Eagles Re-Sign Reno Mahe

Ok, not really.  Kinda seems like it, though.

Nice to have a serviceman on the roster with a non-checkered past, for a change.

(Thanks to Kyle for the tip.)

Thinking 'Bout Moise Fokou

This isn't one of those posts about how the Eagles haven't really done much so far in free agency so we are doomed doomed doomed.

At the moment, though, it sort of looks like your starting SAM linebacker for 2010 is going to be Moise Fokou.  At the very least, unless they draft a stud in the first round, he's going to be in the mix.  The question is if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

I didn't bother learning much about Fokou after the Eagles drafted him last year.  Seventh-round picks have a high washout rate on teams with talented rosters and I certainly didn't foresee the chain of events that saw him taking over the starting spot by the end of the season.

Fokou has impressed the coaches with his work ethic:

"He's worked hard," Reid said of Fokou. "Even when Chris was healthy, he worked in there during practice."

"Moise is one of the first in and last to leave," Eagles defensive coordinator Sean McDermott said. "He's done a heck of a job preparing himself for this challenge."

He's also a very good special teams player.  He was third last year in special teams production and tied for the team lead with 20 tackles on punt or kick coverage.  This is perhaps not surprising given his college experience:

Although he has been very impressive as a first-year linebacker in camp so far, Fokou's presence on the roster may depend on his ability to contribute in special teams. And that's something he has a lot of experience with, having led Maryland's special teams in tackles in both 2007 and 2008.

I remember a few years ago when either Reid or Harbaugh said they thought linebacker was one of those positions where special teams success was a good indicator of future performance, because the skill set -- getting off blocks and making plays -- was similar.  (Not sure if they still believe this after some of what we've seen the last couple years with a few other guys.)

There's another interesting quote in that last article:

Fokou rose up the depth chart to become a star his last two seasons, including a senior campaign in which he was the only ACC player with at least 75 tackles (77) and five sacks (5.0).

"I think I'm a good cover guy," Fokou said when asked to describe his game. "I think I'm a good speed pass rusher. I'm a decent guy in the run. I have a couple good qualities that I can bring to the defense and as long as I know my assignment and don't do a lot of thinking out there and just react, I think I can make a lot of plays this year."

Good cover ... good rush ... "decent" against the run.  So much for athletes who aren't self-aware.  But in a division with the Giants, Cowboys and now a Shanahan running game, can the Eagles afford a SAM who isn't stout against the run?

It's a legitimate concern, given Fokou's stature.  He's only 6-1 and weighed 233 at the combine, but now the Eagles are listing him at 228.  It's always tough for rookies to keep their weight up, but that's going the wrong direction for a guy who:

"Lacks the bulk scouts prefer on the strong side and needs to add both upper- and lower-body strength."

In fact, this is probably a good place to get into his scouting reports.  Here's the complete NFL Draft Scout analysis:

Overview:  A former walk-on who transferred after one season at Frostburg State, he immediately made an impression on the Maryland coaches even during his NCAA mandated transfer season, earning scout MVP accolades twice. Played sparingly behind Erin Henderson at weak-side linebacker in 2006, but switched to the strong side in 2007 and started the next two years there, registering 84 tackles, seven tackles for loss, and three forced fumbles in 2007 and emerging as the only ACC defender to record more than 75 tackles (77) and five sacks on the year. Despite his experience there, lacks the bulk scouts prefer, but his athleticism and secure tackling make him a potential immediate special teamer and an intriguing developmental prospect for the weakside.

Positives: Athletic build with room for additional muscle mass. … Fluid athlete at his best in space. … Good initial quickness. … Gets good depth on his pass drops and shows some light feet and fluidity changing direction. … Good straight-line speed. … Able to break down in space and make the secure tackle. … Wrap-up tackler who flashes some explosion as a hitter. … Good effort in pursuit. … Strong hands to rip away the ball. … Good timing on the blitz. … Can evade blockers in space and has a good short burst to close. … Excellent special teams player who led Maryland in special teams tackles in both 2007 (17 tackles) and 2008 (13 tackles).

Negatives: Raw and relies on his athletic ability at this point. … Marginal instincts. … A step slow to react and has some wasted motion as he finds the ball. … Lacks the bulk scouts prefer on the strong side and needs to add both upper- and lower-body strength. … Doesn't use his hands well to disengage from blocks. … Struggled to distinguish himself amid the talent at the Senior Bowl.

Here are his combine test results.  Note the decent speed/agility scores, but also the abysmal performance in the bench press.

The SI.com review is similar, with again the scary note: "Marginally instinctive, shows hesitation in his game and late to react. Rarely makes plays in coverage."

After a few years of watching the "marginally instinctive" Chris Gocong -- who, like Fokou, is an intelligent dude off the field -- that's a little unnerving.  Especially since the book on the Eagles' linebackers seems to be "run counters and draws all day."

Just for comedy's sake, here's one more:

"Linebacker probably is the Eagles' strongest position on defense. Special teams will be his only ticket onto the roster. A potential practice-squad guy."

So, here's the thing.  If this were still a Jim Johnson defense, I'd feel pretty comfortable suggesting that we might be looking at the next Ike Reese.  Fokou could be a standout special teamer and an effective nickel linebacker who can run and blitz.

But this is not still a JJ defense.  It's a McDermott defense.  And something I finally realized after the season was almost over is that he's not the same kind of coach JJ was.  JJ was a pressure coach, McD's more about coverages.

It's the same point Sam keeps hammering away at any time someone brings up our linebacker draft history.  We know the kind of players JJ saw as fits for his scheme and how important he thought linebackers were to the overall success of the defense.  We don't know how McD sees the same issues.  If he's going to ask those guys to do different things, we're going to see the Eagles start moving to different kinds of players out there. 

Fokou might just be the type of player McD wants.  Sure, he's smaller than a traditional SAM, but if you have Bradley next to him and the two big eaters in the middle (and maybe even Abiamiri at the point at LDE) that might not matter as much.  There would be a loss against the run, but if the result was actually being able to cover a tight end, that could be a pretty substantial net gain.

That is, of course, the March version of the story.  Everyone's an optimist -- okay, almost everyone -- in the offseason.  It might also be that Fokou's a tweener with bad linebacker instincts who can't get off blocks and should really focus on being a top-flight backup who can play a couple positions and excel on special teams. 

I guess we'll know in about eight months.

