Now It's Confirmed

It's strange, last week's tough, close loss to a very good Giants team sent me into at least a three day funk. 

What happened yesterday -- while it was a terrible result that set offensive football back at least 10 years -- is not having the same effect.  Yesterday was tough, but today I'm honestly dreading the celebrations of the TAMBC more than I'm really feeling all that crappy about the loss mightaswellhavebeenaloss.

I think that's because we learned something last week that was only confirmed yesterday.  This just isn't a very good team. 

That's the biggest reason all the gnashing of teeth last week about the two plays at the end of the game kind of missed the point.  The problem wasn't that they couldn't execute at the end.  It's that the Giants were simply a far better team.

Other than the one big call at the end there, what is there to really criticize the coaches about in yesterday's result?  Not the roster assemblers.  Not the salary cap managers.  Not the back specialists.  Look at the team that took the field yesterday and tell me what you think should have been done differently. 

The defense played a fine game.  Just as you can't really fault the offense for the New York or Dallas losses, it's hard to fault the defense for giving up only 13 points, even against a team that isn't all that good, especially because if not for a great defensive stand, the Eagles would have lost 17-13. 

Some will say that JJ screwed up his matchups on T.J. Houshmandzadeh, but really, the Bengals did a nice job using formations to get him moved around to different guys.  And a couple of those big plays were just really nice throws.  I actually thought Joselio Hanson put together a pretty nice game yesterday.  

Beyond that, Gocong was a minimal part of the gameplan, so I can't fault JJ for that either.

On the offensive side, this team can't run the ball.  They just can't.  They also can't run screens.  Nor are they much for yards-after-catch (combination of receiver types and QB) unless it's "everyone run off and we'll drag DeSean underneath."  There wasn't much of an available backup option here other than putting it in McNabb's hands and seeing what he does.  

Unfortunately, McNabb didn't have it yesterday.

So, sure, complain about some of the play calls.  And definitely ask why they ran the flea flicker into the wind and the fancy reverse to the guy everyone is spying.  But really, all that stuff was on the margins.  Maybe it makes a big enough difference that the Eagles even manage to pull out an ugly win.

Which wouldn't change the fact that this team just isn't that good.

- - - - - -

The problem with taking blame from the coaches, of course, is that some of them aren't just coaches.  So while it's hard to blame Johnson or Marty (I guess) for most of what happened yesterday, Andy Reid isn't as lucky.

Unfortunately for us, there's zero transparency at the top of the Eagles front office.  We know Banner writes the checks and Lurie signs them, but we don't have a great handle on how they decide which players to hand them to.

If you look at the "football operations" section on PE.com, you'll see Andy's name listed first, then Tom Heckert.  That seems to tell us something, but does anyone outside the NovaCare know how that arrangement works?

- - - - - -

Let's be overly generous for a moment and say that there's almost no way the Eagles should have known they wouldn't be able to run the ball this year.  They could certainly run it last year.  And they didn't know last winter that they wouldn't have Shawn Andrews available this year to be his usual Pro Bowl self (and by the way, the question of whether or not Andrews should try to rush back this season has now been answered).

So let's look at the other issues this team has:

• Poor fullback play (we still love you Klecko, don't take it personally, keep getting better)
• Little contribution from the tight end position
• Poor play from the strongside linebacker position
• Inability -- at times -- to stop the run
• Short yardage impotence

Now look at the Eagles draft:

1 (19) Traded to Carolina
2 (43) Acquired from CAR, traded to MIN
2 (47) Via MIN, DT Trevor Laws, N.D.
2 (49) WR DeSean Jackson, Cal
3 (80) DE Bryan Smith, McNeese State
4 (109) Via CAR, G Mike McGlynn, Pitt
4 (115) To MIA for RB Lorenzo Booker
4 (117) Via MIN, FS Quintin Demps, UTEP
4 (131) CB Jack Ikegwuonu, Wisconsin (Compensatory Pick)
5 (152) Traded to Minnesota
6 (184) G Mike Gibson, Cal
6 (191) Via CLE, Traded Back to CLE
6 (200) LB Joe Mays, North Dakota St. (Compensatory Pick)
6 (203) LB Andy Studebaker, Wheaton (Compensatory Pick)
7 (224) Traded to Buffalo
7 (230) Via SEA, T King Dunlap, Auburn

First of all, remember how keen the Eagles were about making sure everyone considered Lorenzo Booker part of this draft?  They even went so far as to include him in their draft page.  Yeah, guys, he really saved that one.

