So I love flipboard, as a news aggregator it is fabulous. the presentation is pretty the categories are useful, and the articles tend to be stuff I don't find at the other websites I check out for news, it makes me happy, Until I stumble upon an article that just makes my blood boil, then I can't sleep at night, I can't focus on my job. I must be a moron, where so much of my contentment and sense of self can be derailed by more charter school cheerleading in the form of the newest CREDO study.
Sigh. I hate charter schools, not for what they were envisioned to be, but for the cesspools of test prep and financial corruption they have become. There are charters in this country that focus on interesting and valuable things, special education, the arts, engineering, emotional support, and those can be valuable and important parts of a rich tapestry of public education. But what you generally are discussing when you discuss "Charters" is a test prep factory whose board and or sponsors and or management company has a purpose of stealing money from the public under the guise of educating your children better. When in reality, all they are doing is segregating our schools further, giving parents of many colors the option to get away from "those" children. The individuals you grow up to step on on your way to the top.
So naturally while perusing business insider the other night on my Flipoard, I saw the linked article and immediately began crying. Everything I have thought and felt all these years was wrong, my hatred for charters was misplaced, I was contributing to holding back the impoverished from achieving their potential. It was so obvious (see what I did there) how did I miss it. Shame on me, shame on me. Then my pride kicked in, and having been a former urban public school teacher I got pissed. Who were they to think they were better then me, this had to be some high class bullshit.
So I did something we never do, but we all should do. I opened the study and read it. Seems pretty convincing, maybe I was wrong. I wanted to be sure though, so I opened the technical appendix and was greeted with some math that was mostly beyond me (I love statistics, but it is not my specialty, education is) but I kept going, moving on to the details of their categorization of students, and it was there I found some information that leads me to the conclusion that we must discuss this study with all that it tells us and all that it misses, and it is not some wild flying piece of evidence that confirms the beliefs of policy makers and rich hedge fund managers everywhere.
First my usual disclaimer. Test scores are so limited it hurts. Using a test score to make a determination about your education level, about your readiness for society, about how functional you will be when you grow into an adult, is tantamount measuring someones height when you want to determine their weight. It might be a nice piece of information when trying to decide if they are overweight, but it is not the most important piece of evidence, by far. That said, we live in a world where test scores are our mode of argument (damn economists) so let's argue on that basis.
As I see it there are three main points of criticism that are not addressed by the techniques used in the CREDO study, and therefore in my opinion render their conclusions limited, and their evidence of little value for policy decisions moving forward.
First is the issue of poverty. the CREDO study makes the claim that charter schools can improve the test scores of students while servicing similar amounts of students in poverty. to make this claim they use the number of students qualifying for Free or Reduced lunch. To be fair to CREDO that is our standard measure of "poverty" in public schools, and it isn't great, but it does give us a common place to being our discussion. But, there have been some (I'm looking at you Jersey Jazzman) who have convincingly made the point that free lunch, is significantly different then reduced lunch and one of the new games charter schools play is to grab kids from poverty for their stats, but focus on the students who qualify for reduced lunch, making their outside of school challenges just a little easier. and in the world of statistical significance over large sample sizes, the smallest change can be important.
I'm not saying that the schools in the CREDO study serve more reduced price then free lunch students, I'm saying they don't address it, and before we bow down to this study as the answer to all our prayers, or the panacea that ails our country, we better find out if it is the case. Because to assume the only place it matters is in Newark NJ where the Jersey Jazzman did his work, would be Niave.
Second is the issue of special education. All teachers in public schools are quite familiar with the challenges presented by IEP's, as inclusion is the model of the day. What any teacher will tell you is that not all special education students present the same challenges in the classroom on a daily basis. there is a great difference between a student who has a high level of intellectual ability, but a slow processing speed, and a student who has the social development of a 3rd grader in a 10th grade classroom. There is a great difference in need and accomadation between a student with ADD who might need frequent refocusing, and a student with social emotional issues so severe they barely attend class because they are fighting the strongest demons of depression or worse. Not the CREDO study though, those students are all the same, and charter schools serve "Special education students" better then public school. If you believe that then I have a bridge in NY to sell you.
Not all special education students are created equal, but all should be educated fairly. Charter schools create a separation of students where, "normal" (whatever that means) students don't have to be educated with "those"students. The CREDO study makes the claim that charters in the urban environment to a better job with special education students then urban public schools. Except they never make an effort to classify the types of special education students by need. Again the excellent work of the Jersey Jazzman (at this point I might as well sell him a controlling interest in my blog) points out that while charter schools can (they don't always) serve a comparable percentage of students with disabilities, you must look closer at the types of disabilities they service, not something the CREDO study bothers to do.
If they can't/wont't service students with the most challenging disabilities, what can we really learn about improving education from them? What replicable lessons can we learn from what they do? Or is it just more propaganda to funnel money away from public schools and into the coffers of the hedge fund managers who support these schools? Is it just a legal and acceptable way to recreate segregation in the public school, but this time not just by race but by disability as well?
Final criticism is retention. Charter schools as a whole do a horrible job retaining students. Many charter schools only admit students for the first few years of their schooling, refusing to add students at the higher grades (imagine you move into a town and the public school says sorry, we can't take your kid because they haven't been with us the whole time. 1. ouch 2. think that doesn't effect test scores? but I digress). Charter schools regularly have their class sizes shrink by 50% or more by the time those students are taking the tests that matter. (suspcious, no of course not, look over here at this bad bad public school) and in some cases don't even try to hide it. (google search success academy attrition there are too many articles to link)
The CREDO study does make some attempt to address this fact, but it misses a clearly salient point, are these charter schools through their policies that lead to student attrition artificially selecting for students who have some trait that aids them in doing better on tests? It is entirely reasonable that some social skill developed by these students makes them more skilled in test taking, and/or learning in a way that directly correlates to test success. Something the article doesn't even think about.
So what we have here is a study that some policy maker, or some charter school advocate is oing to grab onto as THE piece of evidence that proves that public schools are the worst and charter schools are the best, and if you disagree then you are a stinky face poopy head. Unfortunately not enough people will look closely at the study and really think about the information that is missing.
Of course the biggest flaw in all of this is the base assumption that whatever skills or educational techniques that are required to succeed on these tests are something we want for our children, are something we want in our population, in our workforce, for ourselves. With all the flaws that can be pointed out in this study, that is the single most important question that is never asked, is this really what we want for ourselves and our children?
It almost seems....obvious... that that should be answered first
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Monday, March 23, 2015
American Education 1% Sucess, 99% Failure, Part I
I stumbled upon this article in my reading on the internets the other day. So naturally I poured myself a Captain and diet and went back to work grading my students papers, once again wondering what is wrong with this country.
As a teacher I can't help but be driven to the bottle by the way America treats education. Just read some of Diane Ravitch's website for a cornucopia of information about what is happening. Read the Jersey Jazzman for a detailed look at how awful things are in New Jersey, and wonderful statistical analysis of exactly what the data about american education is, and exactly how it is ignored. Read Edushyster for a sarcastic look at exactly how ridiculous all of this has become, because sometimes Sarcasm is the only thing we have left.
