Kickin' It Old School

Think back to a simpler time, say 2006, when "blogging" was a relatively new verb with the definition:  "To write snarky, semi-coherent rants mostly about whatever the local newspaper writers screwed up that day." 

Ah, those were the days.  Just fire up the computer ... scan for the first point of disagreement ... unleash vitriol.  I almost miss it.  Which makes today kind of nice.

First of all, the good stuff.  There's a story today that starts like so:

IT WAS JUST 3 weeks ago that the Eagles' defense ranked first in the league at stopping the run.

Two games and a bye week later, it ranks ninth.

This is not a promising trend, especially with the Atlanta Falcons coming to town. Atlanta is a surprising (shocking?) 4-2, behind rookie quarterback Matt Ryan, from Penn Charter and Boston College. Eagles defensive coordinator Jim Johnson praised Ryan to the heavens yesterday - Johnson said Ryan was having more success than Peyton Manning had as a rookie starter - but he also noted what has helped Ryan be so effective: a dominant running game that keeps the rookie in manageable situations.

You'll never guess the byline on that one.  He gets it right as usual.

Now for the not-as-good stuff.  Look, I'm on board with the whole "you have to run the ball to be a complete team" thing.  We're only a few days from my somewhat unhinged rants in that regard following the cutting of Tony Hunt.

But this is wrong wrong wrong:

TIME AND time again, Andy Reid has told us in that master-to-grasshopper way of his that you win in the National Football League by throwing the football.

If that's true, then why are the Eagles, who have the fourth-largest pass-to-run ratio (220-140) in the league, sitting in the cold, damp basement of the NFC East with a 3-3 record?

And why are the Tennessee Titans, who are averaging a league-low 25.8 passes per game, the only undefeated team in the league at 6-0?

The Titans are one of eight teams that currently have more rush attempts than pass attempts. Combined record of those eight teams: 34-16. Class dismissed.

I could do one of two things here.  I could explain why this is wrong using my own words orrrrrr I could just refer you here and here and we could save everyone (but mostly me) a whole lot of time. 

Key point: "You run when you win, not win when you run."

Same writer, different story:

Eagles: With Pro Bowl RG Shawn Andrews out since Week 2, Andy Reid has kept his TEs in to block more than in the past, which is one reason Eagles have allowed just 10 sacks in 220 attempts. The up-front battle to watch will be LT Tra Thomas against RE John Abraham, who has seven of the Falcons' 10 sacks.

A regular reader emailed me this bit this morning to see what I thought.  First of all, I don't have any numbers on whether or not the tight ends are blocking more than they used to.  Even if I started counting now, it's not like I have historical trends for comparison.  But Domo generally seems to have a pretty good stats hook-up from the team, so let's assume the numbers are right.

With that said, I'm having trouble seeing the connection with Shawn Andrews.  If you're saying MJG needs help when Andrews doesn't, that suggests Runyan must be the guy giving it.  After all, Jackson usually seems to double with Herremans (assuming four rushers), so if you wanted to give MJG help from the center, you could do it without adding a TE. 

The problem is that I don't really recall seeing Runyan blocking inside very often.  Nor do I recall too many instances when Runyan helps inside and a tight end takes a DE by himself (and even fewer where that works out well for us).  Which means that IF the TEs are blocking more often on pass plays, they're probably doing it to help the OTs.  And since this is a primarily right-handed offense, that would likely mean it's to help Runyan. 

This is all supposition, of course, but it seems to make more sense than the argument that it's about Andrews.

Then there's the last bit: "which is one reason Eagles have allowed just 10 sacks in 220 attempts."  It  may be that this has had some impact (which is all the more reason to believe it was a choice made in the offseason, long before the coaches knew they wouldn't have Andrews).  But as I've written before, I think most of what we're seeing this year is really a mindset change by McNabb.  (Look at how much more frequently McNabb has been sacked than his backups were playing behind the same line.)

Here's another way to look at that question though.  If McNabb really has more time this year -- because of better blocking and more guys staying in to protect him -- then we would expect his yards/completion number to be up.  After all, the additional time in the pocket should give his receivers time to run deeper routes.

