It’s no secret I was not exactly satisfied by this offseason. It wasn’t terrible, but it wasn’t great either (I know it’s not over, but the roster-movement phase is largely done). Between the draft, free agency, and the D-Jax cut, it’s been hard to find a logic thread connecting all of the moves. For the most part, it looks like the Eagles realize they’re still in the “build” stage of team construction. That explains the draft. Smith, Matthews, and Huff are all fine prospects, but as I’ve covered before, they shouldn’t be expected to contribute a lot in year one (the team knows this, the fans haven’t realized it yet).
It also partially explains the Jackson move. Howie/Chip don’t want to pay a WR that much, and Jackson’s cap hit was going to hurt at some point, especially when it came time to extend Foles, Cox, Kendricks, etc… Now that doesn’t explain the TIMING of it (why now and not next offseason), but it at least has some logic to it.
On the flip side, though, there’s the trade for Darren Sproles. If you’re still in “build” mode, you probably aren’t looking to give up draft picks for a 30+ year old running back. I still haven’t quite figured this one out. Similar to the rookies, I don’t think the team plans on using Sproles as much as fans seem to think they will. If that’s true, though, a 5th round pick is a lot to give up for a part-time, fill-in weapon like Sproles. I think this is mainly insurance. The Eagles know they are heavily dependent on McCoy, and despite what they say, they know there’s at least the risk that the offense without Jackson wouldn’t be as dynamic (that was phrased very carefully so as to avoid another blogwar). Picking up Sproles gets some of that dynamism (word?) back, at least in theory. Using Sproles as a band-aid until Ertz and Matthews are ready to step up might be the play here. I don’t think it makes sense from a resource allocation standpoint, but I can understand not wanting the offense to slide too far.
So that’s the “build” theory of the offseason. The Eagles overshot expectations last year, meaning fans are now expecting too much this season (recency bias). The Eagles are not yet ready to contend, and management knows this. They’d like to contend for the division this year (and with the competition it doesn’t seem that difficult), but they’re more focused on the year AFTER next season. That’s when the “window” should really start opening if things go according to plan.
There is another story in here, though. As the title indicates, it’s Chemistry. Not only is Chip trying to remake the team on the field, he’s trying to instill a different attitude off of it as well. I don’t think anyone would argue differently. Whether you call it chemistry, attitude, locker-room presence, or whatever, it’s clear Chip’s trying to change it. I’m not going to get into whether that’s good or bad. The general attitude of the team is important. I don’t typically address it because it’s intangible and unquantifiable. There’s not data. Without data, it’s impossible to form an objective opinion of any real value.
BUT….we can analyze it conceptually. Let’s assume for a minute that Chemistry is both important AND can be quantified. So for each player we can assign a Chemistry rating, Madden-style. So along with things like Speed, Size, Catching ability, etc…, prospects and players are analyzed by Chemistry as well.
Now, what happens if you want to optimize for Chemistry? In other words, in that situation, if you wanted to increase the overall Chemistry rating of your team, what are the other effects?
First, we need to ask a very important question. Is Chemistry correlated to any other attribute? So if we assigned a discrete rating for “Skill” as well, would that rating be tied in any way to the Chemistry rating? Let me start by saying I don’t think they’re positively correlated. The most “skilled” players do not seem to be more likely to be high “chemistry” guys. In fact, anecdotally, it seems more likely that the two are negatively correlated. For now, though, let’s just assume NO CORRELATION.
If there is no correlation, and you want to optimize for Chemistry, you’re going to face a trade-off in skill. Note that optimizing for BOTH is the same thing, you’re just trying to minimize the negative trade-offs. So let’s say you’re choosing between three players with the following ratings:
Player A: Chemistry (90), Skill (70)
Player B: Chemistry (80), Skill (80)
Player C: Chemistry (70), Skill (90)
Which player do you choose? If you’re overall goal is to improve the “Chemistry” on your team, you will take player A, despite that fact that he is less skilled than the other two. Or, you might compromise and take Player B. What you WON’T do is take player C. So one war or another, you’re NOT maximizing Skill.
If we apply this conception to the Eagles, we can see a few issues. We believe Chip is actively trying to improve “Chemistry”. As I’ve just explained, doing so will involve trade-offs with other attributes, most notably Skill. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that, in the “Chemistry” building process, there will be at least a near-term shortfall in skill.
Now think about DeSean Jackson. Great player, but probably an asshole in the locker room and during practice. Think of him as Player C above. Cut him and the overall Chemistry of the team improves. However, the overall Skill also decreases.
Over the long-term, a change in attitude is probably a very good thing. BUT, assuming that the process of improving the team’s attitude does not involve trade-offs anywhere else is foolish. NOTHING IS FREE (well except trading 6th round picks for multiple 7ths).
This also might explain the Matthews and Huff picks. By all accounts, those two players rate very highly in our “Chemistry” attribute. I can see why Chip liked them. But if that played a role in their selection, it’s likely the team passed on more “skilled” players. That’s not necessarily a bad thing and I’m not suggesting that it is. Long-term, the hope is that this leads to a team that’s not only successful, but one you can be proud to root for. But it takes time, and it requires tradeoffs.