Is Chip Overweighting Special Teams?

Posted on September 5, 2013 by Brent

I was out for a few days (apparently law school involves going to classes and reading a lot of stuff). The only thing I really haven’t addressed is the “controversial” decision to cut Acho (presumably instead of Matthews). So here it is, in a larger context.

There are a lot of ways to think about the move, but the simplest is:

– It’s a minor change at the bottom of the roster; it’s unlikely to affect the team in any significant way.

That’s probably true. The specific move to cut Acho, who looked good in the preseason games, while keeping Matthews (who looked terrible in his REGULAR season games) will NOT have any large effect on the overall team performance this year.

So why am I talking about it?

It may give us insight into Chip Kelly’s thinking. Namely, Chip appears to be placing MUCH more importance on the Special Teams unit than Andy Reid did.

From igglesblitz.com:

“It’s about special teams,” Kelly said. “There’s three ways to make this football team: special teams, special teams, special teams. …If you’re going to be the fourth or fifth receiver, it’s the value to Coach Fipp and our special teams.” Kelly said that’s the reason the Eagles acquired Najee Goode, because special teams outweighs a player’s production on offense or defense because that’s how they’ll contribute in games.

With Andy Reid, STs frequently felt like an afterthought. Part of that was because the Eagles were blessed with David Akers, who held the kicking job (special teams’ most visible role) down for 10 years. Coverage units and the return game were rarely a problem and sometimes a weapon (Brian Westbrook as PR for example). As a result, little attention was paid (in the media at least) to the overall STs unit. Andy rarely made any substantive changes and the biggest decision in recent years was simply whether or not D-Jax would return punts.

Last year shocked many of us out of our STs complacency. The team’s STs unit was AWFUL, particularly in the punt coverage and return game. I’ve quoted the statistic several times before, but the Eagles Net Field Position was -6.67 yards last year, which was nearly a full yard worse than the 31st ranked team last year (STL) and the third worst measure of any team over the last 5 seasons. TOs also factor into that measure, but the overall message remains:

– Last year, the Eagles’ Offense and Defense were basically playing the game on a higher difficulty level than the other team (as a result of STs and TOs).

In steps Chip Kelly

Chip Kelly cited STs play as the deciding factor in the roster decisions. If there was a “battle”, the player who was better on special teams won. In the context of last year’s performance, this makes a lot of sense. Chip obviously must have known how bad the STs unit was last season. He perhaps also knew that it was never a “priority” for Andy Reid. Therefore, it is entirely possible that Chip Kelly is trying, in his first year, to quickly address the overall team attitude towards special teams. Emphasize it now, make roster decision based on STs play, and players will subsequently know to both value and focus on their STs contributions.

That’s the positive way to put it. There is also another side.

Special Teams plays a much larger role in the College game than it does in the NFL. Essentially, the marginal difference between the best STs players at the NFL level is much smaller compared to the corresponding difference in college. Therefore, there is less advantage to be gained at the NFL level. Kickers make a higher percentage of their field goals, returns aren’t nearly as easy to “break”, etc…

As a result, Chip Kelly might have an inflated view of the relative importance of STs at the NFL level. That’s probably surprising to hear, given the 2012 Eagles experience. However, we have to note that last year was an anomaly. STs units, across the league, are rarely as bad as the Eagles were last year. Additionally, there is definitely an aspect of diminishing marginal returns to overall STs play; going from terrible to average is likely to be “worth” a lot more than going from average to good, and even the best STs units don’t effect the game nearly as much as the Offense and Defense.

In clearer terms, what I’m saying is that STs should NOT be used as the tiebreaker for deciding bottom of the roster personnel. It absolutely must be a factor, but should not be the definitive issue.

Here is where Chip Kelly is running a reasonably significant risk. In an effort to improve and emphasize special teams, he has hurt the depth on offense and defense (mostly defense). For example, if a MLB gets hurt, we now have Casey Matthews stepping in instead of Acho. It’s possible the coaching staff doesn’t see that as a downgrade, but for the purposes of this discussion we will.

If that injury happens, and Matthews is worse on defense than Acho would have been, then the tradeoff is obviously not worth it. I’ll take a marginal improvement on defense over a slightly larger improvement on STs any time. The tricky part, of course, is that the defensive side of the equation is POTENTIAL while the STs side is CERTAIN.

We KNOW that Casey Matthews will play on STs and contribute to the overall team’s performance.

We DO NOT KNOW that a MLB will be injured and require a backup to play for an extended period of time.

Therein lies the risk. If it was just one position, it wouldn’t be an issue. However, it looks like STs play may have been the deciding factor in keeping guys like Maehl, Knott, Matthews, Anderson, Goode. That’s a lot of roster spots. (BTW, Chip obviously knows how many roster spots he has now, especially compared to how many he had in college, so I don’t think it’s a case of not appreciating the smaller roster, but that’s a possibility.)

With that many, it’s extremely likely that one of them will need to step into a major role on Offense or Defense at some point during the year. Contrary to Kelly’s quote above, their “contribution” would then not be coming from STs. At that point, the trade-off (sacrificing depth for STs) becomes negative.

Naturally, it’s possible that the marginal difference in offense/defensive skill for each of these roster “battles” was negligible, in which case deferring to the better STs play makes sense. If that’s not the case though, Chip’s decisions are likely to hurt the team more than it helps.

There absolutely needs to be 1 or two STs “aces”, guys who are kept specifically for their STs prowess. However, the rest of the roster needs to be constructed under the assumption that EVERYONE will have to start at one point or another. Injuries are a CERTAINTY. The second one of the “STs” needs to contribute on offense/defense (think Colt Anderson last year), the advantage gained by their STs skill is immediately outweighed by corresponding drop in production on offense/defense.

Overall, the point I’m trying to make is that there is a natural trade-off between Offense/Defensive depth and Special Teams. Chip appears to be tilting more heavily towards the STs side of the equation than most coaches do (certainly a lot more than Reid did). While I typically am in favor of his decisions to defy convention, this time I’m inclined to agree with the rest of the league (or at least with Andy).

One things’ for sure, though, the Eagles Special Teams better be damn good this year (they’ll likely have to for the team to be good).

