Sheppard has been available via trade ever since the team signed cornerback Asante Samuel, formerly of the Patriots.  But no deal has been even close, and there has been no serious talk regarding a new contract for Sheppard in Philly.

Sheppard is due to earn a base salary of $2 million in 2008, which is less than 10 percent of the value of Samuel’s guaranteed money in his Eagles contract, which runs through 2011.

Yeah, We'll Get Right On That...

Read through this Courier-Post story today and you'll likely come away with the impression that the Eagles really, truly, could be running a fair amount of 3-4 defense this year:

With the team's 2008 training camp fast approaching, Johnson said no one can afford to get complacent, and that may include a longer look at the 3-4...

The major upside of the 3-4 -- versatility -- would seem to be right up Johnson's alley, but the Eagles' franchise-wide premium on defensive linemen has never quite allowed it.  Maybe 2008 will be different...

In the past, the Eagles have struggled to find the three or even two productive linebackers needed to play their base defense, let alone the four it would take to move to the 3-4.  Now, the linebackers have gone from weakness to strength...

We do get one caveat:

But the depth the team has stockpiled on the line makes it seem extremely unlikely the Eagles will fully abandon the 4-3.

There's more, but that's a pretty good selection.  Just as an experiment, though, try reading the article but only focusing on Jim Johnson's quotes:

"I try to go into training camp and have our total package at maybe 90 percent, but trying to experiment a little bit," he said. "Some things might work and some things we might throw out, just like we talked about with the 3-4. You can't be the same every year. You just can't."

"The biggest thing I think we have is we are a faster team," Johnson said. "We're trying to get that speed on the field. You want to be physical and you want to make sure you have speed.""How much will we do it? We'll do it some," Johnson said. "We've done it a little bit before. It's always kind of a mixture for us.

"I think it comes down to our linebackers and our depth at linebacker."

"There will be a little bit of that 3-4 mixed in there," Johnson said. "There is always that possibility when you have those kinds of athletes.

"That's not going to be a main thing, but it might be a part of it."

Doesn't sound to me like the salty old dog is quite ready to abandon his old tricks just yet.

- - - - - - -

Another quick point on this.  It's really not accurate to call what the Eagles did last year against the Patriots a "3-4" defense.  It was a 3-3-5, in that Johnson had his nickel corner on the field almost the entire game.

Furthermore, even though the personnel were in a 3-3 up front, the truth is that Gocong played many, many plays as a straight up defensive end.  It was really more of a disguised 4-2-5 than anything else. 

All of which means you don't really need four linebackers to run it. 

There's a lot more detail in the Patriots video rewind I did last year if you're interested.  Scroll down to the second half where I covered the defense.

Incidentally, I just-rewatched those videos from that post.  I think they all hold up, but you should really check out that last one if you're interested in why the Eagles' return teams struggled so much last year. 

- - - - - - -

Finally, this search order result is a clear sign my obsession with Chris Gocong has gone too far.

The BountyBowl Guy Finishes Things Up (Part 10)

Right here.

Penultimate Postravaganza (Part 9)

Then we came to the end.  I'm tempted to do this entire post in the first person plural as a tribute, but then people would probably just think I was aping Will Leitch.

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8

- - - - - - -

Gabe,

Since this is my last post in this little series, let me start by thanking you for the back-and-forth.  It's been fun.  Hope it's been entertaining to read as well.

Housekeeping first.  Yes, I admit the reputation of Eagles fans can, in the right situations, be rather cool.  Of the two dominant strains of Eagles' fandom -- 1) hard-core, 2) self-pitying -- [the former] is by far the more appealing. 

I just despise the tendency of national commentators to use that reputation as a crutch to score easy points.  It's lazy and intellectually weak-sauced.

With that said, I was amazed while watching the NBA playoffs to see how hard the Boston fans were rooting for Ray Allen during his struggles.  The place went nuts every time he managed so much as a bounce pass to an open teammate without turning the ball over.  Of course, Allen rebounded in a big way later in the playoffs and ended up being an important contributor to the championship.

One can't help but wonder if the same result would have occurred in a town where the only cheers he heard would have been when he walked back to the bench.

As for the arrogance thing, the key point I've tried to make is NOT that Reid / McNabb are any different than any other coach / QB pairing in this league.  I don't think it's possible to succeed at that level without going to bed every night feeling pretty cocky about how you do things.

The problem for Andy is that that's all we see from him.  All signs point to Reid being a good, (relatively) humble, interesting and humorous individual, it's just that he locks that part away any time the microphones are on.  I realize that's his way of coping with this job and also how he thinks he can best win football games, but the end result is that no one cuts him any slack based on how good a guy he is. 

I should mention at this point that I DON'T CARE ABOUT THIS AT ALL.  I like Reid, I think he's an excellent coach and I hope he's here for the next 10 years.  But I think it explains why a guy who's won so many games in this town has to deal with the kind of crap he takes.

But let's consider your hypothetical and say he moves on after this season.  Who would I want to see as coach?  The answer, I think ... depends.

A couple years ago, I would have been right there with you on the Jon Gruden thing.  The guy has a great offensive mind, he's a perfect fit for a veteran team that needs a little bit of edge to get over the hump (see Bay, Tampa), and he would eat this town for lunch. 

My problem, however, is that 1) I'm not sure "veteran team needing an edge" is a good description of where this franchise is right now and 2) I think there's a very good chance Gruden would completely destroy Kevin Kolb.

Whatever Gruden's strengths may be, it's hard to argue that he hasn't completely jacked up his quarterback situation in Florida, to the point that he may only have been saved by the magic that is The Jeff Garcia Experience.  And now even Garcia is pissed at him. 

