The Nixon Question

The most famous moment of the Watergate hearings came when  Republican Senator Howard Baker asked White House Counsel John Dean, "What did the President know, and when did he know it?"

If I'm Jeff Lurie, that's the question I'm asking myself this morning.

It's annoying that I seem to need to write this every time, rather than just stating it once and moving on, but since the same question keeps coming up, here's what I think about Andy Reid.  I don't think he's forgotten how to coach.  I don't think his offensive system has been "figured out."  I don't think his play-calling -- which often isn't even his play-calling -- has been the real problem this year.

I do think he's never properly valued the run game.  I do think he continues to be a much better coach from Monday through Saturday than he is on Sunday.  But the Eagles are not a mediocre team this year because he's suddenly become a bad game-planner.

They're a mediocre team because they're a mediocre team. 

All that stuff about "he should have run the ball, no wait that didn't work, he should have passed the ball" is just a distraction from the real issue here.  Knock yourself out arguing about that, but in the end it doesn't matter.

What matters is that Andy Reid is the architect of the least talented team in the NFC East.

- - - - - -

We'll never know exactly how the Eagles' front office works.  The folks at the top have overlapping titles and indistinct job descriptions.  So we can't say definitively who made what mistakes.

But Andy's the grand poobah of that whole deal there, as he might say (not the poobah part), and I find it hard to believe that if he ever came into conflict with Heckert or Banner or whoever is running the scouting these days, that Lurie would ever side with the other guys. 

So now Lurie has a couple problems.  The first is that there's always been a little kernel of truth to the idea that Reid won (early) with Ray Rhodes' players.  Not a HUGE boulder of truth, because this roster certainly wasn't loaded with talent when he got here, but it didn't hurt that guys like Brian Dawkins and Tra Thomas went to all those Pro Bowls. 

The second problem is that the Eagles have now gone through pretty complete cycles with two different (nominal) GMs, and the results upstairs have continued to lag behind the results in the coaches' offices.

This is why Lurie needs to ask himself what Reid knew, and when he knew it.  If the leadership of this team got together this summer, cracked a few cold ones, and assured Lurie that happy days were here again, then we have a serious problem.  Because that would mean these guys don't have a good handle on their roster, aren't doing a great job evaluating talent, and continue to be overly optimistic in their approach to developing players. 

But what if there's an alternative explanation?  What if those same people met two winters ago and laid out a plan for the future of the franchise that made it clear they knew some rebuilding was in order?  After all, it's not that hard to pinpoint where a lot of the problems lie:

1)  The Eagles have aged badly at a number of key positions, such that former Pro Bowlers at quarterback, safety and left tackle aren't the same guys they used to be and former Pro Bowlers at cornerback, middle linebacker, defensive end and defensive tackle aren't around any more.

2)  Two bad drafts hollowed out the talent base just at the time those picks should have been stepping into starting roles.  (Check out '03 and '04.  With Andrews out, there's one guy still on the roster from those two drafts.  And he just got benched.)

This would explain a lot:

• Why they drafted Kevin Kolb when they could really have used some immediate impact talent to make a run.
• Why they traded their first round pick to Carolina for a first-rounder next year and two immediate line prospects (Trevor Laws and Mike McGlynn).
• Why no younger players got the patented Eagles' early extension this year (Banner blamed the salary cap, but check out what he said: "I'm a little reluctant to lock in to too many players without knowing what the next cap will be. Also, we're only a couple of years away from the next round of television deals. So you don't know what's going to happen with that. You don't know what your player costs are going to be. I'm glad that, for the moment, we don't really need to do anything."  Not sure I properly weighted that last part when it first came out.)
• Why they were unwilling to make any go-for-broke free agent moves this summer or fall.  Why bring Tony Gonzalez onboard a sinking ship when you're going to need that pick next year to continue rebuilding your core?

Now I realize that not once in the last two years has any member of the Eagles organization come out and said, "Please be patient, we're rebuilding."  But that doesn't really prove anything.  As long as they can maintain the illusion of competence, there's no point in bumming out the paying customers -- rendering them non-paying, non-customers -- nor do you want to create an atmosphere around the team where guys think, "It's ok we lost, we're not really trying this year anyway."

But this makes a huge difference for Jeff Lurie.  If the guys he has running this team didn't know what was coming, then it's clearly time for some different guys to be running this team. 

