Q & A

Posted: September 15th, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Philadelphia Eagles | 31 Comments »

I wanted to address a few topics before putting up a Falcons post.  Here are some questions / topics of interest among readers.  You’ll notice LB is still king of the mountain.

What’s the difference in Casey Matthews and Danny Watkins?   The Eagles projected both players to start as rookies.  Both guys were thrown into the lineup early.  It was sink or swim time.  I’ve touched on this a bit, but it bears repeating.  2011 wasn’t a normal offseason.  You couldn’t go with the normal paradigm in terms of young player development.

In most seasons the rookies are backups in the first post-draft mini-camp.  Then there are a series of passing camps and rookie camps in May and June.  The whole team isn’t at those.  That gives a lot of reps to the young guys.  Coaches can really work with them individually.  It was at a passing camp where DeSean Jackson really got everyone’s attention.  He stole Reggie Brown’s starting job and never gave it back.

Rookies learn in May and June.  There is no tackling.  There aren’t 11 on 11 drills.  The work is specialized to focus on specific areas.  Then the rookies go to Lehigh and get in a real football environment.  This is when they compete for playing time and jobs.

Unfortunately there was no May or June football this year.  There also weren’t 2-a-day practices.  All of this meant the Eagles had to approach rookies in a different way.  They had to throw them into the mix.  They had to teach them, while also developing the unit, and that side of the ball.  There was no time for true competition.

Matthews showed the coaches enough that they decided to leave him as the starting MLB.  Watkins struggled so the team added Kyle DeVan and made him the starter.  Matthews wasn’t so good that the coaches were blown away.  We saw his struggles vs PIT.      

There is a key difference.  Matthews was a MLB at Oregon.  He came here to be the MLB.  He’s adapting and learning every day, but in the end he’s still a MLB.  Watkins had to learn a whole new position.  He went from LT to RG.  It’s one thing to adapt from a college system to an NFL system, but its a whole other story when you’re moving from left to right and T to G.  Watkins is having to change everything that his body is used to doing.  He’s got a more complicated transition than Matthews.  Watkins will be the RG at some point this year.  He’s got to continue learning the new position.  Matthews remains the MLB because the Eagles like his potential and see him getting better.

So Rolle is getting time at WLB.  Why not shift Fokou to SAM, his spot from last year?  We’re running a different system this year.  Most of the time last year we had the SAM up on the line of scrimmage.  That allowed Fokou to take on blockers right away.  That was something he excelled at.  This year we have all 3 LBs playing off the ball.  Fokou’s issues with gap responsibility and taking poor pursuit angles would be bad at SAM or WLB.

Fokou has spent his whole career playing as if he were shot out of a cannon.  The Eagles love parts of his game.  If he can just slow down a bit he’ll stay the starting WLB.  There is no lack of talent.  He simply made some technical mistakes.  I wonder if last week being the season opener brought out the worst in him.  You can get over-hyped.  Play fast, but also smart and under control.

Why not move Chaney from SAM?

I think the Eagles view SAM as a key spot in the new scheme.  They’d like him to cover TEs quite a bit.  They expect him to be a good run defender.  This isn’t the old SAM whose primary job was to set the edge and take on blockers.  Chaney showed good cover skills in the preseason.  He gave up a couple of completions vs STL, but as I’ve written those were mainly due to some communication breakdowns.  He certainly runs well and looks comfortable playing in space.

What is up with the Eagles and the stretch play?

First, I don’t remember the Eagles running that much, if at all, in the preseason.  I was shocked at how much the team ran it (or tried to on Sunday).

The stretch is something the Colts were very good at.  The OL moves horizontally and zone blocks.  The QB has to sprint out wide.  The RB also sprints to the mesh point, where he gets the ball from the QB.  He then has a chance to get off tackle for a nice gain.  This requires precise timing.

The Eagles timing was far from precise.  It was closer to awful.  Shady had no running room on the front side of the play and was forced to cut to the back side and hope for the best.

There were breakdowns by each position.  The OL didn’t move smoothly and stay square to the LOS.  Guys were all over the place.  The line must flow.

Vick sometimes seemed too slow, others too fast on getting to the mesh point.  Shady was the same.  Sometimes he seemed to be anticipating that he’s have to cut back and that had him hesitant on the front side.  The stretch needs a RB to get going full steam so that he can attack downhill.

Much, much work is needed.  Also, I think Ronnie Brown might be a better fit for stretch plays.


