2 comments All Alex Smith Does is Win Games According to Clark Judge

I'm sure most people heard Alex Smith's comments about winning football games, along with Smith's comparison to Cam Newton and his 2011 statistics versus Carolina's wins. Really it is a non-story, but this is the NFL offseason so a big deal will be made about it by me and others. Some people have written that the numbers don't support Smith's view of when Newton threw for his yardage and others semi-suggested Smith's 2011 numbers were a mirage compared to the rest of his career. As nice of a guy as Smith seems to be, his analysis was wrong and he isn't the most shining example of a quarterback who has won plenty of NFL games. Maybe no one should expect Alex Smith to have done research and made his comments with a fully knowledgeable point of view about when Newton accumulated his statistics for the 2011 season. Smith has had a tough offseason, what with the 49ers openly trying to replace him and all, so he was just defending his six year record by using the one year he actually posted a winning record as a starting quarterback as proof he just wins games.

(For the record, I don't give two shits what Smith thinks about Cam Newton. I do think it is hilarious a quarterback who has had one winning season out of six seasons starts talking about how wins are the only thing that count in judging a quarterback.)

Clark Judge wants us all to know this isn't a fantasy league, so statistics don't matter, but only wins matter. All Clark cares about is wins...and Backup QB Jets is a great example of a guy who just wins games.

We all know an excellent quarterback is the best way to have an excellent team. I thought I'd play a little game and see what the team record of the Top 10 passers (in terms of passing yards) was for 2011. I am only doing this for the 2011 season, but hopefully this will show us all that wins are fantastic, but quarterbacks who rack up passing yards were generally on more successful teams during the 2011 season. It will show that truly great quarterbacks manage to rack up passing yards AND win games.

Top 10 quarterbacks in passing

1. Drew Brees: 13-3
2. Tom Brady: 13-3
3. Matthew Stafford: 10-6
4. Eli Manning: 9-7
5. Aaron Rodgers: 15-1
6. Phillip Rivers: 8-8
7. Tony Romo: 8-8
8. Matt Ryan: 10-6
9. Ben Roethlisberger: 12-4
10. Cam Newton: 6-10

As you can see, Newton is the only quarterback in the Top 10 of the NFL in passing yards whose team had a losing record. So it has been proven previously (by others) that Cam Newton didn't throw for more passing yards in "garbage time," but we can also see the leaders in the NFL passing yards mostly played for teams with winning records...so they probably didn't accumulate these yards while trying to catch up in "garbage time" at the end of games either. So there probably is some correlation between a quarterback who can throw for 300 yards and his team's record.

Let's see what Clark Judge has to say...

San Francisco's Alex Smith says he doesn't care about yards per game, which, I guess, means he doesn't care about stats, period. Well, good for him. That's easy to say when you don't have them. Except there's one thing we're forgetting here.

There seems to be a strong correlation between a quarterback's statistics and the success of his team?

And it's that Alex Smith is right. He shouldn't care about stats, nor should other quarterbacks.

The only statistic a quarterback should care about is "wins." That's all that matters. Did that quarterback win games or not. Who cares what his statistics are? Amirightorwhat?

Of course quarterbacks SHOULD worry about their stats, specifically if you are the quarterback of a team and the stats show that you are indeed the weak link in the team (paging Mark Sanchez). So it's all well and good to not care about statistics, but statistics are fairly effective at measuring how competent a quarterback's performance. Yes, statistics can be misleading. Sacks aren't the sole best measure of a pass rusher's ability, just like passing yards aren't the sole best measure of a quarterback's ability, but over a 16 game NFL season if Drew Brees throws for 5000 yards I can assume he's a pretty damn good quarterback.

It might be the era of the 5,000-yard passer or the 400-yard game, but he doesn't give a rip, and let's hear it for Alex Smith.

Good job Alex Smith. You don't care about your statistics. Let's see if your teammates care about your statistics when your performance dips down to pre-2011 levels and the 49ers start losing games 14-10.

Smith told 49ers Rapid Reporter Kyle Bonagura. "I think that is a totally overblown stat because if you're losing games in the second half, guess what, you're like the Carolina Panthers and you're going no-huddle the entire second half. Yeah, Cam Newton threw for a lot of 300-yard games.

"That's great. You're not winning, though."

Actually, quarterbacks who had a lot of 300-yard games did win games last year. Cam Newton was the outlier which proved the point that quarterbacks who threw for 300-yards in a game during the 2011 season played for teams which had winning records. The 2011 team records for the Top 10 quarterbacks in passing yards reflect this.

It might be the era of the 5,000-yard passer or the 400-yard game, but he doesn't give a rip, and let's hear it for Alex Smith.

This exact sentence has been written twice. I'm not sure if this was done for emphasis or is just a mistake on the part of Clark Judge. Actually, it doesn't matter if Clark Judge wrote this column with some amount of skill or not. The question is did Clark Judge win this column? That's all that matters.

Newton is an extraordinary talent who passed and threw for a gazillion yards, had 35 touchdowns rushing and passing and was named the league's Offensive Rookie of the Year. In short, he was every bit "the icon" he said he wanted to be.

But he was also 6-10.

The Carolina Panthers were 6-10.

I'm not saying that record is his fault.

No, but you are ignoring his statistics and simply judging Newton based on his team's win-loss record. This isn't blaming him for the Panthers record, but it also isn't looking at Newton's performance independent of the Panthers performance as a team. You aren't blaming Newton for the Panthers being 6-10, but just like you are giving credit to Alex Smith for the San Francisco 49ers going 13-3, you are not giving Newton much credit based on his team being 6-10. You are using a team statistic to determine how much individual credit a player should get for this team statistic, while not using individual statistics at all to measure that player's performance at quarterback.

But I am saying that I care more about that won-loss record than I do how many 300- or 400-yard games the guy produced.

And everyone else cares about the win-loss record as well. That's the name of the game. To say, "QB X threw for 300 yards and his team lost a lot of games" as a reason why passing yards are overrated or don't really matter is boiling a team's victory or defeat down to one variable and ignoring the other dozen variables that determine whether a team wins or loses. I hope you see the stupidity in this. I'm not sure anyone is saying throwing for more yards is more important than winning football games, but Alex Smith isn't correct in saying Newton's passing yards don't really matter because his team was 6-10. Those passing yards are one of the variables that do matter when comparing Newton to other quarterbacks in the NFL.

I guess what confuses me is if Alex Smith thinks Drew Brees, Matthew Stafford and Aaron Rodgers accumulated most of their passing yards in the second half when their respective team was trying to catch up? Most likely he doesn't believe this because these quarterbacks led teams who had winning records. Isn't it possible Newton didn't accumulate those yards in blowout games too, it is just his team didn't have a winning record for reasons that didn't deal with Cam Newton? Maybe I'm thinking about this more than Alex Smith did.

Now, before we go further, let's make something clear: That's not a knock on Newton. It's a knock on fantasy-football numbers.

Except for the fact most quarterbacks who put up fantasy-football numbers played for a team with a good record last year. So knock the numbers all you want, but in 2011 it led to regular season success.

Because, ultimately, the measure of a quarterback is success. If you can't win, nothing else matters.

You are arguing a point that isn't even in contention. Most everyone thinks a quarterback is ultimately judged in one way or another by his success. He is also judged by his personal performance in his team's success though. So Alex Smith isn't right to say "Quarterback X threw for more yards than me because his team was behind most of the game," while indicating stats like passing yards are for losers. He can't do this because more goes into a team's success than passing yards. Alex Smith is a perfect example of this. You can't boil a team's success down to just one variable.

