Tuesday, October 25, 2016
0 comments Ian O'Connor Spills Some Nonsense about Brock Osweiler
1. Gary Kubiak only played Osweiler during the 2015 season when the Broncos' original starting quarterback, Peyton Manning, could not play due to injury.
2. As soon as Manning could play and Osweiler struggled, and remember Manning was a 39 year old noodle-armed quarterback at the time, Kubiak played Manning over Osweiler.
3. The Broncos didn't give Osweiler much consideration when he was a free agent, until the rumors he might leave started up and then they offered him $45 million over 3 years or 4 years at $64 million, depending on what you believe.
4. All indications are that Osweiler was "wanted" by the Broncos, but not really wanted. NFL teams are desperate for quarterbacks and so a young quarterback isn't treated like this if the organization REALLY thinks he's the long-term guy.
5. So Osweiler got $8 to $27 million and one more year (depending on what you believe) in a contract from the Texans, while the Broncos got to start Trevor Siemian over the guy they drafted in the first round, Paxton Lynch.
6. Indications {based on (a) how the Broncos kept Siemian around last year when they already had Manning and Osweiler and (b) this year started Siemian based solely on performance} are that if Osweiler came back to Denver, there is a chance he may not have even started. Clearly, Gary Kubiak likes Trevor Siemian.
But anyway, dumb move by Osweiler to get paid a lot of money and become a starter...or so says O'Connor. It's not like NFL players want to make as much money as possible and get playing time or anything. It's not like the NFL has non-guaranteed contracts either.
If success is determined only by the size of your bank account, then Brock Osweiler is your man.
Success for an NFL quarterback is determined (partially) by three things:
1. Size of your bank account.
2. How many Super Bowl trophies you have.
3. Individual awards you have received.
Though it's fun to ignore, Osweiler now has success with two of these three things. I would bet Ian O'Connor might get pissed off if ESPN decides they want to cut his pay. Or would he? Because he wouldn't want to be one of those people who thinks success is determined by the size of his bank account. We know O'Connor would never leave ESPN if another company offered him more money. He's too principled for that.
He was offered an $18 million wage to work for the Houston Texans and a $16 million wage to work for the Denver Broncos, and he took the extra loot.
What O'Connor neglects is Osweiler was offered $2 million less (I thought it was $3 million less) over a period of several years to work for the Broncos. Also, the guarantees in the Broncos contract could have been different because NFL contracts aren't 100% guaranteed. But let's pretend O'Connor is simply ignoring this in a desperate attempt to help prove his point and not because he doesn't understand how NFL contracts work. He works for ESPN, so there is no way he is simplifying a complex issue.
But we all know that happiness and prosperity in life, even in pro football, are often defined by things that have nothing to do with dollars and cents. Take championship rings, for instance. How much money do you think Dan Marino would give back if it meant adding a Super Bowl title to his otherwise staggering legacy?
Honestly, I think Dan Marino is perfectly fine with his legacy that doesn't include a Super Bowl ring. More importantly, Brock Osweiler HAS a Super Bowl ring. He won a Super Bowl ring last year, so it's staggering to me that Ian O'Connor ignores Osweiler has a Super Bowl ring and doesn't have to go chase one. He's won his Super Bowl and now wants to be a starter. Comparing Brock Osweiler to Dan Marino is stupid anyway.
More importantly, I think the issue is being confused here. The issue, as I see it and how everyone else should see it, isn't that Osweiler chose to be the starter in Houston over being the starter in Denver. Osweiler chose to take more money to be the starter in Houston as opposed to taking less money in Denver and compete for the starting job. What, O'Connor really thinks the Broncos and Kubiak had no clue what they had in Trevor Siemian? They just kept him as a 7th round pick on the roster when there were other more experienced quarterbacks out there and got lucky he has ended up being a capable starter (so far)? There is a reason, and Osweiler also knew the reason, the Broncos weren't tripping over themselves to outbid other teams for Osweiler. It's because they liked Siemian and they thought he could be the starter for them this year or in the future.
So Osweiler took more money to be a guaranteed starter after sitting behind another quarterback for four seasons. O'Connor wants the reader to believe the Broncos saw Osweiler as a starter, yet immediately benched him when a slightly better, older, less permanent quarterback option was presented? The Broncos then waited around to see if the better, older, less permanent quarterback would retire or not, while knowing it could affect their ability to re-sign Osweiler. Then when that better, older, less permanent option retired they saw Osweiler as a starter so much that they didn't really exert themselves to re-sign him. Don't be thick for the purpose of a column. Osweiler isn't very good, but he's not very good while being the starter for the Texans and making more money. The Broncos just didn't value Osweiler as much as he thought they should.
Osweiler sure had to be thinking that way Monday night, when the Broncos made the NBA-sized quarterback look smaller than the fine ink in his $72 million deal. ''
Maybe he was. Maybe he was upset that he didn't get to play with such a great defense. Maybe he was mad at himself for blowing a chance to be a starter on a playoff team. Or maybe he was mad he didn't play well, but understood that he probably wasn't going to be the starter in Denver long-term anyway so he's glad he got paid.
Osweiler was all over the place with his passes, and the Broncos hit him hard on or after delivery every chance they got. Osweiler yelled at wide receiver DeAndre Hopkins, a much better football player than the quarterback, after one throw to nowhere.
The fact Hopkins is a better football player than Osweiler is very irrelevant. It's not a criticism of Osweiler necessarily. The list of players on the Broncos roster who are better than Trevor Siemian goes at least 10 players deep. If Siemian yells at one of them, then it doesn't mean much. Osweiler was awful against the Broncos, but pointing out a hierarchy of vocal criticism is silly.
Talib was asked at his locker if the Broncos were motivated not only to end their surprising, two-game losing streak but also by a desire to prove to Osweiler that he shouldn't have left.
"Definitely, definitely," the cornerback said. "We know he looked up at those passing yards in the fourth quarter. And maybe it wouldn't have looked like that if he had stayed."
I mean, it wouldn't have happened if he had stayed because he wouldn't have had to play such a great defense. Unless the Broncos defense started playing defense for the Texans the lack of passing yards by Osweiler against the Broncos definitely would not have happened if he played for the Broncos. There is a chance Osweiler would be on the bench and have less money if he had stayed with the Broncos too. Let's just keep ignoring that though.
"We knew that he struggles with disguises," Ward said. "We'd seen that from playing here and the film, so we tried to do that. We started kind of slow in the beginning, but we got better as the game went on, and it affected him."
And if Osweiler played for any other NFL team, outside of the Broncos, opposing defenses would never have studied film and seen he struggles with disguises. The Broncos have the only competent defense and defensive coordinator in the NFL and Osweiler would have thrived if he played for the Broncos. I guess this is the assumption to be made.
Not much didn't affect Osweiler in this game, and that might've had the Broncos wondering if they should've tried to re-sign him after all. But Elway did want him, and he drafted him in the second round to someday lead the franchise the same year he signed Peyton Manning.
Elway wanted Osweiler, but it's almost like the Broncos didn't want Osweiler as much as O'Connor portrays here.
Osweiler slammed that door in his former boss' famous face, and that was a worse decision than any he made Monday.
This is overstating what Osweiler did by choosing to sign with a different team after the Broncos didn't offer him a contract he felt reflected his talent. Osweiler sat behind Peyton Manning for 3.5 years and then was pulled in the third quarter of a Week 17 game once Manning was healthy, after having gone 6-2 as the starter. The writing was on the wall, especially combined with the fact the Broncos didn't rush to lock Osweiler up when he could be a free agent, that the Broncos were pretty "blah" on him. The Broncos correctly evaluated Osweiler, that he wasn't going to be a quality NFL starter. But yeah, Osweiler "slammed that door" in Elway's face, right? How dare he attempt to improve his career and bank account.
O'Brien and Smith definitely know what they are doing, and they definitely understood that they were taking a big, fat gamble on an athletic, 6-foot-8 kid with seven career starts to his name.
Actually, if O'Connor did any research at all before regurgitating this column then he would know O'Brien didn't even meet Osweiler prior to the Texans signing him. So they "definitely knew what they are doing" and "they definitely understood" the "big, fat gamble" they were taking? I'm not entirely convinced.
But what in the world was Osweiler thinking when he left this near-perfect situation in Denver? For that matter, what in the world was his super-agent, Jimmy Sexton, thinking?
"I want to earn a large commission and get my client set for life." --- exactly what Jimmy Sexton was thinking.
"Denver may not want me as their starter judging by their actions since Week 17 and I can be the starter in Houston." --- exactly what Brock Osweiler was thinking.
Osweiler walked out on that program because he said he fit better in O'Brien's system.
How did that fit work out Monday?
Two issues I see here:
1. It can't be ignored that the Broncos have a really, really good defense. They make good quarterbacks look not-so-good. Osweiler isn't a good quarterback, but when seeing how the "fit" of the Texans offense worked out on Monday, the quality of the Broncos' defense must be acknowledged as well.
2. Osweiler said he fit O'Brien's system because he isn't going to say, "Man, I don't think this system is going to work for me" after getting paid $72 million to run the offensive system.
This may come as a shock to Ian O'Connor, but athletes (falls into his fainting chair) don't always tell the truth and/or their deepest thoughts to the media.
Even so, Osweiler should still be the Broncos' starter -- not the less talented Trevor Siemian --
You can tell I take exception to this contention. Isn't it possible Osweiler wouldn't be successful in Denver and eventually be replaced by Trevor Siemian? It's not like Gary Kubiak didn't see both quarterbacks in practice every day or anything. So if/when Osweiler struggles, O'Connor doesn't think Osweiler would be benched (again, by the way) and replaced by Siemian? At that point, Osweiler certainly isn't getting a good deal on the free agent market IF the Broncos even decided to release him. He was the backup for 3.5 years in Denver. That's a long time for a competitive athlete to sit.
