Let's start this discussion by defining a few key terms.
I've been calling this team "mediocre" for the past couple weeks, which seems to be driving some people nuts. "How can they be mediocre when they almost beat the Giants and Cowboys?!" The thing is, I'm using mediocre in its original, rather than modern, pejorative sense. Definition #1:
me⋅di⋅o⋅cre –adjective 1. of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad; barely adequate. 2. rather poor or inferior.
To me this pretty well sums up the Eagles. They aren't good, they aren't bad. "Barely adequate" is spot on.
So we're not really all that far apart when I say "They're mediocre" and you say "But they have a top ten defense." They're 10th in the league in points allowed. If they gave up an additional 1.5 points/game they'd be right at 16th. If they allowed 6.3 points/game less than they do now, they'd be the Steelers.
Looks to me like they're closer to Door #1 than Door #2.
And if you combine the #9 offense with the #10 defense, go -2 in your turnover margin, and pile in some perfectly average special teams, you're not really elite.
- - - - - -
The second term we need to define is what we mean by "talent." That's just not a great word here. It's too imprecise. How can I criticize the wide receiver position when DeSean Jackson has more athletic talent in his pinky finger than most of us can claim in our immediate families?
The problem is that Jackson is a rookie. So while he's incredibly talented, he's not as skillful as a guy who's been in the league a lot longer. There's still too much he has to learn.
So maybe we should use "ability" instead. Or we could just pretend the word "talent" has the sort of all-encompassing meaning we'd like it to have for purposes of this discussion. In case I slip.
- - - - - -
Getting to the matter at hand, not surprisingly, Andy Reid says he doesn't think his team is lacking in the talent needed to make a run:
On whether he thinks the defensive line has enough talent to compete in this league: "Absolutely. We have enough talent in this room, I'm not going to say in this room, but on our football team we have enough talent to be very successful in this league."
Now we talked yesterday about the whole issue of what Andy says versus what he might actually believe, but at some level, I'm not even sure this is the right question to be asking.
As I see it, NFL teams have three kinds of players on their rosters: weak links, studs, and everyone else.
Weak links kill the teams they play for. The coaching in the league is way too good these days to hide a guy. If someone has a weakness, it will eventually be identified and exploited until: a) he fixes it or b) he loses his job. We saw an example of a weak link in action with the way the Giants went after Chris Gocong in both coverage and play action.
The studs are the guys the other team has to specifically game plan for, every week. Brian Westbrook is the obvious example, although you're not seeing that many teams playing DeSean Jackson without a safety over the top any more either.
In the middle, you have the fat part of the distribution curve. They're not studs, they're not weak links, they're just average players doing their jobs.
Now clearly there's a lot of variation there in the middle. We're not ready to call Stewart Bradley a stud, and Omar Gaither isn't a weak link, but obviously, one guy's still starting and the other isn't, so there's a difference there.
That difference is on the margins, however. Think about it this way. Most guys in the NFL are good enough to do their jobs on most plays. If they weren't, they wouldn't be out there. So maybe a cornerback who's merely "decent" gives up one more catch a game than a guy who's "pretty good." That would be a concern for the team with the decent cornerback, but probably not a game-killer.
If, instead, that cornerback is one of the weak links, then you're screwed. Because it almost doesn't matter what you do schematically to try to cover him, at some point, when they need a big play or a conversion or a touchdown in the red zone, the opposing team is going to try to isolate and go after him.
- - - - - -
The talent is such in the league that I think most teams can figure out a way to scheme against a certain number of studs. Brian Westbrook is certainly not 100 percent this year, but it almost doesn't matter on all those screen passes or flare-outs where he catches the ball and immediately three guys are swarming him. If the Eagles had more studs at the skill positions, other teams wouldn't be able to do this.
It's not just the Eagles. Look at the Patriots. They've run a similar pass-heavy, spread it around offense for the last few years. When Jabar Gaffney was the leading receiver they were pretty good. When they got Randy Moss and Wes Welker, they went to extraordinary.