Public Service Announcement

UPDATE -- From the editor of philly.com:

Folks: Writing from Philly.com - yep, there is indeed something out there, and it's not restricted to Philly.com. We've heard reports of several large sites dealing with malware this week, all of the variety that Derek indicates. We've been aggressively investigating all morning - shutting down ad networks, scraping through code to ensure that it's not anywhere else. The good news is, we believe we've found and (of course) eliminated the problem ads. We will absolutely keep up the same level of vigilance. If you see anything, e-mail us at feedback@philly.com. We take this EXTREMELY seriously and value your readership. Thanks - and watch your back - as I said, there are other sites out there that are dealing with the same thing...

-----

Original post:

A couple days ago, I mentioned the awful computer issues I was having.  I didn't want to say anything publicly at the time, but all my problems seemed to stem from a visit to philly.com on Sunday morning.

Just now, I tried to open up that site, and here's the warning my browser gave me:

Trust me, folks, this is not something you want on your computer.  Be careful with that site until they get this sorted out.

Probably Don't Want To Get Too Attached To Marlin Jackson

UPDATE:  It's official.  Two-year deal, no word on other numbers.  His press conference after the morning meetings (before he signed) was interesting reading.

---

I know next to nothing about Marlin Jackson, so just like you I've been spending some time trying to learn what I can about him.  

So far, I'm not thinking this presumptive signing is going to solve our free safety problem.

Jackson has suffered season-ending ACL injuries each of the last two years (first the right, then the left).  For a sense of how his recovery is going, here's Jackson's own description of how his visit to Baltimore went:

"We were just feeling each other out and getting a sense of what I'm looking for and what they're looking for," Jackson told the team's Web site. "They wanted [to?] wait a little bit and see me move with the fact that I'm coming off an ACL. I need to move a little bit more before going further."

I'm not entirely sure what that all means, but it doesn't exactly sound like "I'm 100 percent and ready to go."  (Also, I might avoid the number 28 if I were an up-and-coming NFL prospect.)

The other issue with Jackson is that he's really a cornerback.  A big (6-0), slow (4.49 two surgeries ago), cornerback.  He mostly played safety in 2006, but it's an open question how well that experience in a Tampa-2 scheme will translate to what the Eagles do on defense.  

In fact, that's one nice thing about this signing.  It's not like we're all stocked up on effective CBs these days.  If the safety thing doesn't work out, maybe he can be a nickel/dime guy.

Some snippets from PFP and FOA:

FOA 2009 -- The big deal for Hayden may mean this is Marlin Jackson’s last year. Jackson is less prone than Hayden to give up the big play through the air but more likely to give up the completion.

PFP 2008 -- Cornerback Jason David's departure to New Orleans caused a domino effect in the Colts line-up: Nickel back and backup safety Marlin Jackson moved into David's cornerback position ... Jackson had a lower Success Rate than David did in 2006, but he also allowed fewer yards per pass, so that switch basically balanced out ... Colts defensive backs also offer solid run support.  [Bob] Sanders gets all the headlines and awards, but it was Jackson who placed among the leaders in average yards per tackle on run plays.

PFP 2007 -- New starting cornerback Marlin Jackson played safety most of last season.  

Walter Football has him as the #17-ranked free agent CB -- "can't stay healthy."

So we're talking about a guy who has serious injury concerns, played in an entirely different system, and will now probably be asked to make a mid-career position shift.  Feels very much like a pre-draft bluff.

Tuesday Morning Quick Thoughts

Hellish computer issues the last 36 hours are pretty much wrecking my life, but a couple quick points while I run the 87th malware scan over on the laptop:

Reggie Brown -- I've always liked Reggie.  I'm glad he's getting a new situation, even if it's not one where the quarterback position is all that strong. 

Bowen brings up a point this morning that's always been a little hard to understand:

If you're into reading tea leaves, there was the fact that Brown's first 2 years, his best games seemed to come after Donovan McNabb went down for the season with injuries. McNabb was the quarterback all season in '07, when Brown caught 61 passes, but his touchdowns went from eight in the previous year to four, and there was a point in October when Brown talked of getting on the same page with the quarterback.

This post is from a few seasons ago, but check out Reggie's splits with different quarterbacks.  If I were re-doing this post today, I'd probably try to figure out some way to measure targets, too, but the catch numbers were always pretty striking.

As for this poll, at least they got something.

Stacy Andrews -- Not much of a reduction here.  I guess they couldn't push things too far, given the insanity of that situation and how messed up the UFA market is this year, but still, that seems off.  Especially because paying the bonus now means we can't really draft a stud OG and then let Stacy go later.  Who are the ad wizards who came up with this one?

Can Avant Do More?

The news that Jason Avant has signed a new five-year contract is quite welcome after a first free agency weekend that saw the Eagles mostly sitting out the action.  

Avant is a fan favorite and solid contributor.  You win with guys like Jason Avant (provided you also have a few DeSean Jacksons).

The question now before the house is if Avant can ever be more than what he is now.  As long as Maclin and Jackson are healthy, he's going to be the #3 receiver.  We know that.  And Avant's lack of speed (when compared to NFL wide receivers) means it's tough to find effective ways to use him on the outside.

But Avant does one thing better than anyone else on the roster:  Catch the football.  When Celek's not playing with a jacked-up thumb, he's pretty close, but no one else on the team can stretch to pull in errant or difficult throws better than Avant.

The "problem" with Avant, though, is that he's like the second guy off the bench who can come in, knock down a few jumpers, and contribute 5-6 points a game.  Sure, he'll grab a few rebounds and play tough defense while he's in there, but he's really just a "spell" guy who gets his shots when nothing else is open.  They never run a play for him.

There's no question that's a valuable role, but it makes me wonder what would happen if they actually did run some plays for him.  The next time the offensive line was getting blitzed out of its shoes and the coaches had to start ratcheting down the gameplan, what would happen if instead of trying to force slants to Mac/Jax, we actually counted on Avant to beat his guy one-on-one?  Or when we get down to the red zone and the running game still doesn't work and Celek's being double-teamed, why not give Avant a shot on first down to maybe pick up six?  There's no law that says he has to be the fourth read on every play.

Or maybe they tried all that, but it didn't look like it because McNabb never saw him open.  I don't know.

All I remember, though, is that in the San Diego game, when every other receiver had let McNabb down in some way, shape or form, Donovan said "screw this" and just started forcing the ball to Avant every chance he had.  Eight catches for 156 yards that day suggested Avant might have a bit of the "go-to guy" in him, even if we've never seen it before or since.

