Where Do We Go From Here? part 2

feedback from part 1:

On the flip side, I don't believe that only "football people" like Andy Reid, John Madden, and Howard Eskin know the real score. I used to believe in experts and insiders when I was really young. Life teaches otherwise. At some point you realize that we're all pretty clueless deep inside.

Is it really that difficult TMG? Really? None of us can postulate logically why this team is underachieving? God bless your eternal optimism, but 5-4-1 ain't good, it's average, which is exactly what type of team they have.

wow, there is a lot packed into these two paragraphs.

1. Re: "football people" and whether or not we can postulate logically why this team is underachieving.
   
   my statement that we can't truly identify the real problems as outsiders isn't based on our lack of football knowledge or that the football insiders are the only ones who can make a valid assessment. it's more fundamental than that. as outsiders, we don't know what the plan for each play was, so it's simply speculation (or postulation as bumble notes) about what the true nature of the breakdown is. let's take two examples:
   
   - on a play earlier in the year, jason witten catches a pass down the seam for a touchdown with brian dawkins trailing. after watching the play live and on replays, it sure looked to me like dawkins should have been responsible for witten and looked slow and tenative in reacting to witten's route. subsequent interviews by dawkins and JJ indicated that dawkins was covering for a teammate who had blown his assignment. so what was the real breakdown there? was it what we saw as outsiders? was it what was revealed in the interviews? were the interviews intended to shield a once great player on the downside from critcism?
   
   - on a critical third down a few games ago, the eagles faced 3rd and about 9 yards. mcnabb dropped back to pass and threw short to a receiver for a gain of about 7 yards, forcing a punt. whose fault was that? was the play designed to throw short, counting on deeper routes to clear out the middle allowing the receiver to gain the extra yardage after the catch? was the original intended receiver covered forcing donovan to check down? did donovan make a terrible read and throw to the wrong guy? was the play call predicted by the defensive coordinator?
   
   i don't doubt that we can all identify when a team is playing well or when they aren't and i don't doubt that we can objectively or subjectively look at players and evaluate whether or not they can play. i do doubt that we can identify what the real micro problems are regarding things like: playcalling, assignment breakdowns, and game tactics.
   
   what we can evaluate effectively are macro problems: team consistency, in-game strategy, time management, and player development.
   
   ed is right that insiders aren't the only ones who are capable of assessing properly, however, it is often true that insiders are the only ones who possess all the information necessary to make a valid assessment.



2. Re: believing in experts. i tend to disagree. there definitely are experts in the world who know what they're talking about. what undermines the notion of experts is the fact that some/most people who hold a title or position that would classify them as an expert, aren't truly experts. truly being an expert means you have a combination of training, experience, and critical thinking ability that enables you to accomplish things that most people couldn't even dream of doing -- in the world of sports/medicine, i consider james andrews (the ACL doctor) to be one of those people. most doctors, football coaches, college professors, etc. have training and experience, but most also do not combine it with enough critical thinking ability to be true experts.



3. Re: 5-4-1. i didn't say that 5-4-1 was good. my statements were -- "5-4-1 is not terrible" and "they are close to being a good team". i think both of those statements are true simply because the football team has a winning record. i'm not disagreeing that the team is playing like sh*t, but doesn't the fact that they're playing like sh*t and they still have a winning record indicate something? you can't have a winning record and have: a terrible coach, a terrible defense, a terrible staff, a terrible QB, a terrible o-line, a terrible d-line, and terrible/injured running backs. something has to be going right. right? i mean take emotion out of it. if you take 5-4-1 at face value, you'd say that's a team in the upper part of the middle of the league. if you add the context that the team is like terribly, you'd probably lay the "underachieving" label on them. so my point is really, that from an objective standpoint (taking my dislike for the worst coast offense and finesse football out of it), that the eagles continue to be close a good football team and the stats indicate a potential upside exists.

with that context in mind, i think i've come to this conclusion about the eagles (and it runs counter to my previous opinion on andy as a drafter, but is in-line with some of the other comments).

it's all the talent. this team simply does not have enough talent across the board and that lays on the head of andy reid the GM... (part 3 coming, i'm breaking this up for time availability reasons, not as an attempt to be dramatic)

BTW - $10 tickets for sixers games in november and december. i'm heading down to tonight's game with my son.