31 Comments on “Q & A”

  1. 1 Anonymous said at 3:57 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    RE: stretch play

    I wonder if it won’t be as effective here as it was in Indy because of one thing: Vick. If teams are trying to keep him in the pocket (a la the old JJ defense), then DE’s will largely be in “contain” mode… meaning it’ll be harder to get outside. Is this supposed to be some sort of blitz deterrent?

    The other thing that troubles me about the stretch play is it seems to encourage what I see as McCoy’s weakness – trying to turn every run into a TD. It’s great when that happens, obviously, but he’ll be tempted to cut it back every time and, like a punt returner going backwards, that will most often result in a loss of yards. We saw him cut one back on Sunday and salvage a 2 yard gain, but against a good defense that isn’t going to work.

  2. 2 Anonymous said at 4:01 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    RE: LB’s

    Tommy, I’m having a hard time digesting what we’re looking for out of our LB’s in this new scheme. Can you play God and take your choice of WLB, MLB and SAM from across the league so we know what the ideal player would be at each spot?

  3. 3 Anonymous said at 4:13 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    Wow, tough one.

    SAM: Chad Greenway
    MIKE: Jon Beason
    WIL: Lance Briggs

    We want the SAM to cover TEs and be a good run defender.
    MIKE needs to be a good run defender, but also able to cover. Not looking for a 250-lb thumper.
    WIL needs to good run defender, must also be effective in space vs RBs.

  4. 4 Steven Dileo said at 11:51 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    Poor Sean McDermitt. In his first year as Eagles DC he loses his all-pro LB from the entire year. In his first year as the Panther’s DC he loses Jon Beason.

  5. 5 Anders Jensen said at 4:24 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    This post proves that Chaney is the key player from LBers. He was the only defensive player to get all defensive snaps

    http://bloggingthebeast.com/2011/09/14/some-interesting-nfc-east-snap-count-numbers-from-week-1-eagles-and-cowboys-edition/#more-1603

  6. 6 Sam Lynch said at 4:55 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    If your Watkins / Matthews explanation is accurate, it is an example of some egregious myopia on the part of the front office. Yes, it’s true, we have less prep time for rookies this year, so we can’t operate as we did in the past. And yes, perhaps that means that you don’t have the ability to have them compete. But the logical follow is that you then should not expect them to be able to start this year, at least not right away, and prepare them to be a backup in 2011 — you should have LOWER expectations for them than you otherwise would.

    But the Eagles’ logical next step was to install them as starters without competition? With Watkins, sure, he’s a first round pick and you expect him to be able to play at a high level right away, theoretically, though he was advertised to be raw. Even so, I can see that decision.

    But your fourth round pick? That plan was asinine from the minute it was conceived. Train him to be your nickel or some specialized role if you really think he’s that good right now, and if he exceeds that level during the season, great — we never have had problems making changes at LB mid year. But to give him the starting role, and in the beginning a 3 down role? Again, a fourth round pick, the 15th LB off the board this year? In a year when you should lower your expectations for what a rookie can produce? Stupid. Just stupid.

  7. 7 Anonymous said at 5:13 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    100% Co-Sign. Tulloch signed a nothing contract with the Lions too. We easily could have gotten a solution at MLB that had no long term ramifications.

  8. 8 Anonymous said at 6:05 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    I think it would help to know exactly how this went down. I don’t think on draft weekend the Eagles said “There’s our starting MLB”. I don’t think it went like that. They definitely wanted Matthews, but I’m not sure what the plan was beyond that.

    I don’t know if they expected Stew Bradley to return for a short deal or had some other vet listed as a target. I can only speculate on stuff like that.

    I could see Castillo watching all of Matthews tape after the draft (what else was he gonna do?) and maybe Castillo started to think…this guy can play as a rookie. Let’s get him on the field.

    The Eagles took a risk in going with Casey as the starter. No doubt about that. I don’t think it is as “stupid” as Sam, but I get where he’s coming from. The biggest thing from my perspective is that there weren’t other options I was really into. I did want Poz, but the Jags overpaid him. I watched tape of Lofa Tatupu and Kirk Morrison. They just didn’t do much for me. Stephen Tulloch was interesting, but signed for $3.25M this year. That’s half of what he wanted, but still may have been more than what the Eagles wanted to pay a MLB.

  9. 9 Sam Lynch said at 6:17 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    Allowing coaches to fall in love with tape from unproven rookies is something that the front office should have been actively guarding against. It was a clear potential risk, and the front office’s role needs to be to guard against that problem by making sure that the coach has alternatives if the guy he sees at camp isn’t the guy he thought he saw on film.

