Brian talks a long time about concussions here.

This follows another conversation with Quintin Mikell on the NYT Freakonomics blog.  This one is audio only, but Mikell takes you inside the helmet.  Thanks to a reader for the tip on that one.

1)  I feel bad for Hank Baskett.  If there are two guys from this game who will feel for the rest of their lives like they personally let a Super Bowl win slip away, he's one of them.  I just hope the NFL doesn't make another commercial out of him.

2)  I don't feel bad for Peyton Manning, but...  Reggie Wayne stopped his route, right?  In-breaking route, Manning was tracking his path, then he just sort of stopped.  Looked to me like the blame for that one lies with Wayne.

In fact, the story from this Super Bowl will be the way Peyton -- who had been developing a lizard's cold-bloodedness in big games -- couldn't come up clutch at the end, but that's not the way it looked to me.  Looked like the rest of those guys were the ones getting tight at the end, not Manning.  Although what was up with him chewing out his offense after they'd scored the first drive of the second half?

3)  Finally, the NFL should require Cris Collinsworth to be in the booth for all Super Bowls.  Phil Simms missed several obvious plays out there, like the coverage where he credited the receiver for going "right around" the cornerback, when it was obvious the Saints were playing zone and the LB had blown the coverage. 

It's one thing to notice that stuff in real time.  That's what makes Collinsworth so unbelievably good at what he does.  But when they're showing the replay and you still can't break it down correctly ...

Bonus non-SB thought:  Would they allow four-point stances?  Would blocking and tackling still be legal, or would they go with screens and flags?

Not to overdo the relationship metaphors, but I really do think the growing fan resignation that it's maybe time to move on from McNabb is really best understood in those terms.  The schlubby dude married the prom queen, but 11 years later the kids are exhausting, there's pretty much nothing new happening in the bedroom, and boy that perky Jeannie down in Accounts Payable sure smiles a lot.

(Notice I know no "Jeannies" and my company doesn't have an AP department.  Seven years of actual marriage means I'm no dummy.)

So we're currently in flaw-finding mode.  Any good non-MH sort of feels guilty about the whole thing, so it helps us when we can say, "but he doesn't work out in Philly with his receivers," or "he's really just not that clutch when it matters."

It's not me, big guy, it's you.

Which brings us to this week's version, this guest column posted on Football Outsiders that purports to measure quarterback clutchness.  It's been discussed and blogged about for a couple day, but a few key points that are being missed so far:

1)  "Football Outsiders" isn't saying anything here.  It drives me nuts when people use that formulation for things posted on that site that aren't by Schatzie or once of the other staffers.  They're not an editorial monolith.  Anyway, small point, but that's why I have a blog.

2)  If clutchness is a skill that can be differentiated, how come all the good quarterbacks are at the top of the list?  The author himself makes the point that the rankings sort of look how you would expect.  That's why it's unusual to see McNabb and Favre down so low.  Basically, if you're a good quarterback the first 58 minutes, you're also a good QB the last two. *

3)  What are we actually measuring here?  I don't want to make it seem like I'm dumping on the entirety of the analysis.  I'm not.  It's actually quite impressive.  I wish I had that dataset to play around with, that's for sure.

My issue is when the analysis ends and the interpretation begins.  Something meaningful is being measured here, I just don't think it's (mostly) quarterback play.

Let's start with one example, and this is also a bit of a methodological issue.  This is how the author controls for "comeback difficulty":

Adjustments were made for four factors: starting field position, time remaining in game, deficit (how many points behind), and outcome (no score, field goal attempt, touchdown). For example:

Quarterback A: after an interception return, he starts at his opponent's 5-yard line down by one point with two minutes to go

Quarterback B: after a kickoff, he starts at his own 20-yard line down by 8 points with 30 seconds to go

Quarterback A has a much easier scenario than Quarterback B. Therefore, the ACE rating gives more credit to Quarterback B for a successful comeback than Quarterback A, and penalizes Quarterback B less than Quarterback A for failure ...

Honestly, that's awesome stuff.  I'm very impressed by the way he worked with all that data.  But here's the problem:

Re: Adjusted Comeback Efficiency
by derek@igglesblog.com :: Tue, 02/02/2010 - 10:09pm

First of all, very thought-provoking article.

I'm curious if the author considered evaluating the impact of timeouts in his expected values with various times remaining. A minute fifteen with three timeouts is a very different situation than a minute fifteen with "Oops, Reid blew all his timeouts by the start of the fourth quarter again."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=garb...

---

Re: Adjusted Comeback Efficiency
by Bionicman :: Tue, 02/02/2010 - 11:43pm

I also would like to know if the article factored in timeouts.
reply

---

Re: Adjusted Comeback Efficiency
by NickHiggins :: Wed, 02/03/2010 - 12:02am

Thanks! I saw this article, and it would be interesting, but the dataset did not include any data on timeouts remaining. I agree that timeouts would probably have an impact.