Do we really want to hand the keys to yet another promising young quarterback to Gruden, with the knowledge that it would likely lead to lots of jerking the guy around, playing AJ Feeley, benching AJ Feeley, and endless rumors about trying to lure McNabb back from Chicago?  I don't think so.

Bottom line:  while he might be the guy to give you the best crack at a championship right way, it could come at the cost of ruining your potential franchise quarterback for the next 10 years.  I'm not sure that's the smartest risk to take.

Jeff Fisher?  Meh.  I realize he's one of the apostles, but to me that's a blah choice.  Only if everyone else said no.

The Ryans?  I'll let you have your dreams.

As for my picks, I'll give you my top and bottom three.  First the no-way-in-hell-ers:

3.  Dick Vermeil.  You know the drumbeat would start.  I like Vermeil and I think he's a great coach, but I don't like the idea of picking a short-timer.  Stability on the sidelines is important.

2.  Brad Childress.  Looks to an outsider like all he's done is turn around a bottom-feeding franchise in Minnesota while also having the foresight to draft the best running back we've seen come out of college in quite some time.  So why does everyone in at least three states hate his guts?  Seems weird.  He's also not the kind of guy who passes the split-screen coach's test the Sports Guy is always talking about.

1.  Marty Mornhinweg.  I realize Andy Reid thinks he's a great coach.  Fine.  But to me he just seems like a pale imitation of Reid himself.  I'm a big fan of the original, I'm just not convinced that hiring the Mini Me version is the answer. 

Now, for the good ones, I'm a big fan of John Harbaugh as well.  Whatever it is that guys like Marty and Childress don't have, he seems to exude in spades.  But the problem is that he's not going to be available any time soon unless things completely blow up for him in his new gig ... which might change my opinion of him slightly as well.

3.  Jim Johnson.  I understand the problems with this choice.  You could even argue that by doing this you would be going down a notch at both the head coach and defensive coordinator positions.  But hear me out.

Do you think the Eagles have a good thing going and should strive for continuity?  Johnson gives you that.  He's been here forever, has the respect of every guy in the locker room, and wouldn't be looking to change things up too much.  He might even consider running the ball more often when he has a lead in the fourth quarter.

On the other hand, are you a little tired of the way Reid runs things?  Think the team would benefit from a guy with a bit more fire?  Well Jim Johnson is your man.  He's the one coach on the staff who will tell you point-blank which guy screwed up out there.  He's also got a reputation of being a hardass on players who don't do things the right way.  If Lurie is looking for a little bit more of a "bad cop" from his head coach, Johnson is the pick.

There's also something to be said for having earned your chance.

2.  Jason Garrett.  Yes.  I know.  But if we're just picking names out of a hat here, Garrett has to be in the mix.  Not only is he by all accounts a great offensive mind, he perfectly fits the mold of a guy you could hire and then set up for the next 10 years.  He's exactly the kind of coach I'd love to see Kevin Kolb play his career under.  And you can't underrate how bad this signing would be for the Cowboys.  That's a win-win-win all the way around.

1.  Bill Cowher.  And my number one guy is sitting out there right now, just waiting for a phone call.  Cowher is the perfect pick:

• Fits the franchise's self-image;
• Track record of success;
• Immediate respect from players;
• Has a ring and can tell fans to shut the hell up;
• Smash-mouth background that would play well in Philly but also be a nice change of pace for this team;
• Understands PA; and,
• Has his offensive coordinator already on staff.

The only thing I don't like about this choice is that I'm still hoping he'll go to Penn State instead.

And so with that, I'll let you have the last word... 

...unless my self-control in that regard is no better than it was in not responding to comments.

And ... We're Backstravanganza (Part 7)

UPDATE: Gabe's response is up.

- - - - - - - - -

Ok, I think I've now given Gabe enough time to recover that it's time to post this. 

Catch-up for the latecomers:

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6

- - - - - - - - -

Gabe,

Very good, long, thoughtful post.  You raised many excellent points, all of which I'm going to ignore so I can focus on the true meat of what you wrote:  the psyche of our franchise quarterback, how we got to where we are, and what it means for the future.

I first want to say thank you.  As someone who spends most of his time blogging about the ways in which football fans (both here and there) are wrong in how they view the Birds, I don't typically have the opportunity to defend Philly fans and how they/we root for our teams.  This is a nice change of pace.

Let's start with how you said Donovan's problems were all our fault:

"It’s just obvious that this was never the right place for him.  I don’t think he’ll ever forget the boos on draft day.  Never." 

See, one of the things that drives me so nuts about all the commentary regarding Philly sports fans is that people always act like we're the ONLY FANS EVER to act in a manner that would be out of place at, say, a somewhat fancy tea party. 

I'm sorry I don't have the cite handy, but I remember reading an article in one of the local papers a couple years ago that pointed out if a fan in Philadelphia -- rather than San Diego -- had thrown a syringe onto the field at Barry Bonds, we'd never hear the end of it, like that stupid teenage Santa Claus.  But because it happened in Southern Califoria, it was just, "oh, one crazy fan, how about that."

It's the same thing with Donovan getting booed on draft day.  The last couple years, ESPN has run a 90-second package during the draft that is just Jets fans booing their team's first round picks.  (Many of which were truly awful.)  You could fill up entire newspapers with stories of fanbases furious with the picks their team made, in every sport. 

But because it's Philadelphia, and because we have that reputation, it's somehow different.  And the fact that a guy got booed nine years ago because a bunch of people who had never seen him play happened to think he was the wrong choice is not only some sort of permanent stain on our record, but also an excuse for why he just never really felt comfortable here.