If they did know, then you still have to watch the way things go the next few weeks.  There's a difference between ugly and unraveled and Lurie needs to decide which one we're seeing. 

But assuming the team doesn't crack and this is, ahem, "all part of the plan" ... then at least recognize that it's time to level with the fans.  Now that we know winning out isn't going to solve everything, you're not going to get away with just telling everyone it's steady as she goes.

Not if you want to be able to show your face in the city, at any rate.

Comments

[BFH]

Derek -- Do the questions surrounding the benching of Gaither bother you?

I certainly understand Andy wanting to shake things up for the good of the season. But that it just happened to be a guy who recently turned down a contract extension offer from the FO, sort of disconcerting if true, no? Especially considering the comments that have been made by players over the years?

Or should we take it as a sign that Andy had already given up on this season, was thinking long-term, and decided if Gaither wasn't going to be around then he could do no good out there? I find that hard to believe, but it would be comforting if I could.

[johnnyshaka]

I was about halfway through what should have been a 3 hour drive (but with two youngens and a wife with a tiny bladder it was more like a 4 hour affair!!) when I caught the final score of the game and wanted to start bumping cars off the road. Then I heard about the benching and quickly looked for an overpass to slam into...luckily I couldn't find one fast enough. Ugh.

No playoffs this year, we all know that. Fine. But what becomes of this team going forward? With all this turmoil there appears to be so many question marks. Whether it's about coaching and FO personnel or who'll be taking snaps next season...I just can't possibly see how things will sort themselves before next season.

Do you dump the coach/QB/both now to start the healing process sooner or will that make things worse? Was Kolb Reid's pick and therefore, hand-picked to operate his WC offense, one that has been dismal as of late and is he going to be able to run it better than the current guy? If Kolb isn't the answer, do we use one of our first next year to try and find that answer? Can you even do that without giving Kolb a shot?

Man, what a clusterf*ck.

[Andrew B]

No Ray Rhodes era player went to a pro-Bowl under Rhodes and Reid.

Vincent, Trotter, Dawkins, Thomas, Douglas, Reese, Mayberry, etc. = 0 pro-bowls from 1995 to 1998. None of those guys were pro-bowlers before the Reid Offense and Johnson Defense. Just because a handful of guys were on the roster in both eras doesn't mean Rhodes should get some sort of credit for great talent when 3/4 of the team in 1998 was dreck.

[GFF]

BFH:
For what it's worth, this from GCobb:

"I spotted Gaither in the Giants game refusing to attack New York fullback Madison Hedgecock on ISO (short for isolating back on linebacker) runs....
There's no other way to say it, in the Giants game, Hedgecock took Gaither's heart and had him catching the block rather than attacking it. You can believe the Ravens saw it on the video and were ready to run at Gaither all day long."

Doesn't speak directly to your point, but it's part of the equation. If they still have faith in Omar, maybe we'll see him at SAM...

[BrianS]

So, McNabb is our starter on Thursday. I look forward to hearing what you make of that.

It seems like they're in denial that the season is over.

[Derek]

Andrew's great. He's the one guy in the world who thinks I don't give Andy enough credit.

[Andrew B]

Roster Needs:

Two starting offensive tackles
A starting free safety
A starting tight end
A back-up tight end
A starting fullback
A back-up running back
A starting SAM linebacker
A back-up SAM linebacker (because he must suck if Gocong is still on the field)

Decisions must be made on Considine and Buckhalter, who both hit free agency next year.

If Donovan goes, this year is the end of the line for the remaining 2000-2003 starters, and the turnover of the starting line up which began in 2004 and really took off in 2007 is complete. Honestly, they are better off trading him for picks that they need to fill the above positions unless they want to keep him around for the next wave like Green Bay did with Favre after the 1999-2000 rebuild.

The 2000 Draft needs to join the 2003 and 2004 Drafts on the blackhole of suck list. The only redeeming feature of 2003 was the UFA class of Mikell, Jackson, Lewis, Hood, etc.

Too much of the fanbase and commentariat is focusing on this as a rebuild since 2004. This is really a rebuild job since 2006, which was the real end of the post-2000 run. People need to flush 2005 from their mind to look at it from the FO perspective.

[shlynch]

2003 and 2004 drafts were bad. But Marc Ross was fired nearly 5 years ago. That is an historical problem, not a current one.