The Cowboys have the same deal with Barber, Witten and Owens (and Williams, a little). The Giants have a ridiculous run game and Plaxico Burress.
In the passing game, these are all guys who can't be stopped one-on-one unless they happen to be matched up against an opposite stud on the other side.
And it's not just on the offensive side. Just off the top of my head, you've got Shaun Rogers, Kris Jenkins, DeMarcus Ware, Julius Peppers, and Patrick Willis. There are dozens more throughout the league. These are all guys who continuously win their one-on-one battles.
- - - - -
This is why I think it doesn't work to just go down the roster and tick off names of guys you think need to be replaced. Most of these guys are pretty good -- it's just that not enough of them are elite.
Let's deal with the weak links first. Now that the team has solidified the four special teams positions (K, P, KR, PR), how many holes do you see out there?
On defense, it's none in the secondary, and none on the defensive line. One black hole at linebacker.
On offense, the receivers are all fine, the running back position is fine and QB is what it is and I don't feel like arguing about it. The line has issues and the tight end position is completely unproductive, but I'm not sure that's totally on the tight ends. Fullback is less of a hole each week. Klecko is impressing me in how well he can play football. He just needs more reps.
So it's not a swiss cheese lineup. There are a couple of weak links, but not so many that you can blame them for all the issues.
Flip that around, and the problem comes when you start counting the studs. Who are the guys who consistently win their individual match-ups? On the offensive side, it's Brian Westbrook and at times DeSean Jackson. And Jackson isn't close to what he'll be in a couple of years.
On the defensive side, it's Trent Cole and -- shockingly -- Darren Howard. We see flashes out of Asante, but I wouldn't be surprised if the FO stats found at the end of the year that Sheldon had actually been more consistent. I'm as impressed with Bradley as you are, but there's a big difference right now between him and young Trotter. Big. Beyond that we're still looking at potential.
- - - - - -
This is probably as good a spot as any to make a related point. Have fans forgotten just how dominant guys like Dawkins and Trotter once were? I'll admit right now that I was wrong about the struggles I thought Mikell might have in coverage, but comparing him to the young Wolverine is nuts. They're not even close.
- - - - - -
So what does this all mean? Well, first of all, it suggests that no matter what plays the coaches call or who plays QB, the Eagles aren't limping in to the playoffs with their remaining schedule of truly talented teams.
It also means that Kevin Kolb better end up being one heck of a ballplayer. Because the first-round pick they gave away to get him would have come in handy right now when we're counting the studs in this lineup.
Beyond that, this all suggests there's room for future optimism. Yes, if McNabb is gone after this season, it's going to be an adjustment to go to Kolb. Young quarterbacks are young quarterbacks and you just have to live with the mistakes for a few years.
But consider the rest of the roster. There are any number of guys who might be able to make the leap:
- DeSean Jackson -- The kid is clearly special. If he keeps his ego in check and can stay healthy, the sky's the limit.
- Quintin Demps -- His play on special teams (coverage, not just returns) suggests a guy who is winning his individual matchups already in that phase. If he can learn the defense, he has the tools to be better than average.
- Brodrick Bunkley -- Every month he seems to take another step forward in going from ties to wins.
- Stewart Bradley -- He's already really good. Another season or two of experience to shave 0.2 seconds off his reaction times and he could be right there.
- Asante Samuel -- Another guy who should feel more comfortable in his second year in the scheme.
- Shawn Andrews -- Leap made, fingers crossed he comes back.
- Johns Smith, Doe, Jones and Lewis -- Hypothetical first and second round picks in the April 2009 draft after the Eagles move Donovan McNabb.
- - - - - -
This, incidentally, is one more reason I think Reid sticks around. He's gotten through 80 yards of the rebuilding process, it only seems right to let him try to take it the last 20 (with maybe some new help in the personnel department).
Of course, it's the red zone that always kills this team.
Subscribe
Twitter