Furthermore -- and this is the part that really burns me -- the fans weren't actually booing McNabb.  This is one of the things outsiders just never get about Philly fans.  Just because a guy happens to be on the field / in the batter's box / on-stage at the moment we're booing, that doesn't always mean we're booing him.  It's always (ok, usually) more complicated than that.

In 1999, for example, no one in Philadelphia cared two bits about McNabb.  He was just a guy our team might pick instead of the guy we (yes, shamefully, I was in the Ricky camp) wanted.  Paul Tagliabue could have announced our selection as "Jesus Christ, Nazareth Vocational College" and people STILL would have booed. 

You obviously understand this completely.  As you mentioned in an email to me this morning:

"Was at CBP for the Phils yesterday.  You gotta love booing Stephen Drew for being related to JD Drew.  Awesome."

It's the same thing with McNabb.  We weren't booing him -- we were booing NotRickyWilliams.  They just happened to be the same person.

And to be fair, given the recent history, it wasn't exactly a stretch for us to believe the Eagles had just hired yet another coach who would screw everything up.  We didn't know then that Reid had his act together.

So that covers the booing, but what about your next point:

"Being the quarterback of the Eagles, much less the NON-WHITE quarterback of the Eagles is easily one of the top-five worst jobs in American sports. "

So playing quarterback in a town with passionate fans, solid ownership, a stable coaching staff and plenty of talent around you is somehow one of the five worst jobs in American sports?

Are you sure you hadn't started the festivities a little early when you wrote that?

It's certainly true that there are easier places to play sports than Philadelphia.  Evidently in St. Louis you can suck for 10 years without hearing even so much as a nervous cough after your fourth strikeout of the day.  Philly isn't ... like that.

But there are plenty of guys who thrive in Philadelphia and the atmosphere here.  Look at Brian Dawkins, Jeremiah Trotter (never should have left, dude) and Brian Westbrook.  All of these guys are/were great players who seemed to feed off the emotion of the town and never ended up getting too bruised from the experience.

They all have something else in common as well. 

Speaking of St. Louis, doesn't the Scott Rolen case pretty much prove the point that if you're a headcase in one place, you'll be a headcase everywhere else too?  I mean, sure, he had some issues here that were outside his control, but then he went to the land of cornfields and low expectations and still couldn't keep his act together. 

No, McNabb's real problem with the Philly fans is that he thinks he's better than us.  That's the one absolutely unforgivable sin in this town.  We can smell that shit a mile away and we don't like it one bit. 

It's the same problem Andy Reid has.  Every NFL coach is convinced he's always the smartest guy in the room.  That's the only way to survive in that profession.  But most other successful coaches give us other things to go on to round out the picture.  Buddy Ryan hated the Cowboys as much -- or more -- that we did.  (And it was a real hatred, not a fake, we-happen-to-be-in-the-same-division happenstance.)  Dick Vermeil cared so much that boy we just cared right along back with him. 

Andy Reid gives us zippy. 

He sits up there, basically tells us he on top of things so we don't need to worry, and never gives us even a glimpse at the rest of who he is unless something happens to his kids and it's time to get a feel-good article out there about what the family is going through. 

Not to go all after school special here, but if Reid would actually come out of his shell once in awhile, he might find he no longer needed it as much.

As for Donovan, the fact that he's actually right about what he thinks doesn't help.  Nor does it matter.  

Blogstravaganza Update

Gabe is wrapping up kind of a big deal weekend, so the schedule is going to shift today.  I'll have my response up around mid-day and then we'll see how quickly he can recover.

Yes, the honor of Philly fans will be defended.

Even More Dialogue (Part Five)

SECOND UPDATE:  Wow, someone's been saving up some wild stuff about McNabb for a long time now.  Seriously check that out.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

UPDATE:  Part 6 available over on Gabe's site.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

You know the deal by now.  Part five is below. 

For those catching up:  Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. 

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Gabe,

I'll be honest.  Yesterday was a little straitlaced for what we're trying to do here.  I knew I was in trouble when I asked my wife to read through the post last night and got the:  "It's just not ... I mean ... it's really good.  You made some good arguments.  I just didn't ... [pause] ... I think it's really good."

Kiss. Of. Death. 

So tonight you'll be happy to know I've taken adequate precautions to avoid a repeat performance.  Besides being ready to pick more than a bone or two with what you've written, I have also taken the liberty of fortifying myself with a glass of homebrew (relax, don't worry...), my fair share of a bottle of quite good Zinfandel, and, if I'm being honest, half a bottle of this. 

Of the latter, I am partaking for solely educational purposes, since we are currently trying to determine what expression of this style we want to be making for the holiday season.  (I'm looking for something with a bit more complexity, by the way, but maybe that's the downside of moving from wine back to beer.)

All of which is to say writer's block should not be an issue.

As for your point about the wide receivers, THANK GOD you made it, since things were getting a little boring with all the agreement.  To recap:

[L]et me propose a theory: not only am I sick of the wide receiver discussion, but I’m even more sick of one of its most ridiculous offshoots — the contention that Donovan McNabb’s career is somewhat wasted because he “only played with a True Number One Receiver for one year.”  (GCobb loves this one.)

Um, how about this: Donovan McNabb is privileged to play with the best back in the NFL in 2007 (not my opinion, the results of the Football Outsiders stats).

I'm a little "off" Football Outsiders right now, mostly because I reminded you that the PFP 2008 was coming out this week and yet somehow you received your copy two days before I received mine.  Next year I'm going back to BN.com. 

As for the point about the wide receivers, that's where I'm going to have to disagree with you.  GCobb is (basically) right.  The Eagles had one heck of a window during the Donovan McNabb era to win a Super Bowl, and sadly they always came up one guy short. 