Case in point: I was at a New England-Philadelphia game last year when Vince Young threw for 400 yards in a 38-20 defeat that caused some people to think about reassessing Young.

Except he stunk.

"To prove my point I'm going to bring up this one time a quarterback really was behind for most of the game and then use that as credible evidence how passing yards are overrated in all cases."

Just as a note, Tom Brady was 24-34 for 361 yards in this game and his team won. See how Brady had a 70% completion percentage and 361 yards and this was a really good performance compared to Vince Young's 26-48 400 yard performance? Tom Brady only threw for 39 less yards than Young and his team won the game. How did that happen? Most intelligent people know you can't simply judge a quarterback based on one statistic.

You heard me. He missed open receivers. He couldn't convert critical downs. And he was as culpable as an inept DeSean Jackson or a porous Eagles pass defense for blowing an early 10-0 lead.

Only the numbers didn't reflect it.

That takes me back to my favorite subject, which is Tim Tebow and the 2011 Denver Broncos.

Speaking of "missing open receivers" and being inept at the quarterback position, let's do talk about Backup QB Jets. I'd love to hear how Vince Young's 400 yard 54% completion percentage was a terrible showing yet a 200 yard 50% completion percentage is "just winning games."

What I don't understand is how you can ignore the facts, and the facts are these -- the Broncos were 8-5 with him at quarterback and beat the defending conference champion in the playoffs.

Good coaching. A certain amount of luck. Quality quarterback play when it counted, but otherwise was pretty mediocre. A Broncos defense that stepped up and played well. These are facts as well.

What else are facts is the fact Backup QB Jets threw for a low completion percentage and regularly missed open receivers, which is something Clark Judge was just criticizing Vince Young for doing. The difference is the Eagles were 1-2 with Young at quarterback and the Broncos were 8-5 with Backup QB Jets as quarterback.

At the very least, Alex Smith had zero room to talk about himself as a winner since the 49ers are 32-34 in Smith's career when he is a starter. If we were so cruel as to take away last year, he has a 19-31 record as a starter. Statistics and passing yards are for losers and Alex Smith isn't a winning quarterback anyway. So at the very least he should shut up and not call out other quarterbacks who have more passing yards than him, but fewer team wins, and then state football is really about winning games. Alex Smith doesn't have the passing yards and he traditionally hasn't won football games either until last year.

More specifically, they beat the Pittsburgh Frickin' Steelers, the league's No. 1-ranked defense and the league's No. 1-ranked pass defense, and they beat them with Tebow launching an 80-yard touchdown pass on the first play of overtime.

It was a 10-yard freaking slant. Backup QB Jets did not "launch" this touchdown pass. He threw an accurate slant pass to a receiver who managed to outrun all Steelers defenders. He in no way launched this pass and the very wording that Clark Judge uses to describe this pass tells me he isn't afraid to exaggerate in an effort to prove his point. The fact I know Clark Judge is willing to exaggerate to prove a point causes me to question whether he is allowing his emotions about this discussion trump reason.

I don't care that he didn't complete 50 percent of his passes that day. I don't care that he threw for a career-high 316 yards, either. I just care that he won.

It is about winning...but the very next week Backup QB Jets lost to the Patriots. Tom Brady put up 363 yards, most of which came in the first half, and the Broncos lost by 35 points. Those passing yards are for losers though, so I'm sure they really don't matter. The fact Tebow completed 9 passes for 136 yards probably had nothing to do with the Broncos loss.

Now let's move on to Alex Smith. In 2011, he produced the best season of his career, yet some persons complain because he's not Joe Montana or Steve Young. Well, sorry; he's not. But he was 13-3 last year, and, sure, a lot of that had to do with a terrific 49ers defense,

I was cheering for Alex Smith to play well last year because I thought he got a bad rap in San Francisco. That was the past. Now I see he takes one year of success and turns into a member of the "it's all about winning games so don't pay attention to my statistics" club and I find him to slightly be a little bit whiny.

Smith played well last year, but even Clark Judge has to admit the 49ers defense was the major reason they won games. Smith just didn't need to make mistakes and come through when the time came. He was able to do both of these things. Credit goes to him for that.

He threw a career-low five interceptions and played with a poise, a confidence and a strength that stats can't measure.

Some of the historical data I showed earlier in this post suggests Smith won't pull this low interception rate off again this season.

Brady doesn't have the talent of some of his contemporaries. But he does have an insatiable drive to succeed that has taken him to five Super Bowls. Brady knows how to win, and it's that quality -- not his arm strength or his speed -- that makes him special.

Of course Brady also throws for a tremendous amount of passing yards. This is naturally something Clark Judge will stay away from mentioning since any acknowledgement of a quarterback who wins games AND throws for a ton of yards is off-limits during this current discussion. Clark Judge prefers to make it seem like a team has to choose between a quarterback who wins games or a quarterback who throws for a lot of yardage. To point out a quarterback could indeed do both would make a person question why Alex Smith can't do both.

I was reminded when Robert Griffin III ripped off a 4.35 40 at the NFL combine. Griffin's time created a buzz and was perceived as another signal of how astounding he is and will be at the next level. And maybe he will. But keep this in mind: When Brady ran a 40 at the 2000 combine, he checked in at a leisurely 5.28.

Then look what happened.

Robert Griffin won a lot of games at Baylor. So he was a winner! Why doesn't Clark Judge seem to like Griffin?

I guess that's why I welcome what Alex Smith had to say about numbers and winning.

Alex Smith had no deep thoughts about numbers and winning. He merely picked the only NFL quarterback in the Top 10 in passing yards whose team had a losing record and used him as an example of why passing yards mean nothing, while ignoring the other nine quarterbacks who made up the Top 10 in passing yards whose teams were all 8-8 or better.

All I know is Newton gained a lot more attention last season than Andy Dalton, yet all Dalton did was lead lowly Cincinnati to the playoffs.

And he did it playing 10 top-10 defenses.

It's because Newton had more spectacular highlights than Dalton, generally played at a higher level, was the #1 overall pick in the draft and Newton has more endorsement deals than Dalton. I'm not saying it is right, but I think it was generally recognized the Bengals had a better team than the Panthers did. Dalton played great last year and deserves some more recognition.

Dalton played eleven (including the playoffs) Top 10 defenses last year (actually he played 10 games against Top-10 defenses...there is a difference in the wording used. I think Clark Judge's wording indicates 10 games against 10 different Top 10 teams when this isn't the case) and went 4-7 against these teams.

Alex Smith won a lot of games last year. That matters.

Yes, it does matter. Still the 49ers tried to replace him with Peyton Manning and then signed Josh Johnson. It may mean nothing, but Alex Smith didn't win a lot of games prior to last year.

He didn't throw for a lot of yards. That doesn't.

It doesn't matter unless Alex Smith's team doesn't have a great defense and doesn't need him to score 28 points per game. I would say throwing for a lot of yards helped quite a few other teams win games during 2011.

What's so hard to understand?

That's what I'm asking you. Why do you insist on ignoring the fact nine out of ten quarterbacks with the most passing yards in the NFL played for teams who had a record of 8-8 or better? Passing yards aren't the end-all-be-all to determine a quarterback's ability, but using a team statistic like "wins" to determine how a quarterback performed during the season isn't an effective way to measure a quarterback's ability either.