Pre-Season Review

Posted on September 2, 2013 by Brent

The final preseason game has been played, roster cuts are finalized, and barring any last-minute surprises, the team we see now is the team we’ll see on opening night, Consequently, it’s a good time to review the preseason. Basically, I’m looking at what units/players surprised and disappointed and how that might affect the overall team’s performance. I’ll start with what I felt were the biggest surprises.

Special Teams – Terrible last year, this unit looks to be SIGNIFICANTLY improved. The kick/punt coverage looks like it could actually be a STRENGTH of the team, though we’ll need to see the regular season play before we know that. Regardless, I’m now confident it will be much better than last year. Similarly, the return game looks solid. Remember that for the Eagles, just getting league-average play from this unit would be a big improvement. As a reminder, here is Football Outsiders’ Special Teams Rankings from last season:

Click to enlarge if you want. I’ve highlighted the Eagles in green. I’ve also highlighted two specific measures, “Punt” and “Hidden Pts”, by bolding them in red. Both of these stand out as the 2012 Eagles’ biggest ST weaknesses. The “Punt” category is self-explanatory, and we’ve seen significant improvement in the preseason. The “Hidden Pts” measure refers to elements of the game that are outside the Eagles’ control. So things like opponents’ field goal %, opposing kick distance, etc… That category is likely to improve as well.

Defensive Line

Throughout the preseason, the defensive line looked a lot stronger than I thought it would be. Perhaps I had lower expectation than everyone else, but I did not think the team would make the 3-4 transition as well as it has along the line. We knew Cox would be good (despite some early issues), but beyond that, there were a lot of question marks. Now, aside from Sopoaga, I’m legitimately happy with the overall group. In fact, I think it’s the deepest unit on the team.

Vinny Curry still confuses me; he’s consistently disruptive but the coaches didn’t seem to even consider elevating him on the depth chart. He must not be doing something he’s being asked to, but that’s hard to see on the tape.

Bennie Logan, if you recall, was the Eagles draft pick I liked the least. From all accounts, it seemed like the Eagles chose him almost a full round early. However, he’s definitely showed signs of being a valuable contributor. I don’t know if he can hold up as the starting NT over a full season, but if he can, he’ll supplant Sopoaga by the end of the year.

Regarding Sopoaga, I’d like to remind everyone that he is exactly as we expected him to be. HE WAS NOT GOOD LAST YEAR. We knew this. Nobody should be surprised by his underwhelming play. However, the team was converting to the 3-4 and it was imperative that they added someone with NT experience. That’s what they got. I’ve seen some speculation that he’s “saving it” for the regular season, but that seems like wishful thinking to me. At best, he’s a mediocre NT. Rather than be disappointed by that, remember that he’s just a place-holder until the team can fill his role permanently (maybe with Logan).

Starting Linebackers

Again, we’re talking about performance relative to expectations. Essentially, I expected very little from this group. Barwin was a “big” addition, but is recent play didn’t seem to match his reputation. He’s looked good, and should provide at least competent play at the OLB position. Mychal Kendricks might be the team’s biggest potential “surprise” this year. We all saw his potential last year; at times, he looked GREAT. However, he also struggled with poor tackling. Shifting to the 3-4, he’s now moved to the ILB role. As of right now, it looks like it suits him pretty well. Depending on how the D-Line plays, I think Kendricks can be an EXCELLENT pass-rusher/blitzer. Outside of Cox, Kendricks has the most “upside” of any defensive player on the team, and nothing he did this preseason has changed that analysis.

The Cole/Graham experiment has worked out about as well as everyone thought it would. Both guys can be passable OLBs. However, given Graham’s potential as a pass-rusher, I still believe his “future” lies with a 4-3 team. He’ll be a valuable DE in Nickel situations, but I just don’t see him playing a big role in the team’s OLB plans beyond this year. Trent Cole, by virtue of his age, doesn’t really have a “long-term”. He’s in a similar situation to Graham, in that his best use is clearly as a 4-3 DE. The good news is that attempting to shift both from DE to OLB could have been a DISASTER. The preseason dispelled some of those concerns.

Offensive Line

I don’t think this unit is getting enough press for underwhelming play. To be clear, they’ve been mostly GOOD, and nothing to be concerned about. HOWEVER, I thought this would be a real strength of the team. Getting Jason Peters back healthy, adding a top 5 OT in the draft, and moving Herremans back to guard all seemed like very positive moves. All told, I thought we might be looking at one of the best OLs in the league, depending on how well Lane Johnson played. I think it’s time to ratchet those expectations back a bit.

Peters didn’t play much in the preseason, so he’s got the most “uncertainty” regarding his expected level of play. Still, I think everyone might be putting too much weight into his 2011 performance. He was DOMINANT, especially in the run game. Is it possible that a ruptured Achilles tendon robbed him of some of his explosiveness? Absolutely. I still expect a very good year from him, but it’s dawned on me that expecting him to again be among the best OTs in the game may be too optimistic. Hopefully I’m wrong, and he’s just gearing up for the regular season, but it’s possible.

The Herremans/Kelce combo is a larger concern. Everyone seems to remember Kelce as a very good center, but in fact, his rookie season was fairly inconsistent. He certainly showed the ability to be consistently good, but I think his “rep” surpassed his actual play. Similarly, Herremans at G was expected to be VERY GOOD, not just solid.

Lane Johnson is too tough to evaluate at this point, but he looks to be playing in-line with expectations. He’s going to look great at times, and struggle every now and then as he adjusts to the NFL.

The TEs (really Chip Kelly’s use of them).

This might be premature, since it’s likely that Chip Kelly hasn’t even come close to revealing his main playbook. However, I have to say I was disappointed by the overall use of the TEs throughout the preseason. I expected that to be a focal point of the offense, and it wasn’t. I really liked seeing Harbor/Ertz lined up in the slot (and targeted), but it just didn’t happen as often as I thought it would. Ertz, in particular, seemed underutilized in the passing game (6 catches total), though it was hard to tell if that was based on coverage or play-design.

On the other hand, Celek looks good, and could finally put up statistics that match his purported “ability”. With D-Jax on the outside and a heavy rushing attack with Shady/Brown, I doubt many defenses will be able to pay much attention to Celek.

