Debunking Myths: Eagles Receivers

With the season set to begin this Sunday, we're previewing the Eagles by disproving three arguments for why they cannot win the Super Bowl.  Up first, the wide receivers.

The tipping point for most fans was the 2003 NFC Championship game against the Panthers.  For the third year in a row, the Eagles were one game away from the Super Bowl.

Then, it happened.

Trash and Stinkston had always done just enough to get the job done before, but their inevitable implosion occurred in the same game on the biggest night of their entire careers.  While Donovan McNabb ultimately was credited for three interceptions, it was the receivers who dropped the ball on their way to a humiliating 14-3 loss.

To this day, it is this game that characterizes much of the Eagles fan base.  All the talk now is always about the receivers, and why shouldn't it?  Kevin Curtis built his career playing in the slot, Reggie Brown has yet to live up to his potential, and the team's quest for a game breaking receiver has been futile.

I completely agree, the situation is far from perfect.  No one would be happier than me if the team added Anquan Boldin, or Larry Fitzgerald, or Randy Moss, or even Terrell Owens.

The reality is, most teams go without that luxury, but quite a few still manage to win championships.

Take a look at the Patriots dynasty.  It's easy to forget where they came from while watching what they have become.

In 2001, the first year New England won the Super Bowl, Troy Brown posted the best season of his career.  In fact, his 1,199 yards marked the only time in his entire 15-year career he broke the thousand yard barrier.  While Brown was always an excellent player, he was far from a dominating presence in the passing game, and their season was not defined by his accomplishments.

New England's second and third championships saw Deion Branch and David Givens lead the team in receiving, each with a mere 50-plus catches for 800-some yards and 3 TD's a piece.  That won't instill much fear in an opposing defense, and it shouldn't.  Both have since moved on to roles as number one receivers for other teams, and both have failed to live up to even the somewhat low standards they had previously set.

Surprisingly, they are not even close to the worst #1 receivers in recent Super Bowl history.  In 1999, Kevin Dyson was Steve McNair's go-to guy on the Titans, totaling 658 yards and 4 touchdowns, and the following year, Qadry Ismail led all Ravens receivers with 49 catches for 655 yards.  Sure, Baltimore had one of the greatest defenses of all time, but the Eagles are not looking so bad themselves on that side of the field.

Before you argue the NFL has changed and is more of a passing league than it was 10 or 15 years ago, note that the best receiving season for any player to reach the Super Bowl in the past 13 years was Michael Irvin in 1995, and four of the top 7 receivers from conference champions during that time span played between '95 and '98.

Simply put, while a top tier receiver is certainly a helpful piece to a championship run, it is not entirely necessary.  Last season, Kevin Curtis had 77 receptions for 1,110 yards and 6 touchdowns.  When the Bucs beat Philly in '02, Keyshawn Johnson led their receivers with 76 catches for 1,088 and 5 touchdowns.  In '03, Steve Smith had 88 catches for 1,110 and 7 touchdowns.  That was good enough for Tampa and Carolina, so why is it such a problem here?

Recent history indicates Curtis is fine as a #1, and even Brown has actually had better years than some teams' top receiver.  With DeSean Jackson entering the mix and a group of solid role players, the Eagles situation is not nearly so bad to declare the end of the world, even with Curtis expected to miss around half the year.

If McNabb and Westbrook stay healthy, and the defense plays to its potential, they should easily overcome the supposed derth of talent at wide receiver the same way plenty of other championship teams have done before.

Comments

[Mark D]

It's not the receivers that worry me, it's the coaching. The coaching staff needs to overcome the dearth of common sense during the 2-minute drill if they're going win the close games.

[chris]

Good argument.

Now if only Andy Reid would have a more balanced attack instead of always pass, pass, pass. Our WRs are fine in a balanced offense, but they suck if you are going to continue to really heavily on the pass. And with McNabb healthy again I see Reid being very pass happy this season.

[chris]

When did Spuds become a writer for this site?

[Gaze]

Statistics do not capture a player's ability to separate himself from the defense. Steve Smith and Keyshawn Johnson had that ability... these guys, not so much.

[j13]

Kulp, I generally like your commenting and such because you cut to the point, but this...I mean, I come to the 700 level because I HATE the writing at ESPN. Quit with the melodramatic prose and get to the point.

That said, I agree and disagree. What the "the #1 receiver's over-rated" argument overlooks is that, while the position's importance is actually over-rated, it's only actually over-rated on a team where the sum of the other parts are all very solid. If you have a powerhouse #1, it takes a TON of pressure off the other wideouts and tight end. If you don't have a great number one, you need a much stronger #3, #4 and tight end than you otherwise would.

I think the birds top couple of receivers are fine, but I don't think that after those two there's enough strength to compensate for the lack of a real monster #1. I even think they'd be fine with their top two and a great TE, but I think Little John's propensity for drops stops him from filling that need well enough to cover the gap.

I don't think the sky is falling, or that the Birds will be awful this year - I think they'll be fine. I think this is a division where any team could be 11-5 and any team could be 6-10, depending on how the chips fall. But if they do fall right - and I'd say there's a good chance they will - I don't think they have enough going for them to get them over the hump. Like the way that pitching gets so much more important in postseason baseball, defense ratchets it up in postseason football and attacks the weakest links. If they don't have to compensate for a real threat, that job gets a whole lot easier if the overall body of talent fails to match up to the challenge.

[theKrisheim]

two things worry me more...