Most teachers honestly, barely register the bigger picture of how education is being destroyed, they just see small brushfires on an increasingl regular basis. Things like excessive testing, overbearing evaluation procedures, increasing numbers of students who live in poverty, or speak english as a second language, or have moderate to severe learning disabilities. We see curriculum changes we didn't decide on, tests that we barely know anything about, that we must get our students to pass for their sake, the schools sake, and our own. All the while we are constantly asked to do more in less time, for less pay (our salary increases barely keep up with average COLA increases)
We are struggling to do a job we probably love (more on that later) on a daily basis, so trying to keep track of the systematic long game to dismantle public education is missed by us. Our career, our passion, our desire to effect change in this world one child at a time is being ripped away, and our heads are so far underwater we can barely see it happening. Then all of a sudden a neighbor, or a family member, or a friend makes an offhand remark about "teachers" or our salaries, or our summers "off" or how every member of our profession is stupid because teachers don't have high SAT scores, and our heart breaks, and our head wonders where that came from.
So I wanted to lay out the plan that has been ravaging public education for decades, try to put the pieces in place so that people can see the big picture, and maybe be inspired to work in whatever way they can to work hard to stop it in its tracks.
Part I - American Schools are the Suxxors! (look this guy can't even use real words the future is screwed!)
Before I begin this analysis I want to point out that every measure of "success" used to judge education by both sides of the argument here is a test, a test with some variation of multiple choice, and some variation of free response essay/problems. One of our biggest failures as a worldwide society is allowing ourselves to be sorted into successes and failures by tests. Any educator can tell you the inherent problems with creating one size fits all assessments to determine the progress in a students learning. Our first and biggest problem is our obsession with objective tests and rubric assessed Open response work.
That said, our need to acquiesece to the data driven world, and our obsession with appealing to economists determines that we must base our arguments around tests. So I will, but it makes my skin crawl, because no test measures problem solving or thinking skills (plenty of research on that) and the more "challenging" you make the questions in an effort to test thinking skills, the more you test only a students ability to read and decode language tricks.
So Let's talk about the failure that is American Education. Cause not only am I bad at my job, so is everyone who does it everywhere, ever. (with the obvious exception of private school teachers, charter school teachers, and Teach for American "Corps" members, privately I strive to reach their heights)
Since public education was instituted in this country, we have been bad at it. But things really started to get heated in the early 80's when under Reagan we had our Holy Grail of how bad American's were at education "A Nation at Risk." a Horror story told to mothers everywhere to remind them that if we didn't buck up and fix all of our schooling problems their children would become the underlings of this Soviet's cause they are smarter and work harder (in communist Russia education schools you!). Everyone was better then us, we were lazy, entitled and were going to lose our edge and fall by the global wayside. 30+ years later, everyone is better then us, we are lazy, entitled and we are going to lose our edge and fall by the global wayside. And this time, our military won't even be able to save us cause we are all too stupid to join.
Man the worrying is so exhausting, I can barely keep typing.
Let's get a couple of things straight. American's have NEVER been good at international tests. Since the first international mathematics test ever given, we have always scored in the bottom of the countries involved, and yet here we are the largest economy in the world (okay china and india are either right behind or have passed depending on who you talk to and when you read this, but it certainly isn't all roses there) and the biggest superpower on the world stage. The reasons for this aren't so obvious, we aren't the biggest country so it isn't just size, we aren't living off of our laurels because by any number of measures of innovation (Patents, Nobel Prize winners etc...) we are still among the most if not the most innovative. Perhaps, just perhaps these tests aren't highly correlated with economic success (a ridiculously narrow measure of success BTW) and perhaps if they aren't highly correlated, success on them certainly can't be connected in any causative way?
You know what though, let's ignore the obvious question (ha, get it cause this blog is called....oh never mind) and instead operate under the premise that these tests are in fact important, and do in fact matter to our success as a nation. According to the PISA, an organization devoted to testing children worldwide (sadists) who is affiliated with the OECD and organization dedicated to ranking countries on lots of things so we can all feel good about what we do well, and bad about what we don't, our kids are really mediocre. I mean seriously our country is the richest in the world, we spend a ton on education (really we do spend a lot depending on how you look at it) and we get THIS!?!? The low end of mediocrity?
Forget it, you know what this whole blog post was wrong, I'm going to side with the anti education people, we are doomed. See you think I'm kidding here, but I'm not. I do believe we are doomed, and that we are failing our children. I just know it has nothing to do with our education system and everything to do with our massive problems with income inequality. If you believe in the value of tests such as the PISA America as a whole is failing our children just not necessarily how you expect.
Remember how we mentioned the OECD measured different countries on factors of what they do well and poorly? Well we do real poorly for our children. Of the nations considered "industrialized" by OECD only one has a higher level of children that live in poverty, Romania. That's right our 25% child poverty rate is second only to Romania. (and some recent studies point to an even higher rate of child poverty in public schools then that)
So? you may be asking. Well research upon research upon research has linked child poverty to challenges in education. (seriously, google it and get comfortable because you will never run out of reading material) the causes are many, the effects are many, but children that live in poverty are behind the eight ball and struggle to keep up let alone excel. And no matter how hard we wish it blaming them, their parents, or their teachers won't make that go away. In fact if you look at american schools where the poverty level is 10% of the student body or lower (you know like a normal industrialized nation) we are freaking awesome! Seriously, in some instances best in the world, every other instance top 5, freaking awesome.
Don't believe those weird foreigners? (seriously who are they to judge us 'MERICA!) Let's take a look at the NAEP results. The NAEP is a test we give to a statistically valid sample of students from each state around the country (wait? math can tell us how we are doing without torturing children several times yearly? Huh shame our policy makers are idiots) every few years. Proficient on the NAEP is considered to be about B level work in a normal classroom. We have been consistently improving since at least the 90's (the improvement flatlined once NCLB started to take hold, surprise surprise) . Not only that, we had been closing the gaps associated with race (again until NCLB went into effect). And our high school graduation rates are the highest they have ever been!
Light up that cigar and pour me some scotch, because by any rational scientific measure, we are a success when schooling our children.
Except that isn't what I see in the paper, that isn't what I hear from politicians, or policy makers, or the news. Increasingly that isn't what I hear from parents. It isn't because we are failures, it isn't because we don't educate our children well, it is because our country, our society has failed our children and it is too daunting and too expensive to fix, so we need a scapegoat, and that scapegoat is us.
Please understand, our educational system is not a failure. That is a lie to push an insidious agenda on the american people, and hide the truth of where we really do fail.
As a teacher I can't help but be driven to the bottle by the way America treats education. Just read some of Diane Ravitch's website for a cornucopia of information about what is happening. Read the Jersey Jazzman for a detailed look at how awful things are in New Jersey, and wonderful statistical analysis of exactly what the data about american education is, and exactly how it is ignored. Read Edushyster for a sarcastic look at exactly how ridiculous all of this has become, because sometimes Sarcasm is the only thing we have left.
