It is a lonely, singular burden, that of being Andy Reid's defense attorney. But I soldier on.
The subject today is replay challenges, and the fact that Reid didn't make any in a couple of big situations on Sunday night against the Bears. One was on a close touchdown pass to the Bears' Greg Olsen in the first quarter. The other was on a close spot in the second quarter on a third down play -- and, three plays later, the Bears scored again.
It is said that Reid should have challenged both.
I don't think so.
Look -- Andy does not like to challenge. The truth is, Andy likes to challenge even less than he likes his running game. Since 1999, the Eagles have challenged fewer times than any team in the NFL (except for the Houston Texans, who weren't even a team until 2002). Reid just doesn't do it much. In all of that time, only 13 reversals have gone in the Eagles' favor (plus two more on reviews initiated from the replay booth). For whatever it's worth, his percentage of success is right there with the rest of the coaches. He just doesn't do it much.
All of that said, given the information at hand, he was right on Sunday night.
The Olsen play was a touchdown. It just was. It was close but it was a touchdown. You don't challenge just for the hell of it -- at least not there. It was called a touchdown on the field and there was nothing resembling convincing evidence on tape that it could be overturned. It just would have been a waste of a timeout and a challenge.
Now, for the spot. The truth is, the Eagles did appear to get screwed on the play. Watching it with the naked eye, in real time, as it was happening, it is fair to say that it crossed the mind of some people that the spot was overly generous. Seeing the replay, it seemed pretty clear that the spot was overly generous. If he had challenged, it might very well have been overturned.
But here was the problem -- which I didn't realized until I got home and fired up the DVR. NBC never showed a replay until after the measurment had been taken, after the ruling had been made in the Bears' favor, after the sticks had been moved and re-set. Even then, the replay was from behind the runner, not from the side -- so you couldn't tell anything definitive about the spotting of the ball, even then.
The coaches upstairs in the booth rely on the same television replays that you see to make their decisions. In the absence of a replay, they have nothing except what they saw with their naked eyes in real time. There is a chance that somebody wondered aloud about the spot and expressed that to Reid through the headphones -- but it could not have been anything stronger than wondering. Nobody got a second look at it before the decision had to be made. Given that, how can you challenge?
There was one more play, the Correll Buckhalter touchdown/no touchdown at the end. My immediate reaction was to challenge, just because. Upon further consultation with one of my co-counsels, I think that with two timeouts remaining, to blow one on a futile challenge there would have been wrong -- and it would have been futile. There was no clear evidence of anything but a train wreck. And the timeout was going to be valuable if the defense could have held the Bears without a first down.
With that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.

CHICAGO - "The scoreboard is frozen," referee Walt Coleman announced to the crowd at Soldier Field. It was early in the fourth quarter of a football game that would not end, a night when the quarterbacks wore bulls-eyes and the running games were useless and nothing for either team really went according to form.
It was more demolition derby than football, much more about mistakes than anything else. That the Eagles will always miss Brian Westbrook remains plain enough. That Bears quarterback Kyle Orton is still Kyle Orton is also fairly obvious.
But as it wound down, slowly, inexorably, it came to this: the Eagles, trailing by 24-20, about a half-yard away from the end zone with 3:40 left to play. Eagles coach Andy Reid called a timeout to put together a play. The field goal was decided against. This was it, a chance to salvage a bruising, difficult night.
I formation…calling signals…the give is to Correll Buckhalter, who took the ball and battered in behind the right side of the Eagles' offensive line and immediately met resistance.
It was close, but not really.
No gain. Chicago ball.
Bears 24, Eagles 20.
This is life without Brian Westbrook. This is what happens when you play without one of the great offensive weapons in the National Football League. This is what happens: you don't get into the end zone on four cracks from inside the 5-yard line.
Westbrook came out before the game and tested his ankle on the turf, tried to run a little, cut a little, and then huddled with coaches and team officials to make a decision.
When the decision was no-go, it changed everything.
There is no camouflaging a loss like Westbrook.
1950:

1980:

1983:
1993:

2007:

