The 2011 season told us something we already knew: quarterbacking is the biggest difference maker in the NFL by far. As much as we keep hoping that Mike Vick's good stretch between week 1 and 10 last season is the "real" Mike Vick, the numbers don't lie. Mike Vick is a phenomenal talent who is an above average pocket passer, but miles away from elite. What do those semantics mean? Simple: Mike Vick has never had a WPA for a season of 2 or more. He's never added two wins to his team let alone the 3-4+ wins per year that the elite teams are getting from their QBs year in and out. Point out exceptions like Alex Smith if it makes you feel better, but you'll be crying about Andy or the defense or whatever for years if you do. Simply: quarterback play has the largest effect on winning games, and the Eagles aren't getting the quality they need from the position.

There are two quarterbacks in this draft that have a chance to be hall of fame quality players. One is going first, as any sane team takes the chance to get that quality of QB prospect when they've got it. After that are two teams that likely won't take RG3, and have huge numbers of holes to fill on their teams. They need picks, the Eagles need to take a chance on getting that rarest gem in the NFL: the quarterback that keeps you in the hunt for a decade. The kid is as good a pocket passer as has come out of college in recent years, he knows the spread, he's as solid a character guy as you could want (no more Cataldi whining about "leadership").

Trade it all Andy. Get the kid, let him compete for the spot day one, and give your team a chance for a decade of prosperity. Or get a MLB, improve by a half game or so, lose in the first round, hear the same criticisms, and rent Groundhog Day. Sometimes it is that simple.

The Eagles currently sit near the top of many statistical tables, including most advanced metrics.  They are second in overall DVOA, and in the top ten on both offense and defense.  They are third in the league in point differential, and are in the top ten in both points scored and surrendered per game.  Footballoutsiders predicts that, based on their numbers and schedule, they would average 6.6 wins.  

We all know the results aren't there.  The question is why?  The answer may be that they are just unlucky. 

One argument that the Eagles are unlucky is that opposing kickers are eating them alive.  Opposing kickers have hit 100% of their field goals against the Eagles.  Only the Steelers and Ravens have that same problem.  Unlike those teams, opposing kickers are an amazing 4/4 from 50+ against the Eagles, 9/9 from 40+.

The other traditional luck argument is recovering fumbles.  The Eagles are actually having a good year recovering fumbles, recovering half of their offensive or special teams fumbles (4 of 8) and 7 of the 10 fumbles the defense has caused.

The kicking thing is certainly weird, but can that alone account for the Eagles underperforming their metrics? 

By the way, this site notes that the Eagles were one of the unluckiest teams last seasons:

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/01/luckiest-teams-2007.html

The other interesting questions:

Is this just prolonged bad luck, or is there something about this team that brings the bad luck upon these Eagles?  Have they angered the football gods, is Andy just a mush now?