Quarterback Madness

I'm a lazy, lazy man adoring public, and as such I just have a few snapshots of crazy as opposed to a steady gorging on the Stephen A. Smith and Gregg Easterbrook articles I feed on for sustinance.

We start with a cheeky little back and forth between Mike Judge and Pete Prisco;

Who will be the last unbeaten team?

Prisco: It's all about schedule. So after looking at the schedules of the five undefeated teams, my choice is the Colts. Take a look at their next month of games. They are at winless Tennessee, followed by a bye, at St. Louis, home against San Francisco and then home against Houston. Do you see a loss on that schedule? Their next really tough game is Nov. 12 against the Patriots. By contrast, the Broncos play a brutal four-game stretch coming up, the Saints and Giants play each other in two weeks and the Saints have Atlanta and the Giants have Philadelphia later in the month. The Vikings have Baltimore at home in two weeks, play at Pittsburgh in three and at Green Bay the week after that. The schedule and Peyton Manning say the Colts will be the last of the unbeaten teams.

sold. Seriously, that's a pretty goddamn convincing argument. Judge, you have your work cut out for you, show me what you got.

New Orleans. You heard me. The Saints.

I've talked about the infamous "You heard me" line. The mating call of the moron. Nothing intelligent has ever followed the words "you heard me". "You heard me, elements at the quantum level have attributes resembling both a wave and a particle". No.

The Saints. Between now and Nov. 30, they play one opponent with a winning record, and it's the New York Giants. That's Oct. 18, and, considering the Giants' history of success on the road, it's a game that at least is in question. But let's say they win it.

let's say. Fuck it. Let's say Minnesota win 12 straight. I really could not be fucked, writing this article of which I'm paid to write, with any justification whatsoever. Pete may have his fancy "schedules" and "facts" but I have places to go and people to see reader, so let's just say I'm right for the hell of it.

Then look what's next: at Miami, then two consecutive homes vs. Atlanta and Carolina, followed by St. Louis and Tampa Bay. I like their chances of running the table more than the Giants, who have to go to Philadelphia on Nov. 1, or Indianapolis, which has San Francisco, Houston and New England in succession, followed by a Nov. 22 date at Baltimore.

Atlanta are pretty good, certainly capable of surprising in New Orleans in what will be a big divisional game. I think we'd all be pretty surprised if this unbeaten thing gets into Nov 12 (the Pats game) and especially Nov 22. Nov 12 is Week 10, 22 is week eleven. I think predicting seven weeks in advance is a little presumptuous.

Is it "embarrassing," as Ray Lewis says, how the league is protecting quarterbacks?

Prisco: No way. They make the league what it is. Without the quarterbacks, we would have the UFL. Would you want to watch the Colts without Manning, the Saints without Drew Brees or again see the Patriots without Brady? This is a quarterback-driven league. Lewis is wrong. The quarterbacks are not just like the rest of the players on the 53-man roster. They make the league go. Protecting them is a wise thing. Those two calls were bad calls in New England -- they had nothing to do with protecting the quarterback. But the rules to protect them are just fine with me. Wonder how Lewis would feel if somebody went low on Joe Flacco and he was lost for the season? I bet he'd think differently. Why? Flacco gives the Ravens a chance to win it. Without him, forget it. That's why passers have to be protected.

well, not a great example because Ray Lewis has an easy answer; shoot him.

Anyway I take the point and lie somewhere between grumbling, reluctant acceptance and vehrment hatred. Probably like most of you. Judge, care to enunciate my position like the worldly scribe you are?

No. Now that doesn't mean I agree with all the calls in last weekend's Baltimore-New England game, but let's face it: People pay good money to see good quarterbacks. They don't want to watch Kellen Clemens when they can see Mark Sanchez. And Kellen Clemens plays if Sanchez gets hurt.

woah woah woah woah woah.

Let me get this straight.

You, Clark Judge, are writing this little gem of a tete-a-tete with loverboy Pete here, and you need an example of how a star quarterback, being injured, would be very bad for the league. You need a poster boy here. Someone who is known by even non-football people who are dragged to games by football fans. There are two, fucking obvious ones that everyone immediately has in their heads who would be just a train wreck to their teams.

Behind those two lie an ocean of hugely impacting players. Warner, Brees, Rivers, Cutler, Eli Manning, Romo and so on. Many play in significantly sized markets.

And you choose, quite literally, the worst possible example.

Is there a better example of a team that is both a) successful and b) completely and utterly unreliant on their starting QB's health?

Mark Sanchez, he of the 71.2 rating (25th), 186 ypg (25th), 5 INT's (T-4th worst), 4 TD's (T-20th), 6.76 YPA (17th) and 57.3% completion (27th). Are we even sure Kellen Clemens isn't better at this stage of their careers? Would you be willing to put money on that? Worst. Example. Ever.

Clark Judge you are a failure at life.

The league stepped into high gear when the Patriots lost Tom Brady last season, and I get it: It is not protecting Brady, per se, as much as it is high-profile quarterbacks fans want to see. In the salary-cap era, teams have to be careful how they spread their dollars, and some of them -- New England and Indianapolis, for example -- sink millions into the starter and nothing into the backups. The reason: They're banking on Brady or Peyton Manning sticking around 16 games. Well, so are their fans, and now they can. But there's something else: Not only does the quarterback play the most important position, he usually is in a vulnerable and unprotected position when he throws. If clubs can't protect him with their offensive linemen, the NFL will do it with its rules ... and, no, I don't have any problems with it.

then make the sack illegal and render offensive lineman obsolete. This is literally very close to what you suggest. And it will cut payroll from these poor "please sir can I have some more" struggling football teams. Puh-leez.

Last but not least comes Ben's favourite character, Peter King. Don't read King much, and yeah, he's pretty bad, the article, which Ben will be doing a full enema to later on, can be found
here. I'm not gonna steal his thunder, but I just had to talk about this one point.

Coach Of The Year

1. Josh McDaniels, Broncos.
2. Rex Ryan, Jets.
3. Brad Childress, Minnesota.

This one doesn't seem very hard. I pick Childress to round out the top three because he made the gutsy move -- which I criticized -- of going out on a limb to talk Favre into playing when he wasn't confident he could make it through a season healthy, at 40. But Favre has won one game, maybe two, that the Tarvaris Jackson Vikes wouldn't have. At the top, McDaniels, as I explained Monday in MMQB, is a lock.

ok. Now. I'm not gonna rip the "lock" (I think Ryan has done way better, Denver still have played riff raff in comparison). I'm not going to rip the ludicrous suggestion that Brett Favre has been worth 50% of the success attributable to Minnesota. I'm not even going to rip the naming of Brad Childress as one of the three best coaches this year, an idea just beyond my comprehension at this point. But. But.

IF you think Brett Favre is worth 2 wins, games that would otherwise have been lost with Jackson back there, that is FUCKING MASSIVE. BEYOND MASSIVE. GARGANTUAN. The Vikings first wins were over Cleveland and the Lions, I assume these are out as "Favre did it!" games. Right. That means, that King argues that Favre was the difference in the Green Bay game, which would have sent Green Bay to 3-1. You with me sports fans? Minny would be third in their division right now instead of outright leader according to Peter King if Childress did not assist in signing Favre. Two wins covers 63% of the NFL. Peter King is like two wins? Pfft, whatever. No. Two wins in four games for one dude in 53 is unspeakably large.

Fin.