Secondly, I've bolded the five guys from this draft (including Booker) who have appeared in games this year.  No one faults the Jackson pick.  And Laws is playing more and more as a rotation DT and seems to be earning his keep.  You could argue that he would be more helpful to this team if he weighed about 30 more pounds, but honestly, the DT position has not been the problem this year.  Bunkley is getting better and better and Patterson is already a fine player.

But match that list to the problems above and you won't see any connection.  Basically, right now, the Eagles draft consists of a very good wide receiver, a return man, a depth guy, a ragdoll 20th-string running back, and a special teamer who has appeared in two games with zero production points, according to stats from our guy shlynch.

No fullback.  No tight end (it was a bad year for tight ends).  The potential strongside "linebacker" we drafted (Studebaker) is a Chris Gocong clone.  Dominant, small school defensive end who doesn't know the LB position. 

And there's not a guy on that list who could help the short yardage blues. 

With free agents, the team brought in Asante, Klecko, Chris Clemons, and a bunch of other guys who didn't make the team.  Since Klecko immediately got moved to DT, it's safe to say none of these three guys helps any of those problems either.

- - - - - -

Now of course, you could argue that if the Eagles had brought in guys to help with the problems we now have, we wouldn't have those problems.  Like how punt returning isn't really an issue this year because we brought in Jackson.

The problem there is that those problems were only rectified after they became such a huge issue last year. 

So basically our roster assemblers are playing whack a mole.  Rather than anticipating future issues and ensuring there's a pipeline in place, they're rushing from problem to problem to patch the holes. 

Ok, that's one terribly jumbled metaphor, but the point remains that the Eagles just don't seem to have a great understanding of their roster these days.  I can think of three possible explanations off the top of my head:

1)  They're bad talent evaluators. 

2)  The guys responsible for bringing in the players who haven't worked out are more worried about rescuing those flawed decisions than they are about putting the best team on the field.

3)  The current regime has lost perspective on these guys.  They don't see "Chris Gocong, terrible SAM."  They see, "Chris Gocong, heck of a guy, has a good head on his shoulders, busts his butt trying to get better, really just needs more reps to turn things around." 

They don't see "Jon Runyan, not even close to the drive blocker he used to be."  They see "Jon Runyan, consummate pro, career warrior, not a guy we'd even think about pulling from the lineup to see what his backup can do for us in the future." 

- - - - - -

The problem is that no matter which explanation you find most convincing, the solution is the same.

Comments

[BFH]

There's been a lot of talk over the last 8 days of the "lack of commitment" to the running game. That if this team simply ran the ball more they would be better at it.

Don't buy it. Derek, you're absolutely right about Runyan. He's simply not what he once was and I've been saying that for a while. As an example, people blamed Klecko for the failed 4th and 1 last week. But Runyan got absolutely stoned by Justin Tuck.

So when you consider that you lost your best lineman (Andrews), your former mauler of a right tackle now is finally showing his considerable age, you have no fullback, and your All-Pro running back is playing with several injuries...

How is that a recipe for success in the running game? I don't blame Reid for the unbalanced play-calling.

I blame him for calling the short yardage running plays to begin with. I blame him for the roster as it currently exists.

[BFH]

I blame him for having a band of midgets as offensive weapons.

Can you imagine what might happen to Jackson, Curtis, and Westbrook this week against the Ravens? The Ravens defense is freaking humongous, tenacious, and hard hitting.

It could be ugly.

