Would Reid Go Down With McNabb?

Since Donovan McNabb came to Philly, he's been benched just once by Andy Reid.  This is in contrast to the handful of benchings he's been given by the press and the dozens of sitdowns by a certain segment of quick-hooked fans.

On every occasion, I have defended McNabb.  Said there's no way he deserved to sit.  Said also that there's no way he would sit. 

Things have changed.

This isn't because of Michael Vick.  For this team, Vick is a curiosity, not a quarterback.  His boom and bust style -- perfectly suited to a handful of Wildcat plays each week -- doesn't work for the Eagles' ball control passing game. 

You think it's maddening watching McNabb or Kevin Kolb miss some easy throws?  Put Vick behind center and you'll quickly go from "quirky" to "cuckoo's nest."

No, if Mike Vick is ever the starting quarterback for this team, we'll officially have to create a new posting category -- Pitchers And Catchers.

The issue for McNabb has rarely been one of performance.  It's instead been a wandering eye or what Jason Whitlock would call the lure of strange t-- ok, no, we'll stick with wandering eye.

It is a statement of fact that Donovan McNabb is not a Super Bowl winning quarterback.  Whether you see that statement as declaratory or explanatory is up to you, but if McNabb hasn't / can't / won't win a Super Bowl, it's understandable that NotMcNabb might have some appeal.

And boy, do we have an intriguing new NotMcNabb.

Kevin Kolb bears none of the baggage of the former heirs apparent.  He's not a mid-round pick getting by more on guile than talent (Feeley).  He's not older than McNabb (Garcia).  He's not a ridiculously undersized eccentric the team keeps around because he makes the field goal kicker look buff (Koy). 

And he doesn't suck (McMahon). 

Since the day he was drafted, Kevin Kolb has been the future of this team.  We didn't -- and still don't -- know if that future will be a new golden era or a short, miserable, colossal failure.  But we do know it's coming.

That Kolb can play quarterback in this league is now apparent to anyone who isn't so invested in defending McNabb that they've forgotten "objective reality" was the reason they started defending him in the first place.  And this, as they say, changes everything.

It was one thing for Reid to stick with McNabb through his struggles in the past.  For starters, the momentary hiccups were as predictable as the changing leaves.  We even started referring to it around here as McNabb's "patented two-game stretch of puzzlingly bad play" (or PTGSOPBP for short).  McNabb always came out of the funk in the end.  And, most importantly, there was never an obviously better choice anywhere on the roster. 

McNabb, and Reid, no longer have that luxury.  Last year, when Reid benched McNabb and inserted Kolb against the Ravens, it was the equivalent of a Hail Mary pass.  We had little reason to believe a guy who hadn't taken a snap in anger in three months was going to do better than a struggling McNabb.  And he didn't. 

This year, that's out the window.  Kolb has been the starting quarterback for 10 quarters now.  He's been taking the first team reps.  For now, he's still looking towards Tampa Bay as if he will be the starter. 

Kolb is now not just talented -- he's also prepared.

What this means for Reid is that he now knows he has a better option than (hypothetical) struggling McNabb.  And we know he knows that.  And, most importantly, his bosses know he knows that.

If McNabb comes back, plays well and stays healthy, Reid is off the hook.  No one will criticize him for sticking with McNabb just because Kolb had a couple of 300-yard games.

But if McNabb starts to struggle or has some issues with his health, Reid will face the toughest decision of his career.  Does he bench McNabb and go to his successor?  Or does he stick with McNabb, pray he turns things around, and quite possibly go down with the ship if he doesn't?

Right now, out of the moment, this seems like an easy decision -- you stick with McNabb.  But in December ... if the Giants are pulling away ... and we've dropped one winnable game and seem on our way to another ... and locker room voices* start questioning who's on the field ...

That's not going to be so easy. 

None of this is an argument that the Eagles will or should bench Donovan.  He is still the better player.  The experience factor is huge.  It's one thing to take down Kansas City in September, it's something else to be playing in the Meadowlands in December.  The best case scenario remains good health and great play from our #1 guy.

