This one's for you

Fire Joe Morgan.

You may be gone, but you'll never be forgotten.

This one's for you.

Cold Hard Football Facts claims to be all analytical and shit about all things football. But really they are fairly wrong, fairly often. They express opinion as fact and will not get away with it. Not on my watch!

Best QBs ever. Go.

2. JOE MONTANA (San Francisco, 1979-92; Kansas City, 1993-94)

Best season (1989): 271 for 386 (70.2%), 3,521 yards, 9.12 YPA, 26 TD, 8 INT, 112.4 passer rating

Career: 3,409 for 5,391 (63.2%), 40,551 yards, 7.52 YPA, 273 TD, 139 INT, 92.3 passer rating

Championships: 1981, 1984, 1988, 1989.

Seems pretty freakin' awesome to me. Who could possibly be number one...

1. BART STARR (Green Bay, 1956-71)

Best season (1966): 156 for 251 (62.2%), 2,257 yards, 9.0 YPA, 14 TD, 3 INT, 105.0 passer rating

Career: 1,808 for 3,149 (57.4%), 24,718 yards, 7.8 YPA, 152 TD, 138 INT, 80.5 passer rating

Championships: 1961, 1962, 1965, 1966, 1967.

Oh, someone worse. That's cool.

The numbers, in side-by-side form:

Starr - 57.4% comp/24,718 YDS/7.8 YPA/152 TD/138 INT/80.5 passer rating
Montana - 63.2% comp/40,551 YDS/7.52 YPA/273 TD/139 INT/92.3 passer rating


Those differences are a fucking joke. And not even a funny one. It's like a really racist joke that is offensive to anyone intelligent.

Almost 16,000 more yards. 121 more TDs. And only ONE more pick. Montana also played in four less games than Starr. He also had 2,000+ more attempts than Starr, which explains the minor difference in YPA.

But he won one less championship! Well Starr won them in a time when there were six teams and no coloreds were allowed to play.

Conclusion: Montana is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better.

You say Jerry Rice. I say shut your mouth.

The stupidity, in word form:

And even if you listen to teammates today, they make it pretty clear that they would have fallen on a grenade for Starr. Leadership is an elemental piece of quarterbacking – probably more important than gaudy passing stats.

Jon Kitna. His tight ends would kill for him. No. Questions. Asked.

Best QB ever.

And that love his teammates had for their field general is an incredible sign of his leadership.

But forget, for a moment, the team accomplishments and the “intangibles” of leadership.

I will if you will.

Also, +1 for the douchy "_______" on intangibles. They aren't required because "leadership" "is" "actually" "immeasurable."

If you want to talk passing and statistics, we’ll put Starr up against anybody. Anybody.

How about, oh, I don't know, Joe Fucking Montana?

He led the NFL in passer rating five times. Johnny Unitas led the league in passer rating just twice. Ditto Joe Montana. Only Steve Young surpassed Starr’s mark (six).

Objection! Relevance.

Congrats on leading a league consisting of two teams in a wonky stat. Oh, and not being the best ever in that contrived example. Nice job.

When it comes to a combination of leadership, victories, big-game performances and statistical supremacy nobody – NOBODY – put together a more total package than Bart Starr, the greatest quarterback in NFL history.

The two things - wins (which are dumb anyway) and stats - I can measure against my ace (Montana), my guy wins.

Career win/loss:
Monty - 117/47
Starrman - 94/57

The stats are there - in all their uneven glory - above.

FJM, you will be missed.

Josh Hamilton: huuuuuge crackhead

Josh Hamilton is an awesome story for baseball this year. Recovering drug addict leads league in RBI for new squad. It's truly an inspiring story.

But Mr. Jeff Pearlman goes a bit far protecting Hamilton where I think other players (*cough Elijah Dukes cough*) would not get the same treatment.

He also manages to paint many baseball fans as dumb frat dudes, but enough of my words.

"When there is nothing better to do with their time -- when the keg of Piels has been floated, the last Camel has been snuffed and the "Girls Gone Wild: Girls on Girls" DVD has been played to exhaustion -- the dolts of this country turn to a new hobby: Mocking the recovering drug addict.

First of all, please, Pabst Blue Ribbon is my beer of choice whilst heckling. And I prefer the "Wildest Bars in America" GGW tape, thank you very much.