Andy Reid = Lovie Smith?

It occurred to me a couple days ago that as much as Eagles fans bitch about parts of the Andy Reid experience, it's also hard for anyone to imagine the team without him.

"I do it every day!" shouts the grumpy fan in the back.

Yes, I'm sure you do, as you dream happily of a future where the Eagles plunge 240-pound running backs into the line every other play, charge three bucks for a 20-ounce beer and require the cheerleaders to wear even less clothing.  But the truth is for as much as you may not like Reid, you don't really see him going anywhere either.  If he left tomorrow, you'd be just as shocked.  Much happier, but no less surprised.

One result is we don't attribute motivations to him that would seem obvious with almost any other coach.  So when we hear there's disagreement in the organization regarding the handling of the quarterback position -- and come on, it would be far more shocking if the GM, owner, team president and head coach were all in perfect harmony on such an important and difficult issue -- we just sort of assume everyone's thinking long-term, they just don't totally agree on the particulars.

That is, if you think about it, a little nuts.

Take any other coach of any other team in any other sport.  Make it a guy who's been in one place for 11 years and had a lot of success, but never won it all.  Have him coming off a season where his team just got blown out in back-to-back games by its biggest rival, and make it about 16 months after it seemed half the sportswriters in town were trying to get him fired.  Then imagine the ownership group suggested it might be just swell timing to ditch his best player at the most important position on the field/court/pitch.

How do you think that coach would react?  Seriously, if we weren't talking about Andy Reid, would there be any expectation at all that the coach would be okay with that maneuver?

I'm guessing most of you have been following the news up in Chicago, where it's impossible to ignore Captain Subtext:

Friday was a good day for Jerry Angelo and Lovie Smith. A very good day. Not a single play was run but they won, scoring big points in the game of "Please let us keep our jobs past next season." (link)

Their desperation is on full parade. With the window closing on an aging defense — and on Coach Lovie Smith and General Manager Jerry Angelo — the Bears pried open the McCaskey wallets and made agents happy. (link)

Peppers has less wear on his tires than most 30-year-olds, but the odds don't favor him finishing the contract. Still, the move looks strong on paper for a team that needs to win now for head coach Lovie Smith to keep his job. (link)

Roll the dice in the offseason, hope desperately the move pays off so you can keep your job.  We see it every year.  And yet, when we're talking about Donovan McNabb and Andy Reid, the thought doesn't even come up.  It probably should.

I don't think Reid's running scared.  As we all know, the Eagles coach is not the least bit afraid of high-variance, high EV moves.  He loves those things like cheese (seriously, can we stop making the food jokes every time we need a metaphor -- that's seriously played out) a lot. 

But Reid's also tired of never winning the big one.  Much more than you and I are.  He wants -- needs -- to get over the top.

And Andy knows what Donovan can do.  Yes, McNabb is streaky and has his down moments, but when he's good, he's really good.  Fix the protection, give him at least the semblance of an effective running game and add another year of seasoning for Celek, Jackson and Maclin, and there really is no ceiling for this offense.

Besides, what do you get if you trade McNabb now?  The first pick of the second round?  That's pretty sweet if you can turn that into DeSean Jackson.  Not as much if it's Trevor Laws or Winston Justice.  No one ever lost a Super Bowl because they didn't have one of those guys on their roster.

Three years from now, you may have your new starting cornerback.  Whoopdy-doo if Kolb sucks or gets hurt and all of a sudden you're texting Jeff Garcia to ask "how's the cndtning?"

So yeah, I bet Reid's awfully reluctant to ship off McNabb.  Not that he doesn't appreciate the uber-helpful public relations tips from the local writers who really just have his best interests at heart, but he's a little more focused on winning games right now, so if the cost is a little he-said, he-might-have-said, I think he's going to be okay with that.  Thankfully.

---

In other news, I offered Cleveland Kevin Kolb and Reggie Brown for the #7 pick in the annual blogger mock draft I'm participating in again this year.  Don told me no trades because "it's already hard enough keeping things straight."

I wanted to take Eric Berry.

For Those About To Jump

Sheil's doing the Lord's work this morning over on the suicide hotline Moving The Chains.

Of course, that's just how I read it.  As we speak, Gonzo's copy/pasting the bold-y parts into the first draft of his next column.

Witherspoon Is The New Takeo Spikes

Will Witherspoon is cut, saving the team $5 million in cash. Good on Derek for calling this one:

That list of big salaries is certainly interesting. I think Witherspoon might be on that final chart, too. $5 million is a lot of money for a guy you don't really want to start anywhere.

I didn't believe they didn't want to start him. Of course, Derek was right. The Eagletarian blog update reads similarly:

The move is not a huge surprise, given how much money he is due and could end up being a backup.

Lots of question marks at linebacker. I'd guess that there is a good chance that the starters from the end of 2009 will be entirely different than the starters for the first game of 2010.

The Times Are Becoming Very Different: Eagles Pay Leonard Weaver

As first reported by Jason LaCanfora:

Eagles agree to 3 year, $10-plus mil deal with FB Leonard Weaver, highest ever for a FB. More than half deal is guaranteed.

Jeff McLane had some additional details:

Source: Weaver and #Eagles agree on 3-year, $11 million deal, with $6.5 guaranteed. Would make it the best deal ever for FB in NFL.

As Sam just noted in an e-mail, let us not neglect the irony in re: the Eagles -- a team which just two years ago was content to enter the season with no actual fullbacks on the roster -- shelling out the most cash ever for a fullback. 

Though, in fairness to Weaver and the Eagles, it sure seems like he's also essentially a second tailback.  Good for him, either way.  This deal definitely will help his cause in the Which Jersey Should You Buy stack rank.   

In other news:

• Let's all hold our breath and hope that someone accidentally offends Julius Peppers in Chicago; if the Bears really want him, it's unlikely Peppers leaves town without his name on the line which is dotted. 
• Apparently Jason Babin is getting a sniff from the Redskins, Broncos and Jags?  Who knew?  

More details as they filter in. 

Call It Wishful Thinking ...

... but I'm starting to get that feeling.

Are The Eagles Cheap?

Last week, in the comments section, ray asked a good question:

Westbrook says the [E]agles are cheap and uncommitted to winning by signing players who will take lesser contracts as opposed to better players for more.  That was true for [Norman B]raman who let star players walk who were still in their prime but if I'm correct this [E]agles organization seems to be up around the cap and it usually happens during the year when they have extra money to extend their core players during the year. Is that right or do you think they are cheap too?

