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).

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.

Was unexpectedly without internet at the end of last week, hence no posts.  I’ve got some catching up to do, so here are a bunch of things I wanted to get out, in no particular order.

Riley Cooper

– If the Eagles were going to cut him, they would have done it already, right?

There are two possibilities here: Riley is racist OR Riley was drunk and said something really stupid.  It could also be a combination of both.  Regardless, my reaction to each is:

– For the “SUSPEND HIM!” crowd out there: If Riley is actually racist, being suspended from football isn’t going to make a difference.  I’m certainly no expert, but it seems to me that racism is not the type of thing you just give up cold turkey.  It’s not like Riley was going to find out he was suspended and suddenly DECIDE to change his prejudice.  Similarly, it’s not as if other players in the league who may share similar feelings would see the suspension and suddenly “see the light”.  The suspension pushers seem more like the standard knee-jerk over-reactors we see with every story like this.

– If Riley is actually racist, wouldn’t his teammates already know that? (No claim to originality here, just saying I agree with it.)  In the football team atmosphere, I think it’d be tough to completely hide any strong prejudice for that long.  If his teammates already know it, then this doesn’t seem like an issue as far as its potential to change team dynamics (If anyone already hates him, not going to hate him any more).

– If Riley was drunk and said something stupid (more likely the case, at least greater than 50% of the cause), his punishment seems appropriate.  He has to leave the team, potentially costing him the starting WR spot.  I have no idea how legitimate “treatment” is, but it seems much more likely to address his problem than a larger fine or suspension would.

– By the time the season starts, this event will have faded.  Teammates will come out and say how much they support Riley and he may even retake the second starting WR spot.

– Finally, I actually don’t think this would have played out differently if Maclin had not been injured.  The cynical way of looking at things is to assume Riley is more important now and therefore can’t be cut.  To those making that point, I’d rebut it with a simple counterpoint: he’s Riley Cooper…  It’s not like this is an All-Pro receiver.  If Kelly wanted to make an example of someone, he could hardly have chosen a better player.  Cooper is a big enough name (not just camp-fodder) to make an impression, but likely isn’t good enough to strongly affect the team by his absence.

Training Camp Hype

We’re getting deeper into training camp, and some storylines are emerging.  The QB situation is still unsettled, and will likely remain that way.  However, we do seem to have identified this year’s “training camp stars”.  Eagles fans should know the concept well.  This is not to say that Brandon Boykin and Damaris Johnson won’t translate strong training camps into successful regular seasons, it’s just a reminder that more often than not, previous regular season performance is a better indication of skill than a training camp breakout.

I was high on Damaris before camp started, so I’m very encouraged to hear that he looks good.  Also, Boykin would be an incredibly valuable “surprise”, given the position he plays.  and the Eagles current CB corps uncertainty.  Just try to keep things in perspective though.  Temper your excitement until we see them in the regular season.

On a more hopeful note, I like that we aren’t hearing raves about any of this year’s later-round draft picks.  I was half expecting to get a stream of “Earl Wolff is running with the 1s” type of stories.  Those developments seemed to occur frequently under Andy Reid, and only served to wrongfully inflate fans’ hopes.  I’m keeping an eye out for them, though.  For now, just know that ff we see one, it’s more likely a BAD sign than good.

Special Teams Focus

Readers here will already know this, but the Eagles were AWFUL on special teams last year, which really hurt both the offense and defense.  Chip Kelly is reportedly focusing more on ST than most coaches do, which means he reviewed last season and came to the same conclusions we did.  Normally STs garner less attention because they have a lesser impact on the game.  However, when you are as bad on ST as the Eagles were last year, small improvements can make a BIG difference.

I feel like that’s going to be a theme for this year.  Can the Eagles go from TERRIBLE to just plain bad in areas like STs, turnovers, and the defensive backfield?  If the answer is yes, then this is a playoff contending team.

Hall Of Fame

Quick point about the HOF discussion (left over from McNabb comments).  If I were starting the HOF from scratch, McNabb would NOT be in it.  Then again, neither would Jim Kelly, Troy Aikman, or a host of other players widely considered “greats”.  However, I am not starting the HOF from scratch and the bar has already been set.  The reason I compare McNabb to the “worst” players in the HOF is because that’s the bar he has to clear.  Comparing him to Tom Brady (which I saw Colin Cowherd do last week, supposedly dispelling the supporting cast argument) is ridiculous.  That’s not the standard he has to meet, so it’s irrelevant.

