UPDATE:  It's official.  Two-year deal, no word on other numbers.  His press conference after the morning meetings (before he signed) was interesting reading.

---

I know next to nothing about Marlin Jackson, so just like you I've been spending some time trying to learn what I can about him.  

So far, I'm not thinking this presumptive signing is going to solve our free safety problem.

Jackson has suffered season-ending ACL injuries each of the last two years (first the right, then the left).  For a sense of how his recovery is going, here's Jackson's own description of how his visit to Baltimore went:

"We were just feeling each other out and getting a sense of what I'm looking for and what they're looking for," Jackson told the team's Web site. "They wanted [to?] wait a little bit and see me move with the fact that I'm coming off an ACL. I need to move a little bit more before going further."

I'm not entirely sure what that all means, but it doesn't exactly sound like "I'm 100 percent and ready to go."  (Also, I might avoid the number 28 if I were an up-and-coming NFL prospect.)

The other issue with Jackson is that he's really a cornerback.  A big (6-0), slow (4.49 two surgeries ago), cornerback.  He mostly played safety in 2006, but it's an open question how well that experience in a Tampa-2 scheme will translate to what the Eagles do on defense.  

In fact, that's one nice thing about this signing.  It's not like we're all stocked up on effective CBs these days.  If the safety thing doesn't work out, maybe he can be a nickel/dime guy.

Some snippets from PFP and FOA:

FOA 2009 -- The big deal for Hayden may mean this is Marlin Jackson’s last year. Jackson is less prone than Hayden to give up the big play through the air but more likely to give up the completion.

PFP 2008 -- Cornerback Jason David's departure to New Orleans caused a domino effect in the Colts line-up: Nickel back and backup safety Marlin Jackson moved into David's cornerback position ... Jackson had a lower Success Rate than David did in 2006, but he also allowed fewer yards per pass, so that switch basically balanced out ... Colts defensive backs also offer solid run support.  [Bob] Sanders gets all the headlines and awards, but it was Jackson who placed among the leaders in average yards per tackle on run plays.

PFP 2007 -- New starting cornerback Marlin Jackson played safety most of last season.  

Walter Football has him as the #17-ranked free agent CB -- "can't stay healthy."

So we're talking about a guy who has serious injury concerns, played in an entirely different system, and will now probably be asked to make a mid-career position shift.  Feels very much like a pre-draft bluff.

Hellish computer issues the last 36 hours are pretty much wrecking my life, but a couple quick points while I run the 87th malware scan over on the laptop:

Reggie Brown -- I've always liked Reggie.  I'm glad he's getting a new situation, even if it's not one where the quarterback position is all that strong. 

Bowen brings up a point this morning that's always been a little hard to understand:

If you're into reading tea leaves, there was the fact that Brown's first 2 years, his best games seemed to come after Donovan McNabb went down for the season with injuries. McNabb was the quarterback all season in '07, when Brown caught 61 passes, but his touchdowns went from eight in the previous year to four, and there was a point in October when Brown talked of getting on the same page with the quarterback.

This post is from a few seasons ago, but check out Reggie's splits with different quarterbacks.  If I were re-doing this post today, I'd probably try to figure out some way to measure targets, too, but the catch numbers were always pretty striking.

As for this poll, at least they got something.

Stacy Andrews -- Not much of a reduction here.  I guess they couldn't push things too far, given the insanity of that situation and how messed up the UFA market is this year, but still, that seems off.  Especially because paying the bonus now means we can't really draft a stud OG and then let Stacy go later.  Who are the ad wizards who came up with this one?

The news that Jason Avant has signed a new five-year contract is quite welcome after a first free agency weekend that saw the Eagles mostly sitting out the action.  

Avant is a fan favorite and solid contributor.  You win with guys like Jason Avant (provided you also have a few DeSean Jacksons).

The question now before the house is if Avant can ever be more than what he is now.  As long as Maclin and Jackson are healthy, he's going to be the #3 receiver.  We know that.  And Avant's lack of speed (when compared to NFL wide receivers) means it's tough to find effective ways to use him on the outside.

But Avant does one thing better than anyone else on the roster:  Catch the football.  When Celek's not playing with a jacked-up thumb, he's pretty close, but no one else on the team can stretch to pull in errant or difficult throws better than Avant.

