2 minutes ago, TEW said:

You absolutely can and should. If the coach responds that the other team can’t stop the run, then that’s your answer. 

The two games discussed in the article, Green Bay and Buffalo, you don't even need to ask the question.  Maybe if analytics guys watched and understood football, there would not be stupid meetings, undermining the coach and creating dissent in the organization.  If you have to ask the question, you have no business being involved in anything that impacts the team.

Green Bay

 Buffalo

1 hour ago, Original Sin said:

3rd seems right , if not later  .  He absolutely killed his draft stock  with his play this year , he looked like a lock for the first rd 2 years ago , so the talent is apparently there .

If Schwartz was still here, I’d be more interested in Holland/Wade - with the new scheme I guessing the slot versatility won’t be as important and looking for more savvy safety play.

6 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

This is my take as well.  I don't think Doug was getting grilled over decision making.  I mean Pederson retained play calling control until last season.  He had control of day to day decisions.  I do think his firing has made some ill will surface and put those meetings in a different light.  

I think the article does hit on an important dynamic of the structure of the organization that is problematic.   Howie wants everyone to be accountable to him.  This creates a dynamic where analytics folks are seen as having the same authority as the head coach. I think that's ultimately a unworkable dynamic. Analytics people should be worked under the umbrella of the head coach to the extent they are analyzing the team's game performance/decision making of the coaches.  If they sit outside of the coaching tree they don't serve to inform anyone other than the GM and owner. The head coach is never going to see them as part of his staff.  Certainly he is going to be skeptical of the information they provide and so will his assistants.  

I mean, in most sports organizations they are under the control of the GM and not the head coach. Billy Beane really started the analytics trend in the US. But really, analytics were first popularized in sports organizations in European Soccer, and again, they usually fell outside the control of the coach.

The thing is, your analytics team is supposed to be critiquing the coaches for the benefit of the club. If they’re under the umbrella of the coach, then the incentive structure is not aligned with the team’s best interest since the coach can fire them.

2 minutes ago, TEW said:

You absolutely can and should. If the coach responds that the other team can’t stop the run, then that’s your answer. 

Strongly agree. Your reference to an after-action report is on target. The fact that play calling is fluid, as mike says, does not mean that it cannot or should not be analyzed. Why did a play work? Why was it called? (A play call can have a purpose even if it doesn’t work. Perhaps its purpose is to set up another play.) The process should be constantly reviewed and adjusted. Every play should have a reason. Otherwise your throwing darts blindfolded.

2 minutes ago, downundermike said:

The two games discussed in the article, Green Bay and Buffalo, you don't even need to ask the question.  Maybe if analytics guys watched and understood football, there would not be stupid meetings, undermining the coach and creating dissent in the organization.  If you have to ask the question, you have no business being involved in anything that impacts the team.

Green Bay

 Buffalo

I think you are assuming that analytics would not support Doug's play calls.  I don't think that's the case.  Analytics is just data analysis.  It doesn't necessarily dictate a decision.  It does give you information about probabilities that are based on a lot of information.  

https://www.inquirer.com/eagles/philadelphia-eagles-jeffrey-lurie-carson-wentz-20210413.html

Marcus Hayes' article opens with " Dysfunction and hubris has been the cornerstone of Jeffrey Lurie’s front offices in the 26 years that he has owned the Eagles. This dynamic supplies endless tales of mismanagement, bad decisions, and showdowns. "

The Eagles are top 10 in regular season wins and playoff wins since 2000.  

And then people wonder why the Eagles only give out real info to national media members.

4 hours ago, garingovt2000 said:

Anyone here of interest?  Besides Ertz 

 

I wouldn't be against considering Brate or Njoku (if Ertz is gone) and N'Keal Harry (he's an upgrade to the group here and he's young).

Just now, RLC said:

https://www.inquirer.com/eagles/philadelphia-eagles-jeffrey-lurie-carson-wentz-20210413.html

Marcus Hayes' article opens with " Dysfunction and hubris has been the cornerstone of Jeffrey Lurie’s front offices in the 26 years that he has owned the Eagles. This dynamic supplies endless tales of mismanagement, bad decisions, and showdowns. "

The Eagles are top 10 in regular season wins and playoff wins since 2000.  

And then people wonder why the Eagles only give out real info to national media members.