Finally:

Just 7 Days until Game #1…

QB Fumbles; Providing some Context

Posted on August 28, 2013 by Brent

The reaction to yesterday’s post was pretty strong, not here really, but over at BGN. I realize that type of breakdown is far from perfect, but I thought it was a good illustration of the overall point I was trying to make (after seeing the data):

Yes, Vick is “inconsistent”. However, a lot of QBs that are considered “good” are also just as inconsistent if not more. I hope to take a look at the standard deviation of performances to get a better sense of things, but the fact is, QBs, in general, have many more bad games than most fans realize. Case in point:

Tom Brady, over his career, has recorded a passer rating of less than 80 in 31% of his starts. Consider that for a moment. Tom Brady is one of the best QBs of all time (if not THE best). Still, nearly one of every three starts of his can be considered a “poor” performance (Rating less than 80).

Among the most often cited counterpoints to yesterday was the issue of Vick’s propensity to fumble. That’s a fair point, so today I took a look at the data. Again, it will surprise you (in a good way).

Here are the active leaders in QB Fumbles (besides Peyton Manning, who’s not included for reasons that aren’t really important here):

Vick, as expected, leads everyone with 87 fumbles (stats are from Pro-Football-Reference.com and, I think, only represent Fumbles Lost, not all fumbles). However, look at the complete rushing stats.

In context, things look a lot better for Vick. Yes, he’s fumbled more than anyone else. However, he has also provided a LOT of additional production on the ground. Looking at the stats a little differently, we can see the differences more clearly:

This is an admittedly simplistic view of things, but it provides necessary context for the whole “Vick fumbles so much” debate. I feel like I need to remind everyone here that I’m far from a #TeamVick member. I still think Foles makes more sense. However, the Vick-Haters have gone too far. As you can see above, Vick’s fumbles, while damaging, are not necessarily “worse” than any other QB’s. In his career, he has run a LOT more than almost any other QB in NFL history and provided a lot of offensive production with his legs. AS a result, he should be expected to fumble more.

We can certainly argue over how much “production” is necessary to counteract the negative value of a fumble. Unfortunately, our data isn’t nearly as granular as it needs to be to provide a definitive answer in that respect.

What happens, though, when we view it purely in terms of TDs and TOs?

Again, simplistic but informative. Here is a table showing a selection of QBs with their Rushing TDs, Passing TDs, INTs, and Fumbles. I’ve also totaled the TDs and TOs and provided an overall TD/TO ratio.

I included McNabb just to remind everyone how good he actually was. We’re concerned with the active players though.

Vick does, in fact, come in at the bottom of the list. However, look at his ratio (right-most column) compared to guys like Cutler and Manning. My sense is that a lot of Vick-haters would jump at the opportunity to trade him for Eli Manning or Jay Cutler. I wouldn’t. In fact, the more a did into QB stats, the worse Eli Manning looks.

The point, of course, is that complaining about Vick’s fumbles may sound right, but if we put it in context, his “problem” isn’t really that bad. He runs more than any other QB, he should be expected to fumble more. His fumbling rate is higher than most QBs, but he also produces a lot more rushing production; perhaps we should judge his fumbling rate as though he were a RB.

Also, consider the following points:

– Vick’s TD/TO ratio with the Eagles is 1.05, the same exact ratio as Joe Flacco.

– Vick’s more than 5500 rushing yards presumably led his team to a number of field goals, meaning there’s additional upside to his rushing that isn’t accounted for here.

Hopefully that shed some light on the whole “fumble problem”. Yes, Vick fumbles a lot. However, focusing on that without accounting for the corresponding rushing production is an incomplete (and unfair) view.

Vick isn’t a great QB. It does appear, though, that he’s good enough.

Finally, no posts for the rest of the week (school orientation). 4th Preseason game should be fun, but relatively inconsequential as far as the team’s 2013 performance goes. Things to watch: Nick Foles (of course), Matt Barkley, and the DBs.

How Inconsistent is Vick?

Posted on August 27, 2013 by Brent

Occasionally, I start to write a post with an end-point in mind, only to find out that what I expected to be the case was actually far from reality. Today is one of those occasions. I was hoping to provide an illustration of Vick’s “Boom-or-Bust” nature. Indeed, I have done that, but I also found some very surprising results when I compared him to other prominent QBs, albeit with a serious caveat that I’ll explain at the end. First, let’s look at Vick by himself.

Here is a chart showing Vick’s QB Rating by start. I’ve only included games from his Eagles career (34); he simply isn’t the same player from his Falcons days (mostly a good thing). All numbers are from Pro-Football-Reference.com.

To make things easier, look at this table:

Before we talk about that table, we need some context. Last year, Tony Romo finished 10th in the league in Passer Rating with a rating of 90.5. Also, last year the median Rating for starting QBs (does not include spot-starters) was 84.

In light of those stats, I’m going to define “Good” play as anything about 90. Anything less than 80 will be defined as “poor”. Everything in between is mediocre.

See any issues? Vick, in his time as the Eagles’ starting QB has delivered Good (or better) play 56% of the time. However, he’s played poorly 35% of the time. Interestingly enough, he’s had “mediocre” play in just 9% of his starts.

That’s about what I expected to find. I assumed Vick would provide a higher percentage of Good and Poor starts, with a very low percentage of Mediocre starts. While that appears to be the case on an absolute basis, comparing him to other QBs leads to some huge surprises.

Here is the same table (I’ve combined the 90-100 and 100+ lines), but with several other QBs included. To keep the comparison fair, I’ve only included starts from the 2010-2012 season (between 46 or 48 games for each other QB).

Looking at Vick’s “consistency” in context with other QBs, we can see some very favorable comparisons. During Vick’s time with the Eagles, he has delivered “Good” performances more often and “Poor” performances less often than Eli Manning, Joe Flacco, and Tony Romo.

Vick has similar numbers (slightly worse) to Matt Ryan.