Most teachers honestly, barely register the bigger picture of how education is being destroyed, they just see small brushfires on an increasingl regular basis. Things like excessive testing, overbearing evaluation procedures, increasing numbers of students who live in poverty, or speak english as a second language, or have moderate to severe learning disabilities. We see curriculum changes we didn't decide on, tests that we barely know anything about, that we must get our students to pass for their sake, the schools sake, and our own. All the while we are constantly asked to do more in less time, for less pay (our salary increases barely keep up with average COLA increases)
We are struggling to do a job we probably love (more on that later) on a daily basis, so trying to keep track of the systematic long game to dismantle public education is missed by us. Our career, our passion, our desire to effect change in this world one child at a time is being ripped away, and our heads are so far underwater we can barely see it happening. Then all of a sudden a neighbor, or a family member, or a friend makes an offhand remark about "teachers" or our salaries, or our summers "off" or how every member of our profession is stupid because teachers don't have high SAT scores, and our heart breaks, and our head wonders where that came from.
So I wanted to lay out the plan that has been ravaging public education for decades, try to put the pieces in place so that people can see the big picture, and maybe be inspired to work in whatever way they can to work hard to stop it in its tracks.
Part I - American Schools are the Suxxors! (look this guy can't even use real words the future is screwed!)
Before I begin this analysis I want to point out that every measure of "success" used to judge education by both sides of the argument here is a test, a test with some variation of multiple choice, and some variation of free response essay/problems. One of our biggest failures as a worldwide society is allowing ourselves to be sorted into successes and failures by tests. Any educator can tell you the inherent problems with creating one size fits all assessments to determine the progress in a students learning. Our first and biggest problem is our obsession with objective tests and rubric assessed Open response work.
That said, our need to acquiesece to the data driven world, and our obsession with appealing to economists determines that we must base our arguments around tests. So I will, but it makes my skin crawl, because no test measures problem solving or thinking skills (plenty of research on that) and the more "challenging" you make the questions in an effort to test thinking skills, the more you test only a students ability to read and decode language tricks.
So Let's talk about the failure that is American Education. Cause not only am I bad at my job, so is everyone who does it everywhere, ever. (with the obvious exception of private school teachers, charter school teachers, and Teach for American "Corps" members, privately I strive to reach their heights)
Since public education was instituted in this country, we have been bad at it. But things really started to get heated in the early 80's when under Reagan we had our Holy Grail of how bad American's were at education "A Nation at Risk." a Horror story told to mothers everywhere to remind them that if we didn't buck up and fix all of our schooling problems their children would become the underlings of this Soviet's cause they are smarter and work harder (in communist Russia education schools you!). Everyone was better then us, we were lazy, entitled and were going to lose our edge and fall by the global wayside. 30+ years later, everyone is better then us, we are lazy, entitled and we are going to lose our edge and fall by the global wayside. And this time, our military won't even be able to save us cause we are all too stupid to join.
Man the worrying is so exhausting, I can barely keep typing.
Let's get a couple of things straight. American's have NEVER been good at international tests. Since the first international mathematics test ever given, we have always scored in the bottom of the countries involved, and yet here we are the largest economy in the world (okay china and india are either right behind or have passed depending on who you talk to and when you read this, but it certainly isn't all roses there) and the biggest superpower on the world stage. The reasons for this aren't so obvious, we aren't the biggest country so it isn't just size, we aren't living off of our laurels because by any number of measures of innovation (Patents, Nobel Prize winners etc...) we are still among the most if not the most innovative. Perhaps, just perhaps these tests aren't highly correlated with economic success (a ridiculously narrow measure of success BTW) and perhaps if they aren't highly correlated, success on them certainly can't be connected in any causative way?
You know what though, let's ignore the obvious question (ha, get it cause this blog is called....oh never mind) and instead operate under the premise that these tests are in fact important, and do in fact matter to our success as a nation. According to the PISA, an organization devoted to testing children worldwide (sadists) who is affiliated with the OECD and organization dedicated to ranking countries on lots of things so we can all feel good about what we do well, and bad about what we don't, our kids are really mediocre. I mean seriously our country is the richest in the world, we spend a ton on education (really we do spend a lot depending on how you look at it) and we get THIS!?!? The low end of mediocrity?
Forget it, you know what this whole blog post was wrong, I'm going to side with the anti education people, we are doomed. See you think I'm kidding here, but I'm not. I do believe we are doomed, and that we are failing our children. I just know it has nothing to do with our education system and everything to do with our massive problems with income inequality. If you believe in the value of tests such as the PISA America as a whole is failing our children just not necessarily how you expect.
Remember how we mentioned the OECD measured different countries on factors of what they do well and poorly? Well we do real poorly for our children. Of the nations considered "industrialized" by OECD only one has a higher level of children that live in poverty, Romania. That's right our 25% child poverty rate is second only to Romania. (and some recent studies point to an even higher rate of child poverty in public schools then that)
So? you may be asking. Well research upon research upon research has linked child poverty to challenges in education. (seriously, google it and get comfortable because you will never run out of reading material) the causes are many, the effects are many, but children that live in poverty are behind the eight ball and struggle to keep up let alone excel. And no matter how hard we wish it blaming them, their parents, or their teachers won't make that go away. In fact if you look at american schools where the poverty level is 10% of the student body or lower (you know like a normal industrialized nation) we are freaking awesome! Seriously, in some instances best in the world, every other instance top 5, freaking awesome.
Don't believe those weird foreigners? (seriously who are they to judge us 'MERICA!) Let's take a look at the NAEP results. The NAEP is a test we give to a statistically valid sample of students from each state around the country (wait? math can tell us how we are doing without torturing children several times yearly? Huh shame our policy makers are idiots) every few years. Proficient on the NAEP is considered to be about B level work in a normal classroom. We have been consistently improving since at least the 90's (the improvement flatlined once NCLB started to take hold, surprise surprise) . Not only that, we had been closing the gaps associated with race (again until NCLB went into effect). And our high school graduation rates are the highest they have ever been!
Light up that cigar and pour me some scotch, because by any rational scientific measure, we are a success when schooling our children.
Except that isn't what I see in the paper, that isn't what I hear from politicians, or policy makers, or the news. Increasingly that isn't what I hear from parents. It isn't because we are failures, it isn't because we don't educate our children well, it is because our country, our society has failed our children and it is too daunting and too expensive to fix, so we need a scapegoat, and that scapegoat is us.
Please understand, our educational system is not a failure. That is a lie to push an insidious agenda on the american people, and hide the truth of where we really do fail.
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Potato Chip Kelly: Stale Cape Cod chip, Or Fresh Tostitos Fajita Chips, Part II
Last time we took a look at all the eagles losses this ridiculous offseason, and tried to judge the changes in terms of what they did for the team. We however weren't just looking at the on the field product but rather the impact of each change on the state of the organization, monetary considerations, Scheme Fit, Chip's vision. All aspects of a transaction are important to accurately analyze the value of the transaction, we did the losses last time, this time let's look at our gains.