Seriously though, if you want to criticize idiotic fans, don't paint them with a wide, insulting and stupid brush - it belittles your argument.

And mocking addicts is not a new hobby.

In other words, here is what Texas Rangers center fielder Josh Hamilton, a 26-year-old saint of a man, will hear, oh, 1,000 times this season:"

"Saint of a man?" Joshius Hamiltonian, patron saint of ... drug recovery?

You do know he threw away a number of years playing professional baseball and probably millions of dollars for drugs, right?

Look, we all love a comeback story, but what Hamilton did was dumb. Plain and simple. What he did to bounce back is amazing, inspiring and uplifting. But no one kidnapped him and forced him to take drugs, he did it himself. I love the guy, he's helping my fantasy team and is a joy to watch. But I am sure he wants to put this whole thing behind him.

Ballplayers can be booed. Ballplayers can be slammed.

Ballplayers can be bombarded with venom for laziness, for indifference, for ignoring the fans, for heartless play.

They shouldn't be, however, for addiction. No way.

Didn't you read the "Making fun of opposing baseball players: Volume II?" This is right from page 32, paragraph five.

But addiction is the funniest thing to harass them about! Favre = painkiller addict. Eckersley = alchy. Jordan = gambler. Wilt = man-whore.

Let me say something to Pearlman that may blow his mind. Fans are assholes. Especially when they are at the ballpark, drunk, with buddies and/or their team is losing. If an opposing player has anything going on in their life, on or off the field, it is fair game for fans.

Paul Pierce heard stabbing jokes a few years back. Jason Kidd got it from the fans for wife-beating (a heckler favorite). Kobe still hears it in Colorado for that rape case.

Fans/hecklers have no morals when they enter the stadium. Everything is fair game. Everything. Mental illness, family troubles, legal battles - it's all been done before. The only thing I think (most) fans stay away from is death in the family-type stuff. That's just plain mean.

Athletes are elite human beings that make insane amounts of money playing a game that children play. They date super models, have fancy cars, gamble more money away than most of will see in our lives and are generally pretty rad dudes that any of us would trade places with. When they have problems that us normal folk have, we are obligated to make fun of it.

I doubt Hamilton, or any other athlete for that matter, will lose any sleep on his bed of 100-dollar bills with a movie star on each arm over what some drunk jackass yelled at him. Hamilton recovered from drugs. I doubt any chants of "snort that line!" (Pearlman's line, which is awesome, by the way) will get to him in any way.

Do we watch sports for the joy of the game?

Or do we watch sports for the joy of humiliation? For the joy of hate?

From the hecklers prospectus:

"Hamilton, Josh - Start each inning off by offering him a type of drug, the strength of the drug getting progressively stronger as the game goes on. By the 9th inning, he'll be off the wagon."

Too soon?

Somebody has a man-crush on Jake Peavy and post #100

From Jerry Crasnick of ESPN.com and the best hitting pitchers article:

"At heart, Peavy is just an Alabama country kid who just loves to compete. He can run a lick, is tireless in the weight room and, according to Young, hits the ball long and straight off the tee and has a delicate touch around the greens on the golf course."

It's like someone (unclear if it is Crasnick in the beginning and switches, or it's Young the whole time) went to Peavy's wikipedia page and pulled up random hobbies that are kinda, sorta related to baseball and hitting. "'Runs fast,' that's gold! 'Is good at golf?' Whodda thunk?"

Little known facts*: Peavy also has been known to cheat at checkers, cooks a mean quiche, is double-jointed and fears spiders.

There's also a lot of what I like to call "white baseball player" imagery here. Let's break it down.

"At heart, Peavy is a [white person] who just loves [being scrappy]. He can run [white person slang for "fast"], is tireless in the weight room and, according to Young, [plays golf, which is mostly for white people]."

Much better.

*may not be true.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

As an aside, this is the 100th post of this little blog here! I may look into streamlining the blog into one topic, as I have begun focusing video game writing on sites people actually read and have an internship writing about music.

Anyway, here's to 100 more posts and thanks to all my readers. Especially those I don't know personally. But you guys I know, too.

Fukudome has communicable disease, walkitis spreads among Cubs players

When an article opens with a joke about Moneyball, you know it's going to be good. Peter Bernstein recently wrote a piece for ESPN The Magazine about the Cubs and walking. Despite flattering a Moneyball-type player, the article is full of silliness.