[xtianDC]

I'm not sure it's that they can't run the ball; it might be that they simply don't try to run the ball. They very rarely run the ball on anything other than 1st down, it seems. How often do they run the ball on consecutive downs? I realize that Westbrook may be less than 100%, but damn, Buckhalter has looked great when given the chance. Buckhalter getting 1 carry in 5 quarters of football to me is just unforgivable. Even the Giants, who have probably the best workhouse back in the league right now in Brandon Jacobs, give significant carries to two other rb's.

The offensive philosophy at work seems to thrive on some sort of element of surprise. What's ironic is that if they lined up, made a real attempt to own the line of scrimmage and run the ball two or three times in a row, they'd *really* catch some defenses off guard. Everyone knows the Eagles aren't going to try to run the ball. They are making it way too easy for opposing defensive coordinators. Think about this: they are basically advertising to the league that the only thing anyone has to focus on is stopping Donovan and the passing game. They are choosing to be one dimensional!

It's also why this team is presently incapable of winning a close game. Either Plan A works (let's call it the Shock and Awe Pass Attack) or we see three and outs. They'll either jump out to huge leads and take teams out or lose the tough, grind it out kind of games.

I'm pissed about Donovan not knowing the rules, but I'm reasonable enough to know that even the best players have bad games. It's not Don's fault and it really pisses me off that he's being set up as the fall guy.

Bottom line: Andy Reid is NOT putting his players in the best position to succeed. It's his mantra, but it's just lip service. Why can't the guy swallow his pride and just admit it's not working? The talent is there. This team can be successful. But not unless the philosophy changes.

I know it was only the Bengals, but the defense played a great game yesterday. 8 sacks and 13 points when offense is basically doing nothing...that should be good enough to win. Don was having a bad day and maybe Westbrook is hurt. They could have won this game if they put it on the backs of the oline and just let Buck grind it out. I'll never understand...

[BFH]

Since I seem to have the floor...

What should the Eagles have done, even if they had the foresight to know that in 2008:

A) Dawkins would be a complete liability in pass coverage, and
B) Runyan wouldn't be much of a run blocker.

This is a situation a franchise can find itself in and the Eagles have been here before on a smaller scale -- Hugh Douglas, Duce Staley.

[xtianDC]

Running the football successfully requires a measure of execution and confidence. I know these players can run the ball b/c they've done it before. That tells me it's more of an attitude/confidence issue. The only way to right that ship is to commit to it and have some success. Man, think of the way this online just dominated when Garcia took over in 06. Do you really think T. Thomas and J. Runyan have aged that much in two years? Why are they so dominant in pass pro but can't seem to run block worth a lick? It's attitude and confidence.

[xtianDC]

Let me bring out another angle here...

Forget whether or not you have any real "success" running the ball. If a team has some semblance of balance offensively, they become much harder to defend. There is value in some of those 2, 1 or even no yard gain runs. The safeties can't just sit back and wait for Don to try to attack the seams. Make them commit some players to the line of scrimmage. It will open things up.

Being a pass first offense is fine. But what we have here is a pass-only offense. It'll never work.

[Jason H]

Re: Filling the Personnel Gaps

One thing I've been struggling with, in the beginning of the decade the FO seemed to do a much better job anticipating personnel issues (e.g. selecting Sheppard and Brown even though we had Vincent and Taylor) and they were consistently praised for being forward thinking rather than drafting to fill holes. When did that strategy derail? Have their just been too many holes to fill? The quality of drafts seems to have actually improved so it's hard to say that that's the problem.

I go back to thinking that it's not a personnel issue. The Eagles have always had a glaring hole or two on the team (Levon Kirkland at MLB anyone?), but it seems the coaches got more out of the team.

I have been a McNabb and Reid supporter, but I'm starting to think that next season it may be worth it to get something for McNabb, see if Kolb can play and use all your picks (particularly both 1st rounders) to inject some life into the team. Oh and I replace Marty to give the offense a shot in the arm.

I give Reid one last shot to see if he can rekindle the winning ways with a new start.

