This is Derek's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Derek's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Derek
Recent Activity
Williams is an adequate cover corner. That's harder to find than an adequate safety. I think Boykin starting outside and playing inside on nickel downs is better than Williams starting outside and Boykin still playing inside on nickel downs, but we'll see.
1 reply
I don't really get the idea that Kelly's offense is all that complex from the quarterback's side of things. If it's five-on-five inside, hand off. If you have two-on-two outside, throw the screen. If the linebacker jumps this thing, do that thing instead. Blitz pickup also become simpler just by virtue of the spread. There aren't as many ways you can bring pressure when you have fewer guys inside on defense. Given time, Vick can read coverages. Where he struggles is sensing and responding to pressure, which to some extent messes up every quarterback. With a much stronger line and a scheme that slows down the pass rush, he should be in a position to play very well this year. And I'm not saying it hasn't happened -- it definitely has -- but it's been awhile since Vick made a decision as bad as that red zone pick Foles threw last week.
1 reply
Thanks, I'm liking the GIFs too. They make a big difference and they're a lot easier to implement than the videos used to be.
1 reply
Cary Williams is going to run away with "most disliked Eagle who isn't a known racist or dog murderer" this year.
1 reply
If I may, I think you guys are watching the wrong thing. Look again, our linemen didn't get off their blocks and make plays in either video. The difference is that in the Pats play, the second-level guys -- especially Nate Allen -- chopped their feet and "caught" the blockers, while against the Panthers they diagnosed immediately and bolted through to make the play. Nate Allen is by far the best example of the discussions/argument/befuddlement we've been living through the past couple years. Aren't these guys NFL players? Haven't some of them looked good before? Why do they seem so terrible at playing football? If the answer is "they suck, get over it," then fine, no amount of new coaching involving Chip's innovative new methods is going to make a difference. But if the truth is somewhere closer to "they're not All-Pros, but the defensive coaching has been legitimately terrible for years," then what we should expect to start seeing is guys making mistakes one week, but then *correcting them as they go forward.* Our defensive problems are a long way from solved. You don't fix years of mess in a week. (The coverages look particularly disastrous.) But we're looking for trendlines.
1 reply
Except shorter cornerbacks aren't that rare. Of the 71-player sample, 27 are 5-10 or less and 44 are 5-11 or more. Really it's the other way. If you're 6-2 *and* you have the change of direction ability of a 5-10 guy, then you're the one who's pretty exceptional (or you just can't catch :-). We're also not trying to prove that shorter cornerbacks are better. We're just trying to disprove the notion that being 5-9 and 44/100ths means you're too short to succeed in the NFL. That's clearly not the case.
1 reply
Wish I'd been so cursed.
1 reply
I think DRC's issue inside is technique. Outside, he can use his catch-up speed to make up for any mistakes / laziness. Inside, the ball's on you as the guy comes out of his break. There's no catch-up time.
1 reply
I limited the sample to guys who played at least 50 percent of their team's snaps. That gave us 71 CBs, which as a starting point is close to the 32 x 2 = 64 number of starters leaguewide. So we're not talking about dedicated nickel players who only play in the slot. Even Boykin didn't have enough snaps to make the list. Where this gets even a little trickier is that you have guys like Antoine Winfield, who, at this point in his career, is a starter outside in the base defense but then moves into the slot when they go nickel. (Which is how I'd use Boykin as well.) He's a nice example from my side of the argument, because his YPAs inside and outside are almost identical and teams actually threw at him a _lot_ more when he was inside than out. That's actually mostly the case for all four sub-5-10 guys in the database who played starter-level snaps but also spent a lot of time inside: Captain Munnerlyn (6.1 inside vs 6.2 outside), Javier Arenas (7.8 vs 8.7), Robert McLain (5.1 vs. 4.5). As a group, these short guys were 6.3 inside and 6.7 outside. The _taller_ guys had a much more pronounced split, at 7.0 vs. 8.9. And keep in mind too that if the concern is truly "short guy matched up against big guy," offenses can force that issue by moving a guy like Nicks into the slot. (Fitz and Megatron usually have dedicated coverage plans that don't let those kinds of cross-matches happen.)
1 reply
That's assuming he's actually the better passer in this system, too, which is a point that remains unproven.
1 reply
I actually agree with you on #4 not being IZ.
1 reply
No, the implication is that turning it into a read won't be a huge jump. But as noted a couple times above, the QBs were just handing off. Apologies for the Ducks fan guess. But then as an Eagles fan, you know Foles wasn't running anywhere on purpose last year :)
1 reply
The "read" in the read option before the handoff is the quarterback's. The "read" after the handoff is the running back looking at the blocking and determining which hole to hit. The aiming point might be inside (outside) but because of the way the defense overplayed or just came off the ball, he might end up running outside (inside). https://www.google.com/search?q=running+back+reads+his+block John, you sound like an Oregon fan. If that's true, understand that the plays above are Andy Reid plays. They're not Chip Kelly plays. So to say "bad read by the QB" would be true IF the play had actually been a read. Last year, it wasn't. As an Oregon fan, you probably also don't know that play #5 is demonstrating the sterling efforts of our backup-backup-LT and backup-C. They were assuredly coached to do something differently :) One of the reasons we're all so excited about Kelly's new staff is that young player development has been pretty terrible around here the last couple years. We're hopeful that his emphasis on innovative teaching approaches can change that. Thanks for the comments.
