Eagles need more talent to be great

Old friend DeSean Jackson took to his Instagram account after the Redskins lost to Tampa Bay on Sunday and posted the following observation: "You can't do epic [stuff] with basic people."

The stuff between the parentheses is the stuff he is usually full of, just so nothing is lost in translation, and the saying itself is plagiarized from many Internet sites, but nevertheless Jackson had a point when it comes to winning and losing in the NFL.

All that changes from one team to the next is the definition of "epic." In the case of the Washington Redskins, it would be managing to lose to the Buccaneers by fewer than 20 points. In the case of the Eagles, it would be somehow figuring out a way to beat the Packers in Green Bay on one of those days when Aaron Rodgers manipulates the field like a video game for which he has all the cheats.

In both cases, the equation is the same. Their guys are just better than your guys. That isn't always what decides football games, but it is a nice place to start the calculations.

The Eagles, just 26 regular-season games into The Chip Kelly Experience, are already a good football team. They are far removed from the disconsolate lot that closed out the 2012 season under Andy Reid with just four wins. If the upward trajectory continues, they will be a great football team eventually, but that isn't the case quite yet and the hardest part is still to come.

To do the epic stuff that lies ahead, they will need to upgrade some of their more basic players. The quarterback position is the most obvious one - and not just because of the recent comparison offered by Rodgers - and they also are leaking air on the offensive line, in the running game, and, at least against a team like Green Bay, are still capable of total collapse on defense.

Truth be told, the Eagles could use more guys like Jackson, who would still be here if he weren't so full of stuff. They need superior players, and putting together enough of them takes time. Meanwhile, the Eagles pick the low-hanging fruit of the league, but are unable to reach the upper branches.

In their 17 regular-season wins under Kelly, the Eagles have beaten winning teams just three times. They knocked off the 8-7-1 Packers (without Rodgers) and the 10-6 Cardinals last season, and beat the (currently) 6-4 Colts this season. Conversely, seven of their nine losses have been to teams with winning records, including all three this season - to the 49ers, Cardinals, and Packers.

To their credit, though, the Eagles rarely turn in a head-scratcher. Kelly keeps them playing at a level consistent with their talent. They did lose once to the under-.500 Giants in a game split between Michael Vick and Matt Barkley, but their only true stinker in the two seasons was a 48-30 loss in Minnesota on a day when Matt Cassel enjoyed a rare burst of competence.

Otherwise, the Eagles have played to form. They have beaten the teams they are supposed to beat, which isn't always easy in the NFL, but they also have had predictable outcomes against stronger opponents. The result of last season's playoff game is an example and, almost without exception, the league doesn't let weak teams into the postseason. So, something will have to change.

"You could look at it that way," Kelly said Monday, asked about the obvious relation between opponent and outcome, "but you could also look at it as teams with good records have a good record for a reason . . . because they don't get beat. To just analyze it from a statistical standpoint and look at the metrics and assume that their losses are to teams that have really good records, so therefore they can't beat teams with really good records is . . . you need to give credit to the other team. This isn't just a mathematical formula where we can put kind of a problem on the board and solve it mathematically. You still have to go out and play the game."

In other words - and I'm pretty sure this is what he meant - having the better players or the better team than the other guy is only part of it. You have to play better, too, on that field, on that day.

Kelly probably would agree that on Sunday in Green Bay, the Eagles didn't have either going for them. They didn't perform well and, as far as the roster, they at least didn't have anything that could offset the impact of Rodgers.

"It depends on who you're playing. That's kind of how it is," Kelly said.

At this point in his tenure, everything depends on which team the Eagles are playing. Maybe soon that could change, but getting from good to great is a steeper climb than getting from mediocre to good.

Right now, the Eagles beat the bad teams and, for the most part, lose to the best ones. Kelly promises to get that straightened out and, if he does, it will be better than great. It will be epic.

@bobfordsports