The "problem" with Avant, though, is that he's like the second guy off the bench who can come in, knock down a few jumpers, and contribute 5-6 points a game.  Sure, he'll grab a few rebounds and play tough defense while he's in there, but he's really just a "spell" guy who gets his shots when nothing else is open.  They never run a play for him.

There's no question that's a valuable role, but it makes me wonder what would happen if they actually did run some plays for him.  The next time the offensive line was getting blitzed out of its shoes and the coaches had to start ratcheting down the gameplan, what would happen if instead of trying to force slants to Mac/Jax, we actually counted on Avant to beat his guy one-on-one?  Or when we get down to the red zone and the running game still doesn't work and Celek's being double-teamed, why not give Avant a shot on first down to maybe pick up six?  There's no law that says he has to be the fourth read on every play.

Or maybe they tried all that, but it didn't look like it because McNabb never saw him open.  I don't know.

All I remember, though, is that in the San Diego game, when every other receiver had let McNabb down in some way, shape or form, Donovan said "screw this" and just started forcing the ball to Avant every chance he had.  Eight catches for 156 yards that day suggested Avant might have a bit of the "go-to guy" in him, even if we've never seen it before or since.

It occurred to me a couple days ago that as much as Eagles fans bitch about parts of the Andy Reid experience, it's also hard for anyone to imagine the team without him.

"I do it every day!" shouts the grumpy fan in the back.

Yes, I'm sure you do, as you dream happily of a future where the Eagles plunge 240-pound running backs into the line every other play, charge three bucks for a 20-ounce beer and require the cheerleaders to wear even less clothing.  But the truth is for as much as you may not like Reid, you don't really see him going anywhere either.  If he left tomorrow, you'd be just as shocked.  Much happier, but no less surprised.

One result is we don't attribute motivations to him that would seem obvious with almost any other coach.  So when we hear there's disagreement in the organization regarding the handling of the quarterback position -- and come on, it would be far more shocking if the GM, owner, team president and head coach were all in perfect harmony on such an important and difficult issue -- we just sort of assume everyone's thinking long-term, they just don't totally agree on the particulars.

That is, if you think about it, a little nuts.

Take any other coach of any other team in any other sport.  Make it a guy who's been in one place for 11 years and had a lot of success, but never won it all.  Have him coming off a season where his team just got blown out in back-to-back games by its biggest rival, and make it about 16 months after it seemed half the sportswriters in town were trying to get him fired.  Then imagine the ownership group suggested it might be just swell timing to ditch his best player at the most important position on the field/court/pitch.

How do you think that coach would react?  Seriously, if we weren't talking about Andy Reid, would there be any expectation at all that the coach would be okay with that maneuver?

I'm guessing most of you have been following the news up in Chicago, where it's impossible to ignore Captain Subtext:

Friday was a good day for Jerry Angelo and Lovie Smith. A very good day. Not a single play was run but they won, scoring big points in the game of "Please let us keep our jobs past next season." (link)

Their desperation is on full parade. With the window closing on an aging defense — and on Coach Lovie Smith and General Manager Jerry Angelo — the Bears pried open the McCaskey wallets and made agents happy. (link)

Peppers has less wear on his tires than most 30-year-olds, but the odds don't favor him finishing the contract. Still, the move looks strong on paper for a team that needs to win now for head coach Lovie Smith to keep his job. (link)

Roll the dice in the offseason, hope desperately the move pays off so you can keep your job.  We see it every year.  And yet, when we're talking about Donovan McNabb and Andy Reid, the thought doesn't even come up.  It probably should.

I don't think Reid's running scared.  As we all know, the Eagles coach is not the least bit afraid of high-variance, high EV moves.  He loves those things like cheese (seriously, can we stop making the food jokes every time we need a metaphor -- that's seriously played out) a lot. 

But Reid's also tired of never winning the big one.  Much more than you and I are.  He wants -- needs -- to get over the top.

And Andy knows what Donovan can do.  Yes, McNabb is streaky and has his down moments, but when he's good, he's really good.  Fix the protection, give him at least the semblance of an effective running game and add another year of seasoning for Celek, Jackson and Maclin, and there really is no ceiling for this offense.

Besides, what do you get if you trade McNabb now?  The first pick of the second round?  That's pretty sweet if you can turn that into DeSean Jackson.  Not as much if it's Trevor Laws or Winston Justice.  No one ever lost a Super Bowl because they didn't have one of those guys on their roster.