LB Brad Jones - Depth addition. Jones is a physically talented linebacker who hasn't realized the promise he showed as a rookie. But look at what you want from him, he wasn't brought in to be a starter, he wasn't brought in to solve problems at a position. He is here to insulate against injury, and to provide value on special teams (perhaps lessen the loss of contributors there like Casey). The focus on maintaining consistently high quality special teams is potentially going to be a huge strength of Kelly, and a benefit to Eagles fans everywhere. Neutral - he seems like a quality addition, young enough with some upside but for what he is, depth and Special teams he can't be such an important contributor to rate as super impact at this juncture.
LB Kiko Alonso - Somewhere Chip Kelly must have a giant vault of gold coins he swims around in for fun, because his #duckbias is so strong he must secretly be Scrooge McDuck, and we are all living a duck tail. Seriously though, do you want this guy in an exchange for shady? Easy answer no. Shady is blatantly the more talented player. Like all things however this is not as simple as talent. First off Alonso is a Linebacker, and the historical comparisons indicate they age much better then RB's, Alonso is also a much cheaper player right now, and his injury gives him a much higher value because now he is a restricted free agent when his rookie contract is over, not a full free agent. Also, to run a successful 3-4 defense talented linbackers are a priority to make it work, and Look at what the Eagles have now: OLB Brandon Grahm ( a darling of PFF because his rate stats on pressuring the QB are elite) ILB Mychal Kendricks ( a supreme physical talent who has been putting it together to play at a star if not elite level) ILB Kiko Alonso ( a supremely talented ILB coming off a rookie of the year award, not the official one, who put up great stats and can really cover TE's a premium skill in the pass happy NFL) and OLB Connor Barwin (perhaps the epitome of versatile balanced LB, he does everything above average, and sometimes everything at a star level) That is a nasty group of relatively young LB who could dominate the league in our defense for years. Positive - the injury is a concern, the interceptions bunched at the beginning of his rookie campaign might be a concern, but the combination of cost/risk/reward makes his addition a spectacular one, even if it makes you wonder if Chip Kelly only communicates through quacks.
CB Byron Maxwell - In bars and basements everywhere in Philadelphia, Eagles fans are sacrificing cheesesteaks to the gods of football in hopes that this is not a repeat of #Dreamteam and Namdi Asomuagha. Let me calm your fears, first Maxwell is not married to the star of Scandal, so he probably needs the money to maintain his lifestyle. Second this is not a case of the Eagles signing a star to fix all their problems. Maxwell is obviously highly regarded as part of a unit, not as an individual player per se. When you get to play with Sherman, and Thomas, and Chancellor obviously you will appear better then you are. But don't assume Maxwell has no talent, or is a some scrub who was elevated by those around him, he is a solid above average CB in his own right, and in fact does some things better then his opposite Sherman. The second reason not to freak out about this signing is that it is obvious the eagles targeted Maxwell because of his talent AND his scheme fit. You can see an excellent breakdown on Birds24/7 as to how Maxwell fits what the eagles do, but the fact they it is obvious how he fits their scheme/desire for CB's makes this signing a much better get then the spreee of 2011 group. Look, the eagles overpayed, but the cap is always going up, and sometimes you do have to overpay to settle a position that has been a cesspool for so long, as long as you do so with detailed knowledge of what the player brings it is ok. Positive - This is an overpay for Maxwell, but it was necessary to bring some stability to the defensive backfield, and his presence can elevate whomever they put on the other side, and at safety making each individual piece contribute to the betterment of the group as a whole.
CB Walter Thurmond - # DuckBias, #Seahawkseast, #WTF? seriously though, Thurmond isn't a bad get on the cheap. He is a talented guy, who fits the Eagles style of defense and brings some versatility (he is comfortable in the slot) He isn't too expensive, is on a 1 year prove it deal and gives the eagles some options. Maybe we can finally use his presence to let us see Boykin on the outside, or maybe his presence leads the eagles to trade Boykin for picks or as part of a package for Mariota, or maybe we just have some excellent competition for two spots on the defense between Boykin, Thurmond, Carrol and Watkins. The only way this doesn't work is if he gets hurt, or he plays so damn well we can't afford him cause we overpayed for maxwell. Neutral - Honestly if Boykin ends up on the outside this becomes a clear positive because I can't believe he isn't talented enough for that, and if Boykin ends up traded because of this in some sick draft day deal it also could end up being a positive. But right now it appears as simply a solid depth signing, the kind of things that good teams do because it could work out great, or not hurt you enough to screw you over.
RB Ryan Matthews - Ryan is a good get, talented, young, not too expensive. He was one of the two best RB in football running out of the shotgun (Guess who the other one was) he is injury prone, but I'm getting the sense that Chip is trying to do two things here, 1 insulate himself from injury by having multiple backs, and betting on his sports science to give him an edge. The first is a reasonable approach, and the second is the kind of things smart coaches do, you run risks on what you believe in. It may not work, but it is the only way to approach building a team to develop a philosophy and embrace it. If you don't believe in yourself you will never win. Positive - If you told me the Eagles saved cap room, got Ryan Matthews, to replace McCoy and added Kiko Alonso I would have jumped for Joy at how brillian the Chippah was, a backfield of Polk, Sproles, Matthews, and Practice squad player/Rookie to be named later would be a good one.
RB Demarco Murray - ugh. Okay lets start with the good Demarco is an awesome running back, not quite Shady in terms of talent, but in some ways better. Demarco was one of the two best running backs in football running out of the shotgun last year (now they both play for us) Demarco thrived in an uptempo offense in college, Demarco is like best friends with our new QB, Demarco potentially rip defenses apart in our offense, even if they stack the box. Now let's start with the bad. Ummmmm, hey Demarco, that was a lot of carries last year do you have any legs left? speaking of legs, are there other ways you imagine they could be injured? cause you have quite a few already. Oh yeah 18 million garaunteed? Holy Shit man. Look Demarco is awesome, he is a great back with a ton of talent, who fits what chip wants better then Shady ever would. But you can't ignore three things about this signing, 1. cost he and Matthews are really expensive, 2. Injury the 370 carries thing is probably bunk, and he has lass carries in his career then Shady, by a lot. But he has been hurt a lot, and it's great we prepped for that with matthews or maybe #sportsscience saves us all, but man that is risky for 18/21 million guaranteed against the salary cap. 3. Chip is now trying to prove that he knows more then everyone by valuing running backs more then our current understanding of football says that we should, that is Ballsy and scary. Negative - He is expensive, injury prone, and just ran a lot for the stupid cowboys last year. There is few too many negative risks in this signing for me to let my faith in Chip overwhelm the concern.
