Dexter and the Saints

Losing to New Orleans is not, in and of itself, a problem. Even a 12-win team- not to say the Eagles are a twelve win team- loses three road games, plays around .500 on the road against good teams. A ten win team loses four road games- and probably plays sub-.500 away from the home against even mediocre opposition. New Orleans is certainly improved- the quickest way to good from bad to good is to turn the quarterback position into a plus- definitely up from mediocre.

So I give the Eagles a pass yesterday. I can’t write last week that Philadelphia beating Dallas last week was indicative of nothing much- simply the aforementioned ten win team, in its building, beating another ten win team in a semi-even match. Same thing here: New Orleans should win this sort of affair too, but losing doesn’t mean much about Philadephia. Dallas or Philadelphia can lose that sort of game and still make solid claims to be pretty good.

But looking at the collective… ten NFC teams have two losses or fewer for six play-off spots. Actually, since the Eagles can’t quaify for three of the spots- it is really seven teams looking for three places. Two conference losses already don’t help. Still around 50-50 they make the play-offs.

Being honest? The Eagles are one up, two down playing teams that aren’t brutal. Winning the games you ought to, and playing something near .500 against better outfits, gets you in the post-season more often than not. But it doesn’t translate to “Philadelphia is real good” either.

I still believe nine wins, maybe ten, is about right for this group. As Rich Hofmann says today in the Philadelphia Daily News, if the passing game and McNabb aren’t “hyperproductive” then the Eagles have problems:

They need to sustain drives, yes, but they fear giving Brian Westbrook and his sore knee too big a workload at running back, and they're still waiting for Correll Buckhalter to shake off the last layer of rust, and they don't seem to trust Ryan Moats except in really isolated circumstances.

If the tailback position is such a plus for Philadelphia, then why are such things true? Who else in the NFL has eight figures in guaranteed monies tied up at tailback and has something close to a minus running game?

They have problems at safety- and a resulting “give up big plays down the field problem”; I’ve been screaming about Michael Lewis since the pre-season- and wow, the local press has finally caught up to me there. And the old roster depth at places, particularly returners and kickers (the punter stinks), seems lacking. In the “old” days, guys like Dexter Wynn were never in consistently in roles, on the field, where their erratic play, could beat you. How did the play of Dexter become important to the outcome of games- particularly close road games? Did I miss a meeting?