And of course, the reactionary columnists have happily jumped that theme, and taken Brian Westbrook’s comments as an indictment of the front office.

I find the whole question to be difficult to answer.  If this were a debate, I would be able to argue strongly for whichever side I was given, because there is lots of misleading data out there on both sides. Figuring out what I believe to be the truth is much harder.

Let’s describe what the Eagles actually do before evaluating whether they are being cheap or not.

There are three key elements that I want to discuss.

1. The Eagles believe in extending players early, and locking them up for the peak years of their career. Once they identify a player as being likely to be high-quality, they work to make sure that he remains an Eagle for his most productive years.
2. The Eagles believe that older players are generally bad investments. They typically don’t invest in those players, especially long-term, regardless of whether they are free agents from another team or whether they are leaders from their own team. (Note that they historically don’t cut expensive but productive veterans to save cash, they just don’t re-sign them to deals that extend past what the team thinks will be the player's productive years. Those are two different concepts.)
3. The Eagles prefer quality depth to premier talent. Understand, they definitely acquire premier talent when they can, but the goal is to get as many good players as possible on the roster as they can, even if it potentially means that they have less "great" players. I believe that this is a big reason why they are generally so successful in the second half of the season: when injuries hit the league, the Eagles have the roster depth to handle those injures in a way that other teams just cannot.

There are other things that the Eagles do, for sure, but those are the three that I think most often feed the debate about whether the team is cheap or not.  And they also feed the associated debate about whether the front office is committed to winning or not. These are related arguments, though not identical.

The common theme behind all three of their behaviors is the desire to get the most overall quality out of the roster as they can.  They want players who are peaking or improving, not players who are declining.  They want 53 guys who can contribute at a high level, not 22. To do that, yes, they need a combination of guys who are paid less than their value to the team, and guys who are paid exactly their value to the team. And they try to avoid being in a situation where they pay a guy more than his value to the team, because doing so prevents them from spending that money on players who will contribute more.

There is also good reason to believe that the Eagles spend at a level that is consistent with the rest of the teams in the league. However, I haven’t seen solid stats on that. We used to be able to pull those numbers out of the USA Today salary database, but that database got screwed up a few years ago, and has never been the same. The Eaglescap blog has tried to figure out cash spending by the Eagles over the past four years, and they have spent a great deal of real money. But I have no sense of what the league-wide average is.

The question of whether the Eagles are committed to winning is related, but as I said, it is different. Cheapness can be measured over time; but by commitment to winning, people are talking about “any given year.” The Eagles’ goal is to be a playoff team every year. That is different than a team whose goal is to be a Super Bowl team in one given year, who spends at an unsustainable level to try to make that run, then collapses for a period of time.  The philosophy I outlined above is very consistent with the playoff team every year idea. They want consistent quality. Not peaking quality.

What isn’t clear to me is whether the likelihood of winning a Super Bowl depends on lumpy spending, or whether a consistent approach is the best way to go. The Patriots, the Colts and the Steelers, probably the gold standards of the last decade, are all proponents of the consistent approach. The Colts especially and the Steelers to a lesser extent are generally not big players in the free agent market, while the Patriots tend to play in the aging veteran end of the free agent pool.

What I can never reconcile is where commitment to winning ends and luck begins. Getting to 5 NFCCGs in the past 10 years shows a consistently strong roster; does losing 4 of those games show a lack of commitment, or bad luck? And if it is the former, how do we know that it is the front office’s fault? How do we know it isn’t the players who weren’t sufficiently committed to winning that last game? And don’t get us started on the coaching staff.

Billy Beane famously opined that his job was to get the team into the playoffs, and whatever happened after that was just luck. Billy Beane has never won a World Series.  Adam Oates once said before the NHL trading deadline that his Bruins needed to upgrade their talent level; his coach made him stand up in the locker room and point to the players who he thought weren’t worthy of playing with him (he refused). The team then traded Oates to Washington.

The point is that front offices never think that the last hurdle is their fault; the players will never honestly dole out responsibility to other players either. The only person who takes responsibility is the head coach, and nobody believes him.  And the truth is likely that everyone is to blame in a little piece, and that if any one of those faulty parties had done their job a little bit better, the history of this franchise would be quite different.

So to the extent that “lack of commitment” and not luck is the reason that the Eagles still haven’t won a Super Bowl, I do think the front office philosophy is partially to blame. In any given year, they could have done more, though probably not every year. But I don’t think it is THE reason. I think there is enough blame for everyone.

-----

The irony of how this discussion got started is that, of all people, Brian Westbrook is the biggest counter-example to how the Eagles typically do business that has been in the organization during the Andy Reid era.  The Eagles made exceptions for him not once, but three times in his career:

• In 2005, the Eagles signed him to a contract extension after he held out of training camp briefly. He could do this because he was a restricted free agent, given a first round tender. The Eagles never reward holding out. And they rarely re-sign guys who make it to the last year before unrestricted free agency.
• In 2008, the Eagles renegotiated Westbrook’s contract, giving him a ton more money without adding any extra years to the deal. Subsequently, Donovan McNabb also got a pay raise without an extension, but Westbrook was the trend-setter here.
• In 2010, the Eagles will cut Westbrook with a year left on his deal – and he can still play. Again, that is fairly rare. Sure, there have been exceptions, like Takeo Spikes, but generally, the Eagles let their good players’ contracts expire, then don’t re-sign them. They don’t cut productive players. They wait until a guy like Jevon Kearse or Nate Wayne or Dhani Jones appears to be incapable of playing for the team anymore, then cut him. (Or in the case of Darwin Walker, Hollis Thomas, Mark Simoneau, et al., they trade him.) Of course, Westbrook probably can no longer start for a team. But he was certainly capable of continuing to be a major contributor to the Eagles.

That isn’t to say he has no right to make the comments he makes. But if you want an example of the Eagles committing to their own players – he is the exception you point to.

Almost Time To Plug Some Holes

The Eagles ended the 2009 season with a few obvious lineup holes.

The Eagles don't like to go into the draft needing to plug holes.

Therefore, starting Friday, we should expect some action to address those issues.

---

I don't, it should be stated right up front, have any top secret intel to offer about Julius Peppers.  Your guess is as good as mine.  (Or in the case of a couple of you, your guess is most likely somewhat better.)

I can see the argument both ways.  On the one hand, I don't think there's another guy out there that you could realistically bring in who would have a bigger impact on this team.  With Cole and Peppers flanking the QB, you're talking about match-up nightmares for opposing teams.