QB Mark Sanchez - #Sanchize! Okay this won't be a popular opinion, but I like this. I personally wish that Matt Barkley had shown us enough to become the next god of Philadelphia football, but it ain't happening. So go ahead name a back up QB you would rather have then the Philadelphia Eagles version of Sanchez? Can't, right cause there isn't a better one in football. Listen we were doomed last year, no one wins enough to do anything special when your starting QB goes down for 8 games, but Sanchez was the best he has ever been in Kelly's system, and if we can have that guy for 2 or 3 games in case of emergency, totally a good investment. Particularly if you are hedging your bets on Mr. ACL, or looking for a quality veteran to have your rookie understudy. Either way this makes sense, and you get what you pay for. Just don't expect Sanchez to lead you to the superbowl. Positive - The sanchize ain't your savior, but he does bring quality to the worst position in football, backup QB.
OLB Brandon Grahm - I loved Trent Cole, almost bought his jersey. I spent the last three years waiting for the to trade Graham. He was a disappointing draft pick, he wasn't a scheme fit, he couldn't cover, it just seemed like there was an endless list of why he needed to go, and then he almost ended up with the Giants, across for Jason Pierre Paul. Good god I would have hated that. Look we got him on an entirely reasonable contract, his rate states for pressuring the QB are through the roof, even if they dip a bit with constant use he should still be elite in that category, he plays the run well, and he can cover enough to keep the offense guessing. But bottom line, this is a good guy, who has worked his ass off constantly to live up to his draft status, I believe he will be better then Cole and we will all be able to celebrate the guy who fought through challenge after challenge to finally live up to his potential. Positive - at the end of the day, I would bet money he is more productive then Trent cole, and before this contract is over ends up one of our more productive pass rushers.
QB Sam Bradford - Look this guy has no chance, He will never have a nickname as fabulous as Nickfolian Dynamite. Although upon further reflection who will? I loved Nick Foles, I wanted him to succeed so bad, but as last year wore on I became increasingly convinced he wouldn't, increasingly convinced that his ceiling was in reality significantly lower then his magical 27-2 run. Let's assume for a second that Bradford isn't really that good, that what he has shown us so far in his time in football is who he is. There would still be one thing he brings to the table that Nick didn't, Bradford doesn't turn the ball over, and that is obviously something Chip values. Bottom line, bad Bradford might run this offense better then Foles. Good Bradford has a lot more in terms of physical/mental tools then Good Foles, so this is good trade in terms of risk/reward even if on the surface we hate it. I also think our perception of value is skewed. I know a lot of people are pissed the Eagles took on a huge cap hit, gave up a 2nd round pick and Foles for Bradford, but that perception is skewed by the injuries, and the fact that football people still believe in the Bradford that was drafted, and not the one that was screwed by turnover and bad coordinators in St. Loius (seriously why do people keep hiring coaches who think running the ball with no risk is a wise decision?) Also, don't forget this is another #sportsscience gamble, where chip believe in himself and his program and thinks he can alleviate some injury concerns. Neutral - 27-2 is fresh in our minds, Nickfolian Dynamite is such a loveable guy with these moments that make you think he can be something special, but his bad moments should equally make us think he never will, and Bradford has way more potential then Nick. The only reason this isn't positive is because of three things 1. cost, 2. injury, 3. Mariota.
So what is it we have here is Chip an idiot or a genius?
I see this in stages
1st stage - all the additions/subtractions but Bradford/Murray - All of these make perfect logical sense, in terms of on the field/cap/considerations of fit with Chip's scheme this is a good offseason, with a lot of potential.
2nd Stage - Bradford. This is a high risk/high reward move. What if Foles is great in St. Louis? What if Bradford gets hurt? But what if this turns into a Drew Brees level Acquisition for the Eagles? Or what if Bradford really is Mariota Bait? Overall this transaction is painful but at worst neutral depending on what happens
3rd stage - Murray. WTF? seriously? after you traded McCoy to save cap space? If this was any other team with any other coach I would be laughing about how stupid they were.
As it is i can't decide if Chip is an idiot or a genius, but i can tell you it probably won't be anything in between. And at this point all we can do is hope, that whatever happens, whatever changes are still yet to come, we get the delicious fajitas tostitos and not a bag of cap cod chips that have been in the pantry for too long.
LB Brad Jones - Depth addition. Jones is a physically talented linebacker who hasn't realized the promise he showed as a rookie. But look at what you want from him, he wasn't brought in to be a starter, he wasn't brought in to solve problems at a position. He is here to insulate against injury, and to provide value on special teams (perhaps lessen the loss of contributors there like Casey). The focus on maintaining consistently high quality special teams is potentially going to be a huge strength of Kelly, and a benefit to Eagles fans everywhere. Neutral - he seems like a quality addition, young enough with some upside but for what he is, depth and Special teams he can't be such an important contributor to rate as super impact at this juncture.
LB Kiko Alonso - Somewhere Chip Kelly must have a giant vault of gold coins he swims around in for fun, because his #duckbias is so strong he must secretly be Scrooge McDuck, and we are all living a duck tail. Seriously though, do you want this guy in an exchange for shady? Easy answer no. Shady is blatantly the more talented player. Like all things however this is not as simple as talent. First off Alonso is a Linebacker, and the historical comparisons indicate they age much better then RB's, Alonso is also a much cheaper player right now, and his injury gives him a much higher value because now he is a restricted free agent when his rookie contract is over, not a full free agent. Also, to run a successful 3-4 defense talented linbackers are a priority to make it work, and Look at what the Eagles have now: OLB Brandon Grahm ( a darling of PFF because his rate stats on pressuring the QB are elite) ILB Mychal Kendricks ( a supreme physical talent who has been putting it together to play at a star if not elite level) ILB Kiko Alonso ( a supremely talented ILB coming off a rookie of the year award, not the official one, who put up great stats and can really cover TE's a premium skill in the pass happy NFL) and OLB Connor Barwin (perhaps the epitome of versatile balanced LB, he does everything above average, and sometimes everything at a star level) That is a nasty group of relatively young LB who could dominate the league in our defense for years. Positive - the injury is a concern, the interceptions bunched at the beginning of his rookie campaign might be a concern, but the combination of cost/risk/reward makes his addition a spectacular one, even if it makes you wonder if Chip Kelly only communicates through quacks.
CB Byron Maxwell - In bars and basements everywhere in Philadelphia, Eagles fans are sacrificing cheesesteaks to the gods of football in hopes that this is not a repeat of #Dreamteam and Namdi Asomuagha. Let me calm your fears, first Maxwell is not married to the star of Scandal, so he probably needs the money to maintain his lifestyle. Second this is not a case of the Eagles signing a star to fix all their problems. Maxwell is obviously highly regarded as part of a unit, not as an individual player per se. When you get to play with Sherman, and Thomas, and Chancellor obviously you will appear better then you are. But don't assume Maxwell has no talent, or is a some scrub who was elevated by those around him, he is a solid above average CB in his own right, and in fact does some things better then his opposite Sherman. The second reason not to freak out about this signing is that it is obvious the eagles targeted Maxwell because of his talent AND his scheme fit. You can see an excellent breakdown on Birds24/7 as to how Maxwell fits what the eagles do, but the fact they it is obvious how he fits their scheme/desire for CB's makes this signing a much better get then the spreee of 2011 group. Look, the eagles overpayed, but the cap is always going up, and sometimes you do have to overpay to settle a position that has been a cesspool for so long, as long as you do so with detailed knowledge of what the player brings it is ok. Positive - This is an overpay for Maxwell, but it was necessary to bring some stability to the defensive backfield, and his presence can elevate whomever they put on the other side, and at safety making each individual piece contribute to the betterment of the group as a whole.
