Rapid Fire Round

Yeah, I know, I'm behind schedule these days.  Work's been crazy, new baby, not much news, blahblahblah, excuses, excuses...

Anyway, I've got a few minutes and a backlog of topics to discuss, so let's go rapid fire style:

The usual schedule numbskullery.  Of course I'm not immune to playing the schedule game myself, but it seems like every year the columns that come out around the release of the NFL's schedule get stupider and stupider.  Take this one from the Boston Herald:

The Patriots are coming off the most dominant regular season in history. So naturally they have the easiest schedule in the NFL.

Such are the vagaries of the NFL’s scheduling system, which largely pits divisions against each other and can lead to strange anomalies like the worst-in-football Oakland Raiders having the league’s toughest schedule last year and the second-best Patriots getting the easiest one this year.

Ok, so first of all, no one actually knows how hard or easy a schedule is until you've played through it.  Did anyone around here expect the Green Bay Packers to be so good last year?  The Eagles schedule didn't look so bad last summer but fast forward to January and it turns out it was the toughest in the league.  (One more reason to be optimistic about this coming season's results.)

Secondly, and this is the more important part, the Patriots ... finished ... 16-0 ... last ... year.   So if you're just taking the winning percentages of all the teams they play this year ... and if you're playing eight games against teams you played (and beat) the year before (some twice) ... then obviously that number is going to look a little low. 

And third, just in case you were worried that New England fans/writers would take that Super Bowl loss hard and lose some of the arrogance, this guy sees a schedule that has the Chargers, Steelers, Colts and Broncos on it and thinks:

Imagine talking 16-0 two seasons in a row? If the Patriots stay healthy, as crazy as it sounds, it could be a possibility.

Right, dude.

Rampant pessimism in Philadelphia.  I just don't get this.  I guess it's always fun to play to the negative expectations of Philly fans, but why crap all over the party in April like this:

Months later, reeling under the taunts of fans and colleagues, I was weak enough to reconsider. The Eagles, I wrote, would go 9-7 and had a chance to be 10-6.

Foolish lad. This time I'm going with my first instincts, which tell me 7-9. Tops.

And even that record is not locked in. To get to seven wins, the Eagles would have to earn a rare victory on opening day and a rare win the week before the bye on the road. So 5-11 is not out of the question.

Remember, this is a Philly beat writer.  He then proceeds to go through the schedule game by game.  It's worth reading, if only because he provides really in-depth analysis like this:

Game 4. At Chicago (7-9, last in the NFC North). This is the first of the season's toss-up games, matching teams that went from first to last after losing Super Bowls. The Bears have no quarterback and major problems on the offensive line. Pick: it's a vast stretch, but a win (2-2).

It's a "vast stretch" to think the Eagles could beat a team with "no quarterback and major problems on the offensive line"?  Or this:

Game 9: New York Giants (10-6, wild card, Super Bowl champs). OK, we all agree that Eli Manning's a fraud, that he played way over his head in the playoffs and David Tyree's catch was a miracle that won't be repeated in this century. They're still better than the Eagles. Pick: loss (5-4).

The editors must have cut out the part where he explained why.  And finally, this:

Game 12: Arizona (8-8, second in the NFC West). This is Ken Whisenhunt's second go-round with Matt Leinart and Larry Fitzgerald. The Cardinals actually seem to be going in the right direction. Pick: loss (6-6).

Many a writer has been fooled by the Cardinals before.  But since Matt Leinart isn't even guaranteed the starting job this year, I'm thinking maybe reel those expectations in a bit.

More statistical nonsense from the same guy.  McKee was back today with another column arguing that you shouldn't draft first-round wide receivers because generally they don't have great success their first year in the league:

Miller pointed out that NFL teams have drafted 43 wide receivers in the first round over the last 10 years.  Yet only two had 1,000-yard seasons as rookies - the same number of 1,000-yard seasons produced by receivers drafted after the first round.  According to NFL.com, the only first-round wideouts to go over 1,000 yards receiving in the last 10 years were Minnesota's Randy Moss in 1998 and Tampa Bay's Michael Clayton in 2004.