At the same time, in the same way that replacing McNabb in the past created problems -- think "bittersweet" and "Thanks, Jeff, for the great season, now don't let the door hit you on the way out" -- replacing him now solves them, by putting a date certain on when the future starts and eliminating all those pesky questions about who should be extended when.

And if you're Jeff Lurie and Joe Banner, with your undeviating focus on the long-term sustainability of your franchise, well then, those are nice problems to have go away.

This summer, McNabb's new contract seemed to finally fix a firm deadline for the current quarterback on delivery of that elusive Super Bowl win.  McNabb's injury, combined with Kolb's successful audition, just altered the terms of that deal.

Pray it's not altered any further.⁺

- - -

* We'll call this now as "Brent Celek."

⁺ I know, I know.  I said no more Sith jokes.  Just this once.

So Wait, McNabb Actually Could Be Gone Next Year?

SECOND UPDATE:  If you care about this stuff, I strongly urge you to read shlynch's take below on some of the guaranteed money provisions.  Also, at the end of it, he says the original post still could be right (sort of, in some ways), so that's nice, too. 

- - - - - -

UPDATE/CORRECTION:  See the comments for some additional info from shlynch that changes all of this.  Basically, all of next year's stuff is guaranteed, but because of the weirdness of the uncapped year, a huge chunk of it counts against this year's cap.  Which, of course, frees up all that money for next year (assuming there's a cap).

As I said below, skip PFT for a day and look what you miss.

- - - - - -

A little light reading as we wait to get mown down by the click-robots of the ticket-resale sites....

Both the Inky and the DN have (most of) the details on McNabb's new deal.  It is certainly true that they can be read in such a way as to support last week's sunshine and light announcement.  Quoting LB:

Colton said the Eagles fully guaranteed the $9.2 million McNabb was scheduled to make this season. In addition to Friday's $2.8 million, McNabb can earn $500,00 by being on the 45-man active roster - that is, uninjured - for all 16 games. Each game he isn't active, he loses one-sixteenth of that total, or $31,250.

In 2010, McNabb was scheduled to make $10 million. Now, his base is just $5 million, with $3.5 million guaranteed, vs. nothing previously. There also is a $6.2 million roster bonus, payable May 5, and the same $500,000 clause for being active in all 16 games.

So, McNabb can make $12.5 million this year and $11.7 million in 2010, $24.2 million total, before the incentives.

It's a nice deal, McNabb gets a good bump out of it, and it does appear to guarantee at least two more years as the Eagles' QB.

But let's consider an alternative scenario for just one quick second.  What if something bad happens this year?  What if McNabb has another serious injury, Kolb comes in and plays great, and the Eagles decide it actually is time to make the switch?

In that case, the new deal looks pretty good -- from both sides.  The Eagles are only on the hook for $3.5 million guaranteed.  That's not money they'd like to set on fire, but if they had to, it's not terrible.  The benefit of the deal from McNabb's perspective is that May 5 roster bonus.  In year's past, that would have been just after the draft.  That's probably true next year as well, but not necessarily. 

So McNabb now has the assurance that the Eagles really do want him to be the QB of the next two seasons -- BUT if something goes wrong, they can't just take the entire 2010 offseason jerking him around, using him as leverage in a Kolb contract negotiation, etc.  It's keep-trade-or-cut by 5/5, which should give #5 plenty of time to hook up somewhere else if need be.

Those Eagles.  Always thinkin'.

Hitting The Archives

This needs to be updated and there are some things I'd change about it, but given today's developments, I thought this look at how quarterbacks fared as they aged would be worth revisiting.

There are, predictably, lots of charts and numbers, but here's the upshot:

However, what's most interesting about this chart is the first two lines, which show that McNabb is exactly right.  At least for these guys, their numbers were actually better after they hit their early 30s.  Completion percentages go up, TDs go up, INTs are down and QB rating is better.  Their yardages go down a bit, but that seems to be mostly a function of playing fewer games.