Lastly, I just want to highlight the remarkable play of both Brady and Rodgers. That’s what having an “elite” QB gets you. 75% of the time, you know you are getting “Good” play from the position. Also note Rodgers’ incredible avoidance of “poor” performances. This is probably the subject for another blog post, but Aaron Rodgers might be quietly putting together the greatest QB career ever…

Summing things up, it seems as though Vick’s “inconsistency” is somewhat overblown. On an absolute basis, that may be true. However, it’s also true that, since coming to the Eagles, Vick has delivered “Good” QB play in an impressively high percentage of his starts. Outside of the true top-tier of QBs (Brady, Rodgers, Brees, P. Manning), Vick compares favorably to his competition. Additionally, looking at QB Rating ignores Vick’s rushing stats, which can only help his case in comparison to most NFL QBs.

Alright everybody, back on the bandwagon…

Eagles vs. Jags Review

Posted on August 26, 2013 by Brent

Following Saturday night’s game, there were two major issues I wanted to address. One is Vick’s performance, the other is the overall defensive performance. Vick first:

Vick

If anything, Saturday’s game was a good illustration of what we should expect from the team this year. The previous two games, the offense had looked very good. There were a few miscues but, overall, the unit moved quickly and consistently. That, of course, was not the case on Saturday.

I’m not that concerned, but that’s because my expectations were already different from many commentators/analysts. I’ve said it several times, in several different places, but:

56.3%

80.6

1.5

What are those? Michael Vick’s career completion percentage, QB Rating, and TD/INT ratio. To be clear, I think the offense will be very good this year with Vick at QB. However, the guys has played 10 seasons in the NFL; our expectations for his performance this year should be made in reference to that sample.

The upshot? The offense is going to be good, but inconsistent, if Vick is the QB. Derek Sarley, formerly of IgglesBlog, has a great breakdown here. (Promo code Q42B). The reason I like his analysis so much is that it perfectly highlights two of the biggest issues I have with Vick (both of which I’ve mentioned before):

– He doesn’t anticipate routes, he waits for receivers to be open.

– He often turns down the open short throw (and primary option) in hopes of getting something downfield.

That second point, in particular, is a major reason why I was hoping for Foles to be named the starter. All of Chip’s schemes and the entire idea behind the “simple math” option design, by definition, requires the QB to consistently take whatever the defense gives him. That’s definitely an attribute of the offense, not a drawback, but it means Vick needs to be willing, for example, to throw a quick screen rather than wait for a downfield throw.

Part of this might be confidence. Vick’s strength is overwhelmingly in his deep throw accuracy and power. Therefore, it makes sense that those would be the throws he looks for most often. However, that mindset is going to result in some missed opportunities (like the missed screen in the link above).

With Vick as QB, there are going to be a lot of stalled drives. The flip-side is that there will also be a number of deep-strikes. The hope, obviously, is that the “explosiveness” more than compensates for the weaknesses. Time will tell, but I’m hopeful.

Remember when I said that Vick as the starter is BAD for the O-Line? I don’t have the All-22, but I suspect that played a role in the unit’s relatively poor performance on Saturday. He holds the ball for a long time (partly because he doesn’t take the open short routes consistently), and he’s prone to rolling out of the pocket rather than stepping up in it. Again, that’s NOT GOING TO CHANGE.

So far, this probably sounds like an “I told you so” post and a likely overreaction to one preseason game; that’s not my intention. So let me repeat:

I expect the offense, under Vick, to be very good this year.

My overall point here is that, over the past two weeks, I’ve tried to remind everyone that Vick’s game has several large, and well-known weaknesses. Over the first two preseason games, those weaknesses were largely hidden, which led some to suggest they were no longer there. Saturday’s performance should have dispelled that notion.

The Defense

I’m guessing a lot of fans were disappointed with the defense, particularly on the long TD run. Again, this goes back to expectations. Odds are, the Eagles’ defense will not be “good” this year. We’re going to see some ugly play, there’s simply no way around it. The overall talent level on defense is low. As a result, I’m not going to get upset over the occasional 60 yard run. It’s terrible defense, and the team won’t win a SB until its fixed, but expecting better, at this point, is just foolish. It’s going to take at LEAST another offseason to address the defense. Until then, we all have to hope that the huge breakdowns can be minimized. Whereas last year, the team was destroyed by long passes, I expect this year’s team to be attacked on the ground. That should be a net positive, but it’s going to be frustrating anyway.

The Roster

Look for the Eagles to add a CB and/or S after league-wide cuts are made. The DB depth is, by far, the biggest current roster construction issue. Right now, the team is one or two injuries away from being in serious trouble on the back end. As I said last week, if anything is going to blow this season up, it’s an injury or injuries to guys like Fletcher/Williams or Chung. The Eagles desperately need some insurance there. As cuts get made, that’s the only position group I’m really looking at around the league.

Preseason Game #3: What you should REALLY be watching for…

Posted on August 23, 2013 by Brent

The third preseason game is tomorrow night. It’s standard at this point for Eagles commentators/beat writers/bloggers to put up a “what I’m watching” post, and I’m no different. I will say, however, that I tend to look at things a bit differently. For example, at Birds 24/7, Tim McManus is watching:

– Kenny Phillips

– Cole/Graham

– Watkins

– Herremans

– Russell Shepard

Click the link to see his rationale, but none of those strike me as particularly meaningful, though they’re all of some interest.

Defensive Line, especially Logan/Curry

So far, the defensive line is FAR ahead of where I (and most others) expected them to be. Preseason performance obviously has to be discounted, but there’s no doubt the group looks stronger than I thought they’d be. Of note here are Bennie Logan and Vinny Curry. Both players have shown signs of being very good players in this defense. However, both have also been predominantly matched up against backups. I want to see what they do when playing against #1s.

Logan, in particular, is an important piece, by virtue of Sopoaga playing in front of him. Sopoaga isn’t exactly a world-beater at NT, and isn’t likely to produce anything beyond mediocre play. Every team needs some draft luck in order to contend, and hitting on a 3rd round NT would certainly qualify. If Logan can contribute, it eliminates a big hole in the defensive roster.

Rumor has it both Logan and Curry will rotate in early tomorrow night. If we’re talking long-term (and we should be), that’s the biggest thing to watch. Can either player be a significant contributor?