You have failed to disassociate talent development from talent identification. I would think a dyed-in-wool Tony Hunt fan would have made that point. Is it that we aren't getting good players, or that the coaches are failing to develop them or at least setting the scheme in a way that maximizes their talent? Are we turning prime rib into hamburger (at least on offense)?

Finally, as I have said in the past, blaming "talent" without saying whose talent is a cop out. Which positions aren't talented enough? My guess is that you are going to point to offensive skill positions and to perhaps the aging tackles and safety -- not sure what else there is to point to, except perhaps OLB, but even there I am not convinced that we don't have enough defensive talent.

For me, it is AR's inability or unwillingness to adapt his scheme to his personnel that has undone the Eagles in recent years. We have a strong RB and a line that should be able to run block, but we thrown the ball. We have a set of TEs that are pass catchers and marginal blockers, but we primarily keep them back to help pass block. We have a marginal set of WRs, so we run as many plays with as many of them as we can. We have a struggling QB (beginning of 07 and recent 08) and yet we plan to live and die on his ability to execute.

I don't think AR has forgotten how to coach. I think he has forgotten how to make the best of the hand he has been dealt (and shockingly, dealt himself) early enough to save the season.

One last comment: I said at the time, and still believe, that two of the biggest mistakes of the AR era were extending Runyan and Dawkins. I know everybody hated the whole actuarial kill-the-old-guy routine, but are we having fun with those two yet?

[Andrew B]

Derek:

Or rather, how bad was Rhodes, "Defensive Genius", that he couldn't get a pro-bowl level performance from Dawkins in three years and from Vincent in four years?

[Andrew B]

johnnyshaka:

Its not really McNabb or Kolb so much as the O-Line not being able to run block, and not standing up well to edge pressure forcing hurried throws. A better O-line woudl make either one automatically more competent.

[Derek]

BFH -- What's your source on the Gaither thing? I didn't seen any contract news with him.

As for his benching, I'd give Johnson the benefit of the doubt in terms of what he was seeing out of Gaither. I think there's also an extent to which Jordan leading the team in ST production points argued for giving him a chance with the regular defense.

Jordan clearly played faster than Gaither. He's not as strong at the point though.

With all of that said, the fact that Gaither got benched rather than Gocong proves that if you're going to suck, it's much better to do it at a position with no viable backup plan.

[Derek]

Andrew, the point isn't that Rhodes was a better coach. I've spent the last three weeks arguing that the Reid group knows how to coach. The question is with personnel.

[Eric]

I have to agree mostly with Andrew and even Derek stated this weeks ago - this team is in full rebuild mode.

The defense is pretty stout, for the most part. They've had a few games this year where they just didn't show up, but that may take time since all these guys are young and still somewhat inexperienced.

Who do they have to replace next year? Dawkins and Gocong. Everyone else has been playing as well as anyone else on any other team, for the most part, in my opinion. They need to find a SAM that can cover a TE. Maybe Bradley can and they need to find a MIKE. I just think the defense is the least of their problems in the free agency and the draft.

Now, to the offense. I've always been a guy that said you didn't need a top wide receiver. These receivers definitely have shown they are good enough to put up 300+ yards a game. But, if someone is there with the Carolina pick or early in the 2nd, they need to jump on it if he has some size and speed.

As I said in prior comments, this team needs to find at least one tackle or guard. If their plan is to move Herremans out (which I think could work) then a guard is a must. And they need to find out if Andrews will ever play again. I, personally, do not think Jackson is good enough at center. I'm not sold on Cole or MJG. They are big, but get no push. Guards need to be your body slammers. Tackles just need foot work, some size, and speed. They don't need to be dominate in the run.

So, moving forward in free agency and the draft. Sign a guard or tackle and rb or wr or TE. If none of those things are met in FA, they need to use both 1st rounders on any of those positions.

Looking at some mocks, I think they can get away with a tackle/guard and RB in the 1st and there will still be some decent TEs early in the 2nd.

This nonsense of keeping 10/11 draft picks and hoping at least half stick isn't the way to go. They need to go in with 7/8 picks and scout their asses off.