Osweiler isn't Derek Anderson, Matt Moore, Mark Sanchez or any of the other backup quarterbacks who got a chance to start and realize that's not where their value to an NFL team may lie. Osweiler hasn't gotten a chance to start and he wanted that I presume. I can't figure out why it's assumed Osweiler would (a) not be a bad starter in Denver and (b) would be the starter in Denver no matter what.
and the quarterback's representative, Sexton, has to take a hit for that. Too often, agents confuse the richest deal with the best deal.
I can't imagine a scenario where Osweiler getting the most money and being the definitive starter wasn't the best deal for Osweiler. I also can't imagine a scenario where Osweiler would play worlds better for the Broncos than he has with the Texans.
If Sexton's client is telling the truth when he says his benching late last season for a returning Manning didn't drive him out, then what was the deal?
Again, this may come as a shock to Ian O'Connor, but athletes (falls into his fainting chair yet again) don't always tell the truth and/or their deepest thoughts to the media. So Osweiler is being diplomatic and not burning bridges by stating it wasn't the late season benching that drove him away. In truth, it doesn't matter. The deal probably was that he wanted to be a starter. Now he is.
This isn't to say Osweiler won't develop into a pretty good player in this league. He beat the unbeaten Patriots last season, and he delivered a thrilling comeback against the Colts last week, and he made a sweet, third-and-8 run against Denver in the third quarter.
He's been a backup for 3.5 years. If he's going to develop into a pretty good player, then it has to start happening fairly soon. Osweiler understands this, which is why he went out and got paid when he had the chance to go out and get paid. This is as opposed to being a member of the Broncos, a successful team, yes, but also a team that committed to him in the same way I commit to writing regularly on this blog. Sure, that is what they would like to have happen in theory...unless something else comes along of course.
As he headed for his car after this sweetest of October victories, a smiling Elway stopped near a stadium barrier to mingle with players' family members and others looking for photos. He always walks -- or hobbles -- with his shoulders pinned back and his barrel chest puffed out. It seemed on this night that his chest was puffed out an extra inch or two.
It feels good to win a game and show a decision Elway made was the right decision. Couldn't Elway feel good that he chose to not fully commit to Osweiler and instead give Trevor Siemian a shot? Isn't it possible Elway's chest-puffing is not from getting back at a quarterback who spurned him, but showing his evaluation of that quarterback as not being the future starter of the Broncos was the correct evaluation? In this scenario, isn't it possible Osweiler would have ruined his chance to be a starter had he re-signed with the Broncos?
Why not? It was painfully clear that Brock Osweiler, former Bronco, had put his money on the wrong horse.
Ignoring this painfully bad last sentence, this is also a horribly confused sentence. Osweiler didn't put any money on the wrong horse because he received the money. If anything, the Texans put money on the wrong horse, though their alternative may not have been any better. So it's clear the Broncos put money on the correct horse, at least in the short-term. See, the Texans HAVE the money to put on a quarterback, while Osweiler is the guy who received the money from the Texans.
The correct sentence here should be written as, "Why not? It was painfully clear the Broncos put their money on the correct horse."
Osweiler has a Super Bowl ring and wanted to be a starter. It's not a mistake that he made, but an attempt to be a definite NFL starter and make the most money possible. End of story.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
9 comments MMQB Review: Ray Rice Alerts Peter King to the Obvious Edition
Prelude to a diss: In the last 52 weeks, the Packers have met the Giants three times. Green Bay has allowed 35, 37 and 38 points, and an average of 419 yards a game, and nine Eli Manning touchdown passes. Time for defensive coordinator Dom Capers to figure out a way to cover the Giants deep. Time for Charles Woodson and Clay Matthews to heal. Time for a shaky line to protect Aaron Rodgers. Time for GM Ted Thompson to find reinforcements for the line.
Is this a reference to "Prelude to a Kiss," which depending on your age, is a Duke Ellington song or a bad romantic comedy with a pre-plastic surgery Meg Ryan and a pre-I-marry-women-half-my-age-and-just-give-off-a-creepy-vibe-in-my-personal-life Alec Baldwin? If this is a reference to that, then I say "Where the hell is Ted Thompson supposed to find reinforcements for his offensive line now that the trade deadline is passed and it is Week 12? Are there magical offensive line reinforcements available to the Packers that no other NFL teams know about?"
Now we enter the cruel month of December
It's going to be a long December. Maybe this year will be better than the last. Probably not.
(And if Green Bay doesn't wake up after that five-alarm fire of a loss Sunday night to the Giants, the Packers might give away the five seed.)
The Packers lost a game! Quick everyone panic and write the Packers off and then eventually write a column in mid-January about how "everyone" wrote the Packers off! Do it, now!
In the AFC, we're going to sleep through the playoff race, because it looks like it'll be 7-4 Indianapolis, 6-5 Pittsburgh and 6-5 Cincinnati fighting for two spots, and the way things look now, none is a threat to the AFC elite.
The only threat to the elite can come from the people. Never forget this. The people must rise up, park in front of stop signs and then hope the police officer lets you off the hook because he recognizes you.
But there is an interesting subplot in the AFC, which Ray Rice raised to me last night, before getting on a giddy Ravens charter to return home from the impossible 16-13 overtime win at San Diego.
"I don't know what kind of medicine the Steelers will put Ben Roethlisberger on this week,'' Rice said, "but they're going to give him something."
Really? Peter needed Ray Rice to bring this point up to him? He wasn't aware of this sub-plot before Ray Rice raised this issue? So Peter didn't at all think the Steelers need to get Ben Roethlisberger back healthy so they can make the playoffs? Ray Rice brought this up and Peter was like, "Oh, that's right. The Steelers probably should work on making sure their starting quarterback is healthy so they don't have to play a 38 year old third string quarterback!" I wouldn't say this is a sub-plot in the AFC, but a very major plot. The Steelers are contenders for the Super Bowl with Roethlisberger and contenders to go 7-9 without Roethlisberger.
Pittsburgh-Baltimore, the rematch, Sunday at The Big Crabcake. (I think that's Chris Berman's invention, so I'll give him naming rights.)
Please don't give Chris Berman any kind of validation.
And does anyone think the Steelers stand a chance of winning in Baltimore without Roethlisberger, who missed his second game with a dislocated first rib (last week's column explains how dangerous that injury can be, and typically the injury would take more than a month to heal) Sunday?
I'm just glad Ray Rice brought this little subplot up though or else I wouldn't have thought about Roethlisberger's importance to the Steelers without Rice's help. Help me Ray Rice, do the Packers Super Bowl hopes lie in whether the offensive line can protect Aaron Rodgers or not?
Now for the NFC. It's bizarro world. Here's how I handicap the six-team race:
1. Washington (5-6). The 'Skins and Bucs are playing the best among the contenders, and if Washington can win one of the next two (Giants Monday, Ravens to follow), the last three weeks (at Cleveland, at Philly, Dallas) are manageable. How great would it be to see Robert Griffin III in a Wild Card game at Soldier Field, getting chased through the snow by Urlacher and Briggs?
It would be great only if they were chasing each other with snowballs after having just gotten finished building a snowman. How precocious!
2. Tampa Bay (6-5). Watching the Bucs the last month, I keep thinking no one wants to play them.
This is ignoring the fact the Bucs barely beat a 2-win team two weeks ago and lost to the Falcons on Sunday. But yes, no one wants to play them. They are unbeatable right now...even though they lost this weekend and came really close to losing the weekend before that.
5. Minnesota (6-5). Can Adrian Peterson play quarterback?
With Peterson, all things are possible.
So here's how I see the Wild Card round on the first weekend of January:
NFC (Byes: Atlanta and San Francisco): Green Bay at the Giants (Saturday night, NBC), Washington at Chicago (early Sunday, FOX).
AFC (Byes: Houston and New England): Cincinnati at Baltimore (Saturday afternoon, NBC), Indianapolis at Denver (late Sunday, CBS).
I repeat: Andrew Luck at Peyton Manning.
"Here are my purely speculative guesses at what the playoffs are going to end up looking like. Now let's spend time discussing the narratives I have just so conveniently placed before us to discuss."
I am reminded of a quote Bill Parcells uttered every other week in the four seasons I covered the Giants for Newsday in the '80s: "Sometimes God is playing in these games."
This reminds of a quote I just made up: God doesn't give a shit about sports and you are stupid for thinking he does.
Adam Schefter broke the news last night just after the Seahawks' charter lifted off from South Florida to go home from a loss at Miami: Seattle cornerbacks Richard Sherman and Brandon Browner were handed four-game suspensions for violating the league performance-enhancing drugs policy...Seattle's December: at Chicago, Arizona, at Buffalo, San Francisco, St. Louis. Looks like 3-2 with Sherman, 2-3 without him to me.
When the Seahawks go 4-1 over this stretch we will read Peter King just absolutely flabbergasted the Seahawks were able to do this. The Seahawks exceeded his expectations...no, OUR expectations. See "everyone" had the Seahawks written off based on Peter's pure speculation of their record without Sherman and Browner.
Impressive thing No. 2: Alex Smith was an ally, not a disgruntled employee, throughout the game. "It's got to be tough,'' said Kaepernick, "but Alex is so good to me. Our relationship is still the same as it's been. Every time I came off the field, he'd say to me, 'Did you see this?' Or, 'Did you see that?' Alex is a great guy.'' Apparently.
Alex Smith is probably used to being benched, not being wanted by the 49ers and then getting prepared to jump back in the lineup when he is called. He's had to be pretty flexible in his time with the 49ers. So he's learned to be a great guy.
The hidden advantage in the choice Harbaugh made is that now he knows he can win with two quarterbacks. One more mobile with a stronger downfield arm, weapons Harbaugh had on display in the Dome; Kaepernick completed throws of 26, 40 and 45 yards. The other is as efficient and smart a player as a coach could hope for, in Smith. I mean, who has a backup quarterback leading the league in completion percentage, with a rating over 100?
