Iggles Blog - Philadelphia Eagles Blog

Your Own Lying Eyes

Ok, I've gotten a chance to spend a couple of hours staring at today's Rich Hofmann article that I referenced earlier.  It's been bothering me all day with that feeling you get when you sit down with the "financing" guy at a car dealership and he spends 30 minutes whipping different numbers back and forth across the desk and at some point you start to lose track of where things are going and you're pretty sure the whole deal sounded a lot better when you were negotiating with the salesman and boy that's a lot of payments and did I really just sign for that?

The whole thing just reeks of bamboozlement from start to finish.  So much so that -- even though I haven't done this in awhile -- I think it's time to bring back the old line-by-line treatment.  Like so...

Rich Hofmann | It's not the playcalling, it's the QBs
Philadelphia Daily News

IT IS THE quarterbacking, not the playcalling.

So here's the first thing that bothers me about this article.  Unless you really, truly believe that the sports editor at the Daily News assigned someone to mine thousands and thousands of playcalls for not just the Eagles, but also every other team in the league, then the data on which this article is based had to come from somewhere.

However, nowhere in the article is the source identified.  And while we know the newspaper guys have access to better stat stuff that we can get, generally when they get information from a source like Stats Inc., they cite it in the story.  So while we can't say for sure, it's a pretty darn good bet that this information came straight from the Eagles organization.

Think about that for a second.  The organization, evidently tired of what it felt was misplaced criticism, planted a story to show that the fault lay with the quarterbacks, not the coaches. 

Now re-read that first sentence.

Then imagine you're Donovan McNabb.

Way to "keep things in-house," guys.

You know the argument, the one that flared again after the Eagles' loss on Sunday to Seattle, the one that states that the way and the truth and the light was the playcalling that Jeff Garcia received last season after he took over as quarterback when Donovan McNabb tore up his knee.

You mean like the time Hofmann wrote: "Anybody who watched Garcia work after McNabb was hurt last year knows that. Yes, the team's offensive success was more about Brian Westbrook and balanced playcalling than anything." (2/26/07)

Or if you think that's going too far back, how about this one:  "The ones who blame Eagles coach Andy Reid can point to the run-oriented playcalling that he seems to offer to every quarterback who has ever worked for him, except for McNabb." (11/19/07)

Or if you're into more specific indictments:  "It is fair to say that the Eagles threw the ball too much against the Redskins, given the uneven quarterback play they are getting from Donovan McNabb." (9/19/07)

Who would ever write something so crazy...

It entirely misses the point. The playcalling has not changed between Garcia and this season. It is the same, and it is the same as the NFL average these days. The Eagles are not pass-happy. Coach Andy Reid and offensive coordinator Marty Mornhinweg are not harebrained. Their offense is not lopsided by NFL standards.

This is a nice use of rhetorical exaggeration here.  "Surely you wouldn't suggest that Marty Mornhinweg is 'hare-brained' now would you?  Would you?"

They are not throwing too much. They are not underusing the great Brian Westbrook. This year has been about McNabb being inconsistent all season. Sunday was about A.J. Feeley being, uh, less than inconsistent. That's it.

Wrong, right, right, and definitely right.

Here's the problem with this entire argument and everything that's about to follow.  The statistics he's going to cite and the trends he's going to identify all compare the Eagles to the NFL average.

I want to say that again, because it's important.  Notice in the statistics below how the Eagles are compared to the league average. 

Now, if we try really hard, maybe we can think of a problem with that approach.

Thinking...

Maybe ... um ... could it be because:

THE EAGLES HAVE THE SECOND-BEST RUSHING OFFENSE IN THE LEAGUE.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to shout, but for Pete's sake, look at the numbers:

• NFL Stats (2nd)
• Football Outsiders Team Rushing Efficiency Rankings (3rd)
• Football Outsiders Offensive Line Rankings (5th)
• Football Outsiders Running Back Ratings (Check out Buchalter's rating)

You know why no one complains about the Patriots throwing too often?  Because they have Tom Brady, Randy Moss, Donte Stallworth and Wes Welker.

You know why everyone wants the Eagles to run more often?  Because they're really friggin' good at it.

I've written about this before.  Opponents don't have to stop the Eagles' running game, the Eagles will do it for them -- even when the opponent is playing six defensive backs and practically begging them to run more.

Because this is the Garcia offense.

No, it's not.  Garcia was excellent at playing the short, controlled passing game.  He completed a high percentage of his passes and was therefore able to sustain drives and keep the offense on the field.