He surmises that the arrival of Kosuke Fukudome has magically made the Cubs first in OBP and third in walks. Did I mention it's like twenty games into the season?

I am pretty sure Fukudome would have to walk like 300 times to negate Juan Pierre's existence on the team.

Now, the Cubs are third in walks, first in OBP, first in the standings, and a game short of the best record in baseball.

How much can be attributed to the arrival of Kosuke Fukodome?

I don't know - none would be my first guess though. Well not none, but unless he has something like over 50 percent of the teams walks (to date he has 17/94 or 5.5%), I would say not that much.

Probably a lot.

OK. Probably not but let's hear the explanation.

Fukodome leads the team in walks with 16 and leads the league in pitches per plate appearance.

Fine and dandy. The guy seems like a good player.

He is a human souvenir machine. His style rubs off.

What? What in God's name is a souvenir machine? Is Ryan Theriot a soda machine? A quick Google search of "souvenir machine" comes up with a lot of results about those machines that flatten pennies with the state bird of Wyoming or something. Maybe flattened pennies are really patient at the plate.

And his style rubbing off? I know what you're trying to say Bernstein - that Fukudome's play style is successful and other Cubs may learn from it - but here's what image your sentence conjures up:

Derek Lee: "Hey Alfonso, did you see Kos-dog's new hat? That feather is pretty boss."
Soriano: "Totally agree. I loved his corduroy pants he was wearing the other day. That guys style is really rubbing off on me."
Lee: "He also made me a really neat flattened penny with the Georgia state seal on it for $1.25 the other day."
Soriano: "Awesome. That guy is a souvenir machine!"

Aramis Ramirez, whose career high in walks is all of 50 is on pace for 104.

I can assure you this is no fault of Ramirez. Nope. Fukudome, simply by walking a lot himself, has spread his influenza-like ability to walk to his teammates.

May I also request the removal of the phrase "on pace for ..." from the hacky sports writer pantheon? Micheal Bourn is on pace to steal over 90 bases, Pat "The Bat" Burrell is on pace for 60+ home runs and Xavier Nady is on pace to drive in 120 runs. I guarantee that not one of those things will happen. None of that stuff matters because we are 1/8 of the way through the season.

Geovany Soto is on the same pace, and hopes to someday walk in a t-ball game.

What. The. Hell. Walk in a t-ball game? Would that be the epitome of walkdom? How about "hopes to walk in the game winning run someday?" And does he really hope that? Did you ask him?

But the circle is not yet complete. Soon Alfonso Soriano returns. He appears destined for the lead-off spot, from which he registered all of 31 walks last season.

Maybe he got his flu shots.

Perhaps Sweet Lou will move Fonzie down in the line-up, where he can drive in his suddenly walk-addicted teammates.

*in a dark alley behind Wrigley*
Lee: "Hey man, you got the stuff?"
Fukudome: "Yeah. You got the money?"
Lee: "..."
Fukudome: "Sorry buddy, no money no walks."
Lee: "But I need it! I just have to get through today. I'll do anything!"
Fukudome: "Anything...?"

Unbelievable

Simply the best thing ever.

Just watch it and shut the hell up about A-rod.

ESPN experts pick Hansbrough over Beasley for college Player of the Year

I know I have been doing a lot of these lately, but it's crazy how unfounded a lot of claims experts make are.

Most recently, ESPN.com college hoops experts picked UNC's Tyler Hansbrough over KSU's Micheal Beasley (by an 8-3 vote) for what I assume is the NCAA version of the MVP.

They even provided a handy stat comparison - in which Beasley is ahead in almost every measure. Three more points (third in the country) and two more boards (first in the country) per game. Marginally more assists and blocks per and nine more double-doubles. His slightly lower shooting percentages are offset by the fact Beasley shoots the three.

This goes back to the "what does MVP mean" argument. I will never understand giving an MVP to a guy on a better team with worse numbers. This award is "College Player of the Year" - there is no pretense of value anywhere. Who's the best. That is all.

Let's look at some of the mind-numbing quotes:

"he has been the toughest and most relentless player in the country." - Jay Bilas on Hansbrough.

He is a shoe-in for the Toughest Player in the Country award then!

"Hansbrough's numbers compare favorably to Beasley's, but Hansbrough's heart is bigger." - Bilas again.

Replace "compare favorably" with "are almost across the board less than" and I agree. Oh, and an enlarged heart is a serious medical disorder, he might want to get that checked out.