Heck, Peppers is such an amazing athlete, he might even be able to solve that little "we'll just throw WR screens to Asante Samuel's side all day" issue we had last year by leaping to the sideline in a single bound.

On the other hand, he's 30 years old, is inconsistently motivated, and you're talking about buckets trucks Todd-Herremans'-pimped-out-vans full of cash to bring him in.  So we'll see.

There aren't all that many other big-name, unrestricted free agents out there.  And the ones who are exciting may not be that great a fit.  We probably don't need to spend another $10 million on a cornerback, for example.  So the action is with 1) the RFAs and 2) the UFAs who aren't quite as exciting.

Positions of interest:

Center -- Tough one.  Counting on Jamaal Jackson to offer any contribution next year seems overly optimistic, but JJ's only turning 30 in May and there's not an obvious stud on the market to replace him.  The Eagles have plenty of backup plans at this position, so you're really only bringing in a guy if you think he's a better starting option that Nick Cole.  Kevin Mawae seems like a stretch, even before you consider how much of his attention is going to be diverted in other directions this year.

Right Guard -- Logan Mankins is the interesting guy.  The Pats don't make many mistakes, so we're not stealing him away, but he's definitely intriguing.  Too bad about the CBA issues making him an RFA.  After Mankins, Rob Sims is a pretty similar story.  You just have to wonder what the Eagles' Big Book of NFL Players says about these guys. 

Running Back -- We covered this one earlier in the week.  The Eagles don't have to do anything at this position before the draft.  This seems like a wait and see position.  If they do move quickly, though, it will tell us everything we need to know about how they see Shady McCoy.

Defensive Tackle -- I heep hearing noise about this position, but I'm honestly not sure what people want them to do.  They've got two very solid guys in the middle right now, it's just that neither one can rush the passer.  You can bring in a designated pass rusher, but really, they've already got those guys in Howard and Abiamiri.  If you're going to do anything here, it's probably going to involve moving Bunkley, who has kind of a weird contract situation and seems like he would be a very intriguing NT in a 3-4 system.  That would certainly be a "spend big money to make big money" move, though.

Defensive End -- Peppers or bust.  I like Kampman, but it seems like he's a "wait and see how the market develops" type of guy right now.  I don't think anyone's expecting outright collusion, but as others have said, teams are going to be budget conscious and after the first few big names, there may not be much activity for the mid-tier guys.  Then it could be bargain-hunting time.

Linebacker (MLBs too) -- I can't see the Eagles throwing big money at a free agent linebacker.  That just doesn't seem to fit their way of operating.  What I can see, though, is a concerted effort to bring in a guy who can actually cover people in nickel situations.  I'm sure such a player exists.  I also sort of want the Eagles to sign Antonio Pierce, just to watch Gabe's head explode.

Safety -- It's not too hard to imagine the Eagles' brain trust doing their year-end evaluations, getting to the safety position, then having someone at the table say, "Well, that didn't work," while everyone else nods his head.  This position is a mess.  Mikell had an off year and isn't getting any younger.  Jones was a washout.  Demps is a mystery.  Macho could be the future, but it's going to take some work.  I just don't know who you bring in.  The irony bomb might level the NovaCare complex if they go after Darren Sharper.

Cornerback -- What the Eagles really need at this position is a rookie nickelback they can groom to take Sheldon's job in a couple years.  That's going to have to come from the draft.  I liked Ellis Hobbs as a kick returner, but he doesn't seem like he should be more than a dime back at his actual position. 

---

Sure glad we got that all cleared up.  Things feel so much more definitive now, don't they?

Last note:  Hopefully someone in the organization remembers to file all the RFA tenders tomorrow.  Growing list of leaguewide actions here.

Are We Quite Certain McCoy Is The Final Answer?

There's really only one fair way to begin this post.  And that's by quoting liberally from something I wrote about Brent Celek after last season ended:

Soooo, Brent Celek.  Again, he's [a] decent enough player.  He catches the balls that come to him and runs hard after the catch.  He even had a very nice postseason run, although the true measure of a player is what he's able to accomplish after the defense starts paying attention to him.

The problem is there's a certain "Dhani Jones halo effect" about him, in that the guy who starts at his position is so universally despised that most Eagles fan think there's no way the new guy could be worse. 

My big issue with Celek, though, is that he's not really great at any one thing.  He's a decent pass catcher and a sub-par run blocker.  Either one of those would be fine in isolation, but together it's not a great combination.  And frankly I'm tired of watching other teams' tight ends slapping around our defensive ends while our guys are getting planted into the turf next to McNabb. 

If Celek's not going to be a great blocker, then why not bring in a more athletic guy who could provide the same lack-of-blocking, but also be a truly exceptional athlete on the route-running side of things?

It seems to me the Eagles need to fundamentally re-think the way they attack the tight end position.  Keep Celek as the #2, fine, but bring in a Manumaleuna-type road grader as your #3, and make a run at an athletic #1 guy who can provide another riddle for opposing defenses' to solve in the middle of the field.

So everyone's got that, right?  I sometimes have a tendency to overvalue athletic ability when evaluating players and I don't put much stock in a couple of good performances from a guy who didn't do much else.  Keep that in mind for what you're about to read.

---

I was as happy as anyone when the Eagles drafted LeSean McCoy.  Stylistically, he seemed like a great fit for the offense.  I'd been reading about him since he was maybe 16.  The fact that he was available at the end of the second round was really just the cherry on top.  After a year of watching him, though, I'm not so sure he's the answer. 

It seems like many running backs come into the league with bad habits they picked up playing college ball.  Ryan Moats wanted to bounce everything outside.  Tony Hunt (moment of silence) seemed to think he could run over NFL players the same way he did the dudes in the Big Ten.

My theory with McCoy is that his issues stem from a couple aspects of his college experience:  1) As Pitt's only real offensive threat, he got an awful lot of carries against eight and nine man fronts that were selling out to stop the run.  It wasn't like he could just trust his blocking to open up a nice hole the way coach drew it up.  He needed to pick his way through traffic.

2) McCoy's superlative athleticism (at the college level) combined with the pressure of needing to make something happen for his team meant he never got into the habit of just taking the three yards that were there for him.  He needed to constantly look for the big play.

How he runs isn't the only issue, of course.  There's also the way he carries the football as if his torso is allergic to leather.  And I noticed something interesting when I went back and looked at last year's FO speed scores.  McCoy was too sick to work out at the combine, but his on-campus 40-yard-dash time of 4.52 at only 204 pounds yields a speed score of 97.7. 