Who has this? The 49ers, that's who has it. This situation will work out well as long as Smith doesn't make waves if he gets benched or if Kaepernick doesn't make waves if he gets benched. So as long as both quarterbacks are happy with the situation, this is an embarrassment of riches at the quarterback position. Now, if Kaepernick comes out next week and struggles and gets benched for Smith, who is to say what will happen after that? So for now, it is an embarrassment of riches.
If Hines Ward were still a Steeler, he'd make running backs Rashard Mendenhall, Chris Rainey, Jonathan Dwyer and Isaac Redman (six fumbles at Cleveland Sunday, four recovered by the Browns) walk around the facility lugging a football tight to their chests. An eight-TO day? Inexcusable ...
I don't care what Hines Ward thinks.
Until I saw Rice's incredible fourth-down conversion, I thought the play of the day was Stevie Johnson's strip and recovery late in the fourth quarter on Colts safety Tom Zbikowski after Zbikowski picked off Ryan Fitzpatrick. Smart play for Johnson, who had to aim for the strip and make the strip, all while being stiff-armed by an amateur boxer, which Zbikowski has been.
So this play would have been less impressive if Zbikowski had not been an amateur boxer? I'm just wondering what being an amateur boxer has to do with holding on to the football.
If the last six weeks of the 2012 season play out similarly to the first 10, the defensive story of the season could well be two sophomore defensive players: Texans defensive end J.J. Watt and Broncos linebacker Von Miller. Their play has been so outstanding that the question might not be which deserves the Defensive Player of the Year award, but are either worthy of the MVP? I asked Neil Hornsby of ProFootballFocus.com to break down their play to try to answer those questions:
MVP? I just wonder why J.J. Watt wasn't a Vice-Presidential candidate this past year!
But yes, let's compare Watt and Miller as if they play the same position on defense and have similar defensive responsibilities.
Playing Time: Watt has played 89 percent of Houston's defensive snaps and Miller 90 percent for Denver. Watt has been so dominant that teams have had to start game-planning just to stop him.
And that would be a first obviously. No other defensive player has ever been game-planned around.
I'm going to skip the rest of this because it tells us what we already know. J.J. Watt is very good at swatting down passes at the line of scrimmage and Von Miller is a fantastic pass rusher.
In Summary: Many players on defense are having great years, but no one is as far ahead of the competition as J.J. Watt and Von Miller. Just as Darrelle Revis did in the early part of 2011, they are redefining what's achievable at their positions. Who's better? Flip a coin.
Ah yes, after a statistical summary of each player it comes down to a coin flip for Peter to decide which player is better. Why wouldn't a coin flip be the best determining factor? It seems appropriate.
Fine Fifteen
3. Houston (10-1). I appreciate the fact that their defensive leaders -- Connor Barwin, to me on Thursday -- says they're ticked off about giving up 983 yards in five days. They should be. But to play 10 quarters in five days and win both games deep in overtime ... that erases any negative in my mind.
It erases any negative in Peter's mind because he dutifully ignores the fact the Texans have given up 983 yards and were taken to overtime by two teams whose combined record is 9-16. It's not like the Texans were playing playoff teams or anything. They played Jacksonville and Detroit. I think any reasonable person should be a little bit worried about the Texans defense after the last two games, even knowing Detroit has a pretty good offense.
5. Atlanta (10-1). At the risk of sounding like a broken record: Michael Turner's output Sunday in the 24-23 win at Tampa: 16 touches, 30 yards; Jacquizz Rodgers' output: 12 touches, 79 yards. I keep thinking I'm watching a different game than the Atlanta coaches.
Peter does realize Jacquizz Rodgers is the size of a hobbit, right? Maybe 12 touches in the running game is all they want to give him in order to maximize his effectiveness. Rodgers is 5'6" and 196 pounds. Maybe the Falcons are concerned about wearing him down before the playoffs.
9. Tampa Bay (6-5). The more I see the Bucs, the more I think they might do what the Giants of 2007 or 2011 did -- get hot late and get on a January run that could take them very far. Not saying I think this will happen. Just saying it wouldn't surprise me if the Bucs were the NFC's sixth seed and made some big noise.
Peter isn't saying the Buccaneers are like the 2007 or 2011 Giants. He is saying he sees how they could get the sixth seed and "make some noise," which I take to mean go on a playoff run. Of course this may not happen, but Peter sees how it could happen. He isn't predicting it of course and in his list of NFC playoff teams from this MMQB he doesn't include the Buccaneers as making the playoffs. So Peter wants this prediction of the Bucs "making noise" on the record, but he doesn't want to put his money where his mouth is and predict they will be in the playoffs. He has Tampa Bay as the 9th best team in the NFL from his power rankings and the Buccaneers remind him of the 2007 or 2011 New York Giants, but he also doesn't believe they will make the playoffs. So which is it?
14. Indianapolis (7-4). If the Colts go 2-3 in December, they're likely a playoff team.
It's the Irsay Bowl! Ladies and gentlemen, get your narratives ready.
Coaches of the Week
Jim Harbaugh, head coach, San Francisco. Harbaugh proved last week he's got some Bill Belichick in him. As a coach, you have to be able to tune out the majority of the public and the media and even some in your own organization who think you're making a mistake if you firmly believe you're doing the right thing and you trust in your players to know you're doing the right thing. Such was the case when he chose Colin Kaepernick as his starting quarterback over Alex Smith, who was playing at a Pro Bowl level.
I'm not going to argue that Colin Kaepernick hasn't played well, but he has started two games in his NFL career. It's a bit early to start with "Harbaugh made the right decision in choosing between Alex Smith and Kaepernick" talk. Using this logic, doesn't this mean Harbaugh screwed up by allowing Alex Smith to start 9 games this season over Kaepernick? If Kaepernick is the better quarterback, shouldn't he have been the starter this entire year?
Let's give it a rest with the idea Harbaugh made a great decision. It's been two games and he looks like a genius now, but a lot of decisions look smart using small sample sizes. If Harbaugh was really smart and believed he was doing the right thing then he would have started Kaepernick from the first game of this season.
Factoid of the Week That May Interest Only Me
For two men so inextricably connected in Cincinnati Bengals history, it's notable that the first time Carson Palmer and Andy Dalton met was on the field at Paul Brown Stadium Sunday.
How is it notable this is the first time these two quarterbacks have met? Andy Dalton has been in the NFL for under two years and the Bengals and Raiders play in different AFC divisions. When were they supposed to meet prior to this?
The extent of their conversation after the game went something like this, per Dalton:
Dalton: "Stay healthy."
Palmer: "You too. Good luck."
Yep, that seems like it would only interest Peter. Otherwise, it is pretty uninteresting.
1. I think this is what I liked about Week 12:
a. The Washington offensive line, which I have criticized often. Great job enabling Robert Griffin III to make his magic. What a treat a rested Griffin and his mates will be against the Giants, at home, next Monday night.
It's going to be such a treat. It's going to be like going into a Starbucks for a cafe mocha with a double shot of expresso while being double-parked and walking in the Starbucks to find there is no one in line to annoy Peter while he eavesdrops on their conversations.
h. Jay Cutler. If we define "value'' in "Most Valuable Player'' as someone whose loss would totally deflate and screw up his team, then Cutler has to be in the running for the award.
If we defined it that way then about 50 players in the NFL would be in the running for this award as well. Any decent starting quarterback would be in the running. Can you imagine the Colts without Andrew Luck? He's an MVP candidate! The Buccaneers without Josh Freeman? MVP candidate. So yes, the "valuable" in MVP does mean that player's loss would screw up his team and totally deflate them, but this goes for a lot of other players as well as Cutler. I'm not saying Cutler shouldn't get MVP consideration, but quite a few players if removed from a team would deflate and screw up that team. How would the Broncos do without Peyton Manning starting for them.
m. Chad Henne, for leading a Jags win, their first at home this year. He'd have to royally mess up to not be the Jacksonville quarterback heading into the 2013 offseason.
Wow. My opinion, as of right now, is that the Jaguars would royally have to mess up if Chad Henne is their starting quarterback heading into the 2013 season. There are still five games to be played, but at this point the Jaguars have screwed the pooch if they have Chad Henne as their starting quarterback without drafting a quarterback in the first three rounds of the upcoming 2013 NFL Draft.
2. I think this is what I didn't like about Week 12:
b. Rex Ryan's logic after the 49-19 loss to New England Thursday. He tells his coordinators he doesn't want them to play Tim Tebow, then says Tebow (two broken ribs) was "100 percent available." I'm not getting that. Wonder if Woody Johnson is.
I'm getting it. It seems Rex Ryan didn't want Tim Tebow on the Jets team and he doesn't want to get into the "Play Tebow" discussion, so he tells his coordinators he doesn't want Tebow playing while pretending to the media that Tebow could play so other teams have to game plan for him.
g. Catch the easy interception, Asante Samuel. But I can't kill Samuel too much, because he played hurt down the stretch when his Falcons desperately needed him.
Peter can't kill Samuel too much, which is why he is calling out Samuel publicly in his nationally read column...because he doesn't want to kill Samuel too much.
h. Josh Freeman's overthrow of a wide-open Mike Williams.
How dare Josh Freeman make one bad throw. This was the only bad throw by a quarterback that affected a game on Sunday, obviously.
3. I think the league overreacted, and that's putting it mildly, by censoring Rich Eisen's interview with Oscar favorite Bradley Cooper and yanking it from Eisen's Thanksgiving special on NFL Network. "The segment was pulled because the movie included content related to gambling on NFL games," the statement from NFL Network said.