"No one should dispute who is a better NBA prospect or who has produced the better numbers." - Andy Katz

Finally, a vote for Beasley.

"But Hansbrough has had to carry the Tar Heels in a different manner than Beasley. Sure, UNC has more talented supporting players than Kansas State, but Hansbrough still had to do more. He had to take on even more of a leadership role." - Andy Katz

Damn.

Hansbrough carried them on his head, while spinning plates. Beasley just carried them on his back, riding a unicycle. What a jerk.

I think being the sole good player on a not-so-great team (but still probably tounament bound) involves more leadership than being on a team with a ego-maniac, celebrity coach and a ton of other blue-chip players. But that's just me.

"Hansbrough has been too valuable, too genuine and too dominant to deny him this honor." - Katz

Too genuine. Beasley peeks out from behind trees, twirling his waxed mustache and tying damsels to train tracks while cackling menacingly. Hansbrough saves puppies and kitties from trees while curing AIDS, always tells the truth, helps tutor high schoolers in math and is an overall good doobie.

"After point guard Ty Lawson went down with a severely sprained ankle in early February, Hansbrough stepped up and prevented North Carolina from taking a big step back." - Mark Schlabach

Funny story. I was looking through some box scores (not really) and noticed Hansbrough hasn't played a single game at point guard.

Here's my version of that paragraph, let me know what you think: "After running back Laurence Maroney went down with a hamstring injury, Tom Brady stepped up and threw a million touchdowns, preventing the Patriots from taking a big step back."

Irrelevant right?

This goes on for far too long. The ghosts of articles past, present and future about David Eckstein and Darin Erstad are hovering around this "article," rattling their chains of grit, hustle and never giving up-ness.

Beasley has similar numbers to Kevin Durant, lauded as one of the best college players ever. And Durant was a near unanimous pick. Could it be that Hansbrough is on the better team? No, I think it is something else...

Let's leave it to the venerable Dicky V. to explain:

"While Beasley may be the more talented of the two, Hansbrough is [white]*."

*edited for accuracy

Easterbrook, further down the spiral of insanity

If New England wins, the Patriots will not be the greatest team ever -- at least conditionally, until such time as the NFL reveals what was in the Patriots' cheating videos and documents that the league destroyed in September.

If the Patriots go undefeated (not losing a single freaking game) they will be the best team ever. The only other argument would be for the ’72 Dolphins and they only played 17 games and like three of those were against good teams.

Most of the sports media have rolled over and played dead on the New England destroyed-tapes story; TMQ reminds you of the specifics here.

How about talking about Harrison’s HGH suspension? Oh that’s right, he served his suspension. And the Patriots were fined half a million and a first rounder.

Let’s take a look at your conspiracy theory laden rant.

My favorite line: And if you're tempted to say, "Gregg, at worst this is just cheating in some dumb football games," here's why the affair matters: If a big American institution such as the NFL is not being honest with the public about a subject as minor, in the scheme of things, as the Super Bowl, how can we expect American government and business to be honest with the public about what really matters?

This theory, to recap: NFL “lies” about Patriots “cheating” = US Government lying about anything.

That is unbelievably insane. And frankly, I am a little worried about Gregg. The NFL, as far as I know, is in no way affiliated with the US Government. I doubt they meet over lunch and talk about “lying to the public techniques” or something.

This is similar to saying if Billy cheats on his elementary school spelling test, than the government is putting mind control nano-bug technology in our food.

Until we know what was on the videotapes and in the documents the NFL destroyed, there will always be a cloud of suspicion over the Patriots.

I am pretty positive that the Patriots were punished, harshly, and could not have cheated for the past 17 games. And honestly, I doubt that stealing signals had much to do with the ass-whooping the Jets got in week one, but that’s just me.

Do you know why everyone has “rolled over and played dead” on this? Because it’s done with. They were fined, draft pick taken from them and columns like yours were written for weeks questioning the entire history of the team.

How much of an advantage did they gain by cheating? Did they really hand over everything to the league?

No, they kept the super-secret pen-sized spy cameras, shoe phones, dental floss that’s actually piano wire and fake moustaches, just in case.

Are they still cheating now?

Ever since the end of week one all eyes were on the Patriots in the wake of this scandal. There is no way they are dumb enough to keep cheating with a thousand times as many people looking on.