Nate Allen

It’s looking more likely that Nate Allen will be starting for the Eagles this year, at least in Game 1. The question here is, can he be average? With what is expected to be a very good offense, the Eagles don’t need a GREAT defense, just a passable one. Last year, the team’s Safety play was horrendous. Missed tackles and bad angles against the run and broken coverage in the pass game. I’m confident that Patrick Chung (while he’s healthy) will provide solid, if unspectacular, play. If Nate Allen can do the same, the Eagles will have filled the biggest hole on the team.

Michael Vick

Now that he’s the unquestioned starter, I hope to see a better representation of Chip’s playbook. We won’t get it all (he’ll save a lot for the regular season), but we should get a much better feel for how the offense will function. Beyond that, I’m looking for one thing from Vick: Can he hit throw the bubble screen accurately? So far, it looks like the WR screen will be a foundation of the offense. However, it’s not as easy a throw to make as it looks. To be successful, the ball has to be delivered quickly and with precise accuracy. If the throw ends up on the WR’s back shoulder, it essentially ruins the play. With DeSean especially, it can mean the difference between a huge gain and a negative play.

TEs in the Slot

There might not be an area of this offense I’m more excited about. With the TEs the Eagles have, specifically Clay Harbor and Zach Ertz, this should be a consistent source of positive match-ups. I want to see a lot of it. At the highest level, it forces the defense to change its personnel. Normally, the defense would be in a Nickel alignment, with 3 CBs to cover the offense’s 3 WRs. However, a CB won’t be able to consistently cover Harbor/Ertz.

There are a few options for the defense, but none of them are that attractive. It also plays to both Harbor and Ertz’s strengths, namely the Size/Athleticism combination.

Health Insurance

I’m not overly concerned with the bottom of the roster. It’s obviously important for the players, but for the team’s overall performance, the last few spots on the roster aren’t going to matter much. However, I want to remind everyone that a few of the Eagles’ offseason additions and presumed starters must still be considered injury risks. Specifically:

– Patrick Chung. He’s missed 14 games over the past 3 seasons. In all likelihood, he won’t play 16 games this year. Someone has to be able to step in and provide adequate play. I’m not sure that person is on the roster.

– Bradley Fletcher. He played all 16 games last year and in 2010, so I’m more confident in him than I am in Chung. Let’s not forget that he’s torn the ACL in his right knee TWICE (as well as the MCL once). The Eagles aren’t exactly deep at CB.

Therefore, if you want to watch what’s really important during the second half of the game, keep your eyes on the DBs. It was the team’s biggest weakness last year, and while it should improve based on the current starters, there’s very little depth. If the wheels are going to come off this year, it’ll likely have something to do with this position group.

Whether its Wolff, Coleman, Phillips (not likely), Whitley, Lindley, etc… doesn’t really matter. The Eagles just need SOMEBODY that can step in and deliver non-catastrophic play.

Run/Pass Game Theory; Optimal 3rd and 1 play selection

Posted on August 22, 2013 by Brent

Today we’re going to revisit the Run/Pass play selection series I began a few weeks ago. For those of you have didn’t see it, here are the primary articles:

Marginal Value of 1 yard on 3rd and 1

Nash Equilibrium and 3rd Down Strategy

The overall theme of the articles was that NFL play-callers are not running as often on 3rd and 1 as they should. I supported this argument with a fair amount of evidence, using expected points and run/pass success probabilities. However, there were a couple of holes in there. Today I want to close one of those, refining the analysis and consequently lending it more confidence.

First, from the first link above, this is what I’m talking about:

Let’s just assume for a second the odds of success for each are equal to the Run/Pass odds we saw yesterday (I know that isn’t right, but its instructive). That means the expected payout for each is:

Run: 2.39 expected points * 70.7% success = 1.69 Expected Points

Pass: 2.65 expected points * 54.6% success = 1.45 Expected Points

For that to be correct, that expected yardage for a run on 3rd and 1 would have to be 1 yard and the expected yardage for a pass would have to be 5 yards, neither of which is likely the case. However, as you can see, the difference in expected yardage gained would have to be very big to account for the difference in success rates.

The section in bold highlights a particularly large potential weakness, which I’ve now fixed. Using the Pro-Football-Reference play finder, I was able to provide a higher level of resolution. For my data set, I used all 3rd and 1 plays run over the past 5 seasons. From this, we need the following pieces of information:

– The average gain of a successful run on 3rd and 1.

– The average gain of a successful pass on 3rd and 1.

– The odds of success for a run.

– The odds of success for a pass.

Using the play-finder, we can see that the average successful run gained 4.43 yards. The average successful pass gained 11.26 yards.

While I previously used this site for out success rates, we can now find them ourselves using Pro-Football-Reference. Since our data set is now just 5 years, we need to update our rates. Over that time frame, on 3rd and 1, run plays succeeded 69.3% of the time. Pass plays were successful 57.7% of the time.

Now we have our building blocks. Just as we did before, we can use them in combination with Expected Points (AdvancedNFLstats.com) to calculate the expected value of each (run/pass), which will tell us which is the better choice (on average for the league).

To refresh, here is the expected value of each yard line:

Using this concept, we can calculate the value of the average gain on 3rd and 1 for both run plays and pass plays. For example, given 3rd and 1 at the 20 yard line (opposing), a successful run can be expected to gain 4.43 yards, leaving the offense with a 1st down between the 16 and 17 yard line, which is worth 4.35 expected points. Similarly, a successful pass will gain, on average, 11.26 yards, giving the offense a first down between the 8 and 9 yard line. That position is worth 4.86 expected points.

However, we’re not done yet. We need to factor in the different success rates. Here is a table, summarizing the previous paragraph and adding the expected success rates:

As you can see, once we factor in the expected success rates, the Run option stands out as the optimal choice. It’s expected value is 3.01 versus an expected value of just 2.81 for the pass option.

If this sounds counterintuitive, remember the chart I gave you in the “Marginal Value” post, seen below:

The bulk of the value in any successful 3rd and 1 play lies in the first yard gained. To that end, sacrificing additional yards in exchange for a higher success rate is typically a good trade-off.

Finally, I ran the numbers at each yard line, giving me this chart, which shows the expected value of a run and a pass at each yard line, in a 3rd and 1 situation:

Now that’s interesting. It’s hard to see, but the optimal play call switches from run to pass at the 53 yard line (so own 47 yard line) as you move farther away from the end zone. Here is chart that illustrates the difference more clearly.