Remember that Peter is the same guy who tried to sell us on the idea the NFL wouldn't intrude on Andrea Kremer's new injury research and investigation show (as featured on the NFL Network) about how concussions affect current and past players. I didn't believe at the time and I don't believe now the NFL won't censor what Kremer says on that show in any way. Peter wasn't so sure though and seemed to try to sell us on the idea the NFL would "oversee" what was said, but was giving Kremer journalistic freedom to report what she finds or to interview whoever she wants to interview. The NFL is going to be all up in that show and want to censor any material they deem to be speculation or without basis.
8. I think the Steelers, normally among the smartest two or three teams in the league in player personnel, need to answer this question: Why are you backing up a perennially beaten-up quarterback with Byron Leftwich, a very slow 32-year-old quarterback, and Charlie Batch, a soon-to-be-38-year-old quarterback?
I'm guessing this is because they were hoping Ben Roethlisberger would stay healthy and they wouldn't have to use either Batch or Leftwich. Not to mention, the Steelers were probably relying on the fact Leftwich is serviceable as a backup and had been with the Steelers for a few years already. Really good backup quarterbacks aren't exactly in long supply and the Steelers didn't use a draft pick on a backup quarterback this past year. They thought it was worth the risk to not pay for a different backup quarterback and Leftwich would succeed better than a 23 or 24 year old quarterback would. Perhaps they were wrong.
Isn't it logical to think that, among starters in the league, Ben Roethlisberger has a better-than-average chance of needing a replacement during the year?
Why would this be logical? Roethlisberger has never played less than 12 games in a season and had missed six starts over the last three years. It's not like he has missed half a season recently. Maybe it is logical to think he would need a quality backup, but that's what the Steelers thought Leftwich was.
But Steelers football czar Kevin Colbert needs to find someone so Pittsburgh won't have two old and/or slow backups.
Batch probably doesn't need to be the third quarterback on the roster, but pretty much any time an NFL team is down to their third quarterback they aren't going to have a very good chance of winning games with that quarterback. So I don't really agree with Peter regarding Batch. He is probably as good of an option as a third quarterback as most NFL teams have.
10. I think these are my non-NFL thoughts of the week:
b. Controversial: Mike Florio says he was bored by Lincoln. I have to carve out three hours, and soon, to see it.
I've heard the same thing. It is a Steven Spielberg film which means it will be long and heavy-handed, so there is a chance it isn't very good. Just read the book "Team of Rivals" and there is a chance you would be more entertained. I've been down on Spielberg since the interminable "War Horse" was released and I haven't really enjoyed one of the movies he has directed since "Minority Report."
c. Black Friday. One of the lightest traffic days of the year, because I had to drive quite a bit Friday. Can't figure that one out.
Again, this isn't incredibly hard to figure out. Most people are shopping, at work, or avoiding going out because of the long lines at stores. It tends to be a day when not a lot of people are driving along highways for these reasons.
i. Florence Norman has been born.
She was just born? I'm not sure I have heard a child under the age of 25 who isn't from Europe named "Florence." I don't hate the name, it's just an interesting name to me. At least they didn't name their daughter Pearl or Ethel.
One piece of advice, Flo: Don't listen to a word your grandfather says about rooting for the Yankees. It's the wrong thing to do.
Yeah, just go with the Flo on who to cheer for in baseball. Make your own decision.
(See what I did there?)
The Adieu Haiku
Colin Kaepernick.
Looks like I misjudged the lad.
Chiefs sound good, Alex?
Yeah, the Chiefs would try to sign Alex Smith. That's a typical Chiefs move. I'm sure the Chiefs sound good to Alex Smith, but I'm not sure Alex Smith should sound good to the Chiefs.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
6 comments MMQB Review: If a Bar Closes and Peter Doesn't Leave, Does the Bar Really Close? Edition
Before I get to the state of the Texans, and the running back driving fantasy football players crazy
Any running back who shares carries with another running back?
Six years shouldn't be forever in the NFL,
The average player's time in the NFL amounts to 3-4 years if I am not wrong. So six years is a long time in the NFL.
The top 10 players in the 2006 NFL draft have been employed by 19 teams through six seasons -- the smart teams don't stay married to guys when either the marriage isn't working or the priorities have changed.
How the mighty have moved since 2006:
Player, Position: Teams (current one in bold)
1. Mario Williams, DE: Houston, Buffalo
2. Reggie Bush, RB: New Orleans, Miami
3. Vince Young, QB: Tennessee, Philadelphia, Buffalo
4. D'Brickashaw Ferguson, T: New York Jets
5. A.J. Hawk, LB: Green Bay
6. Vernon Davis, TE: San Francisco
7. Michael Huff, S: Oakland
8. Donte Whitner, S: Buffalo, San Francisco
9. Ernie Sims, LB: Detroit, Philadelphia, Indianapolis, Free agent
10.Matt Leinart, QB: Arizona, Houston, Oakland
1. JaMarcus Russell- Oakland (out of the league)
2. Calvin Johnson-Detroit
3. Joe Thomas- Cleveland
4. Gaines Adams- Tampa Bay, Chicago
5. Levi Brown- Arizona
6. LaRon Landry- Washington, New York Jets
7. Adrian Peterson- Minnesota
8. Jamaal Anderson- Atlanta, Indianapolis, Cincinnati
9. Ted Ginn Jr- Miami, San Francisco
10. Amobi Okoye- Houston, Chicago, Tampa
That's 17 teams over 5 years.
Look at the 2008 draft:
1. Jake Long- Miami
2. Chris Long- St. Louis
3. Matt Ryan- Atlanta
4. Darren McFadden- Oakland
5. Glenn Dorsey- Kansas City
6. Vernon Gholston- New York Jets, Chicago
7. Sedrick Ellis- New Orleans
8. Derrick Harvey- Jacksonville, Denver, Cincinnati
9. Keith Rivers- Cincinnati, New York Giants
10. Jerod Mayo- New England
That's 14 teams for these 10 players. That's from 2008, which was four years ago. These high draft picks either stick with their team or have moved around because they are perceived to have talent. In the NFL, four years is a fairly long time. That's my point.
The 2007 draft has something in common with 2006: Four of the 10 top picks in each remain starters for the teams that drafted them. And there isn't a quarterback among the top 10 in those two drafts (Young, Leinart and JaMarcus Russell in 2007) still with the team that drafted him.
It's almost like the draft is a crapshoot in some ways.
But I bring you this list to make a point about the Houston Texans. They had a chance to re-sign the first pick in the 2006 draft, the man they hoped would be their defensive centerpiece and lead them to multiple division titles, Mario Williams. They let him walk.
A larger point that would also need to be made is the Texans have done a good job of drafting defensive players over the last few years. So they could afford to let Mario Williams walk, even though he's talented, because he has also had injury issues and they can come close replicating his production with other players on the roster. So he could have been the centerpiece of the defense, but his value slipped slightly to them once they drafted Cushing, Barwin and Reed.
For a team that finally won a division and a playoff game in its 10th season, the Texans certainly made a lot of changes. Two-fifths of a stalwart offensive line (right guard Mike Brisiel and right tackle Eric Winston) were allowed to walk. The right side of the linebacker group, Ryans and Williams, are gone too.
I personally believe the loss of two members of the offensive line is a bigger issue for the Texans than not re-signing an injury prone defensive end-turned-linebacker or a linebacker who doesn't fit the 3-4 defense. I think offensive line continuity is important, so I'm surprised Peter threw the fact the Texans lost the right side of their offensive line into this sentence so matter-of-factly.
Smith said he's studied NFL history at length, and he's studied business models of different business leaders. One that he's adopted is former GE boss Jack Welch's 20-70-10 philosophy: the top 20 percent of your employees are standouts and must be nurtured. The majority, the 70 percent, are the working class -- needed but still able to move if the right situation arises. The lowest 10 percent have to be churned and replaced, because a company always is looking for ways to get better by importing new blood.
This is an excellent business philosophy by the way. Jack Welch was always pretty good with business philosophies and as brutal as the 20-70-10 philosophy seems, it is a philosophy that translates well to sports.
As Brooks Reed and Barwin developed, Mario Williams suddenly became a part of the 70% to the Texans, but to the Bills he was part of the 20%. Since I don't harp on this enough, this is why Drew Brees signed the 6 year $60 million deal with the Saints in 2006 and the Chargers didn't make a bigger effort to give him a large contract. Because the Chargers had Phillip Rivers as the quarterback of the future, Brees had moved to the 70%. I think most of the NFL understands this, but I think it makes more sense if you think about it in business terms like this.
Smith didn't want to lose Williams, but it was a matter of economics; he had young guys who could get to the quarterback, maybe not as well as Williams. But all three combined wouldn't make what Williams was going to demand in free agency this year (he got a six-year, $100 million deal, with $50 million guaranteed).
This isn't a completely different concept from some of the Sabermetric principles some baseball teams use. If this were baseball, upon hearing this philosophy veteran baseball writers would grumble something under their breath about statistics taking over the game and then accusing Rick Smith of living in his mom's basement. Because there is a hard salary cap in football, using three players to replace one makes more sense to veteran writers. In baseball, where apparently money is limitless due to no hard salary cap, the allocation of players in this manner by using WAR causes veteran writers like Murray Chass to lose their shit.
History lesson with Norv Turner: He likes his backs to run a lot, and he doesn't care if the rest of the league is going to this consistent two-back business.
History lesson about Norv Turner: He is a great offensive coordinator. He is currently employed as a head coach, but he is a great offensive coordinator.
I'm going to have a little bit of a hard time thinking Norv Turner is a running back genius when over the past few years the Chargers have alienated LaDainian Tomlinson, let Michael Turner go in free agency, and let Darren Sproles go in free agency. I realize not all of these losses were preventable, but my larger point is they are all running backs who either weren't happy with the Chargers or had a great amount of success with another team, while the Chargers were looking for a consistent running threat.
Look at Turner's track record.