This is, in fact, where I draw the line between myself and the truly committed stats geeks out there.  The real stat-heads will go to their graves arguing that the Eagles' offense in 2004 wasn't really that special -- that they were just as good in 2003, but because of a tougher schedule and some bad luck, things didn't work out quite as well.

Bull.

Look, I respect the heck out of the people who make these arguments.  They are people like former Wingheads (and current EMB) mega-contributor Austin/ArlingtonFan who know their Birds, have ample statistical evidence to support their cases, and generally aren't the type of people you want to be arguing multiple regression analyses with.

They're still wrong. 

You can win a lot of football games just by having a solid team, excellent coaching, and good schemes.  But the unfortunate truth is that in the playoffs all the teams fit that description, at least after the first weekend.  Which means it takes something more than just "solid" to get the job done.  You need to have playmakers -- guys who can do something special when everything breaks down and the game becomes just man-on-man across the field.

Ironically enough, I came to this unshakeable conclusion during a period of time when I wasn't able to be much of an Eagles fan.  It was the late 1990s and I was living in a state of relative poverty (yes, I could pay my electricity bill, but no, I didn't have a bed) in San Diego.  Not only did I not have NFL Sunday Ticket back then, I didn't even have cable.  In fact, to get my fill of football, I used to watch the spanish rebroadcast of Sunday Night Football from the station in Tijuana late at night, hours after the game was done. 

And yeah.  It was fuzzy.

In fact, if memory serves, I didn't even get to watch the Eagles when they came to San Diego to play the Chargers because the game wasn't sold out and so was blacked out in the local market.  Tough times. 

Since I couldn't watch the Eagles, the team I most enjoyed watching during that time was Tampa Bay.  They had a player from my noted football powerhouse of a college, a stifling defense (I've always been a sucker for stifling defenses), and a demonstrably good guy coach in Tony Dungy (ditto on good guy coaches).  What they didn't have, however, was a single offensive playmaker anywhere on the roster, which absolutely killed them in their 11-6 loss in the 1999 NFC Championship Game against the Rams.

That was my formative moment.  To this day I remember discussing that loss the following Monday with a guy I worked with who'd played tight end at Utah.  We both agreed that Shaun King wasn't a great quarterback, but if he'd had even one guy who could make a play, they could have won that game.

Fast forward to January 18, 2004 and what was maybe the most humiliating loss in the history of Philadelphia sports at the hands of the Carolina Panthers.  I covered this in detail a few weeks ago, so I'm not going to rehash it here, but if we ever needed proof that the playoffs are about playmakers, there it was. 

So yeah.  In hindsight, the Eagles screwed up.  There's no reason they couldn't have won at least one Super Bowl if they'd had a true #1 wide receiver for more than a single, glorious season.  (Did you know, incidentally, that last year the Eagles had not one, but two guys on the roster who'd been drafted ahead of Randy Moss?)

Where I diverge from the hanging jury that is the local commentariat, however, is in how I parcel out that blame.  Clearly, prior to the 2004 season, Andy Reid didn't think he needed "that guy."  This was probably a product of his time in Green Bay, where the story has always been that Brett Favre didn't truly reach his potential until after he had to give up the "crutch" that was Sterling Sharpe. 

But after that Carolina loss, Reid has done nothing but try to bring in that big name guy.  They signed Owens and Stallworth, but more importantly we also know they've gone after Moss, Johnson, Fitzgerald and (maybe) Williams.  In fact, I'm not sure there's a top-flight wide receiver anywhere in the league that the Eagles haven't at some point tried to obtain.

You know what, though?  Sometimes things just don't work out.  And as we all know, the only surefire way to get a truly elite talent is through the draft, when the player doesn't have the option of signing somewhere else.  But a quick look at the history of the "can't miss" first round wide receivers of the last few years shows that many of them in fact do.  So it's a little hard to blame them for not going that route either. 

None of this is to knock the guys the Eagles now have at the wide receiver position (much).  They're quality players.  It's just that they're not the kind of wide receivers McNabb does his best with -- as I've discussed many, many times before.

They should be perfect for Kevin Kolb, however.

Of course, all I've really done so far in this post is argue in favor of conventional wisdom.  Knowing how much I hate that, I've got a question for you:  What pieces of offseason conventional wisdom among Eagles fans do you think are most and least likely to actually be true by November? 

Please show your work.

And since I know you're dying to discuss the mental state of Donovan McNabb, please know that I'm all ears.  Not to give too much away, but my own personal tipping point with McNabb rhymes with "Ram Toliver."  I still haven't gotten over that. 

- - - - - -

p.s.  As for recanting my position on B. Ryan, don't hold your breath.  Defensive genius and personnel savant, no doubt.  Not my style, however.  Give me winning with class every day and twice on Sunday over I-don't-care-what-your-excuse-is-fake-kneeldown bullshit.

IBvBB Part 4

Response is up.  Stuck in a meeting, so you can read it before I do.

Episodes you may have missed: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

IBvBB Blogstravaganza (Part 3)

This is part three of our discussion with Gabe, the guy who continually makes oblique Simpsons and sci-fi references while discussing the Eagles over on BountyBowl.com.

For those who missed the beginning, part one is here on my site.  Part two is over on his.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Gabe,

It turns out the hardest thing about this little discussion we're having is avoiding my comments section all day.  It's not uncommon for me to write something that's less than crystal clear in my posts -- and by "not uncommon" I mean it happens pretty much every day. 