Values above zero mean the Run is the better option, values below the axis mean Pass:

So it looks like our overall thesis needs some updating. Note that the lumps in the data (particularly on the right side of the chart) probably reflect statistical anomalies in the Expected Points data. Theoretically, that should be a smooth line. However, the magnitude of the difference isn’t that important, so it doesn’t effect the overall point.

Given recent NFL success rates on 3rd down and the expected value of a first down at each yard line, NFL teams should RUN when they are beyond their own 47 yard line, and PASS if they aren’t. Note that the values once again converge with 13 yards to go until the end zone. Obviously, beyond that the 11.26 average pass gain gives you a TD, which skews the results and likely isn’t representative of what happens in real life (presumably the average gain for a pass declines when you’re that close to the end zone, it kind of has to).

We can also assume that if NFL play-callers followed this analysis, the success rates would change, leading to the overall equalization in expected value of a Run versus a Pass, eliminating the inefficiency. That point would represent the Nash Equilibrium. However, until that happens, smart NFL teams can exploit this for an advantage.

Quick Thoughts on Vick

Posted on August 21, 2013 by Brent

Much of what needs to be said about Vick as the starting QB has been. I just wanted to add a few things to the discussion:

– I thought Foles was the better choice, but that’s because I’m more concerned with the long-term than near-term. No doubt Vick earned the spot, and I think he’ll perform well.

– However, keep Vick’s skill/ability in perspective. If he plays like he has over the majority of his career, this could be a shorter stint than many realize. Kelly won’t put up with poor decisions and inaccuracy when he has a backup QB he has confidence in.

– In that vein, the obvious question is: How long is Vick’s leash? Kelly said Vick doesn’t need to “look over his shoulder”, but frankly, I don’t see how that’s possible. The world now knows that Foles has some ability and can play in this offense. If the Eagles drop 3-4 games in a row (maybe that Denver, NYG, Tampa away game stretch?), will Kelly still be as confident?

Almost by definition, selecting Vick is a choice of “Win Now” over “Develop for the future”. Therefore, if the team is around .500 and Vick falters a bit, how do you not pull him for Foles? You’ve already stated you’re trying to win this year.

Basically, the pressure is on Vick to play very well. However, if he plays to his long-term averages, I think we’ll see Foles get a shot.

– The key to Vick playing very well? For me, it comes down to two things, which I’ll be watching closely for every game. (Health is a given, but it’s not something Vick really controls)

1) Patience. Does Vick have the discipline to consistently take 5-6 yard gains? Put another way, can Vick consistently lead TD drives that don’t involve 20+ yard passes? I hope so, but I’m skeptical. His entire career has suggested he looks for the big play first, the smart play second.

2) Short throw accuracy. Can Vick consistently put the ball exactly where it needs to be, hitting receivers in stride? Yards after catch figures to be vital in this offense. “Catchable” is not good enough. I anticipate seeing a lot of WR screens and slants. Those will fail if not delivered perfectly.

– What about the rest of the offense?

This is good for DeSean and Shady. Vick’s deep throw ability is his clearest advantage over Foles. As a result, DeSean will likely be much better off with Vick at QB. Any time the defense wants to stack the box (for instance with a multi-TE set), DeSean will have an opportunity for a home-run, which Vick will undoubtedly be happy to throw.

Conversely, the presence of the deep threat (Vick-DeSean combo) will stop defenses from consistently bring safeties down to the LOS. That should give Shady the space he needs to get past the first level, at which point he’s more dangerous than any back in the league. The one area this might hurt Shady is in the passing game. I think Foles would be better at throwing to Shady out of the backfield. Naturally, that’s a secondary option, so the tradeoff is still overwhelmingly positive for Shady.

This is bad for the O-Line, the TEs, and Damaris (if he gets playing time). Perhaps Vick’s worst attribute is his inability to intelligently navigate the pocket. He’s too quick to roll out, which is extremely harmful to the OLs ability to block. The short drops should help, but that assumes Vick will actually deliver the ball on-time. His history suggests he’ll be prone to holding the ball after the 3-step drop, looking for a downfield option. Vick creates a lot of sacks, and is unquestionably harder to pass-protect than Foles.

The TEs and Damaris figure to be hurt as well. This goes back to the “ball-in-stride” point. I have no idea how much playing time Damaris will get, but I hope it’s a lot. His game, though, requires pinpoint accuracy from the QB. If he has to hesitate or break momentum to catch the pass, it negates his best attribute (his quickness). It’s a similar story for the TEs, though probably not as big of a difference from Vick to Foles.

One could argue that Vick’s deep throw ability and his ability to draw a defensive spy will give the TEs more space to work with than they’d have with Foles. That’s positive. On the other hand, the TEs are worse than WRs at both catching the ball and adjusting their speed/routes. Vick’s combination of inaccuracy and power (he throws the ball very fast) will likely lead to more difficult catches for the TEs than they’d have with Foles at QB.

– Lastly, if you were a backup QB and could hand-pick any NFL starter to sit behind, Vick would be high on the list. “Staying healthy” for Vick means playing 14-15 games. In all likelihood, Foles will get a chance to start a game or two this season, at which point we’ll really be able to tell how different the offense is with each QB (we haven’t seen anything close to the whole playbook yet).

Charting the course to 9 wins; Laying out the Schedule

Posted on August 20, 2013 by Brent

Yesterday, I explained why I believe the Eagles are a “true” 9 win team. In fact, prior to yesterday’s post, I had them at 8-8, so I actually became more bullish. Today, I want to take a more conventional look at the season, using the schedule. First, though, a note about yesterday’s post. (If you have no issues with yesterday’s analysis, skip to the next section).

A lot of people seem uncomfortable with that type of analysis. The problem, I think, is that assigning such “values” lends an appearance of false precision and undue confidence. To say you expect the Eagles to produce points at a rate 15% better than league average sounds very precise (and wrongfully so). However, I don’t believe we’re actually falling victim to that issue here. Allow me to give you the base-case projection from the beginning, showing, more clearly, how I got to the assumption values.