[Eric]

I forgot about fullback. :x

[johnnyshaka]

Andrew:

We could argue all day about a better this and that would result in better results...that's obvious. Not having Andrews in there, hurts, sure, but have we already forgotten the job this line did last season when we were one of the best offensive teams in the league?? Westbrook was just as banged up last season so don't use the injury excuse there and our receiving corps is arguably better this year now that we have Curtis (although, not the same guy as last season) back but last year we didn't have a guy like Jackson...and yet, we're still stumbling like a Pop Warner team out there.

I like McNabb and I like Reid, but something's gotta give. Is it poor preparation by coaches and/or players? Is it poor execution by coaches and/or players? Have the players quit on their coaches? Is it all of the above?

I really don't know what to say...it's really mind-boggling.

[Eric]

Derek, I just thought of this, but why is the majority thinking that Kolb isn't good? Why do people formulate this opinion? Is it because McNabb is the best QB in franchise history and Kolb is the guy that may replace him?

I've read people before write about how "Kolb sucks". Well, why? How do people know that? I understand there's this stigma about "system" QBs and especially QBs out of the University of Houston (see: Klinger, David & Ware, Andre), but is that justified? Why is this guy any different than any other college QB? I don't think anyone can make a valid argument that he doesn't come from a big time school, therefore, he's not as good. So many big college QBs fail. Numerous Heisman QBs have failed. Why will Kolb fail?

I just can't figure out how anyone can claim objectivity and state Kolb sucks when you haven't seen anything from him and nothing in his past suggests he's not very good.

[BFH]

Derek -- From Eaglesville, apparently heard on WIP http://eaglesblog.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/11/player-revolt.html:

"NBC10's John Clark reported that some of the players were questioning why others were benched. They brought up that L.J. Smith is without a contract next season and Omar Gaither turned down a contract extension several weeks back. Maybe not coincidentally, those were the two players not in the starting lineup on Sunday."

Glad everyone is now talking about talent up and down the roster. Much more enjoyable than constantly focusing on Donovan and Andy.

In my opinion, the team is in much better shape in the defensive side of the ball. There are a couple of glaring holes (FS, SAM) -- but other than that this really is a pretty solid unit.

The offense, on the other hand... in my opinion in need of a good deal of work.

Obviously there is going to be quite a shakeup with the O-line. Perhaps this is not a bad thing.

It would be nice if the Eagles had someone who they could count on in big passing situations -- 3rd and 8 type stuff. Right now, with the physical limitations of Curtis and Jackson, no tight end talent that we've seen (confident in Celek?) -- that is still lacking.

[Eagles Fan in San Fran]

"They're a mediocre team because they're a mediocre team."

Only half right there Derek.

This D is a top 10 (playoff caliber) D - not spectacular, but solid. They were last year as well - amazing given how little turnovers they got last year. Yes, there are some issues (Dawk, Lito, Gocong), but it's all relatively minor compared to THE DISASTER THAT IS THE OFFENSE.

C'mon, tell me ONE position on the O that doesn't have a significant question mark associated with it (BWest being the closest to solid, but even here, that old injury-prone question comes up again). And who's responsible for that??? And who do you want to entrust to clean that up????

No, AR is skating on thin ice here (insert your own overweight joke here).

[Andrew B]

johnnyshaka

Father Time has caught up to Runyan and Thomas. I thought Thomas played at a Pro-Bowl level last year and was screwed by the Flozell Adams popularity contest vote, but this year, definitely not.

That's the difference in the offense (plus Andrews being injured).

[Paul]

"Father Time has caught up to Runyan and Thomas. I thought Thomas played at a Pro-Bowl level last year and was screwed by the Flozell Adams popularity contest vote, but this year, definitely not."

How is everyone blaming the O-line for this debacle? Yes, with Andrews out I think our run blocking goes to sh*t, and that's been proven this year. But does anyone remember how bad they were at pass blocking last year? They gave up 47 sacks last year(and only 17 this year). I think the Andrews injury is huge, but again, it goes back to AR and the FO not having a viable backup plan in place.

I'm no expert but to me it looks like AR and the Eagles have a set amount of running plays they like to run and therefore, the one's they practice. Unforunately, most of those running plays rely on a dominate guard and instead of adapting their running game to their current situation (Andrews being injured) they just abandon it all together. And please don't tell me the direct snaps to Desean count as "adapting their running game."

[Colin]

The offensive line isn't the main problem.