    Now, with respect to alternatives / budget, it is hard for me to imagine that $3.25 million on a starting MLB is too much, but $2 million guaranteed on a 4th WR is reasonable.

  10. 10 Anonymous said at 6:37 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    I didn’t really see the need in going after Smith. I understand some of the logic, but that’s a luxury move. Eagles obviously have a different way of looking at things than many of us.

  11. 11 Anders Jensen said at 6:42 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    The Eagles have shown over the last decade that they dont value LB as high as receiver and I believe it also shows how they draft and sign FAs

  12. 12 Sam Lynch said at 6:59 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    If they’ve shown anything, they are willing to pay a high salary to a veteran LB for a year (see Takeo Spikes, Will Witherspoon, Shark in Water, et al)

  13. 13 Anonymous said at 10:08 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    Maybe the Eagles decided that they had wasted their time with those type of band-aids and decided to take their lumps with a young guy who could be here for years if he panned out.

    If things had gone disastrous, Chaney could have been moved back to the middle. It isn’t like the cupboard was completely bare.

    I know fans aren’t happy with Casey, but Eagles might be satisfied so far. They clearly want better, but can live with where he’s at for now. Improvement is going to be key to him keeping his job.

  14. 14 Steven Dileo said at 11:57 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    I don’t think the Eagles have ever signed or resigned a LB to a contract that was worth more than 3.5 mill/year. They just don’t value that position and they feel as though its the least important position on defense.

  15. 15 Anonymous said at 12:15 AM on September 16th, 2011:

    Trot got big contract in ’05. Spikes made big money in ’07.

  16. 16 Anonymous said at 9:36 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    Not to mention the Dream Team discount.

  17. 17 Sam Lynch said at 4:55 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    If your Watkins / Matthews explanation is accurate, it is an example of some egregious myopia on the part of the front office. Yes, it’s true, we have less prep time for rookies this year, so we can’t operate as we did in the past. And yes, perhaps that means that you don’t have the ability to have them compete. But the logical follow is that you then should not expect them to be able to start this year, at least not right away, and prepare them to be a backup in 2011 — you should have LOWER expectations for them than you otherwise would.

    But the Eagles’ logical next step was to install them as starters without competition? With Watkins, sure, he’s a first round pick and you expect him to be able to play at a high level right away, theoretically, though he was advertised to be raw. Even so, I can see that decision.

    But your fourth round pick? That plan was asinine from the minute it was conceived. Train him to be your nickel or some specialized role if you really think he’s that good right now, and if he exceeds that level during the season, great — we never have had problems making changes at LB mid year. But to give him the starting role, and in the beginning a 3 down role? Again, a fourth round pick, the 15th LB off the board this year? In a year when you should lower your expectations for what a rookie can produce? Stupid. Just stupid.

  18. 18 Sam Lynch said at 4:55 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    If your Watkins / Matthews explanation is accurate, it is an example of some egregious myopia on the part of the front office. Yes, it’s true, we have less prep time for rookies this year, so we can’t operate as we did in the past. And yes, perhaps that means that you don’t have the ability to have them compete. But the logical follow is that you then should not expect them to be able to start this year, at least not right away, and prepare them to be a backup in 2011 — you should have LOWER expectations for them than you otherwise would.

    But the Eagles’ logical next step was to install them as starters without competition? With Watkins, sure, he’s a first round pick and you expect him to be able to play at a high level right away, theoretically, though he was advertised to be raw. Even so, I can see that decision.

    But your fourth round pick? That plan was asinine from the minute it was conceived. Train him to be your nickel or some specialized role if you really think he’s that good right now, and if he exceeds that level during the season, great — we never have had problems making changes at LB mid year. But to give him the starting role, and in the beginning a 3 down role? Again, a fourth round pick, the 15th LB off the board this year? In a year when you should lower your expectations for what a rookie can produce? Stupid. Just stupid.

  19. 19 Kristian Johnson said at 5:08 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    I think the primary reason that Watkins was demoted was simply because Devan became available after cut downs. If a former Mudd player hadn’t become available, they probably would have stayed with Watkins. If Keith Butler (Pitt’s linebacker coach) became the Eagles LB coach and Larry Foote became available, the birds probably would have picked him up.