On the other hand, if the sack performance is more about what's happening in McNabb's head -- or perhaps the play-calling -- and not a function of protection, then we would not expect to see the Y/C number up high.

Here are the numbers:

The first table shows the YPC figure for WRs in the Eagles offense (which counts more than just McNabb given his injuries).  The second only includes McNabb's numbers and doesn't just count WRs, which means it can be skewed by running back dumpoffs.  Take your pick as to which you think is a better measure, neither one is perfect.  They both seem to tell the same story, however, which is that we're not seeing vastly improved protection that has increased the verticality of the offense. 

Definitive?  No.  Definitely suggestive, however.

Questions For The Morning After

As the contact high from that compelling early season game begins to wear off, it's time to start sorting through the rubble of the loss to determine what we can blow off and what we should start worrying about.

Items for the first category:  quarterbacks botching handoffs, receivers flipping balls before they cross the goal line, PI penalties against cornerbacks in great coverage until the QB fires the ball well behind the receiver.

Items for the second category, somewhat more numerous:

The Eagles have five safeties on this roster, can we find two who can play? 

I don't want to bury Dawk based on a couple of plays, but the signs of his decline have been there now for awhile.  I went the "glass half full" route back in June (his 2006 season was pretty darn good), but another way to read those stats is to say he fell off a cliff in 2007.

Quintin Mikell might just be the best all-around safety on the roster at the moment, but what does it say that he's the guy who comes up to play "linebacker" when the Eagles go dime, with Considine and Dawkins staying back at safety?

Speaking of Considine, why is he on the field?  I've defended the guy in the past from what I think are unfair attacks based on a couple of missed tackles, but if you're in the game to provide help over the top on Terrell Owens then you cannot allow #81 to get behind you. 

I love J.R. Reed -- and all he seems to do is make plays -- but he must be doing something wrong in practice to continue to be behind Considine. 

And finally, Quintin Demps.  He spent time at both CB and safety this summer.  I doubt he's learned the whole defense.  He would probably give up some big plays until he does.  But given that he almost ran down Felix Jones on that kick return, I'd sure be tempted to start getting him some time. 

Is this among the worst defensive games Jim Johnson has ever called? 

It's always hard to tell in these situations how to parcel out blame.  The Cowboys' offense is really good.  The Eagles' secondary was blowing coverages left and right.  Even one or two plays could have made things look a lot different.

On first viewing, though, it sure looked like JJ lost his nerve in the second half.  The gameplan early seemed to be:  1) Stop Barber, 2) Cover in the back.  The first part worked out well, but not so much on the second.  So when it became clear the front four wasn't going to be able to pressure Romo -- particularly after they spent a lot of time on the field in the second half -- why didn't Johnson release the hounds?  I'm not saying it would definitely have worked, but sitting back and giving Romo time wasn't working either. 

Also, why did it take 30 minutes to get someone other than Sheldon Brown on Owens?  I'm not bagging on Sheldon -- TO is a tough cover for anyone -- but the Eagles have two guys on this roster who are better options there.  Did we need to go a whole half before we figured that out?  And why on Earth was Dawkins matched up one-on-one with Owens down by the goal line?

Lot of questionable defensive calls this game. 

Will one bad game mean that the braying pack will be out saying the "league has caught up to Jim Johnson!!!" again? 

Yes, yes it will.  Sigh. 

Would it have mattered if the Eagles had drafted Felix Jones this year the way I wanted them to? 

Yes and no.  On the one hand, maybe it saves us seven points last night.  On the other, can you imagine if the Cowboys had instead gone to a Plan B named "DeSean Jackson"?

Shudder.

The problem with the Eagles' special teams isn't the return men.  They're fine.  Maybe not quite as good as Jones, but more than adequate.  The problem is either the other 10 guys on the field or the one guy standing on the sidelines.  Still can't tell which.  Not sure how to tell, in fact.

Is this all there is from Brodrick Bunkley?

First of all, sorry for the embarrassing RDT/LDT screw-up yesterday.  It happens.