And that's the rub.

In their prime, these guys averaged 14.6 games a year.  In the transition period, that goes down to 14.  And when they're old, it drops down another game to 13. And this list includes a lot of Hall of Famers, who are exactly the kinds of guys who (whether by luck or something else) were able to stay healthy and hang around long enough to put up great numbers.  But even they weren't bulletproof.

That last point is, I think, the real weakness of this piece.  If we're talking about HoFers, we're looking at guys who were able to stay effective despite advancing age so that they could put up the kind of numbers that get you into Canton.  On the other hand, it's a little tough to examine the statistical contributions of guys who lost their jobs. 

I actually think this is an important enough topic that it's worth redoing this summer, but for now, it's still pretty interesting.

Now We Wait On McNabb

Copious coverage this morning (and last night, guess I was slacking and watching too much basketball) on the new McNabb deal.  Unfortunately, the few numbers that have leaked out so far don't tell us much. 

ESPN's Michael Smith takes the new two-year total up to $24.5 million.  So we can be pretty sure that's the good news from the McNabb camp's perspective.  But we still don't know the structure, how much goes to using up this year's cap space, and how much of next year's money is really guaranteed.  When we do know that, we'll have a better sense of what this all means.

By the way, I wanted to pass along an email I got early this morning from shlynch.  He has some early thoughts, even without the numbers:

So of course the deal is announced while I am leaving for vacation. It will be interesting to see terms of course -- we agree that it is probably a big cap hit in 09 and less in 10. But the 10 is interesting, because that could be the part that ultimately provides the extension cushion. Remember that you can't renegotiate for a change in cap hit for existing years within 12 months of the last renegotiation. To the extent that they hope to do the extension during this season, the 2010 has to provide the soft underbelly to allow some significant restructuring. In fact, that may be the real impetus for the raise.

(If that's not all clear to you, go here and here to brush up on your capology.  And yes, he's still pushing the extension for McNabb sooner rather than later.  The current Boston sports optimism must be rubbing off on him.)

- - - - - -

Lastly, kudos to Les Bowen for this prediction yesterday:

Just thinking out loud here, with agent Fletcher Smith flying in Thursday for the award dinner, and McNabb presumably headed back out to Arizona pretty soon, now that OTAs are over, wouldn't today be an ideal time to announce such a thing?

A Close Look: McNabb vs. The League

Continuing the theme of presenting statistics I never knew were publicly available, we're going to talk today about Donovan McNabb.

I know what you're thinking:  "There's nothing new you can possibly say about McNabb -- we've heard it all before." 

Yeah, that's what I thought too.  But the place I found those individual sack statistics last week also has quarterback stats I never thought I'd get (at least until the top secret raid on Football Outsiders HQ coming up later this summer -- sign-up via email).

This is, in fact, one of my (few) complaints about the FO guys.  I never knew just how much information they had until I did the charting last year.  Now that I know, it drives me a little nuts that they publicize a statistic like "catch rate" for wide receivers.  Yes, all statistics require context for their evaluation, but that particular number is so context-specific as to be almost completely meaningless as a standalone number. 

And yet because that number is out there, people throw it around all the time, as if it sums up the guy's ability to catch the ball, and not the types of routes he runs, the quarterback throwing him the ball, and all that other stuff.

Now obviously the FO guys know all that, but they could do the rest of us a favor by publishing numbers that were a bit more illuminating -- i.e., how many balls did the guy actually drop, what percentage of throws his way were off-target or defensed, etc.

But you know what's pretty sweet?  For quarterbacks -- not wide receivers yet, just quarterbacks -- those numbers have turned up.

(I realize this all may seem a bit breathless to those of you more inclined to the "blood and guts" school of football analysis.  Pardon the stat geeks for our excitement.  Also, keep in mind these are just 2008 numbers, I haven't found anything historical yet.)

Let's roll the charts:

I have to tell you, this is one of my all-time favorite charts.  It simultaneously confirms everything we thought we knew about McNabb, while also making it clear that we (including me) have a tendency towards exaggeration when discussing his style of play.