I expect the Eagles offense to produce points at a slightly higher rate than the 2011 team. Similarly, I do NOT expect the team to produce points at a rate as high as the 2009 and 2010 teams. I won’t go into the details, but comparing the rosters, luck statistics, and looking at the talent on team right now, I think that’s a reasonable assumption.

Therefore, using this rationale, I expect the team’s points production to fall between 2010 (+25%) and 2011 (+12%). That’s our range. I chose +15% because it’s closer to the 2011 team, which I thought was the more reasonable expectation, and because it’s a round number, making it easy to use/explain.

For the defense, I expect this year’s team to allow points at a rate similar to the 2010 team. For this assumption, I started with last year’s defense (-22%). We essentially KNOW that the Eagles will not turn the ball over at anywhere close to the rate they did last year. I’ve covered this before, but if you disagree, take a look at the older posts on EaglesRewind.com for proof. Additionally, the Eagles DB corps figures to be improved as well, simply because last year was so terrible (being just bad will be an improvement). Overall, terrible play + terrible luck left us with a -22% value last year. Realistically, that sets one boundary of our range. In fact, the turnover luck was so historically bad (mostly in fumbles lost and fumble recovery rate) that our boundary is likely much higher than that (-15% perhaps?). Couple that with a look at the new personnel and the easier schedule, and I’m left with a team that should ALLOW points at a similar rate to the 2010 team.

That’s all. Basically, I’m using what we know about previous Eagles teams to provide context for this year. The “values” actually reveal themselves. From there, it’s just a matter of using those values to compute projected Points For and Points Against, and putting those points into the Pythagorean Win formula (which is close to unassailable as far as accuracy goes). You can ignore the numbers. Just know that my base-case expectation is for the team to produce points at a rate slightly better than in 2011 and allow points at a rate similar to 2010. In all likelihood, that gets you to 9 wins.

I hope that cleared a few things up, as far as how that analysis was put together. I left out most of the actual details regarding comparing rosters/stats, but that’s the general framework.

The Schedule

Now to the point. Just because the Eagles should win 9 games doesn’t mean they will. The schedule plays a big role in team performance. Here, of course, is good news. The Eagles, by virtue of finishing last in the division last year, get relatively easier schedule this year. I do this a bit differently from others. They idea here is NOT to pick every individual game. Teams lose games they should win (and win games they shouldn’t) all the time. Instead, I break the schedule into sections and try to find out what the Eagles would NEED to do to realistically reach 9 wins.

So this isn’t what the Eagles WILL do, it’s what the Eagles HAVE to do, if they are to perform as well as I project. During the season, we can check back in with these benchmarks to see how on/off track the team is.

Here is the schedule:

Section 1 – The Sprint Start

3 games, 11 days. The Eagles first stretch, in my view, comprises these 3 games (Redskins, Chargers, Chiefs). The Chargers and Chiefs are both home games. The Eagles, realistically, NEED to win 2 of these 3 games. Again, it doesn’t really matter which two teams they beat (beating the Redskins would obviously help within the division). However, the San Diego and KC games count as part of the “easy” side to the schedule. San Diego is a mess and they’re coming across the country for an away game. Kansas City is much improved (I think they’ll challenge for the playoffs, maybe get to 9 wins as well), and given the Andy Reid return and the McNabb ceremony, it’ll be a crazy game.

Benchmark: 2 Wins

Section 2: The Darkness

Three straight away games. Denver, NY Giants, Tampa Bay.

This is the part of the season after which I expect a fair amount of hand-wringing. If/when that happens, remember what we’ve said here. The Eagles will probably lose 2 of these games, maybe even 3. Denver is a beast; Peyton Manning against this defense is a very bad matchup. I don’t think the Giants will be as good as most expect, but it’s still a road divisional game. Tampa Bay is a bit of a wild card.

The key here is getting 1 win. Again, it’s most helpful if it comes against the Giants (division) or Bucs (conference), but that’s a secondary concern.

Benchmark: 1 Win

Section 3: The Meat

At this point, the benchmark for the team is 3 Wins (so a 3-3 record). Now comes a 5 games stretch before the week 12 bye.

Cowboys, Giants, @Oakland, @Green Bay, Redskins

Three home divisional games. An away game against the Packers. That’s a tough slate. Oakland is still Oakland. The entire NFC East figures to be tightly bunched this year, in terms of team ability (though I’m skeptical of the Cowboys). As a result, I don’t see any NFC East team sweeping the others. The Eagles need to win 1 of these three divisional home games, as well as 1 more win from the remaining 4 games.

Benchmark: 2 Wins.

Section 4: Dessert

This is the important part. According to my “plan”, the Eagles need to be 5 – 6 at the bye week. Not a great record, but it’s good enough, because the final stretch of games sets up very well for the team.

Home games against the Cardinals and Lions. Either of these teams could “surprise” the league (the Lions are a popular pick), but at the same time, they don’t seem unwinnable either. If the Eagles are as good as projected, a home game against the Cardinals shouldn’t be a major hurdle.

@ Vikings. Christian Ponder and a team that’s likely to regress (very lucky last year and probably won’t have an all-time great season from AP).

Home game against the Bears, who are the same as they always are (great defense, erratic offense). Shapes up as a fairly good matchup for the Eagles, provided they can score some points.

@ Cowboys. Road divisional game to close the season, but it’s against what I project to be the weakest divisional team. If the Eagles are to get to 9 wins and a playoff spot, the finale is likely to be a key game.

Cardinals, Lions, @Vikings, Bears, @Cowboys

The question here is: Can the Eagles win 4 out of 5? It’s not a hard stretch, with 3 home games and an away game against the Vikings. Remember that to start this final push, the team will be coming off a Bye week, which should help (as well as increase the chances of a win versus the Cardinals).

Benchmark: 4 Wins

Putting it Together

Adding up the benchmarks gets you to 9 wins. To repeat, this isn’t what I think the Eagles WILL do, it’s what I think the Eagles HAVE to do in order to fulfill my projection of 9 wins. Overall, I think it’s fairly conservative over the first 3 sections, then perhaps aggressive over the final stretch.