Most important by far, have they cheated in the Super Bowl?

I don’t know, watch the tapes and look for Lee Harvey Oswald on the sidelines. Goodell probably edited him out though.

No matter how well New England plays Sunday, every victory the team earned this season -- and perhaps victories in previous seasons, too -- is tainted until such time when we learn what was in the material the league destroyed.

Remember when they went to the Super Bowl in ’85? Asterisk. They cheated, stole signs from the Bears. Flutie’s dropkick? Stole that signal. Three Super Bowls, where media coverage reaches Britney Spears-like intensity and it would be nigh-impossible to have spy cameras all over the place? Rescinded.

And all you sportscasters and sportswriters

Assholes.

who will spend this week gushing over the Super Bowl, it would be nice if a few of you mentioned that, a mere four months ago, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell found the Patriots guilty of "a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition."

How about I mention that you, Gregg Easterbrook, were scolded by ESPN ombudsman Le Anne Scheiber for your crazy, off-base rantings?

“In manufacturing extended false analogies between Richard Nixon's Watergate and Bill Belichick's tapegate, as if stonewalling to the press is the same as stonewalling to congressional investigators, as if violating a league rule is the same as violating federal law…”

Oops.

Two billion people will watch the Super Bowl; almost all of America's children and teens will watch the Super Bowl. If the bottom line of the event is "It's fine to cheat, you'll get away with it," what message does that send?

Think of the children, NFL! Forget the beer ads and commercials with suggestive themes and large-chested women (many of whom are prominently featured in your TMQ column). Those damn filthy, cheating Patriots are playing. Children may grow up to steal signals on sidelines in pee-wee football and be fined half a million cookies and first pick of the swings at recess!

I understand that you, Gregg Easterbrook, are a bastion of truth and honesty, but this is a little over the top, even for you.

And let’s never forget:

“Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice.”

Playoff teams don't need studly WRs

I will make it no secret that I love what the guys at firejoemorgan.com do. I think their methodical ripping of all things false and unintelligent in the world of sports journalism is wonderful and has made me a better/smarter sports fan. This entry is blatantly inspired by the guys there. I encourage anyone reading this to check FJM out for a good laugh.

Reuben Frank over at SI.com has claimed that NFL playoff teams "rarely" feature stud wide receivers. With guys like Moss, Welker, Burress, Driver and Jennings classifiable as "studs" I somehow doubt he's right.

Reggie Wayne's mighty Colts lost at home. So did Terrell Owens' top-seeded Cowboys.

Totally their fault. Owens had a TD on four catches for 49 yards (not great, but certainly fine) and Wayne had a TD on seven catches for 76 yards, a solid game for a WR. Come on guys, can't you catch 2 TDs? Or have like 150 yards?

Chad Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, Brandon Marshall and Braylon Edwards didn't even get to the playoffs. Neither did Roddy White, Marques Colston or Torry Holt.

Again, totally their fault. These teams (Bengals, Saints, Browns, Rams, Broncos, Falcons and Cardinals) were 27th, 26th, 30th, 21st, 19th, 29th and 17th in the NFL, respectively, in yards allowed on defense. They all also ranked 21st or higher (worse) in terms of points allowed per game. Their defenses stunk. That's probably why they didn't make the playoffs, not because their WRs were too good or something.

Only one of the top 10 wide receivers in yardage this year played for a team that won a playoff game, and that's nothing new in the NFL.

The key word here is "yardage" and the arbitrary benchmark Frank has attached to it to evaluate WRs. Yardage for WRs is much less relevant than it's made out to be. If a WR catches 20 TDs for 1 yard each, he sucks in Frank's eyes. It's like saying of the top ten MLB hitters in AVG, only 2 made the playoffs. Arbitrary.

Of the WRs that were in the top 10 in TD catches, three of those are still in the playoffs and three more (four including Reggie Williams, tied for 9th place with three others) were in the playoffs a week ago. Remember, WRs get paid to catch TDs.

Oh and Frank forgot to mention that of those top ten in yardage Johnson (8), Marshall (7), White (6) and Holt (7) had less than 10 TD catches. Two others, Wayne and Fitzgerald, had exactly 10. Not exactly eye-popping seasons.

Everybody wants T.O. Everybody wants Ocho Cinco. Everybody wants game breakers who put up huge numbers.