I sort of just did.
When he took over as Jimmy Johnson's offensive coordinator in 1991, Emmitt Smith's carries rose from 241 in 1990 to 365 in Turner's first year. In 2002 in Miami, the Dolphins had just acquired Ricky Williams and had just signed Turner as coordinator. Williams had his two biggest seasons for carries (383, 392) with Turner in Miami. And Frank Gore hit his career rushing high for attempts (312 carries) in Turner's only 49er season.
Not to pick nits, but these running back numbers were all accumulated when Norv Turner was an offensive coordinator and not a head coach. It probably doesn't matter, but I felt the need to add it.
"I really think this year's my time,'' Mathews said. "I see myself as one of the top backs in the league. Now I've got to go out and do it.''
I see myself as this nation's greatest writer, a humanitarian and the current leader for the 2016 Presidential race. Now I, much like Ryan Mathews, just have to match my own overly-optimistic belief about myself with reality. I'm guessing this won't be an issue.
The Chargers intend to feed Mathews as much as any back in the league. It'll be up to him to handle it.
Seeing as Mathews has had fumbling and injury issues in the past, I can't fathom what could go wrong with giving Mathews 400 touches in a season.
Now, more solid evidence that players were paid off the books in New Orleans
(Some New Orleans residents stick their fingers in their ears and scream) "Lalala, there's no proof."
As Williams handed some of the envelopes out, some players would chant: "Give it back! Give it back! Give it back!" Some would, to increase the pot and make the stakes bigger as the season went on. I also wrote that the NFL had evidence that one Saints player, late in the NFC title game in January 2010, when Brett Favre had been helped off the field, was heard on the sidelines to say: "Pay me my money!"
(Let's look at some of this evidence presented and see what excuse I would bet New Orleans residents or Saints fans could come up with to explain this so-called "evidence." I'm sure they would argue all of this is very innocent.)
See that last sentence is just street slang, not an attempt to collect on a bounty. "My money" means "my superior" or "my boss," much like money is what rules the world...hence the player refers to his boss as "my money" because the money rules him, much like a boss rules a person. This player was simply asking for a contract extension in the offseason. That's all. It's a money issue spoken about in street-slang.
Documentarian Sean Pamphilon, who was in the room during Williams' infamous speech to the team before last season's playoff game in San Francisco, had previously said Williams passed out money "for forced turnovers and big plays.'' He also said Williams rubbed his thumb and first two fingers together referring to putting a big hit on quarterback Alex Smith and saying, "I got the first one."
Not at all what Gregg Williams meant. Williams was rubbing his fingers together signifying Alex Smith was the #1 overall pick in the 2005 draft and got a huge contract as the #1 overall pick. Smith was also a free agent after the season. Williams was talking about ROSTER turnover and was telling the defense to not hit Smith too hard because he is going to come out of his own pocket to help pay for Smith's contract this offseason to secure Smith as Brees backup. Hence, "I got the first one," meaning I will help pay for the 2005 #1 overall pick to join the team as a backup next year. It's just a misunderstanding and concerned free agency.
Pamphilon, in a rambling blog entry the other day,
Really? Peter is criticizing someone else for rambling?
described Williams passing out envelopes for bonuses. Those payments are illegal by NFL rules, whether they were for performance-based accomplishments like turnovers or for bounty-related hits.
These envelopes weren't for bounty-related hits. These envelopes included a letter that was full of compliments to the players about how they played in the last game. Williams wrote a complimentary letter to each player and put it in an envelope with a piece of chocolate. These envelopes were about chocolate and team-building through politeness.
Pamphilon also confirmed how, while the envelopes were passed out, players chanted, "Give it back! Give it back!''
Easily explainable. The Saints players were chanting "Give it back!" because they wanted the players receiving the envelopes to compliment Gregg Williams on how well he coached the previous game. Really, this is just an issue of cordiality.
On Friday, Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports reported the league has evidence that the Saints kept a ledger for each player, including tracking each player's number of cart-offs ($1,000 per debilitating hit) and "whacks" (hard hits), with money subtracted for mental errors.
It wasn't real money being used and this was not money for real games, but for cart-offs and "whacks" on the John Madden Football '92. We all know NFL players love playing video games and it gets pretty competitive. So Saints players were merely playing Madden '92 and paying each other in Monopoly money. I don't know why the NFL is punishing the Saints. Can players not participate in video games and use fake money from a popular board game in an attempt to incentivize victories on said video game?
Don't buy your dad, or your favorite father, anything for Father's Day (June 17) until you read the column next week.
Of course. Waiting until Monday to order something for Father's Day on Sunday is easily the most prudent course of action. After all, why figure out now what you want to purchase for your father when you can pay extra for 3-4 day shipping by waiting to see what Peter King thinks you should buy for your father?
In order to get the books you want, you'll have plenty of time to order via Amazon (I do it a lot, and the books, even via regular mail, take three days at the most)
And if your book happens to take longer, just blame Peter King. I'm sure your father will understand.
or by going to your hometown bookstore (my preferred mode of book shopping).
You mean all of those stores with books in them that are closing because everyone buys books online now?
"There was no bounty program in place. I never paid anybody, intended to pay anybody. That's the truth. Never sought out to injure people. That's the truth. That's really about it. I can't really go into detail."
-- New Orleans linebacker Jonathan Vilma in an impromptu interview with NFL.com's Ian Rapoport at the New Orleans airport last week. Good hustle by Rapoport.
Jonathan Vilma can't go into more detail because if he did go into more detail then he would really, really be lying instead of just sort-of lying.Speaking of lying...here's Jim Harbaugh doing some lying:
"One other thing. There's the perception out there, and it's an erroneous perception, that we were flirting with Peyton Manning. I keep hearing that over and over and over again. It's silly and it's untrue. It's phony. Even the perception that we were pursuing him. We were evaluating him.
They were evaluating him with absolutely no intention of signing him of course. Head coaches and offensive coordinators often travel across the country to evaluate a quarterback they have absolutely no interest in signing.
Alex Smith is our quarterback, was our quarterback, and we had every intention of always bringing him back. There would be no circumstance that we would have let Alex Smith go.
Under no circumstance would the 49ers have let Smith go, other than if signing Peyton Manning, which is what the 49ers were actively attempting to do.
"Now, were we out there seeing, evaluating if we could have them both? Heck yeah.
Right, because quarterback is a position where you can have more than one starter. So by "having every intention of bring him (Smith) back" Harbaugh means "we were going to sign Peyton Manning and then have every intention of offering Smith a contract amount below what he wanted to receive as a starter in order to be the backup to Peyton Manning." If it came down to Manning or Smith, we know who would have been the starter. The answer is Peyton Manning.
And further evidence, we would not have given any player that was out there in free agency a sixth of our salary cap, and let six, or seven of our own guys go here.
So the 49ers weren't going to overpay for Peyton Manning? So I am to believe if Manning had chosen the 49ers they were going to say, "Thanks, but you are asking too much money?" Come on, they got in the Manning sweepstakes knowing he would be expensive. If Manning had chosen to play in San Francisco, the money would have worked itself out.
So, hopefully that sets the record straight and you don't have to keep reporting the silliness and phoniness."
-- San Francisco coach Jim Harbaugh.
As long as Harbaugh stops talking about Manning v. Smith, then no more silliness or phoniness will be reported.Peter King then calls out Harbaugh for basically lying, except Peter doesn't call it lying. Of course the 49ers wanted to keep Smith and get Manning. That's natural, but Harbaugh knows if the 49ers had signed Peyton Manning they would never keep Alex Smith. Signing Manning to a large contract and then giving Alex Smith a chance to be the backup isn't wanting to keep Smith around. It's wanting to sign Peyton Manning and then hoping Alex Smith will stick around as the backup quarterback.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
Otherwise known as "Peter King doesn't how to understand non-verbal cues."
Red-eying home from Los Angeles last Tuesday night. Flight leaves at 11:45 p.m. I get to the airport at 10:30 and go to the fish place/bar near the gate. I sit at a table for four and get my computer out. I have already eaten, so I order the most interesting of a group of drab beers on tap, Stella Artois.
A Stella Artois? BUT WHAT DID YOUR HUSBAND HAVE TO DRINK PETER?
At 10:50, a busboy comes around and starts putting chairs up on the tables. You know, the way chairs are put up at the end of a school day,
Or perhaps when a restaurant/bar is about to close?
The guy puts all three chairs up at my table, as if to say, Drink up, schmoe. We're closing soon. Except no one says anything.
Most likely because there wasn't anything to be said. As an experienced bar-closer, I know this is the universal way of saying, "We are closing. Drink fast because you will be leaving very soon."
Nothing needs to be said. This is the polite, non-verbal way of saying, "Get the hell out of here."
I give the guy a look and say, "Closing soon?'' He evidently doesn't speak English. He just shrugs.
That shrug, which apparently was another non-verbal cue, says the bar is indeed closing, as seen by freaking chairs being placed on the tables upside down, and he wishes someone had told you this before you got your computer out. Either way, the chairs being lifted upside down on the tables is a clear indicator the bar is closing.
Then, about five minutes later, the TVs go off.
This means, "please leave...now."
A minute later, about half the lights.
This means "Holy shit asshole, the only reason you aren't leaving right now is because you are just being a dick. Get the hell out of here."
A waitress goes to the front door and pulls down a metal gate to the place, then positions herself at a side door, which she loudly opens, and then just stands there.
At this point, Peter is just staying in the bar purely to piss the employees off. He knows this place is closing, but he just wants to be difficult and stay until they grab him by his head, look him in the eye and say, "Sir, we are closing." These are all non-verbal cues and Peter was confused by them at first and now he's just being an asshole about it all by not leaving.
I get the message. I pack up, walk out. Wouldn't it have been a little more civil to say, at 10:45, "Ladies and gentlemen, we'll be closing at 11. So everyone, please finish up. Thanks."