Asking McNabb to play that kind of football is like asking a turtle climb trees.  It's not what he does.  Which means if you want to control the clock, sustain drives and protect the defense, you're going to have to actually run the ball.

What follows is a list of called passing plays in the first half of games, before the score begins to dictate strategy. The categories are pretty self-explanatory.

Here's the next significant problem with this analysis.  The score does indeed dictate strategy, but that doesn't mean you should stop running the football if you're down three points in the third quarter.  Depending upon how things are working, you might even want to run the ball more there.

But we'll run with the first half thing for awhile and see where it takes us.

We begin with Garcia's starts last season, then move through McNabb's and Feeley's this year, followed by the NFL average playcalling in the last 2 weeks.

And, so, the passing percentage:

Garcia . . . 59.1 percent.

McNabb . . . 61.6 percent.

Feeley . . . 59.7 percent.

NFL Week 12 . . . 61.2 percent.

NFL Week 13 . . . 60.5 percent.

See what I mean about the comparisons?  You're talking about one of the league's best rushing attacks, but then you justify going away from it by comparing it to all the other crap out there.  Oh, and how many of those other teams have quarterbacks incompletely healed from devastating knee injuries?

I don't want to belabor this point, since it's remarkably obvious, but if the Eagles' run game didn't work so well, we wouldn't be bitching about not using it.

The numbers are plain. Reid has had some wacky playcalling seasons in the past, but this is not one of them.

The wacky part is certainly true.  Hey, since the Eagles organization has so much time available these days to clean up statistical questions, maybe someone could roll back on that old post I just linked to and figure out what the heck Reid was talking about back then.

(And yes, I love Reid.  And McNabb.  So if you're a new reader, please don't email to tell me I'm a hater who doesn't appreciate these guys.  I do.  I just wish coach would run the damn ball more often.)

The Eagles were historically unbalanced in the first half of 2005 and very unbalanced at the beginning of last year.

Hey, don't stop there.  Even in the Super Bowl season of 2004, the Eagles passed the ball 64.5 percent of the time.  This for a team that went 13-3 and spent most of the season playing with big leads. 

But after a hot start in 2006, McNabb faded badly. At midseason, during the bye week, Reid fired himself as the playcaller and gave the job to Mornhinweg. Since then this has been a typical NFL offense in the new millennium. McNabb got this typical NFL playcalling, and then Garcia got it after McNabb went down, and then McNabb got it again this season, and then Feeley got it.

Typical. Average. That is what the Eagles are. Why people cannot see it is baffling. The town seems stuck on its first impression of Reid's offense, and it just is not true anymore.

See above in re: to "typical, average" vs. "really friggin' good." 

But it was a lousy day, and Westbrook is such a good player, and they're not using him enough, and . . .

If you want to question individual play calls here and there, knock yourself out. Everybody does it. It is what makes the game fun.

And the post-game teeth-gnashing tiresome...

But this had nothing to do with weather. It was raining and windy in Pittsburgh on Sunday night and the Steelers - yes, the Steelers - called 73 percent passing plays in the first half against Cincinnati. The Chicago Bears, in tropical Soldier Field, called 72 percent passing plays in the first half against the Giants. The Eagles didn't come close to that.

Cincinnati -- League's fourth-worst passing defense. 

Chicago Bears -- Lost starting running back Cedric Benson early in the second quarter to an awful leg injury.

And, no, the Eagles are not ignoring Westbrook. He leads the league in touches per game with 26. Repeat, underlined: leads the league. He had 29 touches on Sunday, and only two players in the NFL had more - Willis McGahee from the Ravens and Justin Fargas from the Raiders (whose real claim to fame is that his father played Huggy Bear on "Starsky and Hutch").

If he stays healthy and stays on this pace - and, remember, Westbrook has missed one game because of injury and barely practices these days, such is the pounding he takes - he will finish the season with about 70 more touches than last season. They can lean on him a bit more, maybe, but only a bit.

He is hardly being ignored.

This part is entirely true.  Westbrook is the man.

It's just too bad we don't have another running back on the roster who could be relied upon to take up some of the burden in the running game.  Like maybe a guy with a 5.3 yard-per-carry average  Or perhaps a high-round draft choice.

But back to this first-half stuff. Why fixate on that? The game is 60 minutes, and the Eagles ran more for Garcia in the second half than they're doing now, right?

Yes, right. But the reason has been the score, as it has been in the NFL forever. In case you haven't noticed, the Eagles are perpetually behind this season.

Garcia started eight games. In the last six, the Eagles held the lead at halftime. In those six games, the Eagles held the second-half lead for an average of 26 out of 30 minutes. That's why they could run more at the end of those games.

