The Eagles' Special-Teams Grade Is About More Than the Kicking Game

Our Eagles midseason report card gives special teams a C, with an A for punter Braden Mann and a B for kicker Jake Elliott. That gap identifies Philadelphia's problem: the work around the specialists has not consistently matched the work coming off their feet.

Mann's grade should not carry the coverage units into the honor roll. Elliott's should not shelter the rest of the operation from scrutiny, either. The Eagles need the players around them to turn a good kick into a favorable field-position exchange.

The November 13 Birds 365 discussion offered the right framework for that assessment. Special teams looked stronger early, then became less dependable as personnel changed and other responsibilities competed for players' availability. Our C reflects that uneven unit performance, rather than an average of two specialists' grades.

Mann's punt still needs a finish

A well-struck punt gives the coverage team an opportunity. The players running underneath it have to finish the exchange by controlling where the returner can go and making the tackle when the chance arrives.

That takes more than reaching the ball quickly. A coverage player who races downfield without protecting his leverage can leave a route back inside. Another player can arrive under control and still face a difficult tackle if the returner has already escaped into open space.

The goal is to close those options together. The first player should force a decision that helps the next player, rather than leave him defending every possible direction. Speed is useful when it brings the unit into position to make that happen.

That is why a punter can earn an A while the unit earns a C. Mann can give Philadelphia the kick it wants without receiving the full field-position benefit. Every avoidable return yard gives the opponent a shorter field against Philadelphia's defense.

Elliott's B belongs in the same evaluation. The Eagles can be satisfied with a specialist's individual contribution and still expect more from the unit. Reliable kicking is a foundation. It does not erase the possessions that coverage allows an opponent to improve.

The roster supplies more than specialists

The personnel pressure described in the midseason discussion deserves a harder look. Special teams uses players who also have offensive and defensive jobs. Changes in those jobs reach the coverage lineup, even when the kicker and punter stay the same.

A player who takes on more responsibility elsewhere may become less available for coverage. Filling his place means replacing an assignment as well as a body. The replacement has to understand the spacing, recognize how the return develops and work in concert with the players beside him.

That is a real cost of roster attrition. An offense or defense can absorb a player who previously helped special teams, leaving the coverage unit to adjust again. Keeping the specialist positions stable does not preserve the entire operation.

Philadelphia should treat those coverage jobs as part of its weekly personnel plan. Deciding who plays on offense and defense cannot be the end of the conversation. The next question is who handles the remaining special-teams work and whether that player is prepared for it.

The Eagles also have to avoid solving one problem by creating another. Simply asking an established contributor to do everything can leave several units depending on the same player. A workable plan gives the coverage group enough dependable players to execute together.

A C demands cleaner assignments

The response to this grade should begin with repeatable coverage. Philadelphia does not need a spectacular collision to prove the unit is improving. It needs fewer opportunities for a returner to turn one broken responsibility into open field.

Watch the space around the returner as the kick arrives. Are the coverage players closing from useful angles? Is somebody protecting the escape route? When the returner commits, does the next defender have help or an entire field to defend?

Those details give the Eagles a practical standard for their personnel decisions. A replacement who understands his job and arrives under control can make the unit more dependable. A faster player who repeatedly gives away leverage can make everybody around him work harder.

The return side deserves the same clarity. The returner needs a usable lane, and the blocking has to support the decision to take it. Changing a name on the lineup card will not settle those responsibilities by itself.

Our grade leaves room for improvement because the specialist work gives Philadelphia a useful starting point. The next test is whether the coverage and return units can make their assignments hold together as offensive and defensive workloads shift. That is where the Eagles can turn a good kick into an advantage they actually keep.

Watch the Birds 365 midseason report card

YouTube videoWatch on YouTube ↗