Perhaps the bar did that and Peter missed it because he was too busy typing away on his computer? Nah, this could never be Peter's fault he missed the announcement or can't seem to understand non-verbal cues.
"browns fun fact, Brandon Weeden will turn 29 this year, same age as Bernie Kosar when he was cut by Belichick in 1993 #Browns''
-- @phyland341, Patrick Hyland of Cleveland, with a good observation on a quiet Saturday.
I'm not sure this is a fun fact for Browns fans. Nothing like drafting a 28 year old quarterback in the first round. By the way, Aaron Rodgers also turns 29 this year. Like I've said before, this is good news for Colt McCoy. He is younger than Brandon Weeden and could still theoretically be the quarterback of the future.2. I think that sound you heard Sunday morning around 11 Jacksonville time was the sound of the entire Jaguars ownership/front office/coaching group doing a collective "What the $#%&*@?''
Blackmon's breathalyzer test measured at .24, and according to the Tulsa World, he had a previous DUI arrest in 2010. Driving under the influence of three times the legal limit, and with a prior incident, will certainly put Blackmon in the NFL's substance abuse program, and rightfully so. Talk about questioning the intelligence of a player in which you've placed so much hope for your franchise.
The annoying part for Jaguars fans is that this is Blackmon's second DUI in the past two years. You have to wonder if an athlete is stupid before he becomes a millionaire, is money really going to make him any smarter? Blackmon should at least go through training camp with Blaine Gabbert passing him the ball before he starts drinking while attempting to forget the passes that will be one-hopped to him all season.
4. I think the first thing every NFL player should know is that most teams -- and perhaps all by now -- have programs that allow players access to rides 24 hours a day if they feel they're too impaired to drive.
Regular people have access to a similar program when you feel too drunk to drive. It is called "a cab" or choosing a designated driver. That's your social message for today.
a. Almost a very big day for Rex Ryan in Los Angeles today. It's the red carpet premiere of That's My Boy, the Adam Sandler movie in which Ryan makes his big-screen debut. I wrote about it last fall. Anyway, Sandler put two more scenes of Ryan's work in the final product than he'd originally planned, which may mean Rex should quit his day job.
I wish Adam Sandler would quit his day/night/weekend job of making movies. His last good movie was probably a little under a decade ago. Still people go to see his films and the quality seems to be declining very rapidly. At this point, I think Adam Sandler is seeing how bad of a film he can make that some people will still go see.
e. Daniel Bard Sunday in Toronto: 13 batters, six walks, two hit batsmen. Hope he's not getting Steve Blass disease.
Or he could just be a really shitty starting pitcher and works better coming out of the bullpen.
f. One of the best nights I've spent in a long time happened last Wednesday, when my wife and I saw the Broadway play Clybourne Park. Plays that make you think are good things. Great things, actually.
This one opens in a Chicago neighborhood in 1959, with the first black family buying a home there, and the second act is exactly 50 years later,
So the first black family EVER bought a home in 1959? There were no black families before 1959? You learn so much reading MMQB.
with a white yuppie family buying the beat-up home so they can, in effect, begin the gentrification of the neighborhood. A fabulous look at who we are and how we think about race relations. In my best theater-going voice, I'd say: Run, don't walk, to Clybourne Park.
Buying tickets for a flight to New York on short notice probably isn't very expensive at all. Let me go book one right now.l. Coffeenerdness: If I had one selfish wish for New York City, it'd be that Peet's Coffee proliferated here. Being in L.A. reminded me how lucky you on the West Coast are, to be able to get Peet's in so many locales.
The best part about Peet's Coffee, and this is something everyone I know seems to universally agree upon, is how when you open the coffee bag up the grounds smell exactly like a pile of horseshit. After being brewed, the coffee is pretty good, but the grounds smell like someone left a pile of turds in the corner of a male locker room.
m. The mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, is under attack because he wants to eliminate the ability of fast food places to sell super-sized sugary drinks. Under attack is putting it nicely. The papers are killing him. I think Bloomberg's doing the right thing. You can't fight the obesity epidemic in this country by suggesting mild solutions. You've got to fight it. And Bloomberg's trying. Good for him. And if people don't like it, then tax soda. Tax the daylights out of it, the way we tax cigarettes.
I'm fine with taxing the soda. I drink two sodas a day and am completely and utterly addicted to them. I would possibly switch to one soda a day if the price was jacked up. I don't particularly agree with trying to fight the obesity epidemic by preventing McDonald's from selling the super-sized sugary drinks. Mostly because if someone is eating at McDonald's it isn't necessarily the sugary drink that will hurt them, it is the food they are eating as well. I don't think you can stop people from becoming obese. If it isn't super-sized sugary drinks it will be something else that make people obese. For some reason, Americans love to over-eat or eat food that is terrible for them. I don't know how to stop this without creating a food police state.
n. Buddy of mine told me the other day, "Remember when we used to have the classic eight-ounce bottle of Coke that people used to drink? It was kind of a special thing. All Bloomberg's trying to do is to ban people from drinking more than twice that in the same sitting. What's wrong with that?''
Other than you are banning them from being able to choose what they get to eat and drink...nothing is wrong with this. If sugary drinks are legislated, people will find another way to get fat.
o. I'm not the biggest basketball fan, as you know. But I'd pay to see Rajon Rondo play, and I might pay quite a bit.
Well gosh, as a basketball fan this means nothing to me.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
11 comments J.S.' NFL Power Rankings: Week Twelve
NFC WEST
To give you an idea of how San Francisco are the most likely playoff participent outside Green Bay this year, consider this. Most people predicted the NFC West could be had with about 8 wins this year. Let's be optimistic for Seattle, Arizona and St. Louis and say that's still true. San Francisco, who still have five games remaining against Arizona, St. Louis and Cleveland, would need to finish 3-7 to give these teams any sniff at all. This seems unlikely, but considering they went 6-10 last year with Abruyo Franklin on the roster, possible. Even then, Seattle would probably need to go 7-4, as they have already lost to the Niners. That seems insanely unlikely. Even if they swept their home games (which includes dates against Baltimore and the Eagles) they would need to win at least one more road game - hardly a sure thing. Arizona would also need to go 7-4 and the Rams 8-4, and remember this is in the best case scenario of the Niners finishing 3-7.
Nothing to see here, Niners clinch with a win in any of their last five games or alternatively, either Arizona or Seattle failing at going 0-5. St. Louis join Minnesota as the only teams in the NFC already mathematically eliminated from winning their division.
NFC NORTH
Green Bay are so far out in front it's not even funny. Second place is all but guarenteed a wild card spot, and that is a race between the Lions and Bears. Certainly the Lions, up two games and a head to head win against Chicago, have the inside track and do look the real deal, but they also carry the handicap of being the Detroit Lions.
Green Bay looks almost even money to go undefeated, but the action behind them has been fascinating to watch. At the time, the Bears were 3-3, but two of the wins were against the Panthers and Vikings. Their candidacy was more or less theoretical. Since then, both advantages the Lions enjoyed have vanished, and even with Cutler's season ending injury they are in plenty of trouble. They only have really looked convincing against the Tebows in Week Eight, and have games with Norlans and the Pack remaining. However the claim that second place in the division will be in the playoffs looks as secure as ever.
NFC SOUTH
Ostensibly close, but really New Orleans seem well in control. Every team here has to pay the Green Bay piper this year, and Tampa still have yet to. The Saints are still unbeaten at home, and seem to be pacing themselves well so far. Still, Tampa's win this week adds a layer of intrigue. The Saints should be able to build some seperation over the next third. Atlanta have quite simply been a disappointment since the starters pistol fired, but are still in touch if they can put it together from here on out.
While seeing New Orleans (4-1 since this was written) and Atlanta (4-1 also) put the pedal down since Week Six was pretty predictable, Tampa Bay's tailspin was less so. Remember, this was written after their defeat of the Saints, having already knocked off the Falcons earlier. Tampa have not won since this point, making this a two team race. Though the gap between the Falcons and Saints looks wider than the literal one game between them, New Orleans has three of its final five games at home, where it is undefeated, and holds the tiebreaker over the Falcons. The two play in Louisiana for a late Monday Night Christmas present, but Atlanta's real battle appears to be with the flagging NFC North middle powers.
NFC EAST
An absolute clusterfuck of a division. Really, I can't remember a division this muddled and yet relevant (unlike last years NFC West) in a long time. I absolutely could see literally any of these teams getting hot and making a deep playoff run, but I'll be damned if I know who. Dallas' top tier talent is of a very high quality, and their losses are to Detroit, New England and the Jets, all in games they absolutely could have won had a play or two gone differently. The Redskins were pacing this division with the best defense before the wheels fell off their offense completely this week. The Giants have been the toughest and guttiest team and in the best form, winning four of their last five despite a slew of injuries. Unfortunately, that loss was the biggest shock of the season, losing at home to Seattle of all teams, and the injury cloud still casts doubts. Philadelphia are probably twice as talented as any of these teams - they are also 2-4. Literally anyone's division to win.
This was almost the precise moment Washington imploded in Grossmanesque (ha!) fashion. Injuries also completely derailed their season. Philly has been as profound a dissapointment as the NFL has seen in some years, though both technically and actually, have played a little better since the 2-4 start, but the hope has faded entirely now. The Giants have not dealt well at all with the increase in degree of difficulty in their schedule. While the win over the Pats was nice, it also relied on a last second drive, and the Giants have not looked convincing in an entire game ever since this was written. They still have games at the Jets and Cowboys left and of course the Packers are looming next week. It's hard to see how they best 9-7. Even if they sweep the two remaining games with Dallas, the Cowboys could still win out over the rest of their schedule (at Arizona and Tampa, home to Philly) to render the point essentially moot. They are very real and sturdy favourites.