In order:

Passes dropped -- This number surprised me.  I thought it would be much higher.  And, in fact, the Eagles' receivers did drop a lot of balls last year (29 of McNabb's passes alone).  But the thing we sometimes forget is just how often the Eagles throw the football.  Clearly the drop issue could see some improvement, but McNabb's not seeing anything other than league average when you put things into percentage terms, no matter how "stone-handed" people say his receivers are or how "hard to catch" his ball is.

Poor throw -- Yep, he's higher than average here.  McNabb's 13th-highest among the 32 qualifying quarterbacks.  However, we should keep in mind the numbers we're talking about here.  McNabb was dinged for 89 "poor throws" last year.  If he'd been average, that number would have been about 82.  That's less than one throw every two games.

Pass defensed -- Same deal here.  We know McNabb doesn't like to throw the ball into tight spaces.  And yet, while he's below league average on this number, we're talking about two throws all year.  That doesn't seem like a guy who's missing a lot of opportunities, as many of us have figured.

Pass hit at line -- Average.

Intercepted -- Yep, McNabb's low as always.  These numbers have him sixth-best at avoiding picks.  The interesting thing with this category, however, is that it's not one where you can just say, well, a couple more throws and he'd be average.  Interceptions are awfully damaging, which means those three additional picks he avoided by being better than average were pretty important.

Other -- There's no legend for this piece.  I'm guessing it's mostly spikes and balls obviously thrown away.  Either way, he's not far off the norm.

- - - - - -

Added bonus, after the jump because they're huge, full league charts for every category, with all the NFC East quarterbacks highlighed.  The charts speak for themselves, but you're going to see some surprises.

Should McNabb Stay?

It's things like this that make me so appreciate all the comments and emails I get from people pointing out stories I might have missed.  I hadn't seen that piece and may not have for a few days, since I have a tendency to "batch process" FO's content, rather than reading it as they post it.

Now that even the diehards realize (reluctantly) that Andy Reid isn't going anywhere, the future of Donovan McNabb is easily the most important discussion taking place at the NovaCare fortress these days.  That article linked to above is as good a place to start as any:

After his benching at halftime of a 36-7 loss to the Baltimore Ravens in Week 12, it seemed like Donovan McNabb's ticket out of Philadelphia this offseason was punched. However, two interception-free wins and five touchdowns later, some of that talk has subsided. But the fact that Eagles head coach Andy Reid would even consider removing his first-ever selection from the lineup is a sign that McNabb's future in Philadelphia is tenuous at best.

Or ...... is it? 

This is the same conclusion I came to after the Ravens game.  Since it was obvious -- after the fact -- that McNabb gave the team the best chance to win that game, the only reason for Reid to make that switch is if he's got a clock ticking in his head and it's time to start finding out what Kolb has for the future.

Except that isn't what happened.  With the exception of one drive -- when the coaches called a rapid succession of three-step, one-read, throw-it-to-DeSean plays -- Kolb looked terrible, Reid went right back to McNabb the next day, and no one said anything about next year.  Then I had to go and apologize for thinking Reid had a plan and wasn't just throwing QBs against the wall to see who stuck.

The 12-year, $108 million contract McNabb signed after the 2002 season is no longer an impediment to his departure. If he leaves in the upcoming offseason, the team would realize over $9 million in cap savings, with McNabb only costing the team around $1.2 million in "dead money."

It's worth noting that it's not really an impediment to his staying, either.  This isn't the NBA where an "expiring contract" could buy us the cap room only a couple other teams have.  With the way the cap has blown up the past few years, most teams can afford to hang on to their best players, unless there's a fundamental disagreement as to their value (see: Samuel, Asante).  I'd have to look at the free agent landscape a little more closely, but on the face of it, I don't think that $10 million McNabb is getting next year would really be all that useful elsewhere.

The obvious complaint from Eagles fans is that McNabb's performance isn't commensurate to his salary. Our advanced statistics don't see an appreciable difference between the performance McNabb has displayed over his career and how he's played this season.

