MUST BE DREAMING: TEMPLE IS 9-2?
The news came as a shock: the Denver Broncos fired Mike Shanahan.
The initial reaction: if Shanahan could get it in the back, could Andy Reid?
Short answer: sure.
Quick surmise: probably not.
Reason: look at the record.
Shanahan is a dictatorial type, which can wear out an organization. Reid is collegial and inclusive, which does not. That is a part of this. More, though, look at the simple numbers.
Yes, Shanahan won two Super Bowls with John Elway. But it was a long, long time ago now. In the last 10 seasons, the Broncos made the playoffs four times and won exactly one playoff game. In the last 10 years, the Eagles have made the playoffs seven times and won eight playoff games, with the tenth season still not finished. In the last three years, Shanahan has made zero playoff appearances and has collapsed late in seasons, including blowing a three-game lead in the AFC West this season with three games to play. Reid, meanwhile, has seen his team fight to the end in each of the last three seasons and come from behind to make the playoffs twice.
In other words, the two situations ain't the same thing at all.
If there is a lesson in the Shanahan thing, it is that nobody has a job forever. But we already knew that. In the last 10 years, though, there really is no comparison with Reid.
Meanwhile, Stefan Fatsis -- who spent a training camp with the Broncos as a kicker and wrote an insightful book about it, "A Few Seconds of Panic" -- had this take in an email:
Count me among the shocked. Bowlen once described his relationship with Shanahan to me as a marriage. Before the 2007 season, when he extended Shanahan's contract through 2011, Bowlen told me: "He might as well know that I have the faith in him until he and I both agree it's probably the end of his coaching career." The owner deferred to Shanahan on just about every internal football decision, on and off the field, like sacking the GM who was with the team for 16 years, Ted Sundquist, after a season that could hardly have been blamed on the front office.
Some people in Denver viewed their relationship as too one way, that Shanny had Pat's number. But Bowlen's no pushover, and no fool. He doesn't make decisions to respond to public pressure; he is justifiably proud of the competent operational systems that he and Shanahan imposed over the years; and he understands as well as any owner I've ever met in any sport that operating a professional franchise is a fickle endeavor, that success is cyclical, especially in a league like the NFL, and dependent on too many outside factors. (Look at how many injuries the Broncos suffered this season.)
I haven't spoken to either Bowlen or Shanahan, but I'd be surprised if something didn't flip in their relationship, or if Bowlen didn't just conclude that the franchises's long-term business (and football) prospects would be improved by a change. But this isn't your garden-variety firing. Shanahan is no Mangenius anymore, some young, disposable coach. Love him or hate him -- and fans do both, of course -- he's an institution in Denver.
Players and executives griped about Shanahan's omniscience, about his entrenched habits and routines, but I never once heard anyone question his abilities as an organizer and a coach. There was a fundamental belief, even a cockiness, that the Broncos had figured out how to make an NFL organization operate efficiently and effectively, that the team wouldn't win every year but it wouldn't embarrass itself if it didn't. But after three really bad seasons in a row -- a run that I think began with the benching of Jake Plummer when the Broncos were 7-4 in 2006, but that's just me -- the Teflon may have worn off. I wouldn't say Mike Shanahan was the Great and Mighty Wizard, but he certainly stopped looking quite so invincible, maybe even to Bowlen.
You can read more from him at stefanfatsis.com.
The NFL has published the preliminary order for the 2009 draft. The Eagles have two picks, their own (No. 22) and that of the Carolina Panthers (No. 28). What they had hoped might be a great bonanza when they made the deal with the Panthers has instead turned into a yawn -- and it could get worse.
The order can change based upon playoff performance. If the Eagles reach the Super Bowl, their pick would be either 31st or 32nd. My guess is that most people would make that trade. The same holds true for the Panthers, though. And for an Eagles team that is almost certainly going to be looking for an offensive tackle who can play right away, and maybe more, this will just complicate the process.
Looking back on it, you wonder if the Eagles would have traded out of the first round with the Panthers last year. Knowing what they know now, you wonder if they might just have gone ahead and made the selection as it stood, and what impact that might have had on 2009.
