The "Talent" Question

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.

Comments

[shlynch]

I have to disagree with your conclusion that it is talent that makes the difference for this team. Great talent can hide bad coaching, but bad coaching can make good talent look bad. I think that is what is happening now, and think that even more strongly after reading your piece. I come away from the read with a few notes about where the problem lies:

1) It isn't really the personnel department. They have given the coaches reasonable alternatives across the board, pretty much. Are there enough blue chips? I debate whether that is really a valid question, but the lack of huge holes certainly offsets that.

2) There should be a question of whether the staff is developing talent well enough, or using the talent that the personnel department gives them. For example, look at Klecko. Turns out that the personnel department might have been right, he was a fine solution at FB if you give him time to learn the new role. But the coaching staff wouldn't give him a chance. Rocky Boiman is doing an ok job starting in KC right now; would have made a nice backup to Gocong at SAM at this point, yes? Etc.

3) The offensive coaching staff isn't good enough to take a team without glaring weaknesses and a couple of stars and use it to be a very good team.

For example, who is a dominant talent on the Pats' offense right now? Moss and Welker, right? Is that much different than Westbrook and Jackson? Moss' relative production drop is similar to Westbrook's. You might argue about the lines, but the Pats have had holes as well, they are just well-enough coached that the backups like Billy Yates can step in and play seamlessly. It isn't talent -- it is deployment. And they use leftovers at RB at this point -- Sammy Morris? BenJarvus Green-Ellis? A 32-yo Kevin Faulk? No problem, even with injuries to LaMont Jordan and Lawrence Maroney, they still have success running the ball. And I can't wait to see the Matt Cassel trainwreck next year for a new franchise. They were flexible on offense, tailored the game plans to what their players could execute, and somehow they have fired up a reinvented offense that has been increasingly effective.

Blue chips are nice, and they make the scheming easier. Good players make their coaches look better. But I really wonder if the Eagles get the most out of the hand that they have. I suspect that their hand is good enough, especially now, late in the year when other teams are banged up and the Eagles are really very healthy on a relative basis. I just don't think this team is getting the most out of its assets.

[Eric]

I think we can all agree that all NFL teams are 90% made and driven by role players. As you said, other than maybe 3 guys, this team has nothing outside of role players. Which is very low in comparison to many other teams.

I don't even know if I can list Bradley as above average right now (and, hell, he better become dominant, I have his jersey!)

And I've never been a big "we need a go-to receiver guy", but I think the best thing for DeSean right now is this team to have someone that commands the middle of the field. Whether that be Baskett or another "bigger" receiver or a premiere TE. Someone has to clear out those safeties for him because he's obviously winning his 1 on 1 match-ups almost every week. Let's not bring up the fact that Donovan seems to lately be under-throwing to him routinely.

"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."

Is the latter part true? Who could this team have drafted that we could possibly say is a "stud" right now? I guess this team passed on a bunch of linemen that could be starting right now (Staley, Grubbs, Blalock, etc.) But other than linement, I don't see anyone else that has become much of an impact player Poz and Woodley on the defensive side.

But I also think that's true with any pick you miss out on. If Kolb sucks then it was bad, if he doesn't, then it's good.

I think the greater question is, what do we expect from Kolb? Do we expect top 5 QB or are we happy with top 15 surrounded by a good defense?

[Derek]

> I debate whether that is really a valid question,
> but the lack of huge holes certainly offsets that.

I wrote this around six other things and it just didn't come out as organized as I wanted. So I'm not surprised that it's not as clear as I was going for.

My #1 point in that whole mess up above is that not having holes does NOT offset not having enough playmakers.

In 2006, the Patriots had pretty good offensive talent across the board, one of the two best QBs in the league and an accomplished offensive coaching staff. They finished as the 11th ranked offense.

On 2007, the Patriots had the same QB and the same coaches, but they went out and got Wes Welker, Randy Moss and Donte Stallworth. The resulting offensive explosion is still setting off aftershocks in Timbuktu.

You can't just be solid. You have to have enough guys who are great.

