JaMarcus Russell Explained

Not even I thought Clark Judge would go this far. I have stared into the face of someone sort of in a roundabout way defending JaMarcus Russell and have returned to tell the harrowing tale. Gather round friends.

Which of the NFL's many bad teams has the worst QB situation?

wow, talk about lobbing softballs. There is only one right answer here, Prisco, go!

It has to be the Oakland Raiders. They used the first overall pick in 2007 to take JaMarcus Russell with the idea he would be the franchise quarterback for years. He's been a major bust. Why? He doesn't seem to care. The word is he doesn't put in the work that he should. That's a recipe for failure. There isn't much behind him either. Bruce Gradkowski? Please. The Browns and the Titans don't have great quarterback situations either, but it's not as bad as Oakland. Would you rather have Kerry Collins and Vince Young or Russell and Gradkowski? Thought so. How about the Oakland duo or Cleveland's Derek Anderson or Brady Quinn? That one is close, but I'll go with the Browns situation as being a tad better. So Oakland it is.

JaMarcus Russell is an artist of being terrible. The football field is his canvas. Fumbles, interceptions and incompletions are the brushstrokes. There's never been anyone in my lifetime in professional sports who has been given this much opportunity to showcase his utter and complete lack of ability to play the game he is paid to play. I mean, this is largely self evident, but to fill in the gaps.

Russell was taken #1 overall in the 2007 NFL Draft. Other players from the first round Oakland could have had instead. WR - Calvin Johnson or Dwayne Bowe. OL - Joe Thomas, Ben Grubbs or Levi Brown. DB - LaRon Landry, Darrelle Revis (current trendy "best DB" pick), Michael Griffin, Brandon Meriweather and Leon Hall. LB Jon Beason or Patrick Willis (IMO the best defensive player in football). And we haven't even mentioned Adrian Peterson, the best player in football. Maybe if Peterson and Russell are in the same room, it will cause a rip in the space time continuum. A kind of ying and yang of football ability. Anyway, that, is the opportunity cost of the Russell selection.

Then there are the numbers.

Russell's current QB rating this year is 47.2. How bad is that? In the last eight years, only two years have ever been within 10 of that bad. The next closest is 55.8. And yes, Derek Anderson is at 40.8, but he's taken less sacks and thrown less interceptions in a similar number of attempts. After the first game of the season, here are Oakland's point totals; 13, 3, 6, 7, 13, 0. Derek Anderson's teams have eclipsed 13 twice in the same span. He also has a history of some (limited) success.

Ultimately, the Browns have a QB who was once kinda good, led a 10-6 team that was dominant offensively in the first ten weeks or so of the 2007 season, and a high draft pick who, unlike Russell, has not really been given a great deal of time to show his (likely terrible but not definately so, wares). The Raiders have the embodiment of disappointment and fail. They aren't in the same dimension. Clark Judge, I'm sure you have something wrong to say about this...

Cleveland. Because there's a conviction about nobody

in nearly every Judge column there's a WTF moment. Three weeks ago it was "what if Mark Sanchez is injured, what will the NFL do???". Then we had "I think Ronnie Brown might be better than Michael Vick out of the wildcat". This week it's "certainty in promoting a terrible player is better than uncertainty regarding two poor players". Someone make sense of this for me. Cleveland are aware they need a quarterback, they are also cognizant of the fact that both of these players kind of suck. Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery. I'm not even sure Oakland have an inkling of just how bad JaMarcus Russell is.

The Browns tried Brady Quinn, a quarterback they traded away a first-round draft pick to acquire, but jettisoned him to move on to ... Derek Anderson? OK, but Anderson has been dreadful. Yet Eric Mangini won't budge on him, and don't ask me why.

because he's a bad coach? But at any rate, weren't you just criticising a lack of conviction in Cleveland's organisation about their QB situation? You totally were! Like three sentences ago! And now, here is Mangini, being wrong but staunch about Derek Anderson, exactly what you just demanded of Cleveland (and, apparently incorrectly said was not present in Cleveland) and you criticise them. What do you want Judge? Do you even know at this point? We're not even halfway through your first answer and already you are incoherant. Jesus H. Christ.

And what about Brett Ratliff? Mangini wanted him in the Mark Sanchez deal, but why? Beats me. He can't get a sniff. When you stink, I believe in playing young guys to get experience.

not Vince Young, apparently.

But that's not happening here. Worse, the Browns invested two first-round draft picks in Quinn and a ton of money in him and Anderson, yet they aren't sold on either.

They aren't sold, Clark, because they aren't fucking good. They shouldn't be sold. These are not good football players. If you were sold on players of this caliber you'd be fucking insane...or Oakland. How can you not see this?

"When you miss on a quarterback in the first round," Jets coach Rex Ryan once said, "you ruin the franchise." The Browns qualify. Three quarterbacks, no future? Yeah, Cleveland has my vote.

and what happens when you miss with the first pick? This is just utter nonsense.

Is starting an NFL franchise in London a good idea?

God, what a dumb question. Travel, local interest, just, a hundred thousand reasons why this is a dumb idea. What about if San Francisco has to travel to London? It's a thirteen hour flight. That's two and a half times longer than San Francisco to New York.

Prisco: Not right now. But down the road, I would understand. The NFL wants to go global, but in this economy the NFL needs to put a team in Los Angeles first. Keep it home. If the L.A. market gets going and another franchise is ripe for moving, then look at London. I think it's doable. The travel would be tough, but there are ways to work around it. The NFL will figure it out. By going to London, it would help bring more fans to the game and generate more revenue. Is seeing half-empty stadiums better than seeing a team in London? I think not. Roger Goodell is big on one day going to England. It will happen. It's only a matter of time, and I, for one, understand why. It's about money. It always is.

where's the infrastructure here to support this? There's a circus and a circus, and this really is a bridge too far. I will never ever understand the no LA team thing, no matter how in depth someone tries to explain it to me. No point wasting more time on this ridiculous question. It's really amazing how little depth the questions have in Faceoff but whatever.