As for Bunk, this is the guy's third year in the league.  He's an absolute physical freak.  Big, quick and strong.  So why does his whole game seem to revolve around standing still?  As in, you won't be able to move me because I'm a total beast, but on the other hand I won't get around you either, so maybe we should just both agree to sit this play out.

I'll have to go back and look at the film to see what he was facing in terms of double teams, but right now, given where he was drafted and the obvious tools he seems to have, I'm a little perturbed by the lack of disruptive plays.

Did Sav do that on purpose?

And by "that" I mean those two weird, line drive, bouncing kicks that both ended up working out pretty well but sure looked ugly.  Especially because he sandwiched them around a 61-yard bomb that looked like it might briefly have passed through the hole in the top of the stadium. 

I hope we can take time out from the ritual press flaying of Segrest this week ("so, again, why do your special teams suck so much?") to ask one question re: what the heck Rocca is doing. 

Has the Eagles' offense minus Curtis and Brown been "figured out"?

Again, I'll have to look at this in the rewind to be sure, but it seemed on first viewing like the Cowboys really backed off the blitzing in the second half, preferring instead to play coverages and daring the Eagles' group of backup receivers to beat them straight up.  Is that the new gameplan?  Don't blitz McNabb because he's got his mobility back and will burn you, but instead sit back and bank on your secondary being able to contain a receiving corps missing its two starters.

I don't know, we'll see.  But one thing we can say for sure is that the new "throw it into tight spaces, don't hold the ball" McNabb didn't seem to catch the charter to Dallas. 

- - - - - -

That's all the time we have today, but I'm sure there are other questions.  Feel free to add yours to the comments. 

Dawkins On Owens?

We had all summer to scheme for these guys and that's what we came up with?

It's just too bad we don't have some high-priced free agent CB we could have used on him.

Good Thing Hochuli's Not Doing This Game

He'd have blown that Romo fumble dead in the end zone. 

Zagging the Ziggs

A few things I'm not seeing mentioned in most of the coverage today:

Lito Sheppard really blew that free shot on Bulger he had in the third quarter.  It didn't matter, because Klecko got him a second later, but that was a gift sack he missed.

- - -

McNabb and Kolb completed passes to eight players yesterday.  None of them were named Lorenzo Booker.  The former Dolphin also rushed five times for nine yards.  I am, like the rest of the town, slightly over-excited about DeSean Jackson, but what has happened to our other big offensive pickup?

- - -

Domo nitpicks McNabb a bit:

"I know I'm being picky here considering that he threw three TD passes and finished with a 131.0 passer rating, but McNabb should have run the ball in for a touchdown on that third-and-goal play from the Rams' 5 late in the third quarter rather than force the ball to covered tight end L.J. Smith. McNabb would have had an easy touchdown." 

That's all likely true, but if he had done it, he would have taken a heck of a shot from a couple of linebackers. 

McNabb seems to be playing a different game this year with his body.  He's getting rid of the ball in the pocket rather than hanging on forever to make a play, he's trying to avoid the huge hits, and he's not getting downfield to get knocked around. 

The thing is, when it's the preseason or the team wins 38-3, nobody minds this.  But at some point this year, McNabb is going to do one of these things in a situation where a different choice might be important.  It will be critical at that moment to remember that keeping McNabb healthy is one of a handful of keys for this being a Super Bowl season.

The guy hasn't lost his nerve.  He's just trying to keep his body in one piece so he's there for his teammates (and us) in January.  (You may want to print this part out and save it for later.)

- - -

The coverage on the punts was great yesterday, but I think the key might be that Sav has really figured things out.  You don't have multiple guys down the field, turned around looking to catch the ball unless you're putting in some serious hang time.  I'll need to put a stopwatch on him later to see, but just going from the gut, those seemed like towering punts. 

Anyone who was there who can comment on that?

- - -

Westbrook only got credit for one fumble, officially, but it looked like he lost the handle on back-to-back plays out there.  I realize you have to keep the big guy healthy, but that's the problem with so little prep time in preseason.  Luckily it didn't burn them.

- - -

Maybe the wind was blowing the wrong way, but does anyone else think the Eagles didn't put Akers out there to try a 58-yard field goal at the end of the first half mostly because they didn't want him to get the heat from the fans for missing what would admittedly have been a very, very long attempt?