[Eric]

Spadaro actually said today that he'd like to see another DT on this team next year. Preferably a bigger guy.

I'm sort of bewildered that no one has really made a big deal of this that this team actually only has 3 DTs with Abiamiri subbing in some. Which I think is a very bad thing considering when Bunk went down on Sunday, you had basically two guys huffing it out against a very active running team. Luckily, they still held up, but Victor shouldn't be counted on to contribute in there as 3rd DT.

[Derek]

The burned in my brain image from the first Cowboys game is how our defense worked when every guy did his job perfectly within the scheme and their defense worked when one guy threw his man out of the way and made a play.

That's not coaching. At all. That's just "Can you beat the guy in front of you?"

Not enough guys on the Eagles can.

[Sudhir]

While I agree to the most part. But off late I am inclined towards the school of thought which suggests that our WRs are closer to being the weak links rather than studs or even average. When I watch other games closely, I am amazed to see how most other WRs are able to get the amount of separation. And no I am not talking about the Boldins, TOs or Toomers. I am talking about 2nd stringers like Smiths, Gaffneys et al. Even when our WRs get any separation, its so small that there is no room for YAC. Secondly, our WRs are leading the league in dropped passes, (i know that stat might be skewed given the way Mcnabb has been throwing the ball lately).I bet YAC for Eagles WRs would be an interesting stat to look at.

[shlynch]

In 2006, the Patriots WRs were a disaster. A total disaster. It was a huge, gaping hole. It was so bad that Jabar Gaffney, who couldn't make the Eagles, was easily their best WR by the end of the year. They shuttled guys in and out weekly. Nobody feared the pass, even with Tom Brady. Teams cheated against the run. Really, it made the early AR years Eagle WR corps look deep. Put Matt Cassel on that team and they would set offensive football back 100 years.

By the way, according to FO, the Pats had the 6th rated offense in 2006. So there is some legitimate debate about how far ahead the big 3 WRs really put the Pats. Even without a drop of WR talent on the team.

With a catastrophic injury to their all-everything QB this year forcing them to reinvent their offense [imagine, they fundamentally changed their offense based on the limitations of the players] around a very different leader, they were still 15th through last week according to FO -- and that should jump a bit this week as the team hits its stride in the new offense.

Now, the Pats are a bad example. I truly believe that they have the best coach in the league in terms of getting the most out of what he has, and everyone suffers by comparison. But they are the clearest illustration of the point, IMHO.

[Derek]

I just looked at the Pats numbers for 2007/2008.

Last year they passed 586 times and ran 481 times.

This year they're on pace to pass 545 times and run 496 times.

Factor in the +30 on pass plays from Cassel getting sacked 50 times (vs. 21 for Brady) and those numbers don't look all that different.

And hasn't Cassel put up back to back 400-yard games?

[BFH]

Is there a player who epitomizes the "not bad, but not good enough" notion better than Kevin Curtis?

Curtis had nice quantitative statistics last year. Over 1000 yards. Decent YPC.

But when it's 3rd and 8, Shawn Springs has him in press coverage, and this team really needs him to get open -- he's going to lose that battle more than he'll win it.

[shlynch]

Cassel has been attempting and completing shorter passes, especially until the last two weeks when they took the wraps off. They dialed back the passing attack to more ball control to make sure that the new guy learned the offense. They adjusted. Combine that with the large number of blowouts that the Pats had in 2007, and the stats support what anyone who has watched the team the past two years would see: the Pats offensive strategy is very different in 2008 than it was in 2007. No, they didn't become the Steelers. But they made a significant adjustment to accommodate the strengths of the talent in place rather than forcing the talent in place to fit a preconception of a scheme.

[whoismariowilliams]

BFH, that's a perfect example.

[BFH]

Derek -- I'm being kind of tongue and cheek here, but didn't #5 essentially make this exact argument (albeit with 80% less words) here:

http://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/Lets_Add_Some_Weapons/63574

[BFH]

To everyone talking about the Patriots and their ability to plug people into the system -- they are still pretty damn loaded with undeniably "elite" guys.