That's sort of the deal with this blog (and most others).  I can either churn out an endless series of first drafts with the goal of putting forth the greatest number of new ideas possible, or I can spend a few hours each night trying to polish what I've already written, with the inevitable result being that I would write much, much less.  I think the first option is better, plus it allows this site to continue to be my writing playground and escape from a world where I must ensure our messaging leverages our existing brand position and is strategic, on-target and impactful, while also offering applicability to a wide range of possible audiences, whether corporate, consumer or political...

The problem is that if I venture into the comments to respond to something I wrote earlier, I'm basically clarifying/adjusting something that you should get a first crack at.  That makes it a moving target and isn't really fair. 

So I bit my tongue all day.  Which now leaves me with this:

1. Not sure the Marlins intended to tear everything down after the first WS.  I think I remember instead that when the stadium deal didn't go through, ownership had a tantrum.
2. Easy to forget what 10 years of sucking feels like.  It sucks.
3. I've been to two Redskins games in Washington.  Both times the Eagles won.  Both times the fans walked around after the game yammering about how the Eagles had never won a Super Bowl.  Didn't stop us from kicking your asses five minutes ago, dude.
4. Agreed totally.  I loved the Jeff Garcia experience, but felt the same way.
5. Exactly.
6. I said "classless" not "clueless."  And because it's my hypothetical. 

You bring up an interesting point about the 1993 Phillies.  Were those guys really a "fluke" though?  They sort of came out of nowhere, but after that 17-5 start, it felt all season like there was something special going on there.  If anything, not winning because of a couple of horrific blown saves felt like the fluky part.  That was a team of destiny.

Moving on to your specific questions, let's talk first about the Eagles' data-driven approach, since nothing drives sports blog traffic like an in-depth discussion of spreadsheets. 

I'm like you on this one -- totally without any hard facts to go on.  All we ever get are those occasional cryptic remarks from Andy Reid where he says something like, "I've looked into that and found that basically you idiots don't know what you're talking about."  But something has to be in that famous big fat binder, and it can't all just be calisthenics schedules, right? 

In fact, I'm still waiting to hear an explanation for one of those remarks Reid made last season:

On what his ideal run-pass ratio would be:
"I don't do that. I know that this offense is the best when it's as close to 60-40 or 50-50 as you can get it. I also know that, through studies that I've done, with a number of Super Bowl winners, that really doesn't matter as you go through there. You guys might take your time to do a little homework on that." 

If you follow the link to that post, you'll see that I actually did go back and "do a little homework on that."  What I found is that either my methodology didn't match what Reid meant ... or else he was kind of full of crap on that one.  I'd still love to find out what he was talking about some day. 

I also think there's a clear Moneyball slant to the team's thinking about personnel acquisition, but it's a LOT more refined these days than it was a few years ago when it basically seemed to boil down to: "Don't spend money on linebackers."

The biggest thing we've seen the past few years in the draft is the Eagles drafting more than their fair share of guys who dominated at the small-school level.  It's one thing to draft those Wheaton guys with freebie picks in the sixth round.  It's another thing entirely to be consistently taking guys from Cal-Poly, McNeese State and Saginaw Valley in the top half of the draft. 

All of which leads me to conclude that the Eagles think there's a market inefficiency around small-school players in the draft.  And it's one they think they can exploit.

The rumor for years for why the Bengals drafted all those thugs young men with character flaws was simply because the team refused to invest in its scouting department.  Faced with an inability to identify the best all-around prospects, the Bengals figured they would be better off gambling with those character issues, since even a blind squirrel could see these guys had talent. 

What if the Eagles are in the opposite situation?  What if they provide more resources to their scouting department or have otherwise figured out a way to increase their efficiency there?  Then they could -- in theory -- invest time in a broader range of players.  This would give them the chance to really do their homework on guys from schools where scouts don't usually hang out.

Or maybe the explanation is even simpler than that.  Maybe every team rates these guys the same way athletically, but other teams dock them more "points" in their evaluations for having played at a lower level of competition.  If the Eagles did a study on how those small-school guys have historically performed in the NFL, maybe they realized that there was too much of a discount being factored in.

Whatever, none of those ideas explain why the Eagles -- a team that seems committed to staying with a 4-3 base defense -- continue to draft so many guys everyone else seems to think would fit best as 3-4 outside linebackers. 

Just looking at the roster right now, they have clear 3-4 linebackers in Chris Gocong, Andy Studebaker, Bryan Smith and Chris Clemons.  Heck, that was actually the position Clemons played last year.  You could even throw in Trent Cole and Juqua Parker as two more guys who were looked at as tweeners coming out of college. 

I realize Jim Johnson likes his guys to be versatile, but that's still sort of weird.  For a team that seems to put so much emphasis on production at the college level, there's a whole lot of projection going on at those two positions.

One more NovaCare mystery I'd love to learn more about.

Since I need to wind this down, I want to shift gears to another topic we both care a lot about.  Play calling.  You've mentioned on a few occasions in the past that you feel like you can predict with about a 50 percent success rate what the Eagles are going to do in any given down and distance situation.  Leaving aside the issue that predicting "pass" every play would generally be a profit maximizing strategy in that game, what do you think the problem is and what can be done about it?  

I'm kind of split on this issue.  I do think the Reid/Mornhinweg pairing might be a little bit paint by numbers in its approach to attacking a defense.  That's one of the reasons I'm so irrationally excited about the hiring of the mysterious (and silent) Mark Whipple.  Something called the "whiplash offense"?  Yes, please.  I'll take two.

But beyond that, I'm not so sure the issue is having predictable playcallers as much as it is having predictable players.  After all, if it's a crucial time in the game, 65,000+ people in the stadium know the ball is going to Brian Westbrook.  There are only so many ways for that to happen.  Maybe if the Eagles had a few more -- ahem -- playmakers out there, they'd be able to mix it up a bit more. 