[Jason H]

Oh and the commitment to run stuff is garbage. Over Reid's tenure, there are plenty of times when we ran as little as we do now, but we were MUCH more successful at it. You don't need to run the ball 30 times a game to be good at it.

The offensive line play and fullback play has slipped and we need new players, end of story.

[Derek]

> Do you really think T. Thomas and J. Runyan
> have aged that much in two years?

See "Dawkins, Brian" for yes, this is possible.

> Why are they so dominant in pass pro but
> can't seem to run block worth a lick?
> It's attitude and confidence.

They're not dominant, they're effective. If pass protection was just about athletic ability, Winston Justice would be starting already. It's technique and skill, combined with a certain level of athleticism that lets the guy keep up.

Run blocking is technique, too, but it's also about power, much more than pass blocking.

The Eagles want to run this year. They've tried to run this year. They just can't.

[BFH]

"The Eagles want to run this year. They've tried to run this year. They just can't."

DING DING DING DING!

It's pretty funny that in the same season where the Eagles failed on four consecutive runs at the goal line in Chicago, two against Washington, and two against the Giants that a lot of folks are making the "Not committed to the run" argument.

[xtianDC]

Sorry guys, I'm not buying it. The sample size is too small. Failing to run the ball in short yardage situations does not mean the team cannot run the ball. You can't pass, pass, pass, pass, pass, pass and pass and then expect to be able to grind out tough yards on the ground at the flick of a switch. It just doesn't work that way.

And to take on your logic...we passed and failed on 3 third and one's yesterday. Where does that leave us? Are we going to start giving up on passing altogether b/c they can't convert 3rd and short in the air? By your logic, maybe we should just start punting on 3rd downs?

Give me a game where Westy has 20 carries and Buck has b/t 6-10 and then maybe we can start truly analyzing whether this team can have success running the ball.

And once again, all of this discussion misses the point: even have some *small* measure of succes on the ground opens things up more in the air.

[Derek]

It's not a sample size issue. Everyone mocks the FO stats for having such a high opinion of the Eagles -- and, um, it's starting to look like they should -- but those same stats are pretty damning when it comes to the run game:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

Dead last in power success. 29th in stuffs (not good). 13th in 10+, which means when our backs actually get a hole, they do something with it.

[Derek]

Those same stats suggest Runyan might not be the best place to start placing blame, however. Runs over right tackle are the only thing we're better than mediocre at.

[BFH]

"And once again, all of this discussion misses the point: even have some *small* measure of succes on the ground opens things up more in the air. "

That a successful running game helps out your passing attack is undeniable.

But it's not like teams have stopped paying attention to Westbrook. If he's in the backfield, the linebackers are focused on him, even with our lack of running success.

That there are also problems with the passing attack is true, but I don't think the lack of a running game is a particularly large factor. McNabb's wild fastball, drops, no physical presence on the outside (please, please play Baskett more on Sunday), LJ's inconsistency... all issues unrelated to the running attack.

[xtianDC]

But it's not like teams have stopped paying attention to Westbrook. If he's in the backfield, the linebackers are focused on him, even with our lack of running success.

That there are also problems with the passing attack is true, but I don't think the lack of a running game is a particularly large factor. McNabb's wild fastball, drops, no physical presence on the outside (please, please play Baskett more on Sunday), LJ's inconsistency... all issues unrelated to the running attack."

Do you think any of the above *might* have something to do with the fact that teams are dropping 7 guys into coverage? Do you ever see teams rush more than 4? Could it be b/c there is no credible running threat?

Look...I'm not under any kind misguided notion that this is going to be anything other than a pass-first heavy offense. It's worked in the past and can continue to work in the future. I just don't think there's a need for a total give up on the run game. It's too much to put on Don's back. He's being set up to fail. Take some of the pressure off!

[BFH]

The Bengals blitzed a fair amount yesterday, from what I remember. The Eagles generally did an OK job of picking it up with a couple of terrible exceptions. McNabb actually did a decent job of side-stepping pass rushers, too. McNabb's final interception was a play in which the Bengals blitzed and McNabb tried to hit LJ (or was it Celek?) quickly. Terrible throw.