McNabb ranks in the top 10 of the league in DYAR, our metric that adds (and subtracts) the cumulative value of how well McNabb has performed on a play-by-play basis after comparing each play to how an average quarterback would do after adjusting for down, distance, game situation, and the quality of the opposing defense. This season resembles how McNabb's performed over the past five seasons, with the added benefit that he's stayed healthy for the entire campaign.

Ok, so that's all good.  But it's time for a quick commercial break here.  Follow the article link right now and check out McNabb's career as defined by FO's stats.  Then come back here and tell me how much better he was back in his days as a scrambler than he has been in the second phase of his career as a passer. 

I'm telling you, he's better now than he used to be.  Those stats agree.

Ok, /commercial.

Getting rid of a quarterback who's performing at this level wouldn't be unprecedented, but it would be pretty close. In the 13 years for which Football Outsiders has compiled its advanced statistics, only four quarterbacks left their teams the offseason after they finished in the top 10 in DYAR. The most recent was Brett Favre last year. Before him, Drew Brees departed San Diego for New Orleans in 2006, Elvis Grbac left the Chiefs for the Super Bowl champion Ravens in 2001, and Jeff George went from the Vikings to the Redskins a year earlier.

Interestingly enough, two of those quarterbacks' replacements made the Pro Bowl the next year, Philip Rivers in San Diego and Daunte Culpepper in Minnesota. Meanwhile, Trent Green ended up having a very successful run in Kansas City, and it appears that Aaron Rodgers will end up being a quality quarterback in Green Bay. None of the teams really had a fiasco of a quarterback situation for years after the star left.

This is all a little "no duh."  Teams don't generally ship out successful QBs.  And they're really unlikely to trade a guy if they don't have a back-up plan they feel pretty confident about.

I'd also mention that the Browns' Derek Anderson was FO's 10th-rated passer last year, and he absolutely should be somewhere else this season. 

With that said, you can't argue that the Chargers made the right choice with Brees.  Rivers has been good, but Brees has been better and the Chargers let him get away for nothing.

If the Eagles were to get rid of McNabb in the offseason, they would most likely turn the position over to 2007 second-round pick Kevin Kolb...

In looking at the performance of college quarterbacks taken in the first two rounds of the NFL Draft, Lewin found that only two college factors bore any correlation to NFL success: Games started and completion percentage. Kolb has both in spades: He started 50 games in college and completed 62 percent of his passes. Lewin projects Kolb to be a top-five quarterback at his peak, with a performance level below only Philip Rivers among recent quarterbacks selected in the first two rounds.

So there you go.  We should have no concerns about Kolb because a "see what sticks" correlational analysis found that he was really good at things that sort of make sense as markers of future success but maybe not as much as some other things.  Also, you can read Lewin's take on Matt Ryan here (scroll, um, pretty far down).

(I kid, I kid because I love, guys).

Anyway, just note that there's a big difference between top-five quarterback "at his peak" and "in his first year as a starter."  It works for some guys, not for others.  Who knows which one Kolb will be.

So a statistical analysis of the Eagles' quarterback situation finds that the team appears to be in a win-win situation; McNabb's play has been better than it was at its nadir, while Kolb has the pedigree of an elite quarterback in the making. For a team that covets cap space and flexibility, getting rid of McNabb and potentially acquiring a high draft pick in the process seems like the most beneficial course of action. It would also free up cap space for the team to re-sign starting offensive tackles Jon Runyan and Tra Thomas, both of whom are unrestricted free agents after the season. If they leave and the Eagles aren't able to replace them, it might not matter who the quarterback is.

Leaving aside the Runyan and Thomas thing (since if the Eagles want to re-sign them, they have the room to do so), you still have the other questions to answer:

Where do you see this team being in its player development lifecycle?  Personally, I see it as a two-peaker.  They're not quite there right now, but with one more offseason of additions, they could legitimately be one of the elite teams next year.  After that, you're on borrowed time with Brian Westbrook (even if he's still around, in three years he's more likely to be "Brian Westbrook") and you're going to be building this team around a mature Kolb, DeSean Jackson, Unnamed Player #1, etc.