This year? Forget it. In 12 games, the Eagles have held the halftime lead in only four - and not since the Minnesota game on Oct. 28. For the last 5 weeks, they have been behind at the half in every game. And when you are behind at the half, you throw more.

Unless your running offense is so good that you can actually use it to help score points.

Look at every NFL team that was trailing at halftime last week, and how it called plays in the third quarter. It went like this:

Eagles . . . 71 percent passes.

NFL Week 13 . . . 68 percent passes.

Every trailing team throws more after halftime. And if the Eagles had turned one of their third-quarter passes into a run, they would have been below the league average for passes. One play. Does that really suggest playcallers who have lost their minds?

Again, no, perfectly sane.  We're just asking for some marginal improvement. 

Why people cannot see this is inexplicable, but Mornhinweg acts just like the average offensive coordinator in the first half, and just like the average offensive coordinator when his team is behind.

Even though he's calling plays for a decidedly un-average running back and rushing attack.

And why are the Eagles always behind?

All together now: Because of the quarterbacking, not the playcalling.

How's that knife feel, guys?

How...

Fourth quarter, bad weather, 3rd-and-one, QB thrown three picks ... I just don't know how you don't run the ball there.

Now We Have to Pass

Here's the thing.  Whatever you think about McNabb overall, you can't argue with the fact that when he's hot, he's hot.  A defensive game plan that focused on taking away the run and seeing if McNabb could beat you wouldn't be very smart.  The Pats might have been just crazy enough to try it; but that doesn't mean it would have been a good idea.

On the other hand, as much as AJ Feeley is a legitimate NFL quarterback, he isn't McNabb.  Which means if you're a team with a very good pass defense and a fantastic offense, it wouldn't be crazy to say you're going to focus on stopping Westbrook at all costs and dealing with the passing game points by scoring your own. 

All of which is to say that the people who are assuming the Eagles are going to come out run-heavy because Feeley will be starting in place of McNabb may only be doing a first-order analysis.  Mandy Mornhinreid will be asking the next question...

What Will Belichick Do?

Bit of a paradox, really.  Lesser quarterback = more passing.

An Achilles Fingernail?

The Pats have the league's best offense, and it's not even close.  They've already scored 411 points, which is more than the Eagles managed during the entire 2004 Super Bowl season.  That offense is complemented by a defense that is ranked either fourth-best (yards) or fifth-best (points).  You can stare at these numbers all day, but they just don't get any less scary.

But there's one area where they're not quite as strong.  It's not huge.  And it probably won't be enough to change the final result.  But it's something. 

Despite playing with huge leads that force opponents to pass-pass-pass to catch up, the Patriots aren't great at stopping the run. 

Ok, so it may not be much, but when you're facing a juggernaut like the New England Patriots, you have to look for any edge you can find. 

Looking at the traditional statistics, we can see that the Pats are 21st in the league in terms of yards-per-opponent-carry.  The average run against them is 4.2 yards.  Not massive, but not very good.

The numbers from Football Outsiders tell a similar story.  Depite being ranked 11th overall against the run with the FO numbers, the Pats are ranked just 21st in power situations and 25th in stuffs (for definitions, follow the link).  They're up to 13th in long runs allowed, which suggests we're not seeing a few big runs skewing the statistics.  You really can run right at these guys, consistently, if you're content to be patient.

Now, a few caveats are in order.  First of all, Richard Seymour missed a number of games at the beginning of the year.  He's back now, presumably healthy, and should help those numbers as he rounds into game shape.

The second issue is that -- let's be honest -- most of the games the Patriots are playing these days get so out of hand so quickly that we haven't really seen any team but the Colts stick with the run beyond half time.  Only the Steelers have faced fewer rushing attempts this season.

And yes, blocking the 3-4 scheme always seems to give the Eagles trouble (although the Pats came out in a 4-3 last week, so you never know what they're going to do), but it's a heck of a lot easier to just tell the offensive linemen to go destroy the guys they're facing, rather than having to leap back and guess who's coming to rush the quarterback.   

When it comes right down to it, their offense scores a touchdown one out of every two times it gets the ball, their pass defense is very good and they lead the league in sacks per opponent's pass attempt. 

I'm not saying it's going to work, but what else are you going to try?

- - - - - -

UPDATE: I just noticed that Bounty's looking at the same numbers and has his own plan on what do about them.  I knew I should have mentioned the not punting thing, but I'm now glad I didn't since he got there first and I hate looking like I ripped off someone's idea. 

Could you please adopt a more regular posting schedule, hoagie, so I know when to check in before posting?