The Bengals did a great job of getting their hands up and batting down McNabb's passes.

There's always some new and inventive way of failing.

[Eric]

I don't know if anyone has talked about this already (I was at the game and flew home this morning - 7am flight which ended up not leaving until 8:30... ugh), but what was the deal with the opening coin toss? Was there a reason LJ had us go with the wind to open the game? Did Andy tell the captains that?

If you have choice, don't you want the wind at your back in the 4th? Unless in some weird way Andy wanted the wind early to get a big lead *laugh*.

It just seems it's another one of these "minor" oversights that are compiling into pitiful blunders.

[Derek]

With the new rules about deferring your choice, I don't think it goes 1/4 and 2/3 any more.

I imagine Andy took the wind because he wanted to start fast. Then in the second half, Cincy wanted the wind in the 4th.

http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecenter/29675/CIN_Gamebook.pdf

[Colin]

There's nothing to take from this game except that this is not a very good team right now. They tried to run the ball more in the second half more than in the first, and had some mixed results. They didn't run on third and short because they have been horrible running in power situations, as documented.

Whatever is wrong with this team can't be measured statistically. They are statistically a decent team, but the periods of inconsistency by each of the three units have cost them wins. I don't know if it's lack of urgency, or leadership, or whatever intangible, but this team is a donut: there's nothing in the middle. Maybe a little cream filling, but nothing else.

[Andrew B]

Let me try to make the arguement for foresight in these areas - OL, TE, S, FB, LB

The 2007 Draft included

3rd Round SAM LB Stewart Bradley
3rd Round Big RB Tony Hunt
4th Round Safety Quintin Demps
5th Round TE Brent Celek
7th Round FB Nate Illao

The 2006 Draft included

2nd Round OT Winston Justice - supposedly stud run blocker for Bush and White from USC
4th Round OG Max-Jean Gilles - supposedly stud run blocker from Georgia
5th Round Safety CJ Gaddis

Free Agency has inlcuded:
2008 FB/TE Kris Wilson (on Chargers roster)
2008 FB/DT Dan Klecko
2007 SAM/MIKE/WILL LB Takeo Spikes (on 49ers roster)
2006 TE Matt Schobel

Undrafted Free Agents of note included:

2006 SAM LB Tank Daniels
2006 FB Jason Davis
2006 OT Pat McCoy (on Falcons IR)

Its not as though they haven't attempted to do anything about these current weaknesses ahead of time. It just seems like a lot of different attempts at solving these problems ahead of time did not work out, and some others are simply out of position right now (SAM LB Bradley).

[shlynch]

I think you need to distinguish between foresight (addressing a problem before it is a problem) and hole patching (addressing an existing problem). All picks at LB are hole patching. We had NOTHING there for a long time, by design. Schobel was signed the year after we went a whole year with Steve Spach as the #2 TE, and Celek and Wilson were residuals of Schobel being underwhelming. CJ Gaddis (from the 2007 draft, not 2006) and Demps (from the 2008 draft, not 2007) were drafted AFTER the departure of Mike Lewis and the underwhelming first year of the Sean Considine era. I don't think they are foresight, they are examples of fixing a serious lack of depth.

Finally, of the FBs you list, an UDFA is not foresight. He is training camp fodder. Wilson wouldn't play FB, Klecko was stepping into a position without a starter and Ilaoa was drafted as a RB, and then was Tony Hunt-ed over to FB before he was cut.

The Eagles have certain positions of priority that they have listed in the past. QB, OT, DE, CB. I think you can make a compelling case that they have consistently shown foresight at those positions, trying to fill holes before they emerge. They haven't been overly successful at DE, thanks to injury (Burgess, Kearse) and failure to meet expectations (McDougle, Kearse, Howard) but I think one could make a case that they usually try to aggressively manage that position.

I think with the rest of the field, they have been more reactionary than forward looking.

[Derek]

So, basically, because the Eagles signed a lot of crappy free agents who didn't work out, that shows foresight?