So if the priority is to win it all next year, and even if Kolb ends up being better at his peak (and that's a big if), will he be better than McNabb in 2009?  There's no reason to say he couldn't be.  He'll have had two years of watching and learning and maybe he'll be one of those guys who stars immediately.  The odds are against this however.

If the priority is to win it all next year, why not keep two top-level QBs on the roster in case of injury?  I don't think Feeley is winning it all here.  Although if he did, it would make the outpouring of affection for Pat Burrell we just witnessed seem like a fleeting second-grade crush.

What draft picks will you actually get for McNabb?  I tend to think a) McNabb has a lot of value and b) the Eagles are stubborn as hell and won't be willing to let him go for less than he's worth.  With that said, however, you have to think maximum value is only going to come from a deal like the one brokered for Brett Favre:

The [fourth-round] draft pick traded for Favre turns into a third-round selection if he plays in 50 percent of the plays this season, a second-rounder if he plays in 70 percent of the plays and the Jets qualify for the playoffs, and a first-round pick if he plays in 80 percent of the plays and Jets make it to the Super Bowl.

Obviously the Favre trade was a one-of-a-kind situation, but the core point is that once you start getting into conditional draft picks, you're looking at the 2010 draft, not 2009.  That's a lot of delayed gratification.

How much does the cap space buy you?  As mentioned above, I'm not sure it's much.  I could be wrong on this, however.

- - - - - -

Two final notes.  First, this equation all changes if McNabb gets hurt in the next two (plus?) weeks.  He's one and done here on any more serious injuries and I think he's known that all year.

Secondly, I know we're still looking at potential playoff match-ups.  I have my eye on that ball too.  But we have a tendency to only debate these "who should go" questions in the aftermaths of really bad losses.  Those maybe aren't the best times for reasoned analysis.

It's One Thing When I Say It...

But this is from the man himself:

On having success throwing into coverage and taking chances down-field vs. the Rams: "My thing, this year, is the fact that I'm trying to give these guys an opportunity to make plays. I thought, earlier in my career, maybe at times I would have held the ball and tried to give them an opportunity to create separation when it didn't happen or whatever it may be. But now, it's getting the ball out of my hands and making them make plays for me. We have some great weapons on the outside. We have some guys that can make plays for you. You have to give them that opportunity. (TE) L.J. (Smith) did a great job last week, (WRs) DeSean (Jackson) did great, Jason Avant had a great game, and the list goes on. So, I've always said that, in order for guys to be effective in this offense, you've got to call plays for them and give them opportunities. That's what I was trying to do."

Emphasis most definitely added.

He continues:

On whether he has had a change in philosophy and when it occurred: "I'm not 21, 22, 23 years old anymore. There are no 14-second scrambles going on. Drop back, get the ball out of your hands and let those guys go to work."

On whether his knee injuries have had an impact on that philosophy: "The knee has nothing to do with it."

On letting a rookie like DeSean Jackson go up and make plays down-field: "You have to do that. You have to trust him. You show them that you have trust in them, which, obviously, leads to them trusting me. You have to reward guys as well. You go through a week of practice with guys putting in extra time and catching balls in practice and doing an excellent job off the field, you reward them. When they have that opportunity, when they do get open, you want to get them the ball and give them an opportunity to make more plays and pick up more yards. That's pretty much what it's come from."

This is vindication.

- - - - - -

I've been beating this "separation" argument into the ground for so long it's almost hard to remember that there was a time not that long ago when it was anything but the conventional wisdom. 

Heck, last November I felt the need to write a huge long deal examining the competing theories for why McNabb was struggling a bit and laying out this whole separation argument.  It's amazing how much currency this idea has picked up since then.

But here's the thing.  Think back to last Sunday.  How many times did Donovan squeeze a ball into a guy who wasn't super open?  A few, maybe? 