Or is Kevin Curtis really, truly a number one wide receiver and I should just shut up about the fact that he doesn't seem to be able to run past anyone on the outside under the age of 42?

Iggles Blog Vs. Bounty Bowl Blogstravaganza

Update:  Gabe's response is up on his site.  I haven't read it yet, but probably should before I re-respond.  Look for the next post loaded up rightchere tomorrow morning.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

There are many, many good Eagles writers out there, but none are more consistently entertaining than Gabe at BountyBowl.com.  (Of course, by "consistently" I mean "during those 48 hour periods in which he posts six times," not the other 28 days on the calendar.)  Every good humorist needs a straight man, so Gabe and I decided we might try one of those email back-and-forth type things for a few days in order to fill some space during the insanely slow portion of the offseason achieve a greater understanding of the Eagles and where they're headed in 2008 -- and beyond! 

The plan is for this to work like one of those Slate Dialogue things, although significantly more low-brow.  Not Deadspin low-brow, necessarily, but somewhere between the two. 

Here's the first post.  I'll link to Gabe's response when it's up on his site.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Gabe,

I know we've got a bunch of topics we want to cover here, but let's start with something I've been thinking about for awhile. 

It seems to me the great schism in Eagles fandom this century has focused on the performance of Donovan McNabb.  Either you were "for" McNabb, in that you recognized the man as the best quarterback in (at least) the franchise's modern era and a class act to boot, or you were "against" McNabb, in that you had a stupefying inability to recognize his talents and, quite frankly, wouldn't recognize good quarterback play if it dropped back five steps and bit you on the ass.

We had achieved a nice stasis there for a few years, but I think the events of the last couple seasons have started to bring those two camps together.  I'm not just talking about the on-field stuff, it's the other drama.  The family, the management issues, TO, Pam Oliver, the open flirting with the city of Chicago, the insane pictures of McNabb the Man for All Seasons.  I mean, I really do love the guy.  I'm glad I've had the chance to root for him for so long.  But at some point, it all just started to become a bit much.

We never would have gotten here without the injuries, of course.  They gave us a glimpse of life without McNabb and we saw that it could be ... OK.  Not great.  Not Super Bowl worthy.  But still not terrible.  Kind of like when you're in college and your girlfriend spends a semester abroad.  Maybe you wouldn't have noticed all her annoying little habits if she'd never left and then come back, but since she did .. and since it turns out she is a little nuts after all ... maybe it's time to at least start thinking about looking around a bit.

And let me take this moment to wish you luck on your impending nuptials!

I would go so far as to say that everything that's happened since about 2005 seems to have had the effect of bringing a gradual resolution of the whole McNabb debate into a Unified Theory of Donovan:

1. Heck of a player. 
2. Good guy. 
3. Pretty much down to his last shot in this town. 

(3a. And probably more than a little annoyed that Brett Favre is even THINKING about coming back as the savior of Chicago.  That was totally his idea first.)

Of course, the problem with resolving the McNabb debate is that we need to find something else to argue about.  Fortunately, because this is Philadelphia, we have no shortage of possible topics. 

The leading candidate at this point seems to be the great divide between:

1. Those fans who appreciate the success of the last few years, understand that the overlap between said success and the tenure of Andy Reid is probably not coincidental, and generally evaluate and enjoy each season within its own specific context, versus,
2. Those fans who believe that a quarter century without a championship is quite enough, thank you, and at this point the only metric for "success" is "winning a Super Bowl."  Anything else is a failure -- of the ownership, front office, coaches and team.

Or, to put it in the terms you used by email earlier

"[T]he Eagles have dominated their division (and, arguably, the NFC) for most of the decade, yet have zero championships to show for it.  The Giants got in as a wild-card after a very rocky season last year (and years of middling to minimal success) and won the whole thing.  Who would you rather be?  I might also add that I hate the f*cking Giants.  A lot."

Probably a good time to commend you for annoying so many Giants fans, by the way.  You must be doing something right. 

As to the question above, I'm a serious number one-er.  Winning a Super Bowl in any given season is really, really hard.  As we saw last year, even having the best team in the history of the NFL -- [insert mocking laughter here] -- is no guarantee that your town will end up with a parade.  You need skill, yes, but also mountains of good fortune, both big picture (i.e., injuries) and small (i.e., officiating). 

Also, it helps to cheat.

That doesn't stop the number two-ers from being extremely vocal in opposition to this point.  I think it may in fact be time to propose a new Godwin's Law for Eagles message boards, which states: "The longer a thread continues, the probability of someone mentioning that the Eagles have FAILED to win a SUPER BOWL in CASE YOU HADN'T NOTICED approaches one."

So who would I rather be?  I'll take the Eagles.  And not just because Giants fans are tools. 

Yes, winning a Super Bowl would be awesome.  But it's not going to be historically awesome for that particular Giants team and its fans.  Right now we're all over Tom Coughlin and Eli Manning, but those guys better cash it in soon, because in about four months everyone's going to see just how few clothes that emperor is wearing.  Mark my words, the Giants will end up being just one more of those fluke championship teams, like the Baltimore Ravens, Florida Marlins or Lovett College.

I'll take it even one step further than that.  If you gave me the choice right now of either:  1) winning a Super Bowl next year but seeing Andy Reid leave to go coach at BYU and being replaced by some classless jackass in the mold of Buddy Ryan, or 2) guaranteeing that Reid would stick around for the next five years, continue to do his thing, and maybe we would or maybe we wouldn't get a parade during that time period, I'd absolutely choose door #2.

Shocking?  Not really.  Sports is about more than just the validation that comes from winning a championship. It's about playing the game the way it should be played, treating people the right way, and -- for fans -- rooting for the name on the back of the jersey, not just the front. 

