Donovan McNabb: More playmakers…or make more plays?
Last month, Donovan McNabb made a plea for management to bring in more playmakers, citing the team’s 8-8 record and 4th place division finish:
Now that the season is over and we are concentrating on 2008, I hope we are able to secure some playmakers in all three phases of the game. Maybe some of those playmakers are already on the roster but have struggled with injuries, myself included, that have held us back a little.
You can’t argue with how the Patriots went outside their locker room and stocked up on playmakers last year. It certainly helped to have Randy Moss, Donte Stallworth, Wes Welker and Adalius Thomas making plays for them all year.
I’m surprised that anyone would have a problem with me, or anyone else in the organization, expressing a desire to bring in more quality players. We were 8-8. There is room for improvement. This is a competitive sport. It’s about putting together the best players, the best team, and giving yourself the best chance to win.
OK, as an Eagles season ticket holder I’m not going to pretend to be unbiased on this matter. On the surface, it’s hard to argue with McNabb’s statement. After all, the Eagles lacked impact playmakers on both sides of the ball. The team ranked poorly in big plays on offense, and didn’t force enough turnovers on defense. Certainly, all things being equal, I would like to see Philadelphia make some bold offseason maneuvers.
BUT…has McNabb looked in the mirror? Dos the buck stop with “5″? Rather than simply accept the perception that Philadelphia has a lack of playmakers on offense, I thought it might be worth putting some numbers together to see if the stats bear out McNabb’s contentions.
Yards After the Catch (YAC)
The ability of a receiver to generate yards after the catch is essential; particularly in a West Coast offense. To that end, the Eagles’ as a team generated 2,147 yards after the catch last season. That was the THIRD BEST TOTAL IN THE LEAGUE. In other words, McNabb’s receivers did a lot on their own once he got the ball into their hands. But that number (2,147 yards) doesn’t tell the whole story. Let’s look at what percentage of each team’s receiving yards came after the catch:
| Rank | Team | YAC | Yards | YAC% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Min | 1,811 | 2,745 | 66.0% |
| 2 | SF | 1,485 | 2,320 | 64.0% |
| 3 | StL | 1,953 | 3,233 | 60.4% |
| 4 | Car | 1,623 | 2,735 | 59.3% |
| 5 | Pit | 1,777 | 3,071 | 57.9% |
| 6 | Phi | 2,147 | 3,755 | 57.2% |
| 7 | Mia | 1,672 | 3,031 | 55.2% |
| 8 | Bal | 1,557 | 3,035 | 51.3% |
| 9 | NO | 2,212 | 4,314 | 51.3% |
| 10 | Buf | 1,346 | 2,634 | 51.1% |
| 11 | GB | 2,161 | 4,334 | 49.9% |
| 12 | NYJ | 1,485 | 3,014 | 49.3% |
| 13 | SD | 1,435 | 3,005 | 47.8% |
| 14 | Det | 1,831 | 3,878 | 47.2% |
| 15 | Was | 1,630 | 3,463 | 47.1% |
| 16 | Jac | 1,520 | 3,328 | 45.7% |
| 17 | Hou | 1,708 | 3,751 | 45.5% |
| 18 | KC | 1,404 | 3,181 | 44.1% |
| 19 | NYG | 1,382 | 3,154 | 43.8% |
| 20 | Chi | 1,452 | 3,362 | 43.2% |
| 21 | TB | 1,447 | 3,357 | 43.1% |
| 22 | Cle | 1,603 | 3,726 | 43.0% |
| 23 | Ten | 1,190 | 2,878 | 41.3% |
| 24 | Ari | 1,656 | 4,065 | 40.7% |
| 25 | Cin | 1,566 | 4,012 | 39.0% |
| 26 | Oak | 1,009 | 2,631 | 38.4% |
| 27 | Dal | 1,565 | 4,105 | 38.1% |
| 28 | Den | 1,351 | 3,584 | 37.7% |
| 29 | NE | 1,780 | 4,731 | 37.6% |
| 30 | Ind | 1,508 | 4,033 | 37.4% |
| 31 | Atl | 973 | 3,296 | 29.5% |
| 32 | Sea | 1,114 | 3,964 | 28.1% |
As you can see, the Eagles pass catchers generated nearly THREE FIFTHS of the team’s yards AFTER THE CATCH. Thinking of this another way, Donovan McNabb and the other Eagles’ QBs just didn’t get the ball downfield with regularity. So I ask, is it the receivers or McNabb that needs to improve?
Dropped Passes
Another key metric is dropped passes. Nothing is more frustrating for a QB than to put the ball where it needs to be only to have a receiver drop the ball. So have the Eagles been a victim of the drops?
| Rank | Team | Drops | Atts | Drop% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GB | 43 | 578 | 7.4% |
| 2 | Sea | 39 | 590 | 6.6% |
| 3 | TB | 32 | 490 | 6.5% |
| 4 | Mia | 36 | 558 | 6.5% |
| 5 | Phi | 37 | 577 | 6.4% |
| 6 | Min | 27 | 432 | 6.3% |
| 7 | NO | 39 | 652 | 6.0% |
| 8 | Pit | 26 | 442 | 5.9% |
| 9 | Cle | 30 | 545 | 5.5% |
| 10 | Ten | 25 | 464 | 5.4% |
| 11 | Jac | 25 | 469 | 5.3% |
| 12 | Oak | 24 | 451 | 5.3% |
| 13 | Ind | 28 | 551 | 5.1% |
| 14 | NYG | 27 | 544 | 5.0% |
| 15 | Car | 25 | 505 | 5.0% |
| 16 | NE | 27 | 586 | 4.6% |
| 17 | Dal | 24 | 531 | 4.5% |
| 18 | Atl | 24 | 555 | 4.3% |
| 19 | SD | 20 | 471 | 4.2% |
| 20 | Ari | 24 | 590 | 4.1% |
| 21 | Det | 23 | 587 | 3.9% |
| 22 | KC | 22 | 563 | 3.9% |
| 23 | Was | 20 | 525 | 3.8% |
| 24 | Hou | 18 | 529 | 3.4% |
| 25 | NYJ | 17 | 512 | 3.3% |
| 26 | StL | 19 | 574 | 3.3% |
| 27 | Bal | 18 | 557 | 3.2% |
| 28 | Cin | 18 | 575 | 3.1% |
| 29 | Den | 15 | 515 | 2.9% |
| 30 | SF | 13 | 513 | 2.5% |
| 31 | Buf | 10 | 445 | 2.2% |
| 32 | Chi | 12 | 569 | 2.1% |
On this front it seems McNabb may have a better argument. The Eagles receivers dropped 6.4% of the team’s attempts; among the worst in the league.
So what’s the verdict? The Eagles, like many teams, could always use more offensive playmakers. But this perception that Philly’s receiving corps is among the least impressive in the league simply isn’t accurate. Could it be better? Certainly. But a lot of the blame for the team’s lack of explosiveness in the passing game falls at the feet of McNabb and his backups.
Loading ...
I’m not convinced that these yards after catch numbers tell the whole story. While Brian Westbrook has been tremendous in recent seasons, I’m willing to bet that a breakdown of yards after the catch league-wide among only wide receivers will show that Philly’s wideouts aren’t that good. Once Westbrook’s YAC numbers are taken out of the equation, McNabb’s argument for an upgrade at receiver will likely be reinforced. Furthermore, the passing yards on this chart lose some validity when you consider that passing yards include yardage lost from sacks. Receiving yards are unaffected by sack yardage, making them more relevant to such a study.
Comment by statboyinva — February 15, 2008 @ 11:29 am