Also, to those of you making the “only X players from each era can be HOFers”: I hear you and have some sympathy for the argument, BUT let me address it with an analogy/anecdote everyone here should be familiar with; grading curves.

When I was in college, one of my finance class grades was based 100% on a semester-long simulation where teams of students ran virtual companies in direct competition with each other. The entire class was put on a grading curve, meaning a certain percentage would fail, regardless of their absolute performance.

As you can imagine, this didn’t sit right with me.  During class, I asked the TA to imagine a scenario where every person but one in the class made the “right” decision 100% of the time.  The remaining person made the “right” decision 99% of the time.  As a result of the grading structure, the student with a 99% success rate would fail the class.  Ridiculous, right?

The same idea holds for our HOF discussion.  Forget McNabb for a moment, let’s just talk in generalities.  Suppose that the 10 greatest QBs of All-Time just happened to play during the same 12 year stretch.  Inevitably, some of those QBs would be less successful than others, despite the fact that they are all among the greatest ever.  It’s likely, in fact, that several of those “great” QBs would never win a SB, since there are just 12 years in which to do it.

In this scenario, using the “X # or % of players per era” argument, we’d clearly have several all-time greats left out of the HOF, purely as a result of the fact that they played in an era with OTHER all-time greats.  In essence, that argument is applying a grading curve to each “era”.  Forget that defining an “era” is really difficult to do (McNabb really spanned at least 2).  Applying a curve, we leave ourselves open to the possibility of rewarding/penalizing players based heavily on the time period they were lucky/unlucky enough to play in, rather than on their individual skill and ability.

There’s no right answer here, but I tend to lean very heavily towards the skill/ability side of the equation.  Naturally, each player must be viewed in context with the league in which he played, but I don’t see any issue at all with having 5-6 QBs from the same “era” all making it into the HOF.  To me, that just means is was a “golden age” for QB play, and it should be recognized and celebrated rather than suppressed.

Not much football to talk about today, but a great sports weekend nonetheless.

—–

First, the Eagles.  With a new coaching staff and scheme, we have to expect several players to be unsuccessful in transitioning.  Most of the suspects have been on defense (Cole, Graham), but we need to recognize that some offensive players may not make it either.  Unfortunately, until training camp begins, we won’t really know who the prime suspects are.  Allow me to name my surprise pick…

DeSean Jackson.

I’ve long been a big Jackson fan. I think he’s underrated as an all-around receiver and wasn’t used well by the previous scheme.  His straight-line speed is among the best in the league, and used properly, he should open the entire field up by forcing safety coverage deep.  However, it wouldn’t surprise me if he makes a less successful transition than I hope and others expect.  Let’s talk about what the new offense might look like:

– Most expect it to be run-heavy and potentially option-based.

– Requires WRs who can block…

– Emphasizes short passes and YAC. (It’s very tough to run no huddle if you use a lot of deep routes)

None of those aspects play to DeSean’s strength, though he can absolutely be a YAC threat in the slot (he’s much stronger in the middle of the field than people realize, owing mainly to his contract-related issues).

Also, if the Quarterback battle plays out the way I think it will (i.e. Nick Foles wins), we could be looking at a QB who’s biggest weakness is deep-ball accuracy (if he hasn’t improved this offseason).

So now we’ve got an offense that needs WRs who can block, doesn’t emphasize the deep ball, and doesn’t have a QB that can get it deep with any consistent accuracy.  That sounds like it could spell trouble for D-Jax.

If I had to place a bet today on D-Jax’s future, I’d still wager that Kelly uses him the right way and helps return Jackson to the upper echelon of NFL deep threats.  However, I think  we’re all overlooking the transition risk for Jackson.

——

To the NBA for a minute:

Check out Danny Green’s shot chart for the NBA finals.

