Relatively short post today, but I wanted to get a few things out there:

– I’ve settled on a methodology for incorporating positional evaluative error (in the draft) into the PVM prospect rankings.  However, it’ll require me to reclassify close to 1000 player’s positions by hand (Pro-Football-Reference includes a lot of “DB” labels).  Obviously that’s going to take a little while.  However, I promise I haven’t forgotten about it.

– A valued contributor (see PVM) commented yesterday about the Eagles having a lot of red zone turnovers last year and how that effected the points allowed.  The idea is that a turnover in the red zone, while killing the offense, is essentially a great punt for the defense.  Unfortunately I couldn’t find any source that tells me how many turnovers were committed in the Red Zone last year.  In any case, here’s a chart of TO Margin vs Points Allowed:

Lot’s of potential external distortions in this comparison, so we can’t draw much from it, but it is interesting nonetheless (and everyone loves charts).  The correlation value is -.50, so pretty significant.

As you can see, the 2012 Eagles are way outside the normal range.  Going back to the original question:  Yes, it appears as though, given the TO differential, the Eagles should have been expected to yield MANY more points.  It’s possible this is the result of where those turnovers happened (i.e. in the red zone).  However, there are a lot of other factors potentially at work here.

It may be that there’s an actual limit to how many points one team can allow (if for no other reason than a finite game time), so that the marginal increase in points allowed per additional turnover decreases to zero.

I realize that’s a bit theoretical for a football blog, so you’re excused if your eyes glazed over reading it.  Overall, my general take is that the location of turnovers is probably a real, but small, factor in the larger points allowed puzzle.

Let’s do some fun stats:

– The 2012 Eagles forced and recovered just 5 fumbles.  That is the eighth WORST in the last ten years (out of 320).

– The NFL average within the sample is 11.

– Fumbles are determined almost entirely by luck.

– The Eagles threw 15 interceptions last year.  The NFL average over the past 10 years? 15.76.

– The 2011 Eagles threw 25 interceptions, so last year was improvement by 10.

– From 1999-2011, the Detroit Lions made 17 1st round picks.  Of those 17 players, just 3 have made a Pro Bowl, one of which was Roy Williams (WR).  That’s 17.6%.

– Of all 1st rounders picked over that timeframe (412 players), 34% made at least 1 Pro Bowl.

– The Lions have been almost impossibly bad at drafting.

– For reference, the Eagles made 11 1st round picks over that timeframe, with 4 making a Pro Bowl, good for 36.4% (better than league average, though that includes the Lions).  However, the most recent one for the Eagles was drafted back in 2004. (sad face)

– Quick trivia: name those 4 Pro Bowlers. Answer below in initials form (hopefully so a glance won’t ruin the question for you.

– Answer: Their initials are LS CS SA DM.

– Eric Winston, to my knowledge, is still a free agent.  Hopefully he and his agent blink soon.

I already liked the Chiefs to be a drastically better team next year, and now I like them even more.  The reported trade has KC giving up this years 2nd round pick and a conditional 2014 pick.  No word on the conditions, but it’s likely going to be as high as another 2nd round pick.

Why I like the trade:

– Andy Reid is very good at identifying QBs he can win with.  That’s not the same as identifying good QBs, but from Reid’s perspective, that really doesn’t matter.  Smith is a perfect fit for the offense Reid claims to run (west-coast).  I say “claims” because there were times with the Eagles when he clearly strayed from the short-passes concept, relying on deep throws and quick strikes.

– Kansas City already had a top 5 rushing offense.  Now they add an accurate, low-risk QB, and the #1 overall pick (Joeckel has to be odds on favorite now).

– Alex Smith went 19-5-1 as a starter over the last two seasons, and this past year completed 70% of his passes.

I could go on for a thousand words, but I’ll just go on record now as having the Chiefs as my pick for a surprise team next year.  With that roster (better than record suggests) and Reid/Smith, no reason the team can’t contend for the playoffs just one year after a 2-win season.

How does it effect the Eagles?  

– Nick Foles’ value obviously drops.  KC was, by far, the most likely destination for Foles.  That is the clear negative for the Eagles.  Additionally, KC will almost certainly take Joeckel (or whoever the top OT is at draft-time), meaning the Eagles will miss out.  However, it’s doubtful the top OT in the draft was going to fall to #4 regardless, so I don’t feel so bad about that.