- - -

The refs seemed to be mostly a non-factor yesterday, but one of the biggest improvements we saw from the Eagles was their four penalties for only 41 yards.  Both are comfortably below last year's pace.

- - -

Stewart Bradley's sack got the Eagles' linebackers halfway to the total number they managed last year (Gocong's '07 sack came as a rush end).

- - -

Speaking of Bradley, he and Quintin Mikell accounted for 15 tackles.  The rest of the team had 14 combined.  I don't even know how that's possible.

Could Weather Be A Factor?

Keep an eye on the weekend weather forecast for the area around the Linc.  It doesn't look like the Eagles will be playing their game in the midst of an actual hurricane, but there are a couple of potential issues:

1. Saturday is going to be a mess.  TWC says an inch of rain, but I've seen higher projections elsewhere.  This would be less of a problem if Temple weren't playing its home opener at noon, right when the storm is supposed to be big.  There could be some major field-churning going on out there.

2. By Sunday, the rain should be gone, but the forecast is still calling for 20+ mph winds.  Those aren't extreme conditions, but that's a bit windy.  Hopefully Akers is already breaking out his spreadsheets to account for how things could be moving around.

A Season of Uncertainty and Contradiction

With the start of the NFL season less than 48 hours away, it's time to start getting serious.  By this point, any self-respecting team blogger should really have a very good sense of what to expect from his team, a firm grasp of all relevant storylines, and the placidity that comes with certainty and self-awareness.

I have none of these things.

This is a team full of contradictions and inasmuch as we can say that everything comes down to health of the Westbrook's legs and McNabb's arm (and, I guess, legs), the truth is that such statements belie the depth of uncertainty with which we approach the new season. 

Perhaps you disagree. 

If so, I humbly suggest you fall into one of three camps:

1. Incurable optimist.  Yes, in a city this large, you may find or two.  (They could hold their meetings in a phone booth with room to spare, however.)
2. Incurable pessimist.  We can include Reid/Lurie/McNabb haters in this group.  (The structure has not yet been built that could comfortably house this group.)
3. Haven't thought enough about it.  I was in this group until -- oh -- maybe 45 minutes ago. 

Which is when I realized that this is a team of amazing contradictions... 

... like how the deepest position on the team might be middle linebacker, which is manned by a first-time starter backed up by an undersized sixth-round rookie (with last year's starter at the ready) -- but is there another position on the field where the Eagles really go three-deep?  Not that I can think of.

... or how the Eagles have the most talented fullback they've put on the field in the Andy Reid era, although he might not even keep his job if he can't -- within a month -- learn a demanding new position he's never played.

... or how this looks to be the best corps of wide receivers since (at least) 2004 despite the fact that its best member is on the shelf for half the season and the other starter may or may not be 100 percent at the start of the season.

... or how the Eagles have one of the easiest schedules in the league, despite playing in its toughest division.

... or how Brian Westbrook is the most important member of the offense -- by far -- and yet the season will come down to how everyone else on that unit does. 

... or how, actually, all our attention has been on the offense, but the real key to the season is the defense.

... or how this is a veteran team that is completely dependent upon the performance of a bunch of unproven youngsters.

... or or or ... it goes on and on.

And those are just the blatant contradictions.  That doesn't even include the simple uncertainties.

Yeah, sure, injuries.  Got it.  Those are always a potential issue.  But even if every single guy on this team stays healthy, it's not implausible to think that there are seven positions that could have different starters in weeks one and 16:

1. Fullback.  Jed Collins is hanging out on the practice squad.  And he won't just get called up if Hunt stinks.  Even if Tony plays well, a serious injury to Booker, Buck or the other fella probably results in Hunt going back to halfback and Collins getting the call-up.
2. Wide receiver (#1).  Curtis gets his job back when he returns.
3. Wide receiver (#2).  Reggie could just as easily lose his.
4. Left defensive end.  If Juqua Parker is starting by the end of the season, it will mean one of two things: 1) significant injuries at the position or 2) he's the nominal starter but not getting the majority of the snaps.
5. Right cornerback.  Lito's talking himself into the doghouse, but if he ever shuts up he could be back out there with the starters quickly.
6. Strong safety.  Three guys could be starting in this position by the end of the year. 
7. Free safety.  (Out of respect, I won't even type this one out.)