For those of you watching, you’re seeing an absolutely unprecedented performance.  Green’s turning in the greatest shooting performance in the history of the finals (perhaps any series depending on how the next game or two goes) and making a case for NBA finals MVP.  More surprising is the fact that, coming into the series, NOBODY would have ranked Green any higher than 5th in terms of the Spurs best players (Parker, Duncan, Ginobli, Leonard).

Lost in the Green/Parker hype (and Ginobli’s breakout last night) has been remarkable play by Kawhi Leonard.  People have been talking about the Spurs “window” closing for years now, but it looks to me like the team might have a much more successful post-Duncan/Ginobli transition than anyone expected.

—–

I’m not going to talk about the NHL much.  The Finals have been great, but it seems to me that if you’re a hockey fan you already know that, and if you’re not, there’s probably not much I can say at this point to convince you to watch.

It also doesn’t help that there isn’t a natural side for Flyers fans to take.  I’m going Blackhawks, mainly because they’re not Boston and have the best jerseys in professional sports (the Red ones obviously).

I think we all expected the QB battle to be a major point of focus for the Eagles this offseason, and it is indeed playing out that way.  The national media hasn’t really jumped in yet, though they will.  The local beat writers have written a lot on it though, with Vick’s apparent displeasure with the competition the current story.  Tommy at IgglesBiltz had some thoughts yesterday that I agree with and are worth checking out.

I’m firmly on record as saying that Nick Foles is the better choice.  Not only that, IT”S NOT CLOSE.  That obviously reflects my personal philosophy and is not a prediction of how Chip Kelly will decide, but I did find a recent Vick quote that was encouraging (for me):

“When you have a strong arm, you can attack all areas of the field, but we’ve got multiple quarterbacks with strong arms; I think that’s not the determining factor,” Vick said. “I think you’ve just got to be able to make good decisions with the football, that’s what’s most important.“

Beyond the obvious importance of QB decision-making, we have been led to believe that Chip Kelly is especially critical of this area of the game.  If that’s true, and Vick seems to think it is, there should be very little chance of Vick winning the job.  HOWEVER, I wanted to highlight something that does bode well for Vick.

Vick has a career Passer Rating of just 80.6 and a completion percentage of 56.3%.  Neither is reflective of a good starting QB.

BUT

Many people overlook the fact that Vick has improved significantly since joining the Eagles.  Perhaps it was Andy Reid’s magic or maybe Vick just figured some things out.  Regardless, look at his splits:

ATL:  74 Games Played, 53.8% completion, 75.7 Rating, 1.36 TD/INT Ratio

PHI:  47 Games Played, 60.1% completion, 87.8 Rating, 1.73 TD/INT Ratio

Also, his YPA increased from 6.7 to 7.6, meaning the higher completion percentage is not a result of just throwing easier (shorter) passes.

Now a big part of that improvement was his stellar 2010 campaign, which no right-minded person should expect him to duplicate.  Note, though, that his rating of 78.1 last year (his worst as an Eagle) was better than all but ONE season with the Falcons.  In fact, his best year with the Falcons was in 2002 when he recorded a rating of 81.6.

To be clearer, his worst year so far with the Eagles was nearly as good as his BEST year with the Falcons.  That’s not to say he’s now good enough (I still like Foles better), but to ignore his improvement over the past few years is unfair.

The Eagles version of Michael Vick has been a much better “decision-maker” than the Falcons version ever was.  Time will tell if that’s good enough for Chip Kelly.

————–

Allow me to delve into the NBA for a moment.  If you hate basketball, you can leave now.  If, however, you are like most non-NBA fans and just aren’t that enamored with the game, I encourage you to watch this year’s Finals (Game 1 was last night).  I won’t go into detail, but believe me when I say that watching these games MAY TURN YOU INTO A TRUE FAN.

If you follow the league casually and occasionally tune in to whatever game is on TV, you probably have not seen anything close to what basketball can be when played at the highest level.  The biggest knock on the NBA is that there are only a handful of teams worth watching, and some of those aren’t even worth it until the playoffs.  I completely agree with that.  However, in the Spurs and the Heat, we’ve now got two of the best teams in recent history going at it in the Finals.  You should be watching.

Last night was one of the best-played games of basketball I’ve ever seen and a great example of what the NBA SHOULD be on a more consistent basis.  That obviously isn’t happening anytime soon, so you’ve got to appreciate the opportunities when they present themselves.