Lest you're a bit behind on your FO reading:

The 2009 crop of running backs isn't as highly regarded as last year's, a group that produced five first-round picks. That's borne out by their speed scores. Knowshon Moreno, regarded as the draft's top back, ran a disastrous 4.6 40-yard dash that yielded a speed score of only 96.9. Even if you go with the time of 4.55 that has also been unofficially reported for Moreno, his speed score would be only 101.3, putting him just below Chris Perry (102.7).

Going back to 1999, that would be the lowest speed score posted by a first-round pick; the only two backs selected in the first round to post a speed score under 100 are William Green (98.7) and Trung Canidate (99.3). Only one back in the 11 seasons we've got speed score data for made it to the Pro Bowl after posting a speed score below 98.0: Brian Westbrook.

On the one hand, you might think back to Domo's piece last week and find the coincidence somewhat comforting.  On the other, it's probably going to be awhile before we see the next Brian Westbrook.

Obviously, Shady was a highly-rated guy coming out of college, but it's not that hard to find scouts who said some tough things about him.  This "negatives" section is almost eerie:

Doesn't have great size or the compact strength of elite backs. Must prove he can get the tough yard and not dance to try and break a big play when it's not there. Invites turnovers by running with the ball very loosely. Doesn't always switch the ball to the outside hand. Runs out of control at times. Some of those cutbacks will not work against the speed of NFL defenses. A liability in pass protection, throwing a shoulder instead of moving his feet to take on or even just get in the way of a rusher. Whiffs on his cut blocks against blitzing linebackers.

Uh, yeah.  Pretty much spot on.

A lot of people seem to think McCoy's 637 yards last season proved he can be "the guy" in this league.  Nope.  He was the third-best running back the team had last year, even though Westbrook was dragging around one leg and spent most of November thinking he was a unicorn. 

Look again at the team stats.  Weaver averaged 4.6 yards a carry.  Westbrook put up 4.5 YPC, even with all his issues and with a long run of only 25 yards.

McCoy averaged 4.1 yards a carry, and that number is helped tremendously by one 66-yarder.  The FO numbers are even less kind.

Here's what we know right now about McCoy: 

• He's a good dude whose nickname really doesn't seem to fit him.
• He's a very natural receiver and the best pass-catching running back we've drafted since Westbrook.
• He wasn't, at least last year, a particularly effective inside runner or pass blocker.

To me, none of that adds up to, "So let's make this guy our featured back."  Of course I'm rooting for McCoy to make me eat these words with some fava beans and a nice Chianti, but for now, McCoy looks like the quintessential third-down guy.

There's nothing wrong with that role, at least for a couple years.  Even the great Brian Westbrook took a couple years to make the leap from "dangerous weapon" to "all-around running back."

But Chester Taylor still makes a lot of sense.

The Value Of A Draft Pick

There are increasing numbers of reports suggesting that the Eagles fully intend to pay Mike Vick his $1.5 million roster bonus. We will find out by March 10 if that is true, or if it is a bluff, but that isn’t really my focus here.

What I am interested in is the implications if we DO give Vick his bonus, AND if we do so in order to be able to trade him. Assuming the trade is a given (and I understand that it isn’t, but set that aside for now), and that we don’t engineer a deal before the deadline, then there are two alternative potential payoffs.

1. We cut Vick before the roster bonus is due, spend $0 but don’t get anything else for our 2009 investment in Vick.
2. We pay Vick $1.5 million and trade him for a draft pick.

The implications are clear: from an Eagles perspective, they are really buying a draft pick for $1.5 million. So in order for paying Vick $1.5 million to make sense, the expected present value of that pick must be $1.5 million, above and beyond what that pick would make in comp.

That is interesting for two reasons.

First, whenever you hear that rookies get paid too much, remember that if this scenario were to go through, the pick (and ultimately the player) that we expect to get in return is worth $1.5 million more in terms of a signing bonus than he ultimately will receive.

Second, it means that the Eagles must be expecting a pick of a relatively high level. Because there is no way you would pay $1.5 million straight up for a 4th round draft pick … is there? Even for a 3rd it sounds a little rich.

Now, getting back to the question of what I think will actually happen. Put it this way: if I were a team that wanted Mike Vick in 2010, I would absolutely call the Eagles’ bluff. Make them pay that roster bonus before making any offer at all.

And if I were the Eagles, if I really didn't want Vick on my team as a backup in 2010, and I had any offer on the table for him – any at all – before I have to pay that bonus, I’d take it. And quickly.

*Rubs Eyes* So Wait, Is Rocca An OK Punter?

In each of the past three offseasons, I've dedicated a post to the punters.  It started as an attempt to figure out if there was any reason to believe Rocca could beat out Dirk Johnson for the starting job, and then evolved into a "Sav vs. Dirk" comparison to see if the change had made any difference.

Going into this year's study, I had little reason to believe we'd find many positive things to say about Sav.  Anecdotal recollections are death to good analyses, but frankly, my recollection was that he kind of stunk up the joint.

So I was a little surprised when I ran the usual numbers and found that, overall, Sav really wasn't that bad.  He was no worse than average across the board, and far better than average in some specific areas.

Here's the chart:

As usual, Sav's gross average is pretty bad.  For someone who came in with the reputation of having an enormous leg, he's really never shown that.

On the other hand, net average is really what matters here.  On that scale he's tied for 14th in the league.  Positively McNabbian, you might say.

He -- and the punt coverage teams -- also did a much better job this year cutting down on returns.  That 5.9 yard per return figure was fifth-best in the league, and goes a long way towards explaining why Sav's net is so much better than his gross.

Finally, where Sav really shines is on touch punts.  He keeps his touchback percentage down and his inside the twenty percentage up.  Those are good things.

And none of this makes much sense.

My immediate thought was that maybe the mistake I was making was putting his stats up next to Dirk's.  After all, it's not like Johnson was that great a punter.  What if we instead line Sav up with the two guys who made the Pro Bowl this year:

Ok, we're starting to get some context on some of these numbers.  Sure, Sav's good at cutting down on returns, but that couple yards of return damage (return yards divided by all punts) is getting swallowed up by the huge difference in how far these guys kick the ball. 