Coaches don't wear jerseys, but the point stands.

</sermon>

Tag.  You're it.

Stacking Up To The Cowboys

One of the concerns I think most fans share about the Eagles is whether or not the team has enough of the truly elite performers who seem to populate the rosters of Super Bowl winning teams.

Top to bottom, we know the roster is pretty solid, but bottom line, are there enough playmakers, studs, Pro Bowlers, whatever, to give this team a chance to go all the way.

I don't know.  No one does at this point, I think, because what makes this Eagles team different from the ones of a few years ago is just how young so much of the roster is.  There are a lot of guys -- productive players so far -- who are rounding into that phase of their careers where they may or may not make the leap from "established starter" to "all star performer." 

Now obviously, not everyone follows that path.  Some guys come in and dominate right away, due to truly superior athleticism.  Shawn Andrews is in that category.  But there are only so many of those guys available in the draft every year, and when you're typically picking in the bottom third of each round, you're not going to have chances at too many of them.

Which is why I thought it might be instructive to look at the Dallas Cowboys.  Unlike the Eagles, the Cowboys went through a number of lean years in the beginning of the decade.  All that prime drafting position seems to have paid off, with a roster that seems -- on the face of it -- to be pretty stacked with talent.

So let's compare the two teams and see what we can learn.  And I'll tell you right up front, I didn't do the analysis first and then this write-up.  I'm doing this on the fly.  So I have no idea what to expect.

Cowboys depth chart here.  Eagles here (but who needs it).  These are a little out of date so I'll also go by memory.  I also sanity checked my reads of the Cowboys' roster by checking out this Cowboys blog here.

- - - - - -

Offense first:

Quarterback -- Tony Romo vs. Donovan McNabb
I am reluctantly willing to concede that Romo looks like the real deal.  I think any quarterback could probably succeed behind that offensive line and with that array of playmakers, but the fact of the matter is that Romo does more than just succeed.  And for those who criticize his record in the playoffs, fine, but quarterbacks always get too much credit/blame in those situations and it's not uncommon for young players (and teams) to take a couple years to learn how to succeed in those situations.  McNabb is McNabb.  If I had to pick one of these guys to start a game tomorrow for the Eagles, it would be Donovan, but we all know what the question mark would then be.  Even. 

Running back -- Marion Barber vs. Brian Westbrook
It's hard to compare these guys because their styles are so different.  Barber catches more passes than you would think (44 last year).  Will he be able to play the same way (like a Mack truck) if he's asked to carry even more of the load?  The edge goes to Westbrook, who might have played as well as any back in the league last year, but for the role each plays within his own offense, the gap isn't as large as it would first seem.  Eagles.

Running back #2 -- Felix Jones vs. Booker/Buckhalter/Hunt
Jones is going to be scary for a few years.  With that offensive line, passing game and Barber softening up the defense in front of him, the guy is in the perfect situation.  (Remember when Westbrook was Duce's understudy?)  The Eagles' backups are all role players, not feature backs.  Big edge here to the Cowboys.  And I'm worried about it.

Wide Receiver #1 -- Terrell Owens vs. Kevin Curtis
Curtis is younger ... and that's about it.  Assuming TO stays healthy/sane, big edge to the Cowboys.

Wide Receiver #2 -- Patrick Crayton vs. Reggie Brown
You might be surprised to see how similar their statistics were last year (Crayton, Brown).  Neither guy is as good as Terry Glenn used to be.  Even.

Other Wide Receivers -- Sam Hurd, Terry Glenn vs. Jason Avant, Hank Baskett and DeSean Jackson
The Eagles have more depth and experience at this position, since the Cowboys seemed pretty focused on bringing in one of the big-name malcontents to put across from TO.  When that didn't work out, they didn't do much to buttress the position.  Assuming good health across the board, this isn't a big deal, but Dallas gets thin quickly if TO goes down.  Eagles.

Tight End -- Jason Witten vs. LJ Smith
Smith was drafted higher.  Last time he's come close to outperforming Witten.  Big edge to the Cowboys.

Left Tackle -- Flozell Adams vs. Tra Thomas
Two guys who have been around a long time but remain effective.  Closer than Dallas fans would realize, but slight edge to the Cowboys.

Left Guard -- Kyle Kosier vs. Todd Herremans
Kosier is the one guy on the Cowboys' line who doesn't have much of a reputation.  Herremans is a better player, with more upside, but this is a big year for him.  Eagles.

Center -- Andre Gurode vs. Jamaal Jackson
By reputation at least, Gurode is the far better player.  Jackson needs to find a playing weight somewhere below where he was last year.  Cowboys.

Right Guard -- Leonard Davis vs. Shawn Andrews
Davis is an imposing physical presence at guard.  We'll see how he handles the first real success of his career.  It's never been a talent question with that guy.  Andrews is inconsistent.  Don't know if it's been injuries or what, but he seems to have stretches where his play is more "good" than "dominating."  Andrews is clearly the pick, but just based on last year's play for both, it's closer than you'd think.  Eagles.

Right Tackle -- Marc Colombo vs. Jon Runyan
Colombo was a guy who couldn't stay healthy ... until the Cowboys signed him.  He's now played two full seasons without missing a start.  Colombo is kind of the Todd Herremans of the Dallas line in that many fans don't particularly mind him being out there, but are sort of rooting for a potentially more talented youngster to take his place.  Slightest of edges to the Eagles.

Fullback
Not a position that really matters to either team.

- - - - - -

Defense:

(Because the teams play different base defenses, they're not directly comparable in a few positions.  I'll try to handle on a case-by-case basis.)