And how many times was that guy a wide receiver not named DeSean Jackson?  Off the top of my head, I can't think of any, although I could definitely be wrong. 

So do we have Donovan turning the separation theory on its head -- i.e., he now trusts all his guys to go make plays -- or is this actually a confirmation of the theory's "strong form" in that what we're seeing with Jackson is how McNabb always plays / has played with his most talented receivers, but not everyone else? 

It's going to be awhile before we know for sure. 

- - - - - -

Note on that link:  I was making a point about speed relative to defenders, but that line about Berrian & Hester v. Curtis & Brown might have been the single dumbest thing I've ever written.  And I've had some doozies.

Rich Burg, Welcome To The IgglesBlog

Today's Daily News Eagles preview section includes the by now obligatory story about how technology has irreversibly changed the fan/player dynamic.  (This despite the fact that I have never once heard a player admit that he actually ventures online to see what people are saying about him.  Liars :-)

Of course, if the story itself was obligatory, the parts slamming blogs were damn near mandatory:

Blogs can also be a launching pad for trouble. Unchecked facts are passed along as rumors, which are then commented on and passed along again. Given the anonymity that the Internet affords, some of the stuff that is said is far beyond the realm of what passes for civilized conversation. Worse, it excites an atmosphere of rage that previously did not have a convenient outlet other than a letter to the editor or a sports talk show, both of which were expected to adhere to certain standards. The problem is you can say anything on the Internet and there is a 50-50 chance that someone will believe it. The concept of unassailable fact has been absorbed by purveyors of unreality, which McNabb and some of his teammates have discovered to their chagrin.

Hey, beat writers.  Have you checked the comment section on your articles recently?  Compare those remarks to the comments you see on all the Eagles blogs.  We win in the "civilized conversation" competition.

Whatever, it's not all bad news for the pixel pushers:

Burg keeps an eye out for everything that is written and said about McNabb. In any given season, that can be a formidable undertaking. Every word that the Eagles quarterback utters is subject to scrutiny. Akers says, "Everything he says is examined: 'What did he mean by that?' 'Does he have a hidden agenda?' " Burg says he does not share everything he comes across with McNabb, only the occasional thing he thinks could be useful to him. Interestingly, he says that contrary to the impression that is out there, he has discovered that McNabb is far more popular than some people think.

"There is a perception of out there that only 50 percent of the fans like him," says Burg. "But since I have ventured into the blogosphere, I have learned that the percentage is much, much higher than you would think . . . Even some people in the inner circle wondered if there were a lot of people who did not like him. The fact of the matter is, that is only a handful of people. And no one is universally loved."

This is absolutely true.  There's a new Eagles/Philly sports blog every day, but of the guys who've been doing this for awhile, I can't think of any who would be characterized as having a negative editorial slant towards McNabb.  Which makes sense given that they're all smart dudes and McNabb is kind of awesome and all.

Finally, Rich, since you've been stopping by, I've got a proposal for you.  If you're ever looking to really, really annoy the local beat writers -- like literally have them smashing coffee cups into their typewriters -- please feel free to break any exclusive McNabb news or interviews through the IgglesBlog.  You want a direct conduit to the fans, let's make it happen.

Think it over.  I'll be right here when you're ready.

McNabb the Hoopster

This story is worth checking out even if you only go for the picture of McNabb in his high school basketball uniform.  There isn't a direct link, you have to scroll down a bit for the link to "McNabb's hoop story."

(Turn your speakers off before you click the link, they have embedded video that auto-loads.)

He Looks Awfully Concerned

This is definitely the face of a man worried about an injury.

Source:  Jessica Griffin, Philadelphia Daily News.

- - - - - -

From that same article, John Smallwood makes an excellent point about Stewart Bradley:

Sports are ironically funny.

Had Bradley been a first-round pick and started just one game as a rookie, he probably would go into training camp with even more questions about him.

But because his rookie season was one of constant growth that resulted in those final three games, Bradley is being viewed as a potential steal for the Eagles.