So Seriously, What's Up With the Playcalling?

As this point, the notion that Andy Reid passes too often is pretty much an established fact:

1. Despite Reid's bizarre claim to the contrary, no Super Bowl winning team has ever passed as often as Andy Reid's teams do (most aren't even close).
2. By at least some measures, the Eagles have the most productive running back in the entire league.
3. Overuse of Westbrook shouldn't be an issue because the Eagles also have one of the most efficient spell backs in the entire league (same link).
4. Donovan McNabb is making too many mistakes right now to be entrusted with the same percentage of the offensive load he used to carry.

I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.  But just to be systematic about this, that's our starting point (yes, I know we could come up with a much longer list of reasons to run the ball -- that's good enough for now).

So the question then becomes, why doesn't Reid realize all this as well?  It's fine to say he's just stubborn and doesn't want to change, but that doesn't really get us very far in understanding what's going on.  After all, people aren't generally stubborn because they think they're wrong, but rather because they think they're right.

So with which elements of the above four-part premise would Reid disagree?  Based on his actions over the past 12 or so months, you'd have to say numbers one, three and four. 

1. This goes back years and years.  Reid clearly believes he's right and everyone else is wrong when it comes to how you win football games and championship.  So, if we're trying to get into Reid's head for this year, maybe he's thinking the following: a) It doesn't really matter what the team does this year because they're not winning the Super Bowl anyway, so b) I'm not going to revamp my whole attack just to try to squeeze out a few more wins when next year I want to go right back to the bombs-away approach to make a run at a ring. 
2. Reid agrees with this one.  He's pretty much called Westbrook the best back in the league. 
3. Reid seems to agree only partially with this one.  He's not worried about overuse, because in the games they need Westbrook to step up (like last week), Reid doesn't hesitate to increase his workload.  On the other hand, Buckhalter is only averaging about three carries in the games he plays when Westbrook is healthy.  I don't get this.  It's one thing to keep the rookie Tony Hunt nailed to the bench; it's another thing entirely to tell a seven-year vet averaging just about five yards a carry that you just can't find any snaps for him.
4. Reid's disagreement with this one is self-evident from the playcalling.  Or is it? 

Maybe Reid does realize that the current McNabb isn't able to carry the offense like he used to be, but he's going to keep giving him chances to do so. 

And if he can't, that means he's gone.

We've all been assuming for awhile now that Reid would eventually apply the Jeff Garcia template to McNabb.  Surround a veteran quarterback with enough talent and a conservative gameplan so all he needs to do is make a couple of plays a game and protect the football.

But consider point #1 above.  What if Reid doesn't think he can win a Super Bowl with that approach?  He's then got to decide soon whether or not McNabb can be the guy he was before.  In Reid's world, if McNabb can't execute his pass-heavy gameplan as a top five quarterback, then it's time to go looking somewhere else.

That would make this year (and maybe next) an audition.  He's not going to change his system to fit his "Super Bowl quarterback," he's going to change his quarterback to fit his system.

(How is this different from what everyone else is saying?  It's because most people assumed Reid would try to win as many games as possible with McNabb, and if that didn't work he'd have to move on.  This theory says instead that Reid doesn't care how many games McNabb wins and he's not going to accommodate his veteran quarterback at all.  If McNabb can't win as many games as he used to in the exact same way he used to then it's time to move on.  Depending upon what you think about the state of McNabb's recovery, you could argue that Reid's simply setting him up to fail.) 

Admittedly, this is kind of a crazy theory.  But it certainly explains a few things, like why Reid won't adjust to fit the new McNabb reality, but is happy to shift gears when someone else is at quarterback.  It also makes more sense than just believing that Andy Reid, who's been coaching a long time and is well-respected as one of the league's top coaches, somehow can't see the stupendously obvious truth that's so apparent to all the rest of us.

And like all good theories, it comes with its own built-in falsifiable prediction.  At some point, Kevin Kolb is going to take the reins for this franchise.  It might be sooner rather than later, but it now seems inevitable that it will be within the next three years.  When the kid takes over, the obvious move will be for the Eagles to shift to the same type of conservative, run-heavy offense that teams like the Chargers and Steelers used to bring along their young quarterbacks. 

If this theory is correct, Reid won't.  However the depth chart shakes out, Kolb is going to be anointed the "Super Bowl quarterback."  Which means Reid may start out a little carefully just to help get Kolb's feet wet, but almost immediately he's going to be dumping the offense on the kid and telling him it's up to him to make plays.    

Here's the bad news for you McNabb haters.  The quarterback may change, but I bet the offense doesn't.