Three years from now, you may have your new starting cornerback.  Whoopdy-doo if Kolb sucks or gets hurt and all of a sudden you're texting Jeff Garcia to ask "how's the cndtning?"

So yeah, I bet Reid's awfully reluctant to ship off McNabb.  Not that he doesn't appreciate the uber-helpful public relations tips from the local writers who really just have his best interests at heart, but he's a little more focused on winning games right now, so if the cost is a little he-said, he-might-have-said, I think he's going to be okay with that.  Thankfully.

---

In other news, I offered Cleveland Kevin Kolb and Reggie Brown for the #7 pick in the annual blogger mock draft I'm participating in again this year.  Don told me no trades because "it's already hard enough keeping things straight."

I wanted to take Eric Berry.

Sheil's doing the Lord's work this morning over on the suicide hotline Moving The Chains.

Of course, that's just how I read it.  As we speak, Gonzo's copy/pasting the bold-y parts into the first draft of his next column.

Will Witherspoon is cut, saving the team $5 million in cash. Good on Derek for calling this one:

That list of big salaries is certainly interesting. I think Witherspoon might be on that final chart, too. $5 million is a lot of money for a guy you don't really want to start anywhere.

I didn't believe they didn't want to start him. Of course, Derek was right. The Eagletarian blog update reads similarly:

As first reported by Jason LaCanfora:

Eagles agree to 3 year, $10-plus mil deal with FB Leonard Weaver, highest ever for a FB. More than half deal is guaranteed.

Jeff McLane had some additional details:

Source: Weaver and #Eagles agree on 3-year, $11 million deal, with $6.5 guaranteed. Would make it the best deal ever for FB in NFL.

As Sam just noted in an e-mail, let us not neglect the irony in re: the Eagles -- a team which just two years ago was content to enter the season with no actual fullbacks on the roster -- shelling out the most cash ever for a fullback. 

Though, in fairness to Weaver and the Eagles, it sure seems like he's also essentially a second tailback.  Good for him, either way.  This deal definitely will help his cause in the Which Jersey Should You Buy stack rank.   

In other news:

• Let's all hold our breath and hope that someone accidentally offends Julius Peppers in Chicago; if the Bears really want him, it's unlikely Peppers leaves town without his name on the line which is dotted. 
• Apparently Jason Babin is getting a sniff from the Redskins, Broncos and Jags?  Who knew?  

... but I'm starting to get that feeling.

Odd that it's so dead quiet, isn't it?  In past years this has been the time when all the rumors have been flying about who was already going where.  The League must have asked everyone to play it a little cooler on the tampering. 

Last week, in the comments section, ray asked a good question:

Westbrook says the [E]agles are cheap and uncommitted to winning by signing players who will take lesser contracts as opposed to better players for more.  That was true for [Norman B]raman who let star players walk who were still in their prime but if I'm correct this [E]agles organization seems to be up around the cap and it usually happens during the year when they have extra money to extend their core players during the year. Is that right or do you think they are cheap too?

And of course, the reactionary columnists have happily jumped that theme, and taken Brian Westbrook’s comments as an indictment of the front office.

I find the whole question to be difficult to answer.  If this were a debate, I would be able to argue strongly for whichever side I was given, because there is lots of misleading data out there on both sides. Figuring out what I believe to be the truth is much harder.

Let’s describe what the Eagles actually do before evaluating whether they are being cheap or not.

There are three key elements that I want to discuss.

1. The Eagles believe in extending players early, and locking them up for the peak years of their career. Once they identify a player as being likely to be high-quality, they work to make sure that he remains an Eagle for his most productive years.
2. The Eagles believe that older players are generally bad investments. They typically don’t invest in those players, especially long-term, regardless of whether they are free agents from another team or whether they are leaders from their own team. (Note that they historically don’t cut expensive but productive veterans to save cash, they just don’t re-sign them to deals that extend past what the team thinks will be the player's productive years. Those are two different concepts.)
3. The Eagles prefer quality depth to premier talent. Understand, they definitely acquire premier talent when they can, but the goal is to get as many good players as possible on the roster as they can, even if it potentially means that they have less "great" players. I believe that this is a big reason why they are generally so successful in the second half of the season: when injuries hit the league, the Eagles have the roster depth to handle those injures in a way that other teams just cannot.

There are other things that the Eagles do, for sure, but those are the three that I think most often feed the debate about whether the team is cheap or not.  And they also feed the associated debate about whether the front office is committed to winning or not. These are related arguments, though not identical.