Moss, Welker, a few guys on the O-line.

One the defensive side they still have Seymour, and Wilfork -- two guys who are better than anything the Eagles have.

The difference between 11-0 and 7-4 is injuries and free agency (Samuel).

[Paul]

Part of me wants to bag Andy right now and start the process over. Mostly becsause I think that if he sticks around, we could be stuck in 10-6/9-7 mediocrity for the next 4-5 years.

The other part of me wants to see if he can go 2 for 2 with QB's and give him a shot developing Kolb. If I were Lurie I would keep him around on 2 conditions.

1) He gives up his power as general manager. We need someone in here who has a better vision of the team, 2 or 3 years down the line. If we had someone like this recently, I don't think we would've gone 2 years without a 1st round pick.

2) Bring in a bright young offensive mind for an assistant and possible play caller. I don't think this would ever happen because Andy seems to need COMPLETE control over the team, but having another offensive mind to throw ideas in (especially with AR's pass happy offense) would never hurt. You could give this person some made up title if you wanted. Many we already have one in Whipple (sp?), but if not, go get one. If he shows promise, let him call the offensive plays and be as creative as AR was 6 years ago (remember Detmer being spread out as WR?).

I doubt Andy would give in to those 2 conditions. Because of that, I think Lurie will have to play hardball, but the bottom line is, it needs to be done.

Oh, and one more condition...HIRE A CLOCK MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST. Pay some math guru/football nut 20k a year to stand on the sideline with a pen, pencil, and calculator to tell you when to call timeout and when not to call timeout.

[BFH]

"Oh, and one more condition...HIRE A CLOCK MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST. Pay some math guru/football nut..."

Or, you know, any 15 year-old with Madden experience.

[Colin]

This post basically argues Andy should be fired, and I think you're right.

1) Every one agrees he hasn't brought in enough studs, especially compared to the other teams in the NFC East. Worse, he has deferred picks that have the highest "Stud Percentage" when the team didn't have enough talent.

2) One of the implications of this article is that one of a personnel guy's big jobs is making sure there aren't weak links on the roster, because those are liabilities. Andy has consistently failed there: kick and punt return last season, fullback, tight end this season.

3) Andy's system plays into the hands of teams with more studs, because throwing a ton lengthens the game and failing short yardage gives the talented teams' studs more opportunities to jack up the Birds' average players. Andy either doesn't know enough about his team, or won't adjust to reality.

Basically, he gots to go.

[Coatesvillain]

I believe it was Jimmy Johnson who said you should always be looking to upgrade on talent. It's a stance I've always agreed with, yet it's also a stance that is diametrically opposed to the Eagles approach. The Eagles have spent years locking up solid players long term, and used it to argue that the window of opportunity was open for longer than it was.

I'm starting to think the best answer for this team is perhaps for Reid to concede some of his power. As it stands right now he has completely too much on his plate. Not only is he the coach, but he's the president of football operations, and he has his share in the play calling. That's too much in my opinion.

[Andrew B]

Another way to look at it - Hall of Famers.

Who, on the 2000-2006 Eagles struck you as a potential Hall of Famer, looking back now?

I can only think of four - McNabb, Dawkins, Brian Mitchell, and Tra Thomas. And maybe Andy Reid.

That's not enough to win.

[Coatesvillain]

This isn't the 70's, the 80's or even early 90's. You're not going to have a roster chock full of Hall of Fame caliber players over a six year period.

I think what Derek is saying here is that the team needs to up the talent level but I don't think he's saying stock it full of HOFers. That's not feasible.

[quest4fire85]

You need to compare the Eagles to other teams that have drafted better. The Giants and Steelers are examples of drafting well and not relying as much on free agency signings to fill in the gaps. Face it, AR and his personnel people have not drafted as well as other teams. Yes they have made some very good picks but the Giants and Steelers have made more. With the parity and injuries in this league, it is the difference between being 12-4 and 4-12.