And those are just the low-hanging fruit, without getting into crazy scenarios where Jim Johnson is trying to light a fire under his DT's butts or Something Happens with one of the linebackers or the offensive line gets reshuffled.

- - - - - -

So the takeaway, right this second, is that we don't really know what's coming -- and without the damping effect of solidly high (or low) expectations, we could be in for a hell of a ride.

Look at the first month of the season.  We open at home against the Rams.  Only three teams (Indy, SD, NE) are favored by more than the touchdown-plus the Eagles are giving to St. Louis.  Not to steal too much from the game preview, but this really shouldn't even be that close.  And a good, solid win will lead to much rejoicing.

But then the next week we're at Dallas in a Monday-nighter.  The hype and expectations are going to be massive.  If the Eagles win, half the city will be checking flights to Tampa the next morning at work.  If the Eagles lose ... things won't be quite as wondrous.

Either way, that sets up a hugely important game the following week against Pittsburgh.  A 1-2 start will -- and I'm not exaggerating -- mean the local sports radio stations will need to start looking to increase their phone capacities to handle all the people calling in to say "it's time to switch to Kevin Kolb."  (And the fact that you're thinking "that's ridiculous" after McNabb's preseason performance only makes my point that this is going to be a season of huge mood swings.)  If it's 2-1 with a loss to the Cowboys, we'll still have an empty space inside.  And if it's 3-0, I might start checking flights to Tampa.

(Speaking selfishly for just a moment, this will all be absolutely terrific.  These potential swings are going to be KILLER for site traffic.)

September closes with another must-win game against Chicago.  Not because the Bears are some kind of great test -- but precisely because they're not.  I can't remember where I saw the study (probably FO, but I can't find a link), but I've read something in the past couple years that showed teams end up with good records NOT because they over-perform against the other good teams, but because they take care of business against the bad ones.  Chicago is one of the bad ones.  Lose that game, guys, and we won't trust you again until we are quite literally watching the parade.

- - - - - -

At one level, of course, this uncertainty is just par for the course in the Not For Long League.  But it's different with this team, because it's not just that we could get 6-10 (injury scenario) or 12-4 (DJax = AI scenario) without surprising that many people.  No, what makes this team different is that the massive variance could come every week.

That is, most weeks, win or lose, 6-10 teams look kind of like 6-10 teams and 12-4 teams look kind of like 12-4 teams.  The Eagles' weird mix of developing youngsters, injury issues and established studs means that some weeks they could look very 6-10, while others they look oh so 12-4.  We won't know which is the real team until much later in the season.  Meanwhile, the city will be bouncing back and forth from anger/frustration/sadness to euphoria/satisfaction/hope. 

Which -- and this is the important part -- will actually be fun, so long as you're one of the people who can simultaneously feel the despair, while not succumbing to it.  Who can celebrate the highs, while not becoming intoxicated by them. 

If, in other words, you can meet with Triumph and Disaster and treat those two impostors just the same.  You may not be a man, but you'll have a lot more fun.

Final Cuts Made

Here's the list.  Only a couple of surprises:

• Jerome McDougle -- I guess the team just had no faith in his ability to stay healthy.  He sure looked good this preseason though.
• Kris Wilson -- IgglesBlog readers won't find this surprising.
• Andy Studebaker -- I'm not sure about this one.  This kid looks like a football player.  Interestingly, his description isn't in the past tense: "Small-school defensive end learning linebacker spot."  That's in contrast to most of the other guys on that list (had, was, etc.).  Wonder if there's a handshake deal there on the practice squad?

Tony Hunt is your starting fullback, at least for the next 48 hours.  I guess we're going to see a lot of one-back / split backs in the early part of the season. 

Two rookie offensive lineman (Dunlap and Gibson) stashed on IR.  Neither one mentioned in Andy's post-game injury report on Thursday.  I'm sure that was just an oversight...