The offensive line is actually protecting much better this season than last, going from an ASR of 7.6% (21st in the league) last season to just 4.1% this season (8th):

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2007

The line gave up 49 sacks last season, compared to 17 through eleven games this year.

The run numbers behind the right side are also better this season, and up the middle is almost the same.

The left side is the strange thing, the Eagles were dominant running over left tackle and end last season, and are absolutely awful this season.

The poor left run attack and lousy situational running are problems, but the improvement in protection is more important considering that the Eagles have passed roughly 62% of the time this season.

[Derek]

The sack numbers are because of McNabb, not the line. He's changed the way he plays QB. He no longer waits until the last possible second to try to escape pressure. He gets rid of the ball.

http://www.igglesblog.com/iggles_blog/2007/12/closer-look-at.html

[Thorin]

Left side struggles are no surprise. All-star Andrews has been out all season. He was the road grader making that happen.

[Derek]

I actually think you're half-right :)

MJG seems to have a very tough time getting to the second level, whereas Andrews may be the best in the league at that. So when they run left, they don't have the benefit of Andrews blocking those backside pursuers. Running right is less of a problem, since they can just go right behind MJG and it's simply a power question.

[shlynch]

@thorin, I am confused by your point. Are you saying that the left side success was largely due to Andrews pulling?

[shlynch]

... and of course, a minute late, a million dollars short. Sorry.

[Soups]

Derek,

With all due respect, how does a "mediocre team" manage to put up 37 points against the Cowboys and 31 points against the Giants?

The Eagles have been inconsistent for years. My friends and I have been saying half-joking and half-serious for at least four years "well, I wonder which Eagles team will show up this Sunday?"

They show up for the big games, but stay at home for the small-time games.

My belief is that this lack of motivation reflects directly on the leadership, both of Reid and McNabb.

Obviously, there are many, many other variables going on each week -- personnel, injuries, play-calling -- but the overall theme has been inconsistency caused by lack of motivation and mental preparedness for certain games.

One crucial bit of evidence that confirmed this for me was what Garcia was able to achieve. What is Garcia if not the epitome of motivation and competitiveness?

[Colin]

http://www.igglesblog.com/iggles_blog/2007/12/closer-look-at.html

I'm not sure this entirely accounts for a drop of 3.5% in ASR, but there is little way to prove that.

In any case, the point that Runyan and Thomas have fallen off the cliff in pass protection is objectively invalid. Even if a change in McNabb's willingness to get rid of the ball accounted for the change in ASR, then the tackles are still performing as well as last year. In comparison to the rest of the league, they are also holding up where most Eagles' units are (in that 6 - 10 range).

[Eric]

Soups, a game against the Bengals and Ravens, both games necessary to even have hope of a playoff appearance, do not constitute big games?

[Andrew B]

My subjective impression watching games is that the tackles are letting a lot more guys by them who are hurrying and hitting McNabb, not that they are giving up more sacks. I'd love to see the hurry/hit numbers. The Tight Ends are also being kept in more to help block, which is what is really hurting their offensive production.

The sack numbers last year were inflated artificially by the Winston Justice Turnstile Game. 35 sacks in the other 15 games is a bit more representative.

[BossHotSauce]

I wonder, if this is a secret re-building year, why they wouldn't play more games close to the vest. Again, this may play into Andy Reid's blindspots, but if you figure you're in the midst of a roster overhaul and a couple years away from Super Bowl caliber success, why wouldn't you play to your strength (the defense) and adapt your offense so that it's not so risk-taking. I think back to the way they played when McNabb first started. They were a defense-first team and the offense emphasized the run and protecting the football in order to win games.

All this reeks of what happened in Green Bay a few years ago. Favre went out there thinking it was 1996 when he didn't have the ability or talent around him. Andy Reid is still coaching like it's '04.

[Eagles Fan in San Fran]

Not to bust up this thread, but I just read the latest take from Didinger - strong, very strong overall, especially with the opening analogy to Buddy Ryan.

http://philadelphia.comcastsportsnet.com/pages/landing_homepage/?Didinger-A-View-From-the-Hall-Week-12=1&blockID=18657&feedID=717

[Dave B from OC]

Derek, great post! I don't agree (or maybe I missed your point) with your argument that not locking up young talent this year indicates that we're seriously rebuilding. Wouldn't the opposite be true instead? If you had one good young player that you could sign long term, might not that free you up to focus on other areas to rebuild? Certainly there are good players from the '06 and '07 drafts who we'd want to keep around? They sure seem better than most of the folks drafted in '04, '03, and '01.