That’s like nails on a blackboard to me. Change the first "has” to "have” and make cornerstone a plural and I could at least get through the first sentence without gagging.

2 minutes ago, E-A-G-L-E-S Eagles said:

 

I wouldn't be against considering Brate (if Ertz is gone) and N'Keal Harry (he's an upgrade to the group here).

What’s the trade value of Miles Sanders, 3rd?

5 minutes ago, downundermike said:

The two games discussed in the article, Green Bay and Buffalo, you don't even need to ask the question.  Maybe if analytics guys watched and understood football, there would not be stupid meetings, undermining the coach and creating dissent in the organization.  If you have to ask the question, you have no business being involved in anything that impacts the team.

That’s a pretty juvenile way to look at it, and certainly not the way I would want a multi-billion dollar institution to self evaluate its operations. 

The analytics team get paid to run the numbers. The coach gets paid to coach the team. They are all going to be questioned about their decisions and conclusions. This is good. This is healthy. This is how well run organizations operate. It doesn’t need to be combative. They are professionals.

And FYI, just because something "works” doesn’t mean it was the right decision. You can buy a lottery ticket and win the lottery, but that doesn’t mean you maximized your expected value.

1 hour ago, justrelax said:

One thing that occurred to me as I read the Athletic piece was that Lurie may have been trying to understand Doug's thinking rather than challenge it. As we rehash games, we're always questioning play calls but we don't know what has gone into them. Was a particular player hurt at a certain point so that the plays we planned to run for him or behind his block were not there? You can script all the plays you want but the script goes out the window pretty early on. The great military strategist, Moltke, famously said, "No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy."

I’d listen to sheil kapadia’s interview on WIP. He goes into some of what you said. He goes into more depth about what he was told by different sources and how doug interpreted it. Was a good listen. 

 

6 minutes ago, TEW said:

I mean, in most sports organizations they are under the control of the GM and not the head coach. Billy Beane really started the analytics trend in the US. But really, analytics were first popularized in sports organizations in European Soccer, and again, they usually fell outside the control of the coach.

The thing is, your analytics team is supposed to be critiquing the coaches for the benefit of the club. If they’re under the umbrella of the coach, then the incentive structure is not aligned with the team’s best interest since the coach can fire them.

You're right that historically the set up is to provide feedback to the GM.  I don't think that is the best approach when it comes to coaching decisions.  I think it is good for GM decisions.  Name a business that works better when you don't make the analysis of the data available the people that are making the direct decisions about the data.  Analytics should be unbiased in that the numbers are what they are.  Coaches that fire staff because of losing are likely to end up getting fired.  So I don't think control of the analytics people is really something that would diminish the quality of the data.  Integration with coaching decisions will result in better decision making.  I will also say that there were often times when the Eagles did seem to react and play call based on the analytics.  They ran frequently on 2nd and short.  They passed more often on first downs.  They went for 2 pt conversions and on 4th down more often.  Doug wasn't afraid of analytics.  It does seem that the dynamic of a lack of trust did impact Doug getting fired.  We can say what we want about Doug's deficits but the goal entering 2020 wasn't to get rid of him as the coach.   I think there was a problem with coaching decisions that led to him getting fired.  The goal should be to put the coach in the best position possible.  

16 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

JFC.  There goes that bad teammate selfish Carson Wentz again.  So glad to be rid of such a dirtball.  

Lurie needs to be tested for Dimentia.

The stories that keep coming out about his meddling and calling for coaches to fire their assistants and having way too much input on the draft.

Why the Eff is the owner picking players and firing assistant coaches.

If Lurie doesn't take a big step back he and Howie are going to drive this franchise off a cliff.

If I'm Siriani I'm terrified of this draft, how much input is Siriani going to have??? I imagine it will be howie and Lurie in a room together  making draft picks according to drafting for dummies book☹️

2 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I’d listen to sheil kapadia’s interview on WIP. He goes into some of what you said. He goes into more depth about what he was told by different sources and how doug interpreted it. Was a good listen. 

I haven’t listened to WIP in a decade. How do I get that interview?

8 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Lurie needs to be tested for Dimentia.

The stories that keep coming out about his meddling and calling for coaches to fire their assistants and having way too much input on the draft.

Why the Eff is the owner picking players and firing assistant coaches.

If Lurie doesn't take a big step back he and Howie are going to drive this franchise off a cliff.