7 comments J.S.' NFL Power Rankings: Week Fourteen

Hey, have you guys heard of this dude?

1 - GREEN BAY (-)
13-0, 1st NFC NORTH
W 46-16 vOAK, next @KC

Wow. Just wow. If I could put them higher than 1, I would.

2 - NEW ORLEANS (-)
10-3, 1st NFC SOUTH
W 22-17 @TEN, next @MIN

Two teams who are not particulary known for their ill discipline, gave up 15 penalties combined in the first half of this game. Easy to criticise when it doesn't work, but I felt New Orleans fell into a trap they do occasionally, which is overpassing. I know, I know, they have Drew Brees back there, but I like to see their parade of backs take advantage of Nicks and Evans' dominance in the middle. Brees threw twenty seven times in the first half (rushed just eleven), and even for him, that's just far, far too many (New Orleans called pass 50 times to 25 rushes). Especially against a bad run defense. It may have contributed to some frustration in the red zone in this game, New Orleans were 0-3 in the red zone and didn't score a TD until the final quarter. They threw eight out of nine plays in the red zone for four completions, seven yards and a sack. Sean Payton isn't bad, but stuff like this makes you wonder about the whole "master playcaller" schtick.

3 - BALTIMORE (+1)
10-3, T-1st AFC NORTH
W 24-10 vIND, next @SD

Can't put up with that New England defense anymore, and Baltimore seem to have put their "losing to mediocre teams" problem behind them, recording solid, if unspectacular 24-10 wins in their last two games against the Browns and the Colts.

4 - NEW ENGLAND (-1)
10-3, 1st AFC EAST
W 34-27 @WAS, next @DEN

I watched only the last six minutes of this game, and there was a priceless shot of Tom Brady. As Washington was gleefully killing more and more clock and handing it off to Evan Royster and Roy Helu, anticipating another easy touchdown and tie game (at 34, a score Washington hasn't reached all year, they hadn't even reached 27 since Week One), Brady was throwing on the sideline. There he was, preparing for a game winning drive that should not be necessary, and his eyes were absolutely filled with hate and disgust. This New England "defense" is getting to him. Still - 10 and 3 and you never doubted that even if Washington tied it up, Brady would indeed get the necessary field goal. Ron Gronkowski set a record for a tight end (in only 13 games!) with his 15th TD.

5 - HOUSTON (+1)
10-3, 1st AFC SOUTH
W 20-19 @CIN, next vCAR

Yates threw an awful pick, but really has not been a trainwreck over his two games and even led two game winning drives, and this one was really special. Houston put together back to back 83 and 80 yard drives in the fourth quarter, running a ridiculous 26 plays. He's not going to be Schaub, but he's proven he won't destroy Houston's season, and they are so good at so many other things, I'm back driving the empty bandwagon on their Superbowl chances. Their linebackers were tremendous again here, especially Barwin and Reed (who had a sack fumble). I lost count of how many tackles for loss they had (7, if you want to be a dick about it). Owen Daniels also did a great job (countless first down catches, and 7 in total for 100 yards) with Johnson absent.

6 - PITTSBURGH (-1)
10-3, T-1st AFC NORTH
W 14-3 vCLE, next @SF

Antonio Brown, man. Antionio Brown. Also, is Isaac Redman a better running back than Rashard Mendenhall? I always seem to see Redman doing a better job. Mendenhall has rushed for 3.9 YPC last year, and 3.8 this year. Redman has 4.8 and 4.2 respectively. I know it's easier being a change of pace guy, but in the last four games, here are Mendenhall's YPCs - 2.8, 3.4, 3.8, 4.2. Here are Redman's - 3.6, 7.3, 6.4, 5.8. Still, with Roethlisberger's injury, Pittsburgh's season, once again, is on wobbly ground.

7 - JETS (+2)
8-5, 2nd AFC EAST
W 37-10 vKC, next @PHI

Killed the Chiefs and really needed to. Even against Kansas City this was a welcome performance, the likes of which they had not put together since Week Two against the Jaguars. Still don't think they bring enough to the table offensively, though Sanchez, with seven TDs and just one pick in his last three games, at least makes me pay attention. With Cincinnati still having a game against Baltimore, a win against the Eagles would go a long way to practically clinching a playoff spot.

8 - SAN FRANCISCO (-1)
10-3, 1st NFC WEST
L 19-21 @ARI, next vPIT

This is not the momentum you want to generate going into a game against the Steelers. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Niners record and an Alex Smith (who had 4.7 YPA here by the way) led playoff push. But this is a team that apparently should be indestructable with a twelve point second half lead, especially against John fucking Skelton (282 yards on 28 throws). As much as everyone is excited by NaVarro Bowman, Justin and Aldon Smith, this is further proof (as though any was required) that Patrick Willis makes this team go.

9 - ATLANTA (-1)
8-5, 2nd NFC SOUTH
W 31-23 @CAR, next vJAX

Constantly pushing their luck this year. Had 97 yards in the first half with four three and outs. Atlanta only ever seem to show up for a half of football. They haven't won consecutive halves in their last five games. Don't look true contenders anymore to be honest, considering they have dealt with a reasonably soft schedule lately.

10 - GIANTS (-)
7-6, T-1st NFC EAST
W 37-34 @DAL, next vWAS

Manning has been great deep this year (as Al Michaels helpfully mentioned, he has 33 completions of over 20 yards, the most in the NFL). My concern with the Giants is that no team is more reliant on the passing game - both in offense and defense (where they concede 4.7YPC, good for 27th in the NFL), than the Giants. It was yet another game getting ripped apart on the ground, even with Murray being injured (Felix Jones had 106 yards on just 16 carries) and although Jacobs was shockingly good here (101 on 19 with 2 scores), it's still a problem more generally (3.3YPC, only Cleveland with 3.5YPC are even close to as bad). Big win, obviously, but the red zone ineffectiveness (and conversely, the ease their opponents have scoring there) and the rushing problems all are a cause for concern. And to be honest, the Jets, who are on their remaining schedule, are a terrible matchup for them with thier excellent pass defense and insistence (if nothing else) on running the ball.

11 - DALLAS (-)
7-6, T-1st NFC EAST
L 34-37 vNYG, next @TB

Got carried away with the blitz as the game wore on, which led, for instance to a 20 and then 47 yard TD completion, back to back. And again haunted them on the first play of the Giants game winning drive. This was an entertaining game, with eight lead changes, but very costly for the Cowboys, who failed to hold serve against the Giants in Dallas. Both of these teams are heavily flawed, Dallas in terms of depth and in pass protection (8 sacks the last two weeks, Romo was under constant pressure in this game, including a safety) and the Giants with their rushing problems. But much like this game, it should be an entertaining dogfight for the division these last three weeks, culminating in a likely winner takes all contest in Week Seventeen (which should prove that week's best).

12 - DETROIT (-)
8-5, 2nd NFC NORTH
w 34-28 vMIN, next @OAK

Meet the NFL's most manic team. Detroit scored 21 straight points here before surrendered 28 of the next 34. Put this with the Carolina game where the Panthers scored 24 of the first 31 before the Lions thundered back, the Dallas contest where they came back to win after being down 27 by scoring the last 31 points and their last tussle with the Vikings where they scored 26 of the final 23 points to win by three. They were walloped by 24 against the Bears as well. It's just another testament to their youth and ill discipline (particulary considering the controversial non-facemask call), but with Chicago's crushing defeat and Suh's return next week, the Lions should be ok from here, particular if the Pack rest their starters in Week 17.