If you haven't seen that ESPN link -- and most of you have, because Bounty or Sam mentioned it a few weeks back -- take a quick look at it.  In a nutshell:  Andy Reid blows a lot of timeouts that might end up being useful later.  Tom Coughlin, Bill Belichick and even Wade Phillips?  Those guys don't.

Driving 80 yards for a touchdown with three timeouts is a lot different than going the same distance with none.  And it's not just because you have more time to get downfield.  It's also because having timeouts means the defense has to respect the middle of the field, too, and even allows some runs to be called.

But the article doesn't correct for that issue -- which doesn't mean we should throw out its conclusions.  Again, he's finding something interesting.  It just means we need to think a bit harder about what's going on and not just say, "Oh, well McNabb's a choker."

4)  The final point:  close games in general.  There's another issue here, and it relates to Reid's offensive philosophy. 

It seems to me, one of the reasons McNabb doesn't lead more comebacks is simply because the Eagles aren't losing unless the passing game isn't working.  Reid and Marty's "more cowbell" approach to calling plays basically boils down to, "They're stopping the pass?  Well let's keep passing some more until it works!"

Contrast McNabb's situation with Captain Comeback's.  If the Giants are losing a close game, they've probably been running much of the day.  They actually have a different gear they can use.  Plus, defenders know the run is always a threat (see the timeouts things above) and you really, really don't want to play so soft at the line that you let Brandon Jacobs bust into the secondary like a bowling ball looking for DB pins to run over.

---

With all of that said, do I think McNabb's particularly good at running the two-minute drill?  No, I don't.  One of the things I'm most curious about when it comes to Kolb is if he can actually manage to look competent in the last two minutes, given the same coaching context.  But let's be clear about both what this analysis does, and does not, tell us.

---

* With Jake Plummer being a delicious exception to the rule.  Love that guy.

Via Moving the Chains, from NFL.com:

The Eagles have hired Dick Jauron to coach their secondary, according to a league source.

Jauron was fired as the Bills’ coach in November after three-plus seasons, and he also served as the Bears’ coach for five seasons (1999-2003). Jauron worked with Eagles coach Andy Reid in Green Bay (1992-94) and becomes the latest member of Buffalo’s former coaching staff to catch on with another team this offseason.

Jauron replaces Brian Stewart, who left the Eagles to become the defensive coordinator at the University of Houston.

Sam actually called this hire over email to Gabe and me two weeks ago:

"Given Bobby April's comment that AR and Jauron are really good friends ... what do y'all think, any chance he winds up here in some capacity? Long time solid DC, exactly the kind of senior advisor presence that McD could use, though he might be too senior for it to really work."

Sam misses nothing.

Speaking of things missed, I wonder what Jauron's actual title is going to end up being?  "Secondary coach" just doesn't seem like a lofty enough title for someone with Jauron's experience.  I bet he ends up with a slash in there that makes it clear he's getting a role kind of what Sam described above.  Someone to help with the gameplans, maybe see some bigger picture stuff, etc.

For my money, you can never import enough of that winning Buffalo tradition.

UPDATE:  It's official.  And there is indeed a "slash" -- Senior Assistant/Defensive Backs coach.

Les thinks we shouldn't "read anything more into this, regarding McDermott."  I'm sure the motives are mixed, and it never hurts to add an experienced coach, but this is a helpful move from two perspectives:  1)  If the Eagles have a great year next year, there's a chance McD could have enough playoff success pixie dust on him to move on, or 2) If McD struggles, well then there's a back-up plan there too.

And so, here we are again, one week after the Eagles blew another shot in a conference championship game, having finally diges---

Oh, right, we lost earlier than that this year.  Still, the fact remains that today the calendar flips over to February, the month where we traditionally slow things down a bit around here.

It's not so much that there's little to talk about -- because I can think of a few things -- it's more that after 11 months of non-stop Eagles' coverage, it helps to have a little break.  Recharge the batteries, gain some perspective, re-introduce oneself to the wife and child.  That sort of thing.

We won't go completely dark.  Most importantly, Sam will still be here to lead us through all the labor issues that are sure to dominate the League's agenda once the Super Bowl ends.  But the pace will be a little slower for a few weeks.  We'll ramp back up again after that.

---

As a final note, I do want to recommend the tumblr page for commenter bsencore.  As single-issue blogs go, it's not quite FYBG, but on the other hand, you can actually read it at work.  Scroll down for the picture of Donovan doing his best Dhani Jones impersonation.

Everyone's had his fun mocking the NFL for what it did to the Pro Bowl this year.  Domo's fact- and snark-filled piece this morning was a particularly entertaining example of the genre:

Thanks to the league's decision to move the game from the week after the Super Bowl to the week before it, no other Pro Bowl ever has had so few of the league's best players participating in it as Sunday night's game will. Just 48 of the original 76 offensive and defensive players selected for the game will be suiting up.

A total of 14 players from the two Super Bowl participants, the Saints and the Vikings, won't be playing in the game, although the league is making them fly down to South Florida a day early anyway to wave to the crowd and make nice with ESPN sideline reporters Suzy Kolber and Michele Tafoya.

...

What's left is a very diluted product.

