Size Doesn't Matter

In the NFL, when you lose, there's always a new controversy of the week.  Last week, for obvious reasons, it was the quarterbacks.  After watching Westbrook slamming away out there late in a meaningless fourth quarter against Indy, I'm hoping next week's won't be whether Reid should have been more careful with his star running back's health. 

This week, the local sports pundit class has decided to focus on the size of the Eagles' defensive front seven.  (I'm not invited to the meetings, but I get the minutes afterwards.)

This line of thinking goes something like this:  The Eagles defense, which is predicated on disruptive speed and quickness, is simply too small to match up against opposing offenses and this lack of size is why the team struggles to stop the run (speaking charitably).  Of particular concern are the defensive ends, who aren't much bigger than Jeremiah Trotter and had trouble sealing the edge against the Colts (again, speaking charitably). 

You know what's coming, don't you?  Let's take a look-see at the old NFL.com stats page and see who the best rushing defenses are in the NFC.  First off, you have Minnesota, but that's a misleading stat since Brad Childress' team has such a terrible pass defense that no one really bothers to run against them.  Next are the Cowboys, but they run a 3-4, so they're harder to compare.  In third-place are the Chicago Bears, who also happen to be first in the league in total defense, so let's take a look at how their front seven stacks up against the Eagles:

Well, what do you know?  The Eagles' ends are actually bigger than their Chicago counterparts.  The "undersized" tackles are a bit, but only by a handful of pounds.  Of the linebackers, only McCoy comes up a bit short, but we already knew he was small.  Taken as a group, the Philadelphia front seven is actually seven pounds heavier than the Chicago group.  And Corey Simon is no longer around to mess up the average.

Of course, this comparison depends upon the listed weights of the players being accurate.  My guess is that the Bears DTs might be a little bigger than what's shown on the roster, but that wouldn't explain the problems on the outside for the Eagles, where the ends look every bit their listed weights.

Maybe Andy Reid is right after all when he said a defense that could hold down Tiki Barber ought to be a little less generous with Travis Henry and Joseph Addai. 

No one can deny there are issues with this defense, and swapping the larger Brodrick Bunkley in for the disintegrating Darwin Walker might be a good first step (assuming the rookie buys a new watch), but the real problem has less to do with the size of their butts, and more to do with the size of their hearts and brains.   

Comments

[Tom G]

That's just one team though, what about the other highly ranked D's? [sorry, I am a stickler for sample size]

[Me]

I would be too, if I didn't have a day job :-)

I don't think the question is if the Eagles have a small defense. They do. I think the question is if you can have success with a defense that's similarly sized. The Bears example seems to suggest that you can.