13 - TENNESSEE (-)
7-6, 2nd AFC SOUTH
L 17-22 vNO, next @IND

So, for all the "Chris Johnson is back!" talk, the Titans had four yards rushing in the first half - four. And that was against possibly the worst run defense in the NFL, with a rookie QB back there. In fact, quality QB play has been what has saved Tennessee's season (12th in the league with an 84.5 rating). Hasselbeck (82.9) has been between slightly below average to outstanding in various games all year, and when you compare him to say, McNabb, his peer, he has been an unreserved success. The transfer to Locker (96.6) has also gone well, as the rookie has had some very impressive moments (including a ludicrously athletic rushing TD in this game) in his sparodic chances. This has all happened without any real receiving threat for the majority of the season since Kenny Britt was injured. I hate to agree with Aikman and especially Buck, but third and one, 3 minutes left in the game, all your timeouts against the Saints, on their 20, run the football. If anything you want to burn time off the clock so Brees has no chance to steal the game, and if you run twice on 3rd and one, you'll get the first down. Instead they threw (and threw deep too), failed on 4th and 1, and (despite an equally retarded third down throw by the Saints on the subsequent drive) that was that in the AFC South.

14 - DENVER (-)
8-5, 1st AFC WEST
W 13-10 (OT) vCHI

A contest I was very intrigued by, as Chicago are both one of the best pass defenses in the NFL, with a tremendously athletic defensive line (Henry Melton is fucking great, the Bears had five sacks, nine hits) and a team that forces turnovers. They are also arguably the smartest defensive team in the NFL, who will stick to their assignments. Chicago did get him once (and a sack fumble later on when he held it for way too long behind a lionhearted offensive line), but it was after 103 straight throws by Tebow without a pick over the last six weeks, and whatever else, you have to say - he hasn't been turning the ball over, and that does have genuine value. Still, this is what happens to football when you don't have NFL quality quarterbacks, it becomes an unrecognisable game. But I just cannot keep fighting against the tidal wave of everyone saying how great Tebow is - he's not, but I am just too tired to keep saying it. If Denver beats New England, I think I might just kill myself as opposed to addressing the matter in these rankings.

15 - SEATTLE (+4)
6-7, T-2nd NFC WEST
W 30-13 vSTL, next @CHI

Been a good year for the 'Hawks. Beat Baltimore, the Giants, resurrected Marshawn Lynch (115 yards on 23 carries and more than 100 yards rushing in five of Seattle's last six), and scored more than 20 points on their last five consecutive games. Good job Pete Carroll.

16 - SAN DIEGO (+4)
6-7, 3rd AFC WEST
W 37-10 vBUF, next vBAL

While they are not the same unit without Marcus McNeill (neck injury will keep him out for the season), this offensive line is coming together as a pass blocking unit. The Chargers are definitely a team at their best throwing the ball regulary, and Rivers (46/61 for 534 yards, six TDs and no picks against the Bills and Jags) may finally be looking like himself the last two games. It's all almost certainly too late, but for what it's worth, and even with all the dissapointment, they have looked like the best team in the AFC West this year, McNeill, one of the very best left tackles in the league, might have made a very real difference.

17 - CINCINNATI (-1)
7-6, 3rd AFC NORTH
L 19-20 vHOU, next @STL

A.J. Green (5 catches for 59 yards) is really good, and should be scary in a couple of years - he's making Dalton look much better than he is. He conclusively won the battle against Jonathan Joseph (drawing a thirty odd yard pass interference call and another 36 yard grab) - one of the best defensive players in the league this year, and may be the second best corner in football. This, however, was likely a crushing end of the line for the Bengals (who still have Baltimore to play) with the Jets comprehensive victory over the Chiefs.

18 - ARIZONA (+5)
6-7, T-2nd NFC WEST
W 21-19 vSF, next vCLE

Have put the NFC Wild Card contenders to shame over the past six games. Arizona is 5-1. Detroit is 3-3, Chicago is 3-3 and even the Falcons are 4-2. This was the most extraordinary win of all, down 12 in the second half to a 10-2 team, getting very little from Peterson's punt returns (though he had a sack and five tackles), their best form of offense, with Kolb injured, being -3 in turnovers and Beanie Wells rushing for 1.8YPC. That John Skelton, he may talk about God a lot and not have great numbers, but he just wins - right media? Seriously, he's 4-1, two overtime victories, with three fourth quarter comebacks - IT'S THE SAME EXACT STORY!

19 - CHICAGO (-2)
7-6, 3rd NFC NORTH
L 10-13 (OT) @DEN, next vSEA

With Lovie Smith without the services of both Cutler and Forte, and John Fox being John Fox, neither team seemed remotely interested in scoring points for vast swathes of this contest (through three quarters there were 70 yards of passing combined). The Bears could start a blocked field goal clinic, and they may in January (they put that with a punt return from Hester and a 57 yard field goal). They certainly won't be playing football; thanks, Marion Barber, who blew a certain win not once, but twice.

20 - WASHINGTON (+5)
4-9, 4th NFC EAST
L 27-34 vNE, next @NYG

Have improved, giving the Jets, Cowboys and New England very real games - they led in all three of those games and beat Seattle in the northwest along the way. Before that, gave the Dolphins (in Miami) and San Fran some frights. Not the punching bag they were in October and the Giants should be concerned going into Maryland next week.

21 - CAROLINA (-)
4-9, T-2nd NFC SOUTH
L 23-31 vATL, next @HOU

While a first glance might suggest Williams reasserted his authority over the running back situation (87 yards on 7 carries), without the 74 yarder, he was once again below Stewart (29 on 8 carries). Stewart is now definitely splitting the carries and Rivera is going to have an interesting decision next offseason. Newton is either being encouraged to scramble more, or having more runs designed for him. He has had 30 of his 107 runs in the last three games.

22 - OAKLAND (-4)
7-6, 2nd AFC WEST
L 16-46 @GB, next vDET

Green Bay had 17 first downs...with five minutes left in the first half. At that point, Green Bay had 323 yards on 34 plays!!! It's amazing to say a score of 16-46 flatters a team, but it flatters Oakland. They were 400 points behind Green Bay here, they were playing a different sport.

23 - PHILADELPHIA (+4)
5-8, 3rd NFC EAST
W 26-10 @MIA, next vNYJ

Did you know that if the New York Giants are killed off by an invading race of super intelligent beings, and the Falcons lose seven of their next three games and the Lions are forced to play with a brick instead of a football on their offensive series, the Eagles can still make the playoffs in a hyperspace dimension where the speed of light is twelve miles an hour?

24 - MIAMI (-9)

4-9, 4th AFC EAST
L 10-26 vPHI, next @BUF

Genuinely shocked the Dolphins lost this game. It was like they had the invincibility star on Mario Brothers and it ran out after five weeks. It's hard to fathom how an offensive line featuring Jake Long, and which appeared so dominant just last week, could surrender an incredible nine sacks and 18 total hits. That kind of performance means it doesn't matter that you hold the best rushing team in football to just 1.6 yards a carry on 32 attempts.