And check out how bizarre Lechler's stats are.  Playing on a terrible team with a field goal kicker who has perhaps the strongest leg in the game means he almost never gets a chance to punt on the opponent's side of the field.  He had only five "short punts" all year, in comparison to 16 for Sav and 18 for Lee.

Which got me thinking ... how much are Sav's numbers really just a product of field position?  If you look at FO's special teams stats, the teams with good punters mostly seem to be those that aren't all that good.  Is the difference here really just that Sav spends most of his time kicking around midfield -- where you have to have some touch -- where guys like Lechler are just booming balls from their own 20 all day?

This was a good time to take a break, grab a beer, and try to figure out if there was any way I could resolve that question without going into all the game-by-game play-by-play data and pulling out every single punt those guys had this year.

The beer was tasty, but the answer seemed to be no.  So that's why it's 1 a.m. and I'm still only two-thirds of the way through writing this up.

Anyway, once I got all the data entered, I then had to figure out how exactly I was going to measure this stuff.  I settled on the following:

Yline = Line of scrimmage for the punting team.  Number 1-99 (theoretically) from the own goal line.

Punt = Punt distance

Return = Return distance

Result = Yline + Punt - Return

Optimal Result = "IF ( Yline < 40 , Yline + 50 , 90)."  In English, if the line of scrimmage was between the 1 and 39 yard lines, I made the optimal result a 50-yard net punt.  If it was on the 40-yard line or beyond, I called the optimal result a change of possesion on the 10-yard line.  There are opportunities for further refinement here, but as you'll see in a minute, it won't matter that much once we start comparing apples to apples.

Difference = Actual result - Optimal result.  (Yes, "optimal" is sort of a misnomer here, isn't it?  That's going to drive Prof. Franko nuts.  We'll come up with something better at some point.)

Results for the two-man comparison:*

Lechler (and the Raiders' coverage team) is three yards better than Sav (and the Eagles coverage team) from the end zone to the 40.  From the 40 to midfield, he's four yards better.  Across midfield, he's four yards worse, but remember the small sample size.  Lechler put two in the end zone in those five tries, so that killed him on that number.

Because Sav kicked so many balls on the opponents' half of the field, the overall difference between the two guys is only about one and a half yards per punt.  That's what we call taking advantage of opportunity.

So now, here's where it gets interesting.  If you assume, just for quick and dirty purposes, that each additional yard of field position is worth about 0.06 points, and given how good Sav is on touch punts and how often the Eagles' offense crosses midfield, I think you can make a case that Lechler is worth somewhere in the neighborhood of nine to 12 points over Rocca each season.

That sounds like a pretty sizable difference, but keep in mind two things:  1) Lechler is the best punter in the league and 2) Rocca's the only person we know of who can make David Akers forget about Koy Detmer.

Akers converted 11 of 13 field goals from 40-49 yards this year.  Back when he was wandering the desert, David was really just a coin flip from that range.  Knock 11 made down to seven made, and suddenly you've just erased any gains you get from picking up a better punter.

---

* Numbers may not match table above because I entered all punts into the database, even those eventually called back by penalty.

Some Monday Notes, Combine And Otherwise

There are, it seems, limitless ways to be a bad golfer, but to be a good one really only two. 

Model #1 is the Tiger, Phil, etc., group.  These guys have every shot in the bag, they're incredibly creative, and if you dropped them into a golf course carved out of jungle, desert or arctic tundra, they'd figure out a way to shape their shots for those conditions.

Model #2 is, basically, Kenny Perry.  Bomb the same shot over and over again, keep things simple, and adapt the hole to your swing, not your swing to the hole.

As an organization, the Eagles are in the Tiger camp.  Maybe Phil.

Ok, maybe Sergio.

Anyway, the point is that these guys are really, really clever.  They see all the angles and they're constantly looking for ways to exploit tiny advantages.

The problem with the sharks, though, is that the same cleverness sometimes gets them in trouble.  Much the same way Tiger will try to pull off a knockdown cut around the eighth limb of the fourth pine tree  -- because he can -- the Eagles will, every now and then, make a bad situation worse by trying to glory shot their way out of it.

(If golf isn't your thing, the Top Gun scene that ends with "Gutsiest move I ever saw, man" will get you there too.)

This is how the Eagles end up without a punt returner.  Or a fullback.  Or seven wide receivers and four cornerbacks.  That's life on the edge.

All of which is to say, I didn't love seeing this bit today from Les Bowen: 

The Birds are not expected to try to retain backup tight end Alex Smith.

Now, I know what you're saying.  Alex Smith?  The second tight end who didn't even get a fourth of the team's snaps this year?  For that I have to sit through golfertalk?

Yes, because I'm a little worried about what this news might mean for the tight end position going forward.  Consider this:  The Eagles kept only two tight ends this year.  In fact, if you factor in Matt Schobel's complete lack of any production at all while he was here, you could almost argue that the Eagles haven't had three real tight ends on the roster since they got rid of Chad Lewis.

So there's part of me that's wondering if maybe the Eagles see that third tight end as an unnecessary luxury on a roster that's already a little packed.  After all, what could possibly go wrong in counting on Cornelius Ingram to be 100 percent by training camp and not have any further injury issues for the rest of his rookie contract?

That's issue number one.  Issue number two is that Smith actually didn't suck last year.  Sure, he can't catch a cold -- those 41 receptions as a rookie are sort of mind-boggling -- but take a look at this chart right here.  Notice who's #19 ... and who's #102.

Smith was surprisingly effective as a run blocker last year.  And for all that preseason talk about how much Celek had worked on that area of his game last summer, he still wasn't.

Now, granted, the two guys have very different roles.  Celek plays a lot more and is asked to do many more things.  But if the Eagles are going to fix the run game any time soon, it would help to have a tight end around who can set the edge every now and then.

Last point:  It's possible Smith has no desire to stay here.  He can see the writing on the wall and wants to go somewhere he can get a bit more use.  That's fine.  But he's one of those fifth-year players the Eagles can now tender if they want, and a decent contract and a winning team can definitely smooth out those hurt feelings.

---

When it comes to Julius Peppers, I just see massive sirens and flashing warning lights going off all around him.

I blame Lance Parrish.

Ever since the Phillies signed that guy, I've never trusted a big-time free agent ever again.  Younger Philly fans will have to make do with Elton Brand.

I love love love the idea of Aaron Kampman, though.  High motor, lower contract demands, can get to the quarterback and his (misbegotten) adventure as an outside linebacker should really help him excel in the Eagles' zone drop scheme.  Plus, if we're going to move on from Chris Clemons, there's your new middle man for the Joker package.