CB Walter Thurmond - # DuckBias, #Seahawkseast, #WTF? seriously though, Thurmond isn't a bad get on the cheap. He is a talented guy, who fits the Eagles style of defense and brings some versatility (he is comfortable in the slot) He isn't too expensive, is on a 1 year prove it deal and gives the eagles some options. Maybe we can finally use his presence to let us see Boykin on the outside, or maybe his presence leads the eagles to trade Boykin for picks or as part of a package for Mariota, or maybe we just have some excellent competition for two spots on the defense between Boykin, Thurmond, Carrol and Watkins. The only way this doesn't work is if he gets hurt, or he plays so damn well we can't afford him cause we overpayed for maxwell. Neutral - Honestly if Boykin ends up on the outside this becomes a clear positive because I can't believe he isn't talented enough for that, and if Boykin ends up traded because of this in some sick draft day deal it also could end up being a positive. But right now it appears as simply a solid depth signing, the kind of things that good teams do because it could work out great, or not hurt you enough to screw you over.
RB Ryan Matthews - Ryan is a good get, talented, young, not too expensive. He was one of the two best RB in football running out of the shotgun (Guess who the other one was) he is injury prone, but I'm getting the sense that Chip is trying to do two things here, 1 insulate himself from injury by having multiple backs, and betting on his sports science to give him an edge. The first is a reasonable approach, and the second is the kind of things smart coaches do, you run risks on what you believe in. It may not work, but it is the only way to approach building a team to develop a philosophy and embrace it. If you don't believe in yourself you will never win. Positive - If you told me the Eagles saved cap room, got Ryan Matthews, to replace McCoy and added Kiko Alonso I would have jumped for Joy at how brillian the Chippah was, a backfield of Polk, Sproles, Matthews, and Practice squad player/Rookie to be named later would be a good one.
RB Demarco Murray - ugh. Okay lets start with the good Demarco is an awesome running back, not quite Shady in terms of talent, but in some ways better. Demarco was one of the two best running backs in football running out of the shotgun last year (now they both play for us) Demarco thrived in an uptempo offense in college, Demarco is like best friends with our new QB, Demarco potentially rip defenses apart in our offense, even if they stack the box. Now let's start with the bad. Ummmmm, hey Demarco, that was a lot of carries last year do you have any legs left? speaking of legs, are there other ways you imagine they could be injured? cause you have quite a few already. Oh yeah 18 million garaunteed? Holy Shit man. Look Demarco is awesome, he is a great back with a ton of talent, who fits what chip wants better then Shady ever would. But you can't ignore three things about this signing, 1. cost he and Matthews are really expensive, 2. Injury the 370 carries thing is probably bunk, and he has lass carries in his career then Shady, by a lot. But he has been hurt a lot, and it's great we prepped for that with matthews or maybe #sportsscience saves us all, but man that is risky for 18/21 million guaranteed against the salary cap. 3. Chip is now trying to prove that he knows more then everyone by valuing running backs more then our current understanding of football says that we should, that is Ballsy and scary. Negative - He is expensive, injury prone, and just ran a lot for the stupid cowboys last year. There is few too many negative risks in this signing for me to let my faith in Chip overwhelm the concern.
QB Mark Sanchez - #Sanchize! Okay this won't be a popular opinion, but I like this. I personally wish that Matt Barkley had shown us enough to become the next god of Philadelphia football, but it ain't happening. So go ahead name a back up QB you would rather have then the Philadelphia Eagles version of Sanchez? Can't, right cause there isn't a better one in football. Listen we were doomed last year, no one wins enough to do anything special when your starting QB goes down for 8 games, but Sanchez was the best he has ever been in Kelly's system, and if we can have that guy for 2 or 3 games in case of emergency, totally a good investment. Particularly if you are hedging your bets on Mr. ACL, or looking for a quality veteran to have your rookie understudy. Either way this makes sense, and you get what you pay for. Just don't expect Sanchez to lead you to the superbowl. Positive - The sanchize ain't your savior, but he does bring quality to the worst position in football, backup QB.
OLB Brandon Grahm - I loved Trent Cole, almost bought his jersey. I spent the last three years waiting for the to trade Graham. He was a disappointing draft pick, he wasn't a scheme fit, he couldn't cover, it just seemed like there was an endless list of why he needed to go, and then he almost ended up with the Giants, across for Jason Pierre Paul. Good god I would have hated that. Look we got him on an entirely reasonable contract, his rate states for pressuring the QB are through the roof, even if they dip a bit with constant use he should still be elite in that category, he plays the run well, and he can cover enough to keep the offense guessing. But bottom line, this is a good guy, who has worked his ass off constantly to live up to his draft status, I believe he will be better then Cole and we will all be able to celebrate the guy who fought through challenge after challenge to finally live up to his potential. Positive - at the end of the day, I would bet money he is more productive then Trent cole, and before this contract is over ends up one of our more productive pass rushers.
QB Sam Bradford - Look this guy has no chance, He will never have a nickname as fabulous as Nickfolian Dynamite. Although upon further reflection who will? I loved Nick Foles, I wanted him to succeed so bad, but as last year wore on I became increasingly convinced he wouldn't, increasingly convinced that his ceiling was in reality significantly lower then his magical 27-2 run. Let's assume for a second that Bradford isn't really that good, that what he has shown us so far in his time in football is who he is. There would still be one thing he brings to the table that Nick didn't, Bradford doesn't turn the ball over, and that is obviously something Chip values. Bottom line, bad Bradford might run this offense better then Foles. Good Bradford has a lot more in terms of physical/mental tools then Good Foles, so this is good trade in terms of risk/reward even if on the surface we hate it. I also think our perception of value is skewed. I know a lot of people are pissed the Eagles took on a huge cap hit, gave up a 2nd round pick and Foles for Bradford, but that perception is skewed by the injuries, and the fact that football people still believe in the Bradford that was drafted, and not the one that was screwed by turnover and bad coordinators in St. Loius (seriously why do people keep hiring coaches who think running the ball with no risk is a wise decision?) Also, don't forget this is another #sportsscience gamble, where chip believe in himself and his program and thinks he can alleviate some injury concerns. Neutral - 27-2 is fresh in our minds, Nickfolian Dynamite is such a loveable guy with these moments that make you think he can be something special, but his bad moments should equally make us think he never will, and Bradford has way more potential then Nick. The only reason this isn't positive is because of three things 1. cost, 2. injury, 3. Mariota.
So what is it we have here is Chip an idiot or a genius?
I see this in stages
1st stage - all the additions/subtractions but Bradford/Murray - All of these make perfect logical sense, in terms of on the field/cap/considerations of fit with Chip's scheme this is a good offseason, with a lot of potential.