25 - JACKSONVILLE (+5)
4-9, 3rd AFC SOUTH
W 41-14 vTB, next @ATL

Years from now, Blaine Gabbert will gather the grandkids around and tell them of the magical day he threw 19/33 for 217 yards with two picks and two touchdowns.

26 - BUFFALO (-2)
5-8, 3rd AFC EAST
L 10-37 @SD, next vMIA

While I am no fan of Fred Jackson, and don't think they would have made the playoffs even if he remained healthy, it's no doubt true that his absence disrupts Buffalo like removing the foundation Jenga piece. Spiller (46 yards on 12 carries) is the prototypical "good outside the tackles" back and usless between them. Fitzpatrick (just 13 of 34 in this game) is not suited to throw the ball forty or more times. The offensive line is much better up the middle than at tackle and pass protecting. And their defense needs to be on the field the absolute minimum amount of time, and preferably against an offense calling pass without Kyle Williams - they were ravaged by Ryan Matthews (114 yards on 20 carries) in this game.

27 - MINNESOTA (+1)
2-11, 4th NFC NORTH
L 28-34 @DET, next vNO

Despite the turnovers (3 picks and a sack fumble), and Joe Webb's apparent heroics (109 yards rushing on seven carries), benching Ponder was a horrible mistake. The future of the Vikings is not with Webb and Ponder has had a solid season.

28 - TAMPA BAY (-6)
4-9, T-4th NFC SOUTH
L 14-41 @JAX, next vDAL

Jesus fucking Christ Tampa, seriously? Jacksonville hadn't put 41 points on in their last four games combined. They had reached 20 points just once all year. They hadn't even really got close. They scored 14 points or less in ten of their other eleven games. This was second only to the Colts against the Saints as the worst performance all season, and might even eclipse that considering...Jacksonville, are you for real? Oh, and seven goddamn turnovers, matching the number of games they have lost in a row.

29 - KANSAS CITY (-3)
4-9, 4th AFC WEST
L 10-37 @NYJ, next vGB

Can anyone give me any comprehensible reason why Kyle Orton did not start this game? There was nothing I heard about him being injured. It's been two and a half weeks now. Why did they bother signing him if they didn't want to play him? Weird.

30 - CLEVELAND (-1)
4-9, 4th AFC NORTH
L 3-14 @PIT, next @ARI

The only thing worse than Colt McCoy (74.6 QB rating, 27th in the league) is Peyton Hillis (346 yards on the year). Or their receiving corps maybe, Cleveland doesn't have a player in the top 50 in receiving yards, and only one of the top eighty two.

31 - ST. LOUIS (-)
2-11, 4th NFC WEST
L 13-30 @SEA, next vCIN

Ah, Clark Judge, my old nemesis. We meet again.

32 - INDIANAPOLIS (-)
0-13, 4th AFC SOUTH
L 10-24 @BAL, next vTEN

I had a writeup for the Colts, but David Stern overturned it.

15 comments Faceoff or...Flashoff...or Faceback

Wellity, wellity, wellity. As prophecised in last week's Faceoff commentary, Clark Judge is finally going to have to bite the bulet on that Kyle Orton sloppy blowjob that he posted and I linked to. They're falling off a cliff, they got mauled by 29 points at home for crying out loud. It's over. Orton is over (at least that version of Orton as half-man half-God) and finally Clark Judge is going to have to take responsibility for his reckless, Orton loving comments both at the time and his self serving praise through the season.

"Leader"
"Winner"
"Proven"
"Veteran"

Oh, I am looking forward to this.

You're the GM of the Bears. Which issue has you the most disappointed or flummoxed: Jay Cutler, Lovie Smith or the defense?

what? Why the hell are we talking about the Bears? They are done. Done. They are in a reasonable division that is eating them alive and I like the Bears. They don't bear discussing. This week we have Norlans and New England! We've got the lurking Minnesota (who fit the run the ball, stop the run mould for Dec and we have the meltdown (I was on the fence last week but after that mauling and the schedule ahead, there's no way back) of Denver. And you choose the Bears? The Bears CBS? A pox on you.

Anyway, it's obviously Cutler. Look; the Bears were gashed up the middle like a $2 hooker on Sunday night, I grant you. But they are a not horrible 13th in total D, considering their drop off the last two years and their lack of Urlacher and not adding significant defensive starters for some time, this is no dissapointment. Chicago also has an equally slightly above average 18 takeaways. The superficial glance says the Bears defense is alright - unremarkable, not what it used to be, but considering age and injury, you could do worse. Certainly doesn't explain the 4-6 start.

Nor does Lovie really - I mean how much can a coach be blamed. Maybe in the playoffs with that hyper intensity and magnifying glass on every call, and I certainly am no Lovie apologist, but c'mon guys. He's been there when they win and lose, he's a garden ornament basically.

No, for the real crime here, you have to point the accusatory finger at Matt Forte (22nd in total yards, 3.3ypa!, 91.5 yards from scrimmage a game this year vs 107.2 last year) and of coure, Jay Cutler, the obviously correct answer to this question. That's the shock, that's the dissapointment, and that's also the most pronounced failure.

Cutler has been terrible, obviously, just watch the games, but in case you don't - Cutler's 10th rank in passing yards is deceptive. He ranks 20th in YPA, leads the league in interceptions and his QB rating is just 0.4 higher than Trent Edwards. All this speaks of, yes, poor playcalling - the Bears are among the league leaders in passing on first down, but I guess when your running back is getting 3.3 yards a whirl, you'd pass too.

Anyone who knew football knew that Jay Cutler should have been worth two wins to this team, enough to punch them a playoff ticket.

Oh my God...anyone who knows football...Clark Judge...

Oh.

My.

God.

JUDGE: Lovie Smith and the defense. I already knew about Cutler, and what I knew was that the guy can't win, is not my idea of a leader and was not a good fit for this team. So I would not have brought him in. But the Bears did, and Cutler is what he is -- Jeff George in a Bears uniform. Where's the surprise?

NO. NO. This isn't fair! You said Orton would be great *wiping tears away from face* you promiseded. You said he'd be fantastic and took all the glory when they won, and now, with Orton leading and winninging his team to a collective scoreline of 37-117 in the last four weeks. Orton has completed 59% of his passes in this time, thrown 4 INT's and 2 TD's. Barely averaging six yards a throw (making Cutler's 7 a throw look Herculean).

You bastard Judge. You unapologetic bastard. You're dispicable! How do you live with yourself, misleading people like this?

l tell you where: The other side of the ball with a defense that Smith took over before this season. He was supposed to make it better, but the Bears aren't better.

2008 total yards against: 334.7
2009 total yards against: 320.1

and what about Brian Urlacher you disingenuous soul? What about one of the best defensive players of our generation huh? WHAT ABOUT THAT JUDGE?

They're awful, and I say that after watching them disintegrate in first halves of losses to Cincinnati and Arizona -- games where each opponent scored touchdowns on its first four possessions. Someone explain that to me.

what do you mean "explain it to you"? You write about football. How hard can it be to understand? Teams score touchdowns when they legally advance it into the endzone and control possession. Consider it explained.

Moron.

Lovie explain it. It's his defense. He makes the calls. He devises the scheme. And don't tell me about injuries. Everyone has them now.

I remember it like it was just yesterday, just yesterday, just yesterday...

Faceoff (18/11/2009) JUDGE: The clincher, though, is Miami's loss
of Ronnie Brown. You can beat Carolina on the ground, but the Panthers' pass defense is effective. Losing Brown puts undue pressure on Chad Henne, and he doesn't need it.