Another way to look at it is how come teams like the Raiders and Lions have been drafting out of the top 10 each round of the draft for a few years but are still terrible while teams that have historically drafted in the bottom tier of the draft in each round like the Steelers are still in a Super Bowl hunt almost every year?

In terms of the Eagles personnel department, I would rate them middle of the pack in the league. Improvements need to be made in that area. Did AR lose some scouts since that Super Bowl Season? Was Modrak better than Heckert? What is really happening in the Eagles War room?

[Derek]

In the last 10 years, the Steelers have five seasons of 10+ wins. The Giants have four.

The Eagles have six, all in the last eight.

There are clearly issues with the current team, but we have to be careful about going too far in believing everything they've done is wrong or that everything the teams that are good right now did has been right.

[Eric]

But the Eagles played in the weak NFC and NFC East so... oh, wait... the Giants are there.

Let me come up with another idea.

[quest4fire85]

Derek, 10 years is too wide a timeframe...this is the Not For Long League (NFL). How about the last 3 years and this year's current record?

NYG
2008: 10-1
2007: 10-6
2006: 8-8
2005: 11-5

Steelers:
2008: 8-3
2007: 10-6
2006: 8-8
2005: 11-5

Eagles:
2008: 5-5-1
2007: 8-8
2006: 10-6
2005: 6-10

If the season ended today, the Eagles would have 1 winning season in the last 4 years. That winning season was because Garcia saved our azzes. We were 5-6 before he went on a tear, winning 5 straight.

The Steelers & Giants would have 3 winning seasons.

[Colin_K]

I tend to agree with the assessment of not enough elite talent, but my concern is with scheme.

It's been said numerous times that most teams script their first 15 plays before the game...you could see that they had a gameplan and went out and executed in the game against the skins (the rest of the game was hard to watch).

I havn't seen them dominate and be imaginative in that way since then (except for maybe the heavy package with Herremans catching the touch against the Hawks). Maybe it has to do with health, or personnel, but I think that to be imaginative in the play calling is one thing...but the opposing defenses seem to be one step ahead of the Andy/Marty.

What happened to the slants and the split back runs? I believe this offense doesn't have an identity...are they a west coast offense? Not anymore. Are they a spread offense? To a degree, but they don't commit to it like other teams. They obviously aren't a power rush team.

I don't see them use the spread and run from it or a max protect formation and pass. Basically, if they line up in a passing formation, they pass. It's not hard for me to see it, and its not even my job to figure this out.

To end this rant I think there needs to be a strong opposing voice in there for Reid on the offensive side of the ball.

I mean a bootleg pass on 2nd and goal after you've been stuffed on first down on a power rush? How predictable is that? Why not 4 wide spread (2 on each side with one motioning) with Klecko split back next to McNabb (or whoever) in the shotgun and call a counter to the weak side with a run?

[Derek]

Why not just do one year? Or the last game?

Teams cycle in the NFL, but the Eagles' team-building approach has been mostly consistent for a decade. It makes more sense to evaluate their full body of work rather than just focusing on the flavor of the month.

No one would argue that the Eagles have drafted better than the Giants the last couple years. But maybe that's just normal variation.

[Andrew B]

Coatesvillian:

Of course you can stock a roster with Hall of Famers. The same number of guys today are going to get into the Hall as got in from the 1970's and 1980's.

The 1999-2003 Rams were stocked with talent Kurt Warner, Orlando Pace, Tory Holt, Marshall Faulk, Dre' Bly, Isaac Bruce, Aeneas Williams. The 2001-2004 Patriots had Brady, Adam Vinatieri, Richard Seymour, Rodney Harrison, Mike Vrabel, Willie McGinnest, Ty Law.

[Andrew B]

quest4fire85:

The Eagles are a net donor by a significant margin of talent to the rest of the league. By this, I mean that they uncover more NFL caliber players in the draft and undrafted free agency than can be reasonably rostered on the team, so they have to let some go; and of those let go, they outnumber by 2:1 the number of free agents that they pick up and keep. Right now, there are 26 such ex-Eagles on other NFL rosters vs. 13 free agents from elsewhere on the Eagles roster.