Which is of course the most important statistic here, and not what a guy does over the entirety of his career.  Especially for the Eagles, since we know every guy they draft is expected to contribute right away...

Watch out for Santana Moss.  This is why I don't want to trade Lito.

Because of a groin injury, wide receiver Santana Moss did not participate in workouts during the previous offseason. And then Moss was slowed because of groin and heel problems during the 2007 season. But Moss, who has taken more time off from training than he has in the past, appeared sharp while catching passes from Campbell and backup Todd Collins yesterday, Campbell said.

"Santana took a different approach to the offseason," Campbell said. "He is such a fast athlete, and whenever you run as many routes as he runs, you tend to put more wear and tear on your legs. This year, we told him to take more time off to get his legs back healthy. Last year, he was fighting so many problems.

"Today, Santana came out and caught passes with us and he looked smooth. He looked like he was right back in the thick of things again. We just told him not to overdo it. The worst thing would be for him to overdo it right now and it affects him later on in the year. Everybody knows how important Santana is to this team."

Although encouraged about how his legs responded, Moss doesn't want to "look too far down the road," he said. "I don't like to get ahead of myself and think about what's going on way before it's time. That's just the type of guy I am. As players we just have to wait until it's time, and then you just have to go play the games."

Right now, we have no idea how well Asante Samuel will match up with this guy.  We also know that Brown provides little more than token resistance for the lightning-quick guys like Moss.  I'm all about first-round picks, but if we want to win it all this year, let's hang on to Lito.  Trade him next year if we have to.

Sav Rocca has some competition.  Since I know there are lots of dedicated Rocca rooters out there, I wanted to pass along this info:

The Eagles brought in a competitor for Sav Rocca yesterday when they signed punter/kicker Richmond McGee to a three-year contract.

McGee was both the punter and the kickoff specialist on Texas' national champion in 2005, when he averaged 37.9 yards per punt, dropping 11 inside the 20-yard line, and kicked off 16 times with five touchbacks.

He averaged 39.6 yards on 130 career punts, while 36 percent of his career kickoffs went for touchbacks. A walk-on at Texas, McGee was a kickoff specialist in 2002. He became the punter in 2003 and earned the Longhorns' special-teams MVP award that season.

McGee converted the only field-goal attempt of his career, a 44-yarder, in 2004.

The 24-year-old McGee will compete with Rocca for a job as the punter and, perhaps, with David Akers for the job of kickoff specialist.

Given how tight the Eagles' roster situation already is, I can't see them keeping yet another situational guy, even if Akers' kickoff strength isn't always what it used to be.  The odds are pretty good that this guy is just a camp body, but the way things have gone this offseason, you just never know.  If Rocca comes back in less that perfect physical condition, we could get a surprise here.

It's also interesting to note that the Eagles generally try to bring in left-footed placekickers because they can lessen Akers' workload without switching up all the other pieces of the operation.  Since McGee is right-footed, we might see another kicker at some point.

Comments

[Eagle Scout]

McKee has the team going 1-5 against the NFC East. What a joke.

When is the Inquirer going to can these dinosaurs who bring absolutely squat to the table. By my approximation, McKee and Fitzpatrick spend around 10-15 minutes on most of their articles.

[Tracer Bullet]

I dunno. Akers' kickoffs were terrible last year and he was awful on FGs of more than 40 yards. I won't be shocked if they give this kid a chance to win the job outright.

[Me]

As I understand it, he's only a kickoff specialist. He doesn't have much experience -- even in college -- as a placekicker.

You're right on the larger point, though. Akers may not be around much longer. I just don't see how they keep yet another specialist on the roster when they've already got more good young guys than they can keep.