AFC WEST
As discussed below, a severe injury has changed the complexion of this division markedly, and San Diego are to football a bit like Mitt Romney is to Republicans; we're all just going to have to deal with them winning even if we don't think they are that great. One of the least interesting divisions in the NFL.
This is clearly now wrong, which you might think would have created some intrigue. That would be a mistake, it's just incredibly depressing.
AFC NORTH
It's fairly clear the baton has been passed from Pittsburgh to Baltimore, but the Steelers still have plenty of time and have not fallen in a hole. Cincinnati looms as the long shot wildcard hope in the AFC, but things get much tougher schedule wise from here. It's not likely they'll be relevant in another six weeks.
Pittsburgh have essentially been hanging in there all season, but little more. Baltimore have been frustrating, adding to a two score loss to the Titans in the first third with even more mindbending losses to the Seahawks and Jags, while Flacco plays like a backup QB for much of the time. Nevertheless, they have beaten Cincy, Pittsburgh (twice), the Jets, Niners and Houston, and have a cakewalk home. They should take this division holding the tiebreaker over the Steelers. Cincinnati are relevant, but only for a wildcard spot, and only just.
AFC SOUTH
Manning has obviously left a profound power vacuum at the top, which Houston were only too eager to fill. They have a nervous few weeks at least dealing with Tennessee, if they capitulate this time, the emotional effects and subsequent roster and coaching overhaul may take years to overcome.
Credit the Titans for stubbornly holding onto the coattails of the Texans, who are trying to hold on down the stretch with Tyler fucking Yates for God's sake. Houston have a slightly easier path home, as Tennessee has New Orleans still to come, but this could all come down to the last week showdown in Houston potentially. Indianapolis' first six weeks were dissapointing, but competitive. Since they have been outscored by a nearly 4:1 ratio and it might get worse, with New England, Baltimore and Houston all still to come. Yikes.
AFC EAST
The Bills have lost 2 of their last 3 and have not won on the road since Week One, beating up on the Chiefs. They now enter a period with road games at Dallas, Miami, the Jets and the Chargers, with home games against Washington, the Jets and the Titans. Not a gimme amongst them, and hard to see them keeping up with their atrocious D. The Jets have dealt with a horror early schedule and are expected to make their claim to a wildcard. The division looks, once again, to belong to the Patriots.
Those road games did...not go well. The Patriots looked distracted immediately following these comments, but have since kicked back into top gear. They hold two games and the tiebreaker over the Jets. They will win the AFC East and are chasing homefield through the playoffs. New York has been poor since a 2-0 start, but should they win their next two at Washington and against the Chiefs, they should be able to wrap up the final wildcard place.
Rankings!
1 - GREEN BAY (-)
11-0, 1st NFC NORTH
W 27-15 @DET, next @NYG
I actually thought this was the game the Packers would lose. Now, I honestly believe they will go 16-0.
2 - NEW ORLEANS (+1)
8-3, 1st NFC SOUTH
W 49-24 vNYG, next vDET
Something about Ron Jaworski's voice makes me wanna punch him in the face. I think it's the excessive earnestness and his tendency to use inflection at the end of nearly every sentence. It's like he's auditioning to be a radio DJ or something. This game was always likely to come down to whether New Orleans brilliant offensive line could block the Giants various assortment of pass rushers. The answer was a conclusive yes as the Giants got to Brees (24/38 for 363 yards and 4TDs) just four times for 1 sack.
3 - NEW ENGLAND (+1)
8-3, 1st AFC EAST
W 38-20 @PHI, next vIND
Brady (24/34 for a ludicrous 361 yards and 3TDs) is well and truly back to his best. He has thrown 8 TDs and no picks in his last three games with an exceptional 9.2 YPA, including a date against the Jets and Eagles, two good to great pass defenses. After a four game drought (by Patriots standards) where they did not clear 30 points in any game, New England have done so three times in a row, with 109 in total in their last three games. Watch out.
4 - BALTIMORE (+5)
8-3, T-1st AFC NORTH
W 16-6 vSF, next @CLE
This is a great pass rush. I have previously said the Jets ran the best blitz in the NFL, but it may be the Ravens, with only one natural pass rusher (Suggs) they rank 1st in the NFL in sacks (38). Against the Niners they racked up an amazing 9 of them, to go along with 21 total hits. San Francisco's offense is not good, but their offensive line is not bad, it's shocking that the Ravens should be able to dismantle them to that extent. It's unusual for defensive lineman to pick up sacks in the 3-4, but Ngata and Redding weren't just engaging blockers, they were knocking them over - they combined for 4.5 sacks between them. Back in the top five, with next week at Cleveland. Nothing can possibly go wrong, right? Let's try this again, shall we Baltimore?
5 - PITTSBURGH (-)
8-3, T-1st AFC NORTH
W 13-9 @KC, next vCIN
Offensive line looked as terrible as ever, although the stats (1 sack, three hits) don't show it. Kansas City took away the long ball from the Steelers, even on times that Roethlisburger (193 yards on 31 throws) did have time. If a good team does that to Pittsburgh, I'm not sure how they possibly win.
6 - ATLANTA (-)
7-4, 2nd NFC SOUTH
W 24-14 vMIN, next @HOU
Harry Douglas has had a great little run recently. He has 14 receptions for 229 yards the last three weeks. If he can become a genuine 3rd receiver, Atlanta's offense will only become more efficient. In fact, all of their targets have been on fire of late, White has 267 yards in the last two games and Gonzalez has 29 of his 50 catches in the last five. Atlanta have only lost to Green Bay and New Orleans in the last two months. I said a few weeks ago, the breaks are going the Falcons way, and it continues next week - are getting Houston at the right time.
7 - HOUSTON (-5)
8-3, 1st AFC SOUTH
W 20-13 @JAX, next vATL
I haven't commented on it much this year, but their defense really is so much better this year. Smarter and in particular, more energy (35 sacks this year, they are just flying around all over the place). I know energy is a bullshit weasel word much of the time, conveying nothing and a copout to actually make a claim, but with Houston, it really is true. The matchup against the Jacksonville "offense" (7 sacks and 19 hits) was just a joke. Houston's special teams ripped this game in half (a 53 yarder by Rackers, a punt landing inside the one, a kickoff return of 45 yards and punt returns of 42, 31, 23 and 16 yards) which was good, because the Texans had just about their worst running game of the season (2.8YPC) and now that Tyler Yates is the QB (8/15 for 70 yards)...I was prepared to go to war with Leinart but this is a bridge too far. Hard to take them seriously in the playoffs anymore, sadly.
8 - SAN FRANCISCO (-1)
9-2, 1st NFC WEST
L 6-16 @BAL, next vSTL
A strong defensive performance (Ray Rice was held to just 2.8YPC) was lost in an entirely overmatched offense. They had just 96 passing yards all game and Alex Smith was lucky to survive the onslaught of pass rushers. Some teams you talk about how they have so many ways to beat you, but San Fran seem the opposite - they have so many ways to lose a game. There's no way they can keep up or stop Rodgers, Brees or possibly Brady for example in a track meet. And now we know what happens if they take on an elite defensive team like Baltimore or Pittsburgh (upcoming). My concerns that they just can't beat the best teams has not been responded to. Their previous skins of Philly, Giants and the Lions do not look quite as impressive as they did two or three weeks ago.
9 - DALLAS (+2)
7-4, 1st NFC EAST
W 20-19 vMIA, next @ARI
Easy to point at Romo's interceptions, but they were excellent plays by Miami's corners. Romo (22/34 with 226 yards and a pair of TD)s also made so many throws while being hit it was ridiculous. He really is an exceptional, top five quarterback. He seems to have a genuine rapport with Laurent Robinson (7 catches for 79 yards and a TD), amazingly.
10 - JETS (+2)
6-5, 2nd AFC EAST
W 28-24 vBUF, next @WAS
Rich Gannon made one of the funniest comments about Mark Sanchez (17/35 for 180 yards, 4TDs and a pick). "I think he's the kind of guy that if you're running the ball well, making stops on defense, getting turnovers, giving him short fields, he can...function." So if literally every other aspect of your football team is performing at an exceptionally high level, Mark Sanchez won't completely torpedo your chances of winning, while at the same time providing you with the absolute minimum level of production to ensure your season doesn't end in disaster. I thought this was a little harsh. Anyone that hates Sanchez should be forced to have their eyelids cut off and watch every throw by Blaine Gabbert and Curtis Painter this season. Anyway, we're all stuck with the Jets now it would seem, in their Jerseyesque obnoxiousness...I can just imagine "The Situation" asking "what, you want the fucking Bengals in the playoffs?".
11 - DETROIT (-1)
7-4, T-2nd NFC NORTH
L 15-27 vGB, next @NO
Joe Buck lives for moments like Suh's American History X re-enactment to unleash the full scale of his self righteousness. But the issue was the first half inability to take their chances. The Lions had 218 yards of offense in the first half, 9 first downs (vs 4 from the Packers, 2 by penalty), and no points. That can't happen against Rodgers and company. It's probably fair to say the Lions are thankful for Caleb Hanie.
12 - CHICAGO (-4)
7-4, T-2nd NFC NORTH
L 20-25 @OAK, next vKC
Hanie's first interception was simply unforgivable. He had great protection in the pocket, never seemed particulary interested in running it, and just went outside the pocket where his offensive linemen couldn't help him. He was obviously pursued, and as he approached the sideline, seemed to want to throw it away and instead picked out a pretty fucking conspicuous black shirt somehow. His day (18/36 for 254 yards with three picks and a failed spike - fucking seriously - to end the game) was not to improve.
