Looking Back, Looking Forward

I swear, at some point I'll try to say something useful about the Dallas game, but for now my schedule's still screwed up and I'm still on the road.  So a few other topics I've been meaning to get to recently:

Not to re-open the Macho debate, but did you see the hit on returner Johnny Knox during the Bears/Vikings game?  Knox had tripped himself and was on the ground.  One of the Vikings' special teams players came flying in and crushed him at an awkward angle, bending Knox backwards across his leg.  He was carted off the field.  There was no flag.

Fortunately, the injury was just a bad sprain.  He's done for the year, but it looked a lot worse.

Announcer Mike Tirico defended the hit, saying these types of plays are perfectly legal because the runner isn't down.  That's wrong.  If a dude's lying on the ground, you can't just fly in and blast him.  Maybe you could 20 years ago, but not these days.  That's why you see safeties just touching receivers down when they make a diving catch in the middle of the field.

On the one hand, the play illustrated the arbitrary nature of NFL officiating.  The hit was late and unnecessary, but it wasn't penalized, whereas Macho's was.  On the other hand, it also illustrates why the unnecessary roughness sanction is a good rule, if it's used to cut out these types of plays.  Imagine if that had been DeSean Jackson.

It will be interesting to see how the fines come down later this week. (UPDATE:  Macho fined $7,500.  Thank you, Larry.)

Rich Hofmann posted an interesting take on DeSean a couple weeks ago.  The gist was that as amazing as Jackson has been, we shouldn't forget that he hasn't really surpassed a couple of ex-Eagles in terms of single-season production.  Quick and Owens both had better years.  Hoffman called it "a dose of historical perspective."

It's not really a controversial point, but it's interesting what a difference a couple weeks can make.  Those comparisons are starting to get pretty darn close:

 
^{_{(stats courtesy Pro Football Reference)}}

Hofmann just concentrates on the receiving stats, but I see no reason not to include rushing numbers in the comparison.  They're all yards from scrimmage.

Also, we're not talking about Jackson's amazing season as a punt returner either.  That's fair for an apples-to-apples comparison, but then I think at least some allowance needs to be made for the fact that neither one of these guys did return punts.  It's easier to be "just" a receiver when that's all you do.  Jackson really is in amazing shape.

Of course, the one big advantage the other guys had was in the red zone.  Owens was much more productive in that area in 2004.  That's definitely an area where DeSean -- and the playcalling -- can improve in the future.

Speaking of statistical predictions, let's take a look at how I did with this pre-season fantasy-themed post.  I think I nailed the McNabb and Vick discussions, although my McNabb numbers edged a little high.  Not just because of the 2.5 games lost to injury, but pretty close.

My DJax guess is going to end up being pretty close too.  This seems like a no-brainer now, but we quickly forget what the CW was a few months ago.  Jackson was the one player my friends who play FF most often asked my opinions about.  Compare ESPN's pre-draft projection with his actual FF production to see what I mean.

I also was correct in warning away from Westbrook, but a) that's not that impressive a call and b) even then, I was too optimistic in what we might see from him.  Injuries were behind some of my miss on Maclin, too.  I didn't realize we'd be getting almost zero Kevin Curtis this year.  Still, after watching Maclin this season, he clearly was worth more than "maybe ... a late round keeper."

On the non-injury front, I was badly mistaken on the defense and Celek.  The defense -- due to a plethora of forced turnovers -- has actually been the reverse of what I expected.  It's been a better fantasy defense than real one.

And on Celek, well, it's not the worst call I ever made, but it's up there.

Here's one note on Dallas.  This is sort of interesting:

If you carefully examine the Eagles and Cowboys, you'll find that they are two of the most evenly matched teams in the NFL.

The Eagles are ranked third in points scored with 429; The Cowboys are third in points allowed with 250. The Eagles have outscored their opponents by 116 points. The Cowboys have outscored their opponents by 87.

Sounds like a pretty classic offense/defense match-up, right?  We score a lot, they're tough to score on.

What's weird, though, is the FO stats covering the same stuff.  FO will tell you that the Eagles actually have a significantly* better (more efficient) defense, while the Cowboys have a significantly* better offense.

As a final thought, if you're looking for pessimistic indicators, compare the "weighted" values on defense and offense.  That's FO's way of looking at more recent performance.  The defensive gap shrinks almost to nothing, while the offensive gap remains.

---

* In a non-statistical sense.