Currently, 5 Eagles starters were free agents - Runyan, Samuel, Klecko, Parker, and Curtis, plus Baskett, depending on how you count trades. The 2007 Eagles had 7 free agent starters: Curtis, Schobel, Runyan, Kearse, Parker, Spikes, and James. In 2006 it was also 7: Garcia, Stallworth, Runyan, Kearse, Howard, Walker, and Jones, plus Baskett if you want to count him.

The Giants, to use one of your examples, have had plenty of free agents on their roster. In 2008 they have used 9 free agents as starters: Burress, O'Hara, Hedgecock, McKenzie, Robbins, Pierce, Clark, Ward, and Hixon.

In 2007, the Giants also had 9 free agent starters. Burress, O'Hara, Hedgecock, McKenzie, Robbins, Pierce, Mitchell, Ward, and Madison.

The 2006 Giants had 13 free agent starters. Burress, O'Hara, Finn, Whitfield, McKenzie, Robbins, Pierce, Arrington, Emmons, Mitchell, McQuarters, Demps, and Madison.

Don't you people ever check the facts before you spout off this craptacular nonsense? I mean, you aren't just wrong about "the Eagles draft bad and need a lot of free agents but the Giants draft well and don't", but you are spectacularly wrong and actually have it completely backwards! The Eagles consistently have used 50% fewer free agents than the Giants as starters, because the Eagles have drafted better than the Giants.

[BFH]

Andrew B -- Again, your facts are appreciated, especially because they do refute the obviously ignorant "the Eagles can't draft" notion. But there is some nuance to those facts you avoid.

Yes, the Eagles have drafted a relatively high number of NFL caliber players, which fills their own roster and other teams. But there's more to it than that.

What happens to those players after the draft? Do they develop into "elite" players, since we're using that term? Do the Eagles keep them?

For free agency moves that we should hail (Runyan, Owens) there are also disasters (letting Burgess go in lieu of Howard/Kearse, Schobel, James).

Again, nothing is black and white. And a firm grasp of the facts is the most important part of any evaluation, so I'm glad you're around.

[quest4fire85]

Andrew B:

You missed my point and misinterpreted my statement.

All I said is that the Steelers and Giants drafted real well these last 4 years, names like Bradshaw, Jacobs, Tuck, have played significant number of games very early in their careers, even some have started in their Rookie year for the Giants.

If you compare the Eagles and the Giants you will see that the Giants have more players contributing earlier than the Eagles.

Check those facts. Do your research.

What are your "facts" about the Steelers? I have noticed you conveniently left them out your remarks. D

Also my comments were not about free agency, just the draft.

[johnnyshaka]

quest4fire85:

Giants' who have been primary starters in at least one season and were drafted in last 4 years:

Jacobs (05)
Tuck (05)
Webster (05)
Cofield (06)
Kiwanuka (06)
Ross (07)
Boss (07)
Phillips (08)

Eagles' who have been primary starters in at least one season and were drafted in last 4 years:

Cole (05)
Herremans (05)
Considine (05)
McCoy (05)
Brown (05)
Patterson (05)
Gaiter (06)
Gocong (06)
Bunkley (06)
Bradley (07)
Jackson (08)

Couple of notes...Giants had one more first round pick than the Eagles during this time period. MJG will likely start the remainder of the season and will therefore qualify for this list. Trent Cole is the only Pro-Bowler out of any player drafted by either team during this period.

Would we want Jacobs on our team...sure. Would you rather have him over Westbrook...probably not. Who would you rather have, Cole, Kiwanuka, or Tuck...I'll take Cole, thank you very much.

Also, not too sure why you mentioned Bradshaw as somebody who's played a significant number of games considering he's only got 75 career touches in 23 games.

[quest4fire85]

Johnnyshaka:

This is good information. It appears the 2005 class for AR was a very good one. While the others leave much to be desired and/or too early to tell.

Listing guys that are no longer with the team like McCoy is a bit of a stretch though but they did make early appearances.