The common theme behind all three of their behaviors is the desire to get the most overall quality out of the roster as they can.  They want players who are peaking or improving, not players who are declining.  They want 53 guys who can contribute at a high level, not 22. To do that, yes, they need a combination of guys who are paid less than their value to the team, and guys who are paid exactly their value to the team. And they try to avoid being in a situation where they pay a guy more than his value to the team, because doing so prevents them from spending that money on players who will contribute more.

There is also good reason to believe that the Eagles spend at a level that is consistent with the rest of the teams in the league. However, I haven’t seen solid stats on that. We used to be able to pull those numbers out of the USA Today salary database, but that database got screwed up a few years ago, and has never been the same. The Eaglescap blog has tried to figure out cash spending by the Eagles over the past four years, and they have spent a great deal of real money. But I have no sense of what the league-wide average is.

The question of whether the Eagles are committed to winning is related, but as I said, it is different. Cheapness can be measured over time; but by commitment to winning, people are talking about “any given year.” The Eagles’ goal is to be a playoff team every year. That is different than a team whose goal is to be a Super Bowl team in one given year, who spends at an unsustainable level to try to make that run, then collapses for a period of time.  The philosophy I outlined above is very consistent with the playoff team every year idea. They want consistent quality. Not peaking quality.

What isn’t clear to me is whether the likelihood of winning a Super Bowl depends on lumpy spending, or whether a consistent approach is the best way to go. The Patriots, the Colts and the Steelers, probably the gold standards of the last decade, are all proponents of the consistent approach. The Colts especially and the Steelers to a lesser extent are generally not big players in the free agent market, while the Patriots tend to play in the aging veteran end of the free agent pool.

What I can never reconcile is where commitment to winning ends and luck begins. Getting to 5 NFCCGs in the past 10 years shows a consistently strong roster; does losing 4 of those games show a lack of commitment, or bad luck? And if it is the former, how do we know that it is the front office’s fault? How do we know it isn’t the players who weren’t sufficiently committed to winning that last game? And don’t get us started on the coaching staff.

Billy Beane famously opined that his job was to get the team into the playoffs, and whatever happened after that was just luck. Billy Beane has never won a World Series.  Adam Oates once said before the NHL trading deadline that his Bruins needed to upgrade their talent level; his coach made him stand up in the locker room and point to the players who he thought weren’t worthy of playing with him (he refused). The team then traded Oates to Washington.

The point is that front offices never think that the last hurdle is their fault; the players will never honestly dole out responsibility to other players either. The only person who takes responsibility is the head coach, and nobody believes him.  And the truth is likely that everyone is to blame in a little piece, and that if any one of those faulty parties had done their job a little bit better, the history of this franchise would be quite different.

So to the extent that “lack of commitment” and not luck is the reason that the Eagles still haven’t won a Super Bowl, I do think the front office philosophy is partially to blame. In any given year, they could have done more, though probably not every year. But I don’t think it is THE reason. I think there is enough blame for everyone.

-----

The irony of how this discussion got started is that, of all people, Brian Westbrook is the biggest counter-example to how the Eagles typically do business that has been in the organization during the Andy Reid era.  The Eagles made exceptions for him not once, but three times in his career:

• In 2005, the Eagles signed him to a contract extension after he held out of training camp briefly. He could do this because he was a restricted free agent, given a first round tender. The Eagles never reward holding out. And they rarely re-sign guys who make it to the last year before unrestricted free agency.
• In 2008, the Eagles renegotiated Westbrook’s contract, giving him a ton more money without adding any extra years to the deal. Subsequently, Donovan McNabb also got a pay raise without an extension, but Westbrook was the trend-setter here.
• In 2010, the Eagles will cut Westbrook with a year left on his deal – and he can still play. Again, that is fairly rare. Sure, there have been exceptions, like Takeo Spikes, but generally, the Eagles let their good players’ contracts expire, then don’t re-sign them. They don’t cut productive players. They wait until a guy like Jevon Kearse or Nate Wayne or Dhani Jones appears to be incapable of playing for the team anymore, then cut him. (Or in the case of Darwin Walker, Hollis Thomas, Mark Simoneau, et al., they trade him.) Of course, Westbrook probably can no longer start for a team. But he was certainly capable of continuing to be a major contributor to the Eagles.