[john]

ok let's face it. reid can't coach in this day and age. look at the giants, they run the ball and run it down your throats. you have to have some kind of some kind of running attack instead of making mcnabb throwing it 40-50 times to mediore receivers. give me a break. let's not cut andy a break on this one. when the nfc sucked we were the cream of the crop that couldn't win the big one. now that the nfc has caught up we can't even sniff 3rd place at best. stop protecting reid, he was in the right place at the right time. mcnabb covered up alot of his flaws and alot of rhodes players as someone pointed out. (maybe more but i didn't read all the post because i'm too pissed off) this is bullshit. we have talent, a coach who can't react on game day. there's no excuse for reid now. ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Eric]

john, there are a lot of teams that just pass in this league. And, yeah, you can say they have better talent on their rosters, but that's another thing.

[Andrew B]

When the NFC was weak? What kind of crap arguement is this "Reid could only win when the NFC was weak" party-line? Reid mostly won during years when the NFC was relatively strong compared to the AFC, and has lost when the NFC has been very weak over the past 4 years, 2004 only excepted.

1999 - advantage AFC
AFC - 14, 13, 13, 11, 9, 9
NFC - 13, 11, 10, 10

2000 - slight advantage AFC
AFC - 13, 12, 12, 11, 11, 10, 9, 9
NFC - 12, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10, 9, 9

2001 - advantage NFC
AFC - 13, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10, 9
NFC - 14, 13, 12, 12, 11, 9

2002 - slight advantage NFC
AFC - 11, 11, 10.5, 10, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9
NFC - 12, 12, 12, 10, 10, 9.5, 9

2003 - slight advantage AFC
AFC - 14, 13, 12, 12, 10, 10, 10
NFC - 12, 12, 11, 10, 10, 10, 9

2004 - large advantage AFC
AFC - 15, 14, 12, 12, 10, 10, 9, 9, 9
NFC - 13, 11, 10, 9

2005 - slight advatange AFC
AFC - 14, 13, 12, 11, 11, 10, 10, 9, 9
NFC - 13, 11, 11, 11, 11, 10, 9, 9

2006 - large advantage AFC
AFC - 14, 13, 12, 12, 10, 9, 9
NFC - 13, 10, 10, 9, 9

2007 - large advantage AFC
AFC - 16, 13, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10
NFC - 13, 13, 10, 10, 9, 9

And with the NFC East only, since the "weak NFC East" arguement is also often heard, here's the win totals every year (excluding the Cardinals) since Lurie bought the team. The win totals are in the same 30-36 wins range every year from 1995 except 1998 and 2007.

1995 - 33
1996 - 35
1997 - 31.5
1998 - 27 (Cardinals winning record year)
1999 - 30
2000 - 36
2001 - 31
2002 - 34
2003 - 31
2004 - 31
2005 - 36
2006 - 32
2007 - 40

[BFH]

Andrew B -- That stuff is irrelevant, no? Just a waste of time.

If history was an indicator of future success, then Reid's upward trajectory from '99-'03 would have the Eagles winning 19 games every year (and the DJIA would be somewhere around 20,000).

The Eagles' have been passed by the Giants, Cowgirls, and the 'Skins. And we have a coach and GM who has been in charge during that period.

Can this guy still draft? Can he still make appropriate personnel decisions in free agency? Is this just a streak of bad luck? What is the appropriate strategy going forward when you consider the competition, and can Reid carry out that strategy?

[BFH]

There are other complications with Reid that we only have the slightest notion of the answers as well...

Does he have the control and respect of the locker room that he used to? Does the locker room still have confidence in him after all of his Sunday blunders and seeming mishandling of important interactions with players?

Does it matter? If he's lost anything, can he get it back? Does winning a few games fix anything that might be broken here?

[Thorin]

RE: That Didinger post

I'll say this again here, this reminds me SO much of the way Randall went out.

[Thorin]

AND the way Buddy went out...

And if Reid does go, you know we're getting HC Marty Mornotite, right? You guys see this coming too, right?

Why does history have to be so fucking cyclical?