Next?
My night began with a post about how Cubs manager Lou Piniella was resting three of his biggest bats -- Aramis Ramirez, Derrek Lee and Alfonso Soriano -- in a game with huge implications for the Mets, Phillies and Brewers. And how it kind of mocked the notion of the integrity of the pennant race that everyone in baseball loves to talk about.
Things are still fine for the Phillies. Really, they are. With a magic number of three for both the division title (over the Mets) and the wildcard (over the Brewers), they're going to get in.
But if they don't get it buttoned down by Sunday, they have a problem -- that is, the identity of their Game 1 starter in the playoffs on Wednesday. Because I just don't know that you want to be running Brett Myers out there at this point. I don't know if it would be fair to anybody, Myers included, to put him under that kind of a spotlight. It is why the timing matters here. It is why the Phillies need to clinch before Sunday so that they don't have to use Cole Hamels on the last day of the season.
If Sunday is meaningless, they can set up the rotation like this:
Game 1, Hamels.
Game 2, Moyer.
Game 3, Myers.
Game 4, Blanton.
Game 5, Hamels (with Moyer available on full rest, followed by a cast of thousands, if necessary).
The problems come because of the Phillies' dithering the last two nights. Now Moyer will likely have to pitch on Saturday in a real game, which would make him unavailable to start a playoff opener on Wednesday on regular rest. If both he and Hamels are unavailable for Game 1, that leaves Myers or Joe Blanton. At this point, neither is the ideal. There also is J.A. Happ, I guess, but I can't imagine they'd start him. At the same time, though, don't they have to put him on the post-season roster now as Myers insurance? If Myers has another one of those games, and they have to go get him in the second inning, don't they need Happ, just in case?
Anyway, if Hamels has to pitch Sunday, they can set it up like this:
Game 1, Myers or Blanton.
Game 2, Moyer.
Game 3, Hamels.
Game 4, Myers or Blanton.
Game 5, Moyer (with the Game 1 starter on full rest, followed by everybody).
Comparing the two potential set-ups, it is obvious which is superior. And so, while the Phillies are fine, they do need to hurry.


I don't expect the Phillies to answer the question because they have no reason to answer it yet. But they do have the ability to add J.A. Happ to their post-season roster if they want to add him, and it would not require any subterfuge to do it.
Back in the day, the only way you could add somebody who wasn't on your 25-man roster on August 31st was as an injury replacement. It led to all manner of phantom injury claims. Back in 1980, it took the Phillies the better part of two days to convince baseball commissioner Bowie Kuhn and National League president Chub Feeney that Nino Espinosa was really hurt, necessitating the addition of Marty Bystrom (5-0 in September as a call-up) to the playoff roster.
Today, the process is cleaner. Here is my understanding. On August 31st, your 25-man roster is set. At that point, your playoff-eligible players are anybody on the 25-man or anybody on the disabled list. However, those disabled list guys act almost like roster exemptions that can be cashed in during a post-season run. The Phillies have a handful of guys on the 60-day DL, including Tom Gordon. They are allowed to substitute for those disabled list guys by choosing from anybody already in the organization on August 31st. So Happ could essentially become Gordon, just for argument's sake, and then be eligible for the post-season.
Again, I don't know what's going to happen -- but that's the mechanism. A couple of people wondered if Happ might pitch a meaningless game on Sunday to end the regular season, if it is indeed meaningless. I wouldn't do it. I'd save him at this point for the post-season, either as a disaster starter, or a long rain-delay guy, or a long-relief guy, or simply as another bullpen arm.

Sifting through three weeks of stats has a meaningless quality to it, true enough. The number really don't begin to make any sense until midseason. One game can skew things beyond all reality. You engage in this practice at your own risk.
That said, I dug the Eagles' red zone stats out ot the NFL release this morning, trying to get a handle on where this thing might be headed. Because this team looks both good and fun so far, both competitive and interesting. Fun to watch, fun to disect -- a sportswriter's dream, it appears. So, anyway.
Through three games, the Eagles have shown some improvement in the red zone -- but not enough.
Last year, red zone offense was their greatest deficiency. It is the reason why I thought they should find another big target for quarterback Donovan McNabb. Because while I always liked their receivers and thought they were good enough, I also saw a quarterback who just wouldn't throw it to them down near the goal line, down in traffic. I thought he needed a big target but it never came. So now we see how it works.
In 2007, in their depths, the Eagles were getting touchdowns less than 40 percent of the time on red zone possessions, one of the handful of worst numbers in the league. After a rush in the last three games of the season, they goosed the number up to 45.1 percent overall -- 24th in the league. Even at that, it is the aspect of the game upon which everybody was focused in the off-season.
And this year? So far, they're doing better -- seven touchdowns in 13 trips inside the red zone, which is 53.8 percent, which is good for 14th in the NFL, which is good for mediocre. (Dallas has the same percentage, the Giants are worse and the Redskins are better so far.)
The Eagles have three passing touchdowns in the red zone and four rushing touchdowns. That is the biggest difference so far, that ratio. Last year, it was skewed largely to the pass (15 passing TD's in the red zone, eight rushing TD's). We all kind of suspected, if they didn't get the big receiver, that they might finally start to lean a little more on the running game in close, and they have. Brian Westbrook has been their biggest red zone player so far, and by a large margin.
But now, with the ankle injury, with the questions about whether or not he will play Sunday against Chicago, you wonder. With tight end L.J. Smith -- quiet so far, and now with a back injury -- you wonder even more.
So, yes, they're a little better so far. But it gets harder from here, and it remains the key to the season.