2nd Stage - Bradford. This is a high risk/high reward move. What if Foles is great in St. Louis? What if Bradford gets hurt? But what if this turns into a Drew Brees level Acquisition for the Eagles? Or what if Bradford really is Mariota Bait? Overall this transaction is painful but at worst neutral depending on what happens
3rd stage - Murray. WTF? seriously? after you traded McCoy to save cap space? If this was any other team with any other coach I would be laughing about how stupid they were.
As it is i can't decide if Chip is an idiot or a genius, but i can tell you it probably won't be anything in between. And at this point all we can do is hope, that whatever happens, whatever changes are still yet to come, we get the delicious fajitas tostitos and not a bag of cap cod chips that have been in the pantry for too long.
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Potato Chip Kelly, Stale Cape Cod Chips, or Fresh Bag of Tostitos Fajitas Chips?
I've been an Eagles fan for every portion of my 34 years that I have followed sports (so being honest maybe 15 years? I started life with a strong bend toward Nerddom) Buddy Ryan, didn't care, Rich Kotite? HA. Ray Rhodes? I started to care a little but as I look back on it I hated him and was only intrigued because everything was so new.
Now Andy Reid, there was a man I could get behind. At the time of his hire I had no Idea, I could only follow what was in the papers at the time of his hire, I didn't understand enough to form my own opinions, but as my knowledge of football grew my love of him was overpowering. He was successful because he was smart, and that was an amazing thing for someone like me who loves sports like a nerd loves Dungeons and Dragons. I want people to succeed because they aren't afraid to apply intelligence to a game that so often runs from its role.
I loved Andy, but when we let him go it was time to move on, and while it was sad it brought me the most exciting time of my life as a football fan, Chip Kelly.
Chip was a football guy, something I couldn't relate to really, but he was also all about knowledge. Anything you want to do Chip wants the reason why, and he wants it backed up with evidence. It was almost as if he had walked away from one of my science classes and applied the lessons to football. I had never been so excited in my life, the football coach of the Philadelphia Eagles not only worked under the premise that "Big people beat up little people" He also turned to australian scientists for their advancements in sports science, brought in college professors to address his team to discuss any number of concepts that might apply to success on the field. He was some amazing combination of the Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, and Neil Degrasse Tyson. I was in heaven.
His first season was a rousing success, his philosophies upended the game, it seemed like no one could keep up, and the only thing that ended the eagles dream season was the ultimate statistical bugaboo of bad plays at the wrong moment as time ran out. But there was promise.
Season two started off with a bang, the eagles were 9-3, and winnin even with their backup quarterback, there was a feeling of invincibility as if nothing could stop Chip. But reality set in, too many turnovers held back our offense, and no amount of genius from the headcoach can overcome mediocre quarterback play from your starter and your backup. The Eagles ended the season 10-6 but out of the playoffs and a bit of the shine was off Chip.
That brings us to the topic of this blog post, the 2015 offseason and the great Chip Kelly Culling. So Let's take a closer look shall we?
Trent Cole - The Axe Man is gone, off to hunt in the fertile fields of indianapolis. Quietly I shed a single tear, because you can't have been an Eagles fan for the last decade and not have loved the Axe-Man. But the NFL has a salary cap, and Trent's figure was well above the value he brought to the field. Add to that the opportunity cost of him taking the role of Brandon Graham a younger potentially rising player, and I can't help but see this as addition by subtraction. He was still a solid player but no where near worth the money. Net Change - Positive. It hurts to lose a great player at any point of his career, but the cap savings, and opportunities for Graham make this a positive change for now.
Cary Williams - Mr. Sconce if you will? Cary wasn't awful, and the Eagles needed to try something new with him and Fletcher at the time, but they also need to try something new now. He wasn't worth his cap hit so losing him to free up money was A-OK Net Change - Positive, but barely, and mostly for money and losing his odd sometimes good sometimes bad attitude in the locker room
Bradley Fletcher - Net Positive, no explanation necessary
Nate Allen - Look, Nate was Ok, injuries and constant system change hurt him, but seriously Oakland? Seriously? Net Change - Positive, yes we need someone to play the position, but it was time to risk the strike out and swing for the fences instead of constantly bunting over and over again.
Lesean McCoy - Oof. This one hurt. Shady had a bad year, Shady was a god the year before. Shady danced too much, Shady was expensive, Shady may have been the best back in football (argument with Peterson, but still) Overall the trade is a positive, but the followup moves make it less of a quality change since what made it quality was the money vs. value concept. But Alonso could be amazing. Net Change - Neutral, it is a positive move in a vacuum against the cap, but the follow up moves are odd, and this can only be judged when we look at how Murray and Matthews work out.
Nick Foles - God I loved me some Nickfolian dynamite. In 2013. in 2014 I kept waiting for him to pick it up again, we saw flashes but we also saw a high level of poor decision making and happy feet. I believed, I thought he could get better, and becomes Mr. 27-2 again. But I also had serious doubts, and secretly was excited at first when he got hurt to see if maybe Dirty Sanchez could be better. This hurts, and Not being able to wear that jersey anymore sucks. It was probably time to move on, and I am inclined to believe Chip if he honestly thought the turnovers wouldn't stop because those were killer. Net Change - Negative. Bradford may be better, but he has a lot to live up to to meet Foles's best. Between the things traded with him, and the difference in salary this one is tough to swallow, but all that said it could turn out the best of the bunch
Jeremy Maclin - Self Tackling Jeremy Maclin!. I kid, he was always pretty awesome and more so last year. Maclin has always produced quality numbers, even more so under Kelly, while only barely passing the eye test. I wanted Maclin Back. I wanted Matthews replacing Cooper, and Huff replacing Matthews, not Matthews replacing Maclin. but Kansas city did the same thing with Maclin we did with Maxwell. They Overpayed big. They needed him, and he won't live up the contract, which is why letting him go sucks, and hurts bad, but makes total sense. Net Change - Neutral, yes we are pretty thin at WR, but don't forget Ertz, Celek, and Sproles when considering who will catch the ball. For 11 million he wasn't worth it. But it is still tear worthy, at least half a cry.
Todd Herremans - The Toddfather, can he make us an offer we can't refuse? The Eagles line was a study in extremes. Peters, Herremans and Mathis are OLD. Kelce and Johnson, young and all stars. Peters is a freak and probably will be playing an a pro-bowl level until his contract is over or injuries take him out. But Herremans and Mathis? Old and Guards, and expensive. They are talented guys, but in a salary cap world replaceable. Sort of, does the calculus change when Chip brings in Murray and Matthews for more power running? I don't know. Herremens was old, expensive and the injuries were starting to pile up. If you see this as a purely business decision it makes sense (look at how little he got from Indy compared to what the Eagles had him on the books for) yes Gardner, Barbre, Tobin. may all be a step down, but is it that much of a step down? is it going to hurt that much? Will they draft a younger replacement? Lots of questions around this move, but overall there aren't many looking at it confused and perplexed. Net Change - Positive, saving some money and getting the line younger are important necessary steps for the long term health of the line and the team, even if we loved Todd for all these years.