Reid Looking for a Faster Start

You won't find exactly those words anywhere in today's press conference, but I think that's the clear between-the-lines reading of why Reid is going to play his starters some this week against the Jets. 

Reid's answers:

On the pros and cons of playing the ones: "More reps [is a pro]. It's just a little bit of time before we play our first game, so a few reps aren't going to hurt."

On whether he is leaning towards playing the ones in the game: "I'm not leaning any way right now. We will see how I feel once I get there."

On why he would play the starters in this game when he usually hasn't in years past: "It seems like a long period of time [before the first regular season game]. I wanted to get those guys into the third quarter in this last game and ended up pulling them out at halftime. It's just something to evaluate, the number of plays they have had."

That's all well and good, but I'm guessing this is really the core point:

On the perception that the ones have taken more reps this preseason than the past: "I just wanted to accumulate plays and give them an opportunity when they come out against the Rams where we are sharp."

The Eagles have been notoriously slow starters under Reid (the upside being that they're usually strong finishers).  But with the division as tight as it is right now, Philly can't be throwing away games against weaker opponents like the Rams under the assumption that they'll just make it up later.  I like it.

Of course, if one of the starters gets hurt on Thursday, there will be holy hell to pay for Andy.  Millions of Eagles fans will have known all along that this was the wrong move. 

One last point, this feeds directly into Gabe's unified theory of Andy Reid's arrogance -- that is, he can't be that arrogant, since he's always willing to change when confronted with new data that says the old ways led to sub-optimal results.

Evaluating the Weaknesses

Now that everyone's feeling pretty good about the team after the pasting of the Patriots -- and even a serious letdown effort against the Jets in the no-starters final preseason game isn't likely to change things -- it's probably a good time to take a look at the question marks we had going into the preseason, to see if the weaknesses have been addressed.

In no particular order, here were the concerns as we all seemed to see them:

Starting Quarterback
I know this seems crazy now, but heading into training camp and the preseason there were still any number of people pushing the idea that if McNabb struggled early, Kolb could somehow overtake him.  Even those of us not eager to run Donovan out of town were wondering how fast he'd start this year.  We have our answer now -- with McNabb completing 63 percent of his passes for a 95.8 rating (even with the butterfingers Carolina game) you can cross starting quarterback off your list of concerns.

Fullback
Now you all know I love Tony Hunt.  And both Brian Westbrook and Rory Segrest have lauded him for how hard he tries out there the last couple of days.  But I also love Donovan McNabb and I'm not sure he'd make a great fullback with basically two weeks of practice either -- and he outweighs Hunt by a good 15 or so pounds (and knows the offense even better than Hunt).  Here's how Marty described his performance in the last preseason game:

"He did a couple of things real well. Then, there was more than a couple where he splattered just a little bit..."

Fullbacks generally don't want to "splatter." 

The one upside to Hunt as a fullback:

"You saw last week that we, I don't want to go into too much detail, but we split a man out and then he carried the football really from a halfback spot even though he was playing fullback, so those are all of his possibilities."

Now this is interesting.  Say you have Westbrook and Hunt in the game together.  If Westbrook goes in motion, the defense has to shift big time to cover him.  That either means bringing a safety up or sliding an LB or two out.  If no safety, go deep.  If LB moves out, that's one fewer guy to block. 

If this is what it takes to keep Hunt on the team, so be it.  But that still makes fullback a question mark.

"Offensive Weapons"
Not really sure how to split this one up.  We figured LJ would come back and play well now that he's healthy.  But beyond that, there was a real question about where the firepower for this offense was going to come from.  After three games of (yes, only) the preseason, things don't look that bleak.  Jackson seems legit, Baskett and Avant know what they're doing, and Booker isn't going to singlehandedly tilt the entire field the way he seemed like he might in training camp, but he's still going to be valuable in a few different packages. 

Of course, then Curtis got hurt and screwed up the math.

Cornerbacks
Asante looks good in game action so far and he continues to victimize all three QBs in practice.  Lito is healthy.  Pissed off, but trapped and healthy.  And Sheldon is fine.  Moreover, the three guys all seem to be friends.  No worries here.

