Coming Off the Ledge
from bumble:
someone pointed out the other week,"The Eagles are 2-4. And they're boring. Enough said". while that is definitely true, it's really short-sighted and is too small of a sample size to draw any conclusions. the number to focus on is this one: 83-52, which equates to a .615 winning percentage and is better than bill belicheat's .595.
if reid stinks and mcnabb stinks, then how do you explain that winning percentage? the anti-reid/mcnabb contingent will credit the defense for the winning percentage. the defense should definitely get its share of the credit, but it hasn't been the best defense in the league at any point during the reid/mcnabb era yet the eagles have posted a top three overall record during that time.
but back to the point at hand, which is bumble's continued assertion that reid is not a good drafter, and that is simply not the case. sure they've blown some picks, but i wish we could stop trying to hold reid to perfection on drafting. he's blown fewer than most. the cutting of mccoy doesn't change that (especially because he was already counted as a blown pick - a "1" - in the previous analysis).
haven't seen any action here this week, but let me pose this, was anyone else furious when McCoy got cut. I know some idiots were probably snickering that he got axed for a cheap shot on the Vikings punter, but not me. No i wanted to punch Reid in the mouth for blowing yet another high draft pick on a crap player no one else wanted. Just makes my point further about how poorly he's drafted the last few years.sorry for the lack of activity on my part, i'm focused on work and really in a wait and see mode on the birds. while i'm still mostly frustrated with andy reid's strategic and in-game weaknesses, i'm back to being torn because he's so damn consistent and is a winner. other than a few good coaches (who are not available) who's been a better coach than reid?
someone pointed out the other week,"The Eagles are 2-4. And they're boring. Enough said". while that is definitely true, it's really short-sighted and is too small of a sample size to draw any conclusions. the number to focus on is this one: 83-52, which equates to a .615 winning percentage and is better than bill belicheat's .595.
if reid stinks and mcnabb stinks, then how do you explain that winning percentage? the anti-reid/mcnabb contingent will credit the defense for the winning percentage. the defense should definitely get its share of the credit, but it hasn't been the best defense in the league at any point during the reid/mcnabb era yet the eagles have posted a top three overall record during that time.
but back to the point at hand, which is bumble's continued assertion that reid is not a good drafter, and that is simply not the case. sure they've blown some picks, but i wish we could stop trying to hold reid to perfection on drafting. he's blown fewer than most. the cutting of mccoy doesn't change that (especially because he was already counted as a blown pick - a "1" - in the previous analysis).
Labels: football
posted by The Mean Guy at 5:05 PM
11 Comments:
".. the number to focus on is this one: 83-52, which equates to a .615 winning percentage and is better than bill belicheat's .595."
You made me laugh at that one. One Super Bowl loss versus 3 wins? Yeah sure, keep torturing stats to make the case for Andy. Me, Ill take Super Bowl success.
I was in New Orleans with Joe over the weekend, so that's my excuse for not posting recently.
I'm still pretty tired and frustrated with this team, but what happens if they win on Sunday against the consensus best team in the NFL? I don't have much hope, but what if? I'm almost willing to bet they do win just to suck everyone back in.
You made me laugh at that one. One Super Bowl loss versus 3 wins? Yeah sure, keep torturing stats to make the case for Andy. Me, Ill take Super Bowl success.
ha, fair point. i certainly wasn't trying to imply that andy is in any way a better coach than belicheat, only that andy's career win percentage is better than bill's. i've said more than once that i'd gladly take belicheat over reid, cheating, boorish behavior, poor sportsmanship and all.
however, the issue isn't taking the 3 superbowls over 1 superbowl loss. the question is of the coaches who would be available, who would be an upgrade over reid? it is far, far more likely that the birds would end up with a stiff than another belicheat.
Is it really most likely? Did you have that much confidence in a QB coach from Green Bay? I sure didnt. This team certainly acts like it invented football in Philly, who's to say they couldnt identify a good, young coach again?
Im not 100% on getting rid of Reid anyway. I think he's a very good but not great coach and in a weak NFC sometimes that enough. I wish we had a stronger GM and not a coffee boy but that die was cast a long time ago.
My point on McCoy is he is another non contributor taken way too high. I can live with that in round 5, not round 2. You need to come away with at least 3 players in some capacity from each draft and you generally need to hit on your 1st and 2nd rounders. Reid is the guy who wears that hat, why isn't it fair to scrutinize his poor decisions TMG? And enough with the "we probably couldn't do any better" argument. Cripes that's why useless senators serve lifetime terms and why companies go bankrupt. Thinking like that makes the world flat. Let's get a little creative and assume that maybe, just maybe, Reid is tired and his old tricks aren't working anymore. The prrof is in the pudding-bad team, boring team, unwatchable team.
