Did We Have the Red Zone Backwards?

I'm still collecting my thoughts on a couple of longer pieces I'm chewing on, but I did want to bring up an idea that occurred to me last night while I wasn't watching MNF.

You have to square a lot of circles if you want to try to understand the 2008 Eagles, but last year's team was also a bit of a puzzle.  For example, the offense was very good at accumulating yards, but not so good at scoring points.  We spent a lot of time trying to figure out why this was so, eventually settling on a tripartite solution involving:  1) poor special teams and not enough forced turnovers, 2)  uneven performance in the red zone, and 3) the decline of David Akers.

(And by the way, I know no one's really in the mood for good news right now, but have you noticed that Akers hasn't missed a kick since the bye?  And he's now 4-for-5 from 40-49 yards?  And even in last week's tough wind he was drilling them down the middle?  Now I just wish I hadn't dropped him from my fantasy team when the Eagles' bye came up.)

So anyway, fast forward to today and you see something interesting.  The Eagles offense is ranked 6th in the NFL in yards ... and also 6th in scoring. 

Of course, while that symmetry is nice, it comes despite the fact that the red zone offense is still broken.  After a better start to the year, the Eagles have not been good down by the goal line, with the result being the 21st-ranked red zone offense in terms of (first) touchdowns then (second) field goals. 

My goal today isn't to explain how those last two paragraphs fit together.  I haven't researched that yet.  It's to bring up another point.

The question we asked last year was this:

If the Eagles are so good at moving the ball, why do they have so much trouble scoring in the red zone?

This was my long attempt at an answer.  I think it still holds up.  The stuff about Westbrook is particularly critical.

The thing is, though, I now think I was asking the wrong question.  It's not "why were the Eagles so good and yet so bad," it's "why were they so bad and yet so good."  Or rather:

If the Eagles have so much trouble scoring in the red zone, why are they so good at moving the ball?

The reason I think this matters is because it suggests that the answer to the old question was backwards too.

Take a look at this chart again from that old post:

 

Again, with apologies to our stats friends, that doesn't look like a random walk. 

It's turned around a little this year, but if I updated that chart, the blue line would go to 90 percent, the red line would bump to 50 percent and the green line would go just over the upper of the two lines between the four and the five (4.7 pts/trip).  In other words, still not great.

Which brings me to why I think this is important.  The Eagles coaching staff spent a lot of time in the offseason working on how to improve in this area.  And yet despite all that effort, they haven't really moved the needle.

Now I know what many of you are probably thinking -- "See, more proof that Reid sucks and we should get him out of here."  And hey, you may even be right.

I don't think so, though.  I think what we're really seeing here is how an insufficient talent base across the roster can be covered up at midfield, but gets exposed by the goal line.

And the Eagles coaches are very good at that covering up.  Take Greg Lewis as an example.  Somehow, despite all his physical limitations, the guy is still an effective #6 wide receiver.  He trots out there for three plays a game, pulls in his 1.5 catches for 1.0 first downs, then calls it a day on offense and returns to his position on special teams. 

Does Lewis manage this because he's such a great receiver?  No, if he were, he'd never have lost the starting job after the 2005 season.  He's able to contribute this much because the Eagles coaches -- ahem -- put him in a position to make plays.  They see a weakness on film, figure out how to attack it, and then give Lewis a route that lets him exploit the problem.

This doesn't work in the red zone.

In the red zone, there's no space.  You don't have to worry about putting a safety over the top of DeSean Jackson to stop him from beating you deep.  There's no deep tight end seam route once you're in the shadow of the goal posts.  Everything compresses, and it comes down to who can beat whom. 

That's a big reason why Greg Lewis has managed 132 receptions for 1,859 yards in his career, but only 10 catches for 84 yards in the red zone.  Catchwise, 7.6 percent of his production comes in 20 percent of the field.

That's why having six pretty good wide receivers isn't as good as having two very good ones.  That's why it hurts that McNabb can't run as well as he used to down there.  And that's especially why having a complete inability to drive-block the man in front of you is a disaster in goal-to-go situations. 

From an X's and O's perspective, my growing conviction is that it's the players, not the coaches. 

