Daily News Agenda: Would 20 carries a game for Eagles' DeMarco Murray fix things?

THE EAGLES ran 51 plays at Washington. They would have been shut out had they not finally started blocking well enough for Sam Bradford to hit some deep balls against a suspect secondary. They couldn't run the ball with any consistency whatsoever. Not DIDN'T run the ball, COULDN'T run the ball.

So handing it to DeMarco Murray 20 times would have done what, exactly? Ensured that they never scored any points?

Of course Murray needs the ball more. Everybody on the Eagles' offense needs the ball more. Zach Ertz needs the ball more. Darren Sproles needs the ball more. They need to run at least 20 or 25 more plays a game.

But what has DeMarco Murray done since he got here that makes you think he is some sort of savior? He is making more money than Ryan Mathews or Sproles because he happened to become a free agent the offseason of the year he led the league in rushing. Does Murray's career suggest he is a much better player, overall, than Mathews or Sproles?

Murray entered this season averaging 4.8 yards per carry, Mathews 4.4 yards per carry, Sproles 5.2 yards per carry. The idea was to mix the three of them, keep offenses off balance. The idea was never to ram Murray into the line over and over.

I would argue that if there is anything the Eagles can do, outside of somehow vastly improving their offensive line, it's that they can try to get Sproles more touches in space. Even during Sunday's debacle, he returned a punt 45 yards. I don't think it matters one whit whether Murray gets more touches, unless they are a byproduct of the offense becoming more productive in general.

Did anybody watch the Dallas game? The problem is blocking. Unless Murray can block for himself, handing him the ball and expecting something magical to happen is beyond pointless.

This isn't what Murray came here for, shades of Jonathan Papelbon. But just like the Phillies couldn't very well get Papelbon more opportunities to save games in which they couldn't achieve late-inning leads, the Eagles can't fix their underlying problem by handing the ball to Murray.

I COMPLETELY understand DeMarco Murray's frustration. I completely understand why he wants the football more.

Any running back worth his salt, especially one who carried the ball an NFL-high 392 times and ran away with the league rushing title last season, would want the ball more than the nine times a game he has lugged it so far this season.

But is pounding your head against a brick wall 20 times really any more productive than doing it nine times? Is high-diving into an empty swimming pool 20 times any better for your health and well-being than doing it nine times?

That's what the Eagles' offensive line is right now – a brick wall. Not for opposing defenses. For opposing defenses, it's a sieve. But for Murray and the rest of the Eagles' running backs, it's a brick wall with no cracks, no crevices, no openings, no freaking place to run.

Chip Kelly the GM completely botched the situation with his offensive line when he listened to Chip Kelly the coach and released both of his starting guards and took a pass on finding reinforcements in free agency and the draft. He gave Murray a five-year, $40 million contract, $18 million of which is guaranteed, and then mistakenly thought everything would take care of itself up front. As you can see, it didn't.

I don't agree with the thinking of some that Murray isn't a good fit for the Eagles offense. Right now, the way the line is (not) blocking, Jim Brown, Emmitt Smith and Gale Sayers wouldn't be good fits for this offense.

Murray, Ryan Mathews and Darren Sproles have run ball the 83 times this season. Forty-seven of those carries, or an astounding 56.6 percent, have gained two yards or less. Seventeen of Murray's 29 carries have gained two yards or less.

Until the offensive line can figure out how to deal with the slanting and stunting and angling they're seeing from opposing defenses, giving the ball to Murray more, giving the ball to any running back more, is going to do absolutely no good.

One thing that has mystified me is that the Eagles are running three-wide receiver sets nearly 90 percent of the time. I understand the concept as it pertains to the running game. Spread defenses out, force them into nickel and then run on them.

But it's not working. Perhaps it might be time to try something different. Perhaps it might be time to use more two-tight end sets and see if that works any better. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But it's worth a shot.

It would mean fewer snaps for slot receiver Jordan Matthews, who happens to be the Eagles' leading receiver. But they've got to try something different.

Just giving the ball to Murray more isn't the answer by itself.

I KEEP COMING back to this statistic: Of the Eagles' 89 rushing attempts, an astounding 32 have gone for zero or negative yards, most in the NFL. They are averaging a loss of an NFL-high 1.97 yards on those plays. One out of every three carries the Eagles are giving away a down. It's hard to argue that the solution to the problem is more carries, unless you are proposing a different type of carry, which would seem to be the obvious place to turn at this point.