I hate you, I hate you, I hate you.

Which is more troubling: Bengals losing to the Raiders, Steelers losing to Chiefs or the Cowboys hanging seven on the lowly Washington Redskins?

time for "one of these doesn't belong".

So, is it "still not sold on team loses to team with JaMarcus Russell"?

Is it "playoff hangover, no offensive line, injury issues with it's two best players still hasn't figured their rushing game out losing to the a team who lost to a team with JaMarcus Russell"?

Or, finally and rather obviously, is it "one of the hottest teams in the NFL who just beat a division rival to consolidate a division lead and said rival, while abysmal offensively, is quietly one of the better defensive teams in the NFL (4th in total yards against, 6th in scoring defense, surrendering least amount of first downs, 10th in third down % against, T-8th in sacks) and who gets a disproportionate amount of hateration from the media because they are in one of the "significant" media markets?

Hmm? If you've been reading my posts here, you already know the tragic ending.

JUDGE: Dallas putting up seven on Washington because it tells me the Cowboys are getting ready to go into the fetal position for December.

fucking research your columns.

The Bengals losing to Oakland was bad, but the Raiders are capable of dialing up upsets at home. Ask Philadelphia.

what is the logic here? Washington and Oakland have identical records, like...what the fuck is going on? Oakland are allowed to win with no ramifications on the rest of the league but Washington aren't? Oakland are worse than the Redskins. They just are. Everyone knows this. Everyone. The difference may not be huge but it's apparent. I don't understand...the Bengals still are a bit of a cloudy one...I don't think there's a single soul that thinks they can win their conference, I'm not sure the same is true of Dallas, who have had a winning record in four straight seasons and are two wins away from making it five.

Why are the Raiders capable of winning but the Redskins are not? Tell me. And may I remind you, they didn't fucking win.

The Steelers losing to K.C. was bad, too, but the Chiefs are beginning to get their act together.

what are you basing this on? Beating Oakland? By six? After trailing at the half? With -1 give/take? A thirty point loss to San Diego three weeks ago at home? Again down -3 in give/take? Why do you get to write for CBS and I do not? I mean it's not like you're Joe Montana. Who the hell is this Clark Judge anyway...does he exist? He really writes this stuff?

So I'll excuse that with, "It happens," especially with the Steelers operating without Troy Polamalu.

*rubs chin, looking upward, rippling spacetime*

Faceoff (6 lines ago) JUDGE: And don't tell me about injuries. Everyone has them now.

19 comments JaMarcus Russell Explained

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then there are the numbers.

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

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

Cleveland. Because there's a conviction about nobody

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

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

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

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

not Vince Young, apparently.

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

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

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

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

Is starting an NFL franchise in London a good idea?

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

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

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

12 comments Faceoff! It will take your Face, RIGHT OFF

It's the great intellectual meeting of the minds. Once again, we go into the dramatically titled Faceoff. Boom!

Which club that currently has a winning record will have the most trouble making the playoffs?

a quick review of the standings, and eliminating the no brainers (Saints, Giants, Vikings, Patriots, Colts, Steelers, Broncos) gives us the following list of teams - Eagles, Cowboys, Packers, Bears, Falcons, 49ers, 'Zona, Bengals. Just as an aside, it's amazing how shallow the AFC is this year.

Prisco: I'll go with the San Francisco 49ers (3-2) for a variety of reasons. The first is schedule. They have games left at Houston, Indianapolis, Green Bay and Philadelphia. They have home games against Chicago and Arizona. Plus, they have quarterback issues. Shaun Hill regressed in a big way in the loss to Atlanta two weeks ago, which is a concern as they come out of their bye. Could Alex Smith be coming soon?

if the words "Could Alex Smith be coming soon" is part of the gameplan for your team, pretty safe to say that playoffs are unlikely to be part of your future. Quick review of Alex Smith's illustrious career - 63.5 QB rtg, 5.8 ypa, 54.4% comp, 19 TD, 31 INT. His last active year, 2007, he threw two TD passes in seven games. That's San Fran's plan B. That schedule is also pretty nasty. I do suppose someone from the NFC West comes out of this so they are a shout, but 'Zona's only loss in the last four weeks is to Indy, two wins on the road, the wins have been by margins of 24, 7 and 14.

The 49ers don't throw it well enough to win in this league.

and I've already outlined my position on Frank Gore.

Mike Singletary has done some good things, but I think it will unravel some in the next month. Arizona will win the NFC West. The 49ers aren't good enough to be a wild-card team.

no question whatsoever that it's NFC West or bust, million to one odds of winning the wildcard - NFC is deep this year, it's the superior conference.

For what it's worth, I also get a bad feeling about Cincy (eleven point loss at home to the Texans, OT win over Cleveland and last drive miracle against Baltimore in last three games), although Ochocinco looks as good as he has in years. The Odom injury is a really big deal, and that team had been winning with defense. Not sold on Marvin Lewis as a coaching dynamo and Palmer (78.3 QB rating, 25th in the league, T-4th most INT) is quietly having a pretty bad year. At some point they'll have to lean on him and he won't be there. Anyway, I do this for my Clark Judge time, and here he comes.

Judge: Dallas. The Cowboys (3-2) have all sorts of troubles, from an inconsistent quarterback to a head coach under fire to an ordinary offensive line to a defense that has trouble covering the pass and doesn't force turnovers.

look what I just wrote! I understand the AFC is shallower than the NFC, but Palmer is way worse than Romo this year. Romo hasn't been great (86.5 QB rating), but it's in the neighbourhood of Cutler (86.9), Rivers (91.8) and Hasselbeck (85.0). Also, it's dragged down by games against the Giants (posted 29.6) and at Denver (best pass defense in the league? 67.1). That's two games, he's been great otherwise.

Dude is 29, prime of his career, it's weird to predict a tragic fall off right now. He has a lifetime 93.8 rating, three straight seasons of 90+, he's been extremely consistant historically and something that QB rating doesn't take into account and one of his strongest qualities, is how hard he is to sack. He's only been dropped 8 times in five games, which suggests his offensive line remains strong, contrary to Judge's claims. Dallas' O-Line has been a massive strength the last three seasons, and their running game is outstanding, despite a turnstile of backs. The only area they are poor in is too many dumb penalties, but this is relatively trivial. In fact, how could you call the success of the rushing game anything but the product of their O-Line, considering Barber has been in and out of the lineup and they've used three different guys back there? Dallas is third in rushing yards per game.

The problems against the pass do seem real, and worrying considering that they haven't played an elite QB yet (depending on your feeling on Manning). In fact, quite the opposite. They've taken on Leftwich, Delhomme, Cassel...so, I can be fair Judge, this is a good point. But hey, they still have DeMarcus Ware, Terence Newman and Ken Hamlin, the turnovers fall in the same category let's not freak out just yet.

Now you add the Cowboys' division, the NFC East.

can someone, please, tell me what's supposed to be so fucking great about Philadelphia? I remember when I worked as a bookie, their lines were always absolutely silly. They aren't that great! They've beaten Carolina (in the Delhomme blowup to start the season), Kansas City and Tampa Bay (the same three as the Cowboys, I grant you). They were killed by New Orleans, IN Philly, by 26, and lost to the fucking Raiders last week if you didn't notice, where Andy Reid essentially did the football equivalent of banging his head on a brick wall. Here's something for you Judge, these two teams are even in victories right now, but there's one big difference. Dallas have played their Denver game, Philly have played their Oakland game. That's a one game swing right there. By the way, you talk about quarterback inconsistancies/controversy, McNabb just passed 46 times, completed 22 of them, and didn't score a TD last week, with Kevin Kolb and rabid Eagles fans down his neck.