From a motivation and focus on tuning out old voices perspective, I can't speak to that.

Comments

[BrianS]

"From an X's and O's perspective, my growing conviction is that it's the players, not the coaches."

The difficulty that presents, is its the same guy in charge of personnel and coaching.

I don't mean this as a Reid-bashing post, but I've been pondering whether the Eagles are underachieving or, more worrisome in the long-term, under-talented. But either way it seems like it comes back to Andy Reid.

[Eagles Fan in San Fran]

"From an X's and O's perspective, my growing conviction is that it's the players, not the coaches."

Sorry for beating a dead horse here, but it's the whole AR pass-pass-pass philosophy, which works reasonably well outside the red-zone, but not in tight.

In tight, you need that big/tough back that can go up the middle and shed off blockers to get the tough yards. And if you're going to pass, you need an effective TE.

Imagine where we'd be with a Duce Staley take-on-the-blocker type 3rd RB and Tony Gonzales at TE. Instead we have Booker and the invisible man Kyle Eckel and LJ ('nuff said).

We got away with this in the past because 5 was able and willing to run and opposing D's had to respect that threat. That threat is no more.

So it's not the players per se, it the personnel assembled, based on a flawed philosophy. Now, I wonder, who's responsibile for both?

[xtianDC]

I think you make some great points here. You can scheme your way up and down the field, but when it comes to goal line situations, it becomes much more of an issue of winning matchup's. I think to an extent, the use of the fade pattern is an admission of this. With that play, it's as simple as a team saying "we've got a qb who can throw the ball in the air and a receiver who can outclimb your guy and grab the ball at the highest point." There's no real scheme involved...it's pure execution. And it's 2/2 so far this season! More Baskett near the goalline please!

[Thorin]

I might put this another way.

It's not overall talent that gets emphasized in the red zone, it's size.

Running plays come down to who pushes whom. Passing plays are less about open space, and more about boxing out or out-jumping. The separation on a slant becomes miniscule, so a receiver has to use his body to protect the football, and be willing to come back to the ball and fight for it.

And here it's undeniable that the eagles have emphasized quickness over size in the skill positions.

That red zone play we ran with Jason Avant where he kind of faked an out and then came back to the middle of the field, after a few guys had cleared at the middle... I really liked that play. What's more, Avant completely schooled his defender (though it might have been a safety, not a CB).

So that's my answer: More Jason Avant in the red zone.

[Derek]

The Avant play was sweet. Which raises the excellent point that you _can_ scheme for some touchdowns in the red zone. Just less consistently.

As for Reid's culpability in either case, yes, but the solutions would be different.

[Bdawk20]

After watching MNF last night, I think the Browns game is also gonna be a tough one for the Eagles...Giants annihilated Ravens which makes our job all the more tough this week... is the season over? Moreover, nobody is scared of us coz even Westy is not 100%. Feels like 2005 all over again.

[shlynch]

You argue that it is talent ... whose talent? Which players specifically aren't talented enough? Is it the WR corps? The OTs? The interior OL? The QB? The RBs? The TEs? The FBs? Where is the gap? And I don't mean that to be difficult ... I just have trouble accepting "we don't have enough talent" as an answer, because it is a cop out. Without specifics, it is just a way of saying "I don't know what the problem is."

[GFF]

I think Eagles Fan in San Fran (as often) is spot on here. And it seems as if the FO understood what he's saying but tried to address it with guys who haven't panned out (Hunt as short-yardage back, LJ's do-over final contract year) or were out of position (Klecko, Wilson, Collins, Hunt at FB) or marginal (Lawton, Schobel). So if BWest is <100%, play the hand you've dealt yourself till you find what works: fade routs, QB draws, Buck, whatever...

[BFH]

More than anything else, you need to be physical in the red zone.

That doesn't necessarily mean only strength, you simply need to have some physical advantages (size, strength, leaping ability, something).

Little guys (Lewis, Westbrook, Jackson, Curtis) can't separate as well in confined spaces. They can get bullied.

So when you see guys like Baskett, Avant, and tight ends get targeted and have success there it is no accident.

It would have been nice for Andy to have his "Hey, Hank Baskett could be useful in the red zone!!" epiphany last season, when the rest of us did.