And it's not like it was hard to predict how a lot of these guys were going to end up:

http://www.igglesblog.com/iggles_blog/2008/03/eagles-sign-lea.html

- - - -

On a semi-unrelated note, I actually think MJG is a player. He definitely needs to get his playing weight down, but the mistakes I see from him are mistakes of inexperience. He doesn't hold his inital double team long enough before getting to the second level, that kind of thing.

If Andrews gets on the field again next season, I don't think it will be MJG making room for him.

[BFH]

"If Andrews gets on the field again next season"

Must you have posed that with that level of uncertainty? C'mon Derek, we didn't need that this week.

It was predictable, but this has got to be the worst week of 5's career in Philly. Brutal.

[BrianS]

With this article, by the team mouthpiece, being posted to the official site, I've gotta think McNabb's going to be the fall guy here.

http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/news/Story.asp?story_id=16705&spadaro=1

[Andrew B]

"the underwhelming first year of the Sean Considine era"

Considine did great in 2006 compared to Lewis.

Lewis was the target of 10% of all passes thrown against the Eagles in 2006 despite only being a starter for 6 games. Only 1 in 5 of these plays was a failure for the Eagles opponent, ranking Lewis 80th out of 80 safeties in the league for pass defense. Considine was the target 4% of the time, and he stopped 3 of every 5 pass plays he was involved in short of success. That would rank him 13th out of 80.

Both Gaddis and Demps (and Considine) were drafted to address the aging of Dawkins, not to play strong safety.

[Andrew B]

Derek:

There is no explaining the enthusiasm shown by the staff for such obvious basket cases as McMahon or Wilson, but, there it is. They are excited about them and throw a lot of money at them.

I suppose they see something the rest of us don't. Reid isn't the only one though. Remember Chad Scott and Monty Beisel in New England in 2005?

There is really just a dearth of talent around the league to have a truly stacked team. Its easy to fantasize about having had the smarts to draft every good player every year, but it will never happen anywhere for any team.

[shlynch]

"Both Gaddis and Demps (and Considine) were drafted to address the aging of Dawkins, not to play strong safety."

So, um, then who has been acquired to play strong safety? Or is it your belief that they have had this transition to the Quintin Mikell era in mind all along, and that Sean Considine was just a ruse? They are forward looking with respect to Dawkins but couldn't see that their starter at strong safety wasn't very, well, strong? It looks to me like the Eagles have been focusing on getting safeties that could cover first and foremost, with little regard to hitting/tackling, since they drafted Mike Lewis in 2002. Either they have been trying to replace Dawkins for 6 years (that's really forward looking, but possible given that he was a FA in 2006); they have shifted their strategy away from strong safety types; or they view Dawkins as filling the run defender role and needed a coverage player. Regardless of what the answer is, they all lead to the conclusion that they are either replacing Dawkins and leaving a gaping hole next to him (that they were really fortunate to have Mikell fill unexpectedly) or they are just trying to get any second safety. Forward looking would have had Dawkins long gone by now. He is Troy Vincent on the Bills, Bobby Taylor on the Seahawks. Forward looking had him replaced instead of being extended in 2006.

I also wouldn't call using a 4th and 5th round pick to address a position that has been manned by a borderline hall of fame player "forward looking". Forward looking is taking guys early and having them sit now because you will have a need down the line. Like they did with Brown, Sheppard, Justice, Kolb, etc. Not all great picks, but all forward looking -- guys who had no shot of playing their first year, or playing much above the dime package in the case of Brown and Sheppard. 4th and 5th rounders are guys who are probably backups, might be starters, and you certainly don't expect to be stars, as much as you might hope that they will be. Your expectations of draftees taken higher are different.

[keener]

This solution is simple, Dump #5.

http://www.cafepress.com/McNabbSucks

[MSE69]

I remember Lewis being able to hit/tackle and Considine being more of a speed bump. Andrew, care to debunk?