Also, Grantland has its problems, but it’s a FANTASTIC site for basketball.  Zach Lowe does a particularly good job in explaining the strategy behind the game (at the very least, check out the first link below).  Here are some excellent articles to get you up to speed:

The Finals Preview

Last Minute Notes

How Each Team Scores

The Spurs Offense

Just back from vacation, trying to catch up (I had close to zero internet access).  Doesn’t look like I missed much, as the “off-season” has finally arrived.  OTAs are happening, but I tend to believe the lead to far more overreaction and hype than genuine intelligence.

Don’t read into the day-to-day depth chart (who’s running with the 1s and so on) too much.  Kelly is just getting a feel for every player and will likely use this as an opportunity to test some potential offensive ideas out and see how various personnel groups handle it.

I do, however, think the high-tempo offenses are a very good thing.  The risk is that they aren’t coordinated correctly and end up too frantic and scattered.  However, if done correctly they:

1) give more reps to everyone, which should help ease the offensive learning curve.  It also gives the coaching staff more tape on everyone, meaning players that are lower on the depth chart should have a better chance of getting serious consideration.

2) maximize the inherent advantage of the offense.  As everyone knows, prior to the snap, the offense knows the play and the defense does not.  Standing at the line for a while or taking a long time in the huddle mitigates this advantage, as it allows the defense to swap personnel and gives them time to read the offensive alignment.

The no-huddle minimizes this time, and therefore takes full advantage of the natural information asymmetry at the snap.  It’s not easy (or it’d be more common), but running sprint-paced practices is obviously a key step towards being successful.

3) While it’s tough to tell without watching practice, you’d think lots of reps would also help the overall fitness level of the team.  I’ll be keeping an eye on this during the season, particularly as it relates to the O-line play late in the game.

If the O-line is in better physical shape and the opposing D-line can’t rotate (no time with the no huddle), that should translate into a late-game advantage for the Eagles.

——-

I missed this. It’s another great example of why I love having Jerry Jones in our division.  As Tommy said, the Cowboys had Sharrif Floyd ranked #5 overall and he was available at their #18 pick.  For most people, that’d be a no-brainer pick, immediately followed by a draft room celebration.  There are only a handful of elite players in each draft, and getting them is usually very expensive if you don’t have a high pick to begin with.  If the Cowboys believed Floyd was one of them (as their draft board suggests), then the decision to trade down is absolutely outrageous.

As readers here know, the key to the draft is two-fold: Find elite players (who are usually selected in the top 15), and maximize value (sticking to “tiers” and getting those players with the lowest possible pick).

The Cowboys obviously do not believe in this strategy, which goes a long way to explaining   why they’ve won just 2 playoff games since their 1995 Super Bowl win.

—–

Though most people have probably moved on, I’ve found additional ratings for my TPR draft rankings.  Haven’t yet incorporated them, but I will soon.  As I’ve explained, consensus rankings should be more accurate than any individual ranking (over the long-term), and each additional set of realistic ratings should improve the overall set.

—–

Thanks to everyone who pre-ordered their 2013 Almanac.  We’re doing our best to make sure it’s worth much more than you paid for it.

No post today; I’m working on a few much larger things that should be pretty cool/interesting, but they obviously take a lot of time.

One is a series (with a special guest author) I’m going to run on 4th down decision-making, during which we’ll try to come up with a “default 4th down decision chart” that functions like the “Two-Point Conversion Chart” coaches use now.  Early preview: coaches are NOT making the right decisions at a high rate, and the identity of the “best” decision makers will shock you.  Look for that starting Monday.

I’m also working on some more draft research, including a new model focused on where prospects WILL go, rather than where they SHOULD go (which is the TPR system).  That’ll take a little while though.

For now, I’d like to encourage everyone who hasn’t done so already to pre-order their copy of the 2013 Eagles Almanac at this link.  Great cast of writers; great list of topics.  Easily the best Eagles preview you will read.  Just $10 for a digital copy, or $25 for a hard copy.  I’ll have contributions on the QB situation and hopefully an in-depth analytical look at projecting college production to the NFL.  Click through to see the other authors and a taste of what this year’s edition will feature.

Thanks for your support.

-Brent