Draft order does matter. A ridiculously high percentage of Pro Bowl players come from the first half of the first round of the draft -- and the Eagles almost never pick there. It makes their life harder. In their hearts, they figured the Carolina pick might get them into the first half of the first round. Now, this.
Just another draft day miscalculation for a team that isn't as bad as people say when it comes to picking players, but isn't good enough.
Criticizing the play-calling is this city's guilty pleasure, like watching "Cheaters" or "Blind Date." But even on days like last Sunday, when it seems as if Roger Lodge is calling the plays in the second half, that isn't the Eagles' real problem.
That would be personnel.
That would be a lack of star players.
I'm just going to run these numbers down in no particular order. They're just numbers, and they don't tell the entire story, and that is all true. But as a quick-and-dirty measure of stars, or identifying the players the other team might be really, really worried about, it offers some suggestions.
The quarterback, Donovan McNabb, is 16th in the NFL in quarterback rating, 16th out of 32 starters, smack in the middle. He is 18th in completion percentage, 19th in yards per pass attempt.
The running back, Brian Westbrook, is 13th in the NFL in rushing attempts per game (16.9) and 15th in yards per game (68.2) and yards per attempt (4.0). Westbrook actually has one more carry this season than the Giants' Brandon Jacobs in the same number of games played but he is averaging a full yard less per carry. Injuries, whatever -- those are the numbers.
The top wide receiver, rookie DeSean Jackson, has 60 catches -- which is 26th in the NFL among wide receivers. Injuries and et cetera have hurt the Eagles' receivers this year, but that's the ranking of their best guy, 26th.
Tight end? With 37 catches, L.J. Smith is 20th in the league. And, you know, it's a good thing they don't rank these guys by blocking ability.
Defensive line? Trent Cole and Darren Howard each have nine sacks, 13th in the NFL, and have had fine years. But 13th is 13th -- and, combined, they have fewer sacks than the Cowboys' Demarcus Ware.
Defensive back? Asante Samuel leads with four interceptions. That's the 12th highest total in the NFL among defensive backs.
Again, while there is often an explanation, the result is the result. They have talent but little scary talent. They have guys who concern the other teams' coaches but don't keep them up at night. Westbrook is clearly the closest thing they have in that regard but he is perpetually dinged, it seems. And after that, well...
That is the issue here.
You may have heard that I generally don't think this play-calling business, this Andy Reid penchant for throwing the ball, is that big a deal. Truth is, I like a pass-first offense. I think it's more productive. When Reid talks about "situational running," I don't laugh like a lot of people. I get it. I agree with it.
All of that said, I still cannot figure out what the hell he and offensive coordinator Marty Mornhinweg were thinking when they called 16 straight passing plays between the middle of the third quarter and the last drive of the Eagles' 10-3 loss.
I'm not like most people around here. I don't think that play calling was the main reason the Eagles lost. Up until the middle of the third quarter, they ran it a representative number of times -- 61 percent passes, 39 percent runs -- for a reasonable-but-unspectacular number of yards (12 carries, 44 yards). But then the play-calling went completely off the rails.
Sixteen straight passes, most of which were thrown when the Eagles were trailing by seven points. It was too early just to give up on it, especially when you consider how much trouble they were having executing in the passing game. Between the dropped balls and the off-target throws, why not run? I have no particular confidence that it was going to work, but you had to give it a try.
Why give up on it?
Was it just the seemingly-genetic itch to throw that Reid and Mornhinweg seemingly have? Maybe it is as simple as that, but I don't know.
Was it the series of long fields the Eagles were facing and the concern that they would never see the ball again? That would seem overstated, given how well the defense has been playing.
Was it a worry that the offense, executing so badly, could not conceivably sustain a long, multi-play, ball-control kind of drive, and that it needed a big play? Reid did not say that but, again, it seems over-thought if that was the reason.
I don't get it. And while I think that both of DeSean Jackson's dropped passes, as well as Asante Samuel's dropped interception -- all in the fourth quarter -- were all bigger reasons for the defeat, the play-calling is on the list. It has to be. Even if, most weeks, it is more symbol than substance, the play-calling against the Redskins could not help but make you wonder.