13 - GIANTS (-)
6-5, 2nd NFC EAST
L 24-49 @NO, next vGB
Both defenses were pretty awful here (1042 yards and ten touchdowns in all), but Norlans is less reliant on theirs. New York don't tackle or cover well. They don't run well. They have too many holes to be particulary scary, even if their strengths (Manning and the pass rush) are pronounced and in important areas. For example, the Packers, who surely the NFC goes through, have exactly the same kind of team, except their quarterback is better (much better, as good as Manning has been) and their pass rush is comperable. For a big man, Brandon Jacobs (46 yards on 13 carries) just goes down too easy. There was one run where he was in the open field against I think Roman Harper, who lowered the shoulder and took him down no problem. Is really a disgrace that a defensive back can take a man this size down one on one. They talk about the toughest pound for pound, Jacobs is among the softest, pound for pound.
14 - CINCINNATI (-)
7-4, 3rd AFC NORTH
W 23-20 vCLE, next @PIT
No team that has allusions to the playoffs should ever, under any circumstances, trail the Cleveland Browns by 10 points. A.J.Green (110 yards on 3 catches) just gets better and better, but a running team needs more than Cedric Benson back there. Their supposedly superb (ranked 1 in the league coming into this game) run defense gave up 134 yards on 4.5 a carry in this game.
15 - TENNESSEE (+3)
6-5, 2nd AFC SOUTH
W 23-17 vTB, next @BUF
Won turnoverpalooza 2011 (9 in all) on the strength largely of smoke and mirrors. The focus, is, of course, going to be on Johnson's "resurgance" (190 yards on 23 carries in this game) but it does make you realise how Barry Sandersesque he is. It's either -3 or 11 yards on each run. If you're gonna be like that you really have to be finishing with TDs, and Johnson couldn't even when he is hot. They need a better back than Ringer to pair with him in order to do...you know...running back stuff. Tennessee have bounced between 15 and 19 in these rankings since Week Five.
16 - TAMPA BAY (-1)
4-7, 3rd NFC SOUTH
L 17-23 @TEN, next vCAR
LaGarette Blount might have had the best game of a running back this year (103 yards on 20 carries but looked so, so much better). I like him an awful lot, in fact I have for a little while, I was just unsure whether I could trust him. I'm rapidly reaching that point. He has all the physical attributes (this stuff happens with alarming regularity), huge but athletic, moves piles and a better ball catcher than you think (3 catches for 56 yards). This is who Brandon Jacobs should have been. Tampa have played well without luck for much of the season, and this was another example. Their defense in particular was better than the numbers (Tennessee had 352 yards) make out - Tampa had a lot more positive plays than Tennessee, but a 3rd and 17 conversion, a few Chris Johnson runs, turnovers (5) and a kickoff returned for a TD killed them.
17 - OAKLAND (+2)
7-4, 1st AFC WEST
W 25-20 vCHI, next @MIA
Can you complete three passes a game of over 20 yards without throwing multiple picks? Congratulations! You are AFC West champs.
18 - DENVER (+2)
6-5, 2nd AFC WEST
W 16-13 (OT) @SD, next @MIN
Ah, a game where both teams are terrified to pass (until the final play of the first quarter, the two teams were 1/8 for 5 yards combined). The NFL at it's finest. Of course, Denver had reason to because their quarterback is universally acknowledged as an incompetant NFL quarterback, and San Diego were scared to death of the Denver pass rush (*whispering* and just quietly, Rivers might also be an incompetant NFL quarterback). I have a lot of respect for McGahee, who had 117 yards on 23 carries (5.1YPC) is essentially running into ten guys with the way Tebow leaves his running backs out to dry with his inept passing - Tebow completed his first pass with 3:56 left in the first half, a deep bomb to a streaking Eddie Royal for a TD. Nah, I'm fuckin' with you, it was a bubble screen for eight yards, of course. Their biggest gainer of the first half was thanks to San Diego causing a fumble they recovered. It honestly seems Denver nevercall pass, like when they do pass it's a kind of broken play or improvisation, like when Rodgers runs. It's absolutely hilarious. I heard the comment; "Tim Tebow brings a linebackers mentally" - and skill set apparently. By the way, I never heard "Donovan McNabb just wins games" or "Michael Vick just wins games"...and they could fucking throw...not to go all Jemele Hill on you. The media coverage of Tebow makes David Eckstein look like Jerry Sandusky in comparison.
19 - MIAMI (-3)
3-8, 4th AFC EAST
L 19-20 @DAL, next vOAK
You have a good defense, it's a 3-3 game, 3rd and infinity with a minute left and Dallas had one timeout in the first half - run the football. You have a good defense. I know a botched snap is impossible to predict, but it could have been an interception or sack/fumble. Just play safe, don't be a hero. Phil Simms was trying to will Reggie Bush (3.8YPC on 16 carries) to be an every down back when there's just no evidence to suggest he can carry defenders at all, it's ludicrous to suggest he'll "learn" this skill after five years. God I hate announcers. Brandon Marshall (5 catches for 103 yards and a score) made some exceptional catches. Sometimes we forget just how exceptional he is - Calvin Johnson like. Some TD grabs are overrated, this is not one, it was with Newman all over him. A great grab. He has the ability to dominate games.
20 - SEATTLE (-3)
4-7, T-2nd NFC WEST
L 17-23 vWAS, next vPHI
It's a credit to Seattle that it took until Week Twelve before they had what could be termed a "bad loss". Tavaris Jackson (14/30 for 144 yards, albeit with 2 TDs and 1 INT) must be better. The offensive line tamed a strong pass rush to the tune of just 2 sacks and six total hits, but Jackson could get nothing downfield. His longest pass all game was 24 yards.
21 - CAROLINA (+4)
3-8, 4th NFC SOUTH
W 27-19 @IND, next @TB
Very quietly, Jonathan Stewart is overtaking d'Angelo Williams as the Panthers best running back. Both have 280 yards in their last six games, but Stewart has them at 5 yards a carry while Williams is at 4.5. Williams has only three games over 4.6YPC all season. Stewart has six such games this year.
22 - BUFFALO (+1)
5-6, 3rd AFC EAST
L 24-28 @NYJ, next vTEN
Buffalo are not good. Buffalo without Fred Jackson, Kyle Williams, Demetrius Bell and Terrence McGee are really not good. Have not beaten a team other than Philly and Washington (combined 8-14) since the win over the Pats in September. Carolina and Buffalo's rise is a necessary byproduct of the spectacular crashes of San Diego and Philadelphia.
23 - PHILADELPHIA (-1)
4-7, T-3rd NFC EAST
L 20-38 vNE, next @SEA
Clearly expected Brady's normal methodical approach and cheated up, and as a result got burnt repeatedly deep. Still cannot cover tight ends, unsurprisingly, Gronkowski and Hernandez combined for 121 yards on ten catches. You wouldn't know this was the same defensive group as last week as they made it to Brady just three times. After forcing a punt on the Pats first drive, New England scored all 38 points on their next eight - including only one punt and a missed field goal.
24 - MINNESOTA (+2)
2-9, 4th NFC NORTH
L 14-24 @ATL, next vDEN
Really, to lose by only ten in Atlanta, rushing for 2.7 yards a carry is something of an achievement. Good for Ponder (17/25 for 186 yards and a TD for a 103.1 rating).
25 - SAN DIEGO (-4)
4-7, T-3rd AFC WEST
L 13-16 (OT) vDEN, next @JAX
On Tebow's first run, not only did no one pick him up on the option, but every single pass rusher was pancaked. I mean, the Chargers have never been a tough or physical team but that's ridiculous. Anyway, Antonio Gates - people still talk about him like he's a great player, but he's constantly injured and only really seems to be useful in the redzone, and even then way less than in his 20s. I'm not sure he's even in the top ten tight ends in the game today. I think the myth of Antonio Gates is a better player than actual Antonio Gates. He is on pace this season for 752 yards (if he plays every game) and 6 touchdowns (again, if he plays every game - his lowest total since his rookie year). The days of him getting 950 yards a season and 9 scores are well and truly over.
26 - CLEVELAND (+2)
4-7, 4th AFC NORTH
L 20-23 @CIN, next vBAL
Heard people falling into the bad team, good pass defense trap this week with the Browns - don't buy it. Cleveland rank first this year in yards per game (174.7), but are seventh in yards per attempt (6.6), 20th in sacks (25) and allow a QB rating of 80.3, good for 11th. They also have a pathetic six picks on the entire season.
27 - WASHINGTON (+2)
4-7, T-3rd NFC EAST
W 23-17 @SEA, next vNYJ
Rex Grossman threw for a 154.2 passer rating in the fourth quarter and actually saved his team from the jaws of defeat instead of the other way around.
28 - JACKSONVILLE (-4)
3-8, 3rd AFC SOUTH
L 13-20 vHOU, next vSD
If this blog is discovered by people thousands of years in the future who want to know what the Jacksonville Jaguars 2011 season was like, just imagine the play beginning at 1:10 of this video on repeat forever.
29 - ARIZONA (-2)
4-7, T-2nd NFC WEST
W 23-20 @STL, next vDAL
People not named Sam Acho hit Sam Bradford once in this game. This team might have only won one game without Patrick Peterson. He has 558 punt return yards and 134 more than second placed Jacoby Jones and 187 more than third place Ben Tate. He has four, count em four TDs.
30 - KANSAS CITY (+1)
4-7, T-3rd AFC WEST
L 9-13 vPIT, next @CHI
Tyler Palko has thrown six interceptions and no touchdowns in 65 throws in his starts.
31 - ST. LOUIS (-1)
2-9, 4th NFC WEST
L 20-23 vARI, next @SF
St. Louis are allowing 159.0 yards per game rushing this year. They haven't even played many great running backs, only McCoy and Rice would be in anyone's top ten running backs as backs they have played. Just awful.
32 - INDIANAPOLIS (-)
0-11, 4th AFC SOUTH
L 19-27 vCAR, next @NE
Indianapolis have not led a football game for 365 minutes and 15 seconds.