[Derek]

BFH, it was relevant because it was in direct response to a bogus charge. It was also appreciated because I didn't have to dig it up.

As for HC Marty -- uh-uh. No way is that happening here.

[BFH]

Well, I just re-read my comment and realized it came off a little coarse. Definitely not my intention, either. Derek, perhaps it's time to add emoticons! (joke)

As to Reid's history, I would argue that regardless of whether or not Reid's run of success early this decade was due to a relatively weak conference (it wasn't, as Andrew B pointed out) -- it's not nearly as relevant as what has happened over the last four years.

This is complicated and there shouldn't be an easy answer. Easy answers only come when there is a history of complete and utter failure.

To the guys who seem certain Reid is coming back (and for the record, I'm uncertain) -- what if the Eagles lose the rest of their games? Would you still feel confident?

[Eric]

I'd rather they lose and not give the party line "we're a hair off" and just suck it up, take a better draft pick, and roll with a guy that will start next year.

[johnnyshaka]

If we lose the rest of the way it better be because we're giving the youngens a chance to prove themselves/develop...guys like Kolb, Booker, Demps, Baskett, Celek, any young O-Linemen, etc...

[Andrew B]

BFH:

The Cowboys are on the way back down from last year back to the 9-10 wins range they were in from 2003 to 2006. The Redskins are bouncing along right where they've been since 2005 (somewhere between 5 and 11 wins). The Eagles are also bouncing along, it looks like, between 6 and 10 wins right now. The only team that has taken a step forward from where they were is the Giants, and they'll be coming back down to earth next year, just like the Cowboys did this year.

50 teams have won 13+ games since 1978, 15 of them winning the Super Bowl. But only six have repeated the feat of winning 13+ games the next year - '86 Bears, '90 49ers, '91 Bills, '97 Packers, '00 Titans, '04 Patriots - the only Super Bowl winner among them. Only 12 others won so much as 11 or 12 games - '84 Redskins, '85 Dolphins, '85 Broncos, '92 Bills, '93 Cowboys, '95 49ers, '97 Broncos, '98 49ers, '98 Packers, '05 Steelers, '06 Colts, '07 Chargers, and there's only 4 Super Bowl winners among them.

The Giants are up right now and have been since 2005, just like the Eagles have been down. Next year, the Giants will be coming back down to earth after their probable choke somewhere along the way to their annointing. This is just the way things work in the NFL. When the Giants come back down, someone else is going to have a chance to go up, and the Eagles have as good a shot at that as anyone else in the NFC other than the NFC West bottom feeders.

Its people who have no sense of the history of the NFL who are the most negative nellies. The rest of us are more sanguine about the abilities of coaches and the like to affect a game that is decided to a great degree by chance and injuries. If it were not, teams would not fall in that same range of 850 to 1100 plays (which means 850 to 1100 chances to score) per year, year in and year out no matter how good or bad they are.

[BFH]

AndrewB:

That luck (injuries, bounce of the ball, weather, etc) plays a big role in any NFL team's season I won't deny.

But I think I disagree with you a bit on the degree to which it affects teams.

I do not subscribe to the "cyclical" theory you described. I want the Eagles to be good a lot more often than they are bad. I believe it is possible when you make more good choices than bad, with sustained competence both from the coaching staff and the front office.

If I didn't believe that, I probably wouldn't care as much about the NFL as I do (sadly, as my wife would argue).

I think when a segment of the organization starts hitting below expectations then they need to be seriously evaluated. Bad luck can be part of that evaluation.

[Eric]

I think if you hit well in a few drafts, you can make a 4 to 5 year run. The Giants are in there right now. They hit on a lot of 4th round and later guys that are producing possibly well above what they really should be and will in the future. This isn't to bash the Giants and my opinion is probably bias anyway.

However, guys like Ward and Hixon, as examples, are producing far above what any NFL scout probably could have imagined. So the Giants will ride these guys for a few years until they can't afford them anymore and they'll have to trust their drafts in '09, '10, etc. can replace these guys.

This is in contrast to probably what the Jets are doing. They are producing big right now because of the free agents they brought in. How long will their run last with a bunch of FAs that are a year or two away from retiring? It's sort of all being held together with bubble gum and elmer's glue. So I wouldn't be surprised if the Jets make their run this year and probably fall to .500 next year or worse.