Twenty to One

Some of the big casinos put out their lines for the 2007 Super Bowl- topped by Indianapolis at 4:1. The Eagles are one of a bunch of teams "tied for ninth" at 20:1. So, as any Eagles' fan can confirm, there is work to be done here- as the Eagles have rejoined the pack. And with the Super Bowl over, this seems as good a chance as any to jot down what I think the Eagles need to do this off-season.

Let's begin with the defense.

Line: The only thing that was better about this Eagles' team from last year was the play upfront against the run. Consequently, the press seems to believe the tackles are fine- but they need help at defensive end.

I disagree with that. If I had my choice- stop the run or rush the passer- well, I don't really don't care that much about stopping the run. I don't think it matters. In this era of the salary cap, I don't want to spend money or draft picks plugging the run. Just be cheap & adequate.

I want to rush the passer. And the Eagles still get that from the ends- but zero, nothing, zip from any of the tackles. The loss of Corey Simon didn't hurt the run defense- if anything, his replacements were better against the run than Simion was. But even though he did not feature gaudy sack totals, Simon could push the pocket back. People were not simply free to double-team the ends- particularly in early pass-friendly down & distance situations.

The Eagles got no or an inconsistent rush inside all year- and the pass defense has sagged from great to okay as a result. My first pick would be an athletic tackle who can get upfield.

Linebacker: Clearly the outside backers, at best, are adequate. Probabyly worse. I guess you could argue for an upgrade here. But I really, really hate spending money and high-picks for linebackers too. Still, with the plethora of quality of TEs and backs who can catch it in the NFC East division, you could argue that needs to change- that Philadelphia has gotta have one 'backer who can really cover people suiting up outside.

But you are not going to convince me that quality linebackers are the deepest position League wide. The League is littered with inexpensive 'backers who can play competently. Seriously, name one team that really, really has problems- outside of injuries- at 'backer? Or lose because their 'backers aren't good?

Defensive back: Best unit on the team. Young. depth. Low priority for fix.

Punter: A total disaster. Worse- the alternative (last year's punter) is not healthy and has really only one good year in three- albeit a real good one. A real worry. There will be auditions people!

Offense:

Quaterback: Have to get a real back-up. Okay, Coach Reid missed totally with McMahon. #5 is one of a handful of franchise qbs in the League. He ain't Manning or Brady- but he's in the next tier for sure.

Running Back: I am probably the only person in Philadelphia that is not enamored with Westbrook. Look, he does many good things- and can torment defenses. But he also forces you- because he realistically can't handle 20+ touches week after week- to have a quality second back- which the Eagles catagorically do not have. The Eagles' second back is an important player- and they probably have to commit more money and talent to that spot than a lot of teams need to. I have no clue if Moats can really play or not- but if he can't.... They need to make a move here- and spend some money. The current FBs are fine- but this is a low impact position really.

Line: Tough. I like Andrews a lot. He's a pro-Bowl alternate in what was his real "rookie" year- and if it wasn't such a reputational thing he'd be on the team. Pencil him in at Guard. I don't know if the other two new guys playing inside now will be better than Hicks and Fraley- but Hicks stinks and Fraley is terrible- so I am not adverse to taking that chance. But is unrealistic to expect Jackson and Clarke to both pan out. Jackson will be fine I imagine. Center is the most "unimportant" position in pro-football. A lot of guys who play there are undrafted for example. So I imagine he's your 2006 starter. But aside from Andrews, this is not a strength pending some sort of miracle. It is the weakest part of the team.

They are higher on the tackle Herremans than any of the other "new guys" playing. Can he play? I dunno- he was definitely up-and-down. He is not the first rookie LT to look a little overwhelemed. But he's going probably to play there next year- as I can't believe both Thomas and Runyan are coming back. But tackle is not a strength- and probably is a problem next year as well. This line is going to be a mixture of too old and too young- with only Andrews an above-average player. It isn't an easy fix.

WR: A mess. I am not sure if there is a number two on the roster- let alone a #1. They are clearly going to throw money at someone- a proven #2 style NFL vet to pair with Brown - here. But there are sooo many problems here- that this, like the line, is not a one year fix. They'll be at best okay here again next year- at best running a solid #2 and an improving Brown out there every Sunday. Westbrook's prowess at a WR really helps of course. They might be okay if some things fall right- but it isn't a strength.

PK: Great.

Returners: Horrible.


So:

1. Need a DT (fixable)
2. Need a outside LB (fixable- but lower priority)
3. Need a total WR overhaul (problematic- they need a bunch- and I can't see how they get an inpact player in here and worse, I don't believe in the young guys)
4. Need some O line depth. Too many young guys to expect they all pan out. If I had to guess, from right to left: Runyan (probably can be re-signed affordably), Andrews, Jackson, Hicks or Jackson (training camp battle), Herremans (with a vet FA behind him in case of disaster). I'm actually confident this'll work out- but not in 2006- and this will be the nice surprise of the team in 2007. They seem to believe in these guys, and they've been groomd the right way.
5. Back up qb
6. Returners
7. A TE who can block. LJ can catch it- but adds zero otherwise.