1) is this defense really any good?

2) who's calling the plays? what sort of balance are we going to have this year?

[Chamomiles Davis]

I have to concur with Gaze: Which receiver on this team qualifies as a legitimate "threat?"

[ill]

what is the over/under on Jackson's yards this year? I think he has the ability to separate himself but needs to bulk up a little in order to be a legitimate threat in this league.

[Scott]

Another myth you can debunk, is the "Andy Reid is a bad drafter" myth.

[PotsnPans]

A) How did Michael Irvin in 1995 have better stats than Randy Moss last year? Is that for a Super Bowl WINNING receiver?

B) The years that the Eagles were dominant, it was because of their defense. They've gotten roughly the same statistical production from their receivers every year under the Andy Reid era.

You really cannot win in this league without an above average defense. Look at the Colts, they did't get over the hump until they got their defensive issues straightened out. Find me a team that's won the Super Bowl in the last 15 years that has had a "bad" defense.

[Kulp]

'07 Moss: 98 rec, 1423 yards, 23 td
'95 Irvin: 111 rec, 1603 yards, 10 td

Moss obviously had a lot more touchdowns, but purely judging on catches and yards, Irvin was more productive.

One reason Moss has so many more touchdowns is because the Cowboys would hand it to Emmitt around the goal line, where the Patriots are still gunning it.

[doc]

kulp,

your analysis is flawed. first, 300 of curtis's 1100 yards came in the lions blowout. second, WRs aside, your saying mcnabb is as good as brady - which is wrong. i agree you can win with mediocore receivers, as long as your QB is the best in the league & playing out of his mind (brady in the early dynasty years). i appreciate the effort at a positive outlook, but this isn't a super bowl team.

[enrico]

Who was the Ravens stud receiver when they had Trent Dilfer? Yes, their defense was sick.

There are exceptions to every "rule" here.

[Ron]

Kulp I agree with you. Teams with "high-octane" offenses don't win championships. But you allude to this team being a contender and I just don't believe that.

This regime will not contend for a Super Bowl championship with this head coach. Ball control is the name of the game. Coach Reid is a decent coach, but his offense philosophy is outdated and he can't manage a game clock to save his life. It would also seem that he can't keep his locker room unified either. Get Lito in check, big man.

Andy must go!

[AZTerror]

Andy must go???

I guess you'd be happier with the Rich Kotite era or having Ray Rhodes move up in the first round to pick Jon Harris?

C'mon, Reid isn't the best playcaller in the world, but he knows how to coach a team. He runs a very disciplined team that doesn't kill itself with stupid penalties, just poor execution at times. Which is comparing how the Ravens lost to the Pats vs the Eagles losing to them last year.

Yes, the balance gets out of whack for the offense, but I'm with Kulp. The defense is going to be the key to this year. That was the difference last year, defense didn't make the plays. The offense played well enough, and the defense kept people off the board, but when the offense was off, the defense didn't bail them out. That's the mark of a championship team. When a defense can bail out an offense on an off game. This defense has that ability.

[theKrisheim]

kulp has a fan

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/Bottom_Line_on_Lito_Hasnt_Changed.html

[diggle]

That's about the worst Pravda/Domed Boy fluff job I've seen in a long time. Sickening and pathetic to even have been penned.

[James]

There are some real good points here. Now let me make this point McNabb is just as good as Brady maybe even better. You name New England's wideouts and rate them as average, but these were good to the point that teams took a chance with them as their #1 wideout on other teams. I think folks need to give McNabb more credit because he was winning with some of the worst wideouts ever and many of them are not even in the NFL anymore outside of James Trash.

[bob barker]

i hate to say it but when the eagles were the dominant power in the nfc, the eagles special teams units were well... special. yes the defense was one of the best in the league as well. but the special teams was really the wild card.

if you look at the past few years the special teams has not been very good at all. i know it was only the preseaon but they return game looked good and i really think if the eagles are gonna go deep this year the special teams is the key.

[Michael]

Yes I do agree with what this article had to say. Though all of the WR's they mentioned with exception to David Givens and Ismail were true #1 receivers. Eagles have no true #1. It's funny when ever anyone wants to talk about this subject they neglect to talk about DO the Eagles have a true #1 WR. my answer to that is no.

[Tracer Bullet]

Well, what's a "true #1 WR?" The problem with the team is not the receivers and it's not the quarterback. It's the pass-wacky coach. Make no mistake, Andy has brought a lot of success to this team and cleaned up the godawful mess left behind by Kotite and Rhoades. I think this squad has championship potential. That said, if you're going to throw 60% of the time, you better figure out how to develop receivers and, except for Brown, that hasn't happened. Reid said in the preseason that he'd changed the way he evaluated LBs and the result is three excellent young linebackers. I hope he can do the same at some point with the receivers.

[thomas]

This is just the pick-me-up post I need to read in the week leading up to Week 1. I do agree that it would be great if the Eagles had a receiver that was confident going over the middle, with speed and size that could draw extra attention from the defense. The mediocrity at WR this season can seem at times like a slap in the face from management, a sign that they think their system is more important than the parts. I think the parts are important, which brings me to my real question about the 2008 Eagles: Are the linebackers good enough? Weakness at that position contributed to the team's poor turnover differential last season, which in turn contributed enough to the win total to keep the Birds out of the postseason.
I'm optimistic about the linebackers, and I think their play is a key component to the team's success, more than the WR's.