If I'm Siriani I'm terrified of this draft, how much input is Siriani going to have??? I imagine it will be howie and Lurie in a room together  making draft picks according to drafting for dummies book☹️

Folks in here were calling for Groh's firing long before it occurred. Perhaps Lurie saw the same thing these guys did. Perhaps Doug was overly loyalty to his coach and had to be pushed. 

15 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Nick Soriani should just be thankful those two dolts hired him for HC.  Or thankful more qualified candidates laughed their asses off when they met with Lowie.  

Yup I imagine no coaching candidates with more experience or better credentials is going to want to work with Lowie.

I didn't think Pederson was the greatest coach X and O wise or game plan wise and I think he eventually was set up to fail, no one else ialky a coach who needs to be in charge wants to be micromanaged into obscurity, I can't think of a team where a GM and a coach have so much say in on field and game day decisions.

The job of the owner is to write the checks the job of the GM is to find players for the coach to coach yet seems Lowie think it's in their best interest to do all the coaches jobs other than coaching and I'm sure other than a new inexperienced coach most coaching candidates are going to put up with Lowies crap.

The problem with analytics is that its the players that make the stats. If your OL is weak, I don't care what the league average is on 4th and 1.

2 minutes ago, justrelax said:

Folks in here were calling for Groh's firing long before it occurred. Perhaps Lurie saw the same thing these guys did. Perhaps Doug was overly loyalty to his coach and had to be pushed. 

This. 
 

People forget how horrible Groh’s offense was that year and how EVERYONE here wanted him fired. 

Just now, justrelax said:

Folks in here were calling for Groh's firing long before it occurred. Perhaps Lurie saw the same thing these guys did. Perhaps Doug was overly loyalty to his coach and had to be pushed. 

Yes Groh sucked, yet Lurie also wanted Pederson to fire Reich after 1 year🤔 the following year Eagles win the super bowl Reich is credited with a lot of that and us a hot commodity head coach candidate as hd should have been.

Lurie should stop sticking his nose where it doesn't belong, he's a public menace.

In regards to the Doug/Lurie meeting, I feel like there's only a handful of people that were in that meeting or might have been told what the meetings were about that would tell reporters. Line it up that this particular meeting after a game in 2019 all came after the recent firings, I'd guess either Doug himself talked to reporters, or maybe Press Taylor would have that second hand information. So I don't think it's just the writers framing it as combative. I'd guess they told them exactly how it was. 

8 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Yes Groh sucked, yet Lurie also wanted Pederson to fire Reich after 1 year🤔 the following year Eagles win the super bowl Reich is credited with a lot of that and us a hot commodity head coach candidate as hd should have been.

Lurie should stop sticking his nose where it doesn't belong, he's a public menace.

Bad example, Ute. Lurie did the right thing with Reich and the right thing with Groh.

54 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

JFC.  There goes that bad teammate selfish Carson Wentz again.  So glad to be rid of such a dirtball.  

Not sure why this is now coming out as new. There have been rumors flying around for awhile now that they wanted Reich gone after the first season and doug saved him. The Wentz having to save Doug and Reich stuff is.new however. 

20 minutes ago, matchew88 said:

The problem with analytics is that its the players that make the stats. If you're OL is weak, I don't care what the league average is on 4th and 1.

Analytics also include situation, your opponent, your own players, etc. It's not just a blank-sheet.

The Eagles have historically been a good short-yardage team. They invest in the OL and have QBs that can move. No kidding we go for it a lot.

2 minutes ago, justrelax said:

Bad example, Ute. Lurie did the right thing with Reich and the right thing with Groh.

How did Lurie do the right thing with Reich?he wanted Reich fired after 2016 and was talked down by Wentz apparently.

I'm not sure without Reich eagles win it all in 2017, Reich was essential to that super bowl run and Pederson has said so.

Who would Pederson promote if Lurie fires Reich in 2016, Groh?🤢

Most owners don't tell coaches how to assemble and manage their coaching staff and no one wants or likes to be micro managed.

 

42 minutes ago, justrelax said:

I haven’t listened to WIP in a decade. How do I get that interview?

Let me see if i can get a link and post it on here. I tend to listen on the Audacy app at the end of the day where they have the interviews updated. 

sadly they switched to Audacy last week and it doesn’t let you outside of the app to copy and paste the link. When it was on radio.com it allowed on web site to do so.