Free Safety -- Ken Hamlin vs. Brian Dawkins
Hamlin is a fine player who is nowhere near as good as Brian Dawkins used to be.  The problem is that Brian Dawkins is also nowhere near as good as he used to be.  Screw it, though, I'm not burying the old warrior yet.  Eagles.

Strong Safety -- Roy "Please Don't Throw It To My Guy" Williams vs. Quintin Mikell
It's an ugly thing to see a professional athlete lose his confidence.  Unless he plays for the Cowboys, in which case it's up there with puppies, SEC women in sundresses and moonlight over the ocean.  With that said, I'm still not sold on Mikell as the answer for the Eagles.  If the Cowboys can figure out some way to protect Williams enough that he gets his mojo back, we're still looking at a pretty significant edge to the Cowboys.

Cornerback #1 -- Terence Newman vs. Asante Samuel
The only question with Samuel is how he makes the adjustment to a new contract, city and scheme.  Newman is a good cornerback (another one of those high Dallas picks) but he's not quite in the same league yet.  A little edge to the Eagles.

Cornerback #2 & #3 -- Anthony Henry / Pacman Jones vs. Lito Sheppard / Sheldon Brown
To avoid offending any of these four gentlemen, I'll just group them together.  This is one heck of a crapshoot.  You know what you're going to get from Henry and Brown -- solid play, not too many mistakes, nothing that kills you too much.  But the other two guys are all over the place.  Lito may or may not be healthy this season, he may or may not feel like wearing green and he may or may not continue to kill the Cowboys like he does every time we play them.  As for Pacman, who knows?  I happen to think his readjustment to the league is going to take a little while -- has he done anything but bounce from strip club to strip club the last 18 months? -- but after that, he's still a talented player.  Albeit one who is another parking ticket away from never playing in the NFL again.  Due to confusion, I'm calling this one Even.

ROLB / RDE -- DeMarcus Ware vs. Trent Cole
I know, I know, but how do you compare the teams otherwise?  The two players put up very similar numbers last year, but lt's be honest, as good as Trent Cole is, he's not DeMarcus Ware good.  It's like the difference between Randy Moss and Reggie Wayne.  Both are outstanding players, but one guy is historically great while the other is simply regular great.  Cowboys.

LOLB / LDE -- Greg Ellis / Marcus Spears vs. Chris Gocong / Juqua Parker (?)
This is an even harder position to handicap, since we don't know who the Eagles' starter will be by midseason.  Also, this pair of guys on each team sort of has the same responsibility.  This could look different by November (Anthony Spencer could be starting by then too), but right now it's Cowboys and Cowboys.

ILB / MLB -- Bradie James vs. Stewart Bradley
Bradley is an unknown.  James is not.  Cowboys.

ILB / WLB -- Zach Thomas vs. Omar Gaither
Maybe Thomas won't be able to stay healthy, but the thing about these heady veteran linebackers is that they seem to be able to squeeze out effectiveness long after they've passed their physical peak.  The question here is the same as in a few other places -- do we consider the potential for injury?  If not, you basically have a heady young guy with somewhat limited athleticism vs. an even headier old guy with even more limited athleticisim.  Again, assuming full seasons from both, you have to say Cowboys.

NT / DT -- Tank Johnson / Jay Ratliff vs. Brodrick Bunkley
Again, I know, but my reasoning is if Bunkley still hasn't learned how to use his hands to beat the blockers, then basically he's playing an NT position of clogging up the interior line.  Ratliff doesn't do much for me, but this could be the year Tank Johnson is finally all the way back and ready to start again (see why I'm skeptical about Pacman?).  If it's Ratliff still, edge to Bunkley.  If it's Johnson -- and I think it will be -- then it's edge to the Cowboys.

DE / DT -- Chris Canty vs. Mike Patterson
Canty had a good season last year, but so did a lot of these guys.  I'm not convinced they're all that good so much as it was a "rising tide lifts all boats" kind of year for the Cowboys.  Either way, Patterson is a stud.  Eagles.

- - - - - -

What did we find?  By my count, I've got the position battles as 11 to 8 in favor of the Cowboys, with three toss-ups.  The big difference comes on the defensive side, which I scored as 7 - 3 -1 in favor of Dallas.  That's concerning.

The size of the gaps matter too, though.  If we were scoring this as each position ranked between 1 and 10, I think we'd find that the Cowboys' lead gets even larger.  The Eagles eke out some wins, whereas the Cowboys have some serious whoopings (TE, WR#1, RB#2, a couple LB spots).

So does this mean we should give up all hope of taking back the division this year?  Of course not.  First of all, the more talented team doesn't always win.  Secondly, we didn't consider injuries in this analysis -- and the Cowboys seem perilously thin at a couple of key positions. 

Most importantly, though, this is a backwards-looking analysis.  We can make projection, but no one really has any idea how good Stewart Bradley or Chris Gocong are going to be this year, just as no one knew how good Tony Romo or Marc Colombo would be a couple years ago.  With so many of these guys hitting their prime about the same time, we could be seeing some major strides taken this year that completely reshuffle all these rankings by October.

In the meantime, though, it's fair to say that Dallas remains the team to beat in the division (sorry New York!). 

And that just makes everything more fun.

This Is Awesome

This is really, truly cool.  I was checking my web stats tonight and saw a referral from this link: http://www.nfl.hu/modules/Forum/viewtopic.php?pid=309144

Note the URL.  Yeah, it's all in Hungarian (or is it Magyar?).

There are pages for all the NFL teams.  Unsurprisingly, the Patriots have the most posts.  Gratifyingly, the Cowboys are pretty far behind the Eagles.

America's Team, maybe, but not the rest of the world's, evidently.