  20. 20 Jim Larsen said at 6:18 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    On Watkins,

    Since he’s learning both a new position and a new side, would it cut down learning time to slide him to LG? At least then, he’s on the same half of the C that he’s used to.

    I like Mathis, but his experience should make him more versatile…and while we hate the idea of continuous change along the OLine, do you think we could see a Peters, Watkins, Kelce, Mathis, Herremans lineup?

  21. 21 Anonymous said at 6:40 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    Putting Watkins at LG originally would have helped. He’s spent the whole summer at RG so I don’t know that moving him now would be wise. Heck, it could confuse him more. I think the Eagles will leave him at RG. That’s where they want him. More important spot than LG. Danny will be okay now that he’s got time to learn.

  22. 22 Anonymous said at 9:42 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    He has time to learn?! He has time to learn?!

    If Watkins does not earn the starting spot on the Pro Bowl team this year and each year for the rest of the decade, only to reject it because he is playing in the Super Bowl, he is a complete bust and the worst draft pick in the history of football (and the second worst decision is sports history, second only to trading Babe Ruth for walking around money).

    How is he going to secure his Pro Bowl spot if he is “learning?” I guess you will be satisfied if he “contributes to the team” the second half of the season and helps them “in the playoffs.” Those stats doen’t even count! We will be the laughing stock of the league!

    And if he gets injured while “learning,” well, don’t even get me started.

    (While there is no way to denote sarcasm in a comment, I trust that it is not necessary in this instance.)

  23. 23 Anonymous said at 10:05 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    I hope you’re being sarcastic.

    If only there was a way to denote sarcasm in a comment…

  24. 24 Anonymous said at 11:38 PM on September 15th, 2011:
  25. 25 Anonymous said at 1:13 AM on September 16th, 2011:

    Wow, that’s meta-sarcasm. Excuse me for a moment while I go and cast another vote for best blogger.

  26. 26 Jim Larsen said at 6:19 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    On Watkins,

    Since he’s learning both a new position and a new side, would it cut down learning time to slide him to LG? At least then, he’s on the same half of the C that he’s used to.

    I like Mathis, but his experience should make him more versatile…and while we hate the idea of continuous change along the OLine, do you think we could see a Peters, Watkins, Kelce, Mathis, Herremans lineup?

  27. 27 Anders Jensen said at 6:38 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    Now I dont think its a good idea as he have used so much time at RG and RG is the weak point atm and where we have the least talented player.

  28. 28 Anonymous said at 8:00 PM on September 15th, 2011:

    I fully agree with you Sam. What’s amazing is the fact that this year more than ever, we have relied on rookies stepping in to start. Watkins and Matthews were expected to start from day 1. I don’t really have a problem with Henry or Henery not having much competition, but the same story can be said about those two. Finally, let’s be honest, Kelce was expected to start over Jackson right away, they just went through additional steps before handing him the job. Go figure that the one guy that had the most competition is the one that is performing at the highest level.

  29. 29 Cliff Hall said at 12:22 AM on September 16th, 2011:

    We talk about the “other options” we supposedly had at MLB this offseason. Who says Tulloch wanted to be here? We *assume* we could have signed him for what the Lions did. Ask yourself: why were the Lions able to sign Tulloch for so little? The Eagles AND 30 other teams didn’t offer anything better…

  30. 30 Anonymous said at 1:20 AM on September 16th, 2011:

    Yeah, on the one hand you’d think Washburn provided us with a pretty good report on him and on the other hand he might have taken less to play between the DTs on the Loins.

    Regardless, it is not like there is any indication that the Eagles wanted a guy this off season but were unwilling to go after them. I think we can be satisfied that they didn’t think he was the value they wanted.

  31. 31 Anonymous said at 3:37 AM on September 16th, 2011:

    I think its an interesting point re: the Eagles being willing to “take their lumps” and develop the Linebacker position this season. It may not be an ideal concept to the fanbase, but organizationally speaking, what better year to do it? They invested huge money in veteran, vested players on the front 4 and the back 4. They know those positions will deliver and do their jobs, and should be able to cover up some of the blemishes of the young LB corps.

    The Linebacker position has long been a revolving door under Reid. With a new DC and an all-around new defensive scheme, perhaps they sought to change that. Stick the two young guys you have on the outside, and develop a newbie on the inside. Again, that thinking won’t satiate a rabid fanbase… but I’m willing to trust the F.O. on this one. If it truly blows up in their face–I’m talking a costly divisional loss or a playoff loss–THEN I’ll start railing on them for the decision.