[Andrew B]

Considine has been a speed bump against the run due to his bum shoulder since he injured it in 2005, where Lewis brought the wood. On the other hand, Lewis couldn't cover an inanimate carbon rod.

Lewis gave up 6 touchdowns in 6 games in his final service starting in 2006. Considine gave up 4 in 12, including, IIRC, the long run by the Titans RB in Week 11.

Who would you rather have with those numbers.

[Andrew B]

shlynch:

"So, um, then who has been acquired to play strong safety?"

No one.

The history of the safety position really goes like this.

1) Draft Strong Safety Michael Lewis in 2002. Becomes starter in 2003.
2) Sign Quintin Mikell in 2003 as back-up strong safety.
3) Draft Free Safety JR Reed in 2004. Injures self in offseason.
4) Draft Free Safety Sean Considine in 2005 to replace JR Reed.
5) Sign Dawkins to 3rd extension in 2006.
6) 2004-2006 Michael Lewis refuses multiple extension offers, loses his confidence in playing coverage, and is finally demoted as a starter in 2006.
7) Dawkins sidelined with his preemie twins in offseason of 2007.
8) Eagles draft Free Safety CJ Gaddis specifically as future Dawkins replacement in 2007, apparently enamored of Considine as Strong Safety. Gaddis turns out to be all talk, no action, and is surpassed by Marchus Paschal. Considine gets injured and benched and replaced by Mikell, who is just as good in coverage, and much better against the run.
9) Eagles resign Free Safety JR Reed.
10) Eagles draft Free Safety Quintin Demps as future Dawkins replacement in 2008.
11) Eagles cut Free Safety JR Reed.

"Or is it your belief that they have had this transition to the Quintin Mikell era in mind all along, and that Sean Considine was just a ruse?"

No. They felt they needed Considine's coverage skills, because in 2006, they had flipped Dawkins and Lewis responsibilities somewhat, with Dawkins playing nickle linebacker on passing downs to give him more opportunities to blitz. The initial switch was to replace Lewis in coverage with Considine. After a few weeks of this, the players, according to reports at the time, went to Coach Reid and suggested that Lewis replace Dawkins as nickel linebacker, with Dawkins moved back into coverage with Considine.

"or they view Dawkins as filling the run defender role and needed a coverage player."

That's pretty much what they said at the start of 2006. Lewis couldn't hack it as the season progressed.

"(that they were really fortunate to have Mikell fill unexpectedly)"

Mikell was the 2nd string Strong Safety from 2003 to 2006. What was so unexpected and fortunate about his presence there? He was an UFA? The Eagles obviously liked him a lot to keep him around that long.

"I also wouldn't call using a 4th and 5th round pick to address a position that has been manned by a borderline hall of fame player "forward looking". Forward looking is taking guys early"

The Eagles have never drafted a first round safety. And we've had plenty of good safeties despite, or maybe because of that. They felt that 4th or 5th was as good as they could do while Dawkins was still on the roster, because they had more critical needs at defensive tackle, linebacker, wide receiver, and defensive end (9 of 14 picks in rounds 1-3 since 2005).

Dawkins is not a borderline HOF in my mind. He is a HOF. Dawkins is one of the few defensive players who could simply take over a game and end it favorably for his team by his agressive play.

Compare him to some contemporaries:

Dawkins - 20 sacks, 33 interceptions (490 yards, 2 TD), 29 forced fumbles, 16 fumble recoveries (67 yards, 1 TD), 698T/186A

Harrison - 30.5 sacks, 34 interceptions (361 yards, 2 TD), 15 forced fumbles, 9 fumble recoveries (20 yards, 0 TD), 919T/286A

Sharper - 7 sacks, 53 interceptions (1024 yards, 8 TD), 8 forced fumbles, 5 fumble recoveries (89 yards, 2 TD), 641T/181A

Lynch - 13 sacks, 26 interceptions (204 yards, 0 TD), 16 forced fumbles, 9 fumble recoveries (15 yards, 0 TD), 740T/318A

Butler - 20.5 sacks, 38 interceptions (533 yards, 1 TD), 13 forced fumbles, 10 fumble recoveries (76 yards, 2 TD), 721T/168A

Nobody really matches his impact in all categories, which is why he is a definite HOF.