Bumble
You need to come away with at least 3 players in some capacity from each draft and you generally need to hit on your 1st and 2nd rounders. Reid is the guy who wears that hat, why isn't it fair to scrutinize his poor decisions TMG?
calling him a bad drafter isn't scrutinizing his bad decisions. it's making an assessment of his overall performance. in terms of overall performance, he's been better than most as a GM.
i'm not sure where the number 3 players per draft is coming from, because from the previous analysis, this is how it played out:
most of the teams were between 15-18 hits overall, indicating that teams should expect to get about 2 good starters per draft. well, except for the cowboys, who only hit on 10 players overall and were consistently toward the bottom in every measure except for success in the first round. of course, the cowboys also have generally drafted much higher than the other teams on this list during that time, so some of that first round success is expected.
My point on McCoy is he is another non contributor taken way too high. I can live with that in round 5, not round 2.
i absolutely agree that that teams need to hit their top picks, but reid's hit rate is 40% in the second round which is in-line with the other teams assessed.
we have to accept the fact that he's not going to hit every pick and take the whole picture into account if we're going to make a value judgement.
yes, mccoy was a horrible pick and everyone knew it when he was drafted. you knew it, i knew it, and mel kiper knew it, but it's only one pick in a round where even the best teams hit between 18% to 50% of their picks.
and let's not forget that there also have been several head scratching picks that andy has made, where he's been proven right over time:
- shawn andrews
- sheldon brown
- brian westbrook
- mcnabb
but again, those are only 4 picks. i think in order to assess his performance, you have to look at the whole picture.
Is it really most likely? Did you have that much confidence in a QB coach from Green Bay? I sure didnt. This team certainly acts like it invented football in Philly, who's to say they couldnt identify a good, young coach again?
i'm making the "most likely" judgement based on the ratio of "good coaches" to "bad coaches" in the nfl today and in eagles history.
in the nfl today, i'd say there is only 1 great coach (belicheat), 6 good coaches (reid, gruden, holmgren, fisher, dungy, shanhan), and 2 promising coaches (payton, tomlin). that's 9 out of 32 and really i'd only pick belicheat, fisher, dungy, payton, and tomlin over reid.
Im not 100% on getting rid of Reid anyway. I think he's a very good but not great coach and in a weak NFC sometimes that enough. I wish we had a stronger GM and not a coffee boy but that die was cast a long time ago.
i'm split too, but often cast into the role of andy's defense/devil's advocate because the other side is so underrepresented. i'm tired of andy reid's act, that's for sure. i'm not tired of 83-52.
I'd drop Gruden from the list of good coaches (just because you win a SB doesn't mean you're a good coach) and Payton from the up and comers list (this year is so-so and he's washed out of NY as O-coordinator before).
TMG, you also forget about the solid second tier FAs they've picked up over the years and the ability to sidestep overpaying for existing talent (paging Mr. Staypuft).
Question:
Are the drafted linebackers Reids fault or does Jim Johnson make those decision?
I am not sure, but it seems to me that they are atrocious at drafting LBs.
Mean Guy:
I agree on your assessment of Reid. People forget how bad the team was under Rhodes, who drafted all those great defensive players, but their offense was just terrible.
Reid:
Any comments on the family situation. That has to affect his performance, doesn't it. (Not using it as an excuse, but rather just stating the obvious.)
Are the drafted linebackers Reids fault or does Jim Johnson make those decision?
I am not sure, but it seems to me that they are atrocious at drafting LBs.
i think jj tells reid what kind of players to get for his defense. in general, he's preferred smaller, quicker guys. you're definitely right though, evaluating talent at linebacker and wideout is clearly not their strength.
though i continue to be hopeful about gocong and would like to see stewart bradley get some time at MLB, as gaither's best role is the new ike reese.
Any comments on the family situation. That has to affect his performance, doesn't it. (Not using it as an excuse, but rather just stating the obvious.)
no, i don't think it's right to kick someone when they're dealing with something like that. i agree that it has to be affecting him, though.
I'd drop Gruden from the list of good coaches (just because you win a SB doesn't mean you're a good coach) and Payton from the up and comers list (this year is so-so and he's washed out of NY as O-coordinator before).
if a coach has proven that they can win a game all by themselves, they're a good coach in my book. gruden won last year's game against the birds when he figured out how andy's offense reacted to certain blitzes.
TMG, you also forget about the solid second tier FAs they've picked up over the years and the ability to sidestep overpaying for existing talent (paging Mr. Staypuft).
that's something to look at. my gut reaction is that they've been generally unsuccessful at bringing in FA because they're usually targeting backups, mid-level players, or guys coming off injury (think shawn barber, nate wayne, dhani jones). i guess runyan would be their best signing. they made a splash with kearse, but he's only been good, not great. howard is looking like a bust.
Post a Comment
<< Home