Also, I’ve been pretty clear that I think Foles has a legitimate chance to be a good starting QB, so keeping him isn’t exactly the worst thing IMO.

– One less team looking for a QB in the draft.  As I explained in the Vick-Insurance post, it would make a lot of sense if the Eagles had their eye on a particular QB in this year’s class.  Nassib would seem to be a good bet, but at this point we have no idea who the team really likes.  The Smith trade makes it more likely that the subject QB will be available at the Eagles pick in round 2.

– Several outlets are now reporting that San Fran is an obvious candidate to move up in the draft.  As I’ve demonstrated before, elite players come almost entirely from the 1st round of the draft, and within the first round, they are predominantly found in the top 15.  The toughest aspect of being perennial contender (like San Fran hopes to be) is the inability to continue adding elite players in the draft (because to don’t get top 15 picks).  With San Fran’s ammo, they can rectify that this year.

I mention that because the Eagles, at #4, would seem to be an obvious trade partner.  At #4, the 49ers could get a top DT (Floyd or Star, depending on the heart condition).  If the Eagles don’t see any prospects that absolutely love at #4, the team should absolutely trade down, and the top pick in the 2nd round would be a pretty attractive trade chip.  In fact, this would allow them to take a QB prospect at the right spot in the draft (value-wise), while allowing them to use the other 2nd round pick on the best available defensive player.

Pure speculation at this point, but the Chiefs, Jaguars, and Raiders all seem unlikely to trade down, given their respective needs.  That would leave the Eagles with the top “gettable” pick for any team looking to move up for a top prospect.

Judging by the current prospect evaluations (and what we learned from our previous draft analyses), that trade outlook might be the best possible scenario for the Eagles.

Turns out Andy Reid may not be quite finished helping the Eagles out…

– Historical Draft Performance

The last post was a pretty broad look at draft performance.  I’m currently making a few adjustments to the analysis that will hopefully provide a more accurate ranking system (though the existing version passes the eye test).  If we get an accurate system, it’s a small step to mine it for performance persistence (skill).  Adjusting for draft position is the big addition, but I’m also looking at relative magnitude (team share of all production available in draft).  If you have any other ideas for making a more accurate ranking system let me know in the comments and I’ll see if I can work it in.

– Sean Smith Interest

This is exactly the type of fake news you should avoid.  The Eagles are interested in the top CB available at the right price?  Shocking.  Saying you’re interested in a top FA but don’t want to get in a bidding war is ridiculous.  That’s how free agency works (for the top players).  However, the Eagles do need to add a CB, preferably one that can start, and adding a mid-level guy in FA would make me feel a lot better about the roster for next year.  If they really do like Smith, they’ve got the cap space to make the move and win a bidding war.

– Nnamdi

Anyone who was against tagging DRC should be completely aghast at the potential for bringing Nnamdi back with a restructured deal.  From what I saw, most people don’t like DRC because of his inconsistent effort.  I challenge you to watch Nnamdi’s tape from this year and tell me you think he was playing hard.  All that talk about players giving up was heavily pointed at Nnamdi, so bringing him back is certainly a knock against the “change the culture” plan.  Almost every player is attractive at the right price, including Nnamdi, but I’d rather tag DRC and pay him $10 mil for one year than bring back Nnamdi at half the price (he’s guaranteed $4 mil, so any renegotiation has to be higher or he wouldn’t accept).  If they do bring him back, he’s going to need safety help, since it was abundantly clear last year that he doesn’t have the speed to stay with fast WRs.

– Nightmares of the 2009 draft

The general draft discussion seems to have settled on the “deep class but no elites” theme.  Allow me to translate: “there are elite players in this class, but we (scouts) have no idea who they are”.  This is definitely bad news for the Eagles, as it diminishes the value of their pick, but don’t believe any story that says there aren’t elite players in this year’s draft. The nightmare scenario for teams at the top is a repeat of 2009.  Here is the top 15 from that year, with pro bowlers highlighted yellow:

There are a few nice players in there, but the top 5 is a relative wasteland.  However, taken later in the first round were Clay Matthews and Percy Harvin.  And Shady was available in the second round.  While I doubt this year will be as weak as 2009, it is definitely a cautionary comparison as we get closer to the draft.

Rest assured, there will be elite players available at #4.  Whether or not the Eagles (or any other team) can identify them is another story.