The only DB of any sort who has better career numbers than him is Rod Woodson, and that's mostly through the sheer number of his interceptions.

Woodson - 13.5 sacks, 71 interceptions (1483 yards, 12 TD), 20 forced fumbles, 32 fumble recoveries (137 yards, 1 TD), 1050T/108A.

Also look at Ronnie Lott and Ronde Barber.

Lott - 8.5 sacks, 63 interceptions (730 yards, 5 TD), 16 forced fumbles, 17 fumble recoveries (43 yards, 0 TD), 1113T/13A.

Barber - 22 sacks, 33 interceptions (584 yards, 6 TD), 11 forced fumbles, 9 fumble recoveries (88 yards, 4 TD), 724T/144A.

When you look at who he compares with, and what he did with and for the Eagles defense, there's no way you can keep Dawkins out of the HOF.

[Eagles Fan in San Fran]

Andrew B:
"On the other hand, Lewis couldn't cover an inanimate carbon rod."
Hey, great line there - that's the first thing Eagles-related that I've LOL about since before the Giants game!

"When you look at who he compares with, and what he did with and for the Eagles defense, there's no way you can keep Dawkins out of the HOF."
Here's hoping the voters see it that way as well when the time comes!

[Eagles Fan in San Fran]

And because Dawk's name has come up, Chris Klinkner of BEG has a piece today entitled "Dawkins Deserves Better" that's worth a read:
http://www.bleedeaglesgreen.com/2008/11/dawkins-deserves-better.html

[Phil]

I have to disagree with your thesis here. Implicit in you're premise, that tying the Bengals confirms the Eagles aren't a good football team, is the notion that the Eagles and Bengals are somehow comparable football teams.

They're a much better team than you give them credit for here. No, they're not the Giants. Crap - oh hell with it this is so maddening.

You can't rack up 396 yards, only score 13 points and say "oh we're just not that good"

[shlynch]

Andrew B: I think we are talking across purposes. The original question was why the Eagles didn't proactively get the next generation of leaders well in advance of needing them, like we did in 2002 at CB. To argue that either the presence of Sean Considine or Quintin Mikell on the roster eliminated any urgency to replace the guy around whom our defense had been designed, and who you claim is a sure-fire Hall of Famer with anything more than a mid-round filler pick confirms the argument that they were not following that strategy. They were ok with getting filler in the role.

Secondly, if the Eagles knew Quintin Mikell could play, they would have played him over Considine in 2006. They were as surprised as anyone that he turned out to be good, much as they are surprised with how good Juqua Parker has turned out to be over the last two years. Luck is not the same as design. People forget just how bad he was in 2005, when we put him in at nickel before Donald Strickland was signed, and he couldn't cover and got flattened in the running game. He was a very good STer, but I would be stunned to learn that the Eagles thought that he would blossom at age 27 into a legitimate NFL starter.

Fascinating sidebar on Dawkins, by the way, but the NFL HOF process means that no non-QB is certain, and while Dawkins will have support, there are lots of guys at lots of positions who will have compelling cases; if Dawkins gets it, it could be about the same time that the best players from the 2004 draft become eligible. And who knows how history will view him at that point in time.

[Andrew B]

Why believe that Dawkins was at the end three years ago? Harrison is older, been in the league two years longer, and is still starting.

Reed, Considine, and Gaddis were all insurance picks. Demps is the first guy I'd say they are realy thinking replacement with.

As to HOF, the 2000-2004 Eagles are one of the great teams of all time in the NFL, comparable with the 1988-1993 Bills in both greatness, accomplishments, and post-season futility.

How many of those Bills are in the HOF? Isn't it 4 or 5 now? You have to think a number of Eagles are going to go from the 2000-2004 era too, and the best leading candidates are McNabb, Dawkins, Brian Mitchell, and Tra Thomas. Teams simply are not that good with no hall of famers.