I'll Be Surprised If Jackson Doesn't Play

A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose, but if we've learned anything over the years it's that not all concussions are the same and not all players react to concussions the same way.

The problem right now for the League -- and, this week, the Eagles -- is that the distinctions are being lost now that "concussion" has become a dirty word.  In fact, in my line of work, this is when we start thinking about some alternate terminology.*

Leaving aside the medical issues for a moment -- since I have no expertise there -- it's still pretty apparent that even if there's additional risk in coming back "too soon," for a wide receiver those risks are a) smaller and b) much more mitigatable.  If you want to protect DeSean, just keep him on the outside and don't have him return punts.  You lose something that way, but it's not as if safeties are going to stop paying attention to the league's most dangerous weapon.  His legs still work.

You can't do that with a running back.  He's going to touch the ball three to four times as often, and most of the time he'll be doing his work inside in the dangerous area where there's no running out of bounds.

Will DeSean play if his head's still screwed up on Sunday?  No, not unless he's willing to lie and is a very good actor.  But if his concussion isn't really that bad and it's more of a 50-50 call, you're giving the nod to a guy like DeSean over a guy like Westbrook every time.

---

* Let's see, what does Wikipedia say?  "Mild Traumatic Brain Injury."  Hmmm, I like the mild part, although "traumatic" and "brain injury" aren't so good.  "Minor Head Trauma"?  Head is better than brain, although there's still that trauma thing.  The MTBI acronym isn't bad, just because it kind of obscures everything.  Hmmm ... what about, "Cranial Deceleration Effects"?  Just a mild case of CDE, man, anyone can play through that. 

Although with that said, this is terrifying.

---

If DeSean can't go, I wouldn't mind getting a Jordan Norwood sighting, the case for which Les Bowen makes today in the Daily News.  (My family pointed out over Thanksgiving that I'd been getting a little lazy with my cites.  Ok then.)

For the non-PSU fans, Norwood is sort of a cross between DeSean Jackson and Jason Avant.  That is, he's small like Jackson and slow like Avant. 

But he's also tough like Jackson and has good hands and courage over the middle like Avant.  He might surprise some people out there.

---

Regarding the suprise onsides-kick last Sunday, this analysis from Brian at Advanced NFL Stats is kicking around the fanbase:

Reid was my goat of the year for 2008 for the season's single worst 4th down decision, but today he's my hero of the day (or at least for the 1st quarter of the 1 pm games). Reid started the game with an unexpected onside kick, which is an underused but very worthwhile tactic.

If you follow that last link, you'll find a detailed numerical analysis of why surprise OSKs are a play with a positive expected value outcome.  It's a terrific analysis, as usual, but the only thing it really tells us is that surprise OSKs are in general a good play.  It doesn't in any way end the argument over whether or not the specific OSK on Sunday was smart.

Let's leave aside for the moment any discussion over the percentages involved.  Those always go the same way and they're pretty boring -- "Your overwhelming statistical evidence says it's 60 percent, but I watch these guys every week and I just know it's less than that."  Blah blah.  Whatever, we'll just accept the numbers as they are.

The problem WITHIN the context of the Redskins game is that the Eagles were playing an inferior team that was badly beaten down by injuries.  In that situation, you don't try to get cute.  Stay away from the high variance plays and wage a war of attrition.  There's nothing wrong with going all Ulysses S. Grant on people when you have to.

The problem OUTSIDE the context of the Redskins game is an issue Brian himself identifies:

The catch is that teams can’t do this very often. The key is that the onside attempt is unexpected. As soon as a team is known for sneaky onside kicks, its success rate will go down. But this isn’t such a bad thing. As opponents are forced to respect the threat of an onside kick, their normal kick return blocking will suffer, allowing overall net kickoff distance to improve.

Emphasis added.  The Eagles have now put all remaining opponents on notice that they need to stop cheating on their kick return responsibilities.  That's a bad thing, because there are some hypothetical opponents coming up where the Eagles are going to need something like a surprise OSK much more than they did against the Redskins.  (And I don't find the last two sentences all that persuasive, but I left them in there because it's his argument.  Even still, the minor overall edge we can pick up on every kick is less important than the one-shot edge we could have needed and gotten over a team like the Saints.  We're trying to win the NFCCG, not pad our regular season point differential.)

But, you might argue, this was a close game.  The Eagles ended up needing every last advantage to win.

Well, yeah, because of the stupid onsides kick.  Taking Brian's numbers as the starting point, a regular kickoff sets the other team up to score an average of 0.7 points.  Even if we just accept the average as the correct number here, that means you take away the initial touchdown (-7) and add in the expected points off a kickoff (we'll call it +1) and the Eagles win 27-18.

And then my blowout gut feeling looks less stupid too.

- - - - - -

Relatedly, you'll love the picture Brian chose for this post.