Chip Kelly needs to find a way to run the football, but that way clearly isn't the one he has employed throughout the first four weeks of the season. He doesn't just need to get the ball in DeMarco Murray's hands, he needs to get Murray in a position where he can succeed. I don't know whether that means more two-back backfields or more two-tight-end sets or more huddles or less shotgun or all of the above in an effort to offer some varied looks to opposing defenses.

What I do know — what everybody who has watched this offense should know — is that something needs to change, because the ineptitude that we have witnessed in the running game is far too pervasive to be a simple matter of players not performing up to reasonable expectations. Quite frankly, this looks like a Pac-10 or Mountain West offense against an SEC opponent. It looks amateur. It looks simple. It looks predictable. It does not look like professional football.

What's changed since last season? The running backs and guards, clearly, but the old eye test suggests it is something more systemic. To write it off as a black-and-white case of players needing to play better ignores the fact that the players weren't all that different a year ago, when Lane Johnson was finishing up a four-game suspension and Evan Mathis was sidelined with an injury. The Eagles weren't great during those first four games, but they weren't inept. They did not look physically incapable of blocking the opponent.

No doubt, something needs to change. No doubt, Murray and Ryan Mathews need to be the focal point of this offense. But it doesn't make sense to keep running the same plays that are getting stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage 36 percent of the time. Chip Kelly can talk all he wants about execution, about taking what the defense gives you, about football game plans being a week-to-week thing. The only thing that matters is that his plans thus far have resulted in approximately six quarters of professional football and 10 quarters of a Friday night fire drill. Murray's right, but his coach needs to get him not only the ball, but also a fighting chance to move it somewhere.

I'M NOT GOING to pretend to understand why Chip Kelly's offense doesn't work anymore. The suspicion is that it is the quarterback, and the fact that he can't even pretend to be a running threat, and the additional fact that he goes through bouts of uncertainty, but it is only a suspicion.

But it is where I begin. The notion that giving the ball to DeMarco Murray 20 times a game is going to solve the Eagles' problems ignores the biggest problem — that is, the quarterback. They play productive halves and they play godawful halves, pretty much one of each per game, and Bradford looks like a different player for long stretches of each of them. Getting him consistent is the issue. DeMarco Murray can't get him consistent, especially given the current state of the offensive line.

Think about where they were on Sunday. After Jason Peters went out, they were down to the second-, third-, fifth-, sixth- and seventh-best linemen on a roster where people had real doubts if there were five to begin with. In addition, Lane Johnson — either second or third, depending on your preference — was limping around with knee and/or ankle problems.

The point is, the line currently has no chance to be good. It aspires to adequate, and that might be a stretch. Consistency and cohesion might improve a bit, but only a bit — because talent does matter, and there isn't enough of that being demonstrated at this point.

All of which means, the idea of the Eagles having Murray carry them on their back just isn't realistic. They just don't appear to be built that way. If you want to argue that running more will shorten the games, and that a shorter game would have helped on Sunday against Washington, that's fair. But that is the only obvious benefit. Productivity does not seem likely.

Murray left, Murray right and Murray up the middle cannot save this season. Instead, this is going to be about Bradford eliminating the steep valleys from his game, or not. And it is going to be about Bradford maybe running once or twice a game in a desperate (and dangerous) attempt to keep defenses honest, or not. And it is going to be about Bradford making enough big plays to win games, or not. Or it is going to be about Mark Sanchez.

Ed Barkowitz...No

Les Bowen…No

Bob Cooney…Yes

Doug Darroch...No

Jim DeStefano...No

Paul Domowitch…No

Michael Guise...No

Marcus Hayes...No

Rich Hofmann…No

Dick Jerardi…No

Mike Kern...No

Ryan Lawrence...Yes

Tom Mahon...Yes

Drew McQuade...Yes

David Murphy…No

Jeff Neiburg…No

Mark Perner…Yes

Leigh Primavera…Yes

Tom Reifsnyder…Yes

Christine Sherman…No

John Smallwood…Yes

Bob Vetrone Jr...No

Deb Woodell...No

15 NO VOTES

8 YES VOTES