Safeties
Which is a lot more than can be said for the guys who play behind them.  Dawkins continues to struggle with injuries and the question really needs to be asked whether a guy who plays the way he does can plausibly keep his body together for a 16+ games.  At this point, even an Eagles' optimist has to think that answer is "no." So at least two other guys are going to be getting significant time at safety this season.  I'll give you Quintin Mikell as a solid starter, but as G Cobb never tires of pointing out, Sean Considine really doesn't look good with the ball in the air. 

J.R. Reed is my guy, and I love the way he plays, but will he even make the team?  And Quintin Demps is getting pulled in too many directions right now.  He's the #1 kick returner, in the mix at punt returner, taking reps at CB, and also trying to learn the safety position.  If he's on the field in anything more than spot duty this year, expect plenty of mistakes. 

This position is still a big old pile of question marks.  Good thing these guys aren't the last line of defense or anything.

Linebacker
It's funny, going into training camp, the question was whether Stewart Bradley would build on the last couple games he had last year and establish himself as the man in the middle.  We assumed the other two guys would be fine. 

After three games, you can flip that around totally.  Bradley has been really good in the middle, while Gaither and Gocong have:

• Had trouble stopping the off-tackle run;
• Struggled at times in space (esp. Omar);
• Not exactly piled up the statistics.

Meanwhile -- and yes, it's against the backups, but still -- a couple of the young guys look really solid back there.  Everyone's focused on the line, since there are going to be some tough cuts there, but the LB situation is worth keeping an eye on.  I'd even go so far as to say that I think the streak of new starting threesomes could be continuing in 2009.

And are they really going to cut Studebaker?

Defensive End
Question before camp:  How to keep all these solid players. 

Question now:  Jerome McDougle can't be that good, can he?

Here's a quick exercise.  Look at the six guys currently listed above McDougle on the depth chart.  Which two of those guys do you cut so that McDougle can have a roster spot? 

• Not Trent or JP. 
• Clemons costs you $4 million to cut right now, and while they have the space, it would be odd to ditch a guy who hasn't even proven he can't play (because he's been injured). 
• Bryan Smith was a third-round pick. 

The leaves Darren Howard as the odd man out if you keep McDougle.  And you know what ... I can see that.  Howard has made it pretty clear he really only likes the right side, which is ably manned at the moment by our own Trent Cole.  And after a summer's worth of talk about how great he was looking this year, Howard has managed a whopping one tackle and one assist. 

Hmmm ..... especially because of what we're seeing at the next position ....

Defensive Tackle
.... where Dan Klecko is firmly entrenched at the #4 DT spot and gives you everything in the middle (quickness, penetration, pass rush) that Howard was supposed to provide in there as a backup DT. 

Jim Johnson sounds a little giddy talking about him:

On who the fourth DT is: "That fourth defensive tackle is a guy by the name of Klecko. He looks pretty good to me right now. He had a good game the other night and he's had a great camp."

On whether he has seen a guy with Klecko's build be able to do the things he's done: "No, I haven't. He has such great quickness. He has good football sense and he loves to play. He's a high-motor guy. The biggest thing he has is he really has quickness."

On whether he had concerns about Klecko's ability to put weight back on and play DT: "A little bit. I'm not going to say he didn't surprise me some. He has, I think he's surprised a lot of people. We've seen before he has played some linebacker, some tackle, some fullback. Right now, he's one of those four tackles. To say I'm surprised, not after getting to know him I'm not quite as surprised after being around him a little bit. He's a tough guy; he's a good competitor and he loves to play." 

"A guy by the name of Klecko"?  Wow.  That's not the Jim Johnson I know.

Punter
Sav was decidedly mediocre last year.  He was decidely less than mediocre in the first preseason game.  Then he went absolutely nuts, pinning five out of seven inside the 20 in the second game and averaging a net of 48.5 on four punts in the third game.

I like the trend.

Placekicker
I'd feel better about the visual evidence that Akers seems to be bombing his kickoffs this year if his numbers this preseason didn't look so much like his numbers last preseason.

I think it might be better if we just didn't talk about this position.

Return/Coverage
I think we've answered the question of if anyone can actually return kicks this year.  I'm not sure we've yet decided whether we can cover them.