That is it for the losses, overall I'm still putting our Chip in the same bag as those wonderful Tostitos fajita chips, but next time we need to look at the gains so far and see where our chip really belongs
Now Andy Reid, there was a man I could get behind. At the time of his hire I had no Idea, I could only follow what was in the papers at the time of his hire, I didn't understand enough to form my own opinions, but as my knowledge of football grew my love of him was overpowering. He was successful because he was smart, and that was an amazing thing for someone like me who loves sports like a nerd loves Dungeons and Dragons. I want people to succeed because they aren't afraid to apply intelligence to a game that so often runs from its role.
I loved Andy, but when we let him go it was time to move on, and while it was sad it brought me the most exciting time of my life as a football fan, Chip Kelly.
Chip was a football guy, something I couldn't relate to really, but he was also all about knowledge. Anything you want to do Chip wants the reason why, and he wants it backed up with evidence. It was almost as if he had walked away from one of my science classes and applied the lessons to football. I had never been so excited in my life, the football coach of the Philadelphia Eagles not only worked under the premise that "Big people beat up little people" He also turned to australian scientists for their advancements in sports science, brought in college professors to address his team to discuss any number of concepts that might apply to success on the field. He was some amazing combination of the Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, and Neil Degrasse Tyson. I was in heaven.
His first season was a rousing success, his philosophies upended the game, it seemed like no one could keep up, and the only thing that ended the eagles dream season was the ultimate statistical bugaboo of bad plays at the wrong moment as time ran out. But there was promise.
Season two started off with a bang, the eagles were 9-3, and winnin even with their backup quarterback, there was a feeling of invincibility as if nothing could stop Chip. But reality set in, too many turnovers held back our offense, and no amount of genius from the headcoach can overcome mediocre quarterback play from your starter and your backup. The Eagles ended the season 10-6 but out of the playoffs and a bit of the shine was off Chip.
That brings us to the topic of this blog post, the 2015 offseason and the great Chip Kelly Culling. So Let's take a closer look shall we?
The lost, we shall remember you well
James Casey - All he Does is Catch Touchdowns! Watching Eagles games you would thinkg James Casey was simultaneously the greatest and most underused weapon of all time. In reality, he was a victim of the vagaries of the draft. Signed two years ago to complement Brent Celek as a secondary tight end capable of blocking and receiving it was a good idea, until the draft came around and a brilliant recieving talent like Zach Ertz Falls into your lap, you cant help it you have to draft the awesome talent. Add to that the undrafted free agent addition of a superb bottom roster player like trey burton, and it just makes sense. Net Change - Positive, not because losing his talent is good, but because being forced to play more Zach Ertz is.
Trent Cole - The Axe Man is gone, off to hunt in the fertile fields of indianapolis. Quietly I shed a single tear, because you can't have been an Eagles fan for the last decade and not have loved the Axe-Man. But the NFL has a salary cap, and Trent's figure was well above the value he brought to the field. Add to that the opportunity cost of him taking the role of Brandon Graham a younger potentially rising player, and I can't help but see this as addition by subtraction. He was still a solid player but no where near worth the money. Net Change - Positive. It hurts to lose a great player at any point of his career, but the cap savings, and opportunities for Graham make this a positive change for now.
Cary Williams - Mr. Sconce if you will? Cary wasn't awful, and the Eagles needed to try something new with him and Fletcher at the time, but they also need to try something new now. He wasn't worth his cap hit so losing him to free up money was A-OK Net Change - Positive, but barely, and mostly for money and losing his odd sometimes good sometimes bad attitude in the locker room
Bradley Fletcher - Net Positive, no explanation necessary
Nate Allen - Look, Nate was Ok, injuries and constant system change hurt him, but seriously Oakland? Seriously? Net Change - Positive, yes we need someone to play the position, but it was time to risk the strike out and swing for the fences instead of constantly bunting over and over again.
Lesean McCoy - Oof. This one hurt. Shady had a bad year, Shady was a god the year before. Shady danced too much, Shady was expensive, Shady may have been the best back in football (argument with Peterson, but still) Overall the trade is a positive, but the followup moves make it less of a quality change since what made it quality was the money vs. value concept. But Alonso could be amazing. Net Change - Neutral, it is a positive move in a vacuum against the cap, but the follow up moves are odd, and this can only be judged when we look at how Murray and Matthews work out.
Nick Foles - God I loved me some Nickfolian dynamite. In 2013. in 2014 I kept waiting for him to pick it up again, we saw flashes but we also saw a high level of poor decision making and happy feet. I believed, I thought he could get better, and becomes Mr. 27-2 again. But I also had serious doubts, and secretly was excited at first when he got hurt to see if maybe Dirty Sanchez could be better. This hurts, and Not being able to wear that jersey anymore sucks. It was probably time to move on, and I am inclined to believe Chip if he honestly thought the turnovers wouldn't stop because those were killer. Net Change - Negative. Bradford may be better, but he has a lot to live up to to meet Foles's best. Between the things traded with him, and the difference in salary this one is tough to swallow, but all that said it could turn out the best of the bunch
Jeremy Maclin - Self Tackling Jeremy Maclin!. I kid, he was always pretty awesome and more so last year. Maclin has always produced quality numbers, even more so under Kelly, while only barely passing the eye test. I wanted Maclin Back. I wanted Matthews replacing Cooper, and Huff replacing Matthews, not Matthews replacing Maclin. but Kansas city did the same thing with Maclin we did with Maxwell. They Overpayed big. They needed him, and he won't live up the contract, which is why letting him go sucks, and hurts bad, but makes total sense. Net Change - Neutral, yes we are pretty thin at WR, but don't forget Ertz, Celek, and Sproles when considering who will catch the ball. For 11 million he wasn't worth it. But it is still tear worthy, at least half a cry.
Todd Herremans - The Toddfather, can he make us an offer we can't refuse? The Eagles line was a study in extremes. Peters, Herremans and Mathis are OLD. Kelce and Johnson, young and all stars. Peters is a freak and probably will be playing an a pro-bowl level until his contract is over or injuries take him out. But Herremans and Mathis? Old and Guards, and expensive. They are talented guys, but in a salary cap world replaceable. Sort of, does the calculus change when Chip brings in Murray and Matthews for more power running? I don't know. Herremens was old, expensive and the injuries were starting to pile up. If you see this as a purely business decision it makes sense (look at how little he got from Indy compared to what the Eagles had him on the books for) yes Gardner, Barbre, Tobin. may all be a step down, but is it that much of a step down? is it going to hurt that much? Will they draft a younger replacement? Lots of questions around this move, but overall there aren't many looking at it confused and perplexed. Net Change - Positive, saving some money and getting the line younger are important necessary steps for the long term health of the line and the team, even if we loved Todd for all these years.
That is it for the losses, overall I'm still putting our Chip in the same bag as those wonderful Tostitos fajita chips, but next time we need to look at the gains so far and see where our chip really belongs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)