A note, first, on the NFL "making" the Super Bowl participants come down a day early here.  There are two possibilites:  1) it's a huge issue and it's mind-blowing that someone with as much money and clout as Peyton Manning wouldn't just tell the League to kiss off and tell him where to send the check, or 2) it's not that big a deal.

Given that the teams have two weeks to prepare for each other, I'm kinda leaning towards option #2.

As for the diluted product, that's true -- to a point.  Having a Pro Bowl without Peyton and Brees sort of misses the entire point of the event.  But it's not like all the guys went to Hawaii most years, either.  Wikipedia lists 121 players on the Pro Bowl rosters this year.  The average the last few years has been closer to 100.  So even before they moved it, you still had 24 guys -- an offense, defense and two specialists -- skipping out each year because of injuries, "injuries" or fatigue.

The problem is worse this year, but consider one more thing.  These are the guys on the Saints and Colts who have to miss the game:

Colts

• Peyton Manning
• Reggie Wayne
• Dallas Clark
• Jeff Saturday
• Dwight Freeney
• Robert Mathis
• Antoine Bethea

Saints

• Drew Brees
• Jonathan Stinchcomb
• Jahri Evans
• Jonathan Goodwin
• Jonathan Vilma
• Darren Sharper
• Roman Harper

Some of those guys are no-brainers, but did New Orleans really have three of the best offensive linemen in the NFC?  Two of the three best safeties?  Did Freeney and Mathis both really deserve to be starters?  (Actually, maybe.)  Does Dallas Clark, a glorified slot receiver, really need to be there ahead of all the other actual tight ends in the AFC?

Is anyone other than Antoine Bethea's immediate family going to be bummed that he's not playing there this week?

Two wrongs don't make a right, but if moving the Pro Bowl up helps to cancel out the bandwagon fan voting that comes with teams having great seasons, maybe it's not all bad.

Reader "Steve" -- and there are a few of those, but he knows who he is -- was intrigued by the Lawlor back-and-forth last week, specifically the contention that McNabb doesn't play all that well in playoff losses.  He put together this handy chart of a number of top current and former QBs to compare Donovan's performance to the other guys:

Everyone on the chart has at least four losses in the playoffs, other than Brees, Roethlisberger and Romo.  It's interesting to note that only a couple guys have really played all that well when their teams lost.  Everyone else was pretty bad, perhaps not surprisingly suggesting it's hard to win a playoff game if your quarterback doesn't do well.

Still, McNabb is at the low end of the chart.  And what's interesting is that, yes, small sample sizes, but the passer rating numbers are a bit more stable than you might expect.  You'd have to add a touchdown and take away two INTs just to get McNabb up to Peyton's level.  Or have him complete 15 more passes than he did.

What's maybe most interesting about the chart is something Steve pointed out when he emailed me:

I added a few more recent guys -- and it's a shame that Warren Moon was only 3-7 in the playoffs, seeing as he played relatively well in a lot of those games (passer rating of 85.9, completed 64%!). 

And yet, how many times have we heard it said about Moon that while he put up gaudy numbers, he wasn't really a winner -- despite the fact that his postseason numbers were actually better than his regular season numbers.

In the end, this might be the bottom-line takeaway here. 

Team loses, QB gets blamed.

Last June, ESPN decided to jump the gun and name its NFL All-Decade Team.  You'd think naming an all-decade team before the decade is done would be the dumbest part of the whole exercise, but you'd be wrong:

Safeties Troy Polamalu and Ed Reed: Lynch (seven) and Dawkins (six) have more Pro Bowls this decade, but the Steelers' Polamalu and Ravens' Reed stood apart in overall athletic ability and their flair for the spectacular play.

"I love watching [Polamalu] play," Cowboys Ring of Honor member Cliff Harris told Mosley. "They give him a lot of freedom and he's able to make a lot of plays. I think I'd love playing in that defense -- even though it's the Steelers. I'm biased, but I still think it's one of the most important positions on the field. And no one can match Reed and Polamalu right now."

Reed's production -- 43 interceptions in seven NFL seasons, compared to 34 picks in 13 seasons for Dawkins -- separates him from all challengers.

At the time, I made a typically mellow and understated case for how stupid this selection was.  But with today's news that Brian Dawkins has made the actual all-decade team, I thought it would be fun to update the comparison:

"BFH" -- who used to run his own deal over at sportsdork.com -- emailed this link to a new FO piece on which defensive linemen were best at stopping the run.

The Eagles have a guy in the top five.  No, not Trent Cole.  Not Bunkley.  Or Patterson.

I think we can officially start questioning the reliability of "stop rate" as a meaningful metric.

Likely issue?  It's based entirely on plays where the player had a tackle or assist.  Which means all the other plays someone is completely blocked out of the action don't hurt.

Chris Gocong's stop rate must be awesome.

UPDATE:  Lest you think I'm guilty of blowing off a stat that doesn't compute with anecdotal recollection -- which would be ironic -- here's your sanity check.  Outside runs to the left going nowhere?  Check.  Outside runs to the right going somewhere?  Check as well.