That isn’t to say he has no right to make the comments he makes. But if you want an example of the Eagles committing to their own players – he is the exception you point to.

The Eagles ended the 2009 season with a few obvious lineup holes.

The Eagles don't like to go into the draft needing to plug holes.

Therefore, starting Friday, we should expect some action to address those issues.

---

I don't, it should be stated right up front, have any top secret intel to offer about Julius Peppers.  Your guess is as good as mine.  (Or in the case of a couple of you, your guess is most likely somewhat better.)

I can see the argument both ways.  On the one hand, I don't think there's another guy out there that you could realistically bring in who would have a bigger impact on this team.  With Cole and Peppers flanking the QB, you're talking about match-up nightmares for opposing teams.

Heck, Peppers is such an amazing athlete, he might even be able to solve that little "we'll just throw WR screens to Asante Samuel's side all day" issue we had last year by leaping to the sideline in a single bound.

On the other hand, he's 30 years old, is inconsistently motivated, and you're talking about buckets trucks Todd-Herremans'-pimped-out-vans full of cash to bring him in.  So we'll see.

There aren't all that many other big-name, unrestricted free agents out there.  And the ones who are exciting may not be that great a fit.  We probably don't need to spend another $10 million on a cornerback, for example.  So the action is with 1) the RFAs and 2) the UFAs who aren't quite as exciting.

Positions of interest:

Center -- Tough one.  Counting on Jamaal Jackson to offer any contribution next year seems overly optimistic, but JJ's only turning 30 in May and there's not an obvious stud on the market to replace him.  The Eagles have plenty of backup plans at this position, so you're really only bringing in a guy if you think he's a better starting option that Nick Cole.  Kevin Mawae seems like a stretch, even before you consider how much of his attention is going to be diverted in other directions this year.

Right Guard -- Logan Mankins is the interesting guy.  The Pats don't make many mistakes, so we're not stealing him away, but he's definitely intriguing.  Too bad about the CBA issues making him an RFA.  After Mankins, Rob Sims is a pretty similar story.  You just have to wonder what the Eagles' Big Book of NFL Players says about these guys. 

Running Back -- We covered this one earlier in the week.  The Eagles don't have to do anything at this position before the draft.  This seems like a wait and see position.  If they do move quickly, though, it will tell us everything we need to know about how they see Shady McCoy.

Defensive Tackle -- I heep hearing noise about this position, but I'm honestly not sure what people want them to do.  They've got two very solid guys in the middle right now, it's just that neither one can rush the passer.  You can bring in a designated pass rusher, but really, they've already got those guys in Howard and Abiamiri.  If you're going to do anything here, it's probably going to involve moving Bunkley, who has kind of a weird contract situation and seems like he would be a very intriguing NT in a 3-4 system.  That would certainly be a "spend big money to make big money" move, though.

Defensive End -- Peppers or bust.  I like Kampman, but it seems like he's a "wait and see how the market develops" type of guy right now.  I don't think anyone's expecting outright collusion, but as others have said, teams are going to be budget conscious and after the first few big names, there may not be much activity for the mid-tier guys.  Then it could be bargain-hunting time.

Linebacker (MLBs too) -- I can't see the Eagles throwing big money at a free agent linebacker.  That just doesn't seem to fit their way of operating.  What I can see, though, is a concerted effort to bring in a guy who can actually cover people in nickel situations.  I'm sure such a player exists.  I also sort of want the Eagles to sign Antonio Pierce, just to watch Gabe's head explode.

Safety -- It's not too hard to imagine the Eagles' brain trust doing their year-end evaluations, getting to the safety position, then having someone at the table say, "Well, that didn't work," while everyone else nods his head.  This position is a mess.  Mikell had an off year and isn't getting any younger.  Jones was a washout.  Demps is a mystery.  Macho could be the future, but it's going to take some work.  I just don't know who you bring in.  The irony bomb might level the NovaCare complex if they go after Darren Sharper.

Cornerback -- What the Eagles really need at this position is a rookie nickelback they can groom to take Sheldon's job in a couple years.  That's going to have to come from the draft.  I liked Ellis Hobbs as a kick returner, but he doesn't seem like he should be more than a dime back at his actual position. 

---

Sure glad we got that all cleared up.  Things feel so much more definitive now, don't they?

Last note:  Hopefully someone in the organization remembers to file all the RFA tenders tomorrow.  Growing list of leaguewide actions here.