The biggest thing to note here is the timing of the schedule’s “difficulty”. It comes early, meaning the team could absolutely lose 3 consecutive games and still be in decent shape. It’s probably a bit more risky with a first-year coach, since presumably losing 3 straight games will invite a lot of pressure/skepticism (maybe a QB change?). However, don’t forget that the last 5 games are very favorable.

Finally, we can summarize the “W/L goals” as follows:

– Start strong. Win 2 of the first 3 games.

– Tread water. Win 2 of the next 5 games.

– Take care of divisional business. Win 3 of 6 games, including at least 1 divisional game.

– Capitalize on the schedule after the bye. Win 4 of the final 5 games, across an easy (relatively speaking) slate of opponents. For bonus points and a potential divisional crown, stick it to the Cowboys in the finale.

That’s my course. 9 wins seems achievable. Obviously, a lot can go wrong. We’ll check back in during the season to see if the team is hitting these benchmarks.

Projecting the Eagles 2013 Record

Posted on August 19, 2013 by Brent

We’ve still got 2 more preseason games and a couple of weeks before the official start of the season, but I think it’s time to actually game out what this season might look like. I’ve said several times that I think this is a “natural” 8-9 win team (closer to 8). However, that prediction was essentially made in a vacuum. Now it’s time to put some real evidence behind it. To do this, I’m going to use Pythagorean win probability, using base-case/upside/downside assumptions for both the offense and defense.

Tomorrow, I’ll take a look at the actual schedule and try to discern where, exactly, the Eagles wins SHOULD come from, setting benchmarks along the way so we can check in during the season and see how the team is doing (rather than overreact to short 2-3 game stretches).

For this analysis, we need to project how good both the Eagles offense and defense will be. I’m going to discuss this in terms of percentage +/- league average (same look we’ve talked about before). In both cases, we’re looking at Points (points for and against).

First, the offense. How good can the Eagles be?

Let’s start by looking at the team’s recent performance. Here is a table showing the previous 5 seasons:

As you can see, the Eagles offensive production was very good over that time period. Last season was very bad, but it stands out as an anomaly. The offensive line was destroyed by injuries, and the Eagles best offensive player (Jason Peters, maybe 2nd best) was hurt before the season even started. This year, the O-Line looks to be healthy (crossing fingers), plus the team has added Lane Johnson, the 4th overall pick in the draft. Couple that with Chip Kelly’s expertise and the performances we’ve seen in the preseason thus far, and I think it’s fair to say we expect the offense to be closer to the ’09 and ’10 teams than last year’s.

Remember, we’re using 3 different cases here to get a range of expected win values. For the offense, I’m going to set them as follows:

Upside – +30%. Not expected, but that’s why it’s the UPSIDE case. The 2010 Eagles were +20%, and with Chip Kelly at the helm and many of the same skill players, it’s not ridiculous to think the team could be slightly better.

Base Case – +15%. This might be too aggressive, but I think it’s fair as a base-case expectation. The offense is clearly the strength of this team. Chip Kelly + Shady + DeSean + the O-Line SHOULD mean a very good offense. I think, regardless of the Vick/Foles debate, that this team will be very good on offense. Given that the team was +12% in 2011 and +25% in both 2009 and 2010, I think +15% is a reasonable expectation.

Downside – +5%. Note that we are looking at the “Downside”, not the “disaster” case. Simply put, unless the team suffers injuries to multiple offensive stars, I don’t see any way it finished below league average in points scored. The team finished below average (<0%) just 3 times during Andy Reid’s tenure, and I expect that type of consistent offensive output to continue with Kelly.

Now the Defense.

As every fan knows, this is the side of the ball that will likely determine whether the Eagles are a playoff contender or not. As I showed on offense, here is the defensive performance, relative to league average, over the last 5 years:

Obviously, the defense is much harder to project. Last year was terrible, but remember that was also greatly effected by the historically bad turnover results as well as awful special teams. Special teams looks to be improved, and, statistically speaking, it’s close to impossible for the team not to rebound significantly in turnover margin. That’s a long way of saying that we should expect improvement from last year, though how much improvement is a big question. As it is, my assumptions are:

Upside – +5%. Not likely, but it’s within the realm of possibility that the Eagles will be slightly above average on Defense this year. While preseason isn’t always a great indicator, it looks like the D-Line will be a bit better than I expected it to be. The LBs are a question, but Mychal Kendricks could certainly take a big step forward this year. Also, it looks like Patrick Chung has plugged one of the gaping holes at Safety (for at least part of the season while he’s healthy). Bradley Fletcher looks good at CB, as does Brandon Boykin, who’s positioning himself as a contender for the biggest surprise on the team. If what we’ve seen so far continues, then average-slightly above average is a reasonable upside case.

Base Case – -5%. Slightly below average. Say the words while picturing this year’s defense and I think you’ll agree it sounds about right. If we start from last season’s performance (-22%) and factor in improved field position and turnovers, then add a less than catastrophic defensive backfield, and it’s reasonable to expect the team to move from very bad on defense to purely mediocre (on the negative side).

Downside – -15%. This one’s easy. Last year the Eagles were -22%. Just about everything that could go wrong, did. I just don’t see any reasonable scenario that results in the team being as bad or worse than it was last season. In fact, taking the exact same quality of performance and adjusting for better turnover luck would itself lead to relatively large improvement, hence the downside case of -15%.

So where does that leave us? Here’s the summary matrix:

Now we need to translate that into points, then we’ll use the Pythagorean Win Probabilities to calculate or expected win range. What should we expect the league average to be?

Here is a chart showing scoring per team, per game from 2003-2012:

Last year the average was 22.7, but as the chart shows, we should expect an increase this season. The average annual increase over that time period is approximately .2 points per game. Therefore, we’ll use 22.9 as our expected average for this season.

So, using the values in our matrix, we get the following:

This chart gives us 9 potential values given our assumptions for this season. Here they are, with expected wins included.

The average win expectation is 9.1. I guess I need to shift my expectations upwards. Tomorrow, I’ll use the actual schedule to see whether the Eagles will win as many games as this analysis suggests. However, the overall message is this: the proper expectation for Eagles fans is a team that contends for the division and at least wins a Wild Card spot.

Eagles Rewind

Objective and Analytical Analysis of The Philadelphia Eagles and the NFL

Author Archives: Brent