Maybe because they increase the goodness of football teams?

But historically, teams without those guys have just as good a chance to get to the Super Bowl and win as do teams with average wideouts.

This goes beyond "misuse of statistics to write a story during a time when nothing is going on" and into the realm of falsity. Of the top 10 teams in receiving yards/game, five made the playoffs (two of them being New England and Green Bay, number one and two in rYPG and first round bye teams) and had a combined 102-58 record. Of the bottom 10 teams in receiving yards, two made the playoffs and had a combined 62-98 record.

Teams "without those guys" ("those guys" being good receivers) don't have a chance to make the Super Bowl because they have a much worse chance of making the playoffs.

Owens is 1-6 in his last seven playoff games, with games of 26, 35, 40, 49 and 73 yards along the way.

Something is fishy here. I count seven playoff games and only five results chosen by Frank. Oh wait, that's because one was 9/177/2 TDs in 2002 against the Giants and the other was 9/122/0 in '04 on a probably broken leg versus the Patriots in the freakin' Super Bowl.

Can you say cherry-picking?

Aside: attributing wins/losses to a single football player is the single DUMBEST thing anyone can do. Even QBs, who arguably affect the outcome of a game the most, should not be credited with wins. Taking into consideration offensive line play, defense, special teams and about a thousand other things that can happen over the course of a football game, saying "player X is 10-5 when such and such happens" is utterly moronic.

This year, Moss is the only big-time receiver left.

Not true, but continue.

Burress had just three 100-yard games this year and Driver two.

Burress was nuts this year, almost never practicing due to an injury and still putting up insane games. Those three 100 yard games: 20/404/5 TDs. He also had 86, 97, 93 and 84 yard games (all with TDs), which is like one catch away from 100.

Driver had a much worse season, with only 2 TD catches. But by barely getting 1000 yards (1048), he's a stud to Frank. Green Bay teammate Greg Jennings had a lowly 920 yards, eliminating him from stud status. Those 12 TDs he caught, forget 'em.

But while everybody is conceding the Patriots the Super Bowl, Moss' postseason record is hardly a stellar one. He's surpassed 75 yards in only three of nine career playoff games,

What a scrub. How did he even get in the NFL?

Those three:
5/127/1
9/188/2
2/121/2 (!)

Moss also had exactly 75 yards once and paired that with a TD. Oh and a game with 70 yards but only two stinkin' TDs. Moss has nine TDs in nine playoff games and 737 yards. That's pretty damn good.

is averaging 38 yards in his last four, and has a 5-4 career postseason record.

Again with the record. Let's fight fire with fire on this one. Those last four, the one's where Moss is averaging 38 yards per? His teams are 2-2 in those games. Including a 14 yard game last week where Jacksonville said, "there is no way we're letting Moss go 10/150/2 on our ass" and lost. Conclusion = zero correlation between amount of Moss yards and his teams victory chances.

But if you want to reach a Super Bowl, you can do it with Deion Branch or Hines Ward.

I would argue that Ward was/is a star receiver. He's been the best WR on the Steelers forever.

He has put up 67/896/8 in his 11 playoff games, but Frank has relegated him to "non-stud" status so he's out.

Branch has played in 11 playoff games and put up 49/725/3 in those. Pretty bad, worse than Moss and Ward for sure.

You can do it with Qadry Ismail or Bobby Engram.

Engram's nine playoff games: 35/476/2
Ismail's nine playoff games: 18/287/0

Both were terrible and probably had nothing/very little to do with their teams making the Super Bowl. In fact, those teams made it in spite of their crappy WRs - especially in Baltimore's case. That was one of the best defensive teams ever too, by the way. But it was mostly Ismail's team.

You can do it with David Givens or Bernard Berrian.

Givens' seven games: 35/324/7
Berrian's four games: 19/296/2

One did awesome, one terrible. Again, there is seriously ZERO correlation between having good/bad receivers and making it to the Super Bowl. The NFL playoffs are 3-4 games long during which a million crazy things can happen. Moss can go 8/125/2 and his team can lose. Berrian can go 0/0/0 and his team can win.

You can also "do it" with guys like Rice, Moss, Bruce/Holt and a ton of other awesome receivers with rings.

I may be going out on a limb here, but I think the overall strength of said teams may just have something to do with them making the Super Bowl.

Boring. But effective.

Just like your article. Oh wait, only half of that is true...