Bradshaw has made appearances with no touches...similar to how we use Buckhalter ;)

[quest4fire85]

Johnnyshaka:

This is good information. It appears the 2005 class for AR was a very good one. While the others leave much to be desired and/or too early to tell.

Listing guys that are no longer with the team like McCoy is a bit of a stretch though but they did make early appearances.

Bradshaw has made appearances with no touches...similar to how we use Buckhalter ;)

BFH:

Andy Reid has gotten more pro-bowl appearances per year from players he either drafted, signed in undrafted free agency, or brought in as a free agent prior to them ever making a pro-bowl than any other coach active in the NFL. And the Eagles resign more of their players they draft and develop than the vast majority of other NFL teams.

The only thing I've ever noticed is lacking in Reid's players and talent evaluation is a shortage of the very upper echelon of players, such as are named to the All-Pro teams. The Eagles have consistently lacked this caliber of player in any quantity, where the player at that position is the single best player in the entire NFL at that position. Westbrook in 2007, Shawn Andrews in 2006, and Dawkins in 2006, 2004, 2002, and 2001, Sheppard in 2004, Owens in 2004, Vincent in 2002, Akers in 2001, Douglas and Trotter in 2000 are the only Eagles under Reid who've gotten that acclaim. That's not enough consistency, total numbers in any one year, and a real lack of players on the lines who have been "best of the best". Notice, too, that in 2004, we had three such players and we made the Super Bowl.

[Andrew Byler]

quest4fire85:

I didn't conveniently leave out the Steelers. I have a life and have other things to do. And you certainly did make it about drafting and the free agency. You said:

"The Giants and Steelers are examples of drafting well and not relying as much on free agency signings to fill in the gaps."

Which I showed was not true for the Giants. Now the Steelers. I agree the Steelers are a superior team at drafting compared to the rest of the NFL. Over time, they've been even or slightly ahead of the Eagles in this regard.

The 2008 Steelers have 7 free agents who started. Carey Davis, Byron Leftwich, James Farrior, Ryan Clark, Mewelde Moore, Tyrone Carter, Justin Hartwig

The 2007 Steelers had 6 free agent starters. Carey Davis, Sean Mahan, James Farrior, Tyrone Carter, Nick Eason and Ryan Clark.

The 2006 Steelers had 4 free agent starters. Cedrick Wilson, Jeff Hartings, James Farrior, Ryan Clark.

The Eagles went 10-6 in 2006 and 8-8 in 2007. The Steelers and Giants did the opposite. This year, it looks like the Giants will have the best record, the Steelers second best, and the Eagles the worst. Next year will probably be different again, just like 2005 and 2004 were wildly different for these three teams.

You are too obssessed with the short term success of the Giants and looking for some sort of magic bullet fix that they've done to make the Eagles better. There's nothing wrong with the Eagles that some better O-line, safety, and SAM play, a few lucky breaks with injuries and timing of bad plays, and a little more consistent execution can't solve. Its not like we're the Raiders or Lions when it comes to drafting.

[Andrew Byler]

One more thing to keep in mind. A team's only got 53 roster spots. When you consider that you get 8 draft picks per year, plus that most teams get at least a player or two per year via, waivers, trades, undrafted free agency and practice squad signings (the Eagles currently have 8 such players), plus that most teams sign at least a few free agents every year, a team is doing really good to hold on to three players from each draft class (plus undrafted free agents practice squaders and waiver claims) after their 4 year rookie contract is up. If you hold on to too many more, you simply fill up your roster with veterans and are wasting your draft picks on guys you have to cut to make the 53 man roster.

The Eagles currently have, excluding free agents, 1 player from 1996, 1998, and 1999 2004, 2 from 2001, 3 from 2002, 4 from 2003, 1 from 2004, 5 from 2005, 7 from 2006, 5 from 2007, 6 from 2008 (with 3 additional redshirt IR cases). The year that really sticks out like a sore thumb from that list is 2004, where we gave up our 2nd round pick to get Andrews, and where we needed to do much better with players like Matt Ware, Thomas Tapeh, JR Reed, and Trey Darilek (or someone else we might have drafted in their place).