They are also mad injury prone. So yes, about that division, it's one of the more mediocre in the league, stop living in the past!

Dallas is no better than the third-best team there, and that's trouble if you're looking at a wild card. You figure you're up against teams like the Giants or Eagles, the Falcons and probably the Bears or Packers. The Cowboys aren't better than any of those teams, though it's a close call with Chicago and Green Bay.

but the 49er's are? They have yet to win outside their division btw.

The problem is you're talking about two spots, and I give one to the NFC East runner-up and the other to the NFC South runner-up. Now you look at Dallas' schedule, and three of its last five games are on the road -- including the Giants and New Orleans. So the Cowboys make an unexpected late charge against those teams? I don't think so.

yeah but there is more to life than the last five games. Philly and Dallas' schedules have been remarkably similar so far, but there's a difference I mentioned above and the fact the Eagles have a second place schedule. So don't lecture me about schedules.

Who's the top wide receiver in the NFL?

Prisco: That's easy. It's Houston's Andre Johnson. I've banged that drum loudly the past year, but most everyone contested that idea by saying it was Larry Fitzgerald of the Cardinals. Much of those assessments were based on what Fitzgerald did in the playoffs and the Super Bowl. Not many people watch Johnson. If they did, they would see a big, strong, physical and fast receiver. Johnson is averaging 15.9 yards on his 36 catches. He has four touchdowns and eight 20-plus plays.

just like Randy Moss, who has been weirdly forgotten/taken for granted. I love Johnson (Fitz too, but less so) but Randy Moss should have this spot until conclusively proven otherwise. You may believe he has been overtaken, but conclusively? In the words of Jules Winnfield, allow me to retort!

No one in the league has caught more passes for a first down than Moss (28) and it's a pretty substantial margin to Fitz (23) and Johnson (22). He also has more receptions (38) than Johnson (36) despite being thrown to less (58-66). It's still Moss, and I don't really mind arguments for these other two guys, who are both money, it's just, it seems to me in the NFL, that ideas get taken up and just assumed to be the case.

The Eagles are good. The Cowboys aren't terrible (they seriously are not, and even if they have been, they are 3-2, coming off a bye to work it out, would you be that surprised if they pulled off four or five in a row now? I wouldn't). It's Johnson/Fitz and so on. Copycat league? Copycat press.

He is the reason the Houston offense operates at a high level.

I apprieciate Schaub is no Brady, but Maroney is no Slaton either.

Matt Schaub is putting up enormous numbers, and Johnson is the reason.

well he's a big reason, the most important reason, but what about Owen Daniels (14th in league in receptions, T-1st amongst TE in touchdowns, both more than vaunted Dallas Clark) or Slaton (2 receiving TDs and 4 20+ catches, which is the same as Larry Fitzgerald, trails only Ray Rice in receiving amongst backs). I'm just asking for a comprehensive analysis here.

He gets doubled all the time, yet can still make plays. That's the sign of a star player. My second choice is Fitzgerald...

course it is, because you have no originality and are lazy. Judge is actually ok here, boring, lazy, superficial, but ok relatively speaking.

Anyway, that'll do for this week's Faceoff...really more an excuse for me to rant here than actually attacking these guys, but that's a nice change of gears sometimes I guess.

14 comments Clark Judge makes claims, I then verify them

I enjoyed doing the Clark Judge beatdown so much last week I'm back for more fun. For those that missed it, the concept is called "Faceoff", and it pits the unsettlingly Peter Kingesque Pete Prisco against Clark "Sermon on the Mount" Judge. Prisco is bland but comprehensible, if I had to describe what he brings to the table I would say he "plays within himself". That said, it's a fantastic foil for the off-the-wall, I'll say what I want to because I don't play by your rules Clark Judge. Judge's writing is taken a bit more from the "divine inspiration" school of journalism. The thoughts just work through him, he doesn't have time for your facts. If Clark Judge says the Giants lose, than by God, those Giants better fucking lose.

See below for details.

Faceoff: Best-of-the-rest RB? Vince and Brady? Winless track?

yawn. It's a lackluster start but I'm sure we can make something of it.

Who is the NFL's best running back not named Adrian Peterson?

Prisco: Right now, I will go with Tennessee's Chris Johnson. It's too bad his team isn't very good. He's having a good season, but since the Titans stink on defense he isn't getting the carries he should. Tennessee is always playing from behind, so Johnson is averaging 15.6 carries per game. That's the fewest for any of the top five rushers in the league. Yet he's third in rushing, just 21 yards behind league-leader Cedric Benson. Johnson has 468 yards, but his 6.0 average is the best of any of the top five rushers. His five 20-plus runs lead the league and his two 40-plus runs are better than anybody in the top 20. He also has 16 catches, which is better than Peterson and Benson, the two runners ahead of him. A case could also be made for Steven Jackson of the Rams. He is putting up big numbers for an offense that isn't good. But for now, I'll go with Johnson, who has done more with fewer carries.

I'm not really a Chris Johnson fan, for reasons I'll address a bit further down to counter another point. For the moment, this is what I mean by Prisco, take issue if you must, but there's some justification there and it's not such a bad argument.

When he's healthy, it's San Francisco's Frank Gore.

bitch please.

Judge: He can run. He can catch. He scores touchdowns. And he produces a ton of yards. In short, he is the San Francisco offense.

he can't stay on the fucking field either. For someone whom the 49ers have relied on so heavily in the past, Gore has just 539 rushes the last three seasons. I know that sounds like a lot, but it's about 14.5 rushes a game, not exactly the do-it-all workhorse that's implied here. By way of comparison, you know how Tomlinson seems to have been hurt non stop the last two and a half years? He has 627 in one less game (due to this years bye). It's about three extra rushes a game, significant. And we haven't even gotten into the real lunchpail guys. Peterson himself for instance, has seven hundred carries. In short, Frank Gore is a bit of a pussy.

Also, can he run? I mean really? Last year he was 18th in ypc. The year before 23rd. He was 14th and 12th in carries respectively. At best he was average.

Can he catch? Sort of I guess. He's had to because of inept quarterbacking and (at times) offensive line play. Also a pretty bad set of receiving threats, so he did make quite a few catches, but I'd hardly say he was "dynamic" out of the backfield. Gore has always struck me as a bit of a lumbering guy.

He scores touchdowns? Let's investigate. 2008, six fucking rushing TDs. Right up there with immortals Dominic Rhodes and Leon Washington. 2007? Five. Equal with Chris Brown, Najeh Davenport (still in the league?) and Aaron Stecker. Congratulations Frank Gore.

Finally, has Clark Judge been watching this San Fan offense? I mean, Gore USED to be the whole offense, but that was not a very good thing. Has Clark Judge seen Vernon Davis play lately? He might be the best tight end in football right now. He is averaging five receptions a game the last three games with three TDs and getting about 13 yards a catch. Make no mistake, this guys a weapon, and no reason to believe Morgan and Crabtree won't be lots of help. Wake up Clark, stop sucking.