[Derek]

I'd settle for it occurring to him again _this_ season.

Two ridiculously off topic questions.
1. So when are we gonna see a fake punt out of Sav Rocca? I know it's college, but you see those punters fake like they're goign to punt and then just take off running. It works quite often. Rocca is so athletic, right?

2. How the hell is Bryan Smith doing? Have we cut him yet? Does he practice? He's on the active roster but jsut doesn't dress, right? I want to see this guy on the field.

[Andrew B]

Redzone, schmedzone.

This team is on-track to break the franchise scoring record. I find all these discussions and dissections of the offense so trite and ridiculous when taken out of that perspective.

If it weren't for two epic defensive collapses with 77 points surrendered in two divisional games, and the premature Hall of Fame coronation of Kyle Orton by the Eagles defense, we wouldn't be having this discussion. (Really, how the heck does Kyle Freaking Orton throw three touchdowns on us?)

Clearly, the offense is good enough to get things done if the defense can be held to their end of the bargain consistently. The problems on defense are all about the coverage inabilities of Dawkins and Gocong, and to a lesser extent, some TD's coughed up by Samuel.

Teams that contend for Super Bowls have great defenses. Eagles fans know what great defenses look like, because we've had them in years like 1980, 1981, 1991, 1992, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2004. This defense is really good, but it is not great. Its about 4 points per game short of great. That doesn't seem like a lot, but it adds up to 4 touchdowns and 4 field goals spread over 10 games. A great defense would not have lost two games where its offense scored 30+ points.

So before we start signing the waiver papers for the FO for LJ Smith, who has more TD's this year than Jason Witten or Chris Cooley, or for the two aging tackles who have kept McNabb's jersey almost spotless for once, lets put a sharp focus on the actual problems on the other side of the ball that have caused us to lose games. McNabb should not have to be driving the offense for more points to win late in the 4th quarter when he's already led his unit to 30+ points. He should be handing the ball off to Lorenzo Booker or Kyle Eckel and taking a knee.

[Coatesvillain]

I understand that the offense is scoring a lot but we can't let the unit wash it's hands of this record. Both units have been inconsistent to the point where their respective numbers don't accurately represent how good they are (also why the DVOA on FO is screwed).

The team is like the kid who tests well but can't apply what he learned in life. The offense and defense are both responsible.

[MSE69]

Thanks Andrew, that last sentence made me laugh out loud, really loud.

[Derek]

Yes, Andrew, the offense that just managed to scrape out 13 points against the Bengals and can only score touchdowns half the time it gets inside the 20 is perfectly fine.

Nothing to see here, really.

[Derek]

And Andrew, I know you're a football outsiders guy. You want to blame the defense? Explain this then:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/week-11-dvoa-ratings-3

[Colin]

Andrew, you already admitted:

"The offense must take the primary blame for the Redskins and Bears losses. They had an opportunity to win a game where the defense had held the other team pretty well, and they didn’t take it."

http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2008/11/13/660413/2008-eagles-defense-the-pr

The Bengels loss is clearly on the offense.* That means three of the five losses are on the offense.

* The Bengels game is a loss, and I will not refer to that game any other way.

[Andrew B]

Colin:

In the NFL, if you score 20+ points, generally you win, and if give up 20+ points, generally you lose.

The offense and special teams scored 20+ points in 7 of 10 games, and our record in the other 3 games is 1-1-1. The defense and special teams gave up 20+ points in 5 games, and our record there is 1-4.

What I said about the Bears loss, for example, is true. Its inexcusable to get stuffed 4 times on the 1 with the game on the line. So directly, the loss is on them given how the game played out, because they had an easy chance to win and didn't take it. OTOH, the offense should never have been put in that position, and should have been able to kick the short field goal on 4th down and have that be the insurance winning points. Chris Gocong does not belong isolated in coverage and deserved help from either Mikell or Dawkins, both of whom instead seemed to feel their primary responsibility was helping the corners cover the wideouts on the opposite side of the field, and Asante Samuel cannot give up that touchdown to a pretend wideout like Devin Hester.