 – Geno Smith

Not a fit for the Eagles, and I’m definitely not a scout, but this guy ran a 4.59 and, more importantly, completed 67% of his college passes.  The last time a QB was not selected in the top 5 was 2000, and that may have been because one year earlier 5 QBs were taken in the top 15.  If you’re looking for a guy that might sneak into the top of the board (and all Eagles fans should be), this is your best bet.

It was brought to my attention that I had not identified myself anywhere on the site. If you’re dying to know, I’ve added an Author tab at the top that’ll take you to a brief bio.

So obviously I was a little distracted this morning (largely by CNN, though I’ll refrain from political discussion here.)  The Falcons, it turns out, really did lose that game (I wasn’t just hallucinating).  Sorry for the mix-up.  Here is the 49ers breakdown.  Note: doesn’t change the idea of the post at all, in fact reinforces it.  The 49ers have 7 players starting that they acquired with 1st round picks and only 4 that they drafted with 4th round picks or lower.

UPDATE: The following is a case for occasionally attempting 2 pt conversions earlier in the game (when current coaches don’t typically try them), NOT going for two every time.  Should have made that clearer.

There’s an article up on Bleacher Report that talks about the possibility of Chip Kelly attempting 2-point conversions more often:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1489471-philadelphia-eagles-on-chip-kelly-and-two-point-conversions.

It’s interesting because it indirectly highlights how one of the biggest weaknesses (assumed) to Chip Kelly’s candidacy might also be one of the biggest strengths.  Kelly’s lack of NFL experience is presumed to increase the risk that he won’t be successful as a coach, however, all Eagles fans should hope that this also has the side effect of freeing Kelly from some prevailing NFL wisdom.  Specifically, I’m hoping Kelly takes a much more aggressive approach to both 2-point conversions.

As most fans know, the 2-point conversion gives the offense the ball at the 2-yard line, with one play to get in the end zone.  Much has been written about the optimal strategy regarding 2-point tries, with mixed opinions.

However, among NFL coaches, there seems to be a general consensus that you should NOT go for two unless it is absolutely necessary.  Assuming NFL coaches have actually looked at the statistics, we are led to believe that they are deferring to the historical success rate, which is in the 47%-48% range depending on which plays the data compilers include (botched kicks for instance).  A 48% success rate means the expected value of an extra point is higher, and therefore the correct play.

So why do I want Kelly to go for it more often?  I believe that the following three aspects, when aggregated, will lead to a higher than 50% success rate, meaning the expected value for the 2-point conversion will be higher than an extra point.

– If we assume that the league-wide success rate is 47-48%, then obviously some teams have better conversion rates.  I have not pulled the statistics (unfortunately they are not as readily available as most other measures), but I think it’s reasonable to suggest that a team with an above-average offense can expect to have an above-average conversion rate as well.  (If Chip Kelly does not put together a better-than-average offense, he will be a huge disappointment.)

– I’m also hypothesizing that the element of surprise via the no-huddle offense will itself add to the conversion success rate.  NFL defenses have been conditioned to leave the field after allowing a TD.  It’s a fairly small jump to assume that an NFL team using a hurry-up offense to attempt 2-point conversion, especially in the first half, will catch the defense off-guard.  The associated confusion/lack of defensive focus will presumably add to the likelihood of offensive success.  (Yes, if the Eagles always went for two, they would lose this element of the strategy.  That’s why its best implemented only occasionally.)

– Lastly, currently teams do not devote a significant amount of practice time towards the 2-point conversion.  Obviously, considering the rarity with which most teams attempt the play, devoting practice time to it likely isn’t worth the time spent.  However, if a team decided to implement the 2-point play more often, then it would therefore make sense to practice the 2-pt playbook more often.  Does anyone disagree that practicing the plays more often would make them more effective?

So…

I apologize for the lack of data here, but we’re dealing largely with a theory that hasn’t been tested in the NFL.  While the above analysis may seem a bit disjointed, the overall question is as follows:

Would the 3 factors mentioned above (strong offense, surprised defense, more practice) add more than 2%-3% to the overall 2 pt. conversion success rate?

If you believe the answer is yes, then hope that Chip Kelly’s ego is (as I suspect) big enough to give him the confidence to move strongly against prevailing NFL wisdom.

P.S. Unfortunately, the most easily predicted aspect of this plan is commentator reaction.  Even if it is statistically the right play, you can bet every announcer will talk about how “bold” and “risky” the decision is, as well as how stupid it is every time it doesn’t work.