But Gore is hurt again

and not that good anyway...you're welcome.

which makes me turn to another favorite of mine, Miami's Ronnie Brown. I want someone who does more than just run the football, and Ronnie Brown is that someone.

ok, before I start here, I like Ronnie Brown and think he's an above average back, but he's another one that's an injury concern. Nevertheless, I like him, and I want that on the record because I'm not saying he's shit. What I am prepared to say is he's in a very, very, very generous system. Wouldn't you be a little reticent to hand out accolades in bulk to Dolphin's players...I mean it's the system, it's the wildcat, batshit insane stuff the coaching staff pulls off that causes this wild (no pun intended, I guess) rushing, and to a degree, general offensive success.

It seems a dangerous game to be saying that this is down to the skill of Ronnie Brown...obviously a significant amount is, but colour me sceptical.

He's a tough inside runner.

true.

He has the speed to turn a corner.

less true but still true...if you follow.

He runs the Wildcat better than anyone out there, and, yes, that includes Michael Vick.

what? Seriously, what? The dog fighting guy? That Michael Vick? Have I missed something? Is there a running back playing for Detroit called Michael Vick? Because you couldn't have assumed anyone reading your article would think a guy in prison the last two years and has a total of five fucking rushing attempts this year is better than Ronnie Brown...in any way. Right? I mean they've been five of the worst too. Seventeen yards. And you're warning us not to be seduced by this twenty nine year old running back, who has never played the position before at NFL level, and hasn't played football at any level since 2006, 3.4ypc, who is not a starter for his current NFL team, who has rushed for a total of one first down this year...

What year is this? Where am I?

He can block, catch and throw.

I do find him to be very effective pass blocker I must say, so I agree there.

Catch is a more tenuous argument than you may think. I was ambivalent about Gore's catching prowess, but Gore had 104 receptions since the start of the 2007 season, Brown had jst 72. He also is catching less than two balls a game this year. I understand there's an illusion of him catching a lot of balls, but it's not really true, and it's becoming less true each passing game.

As for throwing, come on. Look I know it's all very cute (and yes, sometimes effective) throwing out of the 'cat, but get real. Ronnie Brown has thrown the ball six times in his last forty one games. He's made three completions in his entire career. Tone it down a bit, he's not Dan Marino just yet.

He doesn't fumble.

This is very true and extremely impressive. The last 507 times Brown has touched the ball, catching or taking the hand off, he's fumbled once. That is worth bragging about.

I think you get the idea: There is almost nothing he can't do well.

I can't speak for the rest of you, but I feel you put Steven Jackson, Steve Slaton, Matt Forte (think he'd be an especially good fit actually), Ray Rice, Maurice Jones Drew and a million other names into Miami's wildcat offense and I think you'd be singing their praises equally vociferously. I just think you need to address this elephant in the room if you're picking a Dolphin - don't you?

He averages 4.8 yards a carry, is third in the league in scoring, fifth in rushing and hasn't committed a turnover. But he's more than versatile; he's dependable.

seven games played in 2007...

When the Dolphins had one play to find the end zone Monday, they turned the offense over to Brown. He delivered.

case closed people! Please do not continue to send your applications in. It has come to my attention that Ronnie Brown punched in a one yard touchdown run in a game. King this man.

That tells you what the Dolphins think of him.

...that he's their running back? Rashard Mendenhall had a seven yard TD run this week, Michael Bush a 5 yarder. Clinton Portis did exactly the same thing from the one for HIS team. Michael Turner had two from inside the five! This is not an argument, every team treats their running backs like this. Ugh, shoot me.

Vince Young and Brady Quinn: Would the Titans and Browns be better served by starting them?

see absolutely no way a coherant argument for the "no camp" can be made myself, let's see how they do.

Prisco: As strange as this may sound, especially as it relates to Young, the answer is yes to both. Did I just say the Titans should play Vince Young? I did, and the reason is simple: Find out what you have. This Tennessee team isn't going anywhere, and Kerry Collins isn't the long-term answer. In fact, I think he's been part of the problem. So play Young and see what he can do. If he plays like he has in the past, the Titans have their answer about him. That will tell them they have to draft a quarterback high next spring, somebody like Sam Bradford. Playing Collins doesn't do anything for the long-term future. As for the Browns, Derek Anderson clearly isn't the guy. They need to find out if Quinn can be. Three games didn't decide that. So put him back and tell him the rest of the season is his. If he stinks, they need to draft a QB as well.

Prisco, you pass the common sense test, congratulations!

Judge: Yes in Tennessee. No in Cleveland. The Titans are better than 0-5

howso? They look pretty fucking terrible to me. Their secondary is arguably bottom five, their running back, while extraordinarily talented is undersized and inconsistant (1/3rd of his plays go for zero or negative yardage). I mean, he's just clearly a change of pace back. A Norwood or Reggie Bush type, I see no other way to look at it. He's not the kind of player you want touching the ball 22-26 times a game, he's just not. That's why they've kept Fatass White around in the past. In addition, they have no even marginally decent receiver (Nate Washington, seriously, you're happy with that Titans fans?), they have a quarterback who's found out it was the shoes, and a good O-Line but not one who is anything better than average in pass protection. It's a really bad offense in particular. You should be able to do better than 9 points against Indy on your home turf. Seattle managed 17 with a billion mile road trip and their backup QB. And Seattle ain't no prize pig. Oh, an the one part of their team that's looked ok - their front seven, lost their best player in the offseason, so don't look to them to make up for this glaring holes.

The schedule hasn't been unmanagable either - home against Houston and Indy, on the road to Jax and the Jets. A decent team should be able to find a couple of wins there. They are also regressing, margin of defeat looks like this, week one first: 3, 3, 7, 20, 22.

So, why are they better than 0-5 exactly?

but they need something, anything to shake them out of their funk. So Jeff Fisher says Kerry Collins isn't the problem. But I also know the Titans need a lift. So start Young and see what happens. I know there's not a conviction about him, but this is about giving the club a jolt. What's the worst that can happen? You lose another game?

that doesn't answer my question. The Titans are done, not good, bad, putrid, pitiful, pick one. Also just a terribly written pseudo-paragraph. Just rambling, unco-ordinated nonsense, punctuated by a couple of whimsical rhetorical questions. Just awful.

So you're where you started. The situation in Cleveland is more complex. Quinn should be the long-term solution, but once the Browns changed head coaches he was finished. Eric Mangini didn't draft him and has no allegiance to him. He gave him a shot, then benched him. He's not going back to him.

that's not the question. The question is would they be better served with the 24 year old you spent a first round pick on just two seasons ago who has played in a total of 7 NFL games, or Mr Two of Seventeen, 1TD, 5INT, who has completed less than half his passes in his last thirteen games. Who has never had a QB rating above 83. Yeah give me that guy...the interception guy.

At least in Tennessee you don't know what you have in Young because he has barely played. You do with Quinn.

what? Seriously what? I'm back to where I was with Vick. We've seen literally days more of Vince Young than Brady Quinn at this level. Vince has played in 34 NFL games. There may be a few more things to see, I'm not saying the story of Vince Young has been written, that would be retarded, but we know so, so, so much less about Quinn it isn't funny. And the reason for that isn't difficult to grasp - Quinn simply hasn't played much.

Go with Anderson, Brett Ratliff, Mike Pagel, Paul McDonald, it doesn't matter. There's as much hope there as there was with the Indians.

so that's your expert analysis. "I couldn't be fucked". Thanks.

18 comments 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.