Oh, and a tie is not a loss. Its half a win. Go check the NFL standings if you don't beleive me. 10 wins plus a tie beats all other teams with 10 wins, even if you've lost to them in a season sweep or have a conference record with 3 more losses.

[Andrew B]

Derek:

Tied for 29th in the league in defending Tight Ends
Runs off right tackle - 22nd in league (and Eagles are tied for 3rd most runs aimed at them this way)
Tied for 15th with 5 other teams in interceptions, and tied for 16th in interception return yardage

And like I've said before, the handful of passes the Eagles seem to give up to wideouts just happen to be touchdowns. So the pass defense holds down Burress all day, then coughs up 7 on their one slip up.

[Derek]

I think I'm on record with what I think the problem is with those first two stats:

http://www.igglesblog.com/iggles_blog/2008/11/giants-semi-rewind.html

[Eagles Fan in San Fran]

Here's some stats to support the D's efforts:

PFW defines D "efficiency" as average yards given up per defensive play:
Eagles are 3rd best overall (at 4.5 ypa), behind Pitt and Tenn, while just ahead of Carolina and NYG.
We're #5 versus the pass, #6 versus the run.

And red-zone-wise, although we are in the middle of the pack in terms of giving up TDs in the RZ, we're 3rd best in terms of the least number of times we've allowed teams into the RZ (behind TB and NYG).

And finally, we're 8th best in terms of scoring allowed (behind all the ususal suspects in who you would intuitively think is a good D team).

Thus, you'd have to conclude they're AT LEAST in the top 25% of defensive units in the league. Not sure how you can point fingers at that type of effort.

[Colin]

"In the NFL, if you score 20+ points, generally you win, and if give up 20+ points, generally you lose."

Not if you are playing a team that averages more than twenty points per game, like, for example, the Bears, who average 24 points scored per game. Or any one of the twenty five NFL teams that average more than twenty points scored per game.

You can't create an arbitrary Mendoza line, than argue that line is predictive, based on and generally appropos of nothing.

The defense did not do a great job of conceding field goals instead of touchdowns in the Bears game. That said, they generated four turnovers and gave the offense excellent field position most of the second half. The offense has possessions that began at the Chicago 41, 35, 37, and 31 and only managed six points out of those four golden opportunities. The defense put the offense in excellent positions, the offense failed to capitalize.

The Bears game is symptomatic of the whole problem with the Eagles: no unit is to blame for all the losses, because each has failed to get the team over the hump when called upon. This is not a statistical problem or a failure of one unit, it is a situational problem. There are important situations, like power running, that the Eagles are not built to succeed in and have not succeeded in. That failure lies: (1) with the members of the front office who built the team and (2) with the coaching staff that has failed to find a way to scheme around these problems.

[Andrew B]

Colin:

Leaguewide scoring as follows

7158 points in 2008 (22.4 per game) will probably drop as weather gets colder.
11104 points in 2007 (21.7 per game)
10507 points in 2006 (20.5 per game)
10556 points in 2005 (20.6 per game)
11000 points in 2004 (21.5 per game)
10666 points in 2003 (20.8 per game)
11097 points in 2002 (21.7 per game)

So, yes, you can draw arbtirary Mendoza lines in the NFL and assert that if your offense scores over 20 points and your defense holds the opposition under 20 points, you will win a majority of your games most years. That is in fact the basis of Jim Johnson's defensive philosophy - hold the opposition to 17 points or less.

When you argue the Bears are averaging 24 points on offense and the Eagles gave up 24 to them, that's all the more damning on the Eagles defense because supposedly, we have an above average defense that is giving up just 19 points per game.

The Eagles offense was in a position to score 23 points at the end of the game. This wasn't enough to win because the defense had surrendered 24. I really don't want to hear any further excuses about how that's acceptable and how the defense had done its job by then, because it is not. If this defense was giving up 24 points in most games, we'd be talking about getting 5 new defensive starters next year. Lastly, the 4 turnovers you cite as proof of the defense doing its job really aren't, because if the defense was playing up to snuff, it would not have required them getting turnovers to produce offensive points for a win. The defense had already coughed up 21 points before they made their first inerception.

Really, this whole love affair with the defense has to stop. The problems of this team are mostly problems on defense.