---

Suuuuuure:

Agent J.R. Rickert said injured center Jamaal Jackson is progressing well, but he is not expected on the field until mid-August at the earliest, following knee surgery.

And this would be mid-August, 2011, I presume.

---

Bob Ford:

Despite the inane local blather that the Eagles somehow shorted Westbrook and failed to properly thank him for his service, it is more likely that the organization wanted to make sure its feelings were front and center. Say what you like about Reid, but he is intensely fond of the players who perform for him, and Westbrook was a favorite.

Some other guy:

Westbrook was a fool - his words, not mine. But if there's consolation, it should come in the company of numerous baffled players whose ignorance seems to live in perpetuity.

---

I really don't understand the point of a rule change that just makes overtime even more artificial.  Just move the kickoff line forward five yards and call it a day.  If your kicker can't get a touchback out of that -- with the 20 being about the most neutral field position point out there -- then you should get another kicker.

---

Lastly, today's homework here.

And We're Back ... Well, Almost

February's over, which means my short blog vacation has come to an end.  Starting, uh, tomorrow I'll be back with that same old daily Igglesblogian goodness we aim for 11 months out of the year.  I've got a few ideas for some numbers I want to push around, as well as some other thoughts that have come in from readers.  (Get your research requests in now.)

Oh, and I still owe y'all a video rewind from that playoff game ...

Using Up The Remaining Cap Room

Kudos to bsencore for bringing this nugget from Football Outsiders to our attention:

With Joey Porter in mind, I thought that perhaps the Eagles did not have enough cap room to take on the acceleration associated with terminating Westbrook in 2009. However, as I found out, the Eagles have $4.2 million in cap room, and by terminating Westbrook, would have incurred $1.5 million in acceleration. So the Eagles clearly could have made the termination effective on Tuesday, but it appears that the Eagles are looking to use that $4.2 million in cap room for other purposes. Perhaps the Eagles are looking to use that cap space to release other players in 2009 or simply would prefer to take on Westbrook’s dead money in 2010 rather than 2009.

A few things. First, what the heck, Sam, I thought you said the Eagles used up all of their cap room! Well, yes, they had as of the end of the year. But the thing was that for structuring purposes, a few players had LTBEs that were not achieved in their contracts. Michael Vick, for example, had a $2.26 million incentive that wasn't reached. Those dollars weren't added back to the cap until the season was over, so the Eagles got extra some cap room after the fact.

Second, why aren't they using up the cap room? Well, they still can. But using up Brian Westbrook's 2010 proration isn't the best way to do that. As I mentioned a few months ago, there is some question about what will happen to the prorations for players cut in an uncapped year. As I understand it, it is possible that players' dead money will stay in place. So if a guy had prorations running out to 2014, once the cap is in place, that dead money would remain if the guy were cut in 2010.

However, there is no question or ambiguity about what would happen if the guy were cut (or traded) prior to the 2010 league year. The prorations from 2011 and on would hit the 2009 cap immediately. That would be a way to roll cap space from 2009 to 2011 and beyond, if you think about it ... and I am sure the Eagles have.

So if you were going to cut a guy with that kind of cap hit, you'd do it before March 5.

Who fits that description? Three guys in particular:

• Kevin Curtis:  $1 million of prorations from 2010-2012
• Chris Clemons: $2.4 million of prorations from 2010-2012
• Reggie Brown: $3.5 million of prorations from 2010-2012

and let me throw in a fourth for fun:

• Joselio Hanson: $1.82 million of prorations from 2010-2013

Note that Halsell reported a $4.2 million cap space figure, so one could not cut Brown and any of the other guys together, but some combination of the other three is possible.

Another question: could this space be used for an extension? Maybe. For example, you could guarantee a $4 million salary for, say, Jason Avant or Leonard Weaver in 2010, and that would count against 2009 in full, I believe. But that doesn't seem like a probable or even helpful route, given how likely the uncapped year seems right now.

Obviously, this is all sheer speculation. But it seems like speculation that is consistent with how the Eagles operate.

Thursday Odds 'n' Ends

Just a couple quick things today.  First, I want to pass along another Sam story.  A month ago, when the Roseman thing was announced, I shot him a quick email:

I do hope Rosenhaus doesn't take Howie to the cleaners on his first big negotiation.  Sure, he's got lots of senior input, but we said the same thing about McD.

His response:

Roseman has been the primary negotiator for years. That's why they had to bring in Brandt last year when he was moved into personnel. This won't be his first Rosenhaus negotiation.

Explained the Brandt thing in a way I never understood before, but, you know, how can one guy really know so much.

Anyway, fast forward to today's piece by Les Bowen:

An agent - let's call him Agent A - who frequently deals with the Eagles said yesterday that he has done a lot of contract work with Roseman and always had the sense that the proposals Roseman presented came as much from Reid and Banner as from the negotiator.

"He's been the person I've talked to most in the organization," Agent A said. "I always got the sense he was speaking for the leadership team; he was always well-prepared . . . Everything that goes on there is a reflection of Joe and Andy. I don't think we'll see much of a philosophical difference."

Sam wins again.

---

Speaking of Les, let's play a little compare:

As you've probably heard by now, free agency is different this year because of the expiring collective-bargaining agreement. Players with 4 years service, who would have been unrestricted, now are restricted, until they have 6 years service. Nobody even tried to sign a restricted free agent last year, but with more than 200 players added to the RFA list, that might not be the case this time.

And contrast:

So who will lead this franchise in the season to come, in a likely uncapped year in which the Eagles have eight restricted free agents of their own? Who'll decide to revert to 2004, when a gutsy move brought Terrell Owens to town, and firmly decide that second place and consolation prizes are no longer acceptable?

What about acquiring Julius Peppers? Or Minnesota's Chester Taylor? How about calling up the Carolina Panthers and seeing if one of their 1,000-yard runners, DeAngelo Williams or Jonathan Stewart, may be available? And since Broncos coach Josh McDaniels seems to have his issues with Brandon Marshall, why not call Denver for an inquiry to get McNabb some help?

Geez, settle down dude.  There's a calendar for these things.  Look up.

Short honeymoon on that one.

---

I'm really starting to come around on the idea of major moves on the offensive line.  At the top of the draft, certainly, but also other places.  There's not much in the free agency pool at center, so I'm not sure how that's going to look.  But as much as we need one more linebacker, what could really make a difference is an offensive line that can actually control the LOS, not just shield people from the QB.