1 reply
The running back alignment tell is something that even Chip Kelly doesn't do all the time anymore. Those videos were created earlier in his tenure, before he evolved his offense. Everyone's zone game is a little different. Mudd isn't exactly the same as Gibbs isn't exactly the same as Kelly. And yeah, it's inherently difficult to say after the fact exactly what was called sometimes, just based on the way the running back reads things. I think the core point here is that for all the talk -- and reality -- of a new offense, some of the basic run game concepts are pretty similar. So there's every reason to believe that if, say, Evan Mathis was really effective in one scheme, he'll continue to be in this one.
1 reply
I'm being cautious because as a good Negadelphian I always expect good things to fall through in the end. But if it comes through, trust me, it will be good.
1 reply
I think what's happening there is that the slant messed up the pre-snap count. What looked like one front changed into another and they didn't adjust on the fly. Washington had seen a lot of OZs at that point and I'm guessing our linemen had gotten used to them running wide with us.
1 reply
On Monday morning, I made an offer. The first person to chip in $100 for the Eagles Almanac kickstarter got to name his or her post here on the IgglesBlog. Twitter-er @Thunder_Lips -- who probably isn't actually Hulk Hogan -- is your winner. And since he's such a nice guy,... Continue reading
Posted Jul 27, 2013 at 2013design
This is correct. We're talking about small sample sizes, so the buckets you pick can have a large effect on how the numbers look. I just wanted to show that in Graham's case it doesn't really matter how you slice them, he was consistently productive in every role.
1 reply
Indeed: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-trippintuesday033010
1 reply
You're conflating two different types of reads here. Vick's blitz recognition is abysmal, he can't see dropping linebackers, etc., etc. That's all taken as read. But when you look at what Kelly has said about his run game, it's not that complicated. He even says "it's not a read." Just hand the ball off, every time, unless the DE (or scraping LB) gives you absolutely no choice. As a final point, we should be explicit about the ground we're fighting on here. You're saying "replace Vick immediately" and I'm saying "replace Vick as soon as you can possibly get someone better." By the time the draft is done, there may no longer be any space between our positions.
1 reply
Dixon is here, so that's covered. If he's better than Vick, he'll play. As for Smith, it's the same thing as above -- he's better, but he's not free. San Francisco isn't just going to give him away. Anything we trade in return takes away from resources we could use to address other needs. Why do that for a stopgap when you have a stopgap already? As for "teaching other players in the offense," that's not his role. Again, you're tied up in looking at this from Vick's perspective. Break away from that for a minute. Foles *can't* run the read option. He's too slow. Defenses will just crash on the back and then if he keeps it -- which he should, every time, if he's reading correctly -- they'll just run him down and demolish him before he even gets to the line. Vick may or may not be able to run the read option *well*, but he *can* run it. You have to play him straight or else he will get the corner on you. Will he run 60 yards and score a touchdown? No, not anymore. But he at least gives: * Kelly the chance to see how his concepts work at this level. * Everyone else on the offense a chance to practice the things they'll be doing going forward with the new QB. I'm arguing, in effect, that this one qualitative difference mitigates whatever other quantitative differences may or may not exist between the two players.
1 reply
And the point argued above is that all of these things can be true, but it's still better to run with Vick, because the unit of analysis is the *other* 10 guys, not the quarterback. Will *their* performance running Chip Kelly's offense in 2014-? with Future Unnamed QB be better or worse if they spend 2013 playing with: 1) A better QB (for same of argument) who can't actually run Kelly's offense. 2) A lesser QB (for sake of argument) who can run the offense and therefore give people live reps. Also, let's not assume Vick is the final answer. We still have a draft and free agency to go. Finally, when talking about cost, even just cutting Vick was going to be expensive against this year's cap: http://web.archive.org/web/20130203011502/http://eaglescap.com/Players/MichaelVick.html If the reports of the new deal are to be believed, he's basically costing us the same ~$7M cap hit this year but at least we get to keep him in the mix -- and he's now tradable. There were a few different pieces of this decision that need to be considered together.
1 reply
Kelce and Peters played 1.5 and 0 games respectively. They didn't help much.
1 reply
And Peters would easily best Thomas. I'm just talking about guys we've seen on the field recently.
1 reply
In response to the last few comments -- I think our defense was like a 100-year-old piece of machinery that creaked and rattled and shook but basically stuck together and did the job if you talked to it softly and maniacally patched every issue that cropped up. So to say Juan borrowed pieces and cobbled them together, yeah, he did. This was a frankenstein defense from the get-go -- on purpose once Reid decided to build everything around Washburn's fronts. That was the problem with Castillo. He was always one step behind, doing things that worked but then being slow to adjust when opponents would attack him. I think Bowles came down from the server room and expected things to just work when you plugged them in. Not so much. The reason I haven't done breakdowns is because it's too annoying to watch, but also because it would just be an exercise in passing out blame. Look, here's who ****ed up on this play. Now it's this guy on this play. Who wants to read a detailed breakdown of, say, every Ryan Howard strikeout when he's in the midst of one of his slumps?
1 reply